I'l E> RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 UNIVERSITY 
 Of ILLINOIS 
 
 <on\.o\ 
 
 Sup p*~% %^ 
 
FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/frontenacjesuitsOOdela 
 
INSTITUTE OF JESUIT HISTORY PUBLICATIONS 
 
 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 By 
 
 JEAN DELANGLEZ, S.J., PH.D 
 
 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY 
 LOYOLA UNIVERSITY, CHICAGO 
 
 CHICAGO 
 INSTITUTE OF JESUIT HISTORY 
 
 1939 
 
Copyright, 1939, by Institute of Jesuit History 
 

 FOREWORD 
 
 This book is the result of a curious situation which 
 arose while the author was writing a work on Cadillac and 
 his relations with the Jesuits in the French colonial North- 
 west. For such a study of the affairs of the western scene 
 at Michilimackinac and Detroit the obvious introduction 
 was a discussion of the eastern area, where Frontenac held 
 sway. The introduction began to take on book proportions 
 and to assure the character of a distinct monograph, even 
 though the main points of controversy agitated during 
 Frontenac's first administration were the same as those 
 causing trouble during Cadillac's incumbency. The strained 
 relations between both administrators and the Jesuits were 
 caused mainly by the brandy problem, by the alleged trad- 
 ing activities of the Jesuits, and by difficulties arising from 
 the attempt to change Indians into Frenchmen. These ques- 
 tions were debated before Frontenac's time. He only added 
 color to the controversies. He looms large in the following 
 pages chiefly because of the abundance of documentation 
 which was the outcome of his stay in New France and be- 
 cause he plunged into the debate with the energy of a born 
 fighter. 
 
 Some critics are likely to be misled into pre-judging the 
 book from its title. The basis of this prejudice will be two- 
 fold: first, the contents are controversial, and, secondly, 
 since the Jesuits are involved, a Jesuit is not likely to write 
 objectively about the whole affair. The attitude of preju- 
 dice, besides being in itself unscholarly, implies that Jesuits 
 writing history now cannot be as honest as Jesuits who 
 made history earlier. Moreover, it confounds the idea of 
 writing about a controversy with the idea of being a con- 
 troversialist. If the premise is followed to its logical con- 
 clusion and extended beyond the point of excluding Jesuits 
 from writing on Jesuit affairs, some serious restrictions 
 will have to be put on all historical writings; for by the 
 same argument no Southerner and no Northerner can write 
 objectively about the Civil War, neither Royalist nor Re- 
 publican can write objectively about the French Revolution, 
 
 1 085347 
 
Vi FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 neither Catholic nor Protestant about the Reformation. On 
 the other hand it has too long been assumed that anyone 
 attacking the Jesuits in this matter of their controversy 
 with Frontenac is objective, while anyone defending their 
 stand or interpreting the documents otherwise than in favor 
 of Frontenac and other favorites of colonial times in French 
 lands must necessarily be unobjective. 
 
 There is a remarkable number of deeply ingrained preju- 
 dices concerning French colonial characters and concepts. 
 As in the case of old buildings a thorough sand blasting is 
 required, before the depth or shallowness of the structure 
 can be estimated. Whether or not the present study is ob- 
 jective can be settled quite simply by asking the following 
 questions. First, has the available evidence been presented 
 honestly, correctly, and fully? Secondly, have places where 
 the evidence is to be found been indicated so that those 
 who wish to do so can check it? Finally, is it clear where 
 documentation ends and where inference and interpretation 
 begins? So long as these questions can be answered in the 
 affirmative there can be no objection to the historian stat- 
 ing his conclusions if in his judgment one side was right 
 and the other wrong. 
 
 For permission to use passages from Thwaites' Jesuit 
 Relations and Allied Documents acknowledgment is made 
 to The Burrows Brothers Company, owners of the copyright. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 FOREWORD V 
 
 GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 
 
 1. THE BASES OF CONFLICT . .... 3 
 
 2. FRONTENAC AND THE SOVEREIGN COUNCIL . 5 
 
 3. FRONTENAC AND THE INTENDANTS ... 9 
 
 4. FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS .... 20 
 
 THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 
 
 1. BEFORE FRONTENAC 35 
 
 2. DURING FRONTENAC'S FIRST TERM ... 49 
 
 THE BRANDY TRADE 
 
 1. BEFORE TALON 69 
 
 2. DURING TALON'S TWO TERMS 79 
 
 3. DURING FRONTENAC'S TERM 101 
 
 THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 
 
 1. BEFORE 1672 133 
 
 2. FRONTENAC'S INDICTMENT 165 
 
 3. LA SALLE'S ACCUSATIONS 212 
 
 4. THE TESTIMONY OF HENNEPIN, LE CLERCQ 
 
 AND LE TAC 252 
 
 5. CONCLUSION 265 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 MANUSCRIPT SOURCES 271 
 
 PRINTED SOURCES 274 
 
 GENERAL WORKS AND SPECIAL STUDIES ... 280 
 
 INDEX 287 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 
 
 Section 1. The Bases of Conflict 
 Many types of character appear in the narrative of the 
 extension of the French colonial empire along the water- 
 ways of the North American continent. The hardy Norman 
 and Breton fishermen had been long at their industry off the 
 Newfoundland coasts before official France moved toward 
 colonization in the New World. Awakened to the possibili- 
 ties of colonial exploitation, Henry IV and his minister, 
 Sully, sent Champlain into the Canadian scene at the open- 
 ing of the seventeenth century. In the heart of what were 
 then savage lands, Quebec was founded, the first of a series 
 of settlements which were to spread through the St. Law- 
 rence Valley, the Great Lakes Basin, and ultimately the 
 Valley of the Mississippi. The concept of a colonial empire 
 of such extent, based particularly upon the fur trade and 
 held together by forts and trading posts, matured only 
 with the years and the actual development of the interior 
 empire was slow, but the view of it in retrospect and in 
 broad outline has been considerably glorified and magnified. 
 With this idea of a fur empire another ran concurrently 
 through the years, namely, the concept of a Christianized 
 empire and French civilization. The exponents of these two 
 ideologies worked together during the time of Champlain 
 to effect the crown purpose in both details of trade and 
 religion. The religious obtained for the missionary advance 
 were the Jesuits. 
 
 At the passing of Champlain in 1635, three years had 
 elapsed since the return of the Fathers of the Society of 
 Jesus. From 1635 until 1660 they were the dominant factors 
 in maintaining Champlain's foundations, in extending the 
 French control by means of missions, and in the governance 
 of the entire area. Their concept of what the colony should 
 be spiritually had swung into the foreground, although 
 combatted at every step of its development toward the 
 Great Lakes by the savages, by medicine men, and by 
 semi-civilized or uncontrollable coureurs de bois. In 1660, the 
 year after the appointment of Frangois de Laval to the first 
 
 3 
 
4 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 episcopal see of New France, Louis XIV, entering the pe- 
 riod of his long personal rule, and bent upon centralization, 
 ordered a reorganization of the government of New France. 
 In 1663, he created the Sovereign Council, consisting of the 
 governor, the bishop, and members conjointly appointed by 
 the bishop and the governor. 
 
 The personality dominating the history of New France 
 in the last quarter of the seventeenth century, was Louis 
 de Buade, Count de Palluau and de Frontenac. Frontenac 
 is the best known governor of colonial Canada. Some ad- 
 mirers have gone so far as to call him "the Great." His 
 first term of office ending in 1682 brought out little remark- 
 able administrative achievements or ability in proof of 
 greatness; rather his rule looms as a distinct failure. His 
 failure lay essentially in his inability to reconcile and to 
 utilize to their fullest extent the two groups, the official 
 and the religious, toward a satisfactory completion of the 
 royal purpose. His added years and his former experience 
 do not seem to have much improved his administrative 
 ability during his second governorship from 1689 until 
 1698. According to Louis XIV, who by reason of his own 
 qualities as ruler must be considered a judge of good and 
 bad administrators, Frontenac's second term was worse 
 than his first. 1 New France was again in turmoil chiefly 
 because of the high-handed, more narrowly conceived and 
 individualistic government of Frontenac. 
 
 A minute examination of the career of Frontenac in 
 each of its aspects need not arrest the progress of this 
 chapter, since the details of his colonial work are to be 
 brought out in later pages. Frontenac first took charge at a 
 time when the Jesuits in view of two score years of active, 
 extensive, and approved labors appeared secure in certain 
 assigned and prescriptive rights in relation to the Indians. 
 
 i Louis XIV to Frontenac and Champigny, June 4, 1695, in Rap- 
 port de I'Archiviste de la Province de Quebec pour 1928-1929, 262; 
 cf. Pontchartrain to Frontenac, June 4, 1695, ibid., 251; id. to id., June 
 8, 1695, ibid., 253. Since most of Frontenac's correspondence with the 
 Court and the answers from Paris are printed in the Rapports, ref- 
 erences to this collection will hereinafter be given as follows: RAPQ, 
 and the year of publication; the press-marks of the documents in the 
 Archives des Colonies, Paris (AC) will precede whenever the printed 
 page has been compared with the Library of Congress photostats. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 5 
 
 The Jesuits were still proponents of their long cherished 
 plan of Christianization. Hardships and death by torture 
 and fire were expected by them, were met heroically, and 
 even welcomed. They considered the brandy trade as espe- 
 cially inimical to the welfare of the Indians and progress 
 of the missions. The deeds of drink-crazed savages were 
 horrifying, and the men who made possible fire-water orgies 
 were considered by the missionaries as sinners against God 
 and disobedient subjects of the king. Around the trade of 
 brandy for peltries may be grouped as corollaries all other 
 questions subsequently to be discussed. Such problems were 
 the social and religious organization of the villages, the 
 Frenchification of the natives, the trade of the Jesuits, and 
 arguments over authority and jurisdiction. There were con- 
 flicts of personalities, of motives, of ideas, involving on the 
 one hand the Jesuits, and on the other most prominently 
 Frontenac and his backers. For, while the Jesuits placed an 
 inestimable value upon the souls of the Indians, the officials 
 looked to the value of peltries, putting animal furs above 
 savage souls and condoning the demoralizing brandy traffic, 
 since it was a stimulant, however temporary, to a faltering 
 trade empire. The old issue between the spiritual and the 
 merely temporal concepts of the Indians and colony became 
 squarely joined. 
 
 Section 2. Frontenac and the Sovereign Council 
 Frontenac assumed a definite attitude toward the ad- 
 ministrative and economic situation, toward the clerical 
 body, and toward the Jesuits. Almost as soon as he arrived 
 in Canada in September 1672, he convened the Sovereign 
 Council, he appointed himself its president, and admin- 
 istered the oath of allegiance, which bound the members 
 "faithfully to serve the King, each according to his func- 
 tions, under the authority which it pleased His Majesty to 
 give Frontenac in this province." 1 Six weeks later he con- 
 vened the "Estates General" in the chapel of the Jesuits 
 
 i Jugements et deliberations du Conseil Souverain de la Nouvelle- 
 France, 1663-1710, 6 vols., Quebec, 1885-1891, I, 691, hereinafter to be 
 quoted as Jugements et deliberations. 
 
6 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 for the administration of another oath 2 to the clergy, the 
 nobility, the magistrates, and the third estate. 3 In the same 
 place in early 1673, he called a meeting of the people of 
 Quebec, a popular assemblage which at his behest was to 
 choose six aldermen. The elect were to examine a police 
 regulation drawn up by himself. 4 This body was Frontenac's 
 creation, a ceremonial group more than a democratic assem- 
 bly, 5 and an imitation of the court pageantry long discarded 
 by French rulers. The election of aldermen was in itself an 
 excellent measure, yet as they were to have no authority, 
 it was for show, and was in no wise a release of power to 
 others. The second article of the ordinance instituting the 
 aldermen indicated their status. They had to be confirmed 
 "by us or by those who will succeed us, and if they judge 
 it apropos or necessary for the good of the king's service, 
 they may dismiss the aldermen and appoint others to take 
 their places." 6 The good of the king's service was an elastic 
 formula; what the good might be, only the governor could 
 say. At least, Frontenac so thought. But the king soon 
 made clear other ideas about what was best for his service. 
 Frontenac, possibly with the pride of creation, possibly 
 with the expectation of praise, possibly as a mere matter 
 of duty, and possibly because he felt himself a sharer in 
 the Divine Right of Kings, notified his master of the meet- 
 ing of the "Estates General" and of the newly founded 
 board of aldermen. 7 Why he supposed the Grand Monarch 
 or his minister Colbert would countenance such a revolu- 
 tionary scheme remains incomprehensible, unless it was 
 that Frontenac knew he was giving over no authority to a 
 colonial body. Jean Talon, the former intendant, remained 
 free from what taint the innovation might bring by diplo- 
 
 2 Frontenac to Colbert, November 2, 1672, RAPQ, 1927, 21. 
 
 3 Prestations de sermens, AC P 3, 4:105-105v. Cf. the "harangue 
 prononcee par Mons r le comte de frontenac en l'assemblSe teniie a 
 Quebec le 23 e 8 bre 1672," AC, C 11 A, 3:225-231v, printed in Bulletin 
 des Recherches Historiques, XXXIII, 1927, 735-738. 
 
 * Frontenac to Colbert, November 13, 1673, RAPQ, 1927, 27. The 
 police regulations dated March 23, 1673, in AC, F 3, 4:109-118v. 
 
 s H. Lorin, Le Comte de Frontenac, Paris, 1895, 29. 
 
 eReglement de police, AC, F 3, 4:112. 
 
 7 Frontenac to Colbert, November 2, 1672, November 13, 1673, 
 RAPQ, 1927, 21, 27. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 7 
 
 matically absenting himself from the deliberations. 8 Col- 
 bert's response to the announcement was chilling. Fronte- 
 nac was told to follow the form in force in the metropolis. 
 The minister continued more explicitly: "You ought only 
 very rarely, or — to speak more correctly — never give that 
 form [Estates General] to the corporate body of inhabit- 
 ants of that country." Later he ordered the suppression 
 even of the Syndic who presented petitions in the name of 
 the inhabitants, since "it is proper that each speak for him- 
 self, and that no one speak for all." 9 
 
 The fighting governor's disinclination toward democracy 
 is manifest in his dealings with the Sovereign Council, the 
 deliberative body created by the king under his predecessor. 
 The observant Baron Lahontan pictured him as using the 
 members "as roughly as Cromwell did the Parliament of 
 England." 10 In the preamble of the minutes of the first 
 meeting of the Council one may find an indication of the 
 relation likely to exist between himself and his councillors. 
 His predecessors were referred to as Monsieur le Gouve- 
 neur, he was Haut et Puissant Seigneur, "High and Mighty 
 Lord." 11 Conflict was bound to arise. 
 
 The royal edict of 1663 had been specific regarding the 
 method of appointment of five councillors. This was to be 
 done by the governor and the bishop conjointly. 12 Frontenac 
 
 s Frontenac excused the absence of the intendant on the plea 
 that Talon was ill, Frontenac to Colbert, November 2, 1672, RAPQ, 
 1927, 21; it must have been a very mild sickness, for two days after 
 the meeting of the "Estates General," on October 26, 1672, Talon 
 assisted at the meeting of the Sovereign Council, Jugements et deli- 
 berations, I, 700. 
 
 a Colbert to Frontenac, June 13, 1673, RAPQ, 1927, 25. Six letters 
 of Colbert and of Louis XIV to Frontenac are in Pierre Clement, 
 Instructions et Memoires de Colbert, 7 vols., Paris, 1861-1873, volume 
 III, part 2, 558-559, hereinafter quoted as Clement, III 2 , and some of 
 the correspondence has been translated into English in Documents 
 Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Albany, 
 1855, vol. IX, 95, hereinafter quoted as NYCD. See the minister's 
 comments on the election of the aldermen, Colbert to Frontenac, 
 April 17, 1674, RAPQ, 1927, 56, and Frontenac's explanations, AC, 
 C 11 A, 4:64-64v; RAPQ, 1927, 61. 
 
 io Lahontan, New Voyages to North America, Thwaites edition, 
 Chicago, 1905, I, 45. 
 
 ii Jugements et deliberations, I, 689, cf. 707, 786, 889, etc. 
 
 12 Edits, ordonnances royaux, declarations et arrets du Conseil 
 d'Etat du Roi concernant le Canada, 3 vols., Quebec, 1854-1856, I, 38, 
 hereinafter quoted as Edits. 
 
8 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 in his desire to fill the body with men wholly devoted and 
 subservient to himself and willing to humor his whims, em- 
 barked upon a series of arbitrary acts of appointment 
 which could have only one effect. When the reports of such 
 abuses of power reached Paris, the king reorganized the 
 Sovereign Council, by the declaration of June 1675. There 
 is a note of humor in the word "reorganization," for the 
 king aimed directly at a deflation as far as the power of 
 Frontenac was concerned. No longer were the governor and 
 bishop conjointly to nominate councillors, no longer could 
 the term of one year be prolonged at the discretion of the 
 appointers. The appointments were to be made directly by 
 the king. 13 Moreover, in a later edict, Louis XIV explained 
 that the charge entrusted to the councillors was fixed, so 
 that the councillors giving themselves to the study of law 
 and to the service of the people would the better be able to 
 administer justice. 14 But His Majesty's crowning innovation 
 was the introduction of the intendant into the Council, not 
 as a mere member but as the real head of the body. 15 Thus 
 in New France as in New Spain officials were set to act as 
 checks, one upon the other. It is argued that such a meas- 
 ure was bound to cause trouble, especially when a governor 
 happened to be as avid of authority as was Frontenac. But 
 Colbert apparently thought Frontenac had no reason to 
 complain, and he saw no reason why any kingly distribu- 
 tion of colonial power should become a source of conflict 
 between two officials. The king could do no wrong. 
 
 The point was delicate, for Frontenac felt himself to 
 have some of these kingly attributes. He was deeply of- 
 fended. He had forgotten he was a servant. The shearing 
 process left him with functions pertaining solely to military 
 matters. Tax gathering and administrative control were to 
 be in the hands of the intendant. Social, religious, intellec- 
 tual, and moral affairs were to be in the hands of the bishop. 
 Close-cropped was he of dignities. Duchesneau, coming to 
 Canada in 1675, was intendant and president of the re- 
 organized Council, and Frontenac had no intention of yield- 
 
 is Ibid., 83-84. 
 ulbid., 300. 
 isiUd., 84. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 9 
 
 ing to him the first place which he had held for the previous 
 three years. On the other hand Duchesneau soon made it 
 clear that he was not of a mind to act as a mere secretary 
 to the governor. Frontenac's utter lack of diplomatic taste, 
 or his egotism, or his ignorance of the long established 
 French system of checks led him to protest to the Crown. 
 An astonished Court replied in the person of Colbert and 
 definitely settled the official relationships. 
 
 The king commands me to tell you that he is astonished at 
 your pretentions to those two titles, chief and president of the 
 Sovereign Council, which run absolutely contrary to his will 
 made known by his declaration of June 5, 1675. His Majesty is 
 all the more astonished because you are the only one in the 
 kingdom who, as appointed Governor and Lieutenant General of 
 a country, should ask for such an increase of honors and dig- 
 nities as those of chief and president of the council. 
 
 Furthermore, in as much as your main function lies in see- 
 ing that the king is obeyed, and in seeing that his edicts, his 
 declarations, and his general and particular orders are executed, 
 His Majesty cannot rely upon you for this your first and prime 
 function; since you wish to infringe this order and to assume 
 a dignity which is absolutely denied you by the declaration of 
 1675. Thus His Majesty not only wishes you to desist from such 
 baseless pretention, but he ordered me to send an arret contain- 
 ing his will, which arret is to be registered by the Sovereign 
 Council. 16 
 
 Section 3. Frontenac and the Intendants 
 The relative jurisdictions included in the offices of gov- 
 ernor and of intendant were evidently quite clear to the 
 mind of the Court. So too were the honors and dignities 
 attached to each position, even though Frontenac chose to 
 view them otherwise. But the Minister of the Crown had 
 only emphasized the line of cleavage in colonial Canada 
 between the incumbent officials, and disputes ensued. Fron- 
 tenac has found apologists of his regime and policies. In 
 the camp of his opponents there were two intendants during 
 Frontenac's two terms, Duchesneau and Champigny, and 
 besides, the "High and Mighty Lord" was generally at log- 
 
 i6 Colbert to Frontenac, April 20, 1680, RAPQ, 1927, 112; the date 
 of this letter in Clement, IIP, 642, is given as December 4, 1679. 
 
10 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 gerheads during his twenty years in Canada with everyone 
 there invested with any kind of authority, whether civil or 
 ecclesiastical. Undoubtedly, he would have quarreled with 
 Talon 1 had not the great intendant finished his term and 
 asked for a recall on the score of ill health. 2 The fault of 
 the other two intendants consists, in the eyes of Frontenac's 
 partisans, in their refusal to submit to the control of the 
 Governor. Jacques Duchesneau has been reviled for his 
 insubordination, yet, it was his place as president of the 
 Council that Frontenac had designs upon, to the royal as- 
 tonishment and condemnation. Some defenders of Fronte- 
 nac might readily have forgiven or condoned the stand of 
 the two civil officials against Frontenac, had they not fallen 
 into error much more grave. Duchesneau and Champigny 
 happened to have been on good terms with the ecclesiastical 
 authorities. Worse still, they were, and especially Cham- 
 pigny, friendly to the Jesuits. This lapse was beyond 
 remission. 
 
 With due respect for the opinion of proponents of 
 Frontenac's ability an offhand observer might readily re- 
 mark that all in the Court and colony appeared "out of 
 step" except the "High and Mighty Lord." An objective 
 student will not observe any great display of administra- 
 tive talent in Frontenac. Nor did the king, to whom he was 
 a subaltern whose prime duty it was to obey. Frontenac in 
 reality was a cog in the complicated machinery of govern- 
 ment, but practically he was placing himself apart from the 
 machinery of the king's designing and was moreover as- 
 suming a stature far out of proportion to his importance 
 in relation to the king's colonial enterprises. In his instruc- 
 tions to Frontenac as a newly appointed Governor, Louis 
 XIV had demanded emphatically of him a rule which would 
 tend toward "procuring for all the inhabitants of New 
 France the same peace and repose enjoyed by other sub- 
 
 i Cf. Frontenac to Colbert, November 2, 1672, RAPQ, 1927, 18-19; 
 F. X. Garneau, Histoire du Canada, Quebec, 1859, I, 206; T. Chapais, 
 Jean Talon, Quebec, 1904, 434 ff. 
 
 2 Louis XIV to Talon, May 17, 1672, AC, B 4:58v; RAPQ, 1931, 
 167. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED H 
 
 jects of His Majesty." 3 Whatever one may think of the 
 peace and repose of the other subjects of His Majesty, and 
 whatever interpretation Frontenac gave to the words, the 
 governor soon had the colony in turmoil. Colbert, who must 
 be considered a capable judge of statesmen and administra- 
 tors, spotted the source of the trouble and in no mincing 
 words told Frontenac: 
 
 His Majesty ordered me to explain his intentions to you 
 emphatically, and to tell you first that he has agreed to let 
 you stay the remainder of this year in Canada in the hope that 
 there will be a change in the conduct you have followed until 
 now, because His Majesty clearly sees that you have been in- 
 capable of living in the spirit of union and condescendence neces- 
 sary to prevent all the divisions which take place in that coun- 
 try, and which are always the principal cause of the fall and 
 ruin of new colonies. 4 
 
 This was no idle threat. Evidence of the serious attitude 
 of Colbert comes in the form of the letter sent to Canada 
 in the same year, 1680, by M. Tronson, the superior of the 
 Sulpicians in Paris. Tronson was close to Colbert and knew 
 how the minister felt; he was much listened to, and, if we 
 may trust a document to be analyzed below, he was the 
 spiritual director of Colbert. 5 The letters of M. Tronson 
 clearly indicate his high standing with the minister. On 
 March 1, 1680, Tronson wrote to Dollier de Casson, then 
 superior of the Sulpicians of Montreal: 
 
 The third advice I am giving you is to continue to treat those 
 in power with consideration, for they desire here nothing more 
 than peace, and nothing is more to be desired for the good of 
 the colony and for the sake of the tranquility of the inhabitants. 
 I do not know yet how matters will be set in order this year, 
 for they have not yet begun to attend to them, and everything 
 is postponed until after the king's journey. . . . The gentlemen 
 
 3 Memoire du Roi pour servir d'instruction aii Sieur Comte de 
 Frontenac, April 7, 1672, RAPQ, 1927, 4; NYCD, IX, 86. 
 
 * Colbert to Frontenac, April 20, 1680, RAPQ, 1927, 112; the line 
 speaking of Frontenac's recall is missing in RAPQ, see Clement, Ills, 
 641. Cf. the letters of Pontchartrain to Frontenac of June 4, and June 
 8, 1695, RAPQ, 1929, 251, 253. 
 
 5 P. Margry, Decouvertes et Etablissements des Frangais dans 
 rOuest et dans le Sud de VAmerique Septentrionale, (1614-175%), 6 
 vols., Paris, 1876-1888, I, 400, hereinafter quoted as Margry. 
 
12 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 of the Company [that is, the revenue contractors] have given 
 M. Colbert long memoirs against M. de Frontenac. I do not know 
 what the outcome will be. 6 
 
 Three weeks later M. Tronson again wrote to Dollier. 
 As yet he did not know how the complaints to Colbert 
 against Frontenac would be taken. 7 In June, he clearly indi- 
 cated that he knew in what tone Frontenac and Duches- 
 neau had been addressed by Colbert. He asked Dollier to let 
 him know whether the measures taken by the government 
 to end the divisions existing in Canada had really brought 
 about the necessary peace in the colony. Harmony between 
 the governor and the intendant is what is most desired, he 
 asserted, and then added in code: "Both [Frontenac and 
 Duchesneau] have strong supporters, but if this disunion 
 lasts, you will certainly see some change next year. Let 
 this be a secret between the two of us." 8 
 
 The reorganization of the Sovereign Council had not put 
 an end to Frontenac's difficulties with the councillors. More- 
 over, Frontenac had descended to a series of petty acts 
 which are distressing to record. Quarrels of a village na- 
 ture, bickerings about the position of honor in church, the 
 exiling of two councillors and the attorney-general, the 
 seance of March 7, 1679, at which he manifested his notion 
 of his "dignity," each consumed time daily which should 
 have been devoted to the transaction of affairs of the col- 
 ony. Prior to the banishment of the councillors, he con- 
 descended to be called Monsieur and not Monseigneur, until 
 the decision of the king was known. 9 The decision came in 
 
 e Tronson to Dollier, March 1, 1680, n. 96. On this correspondence 
 of M. Tronson with the Sulpicians of Montreal, cf. O. Maurault, "Les 
 lettres de M. Tronson," in La Societe Canadienne d'Histoire de 
 VEglise Catholique, Rapport 1936-1931, 11-19. The present writer saw 
 copies of these letters in the Dominion Archives, Ottawa. 
 
 7 Tronson to Dollier, March 20, 1680, n. 97. 
 
 s Id. to id., June 4, 1680, n. 129. 
 
 s Jugements et deliberations, II, 289. One of Frontenac's secre- 
 taries hauled before the Sovereign Council refused to answer the 
 questions put to him unless his master be referred to as Monseigneur 
 le Gouverneur instead of Monsieur le Gouverneur, ibid., 524, 532. In 
 the funeral oration pronounced by Father Goyer, the panegyrist 
 spoke of Frontenac's avidity to hear the word of God, Bulletin des 
 Recherches Historiques, I, 1895, 74; the annotator commented that 
 the governor "only came to hear the sermon if the preacher addressed 
 the sermon to him and called him Monseigneur, otherwise he would 
 not come, or if he did come, he hid himself," ibid., 107. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 13 
 
 the following year. Louis XIV, in his letter of April 29, 
 1680, appraised at its true worth the statesmanship of Sieur 
 de Frontenac. The act of exiling the councillors and at- 
 torney-general was categorized as an abuse of authority, 
 and the complaints of the governor against the intendant 
 were waved aside in view of the heap of charges made 
 against the governor. Obviously, the fighting governor's 
 irascibility and inefficiency rather than Duchesneau's per- 
 verseness were the causes of the colonial turmoil. Said the 
 king: 
 
 The complaints of all the public bodies and of nearly every 
 individual arriving in France from Canada are so clearly sub- 
 stantiated that I can no longer doubt their truth. Your numerous 
 bad treatments are absolutely contrary to the moderation ex- 
 pected of you toward all the inhabitants to keep them in that 
 order and union which I so much recommended to you in my 
 instructions and in my despatches. My tax collectors complain 
 that trade is poor and is gradually coming to nothing owing to 
 the coureurs de bois; they complain that they find no protection 
 in you, and that you do not allow the ships to leave when they 
 are ready to sail, that you do not allow navigation on the rivers 
 without your leave and your passports. The Bishop and his 
 priests, the Jesuits and the Sovereign Council, in a word all the 
 public bodies, all the private persons in the colony complain of 
 you. 
 
 The king expressed hopes for a change in conduct in 
 these various respects. Surely, the king was aware of Fron- 
 tenac's unreasonable fits of anger at resistance, which have 
 been likened to those of a spoiled child. 10 He wanted to 
 bring his servant to actions appropriate to a man's estate. 
 He outlined for him the program a governor should have 
 before his eyes as his goal. He recommended in particular: 
 
 . . . banish from your mind all the difficulties which you too 
 easily and too lightly allowed to arise there. Consider well the 
 post in which I placed you, and the honor you have of represent- 
 ing my person in that country, which must elevate you infinitely 
 above all those difficulties, and oblige you to bear with many 
 things on the part of the public and of individual settlers, which 
 
 !° Cf. C. de Rochemonteix, Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle-France au 
 XVIIe sidcle, 3 vols, Paris, 1895-1896, III, 98, hereinafter quoted as 
 Rochemonteix. 
 
14 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 are of no account in comparison to the submissive obedience they 
 have for my orders and with whom I have every reason to be 
 satisfied ; and when this principal point of obedience and submis- 
 sion is so well established as it is, you must act with all modera- 
 tion, and rather suffer offences of trifling consequence, in order 
 to reach the object which must be your principal aim — to in- 
 crease and strengthen that colony, and draw thither numbers of 
 inhabitants by the protection and good treatment you afford the 
 old settlers. And you perceive clearly that your maxims are far 
 from those which you have hitherto observed. You have driven 
 away the principal inhabitants, and you have forced many per- 
 sons, through special discontent, to return to France. Reflect 
 more particularly, that to accomplish the ends which I set before 
 you neither interest nor favor for any one is necessary. To afford 
 an extensive freedom to all merchants and all ships that carry 
 any trade thither; to excite continually all the inhabitants to 
 agriculture, commerce, manufacture, fisheries, and other profit- 
 able enterprises whereby they may be confined to their work and 
 settlements, and prevented from wandering through the woods 
 in search of an advantage which tends to the entire ruin of the 
 colony, and of the little commerce it may have; in these few 
 words consist the burden and end of your entire duty, and of 
 what you can do to render your services agreeable to me. 11 
 
 Frontenac's answer to this letter of Louis XIV does not 
 seem to be extant, but in one presumably addressed to the 
 Marshall de Belief onds, he claims to be misunderstood and 
 calumniated. No governor, he avers, ever gave such ex- 
 amples of patience and forbearance as he, and he is the 
 man who perhaps contributed least of all to the divisions 
 and disunions existing in the colony. 12 
 
 The unanimity of complaints against Frontenac and the 
 attitude of Louis XIV are a clear indication that the ' 'great- 
 est governor" ever sent to New France was generally re- 
 garded as a dismal failure. Even Lorin, his admirer a ou- 
 trance, admits that Frontenac was fighting his opponents. 
 
 11 Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 29, 1680, AC, C 11A, 5:198- 
 202v; RAPQ, 1927, 113-116. The translation of the last paragraph is 
 taken from NYCD, IX, 139-140; separated from the rest of the letter 
 as it is in this collection, the paragraph does not mean very much. 
 
 12 Frontenac to [Marshal Bellefonds], November 14, 1680, AC, 
 C 11A, 5:158. The words "au Marechal de Bellefons" were added by a 
 modern hand, but it is signed by Frontenac, printed in RAPQ, 1927, 
 117-118. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 15 
 
 While he had such a high idea of his duties toward the common- 
 wealth in that distant country where the king had entrusted him 
 with the mission to develop the French domain; while he would 
 willingly have devoted himself wholly to this task, great enough 
 to fill his whole life, Colbert had appointed a spy to dog his 
 footsteps, the Intendant Duchesneau. 13 
 
 The argument seems to resolve itself into this : Fronte- 
 nac had a high idea of his duty and willingness to perform 
 it, but Colbert by means of Duchesneau's espionage had 
 him handcuffed. Since the assertions are unsubstantiated it 
 is difficult to see in what manner Duchesneau obstructed 
 Frontenac's ideas and prevented their execution, if the gov- 
 ernor really had in view the peace, progress, and prosperity 
 of the colony. Louis XIV assuredly had a high ideal for his 
 representatives, but this cannot be attributed gratuitously 
 to Frontenac, especially in the face of Frontenac's failures 
 as pointed out by the sovereign. And even though defects 
 had been indicated and a method of procedure outlined, 
 Frontenac continued his previous conduct. In 1681, the king 
 was thoroughly dissatisfied and wrote to the governor that 
 he was aware of one thing: "You have not executed my 
 orders on one of the most important points regarding my 
 service," to wit, fostering peace and union. He mentioned 
 also the "animosity you betray in all your letters." Fronte- 
 nac was told to divest himself "of all sorts of private ani- 
 mosities which until now have been almost the only motive 
 of all your actions." The king could no longer believe what 
 Frontenac wrote, "for I clearly see that you sacrifice every- 
 thing to your private enmities." 14 
 
 Louis XIV, it is true, in his letter to Duchesneau of the 
 same year, blamed the intendant for the divisions, and said 
 there was as much misunderstanding between him and 
 Frontenac as there had been the year before, and if there 
 were no change, he would have to recall Duchesneau. 15 Col- 
 bert, in the covering letter, threatened Duchesneau, stating 
 that if the same animosity against Frontenac again ap- 
 peared, the next letter he received from Paris would con- 
 
 13 Lorin, 159. 
 
 14 Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 30, 1681, AC, C 11A, 5:349v, 
 350, 357, 358; Clement, IIP, 644-649. 
 
 is Id. to Duchesneau, April 30, 1681, AC, B 8:80, 84. 
 
16 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 tain his recall. 16 But, as will be seen, there was an added 
 reason for Colbert's manifest impatience with the intendant. 
 Once more one may turn to M. Tronson's letters, which 
 reflect Colbert's reaction much better than the official des- 
 patches sent to Canada. Colbert certainly spoke of the tur- 
 moil to the Sulpician. M. Tronson wrote in code to Dollier: 
 
 They [on, scl. the king and the minister] are very much dis- 
 satisfied with M. de Frontenac. I spoke for you and said that 
 you had every reason to be pleased with him. 17 I don't know 
 where all this will end. I said what I ought about M. the In- 
 tendant. With regard to M. Perrot [the governor of Montreal] 
 I am much solicited to spare him and to say nothing about him 
 yet. . . , 18 
 
 What Tronson said on behalf of the intendant has not been 
 found. The Sulpician was in correspondence with Frontenac 
 as well as with Duchesneau, and it is surmised from his 
 letters that he found some excuses for the intendant, 19 who 
 needed some defenders, for the governor's party was hotly 
 against him in Paris. 20 
 
 Shortly after the king and his minister had written to 
 the governor and the intendant as quoted above, Tronson 
 knew the recall was not to take place in 1681. "There will 
 be no change in the government this year. Everything is 
 postponed till next year.- . . . Disunion displeases, and they 
 are satisfied with nobody. You can be sure that this will not 
 last longer. . . ." 21 
 
 As the letters leaving Canada for France in the winter 
 of 1681 showed no improvement in the conditions, on May 
 9, 1682, the king sent the order of recall : 
 
 Monsieur le Comte de Frontenac. Being satisfied with the serv- 
 ices you rendered me in the commandement I entrusted to you 
 
 is Colbert to Duchesneau, May 2, 1681, AC, B 8:84-84v. 
 
 17 Cf . Tronson to Frontenac, June 2, 1681, n. 146. 
 
 is Tronson to Dollier, April 7, 1681, n. 132. 
 
 is Tronson to Duchesneau, June 1, 1681, n. 145. "All I could do 
 was to expose the correctness of your intentions." 
 
 soDudouyt to Laval, April 11, and May 10, 1681, Archives du 
 S6minaire (Laval University), Quebec, hereinafter quoted as ASQ, 
 Lettres, Carton N, n. 54 and 57. 
 
 si Tronson to Dollier, May 25, 1681, n. 133. The passage quoted 
 is in code, and the letter is addressed "to M. Dollier alone"; cf. id. to 
 id., 1681, n. 151, id. to Laval, June 15, 1681, n. 152; Dudouyt to Laval, 
 May 10, 1681, ASQ, Lettres, Carton N, n. 57. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 17 
 
 in my country of New France, I am writing to you this letter 
 that you are to return to my court on the first ship which will 
 leave Quebec for France. 22 
 
 It has been observed that the "satisfaction" of the king 
 was merely a "polite formula, since Frontenac was recalled 
 to France in 1682, precisely because the king was not satis- 
 fied with his conduct." 23 Similar "satisfaction" is said to 
 have been expressed by the king when he sent Frontenac 
 back to Canada in 1689. Yet Father Goyer, who preached a 
 panegyric on Frontenac, described an audience the governor 
 had had with Louis XIV in which the king said: "I send 
 you back to Canada where I trust you will serve me as 
 well as you did before. I ask nothing more of you." 24 Lorin 
 comments thus on this passage: "The story of this inter- 
 view with the king, so honorable for Frontenac, must be 
 authentic, for the malicious annotator of the funeral ora- 
 tion of the Count wrote nothing in the margin contradict- 
 ing the panegyrist." 25 Lorin's conclusion regarding authen- 
 ticity and the reason given for the silence of the annotator 
 are rare items. Indeed, the critic repeatedly refers to the 
 fact that he is only objecting to such statements of the 
 panegyrist as were known by everyone in Canada to be 
 false. 26 How then could he contradict a statement supposed 
 
 22 Louis XIV to Frontenac, May 9, 1682, RAPQ, 1927, 141. 
 
 23 RAPQ, 1927, Introduction, 2. 
 
 24 Bulletin des Recherches Historiques, I, 1895, 70. With regard to 
 this audience M. Tronson wrote to Dollier, May 1, 1689, n. 406, "At 
 last M. le Marquis [sic] de Frontenac obtained, through his perse- 
 verance and the intervention of his friends to return to Canada. . . . 
 He had a favorable, a very favorable audience with His Majesty, he 
 kindly related to me what was said." M. Tronson does not say what 
 the king told Frontenac. In his letter to M. de Belmont, a good friend 
 of the governor, written six weeks later, June 19, 1689, no. 410, he 
 makes no mention of the audience. "Le roi a nomme M. de Frontenac 
 pour aller commander en Canada. . . . et le roi lui a dit qu'il avoit 
 bien connu que les mauvais offices qu'on lui avoit voulu rendre pen- 
 dant qu'il 6toit si eloigne n'etoient pas fondes," (May 8, 1689), 
 
 Journal du Marquis de Dangeau , Paris, 1860, II, 390. "II avoit 
 
 tellement gagner la confiance des sauvages la premiere fois qu'il eut 
 cet emploi qu'on fut oblige" de le prier d'y retourner." Memoires de 
 Saint-Simon, A. de Boislisle, ed., 25 vols., Paris, 1879-1913, VI, 166. 
 
 25 Lorin, 357; italics inserted. 
 
 26 Parkman wrote that Jacques Viger suggested Bertrand de la 
 Tour as the annotator of the funeral oration, Count Frontenac and 
 New France under Louis XIV, Boston, 1891, 434, note 1. G. Stewart in 
 J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, TV, 357, and 
 
18 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 to have been made by Louis XIV in a private audience? 
 And how will the admirer of Frontenac explain the king's 
 letter of a few years later to the governor with whom he 
 was so well satisfied, which letter branded Frontenac's sec- 
 ond term in office as worse than his first? 
 
 The recall of Frontenac from Canada in 1682 was not 
 due, as Lorin asserts, to the "Canada-mission party/' 27 but 
 
 in Royal Society of Canada, Proceedings and Transactions, ser. 1, III, 
 1886, sect. 2, 41, stated that Abbe* Casgrain informed him that the 
 comments were from the caustic pen of Abbe* Charles Glandelet who 
 came to Canada in 1675. There ought to be no hesitation between 
 La Tour and Glandelet. The former came to Canada in 1729; since 
 the annotator constantly refers to what he knew of his own knowl- 
 edge, and opposes this knowledge of the events to that of the pane- 
 gyrist who had only been a short time in the colony when Frontenac 
 died. In ASQ, Polygraphie, no.28, where the original is found a note 
 in the index has: "Le tout [funeral oration and remarks] parait de 
 l'6criture de M. de Glandelet." On the wrapper of the document a 
 note signed A. E. G(osselin) reads: "These remarks are attributed to 
 M. Glandelet. The handwriting, it is true, looks like his. However, this 
 seems to me much better written than the abbe* was wont to write 
 and it is certainly neater. M. Glandelet's handwriting was in general 
 rather bad." Later, another note, signed as above, was added: "Every- 
 thing considered, this is in M. Glandelet's handwriting, but who will 
 prove that these remarks are his, and that they were not copied by 
 him together with the funeral oration?" A comparison of the various 
 documents certainly in Glandelet's handwriting, for instance, the 
 marginal notes of the letter of March 21, 1696, Lettres Carton M, 
 no. 21, leads to the same conclusion as that reached by Mgr Gosselin. 
 It would seem that the difficulty as to whether M. Glandelet did not 
 merely copy the remarks finds a beginning of solution in another 
 letter of the abbe. Above were quoted the annotator's comments on 
 Frontenac requiring to be addressed directly and called Monseigneur 
 by the preacher when the governor went to hear the sermon. In a 
 letter of M. Glandelet to Tremblay, the abbe* is asking his corre- 
 spondent what should be done, that is, should they follow the lead of 
 the Recollects who in the pulpit compare Frontenac to St. Louis, 
 "addressing him as Monseigneur and Excellence, calling him a zealous 
 Defender of the Faith, the protector and supporter of the Church, the 
 savior of the country, saying that he is a man of extraordinary and 
 edifying piety, and giving him other glorious titles, all of which ap- 
 pears as unbearable flattery to the gens de bien who see exactly the 
 opposite. . . ." The bishop was not in Quebec at the time, and con- 
 tinues M. Glandelet: "There is something else which embarrasses us 
 [the priests of the SSminaire]. From the pulpit the Recollects and 
 the Jesuits address themselves directly to M. de Frontenac. We asked 
 my said Lord [Bishop Saint- Vallier] what we should do. He answered 
 that the Jesuits and the Recollects did not want to get into trouble 
 with Frontenac, but that as far as we were concerned it was none 
 of our business, and that we should not address the sermon to him 
 [Frontenac]. This places us in the necessity of either preaching or 
 of having a quarrel with M. de Frontenac; as a result we are not 
 preaching." Glandelet to Tremblay, September 3, 1691, ASQ, Lettres 
 Carton M. no. 11. 
 27 Lorin, 162. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 19 
 
 rather to the congenital inability of the governor to live at 
 peace with anybody except a small coterie of subordinate 
 officials and coureurs de bois who were willing to pay for 
 his protection. The "enemies" who ultimately brought about 
 his removal were neither the ecclesiastics nor the Jesuits, 
 even though they might have been pleased in quite a human 
 way to be rid of the author of many petty vexations, but the 
 merchants and revenue contractors in France. Their task 
 was singularly facilitated by what was known in Paris of 
 his position and activities ; as a governor whose duty it was 
 to procure tranquillity for the king's subjects, Frontenac 
 seemed determined on dividing the colony, on initiating 
 quarrels, and on fostering dissensions. These are the two 
 prime reasons for his first recall. They were intimately 
 linked, for if either one had been absent the governor would 
 have continued on in New France in 1682. Again in 1695, 
 the revenue contractors nearly had him recalled a second 
 time, for the same reasons as those of 1682. Instead of forc- 
 ing the recall, they secured a measure from the king by 
 which the trade permits were suppressed. This measure, 
 coupled with the fact that Champigny was a more easy- 
 going intendant than Duchesneau had been, spared Fronte- 
 nac a second disgrace. 
 
 In concluding this brief survey of the relations between 
 Frontenac and the Court on the question of his claim to 
 the presidency of the Sovereign Council and his violent 
 actions in its regard, Lorin may be quoted once more: 
 
 Frontenac had overstepped the limits, and the first wrongs 
 committed here are all his. Always obsessed by that idea that 
 he was the direct representative of the king, and that he must 
 not tolerate any encroachment on the sovereign authority which 
 he had been delegated to maintain, he was, as Colbert very well 
 noted, incapable of "fostering union and being condescending 
 for the prevention of all divisions . . . which are always the 
 principal cause of the ruin of new colonies." 28 
 
 If Frontenac had been conscious of his position as rep- 
 resentative of the king, he would have followed his lord's 
 instructions. To the king's mind he acted as a disobedient 
 
 28 Lorin, 153. 
 
20 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 servant, and thus became the embodiment of "encroach- 
 ment on the sovereign authority." He assumed the position 
 of judge with respect to Duchesneau and all others, a posi- 
 tion not conceded to him as governor. His obsession, in fine, 
 seems to be not that he was the delegated representative of 
 the king, but that he was himself a "High and Mighty 
 Lord." The statement that he opened the quarrel over the 
 presidency of the Sovereign Council, seems to imply that in 
 other instances his adversaries took the first step. There 
 were very few cases, as later pages will reveal, wherein 
 Frontenac did not play the part of instigator of dissensions. 
 
 Section 4. Frontenac and the Jesuits 
 Frontenac came to Canada prejudiced against the 
 Franco-Canadian clergy. He believed, or affected to believe, 
 that they extended their authority over temporal affairs. 
 This idea had been instilled in him by Colbert before his 
 departure for New France. The great minister was mor- 
 bidly jealous of the king's authority ; he carefully instructed 
 the governor to prevent any encroachment upon it by the 
 ecclesiastics, and specifically by the Jesuits. When Fron- 
 tenac arrived in Canada he could not have failed to observe 
 that the clergy governed authoritatively the consciences 
 of the people, that the decisions of the Church were respect- 
 fully and submissively accepted by the great majority of 
 the faithful. All this was within the limits of their func- 
 tions. But the influence of the clergy wounded the pride of 
 Frontenac, who was by nature chronically indisposed to 
 tolerate a rival power, 1 much less a superior one, even 
 though it should be in the spiritual realm. From the first 
 day of his tenure of office, Frontenac resolved to break the 
 power of the Jesuits. 2 To attain his end he was to look for 
 support from the Sulpicians of Montreal and from the 
 Recollects of Quebec. 
 
 For the Jesuit Fathers who are established at Quebec, being 
 the first who carried the light of the faith and of the Gospel 
 
 i Cf. Relations inedites de la Nouvelle-France, (1672-1679) pour 
 faire suite aux anciennes Relations, (1615-1672), 2 vols., Paris, 1861, 
 I, xxii. This will be quoted hereinafter as Relations inedites. 
 
 2 Rochemonteix, III, 122-123. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 21 
 
 to New France, and who by their virtue and piety contributed 
 to the settlement and augmentation of that colony, His Majesty 
 desires that Sieur de Frontenac have great consideration; but in 
 case they should desire to carry ecclesiastical authority further 
 than it ought to extend, it is necessary that he should give them 
 kindly to understand the conduct they must observe, and in case 
 they do not correct themselves, he will skilfully oppose their 
 designs in a manner that no rupture nor partiality be apparent, 
 and advise His Majesty of everything in order that he may apply 
 a suitable remedy. 
 
 The colony of Montreal, situated above that of Quebec, de- 
 riving great comfort and consolation from the ecclesiastics of 
 the Seminary of St. Sulpice, who are settled there, it is neces- 
 sary that Sieur de Frontenac afford them all the protection in 
 his power, as well as to the Recollect Fathers, who have settled 
 in the town of Quebec, it being necessary to support these two 
 ecclesiastical bodies in order to counterbalance the authority the 
 Jesuit Fathers might assume to the prejudice of that of His 
 Majesty. 3 
 
 Previous difficulties between Bishop Laval, supported by 
 the Jesuits, and the Sulpicians had led Colbert to hope for 
 support for Frontenac from the priests of Montreal. But 
 the Perrot affair, and Frontenac's high-handed treatment 
 of Fenelon, caused the Sulpicians to hold aloof from the 
 governor. 
 
 That Colbert over and above the official royal memoir 
 gave Frontenac verbal instructions may be considered cer- 
 tain. In his letter of November 14, 1674, after charging 
 Villeray and d'Auteuil with being two of his "enemies, " and 
 after having written in code that to admit these two men 
 in the Council chamber was tantamount to admitting the 
 Superior and the Minister of the Jesuit house at Quebec, 
 the governor continued out of code : 
 
 I am only speaking of this to comply with what you did me 
 the honor of saying when I left, that His Majesty did not wish 
 certain persons [namely, the Jesuits] to increase their authority. 
 My sole zeal for the service of the king will always be my only 
 
 s Memoire du roi servir d'instruction au Sieur de Frontenac, 
 April 7, 1672, Clement, Ills, 537; RAPQ, 1927, 5-6, translation from 
 NYCD, IX, 88. 
 
22 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 rule of conduct, no matter how many enemies I may thereby 
 make for myself. 4 
 
 Frontenac followed the verbal instructions he got from 
 Colbert. He was supposed to seek out any Jesuit encroach- 
 ment upon the sacrosanct royal authority, and the old 
 courtier could be expected to find it. Talon had also re- 
 ceived instructions about the too great authority the Jesuits 
 had acquired in Canada. 5 These instructions he annotated 
 thus : 
 
 The short time I have been in Canada has not yet enabled 
 me to acquire a perfect knowledge of the conduct of the Jesuits 
 in the past, but having closely observed whether now they are 
 making use of the spiritual authority to weaken the temporal 
 authority. ... I have recognized that they remain within the 
 limits of their profession, and until now, they have not seemed 
 eager to meddle with the affairs of the state. 6 
 
 The comparison between the first letter of the intendant 
 and the first letter of the governor, as given below, is 
 illuminating. Both had instructions with regard to the 
 Jesuits, both had been a short time in Canada, both wrote 
 to the man who had given the instructions, but the intend- 
 ant was more accurate than the governor. Frontenac landed 
 in Quebec late in the summer of 1672. The transmission of 
 powers took place September 12. 7 In less than two months, 8 
 he had seen all, heard all, knew all — that is, all necessary 
 for composing a report with such findings as Colbert might 
 expect of him. The passage about the Jesuits in his first 
 
 4 Frontenac to Colbert, November 14, 1674, AC, C 11A,4:68, 
 RAPQ, 1927, 65. 
 
 s Memoire pour servir d'instruction a Talon, March 27, 1665, 
 AC, B 1, 76 ff., AE, Mem. et Doc, Amerique, 5:146 ff., Clement, III2, 
 389, RAPQ, 1931, 5 ff., NYCD, IX, 24 ff. 
 
 e Memoire du roi pour servir d'instruction a Talon, avec notes de 
 Talon, October 1665, RAPQ, 1931, 11; cf. the intendant's letter to 
 Colbert, AC, C 11A,2:143, RAPQ, 1931, 32, translated in NYCD, 
 IX, 29. 
 
 7 Jugements et deliberations, I, 689. 
 
 s "I haven't had time to visit much of the country, and the long- 
 est journey I made has been to the Island of Orleans. I have seen 
 the banks of Beaupre" and Beauport, those of the St. Lawrence on 
 my way down to Three Rivers, whither I hurried on hearing- a report, 
 which proved to be false, that the Iroquois had made an incursion on 
 the Sokokis," Frontenac to Colbert, November 2, 1672, AC, C 11A, 
 3:236, RAPQ, 1927, 12-13. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 23 
 
 letter to Colbert, dated November 2, 1672, has long been 
 published in English. The editor prefaced it with the fol- 
 lowing title: "A Passage the great portion of which is in 
 Cipher, wherein M. de Frontenac communicates to the Min- 
 ister what he has done to keep in check the ever active 
 ambition of the Jesuits." 9 
 
 I send you under letter G, copy of the passport in which, you 
 will perceive, I obliged Father Crespieu [de Crespieul], Jesuit, 
 to have his name inserted. They were not in the habit of doing 
 this, and passed and repassed into all the different countries, 
 and even to France, without any passports or permits. But I 
 have let the Father Superior adroitly and civilly know that such 
 freedom was not in order, and that they ought to be the first 
 to show the example of submission; he forthwith sent Father 
 Crespieu to me. / believe you will approve that I acted thus with 
 them and that it is well to prevent them arrogating special 
 privileges to themselves. I expressed forcibly to them my aston- 
 ishment at seeing that, of all the Indians that are with them 
 at Notre-Dame de Foy, which is only a league and a half from 
 Quebec, not one spoke French, though associating with us, and 
 told them that they ought, in their missions, bethink themselves, 
 when rendering the savages subjects to Jesus Christ, of making 
 them subjects of the King also; that for that purpose it would 
 be necessary to inspire them with a desire to learn our language, 
 as the English taught them theirs; to endeavor to render them 
 more sedentary, and make them abandon a life so opposed to the 
 spirit of Christianity, and that the true means to render them 
 Christians was to make them become men. But whatever pretence 
 they manifest, they will not listen to that language, and to speak 
 frankly to you, they think as much about the conversion of the 
 beaver as of souls; for the majority of their missions are pure 
 mockeries, and I should not think they ought to be permitted to 
 extend them further until we see somewhere a better organized 
 church of those savages. I strongly exhorted the Gentlemen of 
 the Seminary of Montreal to follow such a policy at Rente, and 
 to inspire their savages with those sentiments which they prom- 
 ised they would do. This perhaps will excite the others through 
 jealousy to do the same. 
 
 If you will hint as much also to Father Ferrier, perhaps 
 what he may write would produce some effect. Another thing 
 
 9NYCD, IX, 93. 
 
24 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 that displeases me is the complete subserviency of the Priests 
 of the Seminary of Quebec and the Bishop's Vicar-general to the 
 Jesuit Fathers, without whose orders they do not the least thing. 
 Thus they are indirectly masters of whatever relates to the 
 Spiritual, which, as you are aware, is a great machine to move 
 all the rest. They have, if I mistake not, gained over even the 
 Superior of the Recollects, who has no more than three or four 
 Friars in his Monastery , which the Jesuit Fathers would be very 
 glad to see entirely abolished, and where it would be necessary 
 to have clever Friars of sufficient talent to balance somewhat 
 that of the others. You will bear in mind, if you deem fit, to say 
 something about it to the Bishop of Quebec and to the Provincial 
 of the Recollects. 
 
 I have personally every reason in the world to be pleased 
 with the civility and urbanity of the Reverend Jesuit Fathers. 
 
 . 10 
 
 Several statements in this quotation will be examined 
 hereafter. Later in the same letter, after having told Col- 
 bert that Villeray had been expelled from the Council for 
 being a mischief maker, Frontenac adds: 
 
 Still another, a much stronger reason for his expulsion is 
 that he is entirely devoted to the Jesuit Fathers, and it is even 
 commonly said here that he is one of those who without wear- 
 ing the garb have nevertheless taken the vows. This is why I 
 thought it my duty to notify you, should they speak to you 
 about it, so you may see whether after having had so much 
 trouble to withhold from the Jesuit Fathers the knowledge and 
 direction of the affairs in this country, it would be fitting to 
 open them a door through which they might enter indirectly. 11 
 
 Thus, Frontenac prepared the way as far as Colbert was 
 concerned for a series of arbitrary measures, and thus he 
 cloaked his desire for supremacy in the guise of an earnest 
 to protect the king's authority. Unable to take over the 
 spiritual power of the Jesuits, he undermined their reputa- 
 tion with the Court, criticized them and their missions as 
 useless along cultural and spiritual lines. Unable to remove 
 
 10 Frontenac to Colbert, November 2, 1672, AC, C llA,3:246v- 
 248; RAPQ, 1927, 20-21; the translation taken from NYCD, IX, 93-94, 
 has been revised. The passages in italics are in cipher. 
 
 ii Frontenac to Colbert, November 2, 1672, AC, C llA,3:249v- 
 250; RAPQ, 1927, 21. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 25 
 
 them from Canada, he attacked the missionaries through 
 men devoted to them, and even sought to bring dissensions 
 and jealousy into the ecclesiastical ranks. Colbert answered : 
 
 A week ago, the Provincial of the Recollects despatched two of 
 his subjects. They will embark for Canada and betake them- 
 selves to their convent there. With a view to the continued in- 
 crease of their number, I had the same Provincial informed 
 today to send two more [chosen from among] the most deter- 
 mined [des plus forts]. I shall even take care that he send some 
 each year in order thereby to counterbalance the too great 
 authority the Jesuits have assumed in that country. 12 
 
 The possibility mentioned by the king that the Jesuits 
 might assume a too great authority had now, thanks to the 
 letters to Frontenac, become a reality with Colbert. Whether 
 the minister actually believed what the governor had writ- 
 ten, or whether he merely acted as if he believed it, is beside 
 the point. To Frontenac it was all one. When he received 
 the letter of Colbert which was a virtual approval of his 
 policy, and when he saw how well his story was taken by 
 the statesman in Paris, he proceeded to improve on his first 
 letter. The two Recollects arrived in 1673. He ventured the 
 following points: They "seem to me to have much merit"; 
 but "two are not enough" ; "half a dozen" should be sent in 
 1674. The priests of the Seminary and the Jesuits are too 
 closely united; in fact, the former are Jesuits, for they are 
 all members of the sodality of Father Bagot, and "hence 
 have taken the same vows as the others." The only differ- 
 ence between them is that the one group wears linen col- 
 lars, and the other, the Jesuits, does not. All of which is 
 very deplorable, "because the episcopal authority which 
 could check or at least counterbalance that which the Jesuit 
 Fathers have usurped, helps them on the contrary to main- 
 tain their authority and even to increase it every day." The 
 minister should expostulate with the bishop who was then 
 in France ; and should the see become vacant, the bishopric 
 should not be entrusted "to one who is in so great a de- 
 pendence on the Jesuits as it is said this one is." The Jesuits 
 
 12 Colbert to Frontenac, June 13, 1673, Clement Ills, 559; RAPQ, 
 1927, 25, translation taken from NYCD, IX, 95, revised. 
 
26 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 are much too inquisitive. Their curiosity "is so great in the 
 confessional that they greatly torment [gehennent] con- 
 sciences. They are not satisfied with knowing the nature of 
 the offences committed, but they also want to know the 
 names of the accomplices, and a thousand other circum- 
 stances which do not belong to the essence of confession." 
 Worse still, after having learned such particulars they in- 
 form "the husband of the conduct of his wife or the mother 
 of that of her daughter; if they do not do it themselves, 
 they send the information through their emissaries." All of 
 this is the cause of much turmoil. 
 
 This odious accusation that the Jesuits in Canada were 
 violating the sacramental seal gives the measure of Sieur 
 de Frontenac's respect for truth. Well did Louis de Buade 
 know that it was a diabolical accusation ; he did not trouble 
 to put the calumny into code. 
 
 Indeed, my Lord, I recall every day to my mind the last words 
 you spoke to me when I took leave of you, and I realize more 
 and more that it is very expedient for the service of the king to 
 oppose the least encroachments made on his authority, which 
 are daily occurrences here, and if I were not firm in this respect, 
 this authority would be altogether lost, as there is nothing here 
 at which they aim more eagerly than to lessen that authority. 
 Nevertheless to thwart such schemes, I only make use of the 
 most skillful and gentle means I can devise, according to what 
 you prescribed I should do. I had to remember your orders when 
 this winter a Jesuit Father purposely and needlessly preached a 
 sermon to which a week beforehand he had invited everybody to 
 be present. 
 
 The sermon, Frontenac goes on to explain, dealt with 
 the brandy trade. It contained terms injurious to royal 
 authority. He went to see the superior and demanded an 
 apology. Everything was quiet at the time of writing, but 
 "their intention to persuade the people that their authority 
 must be respected before all others even in secular matters 
 [that is, with regard to the brandy trade] is clearly per- 
 ceived." Since the Canadians had little or no perspicacity, 
 it was necessary for him, Frontenac, to be constantly 
 watching. He often warned the Jesuits that he would be 
 sorry to find himself obliged to write to Colbert about their 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 27 
 
 ambition. He begged the Minister to keep this all a deep 
 secret. 
 
 The Superior of the Jesuits [Dablon] is a wise and prudent man 
 who will not cause any trouble, but there are certain community 
 interests which he cannot forsake, for the protection of which 
 he is bound to act; but always secretly and without seeming to 
 defend these interests. We are getting along fine, he and I, and 
 outside this sort of affair, I pay him, as well as the ecclesiastics 
 of the Seminary, all kinds of regards. I do them all possible 
 favors, and until now there is nothing which he [Dablon] asked 
 me that I did not grant him. 13 
 
 These are only a few items of the long letter. Frontenac 
 had found his stride, but Colbert had not time to read such 
 voluminous epistles. It was the custom to make extracts for 
 his use, and hence four items were selected by the clerk, 
 who made a synopsis of this letter : Frontenac's request for 
 six Recollects; his complaint that a too great union existed 
 between the Bishop, the priests of the Seminary, and the 
 Jesuits, as well as the tormenting of the consciences of the 
 people; the sermon of the Jesuit in Quebec; the reservation 
 of the sin of those who sell brandy. 14 
 
 Colbert in his answer promised to complete the ' "half- 
 dozen" Recollects by ordering the Provincial to send four 
 more, but the fervor of Sieur de Frontenac was somewhat 
 damped when the minister wrote that "His Majesty does 
 not think that these good Fathers [Jesuits] should be 
 hampered in their functions." 15 Colbert had expected Fron- 
 tenac to carry out his verbal instructions as he himself 
 would have done had he been in Canada, — if the Jesuits had 
 effectively encroached upon the king's authority. But Fron- 
 tenac, for all his vaunted bluntness, was a born courtier. 
 He knew from the verbal instructions what the minister 
 wanted to hear, and he said it. Answering the letter of Col- 
 bert, he wrote : 
 
 As I have always intended to follow exactly what you prescribed 
 for me to do when I left with regard to 211 [Laval] and the 
 
 is Frontenac to Colbert, November 13, 1673, RAPQ, 1927, 31 ff. 
 i* AC, C 11A, 4:25. 
 
 is Colbert to Frontenac, May 17, 1674, Clement, IIP, 572; RAPQ, 
 1927, 57. 
 
28 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 212 [Jesuits] I thought I should not allow them to gain author- 
 ity by means of their emissaries, of whom this one [Villeray] 
 is the principal and the most dangerous. 16 
 
 The governor's petty tyranny with regard to the Jesuits 
 was viewed with disfavor by the king, and soon by the 
 minister also. Frontenac was endeavoring to justify his 
 stand by saying that he really opposed the Jesuits only in 
 so far as they encroached upon the king's authority. He 
 had sacrificed truth to a desire to profit by the good graces 
 of Colbert and, supposing Colbert would follow a course of 
 action against the Jesuits, which Frontenac's accusation 
 demanded, he would have their influence cut to a minimum, 
 and his power would thereby be enhanced and even supreme 
 in the colony. The king did not take to the program, and 
 hence Frontenac reiterated his statement that he was only 
 doing as Colbert had instructed. He had evidently consid- 
 ered himself partner with Colbert in a great game of Jesuit- 
 baiting. He was quite aware of what the outcome would be 
 if his secret mendacious letters were communicated to 
 either the Jesuits or the Bishop, and hence his plea to Col- 
 bert for profound secrecy. 17 Why, it may be asked, were 
 not the accusations referred to the accused? M. Dudouyt, 
 Vicar-general of the Bishop of Quebec in Paris, believed it 
 was because 
 
 they were full of exaggerated calumnies, which would have com- 
 pelled many things to be said. Part of them has been communi- 
 cated to M. Richez, whose memorials were sent to M. Duches- 
 neau. It will be well for you to see them. Madame de Frontenac 
 has made earnest petitions and M. Barrois has not lost time in 
 maintaining the sentiments of his master [Frontenac]. What is 
 more surprising is that use is made of lies as of truth, after the 
 said Sieur had made St. Aubin say all that he is retailing. He 
 has been much annoyed that I had been informed of all the 
 
 is Frontenac to Colbert, November 14, 1674, AC, C 11A,4:65, 
 RAPQ, 1927, 63. 
 
 17 Speaking of the end of the ciphered passage in the letter of 
 November 2, 1672, the editor of NYCD, IX, 94, aptly notes: "Here 
 the ciphers terminate, and in case persons in the interest of the 
 Jesuits should read the memoir, M. de Frontenac, to conceal his 
 game, continues the letter: 'I have personally every reason to be 
 pleased with the civility and urbanity of the Reverend Jesuit Fathers. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 29 
 
 said St. Aubin had been saying, that was, he said, to ruin him. 18 
 
 Either those accusations were true or they were false. 
 If they were true, four conclusions follow: (1) Proof could 
 have been given on one point alone, e. g., the violation of the 
 seal of confession, and this would have effectively rid him 
 and the country of Jesuit influence. (2) Colbert assuredly 
 would have backed him. (3) The king would have acted 
 against the Jesuits. The fact that he did not and that 
 Colbert did not is indication of the value they put on the 
 statements. (4) If true, Frontenac could have come forth 
 boldly with his accusations, rather than in the covert man- 
 ner of secret letters and codes. If they were false Frontenac 
 takes front rank as a calumniator. His explanation that he 
 was acting for the good of the king is no valid excuse. 
 Might not the code accusations have been made rather, as 
 Rochemonteix very well saw, because the influence of the 
 Jesuits "hurt the self-love of the high and mighty Lord?" 19 
 
 The king was much more definite than Colbert had been. 
 He was more concerned in upholding his authority than 
 either Colbert or Frontenac. But Louis XIV was not afflicted 
 with as morbid a fear of encroachments as his minister 
 was. He knew that his subjects in Canada, and above all 
 the missionaries, were obedient and eager to defend his 
 authority and to submit to his orders. The king blamed the 
 arbitrary acts of the governor, and cautioned him against 
 meddling in ecclesiastical affairs, which was the only real 
 encroachment that had taken place, or troubling the priests 
 and the missionaries in their functions. Although the mon- 
 arch did not believe everything which had come to his 
 knowledge with regard to Frontenac's meddlesomeness, 
 
 I deem it, however, for the good of my service that you correct 
 yourself, if such instances of interference are true. But what 
 you are hereby ordered to do is not to mention to anybody that 
 I have written to you about it, even should the Bishop and the 
 ecclesiastics make mention of it. I also order you not to harbor 
 any resentment against them, and this is so important that it 
 
 is Dudouyt to Laval, 1677, Report on the Canadian Archives, for 
 1885, cxxi. 
 
 is Rochemonteiux, III, 122. 
 
30 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 would be impossible that my service should not suffer very 
 prejudicial harm, were you to act otherwise. 20 
 
 Complaints had been made that Frontenac had not al- 
 lowed the vicar-general of the Bishop of Quebec to attend 
 the sessions of the Sovereign Council, which was a formal 
 violation of the edict of creation, 21 a real encroachment on 
 the king's authority on the part of Frontenac; that he de- 
 manded the missionaries and priests going from one village 
 to another to secure passports from him; that he intercepted 
 their letters; etc. "If all this is true," wrote the king — 
 and we may add that it was true — "you must correct these 
 faults." The missionaries have the right to go anywhere 
 they want in Canada without passports from the governor, 
 Louis XIV reasserted. Frontenac is forbidden to tamper 
 with their mail; and in the absence of Laval the vicar- 
 general of the Bishop of Quebec, M. de Bernieres, has the 
 right to attend the sessions of the Sovereign Council. 
 
 The King also viewed differently from Colbert the send- 
 ing of the "determined" Recollects. He told Frontenac that 
 he was having five Recollects 22 sent to Canada, 
 
 intending by this means to give a greater freedom to the con- 
 sciences than they have had until now. But although this is 
 my intention you must not meddle with anything that belongs 
 to the consciences, or with the conduct of the Bishop, priests, 
 Jesuits or Recollects, except gently and by exhortations, endeav- 
 oring as much as you can to lessen the too great authority 
 which those ecclesiastics had by such means acquired in per- 
 haps hampering a little too much the consciences of the people. 23 
 
 The letters Frontenac sent in 1676 do not seem to be 
 
 20 Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 22, 1675, RAPQ, 1927, 82. 
 
 21 Edits, I, 38. 
 
 22 Commenting on the groups of Recollects sent year after year, 
 Rochemonteix, III, 124, wrote: "One is tempted to smile, after two 
 centuries, at such successive re-inforcements sent against the mis- 
 sionaries of the Society of Jesus. In our days what government would 
 find among the members of Religious Orders volunteers as obliging 
 as the Recollects of those days ? These indeed, fulfilled their contract 
 exceedingly well, as is proved by their correspondence and their 
 books." Cf. Chapais, Jean Talon, 321-322. If we should believe La Tour, 
 they had come to Canda "pour se battre contre le clerge," Memoires 
 sur la vie de Mgr de Laval premier 6veque de Quebec, Cologne, 1761, 
 210. 
 
 23 Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 22, 1675, RAPQ, 1927, 82. 
 
GOVERNOR AND GOVERNED 31 
 
 extant; their contents however can be partially deduced 
 from the answer of the king dated April 28, 1677. The gov- 
 ernor is told that two more Recollects are being sent to 
 Canada, and the recommendation is added that Frontenac 
 protect them. The governor had also written that the clergy 
 "continued to carry on peltry trade with the Indians." He 
 was ordered to put a stop to it, and if necessary to make 
 use of the king's authority. 24 This accusation which does 
 not deal specifically with the Jesuits, however, is met with 
 for the first time from Frontenac. It also appears from the 
 king's answer that Frontenac had complained that Duches- 
 neau followed too easily the lead of the clergy. Indeed, until 
 both the governor and the intendant were recalled in 1682, 
 there is not very much change in Frontenac's correspond- 
 ence in this respect. Before the arrival of the intendant the 
 most prominent subject for complaints on the part of the 
 governor was Villeray. During the six remaining years, 
 what he had written about Villeray before the coming of 
 Duchesneau is repeated ad nauseam about the intendant. 
 But there is one noticeable change in Frontenac's letters to 
 Louis XIV and Colbert after 1677. The Jesuits who figured 
 so prominently in the first letters well-nigh disappear from 
 his correspondence after this date. There are only a few 
 occasional indirect references and one direct to the mission- 
 aries. If we had only these and only his letters, it would be 
 hard to deduce that the Jesuits were still in New France. 
 
 Frontenac's correspondence was not restricted to Louis 
 XIV and Colbert. He speaks of the Jesuits, in the letter 
 seemingly addressed to his friend and protector, Bernardin 
 Gigault, Marquis de Bellefonds. 25 As already noted, the gov- 
 ernor asserted that he was not the cause of the divisions 
 existing in the colony; Colbert, he said, is misinformed. 
 Soon the minister will learn from other reports that Fron- 
 tenac has contributed least to these dissensions. "I shall 
 have no more troubles either with the intendant, with the 
 bishop, or with the Jesuits, and I believe that the last 
 
 24 Id. to id., April 28, 1677, RAPQ, 1927, 89-91. Colbert in a letter 
 dated Sceaux, May 10, 1677, Clement, III 2 , 622-624, but dated May 18 
 in RAPQ, 1927, 91-93, substantially repeats what the king had written. 
 
 25 Memoires de Saint-Simon, VI, 166, n. 4. 
 
32 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 named will testify to you that I made no difficulty about 
 ratifying [the land grant] which you were kind enough to 
 promise them in my name." Frontenac here refers to a 
 grant near Montreal, the Sault Saint Louis. He held out five 
 years before transferring the property to the Jesuits for the 
 Indians, because his protege, La Salle, wanted it for his 
 commerce. To be valid the title had to be ratified by the 
 governor and Duchesneau, "who, you easily understand, 
 made no difficulty" about signing the deed. 26 Long before 
 this date, 1680, Frontenac had stopped sending his misrep- 
 resentations and accusations in code or in clear against the 
 Jesuits. 
 
 When Frontenac wrote this letter to de Belief onds, he 
 had received that of the king of April 29, 1680. The gov- 
 ernor saw the handwriting on the wall. The letters he sent 
 to Paris until his recall contain little else than a lengthy 
 apology for his conduct, interminable explanations concern- 
 ing the perverseness of Duchesneau, of d'Auteuil, the mem- 
 bers of the Council, and nearly everybody, except the Jesu- 
 its. 27 The meeting which he convened at the Jesuit house, 
 March 23, 1682, might be looked upon as an indication that 
 the relations between Frontenac and the Jesuits had vastly 
 improved toward the end of the governor's first term. 28 
 There was no reason why Frontenac and the Jesuits should 
 not have worked in harmony from the beginning. Father 
 de Lamberville took a charitable view of the attitude too 
 long adopted by the governor toward his brethren. "Surely," 
 he wrote, "some person has slandered us to you on two or 
 three occasions." If Frontenac had and still has at heart 
 the good of Canada, said the missionary, the Jesuits had 
 never any other thought than that of helping him. How- 
 ever, he tactfully added, "the past is past, and I do not 
 think that you ever set great store on the insufficiently 
 grounded accusing reports which were made to you. 29 
 
 26 Frontenac to [Marshall Belief onds], November 14, 1680, AC, C 
 11 A, 5:158v, RAPQ, 1927, 118. Cf. Relations inedites, II, 66-67. 
 
 27 Cf. AC, C 11 A, 5:266-275v, 280-282, 382-391, etc., in RAPQ, 
 1927, 118-119, 131-138, 139, etc. 
 
 28 NYCD, IX, 168-173, Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collec- 
 tions, 34, 277-280. Cf. Lorin, 241. 
 
 29 Lamberville to Frontenac, September 20, 1682, AC C 11A, 
 6:48; NYCD, IX, 193. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 
 
 Section 1. Before Frontenac 
 As has been said previously, after 1677 there are but 
 few indirect references to the Jesuits in Frontenac's letters. 
 There is one direct reference in which he alludes to an 
 earlier clash between the governor and the missionaries over 
 the matter of the f renchification of the Indians. The Jesuits 
 were not opposed to the scheme in the abstract, but an ex- 
 perience of two score years had taught them its hopeless- 
 ness. The bureaucrats in France saw nothing but benefits to 
 come from this system, for if the Indians were only taught 
 the French language, everything else would follow, French 
 civilization, French customs, French manners. While it 
 would be rash to deny the influence of the language spoken 
 on the civilization attainable, it would be no less rash to 
 consider the mere knowledge and use of the language as the 
 sole means whereby men could be reclaimed from barbar- 
 ism. Nothwithstanding the insinuations of Le Clercq or of 
 his editor, the Jesuits had earnestly tried the scheme which 
 to him appeared as the panacea for all evils colonial. 
 
 In his Relation of 1635, Father Le Jeune stated his three 
 great designs : to found a college for the French in Quebec, 
 to help the missionaries among the Hurons, and to "estab- 
 lish a seminary for the Indian children to rear them in the 
 Christian faith." 1 This idea was not new. The Recollects in 
 1615 founded a seminary for native children and actually 
 began it, but they were forced to give up for lack of funds. 2 
 They had met with just as little success with the idea as 
 the Jesuits did later, and for exactly the same reason — the 
 Indian character. Le Clercq wrote: "Our Fathers, who had 
 then all power and credit in the missions, did not despair 
 of succeeding in time in civilizing some of these Indians. 
 Their project would doubtless have had all the success thev 
 
 1 R. G. Thwaites, The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, 
 Cleveland, 1896-1901, 7, 265, hereinafter to be cited as Jesuit Rela- 
 tions. 
 
 2 C. Le Clercq, First Establishment of the Faith in New France, 
 Shea's translation, New York, 1881, I, 144, 251, hereinafter quoted as 
 Le Clercq. Cf. Gosselin, Vie de Mgr de Laval, Quebec, 1890, I, 558. 
 
 35 
 
36 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 expected, but they passionately desired to raise some and 
 instruct them sufficiently in the Faith to enable them to 
 receive our holy habit, hoping by this means to attract 
 other Indians to come to us and receive our instructions 
 more joyfully when they saw some of their nation, clothed 
 like us, explaining our mysteries to them.'' 3 Here and else- 
 where in his First Establishment of the Faith, Le Clercq 
 puts the blame for the failure of frenchification and all the 
 other evils flowing therefrom at the door of the Jesuits. 
 When the Recollects returned to Canada, befriended by 
 Talon and Frontenac, they succeeded no better in frenchi- 
 fying the Indians than their brethren had in 1615, or the 
 Jesuits in 1636. 
 
 Father Le Jeune having espoused the idea of beginning 
 a seminary for Indians 4 was feeling his way, as is evident 
 from his hesitations and his change of plans. At first he 
 thought of taking in Huron Indians only; 5 later he was in- 
 clined to admit Montagnais Indians as well. 6 In 1634, he 
 considered sending the children to France to be educated in 
 the mother country ; but he feared that the parents' love for 
 their children would prove a most serious, a well nigh in- 
 superable obstacle. This difficulty, he wrote in 1636, would 
 be lessened, if there were a seminary in Canada. The next 
 problem was to find a location for the school. In 1635, he 
 thought of having it at the Jesuit residence of Our Lady of 
 the Angels, 7 near Quebec, where the Recollects formerly 
 had had their convent. Full of sanguine hope, he had be- 
 come confident that it would be easier to sway parents to 
 entrust their children to the missionaries if they were to 
 remain in New France. And the next year, 1636, he had 
 determined to mix the young Indians with the French chil- 
 dren. He wrote in his relation of that year : 
 
 Our great difficulty is to get a building, and to find the means 
 with which to support these children. It is true, we are able to 
 
 s Le Clercq, I, 189, cf . 176, 254. 
 * Jesuit Relations, 6, 150. 
 s Ibid., 9, 104. 
 
 6 Ibid., 9, 106. 
 
 7 Ibid., 7, 264; cf. the two articles of N. E. Dionne, "Le Seminaire 
 de Notre-Dame-des-Anges," Revue Canadienne, Troisieme Serie, III, 
 1890, 65-81, 148-166. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 37 
 
 maintain them at Notre Dame des Anges, but as this place is 
 isolated, so that there are no French children there, we have 
 changed the plan that we formerly had to place the Seminary 
 there. Experience shows us that it must be established where 
 the bulk of the French population is, to attract the little Savages 
 by means of the French children. 8 
 
 But if there were advantages in mixing French and In- 
 dian children, there were also inconveniences. It was finally 
 decided to open the school at Our Lady of the Angels, as 
 had been first intended. Once the school was ready, the 
 question was to fill it with pupils. The Jesuit missionaries 
 among the Hurons after many entreaties had prevailed 
 upon the parents of twelve young Indians to send them to 
 Quebec, but when the time to part came 
 
 the mothers, and above all the grandmothers, would not allow 
 their children to go away for a distance of three hundred leagues, 
 and to live with strangers, quite different from them and their 
 habits and customs. Some embarked, however; but, when they 
 arrived, the fathers of these children drew back and sought a 
 thousand excuses. Poor Father Daniel went hither and thither, 
 coaxed some, made presents to others, and yet after all he saw 
 himself almost a master without pupils, a shepherd without 
 sheep. A single young man, grandson of a Captain, remained 
 steadfast, never yielding to his determination to follow him. 9 
 
 A council was held. By presents, by cajolery, by taunt- 
 ing the Indians for their lack of courage, the missionaries 
 persuaded two more to go. A few days later, Nicolet 
 brought three more Indians to the Seminary. 10 In the ela- 
 tion of having at last started a work which he had so much 
 at heart, whose beginnings had given so much trouble, we 
 can almost hear Le Jeune's sigh of relief in the following 
 paragraph : 
 
 So now, by the Grace of God we have begun a Huron Seminary. 
 If you like you can have two more; another one for the Huron 
 
 s Jesuit Relations, 9, 104-106; cf. ibid., 12, 38 n\, where Father Le 
 Jeune gives a summary of what he had written in the Relations of 
 the preceding years. Charlevoix, P. F. X., History and General De- 
 scription of New France, Shea's translation, 6 vols., New York, 1866- 
 1872, II, 91-92, to be quoted as Charlevoix. 
 
 9 Jesuit Relations, 9, 284. 
 
 ™Ibid., 9, 298. 
 
38 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 and other neighboring tribes in the same territory as the Hurons, 
 where more than five hundred children could be educated if we 
 had people and means enough. The third will be among the Mon- 
 tagnais; I have already said that nothing more is wanting now 
 but a place to lodge and maintain the children. 11 
 
 The future which appeared so bright to Father Le Jeune 
 had in store many a heartbreaking disappointment. Two of 
 the more promising candidates died the following year; 12 
 one of the first three recruits became homesick and re- 
 turned. 13 More Indians came at the end of 1636 and in 
 1637, 14 but they ran away in the spring of 1638. 15 In 1639 
 Montagnais, Algonquins, and Hurons were admitted, but 
 disease and death soon thinned their ranks. Le Jeune now 
 wrote : 
 
 These casualties made us resolve to keep with us only the five 
 or six younger boys, who also have been attacked by catarrh and 
 colds, so difficult is it to make these poor Seminarists exist out 
 of the homes or cabins of their kindred. The Devil sees clearly 
 the fruit that may be expected from them, hence he employs all 
 the resources of his malice to overthrow this holy enterprise; 
 he will only lose therein his own labor. 16 
 
 Father Le Jeune's hopes were still to sanguine. He had 
 begun to hint at the real difficulty, at the crux of the mat- 
 ter. It consisted in the atavism of the North American In- 
 dians ; centuries of a mode of life had developed racial char- 
 acteristics which had become part and parcel of their phys- 
 ical, intellectual, and cultural make-up. In 1643 the experi- 
 ment had come to an end. Father Vimont wrote in the 
 Relation of that year: 
 
 The Seminary of the Hurons, which had been established at 
 Notre Dame des Anges some years ago, in order to educate chil- 
 dren of that nation, was interrupted for good reasons, and es- 
 pecially because no notable fruit was seen among the Savages; 
 our experience in beginning the instruction of a people with the 
 
 ii Ibid., 9, 284. 
 ^Ibid., 12, 48. 
 is Ibid., 12, 44. 
 14 Ibid., 12, 42. 
 is Ibid., 14, 242. 
 i6 Ibid., 16, 187. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 39 
 
 children has made up recognize this fact. Here is an occasion 
 which has obliged us to reestablish a Seminary in a new but 
 easier fashion, as it were, and in behalf of persons, older, and 
 more capable of instruction. God grant that the incursions of the 
 Iroquois may not hinder us from continuing. 17 
 
 The new model seminary was at the settlement at Sil- 
 lery. The attempt at founding a seminary for young Indians 
 had lasted more than five years when the Jesuits abandoned 
 it. It was a notable failure. The cause of this failure is to be 
 sought in the innate racial characteristics of the Indians 
 then insufficiently known to the missionaries. The young In- 
 dians after the novelty had worn out regretted their lost 
 freedom, the hunt, the vagabond life in the forest. Nearly 
 all became hopelessly homesick. ' 'Hunting and the woodland 
 air attracted them, so that it was difficult to keep them," 
 wrote Le Clercq in an unguarded moment, 18 but apparently 
 lest this admission exonerate the Jesuits with whose meth- 
 ods he can only find fault, he immediately adds : 
 
 It is true that, had what was then sketched out been continued 
 till now, success would have followed, and these Indian nations 
 would perhaps be civilized, as we see that among our neighbors 
 of New England and New Netherland our Europeans, though 
 heretics, but wiser than we in this have drawn among them 
 various Indian tribes, who have so far adopted their customs that 
 they are brought up to all kinds of trades and professions, a 
 great many being well-instructed Christians. Some even serve as 
 ministers for the instruction of others, although these heretics 
 began the work after us. So that we may well fear that God will 
 one day reproach the French on this point, that the children of 
 darkness are more prudent in the propagation of error than the 
 children of light in the true conversion of souls. 19 
 
 The numerous conversions of Indians in New Nether- 
 land, as well as their knowledge of English and their skill 
 in all the civilized arts, were to appear later in Cadillac's 
 
 17 Ibid., 24, 102. 
 
 is Le Clercq, I, 188 ; Lettres de la Venerable Mere Marie de Vln- 
 carnation premiere Superieure des Ursulines de la Nouvelle France, 
 Paris, 1681, 627, 633, hereinafter quoted as Mary of the Incarnation; 
 E. M. Faillon, Histoire de la Colonie Frangaise en Canada, Villemarie, 
 1866, III, 277, hereinafter quoted as Faillon. 
 
 19 Le Clercq, I, 188-189. 
 
40 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 romantic accounts written at about the time Le Clercq pub- 
 lished his book. The passage, breathing piety, and warning 
 of the judgment of God, contains much misinformation and 
 more misunderstanding of the situation. The Jesuits — for it 
 seems clear they were meant by the French in the above 
 quotation — who lived in daily expectation of the judgment 
 of God and who beheld at times companion missionaries be- 
 ing despatched by tomahawks, closed the seminary only 
 after trial, and only when convinced of the utter futility of 
 their efforts with the Indian youths. Moreover, even without 
 Le Clercq's suggestion about the reproach of God, they 
 considered themselves bound in justice to put to a better 
 use the money their brethren were begging in France for 
 the support of the seminary by spending it to build huts 
 for the grown-up Indians who had come to settle near 
 Sillery. 20 
 
 The seminary experiment just recounted was an honest 
 one. Its failure was frankly admitted by the Jesuits. Years 
 later the anti-Jesuit party in France began to circulate the 
 rumor that the Jesuits were opposed to the frenchification 
 of the Indians. They alleged as the reason for this opposi- 
 tion that if the Indians were to speak French, the Jesuits* 
 influence with them would come to an end. Colbert was won 
 over by the arguments of the theorists in France who, far 
 away from the haunts of the tractable savages, were the 
 colony constructionists, ' 'colonizing" New France from the 
 salons in Paris. The minister in this case was swayed by 
 his craving for centralization and unification. 
 
 Shortly after his arrival in Canada, Talon, acting on 
 Colbert's instructions, drafted a police regulation for the 
 Algonquins and the Hurons, but the intendant wrote to the 
 minister: "I have met with obstacles which I shall endeavor 
 to remove. It is true that they should have been taught our 
 language long ago, so as not to force the king's subjects to 
 learn theirs when they wish to communicate with them." 21 
 
 20 Jesuit Relations, 18, 78. 
 
 2i Talon to Colbert, November 13, 1666, AC, C 11 A, 2:222; 
 RAPQ, 1931, 58. Cf. the declaration of M. Souart, October 7, 1667, 
 AC, F 3, 3:353, where it is said that for the French to have to learn 
 the language of the Indians "blessoit la dignite" de leur nation." On 
 the other hand, the Indians, wrote Kalm a century later, Peter 
 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 41 
 
 To which Colbert answered: 
 
 I confess that I agree with you that up to the present time in 
 New France very little regard has been paid to the police and 
 civilization of the Algonquins and Hurons, who were a long time 
 ago subjected to the king's domination. Little effort has been 
 made to detach them from their savage customs and to oblige 
 them to adopt ours, especially to teach them our language; in- 
 stead, to carry on some traffic with them, our French have been 
 obliged to learn theirs. You have begun to remedy this long neg- 
 ligence, and you must endeavor to attract these people, especially 
 those who have embraced Christianity, to the vicinity of our 
 settlements, and if possible to mix them with the French, in 
 order that, in the course of time, having but one law and one 
 master, they may likewise constitute one people and one race. 22 
 
 From a letter of Talon to Colbert we learn who was re- 
 sponsible for this long negligence. Shortly after his arrival, 
 he wrote to the minister, and reproached the Jesuits "for 
 not having applied themselves until now as they should 
 have to civilizing the Indians and improving their manners. 
 They promised that they would endeavor to change these 
 barbarians in all their missions, beginning with the lan- 
 guage." 23 
 
 In 1668, Colbert advocated the founding of a seminary 
 for young Indian children, along the same lines as that 
 founded by Father La Jeune more than thirty years before. 
 Paramount in the thoughts of the minister was the increase 
 of the population of Canada without depopulating France, 
 where men were needed for the wars of Louis XIV. Meas- 
 
 Kalm's Travels in North America, A. B. Benson ed., New York, 1937, 
 II, 526, were "too proud to learn French." They looked upon all occu- 
 pations except war and hunt as "low and unworthy of them," Mary 
 of the Incarnation, 633. 
 
 22 Colbert to Talon, April 5, 1667, AC, C 11 A, 2:297; RAPQ, 
 1931, 72, translation from NYCD, IX, 59, revised. When an Iroquois 
 embassy came to Quebec in 1668, a Christian Huron harangued the 
 Iroquois telling them that the French did not want to consider them 
 as slaves, "mais que l'Onontio d'ici, qui est Monsieur le Gouverneur, 
 & le Grand Onontio de France, qui est le Roy, vouloient que leurs 
 enfans & ceux des Francois s'alliassent ensemble, afin de ne faire 
 qu'un meme peuple. II fit cette proposition sur ce qu'il a apris que 
 Sa Majeste" veut, a ce que Ton dit, que les Reverends Peres elevent 
 un nombre de petits gargcons Sauvages & nous un nombre de pe- 
 tites filles a la Frangoise," Mary of the Incarnation, 626-627. 
 
 23 Talon to Colbert, October 27, 1667, AC, C 11 A, 2:317v; RAPQ, 
 1931, 84. 
 
42 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 ures devised to increase the population of Canada were 
 communicated to Talon, with orders for the intendant to 
 enforce them. Among these measures were bounties for 
 early and fruitful marriage of the whites, 24 fines for recal- 
 citrant or inveterate bachelors, and urgent pleas to form 
 settlements peopled with civilized Indians. The blame for 
 the little progress made in this direction is laid at the door 
 of "the Jesuit Fathers and to all those who have been in 
 authority in the country." They have not favored marriages 
 between Indians and whites; they have not admitted whole 
 families of Indians in the French settlements ; they have not 
 
 formed them to abandon their idle and lazy form of life and till 
 the land in the vicinity of the French settlements. They have not 
 attracted the children, or secured the consent of their parents 
 to rear them according to our customs and to teach them our 
 language. I am surprised, I assure you, to have noticed thus far 
 no inclination to a thing so necessary and which can contribute 
 more than anything else to the increase of the population and 
 make the colony numerous and flourishing. I entreat you to 
 apply yourself earnestly to it during the short time you are to 
 remain in the colony, and to urge the ecclesiastics, officers and 
 officials, to apply themselves to it as a part of their duty and 
 their most important occupation. 25 
 
 Colbert was evidently unaware that the Jesuits of Can- 
 ada, the superior of the mission not excepted, did not hesi- 
 tate to till the soil with their own hands to give an example 
 to the Indians. "Father Vimont, Superior of the mission/' 
 wrote Mother Mary of the Incarnation, "to encourage his 
 poor Indians, leads them to work and works the soil with 
 them." 26 Colbert was evidently unaware that long before his 
 time, the Jesuits were strong advocates of marriages be- 
 tween reds and whites. 27 They defended such unions during 
 the whole of the French regime. Long after his time they 
 ran afoul of the government, when officialdom looked 
 
 24 Cf. Edits, I, 67-68, Clement, IIP, 657; for the difference in 
 dates, cf. Chapais, Jean Talon, 314, note 1. 
 
 25 Colbert to Talon, February 20, 1668, AC, C 11 A, 3:14v-15; 
 RAPQ, 1931, 95. 
 
 26 Mary of the Incarnation, 323. 
 
 27 Cf. AS J, Gal., 109, III, 356-357, the document is printed in Nova 
 Francia, IV, 1929, 143-145. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 43 
 
 askance at such marriages; they were reproached because 
 they preached the equality of French and Indians, 28 because 
 they maintained "that there was no difference between In- 
 dian and White, when both were Christian." 29 Colbert was 
 evidently not aware either of the experiment carried on by 
 the Jesuits from 1636 to 1642. As has been aptly remarked : 
 "A great deal of time, energy, and money might have been 
 saved, had Colbert acquainted himself with the history of 
 the question upon which his views were so pronounced. 30 
 
 In a letter written to Laval in 1668, the king expressed 
 his surprise at the fewness of the Indians living among the 
 French, and adopting their manner of life. Louis XIV hoped 
 the bishop would urge those who henceforth were to labor 
 for the conversion of the Indians to get them to change 
 their form of life for that of the French and move into the 
 French settlements, 
 
 in order that they make only one people; because, if this were 
 achieved, it would be easier, it seems, to make them embrace 
 our religion. But in case too much difficulty be experienced in 
 determining the parents to make such a change, at least all pos- 
 sible efforts should be made to oblige them to give up their chil- 
 dren that they may be reared after the French manner and in- 
 structed in our religion. 31 
 
 Colbert was much more emphatic in his letter to Laval 
 written the same week: "I entreat you to apply yourself 
 [to the frenchification scheme], so that your example may 
 lead all the ecclesiastics and the heads of the more prom- 
 inent families to devote themselves to it with all the 
 warmth and devotion desirable for such an advantageous 
 end." 32 Laval spared nothing to satisfy the wishes of the 
 king. 
 
 28 Cf. J. Delanglez, The French Jesuits in Lower Louisiana, 1700- 
 1763, Washington and New Orleans, 1935, 392 ff. 
 
 29 AC, C 13 A, 15:167. 
 
 so M. Eastman, Church and State in Early Canada, Edinburgh, 
 1915, 114. 
 
 3i Louis XIV to Laval, March 2, 1668, AE, M<§m. et Doc, Ame- 
 rique, 5:243. 
 
 32 Colbert to Laval, March 7, 1668, ASQ, Lettres, Carton N, n. 27, 
 printed in Langevin, Notice biographique sur Francois de Laval, 
 Montreal, 1874, 47-48. 
 
44 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 As the king has notified me of his desire for us to attempt to 
 bring up the little Savage children after the French manner of 
 life, in order to civilize them, little by little, I have formed a 
 Seminary, into which I have taken a number of children for this 
 express purpose. In order to succeed the better, I have been 
 obliged to join with them some little French children, from 
 whom, by living with them, the Savages will learn more easily 
 the customs and the language. This enterprise is not without 
 difficulty, on the part of both the children and the parents; the 
 latter have an extraordinary love for their children, and can 
 scarcely make up their mind to be separated from them. Or, if 
 they do permit this, it is very difficult to effect a separation for 
 any length of time, because ordinarily the families of the 
 Savages do not have many children, as do those of our French 
 people — in which there are generally, in this country, 8, 10, 12 
 and sometimes as many as 15 and 16 children. The Savages, on 
 the contrary, have usually only two or three ; and rarely do they 
 exceed the number of four. As a result, they depend on their 
 children, when they are somewhat advanced in years, for the 
 support of their family. This can only be gained by the chase, 
 and by other labors for which the parents are no longer fit when 
 their children have the years and ability to help them; to do so 
 at that time, the law of nature seems to constrain the children 
 by necessity. Nevertheless, we shall spare no pains, on our part, 
 to make this blessed undertaking succeed, although it seems to 
 us very doubtful. 33 
 
 In 1669 both the king and the minister had congratu- 
 lated the bishop for the beginning he had made. Louis XIV 
 said he realized how difficult the task would be to weld the 
 two races into one people, and that success depended on the 
 exertions of Laval, the Jesuits, and the Sulpicians. Through 
 Talon, who was returning to Canada, the king was sending 
 a gratuity to enable Laval to raise the Indian children. 34 
 The same encouragements are found in the official corre- 
 spondence of the two following years. 35 
 
 33 Jesuit Relations, 52, 47; cf. Mary of the Incarnation, 630-633. 
 
 34 Louis XIV to Laval, May 17, 1669, AC, B l:133v-134; cf. Col- 
 bert to Laval, May 15, 1669, AC, B 1:144, printed in Clement, IIP, 
 451-452 and in Bulletin des Recherches Historiques, XXXVI, 1930, 
 176; Colbert to Courcelle, May 15, 1669, AC, B 1:141, printed in 
 Clement, IIP, 449-451, and in BRH, XXXVI, 1930, 377-379. 
 
 as Louis XIV to Laval, April 10, 1670, AC, B 2:37; Colbert to id., 
 April 10, 1670, ibid., 37v-38; id. to id., AC, B 3:40-41. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 45 
 
 Nevertheless, Laval failed, as the Jesuits had failed 
 thirty years before. The six Hurons whom he supported in 
 the seminary ran away one after the other. In 1673 there 
 was not a single Indian left. 36 
 
 In 1667 Talon had enlisted the Sulpicians as well as 
 Laval in undertaking the education of the young Indians 
 according to the French manner. 37 M. Souart, then superior 
 of the Sulpicians of Montreal, pledged himself and his sub- 
 ordinates to turn Indians into Frenchmen ' 'provided we be 
 not crossed or disturbed in this work of charity by those 
 who pretend to be the only ones to have the direction of the 
 Indians." 38 The Sulpicians opened a school in 1668, for 
 which M. de Queylus, who in the interval had become the 
 superior, was congratulated by the minister. 39 In 1670, 
 Talon in a memoir on Canada noted: 
 
 I must not forget to acquaint you that the Abbe de Queylus ap- 
 plied himself zealously to the reorganization of his clergy, to 
 the increase of the Montreal colony, and to providing subjects 
 for the missions, who, by the discoveries they made, acquit 
 themselves worthily and usefully for the king. He pushes his 
 zeal further, by the care he takes to recover the Indian children 
 who fall into the hands of the Iroquois, in order to bring them 
 up — the boys in his Seminary, the girls among persons of the 
 same sex who form at Montreal a sort of sodality to instruct 
 youth in reading, writing and a little handiwork. . . . Four lines 
 to M. de Queylus and his community indicating the pleasure with 
 which the king learns from my despatches the zeal they evince 
 for Christianity and his Majesty's services, would have a very 
 good effect. . . . 40 
 
 I found greatly diminished, on my return [1670], the number 
 of little Indians brought up by the Bishop of Quebec and the 
 [Jesuit] Fathers; 41 but I must say their zeal for this charity 
 
 se Gosselin, I, 563. 
 
 37 Talon to Colbert, October 27, 1667, AC, C 11 A, 2:317v, RAPQ, 
 1931, 84. 
 
 ss AC, F 3, 3:353. 
 
 39 AC, B 1:145, printed in Bulletin des Recherches Historiques, 
 XXXII, 1926, 148, and pertinent extracts in Faillon, III, 273. 
 
 40 See the letter of Colbert to Queylus, March 10, 1671, AC, B 
 3:35, Clement, IIP, 452, note 1. 
 
 4i It would have been fairer to tell the minister the reason for 
 this diminution. It is unlikely that Talon did not know of the fearful 
 small pox epidemic of 1669-1670, which "furiously desolated the col- 
 ony," cf. Charlevoix, III, 153-154. 
 
46 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 revives, and that they will endeavor to find new subjects to rear 
 them according to our manners, language and maxims. It would 
 be well to encourage the disposition they evince for this work by 
 two or three approbatory lines. 42 
 
 In spite of all their good will, their zeal, their devoted- 
 ness, this attempt of the Sulpicians did not meet with suc- 
 cess, because "the character of these [Indian] children 
 rendered inefficacious the care taken of their education." 43 
 If success did not meet these three different attempts by 
 men who knew the Indians, by men whose influence with 
 the Indians was a recognized fact, by capable men most 
 anxious to succeed, it was because the difficulty resided not 
 in those men but in the Indians themselves. 44 
 
 What has been said thus far concerns the frenchification 
 of the boys. It would seem that the schooling of the girls, 
 who are as a rule more pliable, would meet with better 
 success. When the news reached Quebec of the govern- 
 ment's wish to have another attempt made, Mother Mary 
 of the Incarnation wrote that she herself and the Ursulines 
 of Quebec were ready to try once more to show their obedi- 
 ence toward His Majesty. 
 
 It is, however, a very difficult, if not an impossible task to fren- 
 chify or to civilize them. We have had more experience than any- 
 body else, and we have noticed that among one hundred of those 
 who passed through our hands, we hardly succeeded in civilizing 
 one. We find them docile and clever, but when we least expect it, 
 they jump the wall and go to join their parents in the woods, 
 where they find more pleasure than they do amid all the attrac- 
 
 42 Memoir of Talon, November 10, 1670, AC, C 11 A, 3:88-88v, 
 RAPQ, 1931, 127-128, translation from NYCD, IX, 69. As was seen 
 above, Colbert wrote to Laval as he had written to Queylus, but no 
 letter to the Jesuits has been found, although "Les Reverends Peres 
 en [Indian children] ont pris aussi en leur College de Quebec; tous 
 sont vetus a la Francoise, & on leur apprend a lire & a ecrire comme 
 en France," Mary of the Incarnation, 631. 
 
 43Faillon, III, 277. 
 
 44 Gosselin, I, 239. It seems unnecessary to discuss the argu- 
 ments given in Lorin, 61-70, whose chauvinism is apparent. Then, 
 too, they are based upon the assumptions that whatever Frontenac 
 advocated must of necessity be right, and whatever others advocated 
 differently from him was hopelessly wrong. A better understanding 
 of the difficulties inherent to the frenchification of the Indians is 
 evinced by Salone, La Colonisation de la Nouvelle France, Paris, 
 [1905?], 195, 262 f. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 47 
 
 tions of our French houses. Such is the Indian character. They 
 will brook no restraint. If they are constrained, they become 
 melancholic and ill. Moreover, the Indians have an extraordinary 
 love for their children. When they learn that they are sad, they 
 brush aside all other considerations to get them back, and we 
 must return their children to them. We have had Huron, Algon- 
 quian, and Iroquois girls ; the last are the prettiest and the most 
 docile. I do not know whether they will be more capable of being 
 civilized than the others, or whether they will keep up the French 
 politeness in which we have brought them up. I do not expect it 
 from them; for they are Savages, and that is enough [to cause 
 us] not to hope for it. 45 
 
 In another letter written to the superioress of the con- 
 vent of St. Denis, a few weeks later, Mary of the Incarna- 
 tion speaks in general of the Huron and Algonquian girls 
 whom the nuns had frenchified. They had married French- 
 men. There was one girl prodigy; she could read and write 
 Huron and French so well that one would never take her 
 for an Indian. Talon was very delighted and had her write a 
 few lines in those two languages. He would "take them to 
 France as something extraordinary." 46 Mary of the Incarna- 
 tion returned to the subject in a letter to her son in the 
 same year. "I do not know how all this will end, for to be 
 frank with you, it seems to me a very difficult task. We 
 have been in this country so many years, and we have not 
 been able to frenchify more than seven or eight girls; the 
 others returned to their homes, where, however, they are 
 leading very Christian lives." The reason for this, she said, 
 was the attraction for them of life in the woods, and it was 
 nothing short of miraculous to bring them to like, to prefer, 
 and consequently to imitate the ways and manners of the 
 French. 47 
 
 Such was the result of all the work of the Ursulines 
 with regard to the frenchification of the Indian girls in 
 1668. One spoke French and seven or eight had married 
 Frenchmen. The fruits were rather meagre for thirty years 
 
 45 Mary of the Incarnation, 627. 
 
 ** Ibid., 630. 
 
 47 ibid., 633. Italics inserted. 
 
48 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 of effort. Whether they were known in Paris has not been 
 ascertained. Charlevoix says : 
 
 Nothing had been more impressed on M. Talon than the im- 
 portance of inducing those religious [Jesuits] to instruct the In- 
 dian children in the French language, and accustom them to our 
 mode of life. 
 
 I have heretofore remarked that the missionaries themselves 
 had entertained this idea several years before; and I add, that 
 it was not so much the difficulties encountered in executing the 
 project as the bad effects which they had perceived after the 
 first attempts of this education, that had induced them to aban- 
 don it. They explained the result to M. Talon, when that magis- 
 trate communicated to them the orders of the council on the 
 subject; but their representations were ill received, and ascribed 
 to a desire of being sole masters of the Indians, and thereby ren- 
 dering themselves always necessary. 
 
 To show them that they were not, the intendant resolved to do 
 without them in the matter, and applied to the Bishop of Petraea 
 and the ecclesiastics of Montreal who promised to do what the 
 court desired ; but the f ruitlessness of their efforts soon justified 
 the missionaries, and the Marquis de Tracy, in the sequel, con- 
 tributed not a little to dispel the prejudices against them, with 
 which that minister [Colbert] had been imbued. He had heard 
 the project in question spoken of when he was on the spot; he 
 had comprehended as well as the Jesuits did how impracticable 
 and dangerous it was. . . . 48 
 
 If Colbert did not know of the meagre results when 
 Talon was sent to Canada, he was aware of them when 
 Frontenac was sent, yet he impresed upon the latter the 
 same ideas as those given to Talon, stated above by Charle- 
 voix. Neither the minister, nor the intendant, nor the gov- 
 ernor saw any difficulties in the scheme of unification 
 through language and customs by means of the education 
 of the children of the Indians, because none of them knew 
 the Indian character. 49 
 
 48 Charlevoix, III, 96-97. 
 
 49 "Sans de demander si la matiere est malleable, si nos proc6- 
 d£s d'education auront enfin prise sur ces natures demeurSes jusque- 
 la refractaires a toute discipline, on se persuade 'qu'il ne sera pas 
 difficile, apres leur conversion . . . de les reduire, petit a petit, a 
 quitter la chasse et la pesche pour defricher,' " Salone, 195. 
 
the frenchification scheme 49 
 
 Section 2. During Frontenac's First Term 
 When Frontenac arrived, he was astonished, just as 
 Talon had been a few years before, because none of the 
 Indians of Sainte-Foy spoke French. He proposed to imitate 
 the English in this respect. 1 To make Christians of the 
 Indians, it was necessary to make men of them first. It is 
 rather amusing to read of each of these gentlemen telling 
 the bishop and the veteran missionaries how the salvation 
 of the Indians could be best secured. We constantly read 
 their declamations about the encroachments of the spiritual 
 power over the temporal, yet it does not seem to have 
 occurred to them, that they themselves were meddling with 
 something altogether out of their sphere, and about which 
 they knew little or nothing. Frontenac was coming to Can- 
 ada with a system of education elaborated by theorists who, 
 like himself before his arrival in Quebec, had never seen an 
 Indian. To Colbert, the letter of the astonished Frontenac 
 seemed to prove his theory : he answered the governor that 
 it was one of his duties to increase the population of Can- 
 ada by 
 
 attracting the Indians into the society and manner of living of 
 the French. It appears that until now the Jesuits have had 
 maxims contrary to this policy, that the priests of the Seminary 
 have not applied themselves to this task; as for the Recollects, 
 they have as yet had no time to devote themselves to it. His 
 
 i Frontenac to Colbert, November 2, 1672, AC, C 11 A, 3:246v- 
 247; RAPQ, 1927, 20. In his speech of October 23, 1672, Frontenac 
 said that greater favors will be granted by the king, when Colbert, 
 notified by the governor, will be able to tell His Majesty that the 
 "religieux" [Jesuits] who are employed in the missions, apply them- 
 selves with more zeal than ever before to the conversion of the In- 
 dians "par des moyens quils nont pu peut etre encore pratiquer, a les 
 rendre sujets de J. C. et du roy tout ensemble, et quil [Colbert] verra 
 que dans la pratique et le comerce quils ont continuellement avec 
 eux ils leurs inspirent lenvie daprandre nostre langue et de quiter 
 des moeurs, et une facon de vivre qui est aussy contraire et oposee 
 a lesprit du cristianisme quelle lest au sentiment dune personne 
 veritablement resonable. ils doivent estres persuades quils recevront 
 des nouvelles marques de protection, et des assistances toutes parti- 
 culieres dans lexecution de leurs pieux dessains," AC, C 11 A, 3:229- 
 229v. — On anglicizing the Indians cf. J. G. Shea, Discovery and Ex- 
 ploration of the Mississippi Valley, Redfield, 1852, 80, and Charle- 
 voix, III, 97, n. 3. (The question of civilization and christianization 
 of the Indians in New England and New Netherland, as well as the 
 comparison with the results obtained in New France is to be dis- 
 cussed in a subsequent study). 
 
50 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Majesty demands that you strongly apply yourself to change 
 this attitude and, through emulation, to urge them all to action 
 in this respect. The love of freedom of the Indians must be trans- 
 formed into that of humanity, and [they must be led to] live in 
 society, which is natural to man. To this effect, His Majesty 
 would deem it most proper for each of these communities to 
 take a certain number of Indian children who would be brought 
 up in the knowledge of our Religion, and who in time should 
 become good inhabitants. 2 
 
 Colbert, be it said to his credit, considered the Indians 
 as human beings, intelligent and capable of living accord- 
 ing to the social customs of the French. Still, he did not 
 consider them as "living in society." He supposed them to 
 be in an unnatural state, a primitive outcast existence, as 
 described by Aristotle. Other forms of society and social 
 life different from what he was accustomed to at Versailles 
 did not strike him as possible. Yet the Indians had a social 
 organization, less formal and less complicated but just as 
 real as that of the French, and just as vital to their exist- 
 ence. 3 To elevate the natives in their own society was quite 
 different from changing their nature completely. 
 
 In spite of the assertions of Colbert, the Sulpicians and 
 Laval had applied themselves to the frenchification of the 
 Indians, had founded a seminary, had mixed the young In- 
 dians with the French boys; and the apparently contrary 
 policy of the Jesuits at this date grew out of their experi- 
 ences and frustrated plans. 
 
 After his journey to Lake Ontario, 1673, Frontenac 
 wrote enthusiastically to Colbert of the promise of the Iro- 
 quois to give him their children to be taught the French 
 
 2 Colbert to Frontenac, June 13, 1673, Clement, IIP, 559; RAPQ, 
 1927, 26. 
 
 3 Hennepin first stated in his New Discovery, that the Indians 
 "have among them a Form of Political government," A New Dis- 
 covery of a Vast Country in America, Thwaites ed., 2 vols., Chicago, 
 1903, I, 216. In his second volume, A New Voyage, in keeping with 
 the idea he had of the Indians, forgetting what he had written be- 
 fore, he wrote: "They live without any subordination, without Laws 
 or any form of Government or Policy," ibid., II, 456. "The Iroquois 
 have their government like all the other nations of the world. The 
 only difference is that theirs may be called purely natural, wherein 
 many things are wanting," Father Chauchetiere's account of the 
 Mission du Sault, Jesuit Relations, 63:162. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 51 
 
 tongue and to be raised in French manners and customs. 4 
 Later, in the same letter, he tells the minister that the 
 Jesuits had offered to take the children promised him by 
 the Iroquois, and he had refused their request; they should 
 take other children and the results of his training could be 
 compared with theirs. 
 
 I have already made known to Father Chaumonot, in charge of 
 the Hurons, who have their village two leagues from Quebec and 
 who are about to found a new village, that I expected them to 
 build their huts regularly with French chimneys, and that little 
 by little they adopt our manners and our customs. 5 
 I shall even try this winter [1673] to learn a little of their 
 language, and if I succeed, I hope to be a good missionary, and 
 perhaps help in frenchifying the Indians as much as the next 
 man. 6 
 
 Colbert congratulated him for what he had done and 
 wrote: "His Majesty desires you to continue to encourage 
 the Jesuits, the Recollects, and the Montreal Seminary to 
 take young Indians to rear and instruct them in the Faith 
 and lead them to associate with the French." 7 
 
 Colbert gave Frontenac scant praise in his letter of May, 
 1674 ; 8 hence the governor had all the more reasons to de- 
 velop the theme which had previously brought congratula- 
 tions. He announced success with the Iroquois: 
 
 They have come this year in solemn embassy to Montreal to 
 give me eight of their children, belonging to the principal and 
 first families of their villages. . . . The Jesuit Fathers, who know 
 them better than any one, were at first surprised, and could 
 never believe, until they had seen it, that they had resolved to 
 give me their children. Yet, here they are, eight of them on my 
 hands, who are so many hostages, responsible to me for the peace 
 
 *Cf. NYCD, IX, 108, 110-111. 
 
 s Frontenac here refers to the migration of Indians from Notre- 
 Dame-Sainte-Foye to Lorette, cf. Relations in6dites, I, 295, 296, 299, 
 305, 306, 310, 313, etc. His conversation with Father Chaumont took 
 place shortly before the date of his letter. The governor was one of 
 the first to make a pilgrimage to the new shrine, ibid., 302. 
 
 e Frontenac to Colbert, November 13, 1673, RAPQ, 1927, 39. 
 
 7 Colbert to Frontenac, May 17, 1674, Clement, IIP, 580; RAPQ, 
 1927 59* NYCD IX 115 
 
 s Colbert to Frontenac, May 17, 1674, RAPQ, 1927, 55-60, and cf . 
 the second paragraph of Frontenac's answer, November 14, 1674, 
 ibid., 60-61. 
 
52 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 of this colony, and which they will not dare, henceforth, to 
 break. 
 
 Of these eight, four were boys; Frontenac placed two 
 in a boarding house, and two in his own, but they will be 
 "sent for instruction every day to the Jesuit Fathers." 
 
 I conformed to the orders you gave me to continue to encourage 
 the Jesuits, the Seminary of Montreal, and the Recollects to 
 take young Indians for the purpose of instructing them in the 
 faith and civilizing them. The last [Recollects] ask for nothing 
 better, and they will do their best at the Cataracouy Mission 
 where they will assuredly succeed. As for the others, I have 
 shown them an example, and demonstrated to them that, when- 
 ever they are disposed to make use of the credit and influence 
 which they have with the Indians, they will civilize them, and 
 will have like me some of their children. 
 
 But, for reasons I have already stated to you, and which it is 
 useless to repeat, ' tis a thing they will never do unless abso- 
 lutely constrained thereto. 
 
 They will act in like manner respecting the extension of their 
 missions, on which subject I have spoken to them in the manner 
 you ordered, but in vain, for they have declared to me they were 
 here only to endeavor to instruct the Indians, or rather 2 20 20 
 12 39 18 68 17 239 [attirer des castors, to get the beavers] and 
 not to be parish priests to the French. 
 
 They have affirmed the same a week ago, and withdrew two 
 Fathers whom they always kept at their settlement at the Cap 
 de la Madeleine, one of the most populous in the country, because 
 a sufficient number of Indians do not resort there at this mo- 
 ment; and when I wished to represent mildly to the Father Su- 
 perior the inconvenience the people were subject to for want of 
 spiritual aid, he did not hesitate to give me the same reasons 
 I have already stated to you. 
 
 Nevertheless, after they resolved not to leave any of their 
 Fathers there, the charitable admonitions I addressed to them 
 have obliged them, a few days ago, to alter their determination, 
 and the Superior has since come to inform me that they would 
 leave one there, but I believe it will be only for this winter to 
 allow the public talk that would ensue to blow over. If the Recol- 
 lects were more numerous, and if they [on, scl. Laval] were 
 willing to employ them, they would assuredly do wonders in the 
 missions, but the two, whom you did me the honor to inform 
 me you had asked for last year, did not come, nor the four this 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 53 
 
 year. I presume they were retarded by some mysterious means, 
 as there begins to be great jealousy of them, however fair a 
 face be shown them. They stand in need of good subjects, 
 and more of them. You should tell the Bishop that you desire 
 him not to allow them to remain idle, but that he send them into 
 adjoining and distant missions. The Superior who came last year 
 is a very great preacher; he has overshadowed and has given 
 some chagrin to those in this country who certainly are not so 
 able. 9 
 
 The ciphered passage is an echo of what he had written 
 two years before, and was so gross that it defeated its pur- 
 pose. It was probably repeated in the hope that the next 
 letter from Colbert would be more eulogistic than the one 
 he was answering. 
 
 The Jesuit superior merely stated a truth when he told 
 Frontenac the Jesuits had not come to be parish priests of 
 the French. The benefactors contributed money for the mis- 
 sions of New France on the understanding that it would 
 help to support the missionaries among the Indians. And 
 when the missionaries themselves volunteered for Canada, 
 and when superiors sent them, it was with the purpose of 
 evangelizing the Indians and for this purpose they asked 
 for the missions. Concerning Frontenac's comparison be- 
 tween the Jesuits, the other priests then in Canada, and the 
 Recollects, true or false, it was bound to arouse dissension. 10 
 The archives are silent about the progress in the frenchifi- 
 cation of the Indians which Frontenac promised and which 
 in his letter to the provincial of the Recollects he termed 
 so noticeable. 11 Nor is there mention of any permanent re- 
 sults achieved by those missionaries. 
 
 9 Frontenac to Colbert, November 14, 1674, AC C 11 A, 4:79v-80; 
 RAPQ, 1927, 75; translation from NYCD, IX, 117-118, 120-121. 
 
 io Cf . the letter of Father Eustache Maupassant to Colbert, No- 
 vember 12, 1674, BN, Melanges Colbert, 171:57-58, printed in the 
 Bulletin des Recherches Historiques, XXXVII, 1931, 602-603, under 
 the date of 1679. 
 
 ii Cf. Frontenac to the Provincial of the Recollects, BN, Melan- 
 ges Colbert, 171:54-55, printed in the Bulletin des Recherches His- 
 toriques, XXXVII, 1931, 677-679. Lorin, 67, wrote: "Et qu'on n'aille 
 pas soutenir qu'au Canada des Scoles de ce genre etaient impossibles; 
 a l'epoque meme ou Frontenac se plaignait que pas un des sauvages 
 de Notre-Dame [de Sainte Foye], a une lieue et demie de Quebec, ne 
 parlat frangais, les Recollets etablis au nouveau fort du lac Ontario 
 
54 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 The answer of Colbert to the governor's letter of No- 
 vember 14, 1674, again disappointed Frontenac. The min- 
 ister began by notifying him that "in the future, he will 
 have to write directly to the king, and not to me, as you 
 have been doing until now." 12 Frontenac was disappointed 
 because he would scarcely dare write his malevolent letters 
 to Louis XIV. With regard to the f renchification scheme, his 
 ardor must have been dampened when he read : 
 
 His Majesty is also confident that the example you have given 
 the Jesuits and the priests of the Seminary of Montreal, by as- 
 suming the charge of some little Indians, will induce them also 
 to rear and instruct some others in our customs and in the prin- 
 ciples of Christianity; and His Majesty orders me to mention to 
 you on this point the propriety of exciting those ecclesiastics to 
 take charge, voluntarily, of those little Indians, but it is not 
 feasible to constrain them to do so. 13 
 
 The letter of the king, in answer to Frontenac, is dated 
 April 22, 1675; there is not one word about the f renchifica- 
 tion a outrance suggested by Frontenac. 14 The next mention 
 of the scheme occurs in a letter of Louis XIV, May 12, 1678. 
 He states: "His Majesty is equally well pleased to hear that 
 the education of the Indian children continues. Endeavor to 
 increase their number, and though it be proper to give their 
 parents to understand that they are not retained by force, 
 
 donnaient aux indigenes une education toute frangaise. . . ." It is re- 
 grettable that Lorin did not give a more specific date, "a l'epoque 
 meme" is vague enough to be on the safe side. The two references 
 given to support this assertion are two letters of Frontenac to Col- 
 bert, of November 2, 1672, and November 14, 1674. There is not one 
 word about the "education toute frangaise" in the first; at that time 
 Fort Frontenac did not exist. As for the second letter, it is quoted 
 above, and the reader can see for himself whether there is question 
 of the Recollects actually giving such an education. It is somewhat 
 strange that we no longer hear of the "education toute frangaise" 
 imparted at Fort Frontenac in the governor's correspondence, except 
 in the memoir of 1678, where we are told that La Salle had a school 
 of "more than fifty children, several of whom already begin to know 
 how to read and write," Margry, I, 320. On this document, and on 
 the real state of affairs at Fort Frontenac, cf . infra., 186 ff . 
 
 12 Colbert to Frontenac, March 15, 1675, RAPQ, 1927, 79; NYCD, 
 IX, 123; cf. Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 22, 1675, RAPQ, 1927, 80. 
 
 is Colbert to Frontenac, March 15, 1675, NYCD, 123; Collection 
 de Manuscrits . . . , I, 232; RAPQ, 1927, 79; NYCD, 123. 
 
 14 Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 22, 1675, RAPQ, 1927, 80-83, 
 see Colbert's covering letter of May 13, ibid., 83-84. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 55 
 
 it is well to retain the greatest possible number of them." 15 
 The next year, Colbert merely says : 
 
 Take as many as possible. . . . You will observe that although 
 His Majesty thinks it advantageous to attract entire Indian vil- 
 lages within and in between the French settlements, nevertheless 
 it would be better to mix the Indians with the French in much 
 smaller numbers, that is, one Indian for seven or eight French- 
 men in the localities settled by the French. 16 
 
 This is quite different from what Colbert had written 
 ten years before to Talon. The reasons for Frontenac's sub- 
 sequent silence about the frenchification scheme are not 
 difficult to deduce. On the one hand, most of Frontenac's 
 time was absorbed by his squabbles with Duchesneau and 
 the Sovereign Council ; the brandy question was coming to a 
 head, and the governor had excellent reasons to be much 
 more interested in the latter than in frenchifying the In- 
 dians. On the other hand, his silence can only be explained 
 by his failure to make Frenchmen out of his wards. After 
 heralding his program in 1674, he had failed as every one 
 before him had failed. Otherwise, one may be quite sure, 
 when recounting to the king in 1680 all he had done for the 
 frenchification of the Indians, he would have made capital 
 of his success. Instead he wrote: 
 
 Since I came to this country, there is nothing I have labored at 
 more zealously than to induce everybody, whether ecclesiastic or 
 secular, to rear or maintain some Indian children, and to attract 
 their fathers and mothers to our settlements, the better to in- 
 struct them in the Christian religion and French manners. I have 
 joined example to my exhortations, having always brought up 
 some in my own family and elsewhere, at my own expense, and 
 impressed incessantly on the Ursuline Nuns and the Jesuit Fa- 
 thers not to inculcate any other sentiment in those under their 
 control. Nevertheless, the latter having pretended that the com- 
 munication with the French corrupted the Indians and was an 
 obstacle to the instruction they were giving them. Father Fremin, 
 Superior of La Prairie de la Madeleine, far from conforming to 
 
 15 Louis XIV to Frontenac, May 12, 1678, ibid., 96; NYCD, IX, 
 128 
 
 i6 Colbert to Frontenac, May 8, 1679, RAPQ, 1927, 100-101; cf. 
 Colbert to Duchesneau, May 8, 1679, AC, B 8:15v-16. 
 
56 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 what I told him was Your Majesty's intentions, has three years 
 since removed all the Indians who were intermingled there with 
 the French to a distance of two leagues further off, on the lands 
 obtained for M. Duchesneau on his arrival in this country, the 
 title of which I did not think proper to give them until I should 
 learn your Majesty's pleasure, for reasons I have the honor to 
 submit which are of importance for his service and for the ad- 
 vantage and safety of the country. 
 
 I hope the mission established by the ecclesiastics of the Mon- 
 treal Seminary within half a league of their town will be an 
 example to all others, and will induce those to visit it who have 
 been most opposed to it, either from interest or otherwise. 17 
 
 A shift is noticeable. The securing of young Indians is 
 set forth in general terms and in passing. No mention is 
 made of the Recollects. If the work was of such paramount 
 importance, so practicable, why had they not been en- 
 trusted with the task of frenchifying the Indians? They 
 were not averse to the task, nor was their policy contrary 
 to it, as that of the Jesuits was supposed to be. A new note 
 is struck in the letter to the king. The Jesuits opposed the 
 intermingling of French and Indians, but the governor does 
 not give the reason except in general terms, namely, fear 
 of the corruptive influence of the French. What this influ- 
 ence was will be seen in the discussion of the brandy trade. 
 This much talked of amalgamation, on which so great a 
 store was set, "in no way helped the Indians and was harm- 
 ful to the French." 18 The Recollect Sagard 19 had noted long 
 before Frontenac's time the bad effect Indian life had on 
 the whites. It was held that a Frenchman became an Indian 
 sooner than an Indian became French. Longer experience 
 only confirmed this truism. A modern student paraphrased 
 it, when he called it "the revenge of America," 20 dragging 
 down the invader to her own level of barbarism. 21 The harm 
 done by the attempted amalgamation of races was generally 
 recognized by responsible officials during the latter part of 
 
 i7Frontenac to Louis XIV, November 4, 1679, AC C 11 A, 5:15; 
 RAPQ, 1927, 110; NYCD, IX, 130. 
 is La Tour, 98. 
 
 is Sagard, Histoire du Canada . . . , Paris, 1636, 170. 
 20 Salone, 255. 
 2i Cf. Garneau, I, 195; Peter Kalm's Travels, II, 456-457. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 57 
 
 the seventeenth century. 22 Le Clercq, or to speak more ac- 
 curately the editor of the First Establishment, is the only 
 one to extoll a system of colonization which the experience 
 of more than half a century had condemned. 
 
 In his answer, the king says not a word about disobedi- 
 ence charged against the Jesuits. Frontenac received a most 
 scathing reply from Colbert 23 and from Louis XIV. 24 Neither 
 refers to the Jesuits' contempt of the royal wishes and or- 
 ders. It is Frontenac whom the king accuses of disobeying 
 his most positive orders about the coureurs de bois, of fail- 
 ing to secure peace for his susbjects, or not promoting the 
 true interests of the colony. The king realized what every 
 student of the contemporary records will realize — that to 
 divert attention from his own behavior, Frontenac accused 
 others of the very misdeeds he himself was guilty of. With 
 regard to his refusal to sign the title deed of the land 
 grant asked by the Jesuits, the king wrote: 
 
 I granted to the Jesuit Fathers the tract of land they asked of 
 me for the Iroquois settlement. It is the place called the Sault, 
 adjoining the Prairie de la Madeleine. I have made them this 
 gift and approved of their conditions, because I deem this settle- 
 ment not only conducive to convert the Indians to the Christian 
 faith, but also because they will thereby become accustomed to 
 the manners and ways of living of the French. Although you 
 may have known that the conversion of the Indians in all their 
 villages was not advantageous because they would easily return 
 to their idolatry, nevertheless, when whole Indian villages move 
 to those parts settled by my subjects, their settlement among 
 the French can only be very advantageous, and you must always 
 urge and encourage such Indian settlements and give them all 
 the protection you can. 25 
 
 There was a change in the policy previously advocated 
 by the government in Paris. The king here repeats what 
 Colbert had written the year before. In his reply, Frontenac 
 no longer mentions the Jesuits nor their disobedience; in- 
 
 22 Denonville to Seignelay, November 12, 1685, AC, C 11 A, 7:90v. 
 Cf. NYCD, IX, 277; the objections of the Indians themselves in La- 
 hontan, II, 444. 
 
 23 Colbert to Frontenac, April 20, 1680, RAPQ, 1927, 112-113. 
 
 24 Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 29, 1680, ibid., 113-116. 
 
 25 Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 29, 1680, RAPQ, 1927, 115. 
 
58 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 stead, he praises the Sulpicians who were doing what the 
 Jesuits had been doing: 
 
 It would not be doing justice to the Gentlemen of the Seminary 
 of Montreal if I did not assure your Majesty of the pains they 
 continue to take to increase their Indian mission, and to induce 
 the savages to abandon their barbarous customs and adopt ours. 
 The memoir, which according to your order I am sending, will 
 more fully explain their success. This progress begins to pro- 
 duce good effects in the other missions, in which the Indians, 
 after the example of the former, already have fowls, hogs, and 
 French grain. This is what I always expected. 26 
 
 It is clear who operated the "other missions/' but Fron- 
 tenac did not wish to say that the Jesuits were doing as 
 they had always done and in the manner with which here- 
 tofore he had always found fault. 
 
 The proof of this assertion is found in a source which 
 cannot be suspected of partiality, the letters of M. Tronson. 
 It is not here denied that later, under the zealous, energetic 
 impulse of M. de Belmont, there were differences between 
 the methods of evangelization adopted by the Sulpicians 
 and the Jesuits in their respective permanent Indian settle- 
 ments, but these changes took place after Frontenac had 
 left Canada. The short sketch which follows will give a be- 
 ginning of explanation for Frontenac writing as he did in 
 1681. 
 
 Although M. de Fenelon had been blamed by his su- 
 periors for his stand in the Perrot affair, the relations be- 
 tween the governor and the Sulpicians remained strained. 
 Frontenac, however, would much prefer not to be at war 
 with the priests of Montreal, for his superior, M. Tronson, 
 had the ear of Colbert. Tronson made recommendations to 
 his subordinates to live in peace with the governor, and 
 Madame de Frontenac impressed upon her husband the need 
 of having M. Tronson on his side as a great help. She went 
 to St. Sulpice and assured Tronson to this effect : 
 
 Her husband would be delighted to live on good terms with us, 
 that she would write to him, and that she was sure, if he re- 
 
 26 Frontenac to Louis XIV, November 2, 1681, ibid., 129; NYCD, 
 IX, 148-149. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 59 
 
 ceived her letter, he would give you [Dollier, who was returning 
 to Canada] a hearty welcome, for he wishes for nothing better 
 than peace. I assured her that, on our side, we would leave noth- 
 ing undone to foster peace and to give him all possible satis- 
 faction. . . . 27 
 
 Frontenac wrote to Tronson stating the sponge had 
 erased the past, and the latter assured Mme de Frontenac 
 that as far as he was concerned everything was forgotten. 28 
 Tronson was sincere. After the return of Perrot, the gov- 
 ernors of New France and of Montreal had come to an 
 understanding. But when, a few years later, Perrot was in 
 Paris, he spoke against Frontenac in a manner which could 
 not fail to harm the governor, for Perrot was supported by 
 Talon. Mme de Frontenac came to the rescue of her hus- 
 band. She went to Tronson several times and he says : "We 
 have worked together. . . . She is convinced of the service 
 I rendered him with M. Colbert, to whom I made no com- 
 plaint against M. de Frontenac." The governor's wife had 
 reason to be grateful, for one word from M. Tronson would 
 have spelled disaster. The Sulpician did complain of Perrot 
 to the minister, and "M. Colbert reprimanded Perrot sharply 
 in public, and M. Colbert told me he would tell Perrot that, 
 if he did not change, the king would recall him next year." 29 
 Tronson showed Colbert the letter of Frontenac in which 
 the governor speaks of the "sponge" passing over the dis- 
 agreements of the past, which of necessity pleased the min- 
 ister "who has nothing so much at heart as harmony and 
 union in the colony." 30 
 
 Frontenac paid his debt to Tronson in the best possible 
 manner. He praised the Indian settlement near Montreal, 
 known as the Mission de la Montagne. Shortly after its 
 foundation, Tronson had feared lest the means for support- 
 ing this mission might not be found. 31 But the following 
 year, he realized that his priests could teach the Indians 
 gathered near Montreal. He wrote to Canada for informa- 
 
 27 Tronson to Dollier, July 5, 1678, no. 68. 
 
 28 Tronson to Dollier, March 14, 1679, no. 71. 
 
 29 id. to id., May 1679, no. 76, the quotation is in code. 
 so Tronson to Frontenac, May 27, 1679, no. 95. 
 
 si Tronson to Lefebvre, April 5, 1677, no. 6, id. to Remy, April 5, 
 1677, no. 9. 
 
60 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 tion about "what could be done to win over the Indian chil- 
 dren to instruct them . . . for this is here, at the Court, 
 the great aim." 32 The following month, he wrote to Dollier: 
 "M. Colbert again spoke to me of the Indian children. He 
 has this much at heart. See what can be done to satisfy 
 him." 33 Dollier, having answered Tronson informing him of 
 his plans to begin primary schools for the children, received 
 in reply: "M. Colbert gives his full approval to your plan 
 . . . and he is convinced nothing more useful could be done. 
 I was dining at his house a few days ago and he did me the 
 favor to listen attentively to all I said about our affairs. 
 . . . " 34 They were to spare nothing to make a success of 
 this undertaking; they were all the more bound to exert 
 themselves, since Colbert had ordered a special gratuity to 
 be paid to the Sulpicians of Montreal for the instruction of 
 the Indian children. 35 When the news that a school had been 
 begun 36 reached Paris in 1680, it "gave us much joy, be- 
 cause nothing is more desired here, and because it is be- 
 lieved nothing could be more fruitful." 37 Frontenac could 
 not be unaware of all this. He knew better than any one 
 else how much Colbert was interested in the frenchification 
 scheme. His wife and his friends had certainly coached him 
 on what to write to Paris and the letter he wrote in 1681 
 shows how well he had hearkened to the advice. 38 
 
 Was there much difference at this time between the 
 methods of the Jesuits and those of the Sulpicians? The 
 letter of Duchesneau to Colbert written ten days after that 
 of Frontenac to the king gives the answer : 
 
 You will perceive, my lord, by the census of the Indians I have 
 taken this year, how their number is increased by 207 persons. 
 I make bold to state to you, that, amidst all the plans presented 
 to me to attract the Indians among us and to accustom them to 
 
 32 Id. to Bailly, April 22, 1678, no. 49. 
 
 33 id. to Dollier, May 30, 1678, no. 60. 
 
 34 Id. to id., March 14, 1679, no. 71; cf. id. to id., March 16, 1679, 
 no. 72. 
 
 35 id. to id., May 1679, no. 74; cf. AC, B 7:90; Tronson to Dol- 
 lier, 1681, no. 151. 
 
 36 id. to Ranuyer, May 10, 1679, no. 90. 
 
 37 Id. to Dollier, 1680, no. 98. 
 
 38 Cf. id. to Frontenac, April 20, 1680, no. 116; id. to id., June 2, 
 1681, no. 146. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 61 
 
 our manners, the one from which most success may be antici- 
 pated, without fearing the inconveniences common to all the 
 others, is to establish villages of these people in our midst. 
 It appears even to be the best, since in the Mission of the Moun- 
 tain of Montreal, governed by the Gentlemen of the Seminary of 
 Saint Sulpice, and in the one of the Sault de la Prairie de la 
 Madeleine, in its vicinity, and in those of Sillery and Lorette in 
 the neighborhood of Quebec, all three under the direction of the 
 Jesuit Fathers, the youth are all brought up a la frangaise, 
 except in the matter of their food and dress, which it is neces- 
 sary to make them retain lest they be effeminate, and so that 
 they be more at liberty and less impeded whilst hunting, which 
 constitutes their wealth and ours. A beginning has been made 
 in all these missions to instruct the young boys in reading and 
 writing; at the Mountain of Montreal, the Ladies of the Sodality 
 devote themselves to the instruction of the little girls, and employ 
 them in needle work; the Ursulines at Quebec act in the same 
 way towards those given to them, whom they receive indiffer- 
 ently from all the missions, whether established among us or in 
 the Indian country under the direction of the Jesuit Fathers. 
 On this point you will permit me, my lord, if you please, to state 
 two things to you: first, those missions cannot be too much 
 encouraged, nor can too much countenance be given to the 
 gentlemen of Saint Sulpice and the Jesuit Fathers among the 
 Indians, inasmuch as they not only place the country in security 
 and bring peltries hither, but greatly glorify God and the King, 
 as the eldest son of the Church, by reason of the large number 
 of good Christians formed there. Secondly, His Majesty may per- 
 haps have it in his power to increase essentially this great good, 
 were he to order me to make in his name a few presents to the 
 Indians of the villages established among us, so as to attract a 
 great number of them; and were he to destine a small fund for 
 the Indian girls who quit the Ursulines on being educated, to fit 
 out and marry them, and establish Christian families through 
 their means. I shall not fail, my lord, to exhort the inhabitants 
 to rear Indians, and shall not be discouraged giving them the 
 example, notwithstanding three have already left me, after I 
 had incurred considerable expense over them, because I would 
 oblige them to learn something. The Jesuit Fathers have been 
 more fortunate than I, and have some belonging to the most dis- 
 tant tribes, such as Illinois and Mohegans, who know how to 
 read, write, speak French and play on instruments. 39 
 
 Duchesneau to Seignelay, November 13, 1681, NYCD, IX, 150. 
 
62 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Frenchification during Frontenac's first term thus ended 
 with silence on the part of the governor and with the Jesu- 
 its doing what seemed to them most practicable. Fronte- 
 nac's silence is significant in as much as it reveals him no 
 longer inclined to criticize the missionaries for not turning 
 droves of Indians into Frenchmen overnight by an applica- 
 tion of his novel and impractical educational theories. At 
 the end of his first term Frontenac had a better knowledge 
 of the difficulties entailed in the raising of papooses a la 
 frangaise. From the governor's silence, it may safely be 
 assumed that the Jesuits Were at least as successful as the 
 character of a papoose would allow; otherwise, it is more 
 than likely that he would have become vociferous about 
 their failure. 
 
 The question flared up once again during Frontenac's 
 second term. Some Iroquois Christian Indians of Sault St. 
 Louis, near Montreal, in an expedition against their heathen 
 brothers had acted in a manner savoring of betrayal of the 
 French cause. The Jesuits, of course, were the cause of this, 
 because they showed too much complaisance with these In- 
 dians. Frontenac wrote: 
 
 An experience acquired by a sojourn of twelve years in this 
 colony has taught me that all these mission settlements ought 
 never to be separated as they are from the French, and that the 
 Indians should always remain with the French in order to be 
 frenchified while being converted. Otherwise, these missions will 
 do more harm than good in the service of the king and even to 
 that of God. It is a gospel which I have never been able to have 
 accepted in this country, and which I have preached in vain for 
 so long that I should be disheartened and say nothing more 
 about it. 40 
 
 Charlevoix saw in the Archives of Paris this letter 
 which Frontenac had written to Pontchartrain. The his- 
 torian of New France took up vigorously the defense of the 
 Iroquois, whom the governor had maligned because they 
 were directed by the Jesuits, and the challenge of the 
 twelve years' experience as follows: 
 
 40 Frontenac to Pontchartrain, October 30, 1691, AC C 11A, 11 : 
 234; RAPQ, 1928, 69. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 63 
 
 If these Christians on some occasions did not do all expected of 
 them, if some individuals acted from motives other than those 
 inculcated upon them, no one before or after Frontenac thought 
 fit to make the whole town reponsible, much less those who 
 directed it ; and an experience not of ten years, but of more than 
 a century [when Charlevoix wrote] has taught us that the worst 
 system of governing these people and maintaining them in our 
 interest is to bring them in contact with the French, whom they 
 would have esteemed more had they seen them less closely. 
 In fine, there was no longer any doubt that the best mode of 
 Christianizing them was to avoid frenchifying them. In the seven 
 or eight months that the Iroquois of the Sault and the Mountain 
 spent at Montreal, after the massacre of Lachine [1689], they 
 became unrecognizable, both as regards morals and piety, and 
 there is no one who does not admit that if their fervor is no 
 more as it was for so long, the edification and admiration of 
 New France, it is because they have had too many relations with 
 us. 41 The example of the Abenaqui nations, much further re- 
 moved from the French settlements, whose attachment to our 
 interests could go no further, alone sufficed to convince the Gen- 
 eral of the fallacy of this principle. His complaints and his advice 
 were little regarded at Court, where they were at last persuaded 
 that his project, which they had taken up so warmly thirty years 
 before, was neither useful nor practicable. 42 
 
 The practicability and utility of the frenchification 
 scheme was later asserted by one who may be looked upon 
 as an understudy of the governor a few years after Fronte- 
 nac wrote as above to Pontchartrain. This was Cadillac who 
 merely repeated the arguments current long before he came 
 to America. The founder and commandant of Detroit asked 
 for ten years and a free hand. He pledged himself to have 
 the Indians of Canada speaking French in a decade, living 
 like Frenchmen, and becoming as Frenchmen. He had his 
 ten years during which he was the absolute master in De- 
 troit, unimpeded by the Jesuits, untrammeled in the appli- 
 cation of his educational theories. At the end of this time, 
 
 41 Lahontan, New Voyages, II, 444, 536, makes Adario say what 
 he himself had witnessed. It is doubtful whether such examples 
 given by the French were conducive to the moral uplift, to the "civil- 
 ization" of the Indians. Cf. also Per rot, Memoir e sur les Moeurs . . . , 
 312. 
 
 42 Charlevoix, IV, 198; cf. Salone, 261-263. 
 
64 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 he could show only one Indian able to say a few words 
 of French, and these were learned not at Detroit but at 
 Michilimackinac. 
 
 In 1709, two years before Cadillac left Detroit for Lou- 
 isiana, the younger Raudot wrote in his Relation par lettres 
 what many who had dealt with the Indians had written half 
 a century before. Frenchification was no longer the easy 
 task lightly spoken of by lay and clerical dreamers of the 
 last quarter of the seventeenth century. Officialdom had be- 
 gun to see how disheartening were the results, and it no 
 longer attributed the failure to the Jesuits. It was a tardy 
 realization of the magnitude of the task of ridding the 
 Indians of their centuries-old racial characteristics and of 
 inspiring the aborigines of North America with imitations 
 of the splendor and the politeness of Versailles. 
 
 I shall speak to you in general of the Indians who inhabit this 
 vast continent and who are known to us. I shall speak of their 
 dress, customs and religion such as they were before the coming 
 of the French in this country, and I shall also note the changes 
 which have taken place among them as a result of the relations 
 with us. Such changes are noticed only with respect to religion, 
 to their use of our fire arms, and of our merchandise, but you 
 will notice no changes in their conduct, their government, or in 
 their dress. 43 It is a surpising thing that among so many nations 
 not one has yet adopted our manners, and although they live 
 constantly in the midst of the French, they still conduct them- 
 selves, until this day, in the same manner as they always have. 
 They much prefer their hard but lazy mode of life, their free 
 and libertine life, to the most agreeable one we can set before 
 them. The woods and the forests are their palaces. There they 
 live, and although brought up by Frenchmen from their tender- 
 est years, and educated in convents, at the first whim, they 
 abandon us to lead in the woods a very much different life from 
 that which they led among us. Infinite labor and time will be 
 needed to liberate them and to lead them to adopt our manners 
 and customs. Only by continual application will we gradually 
 
 43 Cf . Lafitau, Moeurs des Sauvages Ameriquains, II, 31 ; Jesuit 
 Relations, 62, 184. 
 
THE FRENCHIFICATION SCHEME 65 
 
 succeed in this task, and it will be, I assure you, a work of sev- 
 eral centuries. 44 
 
 44 Relation par lettres de VAmerique Septentrionale, (annees 1709 
 et 1110), Paris, 1904, 61-62. These letters attributed by the editor, 
 Father de Rochemonteix, to Father Silvy, are in reality by A. D. 
 Raudot, the intendant of New France. On the back of a document 
 entitled: "Suite de Relations par lettres de l'AmSrique Septentrio- 
 nale," AC, C 11A, 122, Margry has the following note: "Cette relation 
 est faire par Raudot de fils sur les mSmoires du S r de Louvigny, 
 'pour ce qui regarde les Sauvages,' voir sa lettre du 24 septembre 
 1709." On the back of the cover of the copy book, 100 pages, is found 
 the following unsigned note: "M r de Fontanieu. Cecy est fait par 
 M r Raudot le fils Je vous en ay dSja envoye" la l ere partie. Cela nit- 
 rite d'etre examine" et gard£ avec soin. Rien n'est plus capable de 
 donner une connoisance du pays." Margry copied this note on some 
 extracts he made from the manuscript, cf. Leland, Guide to Materials 
 for American History, 105. Independently of the note on the manu- 
 script, internal evidence shows that the letters were not written by 
 Father Silvy, cf. H.-A. Scott, Nos anciens Historiographies, Levis, 
 1930, 175, note 2. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 
 Section 1. Before Talon. 
 
 The two reasons which led the missionaries to demand 
 a complete separation between Indians and French were the 
 example given by their compatriots and the sale of brandy 
 to the Indians, and the latter was far the weightier. Several 
 phases of this question are here distinguished, the brandy 
 trade before Talon and Frontenac, and during their respec- 
 tive terms in office. No other conflict of opinion and policy 
 aroused so much ire in Canada during the second half of 
 the seventeenth century as the one hinging on brandy, and 
 the question remained vital everywhere the French rule 
 obtained in North America until the collapse of the French 
 empire. 1 
 
 According to the Jesuit Relations, brandy was intro- 
 duced in Canada by the English between 1629 and 1632. 2 
 When the French returned to Canada, they followed in the 
 footsteps of the English traders. The ravages of brandy, 
 however, really became alarming in 1650; for, says La 
 Tour, it was only in this year that "a considerable quan- 
 tity was brought to Tadoussac where it was distributed to 
 the Indians in exchange for their peltries, which they kept 
 on doing during the years following." 3 One governor after 
 another in Quebec, Champlain, 4 Montmagny, 5 d'Ailleboust/ 5 
 Lauzon, 7 and Maisonneuve 8 in Montreal, forbade the traffic. 
 
 i The French Jesuits in Lower Louisiana, 403-448. 
 
 2 Jesuit Relations, 9, 137, 24, 61. Rochemonteix, II, 314-315, Fail- 
 Ion, III 25 ff . But cf . Eastman, 26. 
 
 3 La Tour, 98, cf. [F. V. de Belmont] "Histoire de l'eau-de-vie en 
 Canada," in Collection de Memoir es et de Relations sur Vhistoire an- 
 cienne du Canada, published by the Soci6t6 Litteraire et Historique 
 de Quebec, 1840, n. 8, Introduction, and page 3. Where there are no 
 Europeans, says Hennepin, New Discovery, I, 149, there is no brandy. 
 Cf. Lafitau, Moeurs des Sauvages Ameriquains, Paris, 1724, II, 125, 
 Peter Kalm's Travels, I, 259. 
 
 * Jesuit Relations, 5, 230. 
 
 s Ibid., 24, 142; Mary of the Incarnation, 382. 
 6 Journal des Jesuites, 228-229, Charlevoix, I, 242-243, Gosselin, 
 I, 283. 
 
 7RAPQ, 1925, 384-386. 
 sFaillon, III, 31 f. 
 
 69 
 
70 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 A royal edict was given March 7, 1657. 9 Yet all were power- 
 less to check the abuse. 
 
 Whatever may be said of the wassail bowl as a means 
 toward good fellowship among the whites had no applica- 
 tion in regard to the Indians. Among the red men there 
 was no idea of moderate drinking, nor of imbibing for any 
 reason except complete, beastial intoxication. The gleam of 
 lust for firewater came to the eyes of the Indian at the 
 mere sight of a liquor container, and almost instinctively 
 the Indian went for the alcoholic contents much as an ani- 
 mal goes for its prey. Once under the influence of liquor, 
 the Indians no longer acted as humans nor Indians, but 
 more as wild beasts. They indulged in the most terrifying 
 excesses of debauchery, rape, incest, murder, parricide; 
 fathers killed their children, drowning them or throwing 
 them into the fire; husbands sold or killed their wives. 
 Every known code of morals, customs, or honor of God, of 
 the Church, of the French, and of the Indians ceased to 
 exist. The women and even the children drank themselves 
 into a fury. There were many isolated cases of sotted In- 
 dians bent upon individual iniquities, but also many times 
 an entire village would be intoxicated, and the foul orgy 
 never ceased until the last dregs of the barrel were drained. 
 Such were the excesses which the bishop, the diocesan 
 clergy, the Sulpicians, and the Jesuits denounced in the 
 name of public good, humanity, and religion. 10 
 
 Those who have mingled somewhat with the savages (I speak 
 only of those living near our settlements) are well aware that 
 
 9 Edits, II, 7. 
 
 io Sagard had foreseen the disorders that would ensue from the 
 sale of brandy to the Indians. Cf. Histoire du Canada . . . , Paris, 
 1636, 295, 677. "This liquor also was entirely unknown to them before 
 the Europeans came hither, but after they had tasted it, they could 
 never get enough of it. A man can hardly have a greater desire for 
 a thing than the Indians have for brandy. I have heard them say 
 that to die by drinking brandy was a desirable and an honorable 
 death; and indeed it was a very common thing to kill themselves 
 by drinking this liquor to excess," Peter Kalm's Travels, I, 259. 
 Among the goods the French sell to the Indians, Kalm lists "Brandy, 
 which the Indians value above all other goods that can be brought 
 them; nor have they anything, though ever so dear to them, which 
 they would not give away for this liquor," ibid., II, 521. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 71 
 
 drink is a demon that robs them of their reason, and so inflames 
 their passion that, after returning from the chase richly laden 
 with beaver-skins, instead of furnishing their families with pro- 
 visions, clothing, and other necessary supplies, they drink away 
 the entire proceeds in one day and are forced to pass the winter 
 in nakedness, famine, and all sorts of deprivation. There have 
 been some whose mania was so extraordinary that, after strip- 
 ping themselves of everything for liquor they sold even their 
 own children to obtain the means of intoxication. Children, too, 
 when they are overcome with drink, beat their parents without 
 being punished for it; young men use it as a philter, corrupting 
 the girls after making them drunk ; those that have any quarrels 
 pretend to be intoxicated in order to wreck vengeance with im- 
 punity. Every night is filled with clamors, brawls, and fatal acci- 
 dents, which the intoxicated cause in the cabins. Everything is 
 permitted them for they give as an excuse that they were bereft 
 of reason at the time. One cannot conceive the disorders which 
 this diabolical vice has caused in this new Church. We found 
 neither time to instruct them nor means to inspire them with a 
 horror of this sin; for they were always in a state of intoxica- 
 tion or of beggary — that is, either incapable of listening or con- 
 strained to go in quest of food in the woods." 11 
 
 Besides these evils of which the missionaries naturally 
 complained, unscrupulous traders were giving the Indians 
 
 11 Jesuit Relations, 46, 102-104. For other descriptions of the 
 ravages wrought by brandy among the Indians, about which one 
 missionary wrote he had no "ink black enough," ibid., 48, 62, cf. 
 Jesuit Relations, 5, 230; 22, 240; 24, 142; 62, 224; Mary of the Incar- 
 nation, 571-572, Le Clercq, Nouvelle Relation de la Gaspesie, Paris, 
 1691, 430-432; [Dollier de Casson], "Histoire du Montreal," in Manu- 
 scripts relating to the Early History of Canada, published under the 
 Auspices of the Literary and Historical Society of Quebec, Third 
 series, no. 1, Quebec, 114; Relations inedites, I, 41, 42. Laymen who 
 witnessed the orgy did not speak differently. So independent a man 
 as Boucher, because of the havoc of the brandy trade heartily sym- 
 pathized with the bishop and the Jesuits in their opposition to the 
 traffic, Histoire veritable et naturelle des Moeurs et Productions du 
 Pays de la Nouvelle France, Montreal, 1882, 98; cf. Lahontan, New 
 Voyages, Thwaites edition, Chicago, 1903, I, 81, 94, 124, 466. Bac- 
 queville de La Potherie, Voyage de VAmerique, Amsterdam, 1723, I, 
 344-345. Relation par lettres de VAmerique Septentrionale, 190. La 
 Chesnaye wrote in 1693, "I tell you in all conscience, Sir, that one 
 cannot better represent hell than by the view of Indians and squaws 
 intoxicated," AC, C 11A, 12:380. "We have here [Sault St. Louis] no 
 other demon to contend with than liquor and drunkenness, which 
 makes a hell of all the Iroquois villages . . . ," Jesuit Relations, 62, 
 182. 
 
72 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 their fill of brandy the better to rob and cheat them. La 
 Tour wrote: 
 
 If it is difficult to explain the excess of the Indians, it is also 
 hard to understand to what lengths the greed, the bad faith, the 
 knavery of those who sell hard liquors to the Indians will go. 
 The easy profits they can make owing to the natives' ignorance 
 and their passion for brandy, joined to the certitude of being 
 unpunished, are charms to which these traders abandon them- 
 selves; their eagerness for profits has the same effect on them 
 as drunkenness has on the Indians. 12 
 
 They sold brandy for its weight in gold; they mixed salt 
 and water with the liquor; they used false measures; at 
 times they killed or more often robbed the stupified Indians 
 with impunity. 13 
 
 This was the state of affairs when Laval arrived in 
 Quebec. "This condition deeply moved the heart of Mon- 
 seigneur de Petraea, who, seeing the fortunes of this new 
 Christendom in danger of ruin, unless these evils were abol- 
 ished, turned all his attention toward finding a remedy for 
 the evil which until then seemed incurable." 14 Laval, in- 
 deed, was of a character not to hesitate for long when he 
 saw the conversion of the Indians thus being jeopardized 
 by the brandy peddlers. 15 But before taking the grave step 
 he contemplated, he wished the advice of others. Accord- 
 ing to the Journal of the Jesuits, two months after his ar- 
 
 12 La Tour, 70. Le Clercq, Nouvelle Relation de la Gaspesie, 427, 
 does not speak differently. There was a wrong done not only to the 
 Indians, but the traffickers themselves were committing a sin of 
 theft. They stole from the Indians when they cheated them. It is 
 against such an evil that Le Clercq protested when he said that the 
 French's salvation was jeopardized, cf. the translation of Le Clercq, 
 by W. F. Ganong, New Relation of Gaspesia, Toronto, 1910, 253. The 
 Recollect means the French, it is not misprint for sauvages, he 
 looked at the traffic from the justice point of view and shows how 
 the sin of theft was committed by the French who cheated the In- 
 dians, a sin which could not be forgiven unless restitution be made 
 "au prorata de ce que la chose peut valoir." 
 
 13 Histoire de V eau-de-vie-en Canada, 7-8, 18-20, Le Clercq, Nou- 
 velle Relation de la Gaspesie, 428-429; Mary of the Incarnation, 642; 
 Perrot, Memoire sur les Moeurs . . . , 115-119. 
 
 14 Jesuit Relations, 46, 104, cf. Boucher, Histoire veritable, 99, 
 118. 
 
 ic Histoire du Montreal, 114, cf. Relations in6dites, I, 184. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 73 
 
 rival a first consultation was held at the Jesuit house in 
 Quebec, a second within a week at the same place, and the 
 day after the second, a third conference was held at the 
 bishop's house. 16 The subject of the conferences was to de- 
 termine whether the bishop was justified in excommunicat- 
 ing those who sold brandy to the Indians. Six months later, 
 on May 5, 1659, eve of the Ascension, Laval launched the 
 excommunication incurred ipso facto by all who sold or 
 distributed gratis either wine or brandy to the Indians, 
 reserving to himself alone the right and power to absolve 
 the transgressors. However, they would not fall under the 
 excommunication who give a little brandy to the Indians in 
 journeys, or in work of extraordinary hardships; but even 
 in this case, the excommunication would obtain if the ordi- 
 nary quantity given to French servants in similar circum- 
 stances were exceeded. "But let it be known that when it is 
 question of directly or indirectly obtaining pelts, shoes, or 
 anything whatsoever, it is in no way allowed to give drinks 
 to the Indians, not even as much as the above small 
 draught, lest those who do fall under our defense and ex- 
 communication." 17 The censure upheld by the priests and 
 the confessors put an end to the prevalent disorders. 18 The 
 new governor, d'Avaugour, enforced the measure issuing 
 severe orders against selling brandy to the Indians. 19 
 
 According to La Tour, the improvement soon came to 
 nought due to a trifling incident. A woman of Quebec caught 
 contravening the orders was put in jail. Her relatives pre- 
 vailed upon Father Lalemant, the Jesuit superior in Que- 
 bec, to intercede with the governor. The Jesuit appealed to 
 the governor for leniency in this particular case. In a mo- 
 ment of bad humor, d'Avaugour answered that if the trade 
 was not crime for this woman, it would not be a crime for 
 anybody. 20 This, to say the least, was bad logic. A law 
 should not be abolished or its violation permitted because 
 
 is Journal des J&suites, 268, 269. 
 
 17 Mandements, Lettres pastorales et circulaires des Eveques de 
 Quebec, H. Tetu and C.-O. Gagnon, ed., Quebec, 1887, I, 14-15, to be 
 cited as Mandements; Journal des Jesuites, 282; La Tour, 72; Gosselin, 
 I, 290. 
 
 is Jesuit Relations, 46, 104. 
 
 19 Journal des Jesuites, 303, La Tour, 80, Faillon, III, 30. 
 
 20 La Tour, 80, Charlevoix, III, 53. 
 
74 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 leniency is asked for a delinquent. The brandy peddlers soon 
 heard that the governor would no longer punish the traffic 
 and enforce the ordinances. All the former excesses, the 
 former disorders reappeared. Catechumens abandoned all 
 thought of becoming Christians, neophytes apostatized, 
 Christians gave themselves up to all sorts of vices. 21 The 
 bishop, the clergy, the Jesuits, the Indians themselves 22 
 expostulated with d'Avaugour, all to no purpose. With an 
 inflexible stubbornness he stood fast in the posture he had 
 adopted. 23 Thereupon Laval renewed the excommunication 
 of 1660 which had been suspended in 1661. 24 The brandy 
 traders directed their attacks against the prelate, the 
 clergy, and the Jesuits. They were accused of unjustly 
 troubling the consciences of the people, of imperiling the 
 future of the colony, and of causing prejudice to religion. 25 
 The Church, they claimed, had no power over matters of 
 this nature. It was an unwarranted intrusion upon civil 
 power. The French paid no attention to the remonstrances 
 of the bishop, writes Mother Mary of the Incarnation ' 'be- 
 cause they were upheld by the strong arm of the secular 
 power;" 26 that is, d'Avaugour lived up to his sally of humor 
 and shut his eyes to the consequences. Not knowing how to 
 put a stop to those abuses, Laval determined to go to 
 France and appeal to the king. 2 * 
 
 The bishop had been preceded by memoirs in which the 
 traders complained of the intolerable severity of the clergy. 
 They asked for freedom in liquor trading under the plea of 
 public welfare and of the development of commerce in the 
 
 2i Jesuit Relations, 48, 62; La Tour, 81; Mary of the Incarnation, 
 571; Charlevoix, III, 53-55. 
 
 22 Mary of the Incarnation, 572. 
 
 23 Parkman, The Old Regime in Canada, Boston, 1892, 123. 
 
 24 Mandements, I, 42; Gosselin, I, 299, 300, 301. 
 
 25 La Tour, 81-82. "II est etonnant que dans un livre sur le Ca- 
 nada, qui a paru sous le nom d'un Recollet, [First Establishment of 
 the Faith], sans doute a son insgu, on ait adopte ces calumnies," 
 ibid., 82. Cf. Charlevoix, III, 54. The contradictory attitude of Father 
 Le Clercq in the First Establishment and in the Nouvelle Relation is 
 another indication that the Recollect's book was tampered with. In 
 his Nouvelle Relation de la Gaspesie, he denounces the traffic no less 
 vigorously than did the bishop and the Jesuits. 
 
 26 Mary of the Incarnation, 572. 
 
 27 Journal des Jesuites, 310; Mary of the Incarnation, 572; Char- 
 levoix, III, 35. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 75 
 
 colony. They did not upbraid the bishop, for he was held in 
 high regard by the king and his mother, Anne of Austria. 
 Hence they threw the blame on the Jesuits. They wanted 
 to dominate New France, the memoirs said ; Laval was only 
 a tool in their hands; 28 they have made and unmade gov- 
 ernors according to their whim ; they were constantly tyran- 
 nizing over consciences with their threat of excommunica- 
 tion; they were much too severe; they wanted to rule Can- 
 ada as if it were a convent. 
 
 In France, Laval had much difficulty in getting his views 
 with regard to the brandy traffic accepted by the king; 29 
 but the bishop finally obtained what he had come to ask, 
 the recall of d'Avaugour and an interdict on the brandy 
 trade. 30 He returned to his diocese With the new governor 
 Mezy. When he reached Quebec, however, there was no need 
 of using the powers he had secured for ending the brandy 
 traffic for the earthquake which shook Canada intermit- 
 tently for several months had been looked upon as a warn- 
 ing from God and so terrified the inhabitants that the 
 "scandalous brandy traffic had stopped as if by enchant- 
 ment." 31 The bishop made use of this lull to organize his 
 diocese and Mezy inaugurated in Canada the new adminis- 
 trative system, which with few changes obtained until the 
 fall of New France. 
 
 All went well for a time between Laval and Mezy. 32 The 
 newly created sovereign council issued several decrees 
 against the brandy traffic, 33 and enforced the royal edict of 
 1657. However, the harmony between Laval and Mezy did 
 not last. What took place is set forth in Talon's instructions : 
 
 He will learn that the Jesuits made so many complaints two 
 years ago against Baron du Bois d'Avaugour, then governor of 
 
 28 This foolish assertion will henceforth be repeatedly met with, 
 and will even find its way into a royal memoir. It is an insult to the 
 great bishop. Laval was willing to take advice, but he was not the 
 man to allow any dictation as to how he should rule his diocese, cf. 
 Chapais, Jean Talon, 40, note 1; Lorin, 43; La Tour, 71. 
 
 29 Mary of the Incarnation, 589; Charlevoix, III, 55. 
 so La Tour, 83; Gosselin, I, 351. 
 
 si Rochemonteix, II, 326. Cf. Jesuit Relations, 48, 58 ff., Mary of 
 the Incarnation, 589; La Tour, 189 ff., and Charlevoix, III, 57 ff. 
 
 32 Mary of the Incarnation, 589. 
 
 33 Edits, II, 6; Jugements et deliberations, I, 8, 64, 170, 186, 188. 
 
76 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 the country, since killed whilst defending with great valor Fort 
 Serin on the confines of Croatia against the Turks, 34 that the 
 king to satisfy them, resolved not only to recall him, but even 
 to leave them the choice of another governor. They then set eyes 
 on Sieur de Mezy, Major of the town of Caen, who openly pro- 
 fessed to lead a pious life and whom they doubtless believed 
 would be guided by their opinions. But they found themselves 
 mistaken in their calculations when he was in possession of the 
 government; for divers passions of anger and avarice, which he 
 had concealed in the beginning, burst forth, as they represent, 
 to the great detriment of the King's service and of the colony; 
 several times he suspended and reinstalled, according to his 
 pleasure, the officers of the Sovereign Council; but what seems 
 essential in this dispute is, that within twenty-four hours time, 
 he caused Sieur Bourdon, Attorney-general, and Villeray, Coun- 
 cillor, to embark and depart; since it was impossible for the 
 king to approve this violent conduct, His Majesty ordered com- 
 missions to be issued to the said Sieur de Tracy, and Sieur de 
 Courcelle, whom he sends in the place of said Sieur de Mezy; 
 and to Talon [orders are sent] to take information, by means 
 of persons not suspected of partiality, of the truth of the com- 
 plaints made against him, and in case they be well founded, to 
 arrest him, to prosecute and to complete his trial unto definitive 
 judgment exclusively, and to send him afterwards a prisoner to 
 France since this is a satisfaction the king deems due to his 
 justice and to the peace of the people in these quarters. 35 
 
 When Talon arrived in Quebec Mezy had been dead four 
 months; the last part of the instructions had not to be car- 
 ried out. Notwithstanding the assertion in the beginning of 
 the instruction, the Jesuits had no hand in the selection of 
 Mezy. 36 The various arbitrary acts of the governor, labelled 
 by Colbert as ' 'divers passions of anger and avarice," need 
 not be recounted here, but, suffice it to note, the governor 
 had endeavored to get the Jesuits of Quebec to take sides 
 in his quarrel with the bishop, and although they strove to 
 
 34 Cf. J.-E. Roy, Rapport sur les Archives de France relatives 
 a Vhistoire du Canada, Ottawa, 1911, 776. 
 
 35 Louis XIV's instructions to Talon, March 27, 1665, AC, B 1:76- 
 76v, AE, Mem. et Doc, Amerique, 5:146-146v, Clement, IIP, 391, 
 RAPQ, 1931, 6, translation with slight changes from NYCD, IX, 25. 
 
 ae Cf. Letter of Mezy to the Jesuits of Quebec, February 29, 
 1664, AC, F 3, 3:300, printed in Parkman, Old Regime, 415; [Soeur 
 Franchise Juchereau de St. Ignace], Histoire de VHotel-Dieu de Que- 
 bec, Montauban, [1751], 148-149; Faillon, III, 67, 98; Eastman, 66. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 77 
 
 live at peace with both, without offending either, Mezy 
 chose to look upon them as the leaders of the opposition. 
 His secret memoirs addressed to Paris "excited suspicions 
 which it was subsequently very difficult for some to lay 
 aside." The contents of his memoirs are set forth by Charle- 
 voix as well as the grounds Which gave the accusations 
 some color of truth: 
 
 He had insisted especially and strongly on the great influence 
 which the Jesuits had in the colony; and as the court had hith- 
 erto scarcely interfered in the affairs of New France, which it 
 had in some sort abandoned to the Canada Company, and as 
 the Relations annually received from that country, and widely 
 circulated, spoke much of those missionaries, whose functions 
 obliged them to enter into all matters that concerned the In- 
 dians, many persons were convinced that the governor's com- 
 plaints were not unfounded: they judged what was by what 
 might be, and concluded that men who enjoyed so great an 
 influence would, naturally speaking, use every endeavor to pre- 
 serve it, and might at times abuse it. 37 
 
 Among the persons whose suspicions were aroused was 
 the minister, who, it has been said, recognized power when 
 he saw it. The last words of Charlevoix' quotation give the 
 real state of affairs. Naturally speaking, the Jesuits might 
 abuse their power, might prefer theirs to that of the king, 
 might even overshadow royal authority and set it at 
 nought. But between this possibility and the actual seizure 
 of power, there was a wide difference. Charlevoix is here 
 expressing what was in the mind of Colbert and of the king, 
 namely, that there might be an abuse, a fact clear from 
 subsequent instructions given to the governors and intend- 
 ants. In each one the possibility is mentioned, but nowhere, 
 in spite of assertions by writers with a thesis to prove, is 
 the too great temporal authority of the Jesuits positively 
 asserted as actual by either the king or the minister. Charle- 
 voix continues: 
 
 M. Colbert, accordingly, deemed it necessary to recall him 
 [Mezy], reserving to himself to take precautions to limit the 
 power of the ecclesiastics and missionaries in case it was shown 
 
 37 Charlevoix, III, 175. 
 
78 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 it went too far; and in this view, he prepared to select for the 
 colony officers of a character not to give any ground of excep- 
 tion in their conduct, and who would not suffer any to share with 
 them an authority with which it behooved them to be invested 
 exclusively. 38 
 
 The memoirs of Mezy are thus the source of the oft 
 repeated accusation of preponderant authority the Jesuits 
 had acquired in Canada. The contents of these memoirs can 
 be judged from the request presented by Father Le Mercier 
 to Tracy, Courcelle, and Talon, begging these officials to 
 have a juridical investigation made of the charges. The 
 Jesuit asked for an inquiry in order to find out 
 
 Whether it be true that the Bishop and the Jesuit Fathers are 
 secretly and cleverly enriching themselves by selling brandy to 
 the Indians for their peltries . . . ; that the Jesuit Fathers will 
 not allow the Indians to be ruled by the laws of His Majesty, in 
 which disobedience they find great advantages . . . ; that the 
 religion of the Indians exists only in imagination; that they are 
 only become Christians through expediency and because of the 
 presents made to them; beyond this show of Christianity they 
 are as deeply sunk in their errors as they were before, and they 
 practice them everyday. 
 
 "If to become a criminal, it is enough to be accused, 
 there is not one innocent man in the world," said Father 
 Le Mercier. The accuser should prove his accusation or be 
 declared a calumniator and treated as such. All he asked 
 was that the truth be made manifest, and "our Society, 
 here and in France, purged of the calumnies" sent to the 
 mother country by the Sieur de Mezy. Tracy dissuaded the 
 Jesuits from pursuing this affair and from demanding a 
 public investigation and reparation "because these accusa- 
 tions are in a letter written to the king which is supposed 
 to be secret, and they cannot be struck out, and secondly, 
 because they [Tracy, Courcelle, and Talon] had written 
 advantageously to His Majesty for our justification. So all 
 is well." 39 
 
 38 Ibid., cf . Relations inedites, xxiv. 
 
 30 Rochemonteix, II, 528-530, printed the document in full. 
 
the brandy trade 79 
 
 Section 2. During Talon's Two Terms 
 All was not well. It is a pity Father Le Mercier allowed 
 himself to be dissuaded by Tracy from having the matter 
 investigated. The justification sent by the three officials, as 
 the sequel proved, did not have the same effect as a judicial 
 investigation would have had, especially with judges as able 
 and as different as Tracy and Talon. 1 The letter of Tracy 
 spoken of by Father Le Mercier has not been found, but he 
 certainly wrote, 2 and he spoke to the king and to Colbert 
 upon his return to France. 3 There are not enough letters of 
 Courcelle to form an opinion. The letters of Talon, how- 
 ever, are extant, and his attitude toward the two questions, 
 the too great authority of the Jesuits and the brandy trade, 
 can be studied in his correspondence. In the king's instruc- 
 tions to the intendant before he left for Canada, we read: 
 
 Sieur Talon will be informed, that those who have made the 
 most faithful and disinterested report on the said Country, have 
 always stated that the Jesuits, whose piety and zeal have con- 
 siderably contributed to attract thither the people who are at 
 present there, 4 have assumed an authority there that transcends 
 the bounds of their true profession, which must regard only 
 consciences. To maintain themselves therein, they were very glad 
 to nominate the Bishop of Petraea, who was entirely dependent 
 
 iCf. Talon to Colbert, October 4, 1665, AC, C 11A, 2:147v; 
 RAPQ, 1931, 35; NYCD, IX, 32. Tracy ordered Mezy's accusations 
 deleted from the registers of the Sovereign Council, Faillon, III, 162. 
 It is difficult to follow Eastman's reasoning in this connection. "He 
 [Mezy] was making secret accusations against the Jesuits . . . and 
 it is possible that the missing documents were intended to substan- 
 tiate the charges contained in his letters to the king," Eastman, 68. 
 There was no need of documents for substantiation of some of the 
 charges. If the bishop and the Jesuits had carried on an open brandy 
 trade in Quebec, could "such a state of affairs have escaped the 
 sharp eye of Talon?" as Eastman himself asks further down, 87. 
 Owing to the destruction of M6zy's papers, "justice was never done 
 him," R. D. Cahall, The Sovereign Council of New France, New 
 York, 1915, 33, is readily granted, if justice done to a calumniator 
 is thereby meant. 
 
 2 Mary of the Incarnation, 239, Colbert to Talon, April 5, 1666, 
 AC, C 11 A, 2:206v; RAPQ, 1931, 46; NYCD, IX, 44. Cf. Rochemon- 
 teix, II, 381, note 2, quoting the letter of thanks of the General to 
 Tracy. 
 
 •Colbert to Talon, February 20, 1668, AC, C 11 A, 3:12v; RAPQ, 
 1931, 93. 
 
 4 Cf. Salone, La Colonisation de la Nouvelle-France, 66-73. 
 
80 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 on them, 5 to discharge the Episcopal functions, and they have 
 nominated 6 even up to the present time, the King's governors in 
 that country, where they have made use of all appliances pos- 
 sible to have those recalled who had been chosen for that office 
 without their participation; 7 so that it being absolutely neces- 
 sary to preserve in a just equilibrium the temporal authority 
 resident in the person of the king and in those who represent 
 him and the Spiritual, which resides in the person of the said 
 Bishop and Jesuits, in such a manner always as that the latter 
 be subordinate to the former, the first thing Sieur Talon shall 
 well observe and on which it is proper that he have correct ideas 
 on leaving here, is, to understand perfectly the actual position 
 of these two authorities in the country, and that which they 
 ought naturally to occupy. 8 
 
 Clearly, the minister or the clerk who wrote these in- 
 structions had in mind what Mezy had written. The preced- 
 ing year de Lionne had already warned Tracy to take care 
 not to suffer the Jesuits to encroach on the authority con- 
 
 s Cf . supra, page 75, note 28. 
 
 e Printing this section of Talon's instructions, Suite grandi- 
 loquently asks: "Will any one dare deny this affirmation signed by 
 Louis XIV and his minister Lionne?" Somebody did dare. A compa- 
 triot of Suite, Thomas Chapais, who had a much better knowledge 
 of the history of Canada, and who did not take his cue from Margry, 
 showed that "in reality, no governor, not a single one, owed his nomi- 
 nation to the influence of, or friendship with the Jesuits," Jean Talon, 
 43. Suite's verbiage stood him in lieu of proofs. He apparently la- 
 bored under the illusion that the signature of Louis XIV made in- 
 fallible pronouncements of every statement above it. 
 
 7 "Did they have Champlain, who died in office, recalled ? Did 
 they have Montmagny recalled, who was recalled after twelve years, 
 because the Court had declared not to leave governors so long in 
 office? Did they have d'Ailleboust recalled who had been appointed 
 for three years and who remained in office that length of time? Did 
 they have Lauzon recalled, who left without orders from the king 
 before his term expired? Was it not d'Argenson himself who asked 
 Lamoignon to choose his successor? Had not d'Avaugour been re- 
 called because of his conflict with Laval over the brandy trade? It 
 is really regrettable that such thoughtless and inexact assertions 
 should slip into a document bearing the royal signature," Chapais, 
 Jean Talon, 44. With regard to subsequent recalls of governors, in- 
 teresting sidelights are found in the following letters of M. Tronson 
 to Remy, April 27, 1684, n. 246, to Dollier, May 1, 1689, n. 406, and 
 to Belmont, May 30, 1690, n. 420. Cf. also Dudouyt to Laval, May 
 26, 1682, ASQ, Lettres, Carton N, no. 62, Dudouyt is speaking of the 
 recall of Frontenac. 
 
 s Memoire du roi pour servir d'instruction a Talon, March 27, 
 1665, AC, B l:75-76v; AE, Mem. et Doc, Amerique, 5:145-145v; 
 RAPQ, 1931, 5; NYCD, IX, 24. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 81 
 
 fided to him by the king. 9 Talon was requested to annotate 
 each of the articles of his instructions. That quoted above 
 was the second, and his remark was : 
 
 To answer to the second article. ... I say that the short time I 
 have been in Canada has not yet enabled me to acquire a perfect 
 knowledge of the conduct the Jesuits have followed in the 
 past. However, having carefully observed whether they are at 
 present using the spiritual authority to weaken the temporal 
 authority which must reside only in those persons who repre- 
 sent the king, I have noticed they fairly well [assez] remain 
 within the limits of their profession; and until now, I have not 
 observed them anxious to meddle with public secular affairs. 10 
 Should their conduct in the future confirm or reverse my pres- 
 ent opinion, I shall have the honor of letting the king know it. 
 There is, however, reason to hope they will help to fulfill the 
 intentions of His Majesty for the establishment of the Colony 
 no less than they are actually fulfilling his intentions for the 
 advancement of the glory of God. These are the two main pur- 
 poses of His Majesty, and I believe, the two principal ends of 
 my mission. 11 
 
 Talon did not write differently to Colbert. 12 The minister 
 
 9NYCD, IX, 22; cf. AC, C 11 A, 2:102v-103. 
 
 io Gratuitous assertions might be passed over, were it not that 
 silence might be taken for acquiescence. If the Jesuits did have, for 
 a time, a share in the civil government of the colony, who was re- 
 sponsible except the civil power itself? In 1647, when the Superior 
 of the mission was made a member of the Council of Quebec, the 
 Jesuits had not asked for it, and they doubted whether they should 
 accept it, Journal des Jesuites, 93. In 1656, they appealed to the gov- 
 ernment in Paris, asking that the Superior be discharged of this 
 function, Correspondance echangee entre les autorites francaises et 
 les gouverneurs et intendants, Quebec, 1893, 104. In 1661, Governor 
 d'Avaugour wrote to the Prince of Conde: "J'ay mis a la teste d'un 
 conseil general pour le ceruisse du roy et le bien du peis le reuerend 
 pere Ragnaust [Ragueneau] le quel a l'honneur d'estre connu de 
 vostre Altesse et avec trois austres tous les iours deslibere des afaires 
 publiques, par son merite i'ay creu ne pouvoir rien de mieus, sy 
 locasion s'en ofre ie suplie uostre Alt. d'octoriser cette conduite et 
 d'estre tout persuade" que les iSsuites qui ont plus trauuaie pour le 
 peis," cited in Rochemonteix, II, 527. The Jesuits themselves did their 
 best to be rid of the honor, Journal des Jesuites, 302. Some Jesuits 
 may have been avid of power, and Father Ragueneau was one of 
 them, but their confreres were the first to blame them, Rochemon- 
 teix, II, 184, 197-198. 
 
 uRAPQ, 1931, 11. 
 
 12 Talon to Colbert, October 4, 1665, AC, C 11 A, 2:143; RAPQ, 
 1931, 32; NYCD, IX, 29; cf. Charlevoix, III, 84. 
 
82 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 expressed himself satisfied, and replied that His Majesty 
 was very happy to learn both from Tracy and Talon how 
 the Bishop of Petraea and the Jesuits have only in view the 
 advancement of Christianity in the colony. 13 The Jesuits in 
 Quebec were just as pleased with Talon as the intendant 
 was with them. They praised him unanimously in their let- 
 ters to the general of the Order, and he, Father Paul Oliva, 
 sent a few words of congratulations to the intendant thank- 
 ing him for his kindness toward his subordinates in New 
 France. 14 Talon's reply has been preserved in the archives 
 of the Order: 
 
 Very Reverend Father, 
 
 It would be a source of great consolation to me if the letter 
 which you did me the honor to write had as much foundation 
 in truth as it is kind and obliging. I receive so many tokens of 
 urbanity from the Fathers of your Society in New France, and 
 I make such small returns for their good will toward me that 
 it is for me a source of confusion, especially after such signal 
 testimonies of benevolence on your part. The future will perhaps 
 enable me to make reparation for the past by rendering a few 
 useful services to your Company. Its titles to my services are 
 several: — its continual striving to promote the glory of God, 
 the honor of the king, and establishment of the colony. It is not 
 easy for me to make due acknowledgments on behalf of His 
 Majesty and on my own for their care in this occupation. My 
 first education received in their schools under their obliging 
 care calls for all my gratitude. 15 * If I had retained the fruits of 
 the instruction they gave me, I would have the honor of sending 
 you a latin letter. Although I have become a bad pupil of good 
 masters, I still retain the will of being of service to your Society. 
 This I beg you humbly to believe, and to be persuaded that I 
 honor and respect you as much as I can. 
 
 Very Reverend Father, your most humble and 
 
 Most obedient servant 
 
 Talon. 16 
 
 13 Colbert to Talon, April 5, 1666, AC, C 11 A, 2:206v; RAPQ, 
 1931, 46; NYCD, IX, 44. 
 
 14 Rochemonteix, III, 84. 
 
 is According to Rochemonteix, III, 83, Talon went to the Jesuit 
 College de Clermont, Paris. 
 
 i6 Talon to Oliva, November 10, 1666, ASJ, Gal. 110, III, 366- 
 366v; Rochemonteix, III, 34, note 1, printed this letter, reprinted in 
 BRH, XXXVII, 1931, 659. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 83 
 
 When Talon wrote this letter to the General of the Jesu- 
 its, he had been more than a year in New France. The 
 intendant had arrived imbued with family prejudices 
 against the Jesuits. 17 He had been urged by Colbert to put 
 an end to their "ambition" and to break the alleged spirit 
 of domination of the missionaries. 
 
 After a few months in Quebec, in spite of his prejudices 
 and notwithstanding the proddings of Colbert, Talon had 
 enough courage and was honest enough to write the truth 
 to king and minister. One year after his arrival, when he 
 had become better acquainted with the conditions in the 
 colony, Talon wrote to the General of the Jesuits in this 
 wise : his subordinates' occupation concerned itself with the 
 glory of God, the honor of the king, and the progress of 
 the colony; it was his duty to inform the king of the good 
 effects this Jesuit occupation had on the colony; and he 
 himself, Talon, felt bound to acknowledge such good effects. 
 There is not the slightest indication of insincerity on the 
 part of the intendant in these letters. Yet, some have 
 pointed out, three days after he wrote to the General of the 
 Jesuits, the intendant wrote a letter to Colbert which reads 
 quite differently. After having asked to be recalled because 
 of ill health, and because he did not wish to remain in 
 Canada without such help as Tracy had given, he continued : 
 
 Well do I know that everybody is not pleased with my admin- 
 istration here; and this, coupled with my own indisposition, in- 
 duces me to ask the king for my discharge. Should you wish to 
 know who they are who may be dissatisfied with my conduct and 
 wherefore, the Chevalier de Chaumont and the general agent of 
 the Company will be able to acquaint you, and to inform you 
 that if I would leave the Church on the footing of authority I 
 found it, I should experience less trouble and more approbation. 18 
 
 Eastman points to this passage for an expression of 
 misunderstanding between Talon and Laval. 19 Chapais con- 
 fesses his ignorance of what this misunderstanding might 
 be, whether the intendant and the bishop differed with 
 
 17 Cf. Chapais, Jean Talon, 4-7. 
 
 is Talon to Colbert, November 13, 1666, AC, C 11 A, 2:228; RAPQ, 
 1931, 61; translation from NYCD, IX, 57, revised. 
 is Eastman, 104. 
 
84 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 regard to the tithes or to the brandy trade. "At any rate, 
 this complaint of Talon shows that already at the end of 
 1666 harmony was not perfect." 20 There is no reason for 
 including the Jesuits in the "Church" spoken of by Talon. 
 The intendant did not contradict himself after an interval 
 of three days, for when he spoke of the Jesuits he called 
 them by their name. 
 
 In his letter of November 13, 1666, Talon had proposed 
 to Colbert as his successor, Octave Zapaglia, Sieur de Res- 
 san, the secretary of Tracy. 21 Again in 1667, he said he 
 would prepare Ressan to take over the duties of intendant 
 when relief came. 22 The following day, August 26, 1667, 
 Talon sent an autograph letter to the minister. Tracy was 
 returning to France, and the intendant warned Colbert that 
 
 What M. de Tracy will tell you . . . may give you the impression 
 which, were you to act upon it, might determine you to issue 
 some orders or regulations prejudicial to the service of the 
 king with regard to the establishment of this colony. Until the 
 arrival of my secretary [in France], I feel obliged very humbly 
 to beg of you to suspend your decision with regard to what will 
 be told you [by Tracy] concerning the Church, the authority of 
 which far from diminishing has taken on new strength and has 
 made itself so redoubtable, that, I dare say, as long as it re- 
 mains as I see it now, you, my Lord, and those who will have the 
 honor of serving under your orders here, will have much trouble 
 to make the good intentions of His Majesty for the increase of 
 this colony prevail. This increase will always be much retarded 
 by the fear the Church has instilled, and whose rule might be 
 said to be too despotic and overstepping the limits. 23 
 
 This letter does not indicate in what respect the Church 
 had overstepped the limits and had encroached upon royal 
 authority. In October 1667, the intendant again wrote to 
 Colbert but was not more specific. The example set by 
 His Majesty of his respect for the Church, he said, will be 
 imitated in Canada, and "I dare hope the interests of God 
 
 20 Chapais, Jean Talon, 148. 
 
 21 Talon to Colbert, November 13, 1666, AC, C 11 A, 2:229v; 
 RAPQ, 1931, 53. 
 
 22 Id. to id., August 25, 1667, AC, C 11 A, 2:298v-299; RAPQ, 
 1931, 74. 
 
 23 Id. to id., August 26, 1667, AC, C 11A, 2:302-302v; RAPQ, 
 1931, 76. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 85 
 
 will be taken care of in such a manner that you will hear 
 no complaints, that is, just complaints, because I know how 
 baseless recriminations may be sent you, above all by those 
 who want to confuse what comes under the jurisdiction of 
 the magistrates with what comes under that of the ecclesi- 
 astics, which I know you do not tolerate." 24 Chapais thinks 
 that Talon still bore a grudge because of the Sainte-Famille 
 affair, which had occurred during the Carnival of 1667. 25 
 The intendant had to retreat. Said Chapais: "If there was 
 encroachment upon this occasion, it was encroachment of 
 the civil on the spiritual powers." 26 
 
 Over and above this explanation by Chapais, clearly the 
 brandy question had caused a change of front on the part 
 of Talon. The intendant "partially conditioned the prosper- 
 ity of new France on the brandy trade." 27 He resented any 
 opposition to what he believed tended to increase the wealth 
 of the colony. He apparently failed to see that the sale of 
 brandy to the Indians might not in the long run be bene- 
 ficial even to the material interests of Canada. Although the 
 liquor traffic is not mentioned in his letter, it was, to his 
 thinking, a matter which "came under the jurisdiction of 
 the magistrates" exclusively. Yet, Talon was too intelligent 
 to repeat the statement that ultimately the opposition to 
 the traffic came from the Jesuits who controlled the bishop. 
 The intendant knew Laval as a bishop who in this as in all 
 other matters, would not accept a course of conduct dic- 
 tated by others. Talon had written to Louis XIV and to 
 Colbert that if the Jesuits — as distinguished from the other 
 ecclesiastics of Canada — made any attempt to weaken the 
 temporal authority or to meddle with public secular mat- 
 ters, he would not fail to let the king and the minister 
 know, and Talon, we can rest assured, would not have hesi- 
 tated to write accordingly if such had been the case in 1667. 
 
 In the same letter of October 27, 1667, the intendant had 
 occasion to speak of the Jesuits. If they had been the 
 "Church" he spoke about, he would have mentioned them 
 
 24 Id. to id., October 27, 1667, AC, C 11 A, 2:315v; RAPQ, 1931, 
 83. 
 
 25 Chapais, Jean Talon, 195. 
 
 26 Chapais, The Great Intendant, Toronto, 1914, 87. 
 
 27 Rochemonteix, III, 86-87, cf. Gosselin, II, 80. 
 
86 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 specifically. In 1666 he had clashed with the missionaries 
 in Quebec with regard to their land grant near the town. 
 In virtue of the king's eminent domain, Talon had appro- 
 priated some of this land to form three villages. He wrote 
 to Colbert: 
 
 I do not know how I stand with the Jesuit Fathers since I dis- 
 pelled their hopes that the seignory of the lands which I took 
 from them to form these villages would turn to their advantage. 
 I know, however, they are sorry, but they have [enough] pru- 
 dence not to show it.' 28 
 
 The Jesuits had asked for confirmation of a land con- 
 cession they possessed near Montreal, the Prairie de la 
 Madeleine. Talon, in the same letter says he had granted 
 it to them after conferring with Courcelle. All that was 
 needed was the king's ratification : 
 
 It depends on you, my Lord, to grant it to them; I think you 
 can do this without any injury to his Majesty's interests, unless 
 the tract seems to you too large [two by four leagues], but they 
 should be obliged to secure letters patent from His Majesty on 
 account of the hospice they wish to build on this concession. 29 
 
 All these letters were brought to Colbert at the end of 
 1667 or the beginning of 1668 by Patoulet. 30 "Your secre- 
 tary," wrote the minister, "has arrived and has given me 
 your memoir of October 27, together with your notices of 
 the 25, 26, and 27 of the same month as well as another 
 memoir containing all the things which you deem necessary 
 for Canada in the present state of affairs of that colony." 31 
 
 28 Talon to Colbert, October 27, 1667, AC, C 11A, 2:309v; RAPQ, 
 1931 79 
 
 '29 Id. to id., October 27, 1667, AC, C 11 A, 2:309v; RAPQ, 1931, 
 79. On the hospice referred to by Talon, cf. Memoire de la main de 
 M. de Tracy sur le Canada, 1667, AC, C 11 A, 2:327v. 
 
 so Memoire a resoudre pour le Canada, AC, C 11 A, 2:9. Regard- 
 ing this document see next note. 
 
 si Colbert to Talon, February 10, 1668, AC, C 11A, 3:11. A few 
 words about this letter of Colbert will clarify what is said in the 
 text. It was undoubtedly dictated to a scribe who used special abbre- 
 viations, a kind of shorthand, and is almost undecipherable. The 
 version in RAPQ, 1931, 91 ff. was very helpful, but there are pas- 
 sages in which another reading seemed preferable. By the memoir 
 of October 27, Colbert meant the letter of Talon, AC, C 11 A, 2:306- 
 320v, RAPQ, 1931, 77-86. There does not seem to be letters extant 
 of Talon for the 25, 26, and 27 of the "same month," but there are 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 87 
 
 A passage in this letter of Colbert refers to the Sieur de 
 Ressan. In view of what will be said about a memoir at- 
 tributed to Talon, it seems well to give in detail all the 
 references to the Jesuits in the intendants' letters for 1666 
 and 1667. 
 
 Colbert had previously written to Talon about de Ressan, 
 the successor the intendant had in view, telling him to have 
 Ressan send a memoir to Paris. 
 
 In order that I might know his character by myself. Have him 
 send me an account of the state of affairs in the colony, with the 
 means he thinks practical to better and increase it. From his 
 account I shall be able to form my judgment on his capacity, 
 whether he possesses the needed qualities to govern people. But 
 the suggestion to write to me must appear as if it came from 
 you, without letting him know it is I who desired him to write. 32 
 
 With Colbert, the administration of France and New 
 France came before every other consideration. Talon had 
 insistently asked leave to return to France. Although the 
 minister had the highest regard for Talon, he likely thought 
 the intendant in his eagerness to go back to France might 
 have overrated the qualities of the Sieur de Ressan. Ap- 
 parently Ressan sent his views to Colbert. After reading the 
 memoir, the minister wrote to Talon: 
 
 As I [always] give to the king an account of everything, I can- 
 not fail to inform him of the essential points of this memoir, 
 and his Majesty judged that he [Ressan] showed too much ani- 
 mosity against the Bishop of Petraea and the Jesuits. There is 
 
 two letters of August 25, and 26, 1667, AC, C 11 A, 2:298-301v, and 
 302-303v, respectively, RAPQ, 1931, 74-77. The "other memoir" 
 spoken of by the minister is Talon's memoir of October 29, 1667, AC, 
 C 11A, 2:322-325v; RAPQ, 1931, 87-88. The only letter not accounted 
 for is the second letter of October 27. It seems plausible that the 
 scribe misunderstood the minister, or that the latter's dictation was 
 faulty. In this volume of the Correspondance Generate, just before 
 the dictated letter, there is a document in the handwriting of Colbert 
 entitled by the minister: Memoire a resoudre pour le Canada. II est 
 necessaire que le Roy ait la bonte de repondre promptement aux ar- 
 ticles de ce memoire attendu que les vaisseaux qui vont en ce pays la 
 doibvent partir au mois de mars prochain, AC, C 11 A, 3:8-9. The 
 items of this memorandum are taken from the four letters and mem- 
 oirs of Talon of August 25, 26, October, 27, 29. 
 
 32 Colbert to Talon, April 6, 1667, AC, C 11A, 2:290v. On O. Za- 
 paglia, Sieur de Ressan, cf. Bulletin des Recherches Historiques, 
 XXVIII, 1922, 74. 
 
88 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 no likelihood of the intendancy of a distant country like Canada 
 being given to a man with such a turn of mind, all the less since, 
 even though all he advances were true, and there is much that is 
 doubtful, it would not be prudent to bring up again an evil which 
 has been, for no matter what his remedy might be, it would al- 
 ways have worse effects than the evil itself. The duty of a gov- 
 ernor and of an intendant must consist in tempering this evil 
 [three or four illegible words] without irritating it and without 
 having recourse to extreme measures against the said Bishop of 
 Petraea and the said Jesuit Fathers, even if they had abused 
 the power which their garb and the respect people naturally have 
 for religion gives them. [The remedy should rather consist] in 
 private conferences with them, tending to limit their power as 
 much as can be, confining them within the bounds of their legiti- 
 mate authority. There is hope that when the country shall be 
 more populated . . . the authority of the king will prevail over 
 the other [spiritual], and will easily confine the spiritual within 
 its just limits. To which I shall only add that it would be 
 against common sense to irritate the king with the ideas of 
 Sr. de Ressan, secretary of M. de Tracy, for these ideas are 
 entirely opposed, or better, entirely contrary to those [expressed] 
 by the said Sieur de Tracy. 33 
 
 The present writer has not found any memoir whose 
 author is indisputably Ressan. But there is a memoir 
 which has been dated 1667 and attributed to Talon, and 
 this contained the type of "animosity against the Bishop 
 of Petraea and the Jesuits" referred to by Colbert in his 
 letter to the intendant. A brief criticism of authorship and 
 date of this memoir is important because of the use some 
 writers made of it. It will be shown that it was certainly 
 composed at a later date, and that the author of the 
 memoir, whoever he may be, was not Talon. 
 
 It was first published in 1840 by the Literary and His- 
 torical Society of Quebec from a copy brought to Canada 
 by Lord Durham. According to a note in the margin of the 
 document, said the editor, "it is evident that it was com- 
 posed by Talon, who, in 1667, was intendant of justice, 
 
 33 Colbert to Talon, February 20, 1668, AC, C 11 A, 3:12v; RAPQ, 
 1931, 93. Cf. in the same letter, f. 14v. RAPQ, 1931, 94, the recom- 
 mendation the minister makes to Talon to warn Courcelle not to 
 imitate Sieur de Ressan: cf. Garneau, I, 199. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 89 
 
 police, and finances in Canada." 34 With regard to the date 
 and the author, Chapais wrote: "This memoir has been 
 attributed to Talon by our [Canadian] historians, Garneau 
 and Ferland, as well as by Parkman. ... In spite of some 
 doubts which presented themselves to our mind, we follow 
 the common opinion, and we hold Talon as the author of 
 this memoir." 35 But, said Chapais, the marginal date is 
 faulty. Instead of 1667, which the copyist read, he should 
 have read 1669, that is, when Talon was making himself 
 ready to return to Canada for his second term as intendant. 
 From internal evidence the historian of the great intendant 
 then shows the document to have been wrongly dated. He 
 quotes from the subdivision of the memoir labelled "War," 
 which reads: 
 
 The said troops, four companies of seventy-five men each, officers 
 included, are distributed as follows: In Montreal, spearhead of 
 the colony, two companies. A Fort St. Louis on the Richelieu 
 River, two other companies from which thirty men have been 
 detatched [to man] Fort Ste. Anne, the most advanced outpost 
 toward the Iroquois country, and twenty men, plus a sergeant 
 [have been detached to man] Fort St. Jean. 36 
 
 But, argued Chapais, until the fall of 1668, there were 
 twenty-four companies of soldiers in Canada, namely, the 
 four regular companies of colonial troops, and the twenty 
 companies of the Carignan regiment. As this unit went back 
 to France in the fall of 1668, 37 obviously the document was 
 Written after this date. If Talon had written or dictated the 
 memoir in 1667, he would not have omitted to mention the 
 twenty companies of the crack regiment. 
 
 A further examination of the document reveals that it 
 was undoubtedly written in 1669. When Talon was ordered 
 to return to Canada for his second term, he requested: 
 'That similarly funds be set aside for this year's [1669] 
 
 34 Collection de M6moires et de Relations sur I'histoire ancienne 
 du Canada, published by the Literary and Historical Society of Que- 
 bec, Quebec, 1840, II, n. 1, reprinted in 1873; again printed as a part 
 of Talon's correspondence in RAPQ, 1931, 63-66. 
 
 35 Jean Talon, 196, n. 1. 
 
 36 RAPQ, 1931, 66. 
 
 37 Cf. Colbert to Talon, April 5, 1667, AC, C 11 A, 2:291; RAPQ, 
 1931, 68; Talon to Colbert, October 29, 1667, AC, C 11A, 2:322; 
 RAPQ, 1931, 87; Memorandum of Colbert, 1668, AC, C HA, 3:8. 
 
90 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 subsistance of the four companies of seventy-five men each, 
 officers included, which remained in Canada." 38 
 
 Besides, the section of the anonymous memoir entitled 
 "Nobility" reads as follows: 
 
 The nobility is composed of four ancient noblemen and of four 
 other heads of families whom the king honored last year with 
 letters of nobilities. 
 
 Beside this number, there may be a few more noblemen among 
 the officers who have settled in the country. As this small num- 
 ber is not considerable enough to uphold, as they are naturally 
 obliged to do, the authority of the king and his interests in all 
 things, my sentiment is that it would be increased by eight 
 more selected from among the most meritorious and best inten- 
 tioned persons, leaving the names [on the letters of nobility] in 
 blank as it was done last year. 39 
 
 The four heads of families spoken of are Godefroyd, 
 Denys, Amyot and Le Moyne. 40 The letters of nobility were 
 granted to these well deserving Canadians by the king in 
 1668. 41 
 
 From external evidence, nothing can be deduced as to 
 authorship or date. 42 The document, nine and a half pages 
 long, is in the hand of a copyist without signature or date. 
 The title reads: Memoire sur VEstat present du Canada. 43 
 On the upper left-hand corner, a later hand added in pencil, 
 M. Talon, Canada. This is the only external indication of 
 authorship. Contrary to Chapais' belief, based on the word 
 of the editor of the copy brought to Canada by Lord Dur- 
 
 38 Memoir of Talon on Canada, 1669, AC, C 11 A, 3:49-49v; 
 RAPQ, 1931, 99. 
 
 39 AC, C 11A, 2:358-358v; RAPQ, 1931, 65. 
 
 40 Talon to Colbert, October 29, 1667, AC, C 11 A, 2:324-324v; 
 RAPQ, 1931, 88; id. to id., November 10, 1670, AC, C 11 A, 3:110v; 
 RAPQ, 1931, 138-139. Letters of nobility were granted to a fifth Ca- 
 nadian, the Sieur Dupont, spoken of in this letter of Talon in May 
 1669, AC, B 1, 129-130v; BRH, XXXIII, 1927, 129-130; they were 
 engrossed in the registers of the Sovereign Council, March 24, 1670, 
 Jugements et deliberations, I, 601. Tracy had also proposed a list of 
 honors after his return to France, AC, C 11 A, 2:328-329, AC, C 11 A, 
 3:8v; those whom Talon recommended were ennobled. 
 
 41 Cf. [Daniel], Histoire des grandes families frangaises du Ca- 
 nada, Montreal, 1867, 153, the decree ennobling Le Moyne. 
 
 42 AC, C 11 A, 2:355-359v. 
 
 43 The title given in RAPQ, 1931, 63, Memoire de Talon sur 
 V6tat present du Canada, (1667), begs the question. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 91 
 
 ham, there is no date in the margin. In the volume of the 
 Correspondance Generate, it is found between an anonymous 
 memoir protesting against Talon's plan to form a company 
 of Canadians for the monopoly of trade, 44 and another mem- 
 oir, 45 the last one in this volume, which was written after 
 1710. 46 
 
 A comparison of this anonymous document with Talon's 
 memoir of 1669 shows that whoever wrote the first had 
 access to the latter. Beyond some definite items which the 
 anonymous writer culled from Talon's memoir, 47 clearly the 
 memorialist only had a vague knowledge of the state of 
 affairs in Canada. Chapais wrote of his doubts about the 
 authorship of the anonymous document, 48 but he did not 
 state the reasons for his doubts. Well may one question 
 Talon's authorship when one reads the opening paragraph: 
 
 Canada is a vast country of different latitudes capable in its 
 various climates and sun exposures of producing without excep- 
 tion all that France produces, having like France a warm climate 
 in the south, a cold climate in the north and in the middle a 
 temperate climate between these two extremes. 49 
 
 It is difficult to imagine Talon beginning a memoir for 
 perusal by the king and Colbert and this when he was ready 
 to go back to New France for his second term of office as 
 intendant, with such childish commonplaces. The entire first 
 division of the memoir is in keeping with the introductory 
 lines. Everything is vague, indetermined, general, in strong 
 
 44 Memoire sur le commerce du Canada et sur la proposition 
 faite par M. Talon de former une compagnie de gens du Pays po. 
 faire seuls le commerce, AC, C 11 A, 2:351-354v. 
 
 45 Observations faittes par Delino Conseiller au Conseil Superieur 
 de Quebec sur les difficultez qui se rencontrent en ce pays dans l'Exe- 
 cution de certains articles des Ordonnances de 1667. 1669. Et 1681. 
 avec quelque Remarques sur lesquelles il seroit tres apropos de sta- 
 tiier, AC, C 11A, 2:360-370v. 
 
 46 Some one dated this memoir 1667. "Comrae la chose est ar- 
 rived une ou deux fois du temps de Monsieur Raudot; Et une fois 
 depuis son depart," AC, C 11A, 2:362v. The younger Raudot left 
 Canada in 1710; his father left in 1711. 
 
 47 Compare AC, C 11A, 37, RAPQ, 1931, 108, with AC, C 11A, 
 2:356v, RAPQ, 1931, 64; f. 49-49v, p. 99 with f. 359, p. 66; f. 51, 
 p. 100, with f. 357, p. 64; f. 51v, p. 100, with ff. 358-358v, p. 65; f. 52, 
 p. 100, with ff. 357-357v, p. 64-65; etc. 
 
 48 Jean Talon, 196, note 1. 
 
 49 AC, C 11A, 2:355; RAPQ, 1931, 63. 
 
92 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 contrast to the clear, pointed, and specific writing of the 
 intendant in documents unquestionably his own. Talon's 
 primary function was the administration of justice in the 
 colony. The author of the memoir evinces a jejune knowl- 
 edge of this branch of colonial government, and, startling 
 enough, says there is little to amend in the administration 
 of justice, "if the king by his authority had the code ob- 
 served." Talon had charge of the police and finances, yet 
 the memoir mentions neither. Added to these cardinal facts 
 is a charge against the clergy of Canada which takes up 
 one-third of the memoir and, moreover, reveals the "ani- 
 mosity" of the Ressan memoir so deprecated by Colbert in 
 his letter to Talon. When all is taken into consideration, 
 only one conclusion can be drawn — the memoir was not 
 written, or composed, or dictated by Talon. Nowhere in his 
 correspondence is there found anything approaching the 
 "animosity" shown in this memoir. 50 The author, it would 
 appear, was bent upon airing some views about the clergy 
 of Canada. He had a few items of information gathered 
 from Talon's memoir of 1669, and around these he wrought 
 some elaborate embroidering until the picture of the Jesuits 
 engaged in their commerce, hampering the consciences of 
 the faithful, and encroaching like the clergy on the royal 
 authority, stood forth clearly enough to suit whatever pur- 
 pose he had in mind. 
 
 For the king and for Colbert who were so much in touch 
 with clerical affairs in Canada, the memorialist's descrip- 
 tion must have been enlightening. 
 
 The clergy of Canada is composed of a bishop, having under 
 him nine priests and several clerics, and of the Fathers of the 
 Society of Jesus, thirty-five in number, most of whom are em- 
 ployed in the Indian missions. This work is worthy of their zeal 
 and of their piety, if they are exempt from the self-interest to 
 which, people say, they are not averse, witness the trade which, 
 people assure, they carry on in the Ottawa country and at the 
 
 so Cf . Talon's annotations to the instructions given by the king, 
 AC, C 11 A, 3:39; RAPQ, 1931, 110, and the memoir he sent to Col- 
 bert, November 10, 1670, AC, C 11 A, 3:85v-87; RAPQ, 1931, 126-127. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 93 
 
 Cap de la Madeleine; of this, however, I have no certain 
 knowledge. 51 
 
 The memorialist apparently had no certain knowledge 
 of a number of things a former intendant should have had. 
 Talon had visited the Cap de la Madeleine in the fall of 
 1667, he had seen everybody, talked to every one, 52 but had 
 not mentioned the Jesuits as tradesmen. Evidently he did 
 not hear "people say" such things. Nowhere else in the 
 intendant's correspondence can there be found even so much 
 as an allusion to trade carried on by the Jesuits, either at 
 the Cap de la Madeleine, in the Ottawa country, or in any 
 other part of New France. 
 
 The rest of this section of the anonymous memoir deals 
 with the "ecclesiastics" of Canada and is on a par with the 
 paragraph pertaining to the Jesuits, except in the treatment 
 of the Sulpicians, who found grace and favor in the eyes of 
 the writer. The manner of life of all these priests — diocesan 
 clergy and Jesuits — for all that appears exteriorly is well 
 regulated, we are told. They would wish every one in the 
 colony to imitate them but this is not possible; those who 
 do not conform to their way of life, who do not think as 
 they do, who do not bow under their authority, "which they 
 extend even over temporal affairs, meddling with external 
 regulations which are of the province of the civil magis- 
 trate," those then who disagree with these ecclesiastics in 
 such matters easily incur their ill-will. 
 
 There is ground to suspect . . . that they aim to share the 
 
 si AC, C 11A, 2:356-356v; RAPQ, 1931, 64. Italics inserted. A 
 blank space was left by the memorialist for the number of the Jes- 
 uits in Canada, to be filled in probably when he had a "more certain 
 knowledge." Cf. for the number of Jesuits in Canada, Talon's memoir, 
 L'etat du Canada en general, 1669, AC, C 11A, 3:37; RAPQ, 1931, 
 108. 
 
 52 "They are bringing to you the most exact possible census of 
 all the inhabitants of all age and sex who are in this colony. J myself 
 took it at Montreal, Three Rivers, and at the Cap de la Madeleine, 
 as well as at all the places which are above Quebec. J went from 
 door to door to every house," Talon to Colbert, October 27, 1667, AC, 
 C 11A, 2:311v; RAPQ, 31, 80. Italics inserted. The intendant "went 
 from house to house throughout the whole Island [of Montreal] in 
 order to inquire from each of the inhabitants, even from the poorest, 
 whether they were treated with justice and equity, and in order to 
 see if the poverty of some required his liberalities and his alms," 
 Dollier de Casson, Histoire du Montreal, 109. 
 
94 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 temporal authority, which will until the arrival of the troops in 
 Canada resided principally in them. To this evil which goes so 
 far as to hamper and constrain the consciences of the people 
 ... a remedy may be applied in order to counterbalance with 
 moderation and skill such authority by that which resides in 
 those persons sent by His Majesty to govern the colony, which 
 has already been done, in allowing them to send back to France 
 one or two ecclesiastics who show less respect for that temporal 
 authority, and whose conduct in this matter is the cause of the 
 great disturbance in the colony; in admitting four ecclesiastics, 
 secular or regular, with full power to administer the sacraments 
 undisturbed, else they would be useless to the colony, for if they 
 did not conform to what those who are here now do, the bishop 
 would forbid them to administer the sacraments. To be better 
 informed of the constraining of the consciences, M. Dubois, chap- 
 plain of the Carignan regiment who heard several confessions 
 secretly and by stealth, may be consulted, as well as M. de 
 Bretonvilliers, with regard to what he heard from the priests 
 of his seminary of Montreal. 53 
 
 Strangely enough, nowhere else is there any allusion to 
 these priests, disturbers of colonial peace, who had so little 
 respect for the temporal authority residing in the persons 
 sent by His Majesty to govern the colony. That Talon re- 
 sented the opposition of Laval to the brandy trade need not 
 be elaborated, and that the torturing of the consciences 
 and the encroachment on civil authority by the ecclesiastics 
 consisted purely and simply in the uncompromising attitude 
 of the diocesan clergy and the Jesuits with regard to the 
 same traffic is clear from the previous and subsequent ac- 
 tions of the intendant, but that he wrote the memoir an- 
 alyzed in the previous pages is hardly conceivable. 
 
 After Mezy had broken with Laval, the disorders caused 
 by the brandy trade reappeared. 54 By tolerating the com- 
 merce, the governor knew he would vex the bishop and the 
 Jesuits. Tracy enforced the orders of the king with regard 
 to the traffic; 55 whereas Courcelle acted less energetically 
 than the Viceroy Tracy, when the latter departed for 
 
 ss AC, C 11A, 2:356v-357; RAPQ, 1931, 64. 
 
 54 Journal des Jesuites, 323 ; Jugements et deliberations, I, 174, 
 181. 
 
 55 Jo urnal des Jesuites, 353; AC, C 11 A, 2:171-171v; Jugements et 
 deliberations, I, 368. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 95 
 
 France. The governor was in favor of the trade. It was the 
 uncompromising stand of the Jesuits which caused his ill- 
 will toward them once Tracy was gone. 56 From then on, 
 there was nobody to check the ardor of the two officials, 
 Courcelle and aTlon. Talon's ideas prevailed, and later the 
 intendant was said to be the cause of the renewed brandy 
 traffic troubles, "inasmuch as the day he was ready to leave 
 for France, he ordered the removal of all the penalties and 
 ordinances, of which the tribunals and those who had 
 wielded the authority in the colony had made use to repress 
 the disorders caused by the too great quantity of liquor 
 given to the Indians which for thirty years had always been 
 opposed by ordinances, fines, etc." 57 
 
 Commerce was uppermost in the mind of Talon and its 
 moral aspects did not trouble him very much. He gradually 
 changed his mind with regard to the brandy trade, becom- 
 ing more affected by the specious arguments and immediate 
 advantages of the traffic, and less bothered by the moral 
 evils flowing from it. His opposition to the brandy trade on 
 beginning his term is evidenced by his signing the ordi- 
 nances against it, 58 although like the good Gallican he was, 
 Talon considered the excommunication previously launched 
 against the traffickers an encroachment on the civil power. 
 Through his growing influence, 59 the Council became more 
 and more reluctant in prosecuting the offenders. 60 The cli- 
 max came on the eve of his sailing for France. 61 Talon as- 
 sembled the Sovereign Council, and had it annul — which, 
 
 m Lalemant to Oliva, February 12, 1668, quoted in Rochemon- 
 teix, III, 87, n. 1, "Moderatores politici [namely, the governor and the 
 intendant] . . ." 
 
 57 Report on the Canadian Archives for 1885, ci-ciii. Dudouyt is 
 here referring to the ordinance of November 10, 1668, Jugements et 
 deliberations, I, 434. 
 
 ss Jugements et deliberations, I, 368, 474-476. 
 
 so Ibid., I, 433-434, 447, 457-458, 531, but especially 448 and 449, 
 and Chapais, Jean 'Talon, 234. 
 
 en The death penalty was replaced by fines and corporal punish- 
 ment, Jugements et deliberations, I, 368; investigations were ordered 
 made about infractions, ibid., 370-371, 373; contraventions were pun- 
 ished with confiscation of the liquor, ibid., 410, or a small fine, ibid., 
 422-423. There are no records of prosecution for violation of the 
 ordinance of February 29, 1668, ibid., 474-476, and yet it was not be- 
 cause violators were lacking, Faillon, III, 390-392. 
 
 6i Report on the Canadian Archives for 1885, ci-ciii. 
 
96 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 it must be said, the members did most willingly 62 — all pre- 
 vious ordinances, life penalties, and declare trade in liquor 
 with the Indians open to all the French inhabitants of New 
 France. 63 The Council, quite in favor of the trade, mani- 
 fested its distaste for disorders by forbidding the Indians 
 to get drunk. 64 Laval naturally refused to sign such a de- 
 cree. 65 It was indeed quite naive on the part of the members 
 of the Council to expect the Indians to be moderate, since 
 all they sought was precisely granted, namely, enough 
 brandy for complete intoxication ; thus inebriated they com- 
 mitted crimes and thought they could plead irresponsibility 
 for any act committed while under the influence of liq- 
 uor, 66 for they willfully got drunk to perpetrate all sorts of 
 punishable offenses and crimes. 67 The ordinance caused such 
 a recrudescence of disorders that Laval at Easter time, 
 1669, made the sale of brandy to the Indians a reserved 
 case; 68 and, in June, the Council modified the brandy legis- 
 
 62 The Council favored the freedom of the brandy trade in order 
 that "les meillieurs habitans [puissent] beneficier du promct qu'ils 
 pourroient faire," rather than leave this profit to the coureurs de 
 bois and others of their ilk, Jugements et deliberations, I, 535. Dol- 
 lier de Casson had also heard the excuse: "But I shall be told that 
 if the brandy trade with the Indians is forbidden to the gens de 
 bien, they will perish from hunger, cold and want and let all the 
 profits go to conscientiousless men who will sell liquor without dis- 
 cretion," Histoire du Montreal, 114. Cf. in Faillon, III, 438-439, the 
 letter of Villeray and Garribon to Colbert. 
 
 63 La Tour, 85, claims that Talon had received a letter from 
 Colbert directing the intendant to allow the freedom of the brandy 
 trade. This is a gratuitous assertion for which there is no foundation. 
 If the minister had given such directions he would not have failed to 
 mention them in his instructions to Bouteroue or in his conversa- 
 tions with Dudouyt. 
 
 64 Jugements et deliberations, I, 534-536. 
 
 65 Tilly, one of the Councillors, also refused to sign. Laval's re- 
 fusal to sign the ordinance was his protest, Eastman, 128. 
 
 66 "Among the Savages, drunken Persons are always excus'd: 
 for the Bottle atones for all Crimes," Lahontan, New Voyages, I, 
 124. Cf. Lafitau, Moeurs des Sauvages . . . , II, 486. 
 
 67 Cf. Boucher, Histoire veritable, 98, 119; Histoire de V eau-de- 
 vie, 1; Relations inedites, II, 41, 42; Le Clercq, Nouvelle Relation de 
 la Gaspesie, 426, etc. 
 
 68 La Tour, 82. "We reserved to ourselves [the absolution] of the 
 sin committed by those who make the Indians drunk, by those who 
 sell or give liquor to take away in sufficient quantity to make them 
 drunk, unless it is morally certain that these and their fellow Indians 
 will not get drunk," Mandements, I, 77. This "reservation" was a 
 further development of an episcopal declaration issued February 9, 
 1668, in which Laval reminded the people that "whatever reason 
 obliged us to lift the excommunication [of 1660, and 1662], it may 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 97 
 
 lation once more. An ordinance was issued which forbade 
 carrying brandy to the Indian villages, but allowed its sale 
 to the Indians who came to buy it in the French settle- 
 ments. 69 
 
 Talon was replaced as intendant by Claude de Bou- 
 teroue. The latter's instructions with regard to the matter 
 under consideration read: "With regard to the spiritual, 
 notices received from Canada inform us that the Bishop of 
 Petraea and the Jesuits exercised too harsh an authority 
 through fear of excommunication, and too great austerity 
 which they wish to impose upon the people." Bouteroue was 
 to endeavor to temper this harshness, but never, on any ac- 
 count, must he blame either bishop or Jesuits, because this 
 would render him practically useless in the service of the 
 king. 
 
 The commerce of wine and brandy with the Indians, called liquor 
 trade, has been a subject of perpetual disputes between the 
 Bishop of Petraea, the Jesuits, and the influential inhabitants, 
 and those who traffic in that colony. The bishop and the Jesuits 
 have maintained that these drinks intoxicate the Indians, that 
 they are never moderate in drinking; that drunkenness makes 
 them lazy in hunting, and is the cause of every sort of bad habit 
 prejudicial to both religion and state. 70 
 
 The principal inhabitants and traffickers contend, on the con- 
 trary, that the desire to have liquor in exchange for their pelts 
 forces them to go hunting with more diligence. 71 The intendant 
 must carefully examine the two contentions, and send his rea- 
 soned opinion to the king. 72 
 
 have been thought that all prohibition under pain of mortal sin was 
 also lifted. Such has never been our intention." The grievousness of 
 the sin, said the bishop, comes from its circumstances, namely, the 
 lack of self-control of the Indians when there was liquor to be had, 
 and the fearful consequences attending their drunkenness, ibid., 72- 
 73. 
 
 69 Jugements et deliberations, I, 558-559. It was not on account 
 of the disorders that the Council modified its ordinance, but because 
 the profits went to those who traded in the woods. 
 
 70 These words of Colbert were to find their way in the ordinance 
 of June 26, 1669, Jugements et deliberations, I, 558. 
 
 71 The Council in its ordinance of February 29, 1668, signed by 
 Courcelle and Talon, said just the opposite, Jugements et delib6ra- 
 tion*i I 475 
 
 72 Instructions to Bouteroue, April 6, 1668, Clement, III 2 , 404- 
 405; cf. Charlevoix, III, 120-121. 
 
98 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Two remarks may here be made concerning this passage 
 of Bouteroue's instructions. Colbert was misleading rather 
 than enlightening the incoming intendant. Many of the 
 principal inhabitants were of one mind with the bishop and 
 the Jesuits in this matter, 73 and until this date the Sover- 
 eign Council had always supported a policy of repression, 
 and Talon himself, in February, 1668, had signed a strin- 
 gent ordinance against the brandy peddlers. 74 Secondly, 
 Colbert had not yet arrived at any decision with regard to 
 the brandy trade, since Talon had not yet reached Paris. 
 
 Bouteroue wielded no such influence with the Council as 
 Talon had. From a letter of Colbert to Courcelle, the in- 
 tendant's sympathies seemingly were with those who op- 
 posed the traffic. 75 He did not remain long in New France. 
 Louis XIV and Colbert had recognized in Talon one of the 
 few persons who could make Canada a great, strong, pros- 
 perous colony. They lost no time in sending the intendant 
 back to New France. He arrived in Paris in December, 1668, 
 and the letter of the king notifying Bouteroue of Talon's 
 return is dated April 3, 1669. 76 Toward the end of his first 
 term, Mary of the Incarnation had written: "Since Talon 
 came here as intendant, the country has been more devel- 
 oped, more progress has been made, than during the whole 
 time which has elapsed since the arrival of the French to 
 Canada." 77 The same testimony is rendered by the superior 
 of the Jesuits in Quebec : "He did not cease to devote all his 
 care for the good of the whole commonwealth." 78 And in 
 truth, agriculture, industry, commerce, exploration, re- 
 ceived a strong impulse from Talon's tireless, energetic, 
 "American" activity. The progress made during his first 
 term determined Louis XIV to send him back to Canada for 
 another two years "hoping that this length of time will be 
 
 73 Cf. the petitions of the inhabitants of Cap de la Madeleine and 
 Three Rivers, April 29, 1665, AC, C 11A, 2:171-171v; Jugements et 
 deliberations, I, 340, 474. 
 
 74 Jugements et deliberations, I, 474-476. 
 
 75 Colbert to Courcelle, May 15 ? 1669, Clement, IIP, 450, cf. Juge- 
 ments et deliberations, I, 558. 
 
 76 AC, B l:117-117v. 
 
 77 Mary of the Incarnation, 634. 
 
 78 Jesuit Relations, 51, 170. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 99 
 
 sufficient to achieve all that is necessary for the good and 
 the advantage of that colony." 79 
 
 The intendant had carte blanche to send back to France 
 by the first returning ship any and all obstructionists of 
 what was "to the advantage of the colony and the good of 
 the king's service." 80 The opposition of the bishop, the 
 clergy, and the Jesuits to the brandy trade was, in Talon's 
 mind, disadvantageous to the colony, but he knew there was 
 no question of packing off to France Laval, his priests, and 
 the Jesuits. Hence some other solution was to be found. 
 Less rigid spiritual directors would be secured. 
 
 The year before, an article in Bouteroue's instructions 
 read: "He must prevent as much as possible too great a 
 number of priests, religious and nuns in Canada. It is 
 enough to have a sufficient number of them to care for the 
 spiritual needs of the settlers and for the administration of 
 the sacraments." 81 To avoid the evident contradiction be- 
 tween the recommendation given to Bouteroue and the dis- 
 patch of new ecclesiastics a few months later, the argument 
 of the two great authority, the harshness in the confes- 
 sional of those in the colony was put forward. This measure 
 was undoubtedly fathered by Talon, aware of M. de Quey- 
 lus' preaching "that it was a mortal sin to give brandy to 
 the Indians, because they only want liquor to get drunk." 82 
 Talon had also come to realize, when he was in Montreal in 
 the early summer of 1667, that the Sulpicians would be at 
 one with the clergy and the Jesuits on the brandy question. 
 Consequently, when he agreed to return to Canada in 1669, 
 he addressed a memoir to the king containing numerous 
 requests made "in order that the intendant's service be as 
 useful as His Majesty might desire." He petitioned to have 
 the king's pleasure made known with regard to each article. 
 Two of these articles read : 
 
 79 Louis XIV to Talon, May 15, 1669, AC, B 1:130; RAPQ, 1931, 
 102. 
 
 so Louis XIV to Talon, May 15, 1669, AC, B 1:132; RAPQ, 1931, 
 101-102. A similar blanket order was prepared in 1668, March 2, AE, 
 M6m. et Doc, Amerique, 5:242v, unless the date of this document, 
 a copy, is faulty. 
 
 si Instruction pour M. de Bouteroue, April 6, 1668, AC, B 1:89, 
 Clement, IIP, 405. 
 
 82 Journal des Jesuites, 233. 
 
100 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Send four good religious who do not constrain nor torment con- 
 sciences. It cannot be enough emphasized how essential this is 
 for the development of the colony which suffers much for the 
 lack of such priests. Leave to M. de Bretonvilliers to send each 
 year, two or three carefully picked ecclesiastics to take care of 
 Montreal and neighboring places. 83 
 
 It was the old Roman maxim, divide et impera. Talon's 
 choice fell upon the Recollects as possible soothers of con- 
 sciences. For the past forty years, they had been longing 
 to return to the field of their former missionary labors. It 
 is not within the scope of this study to comment upon their 
 willingness to give their support to the civil authorities in 
 a matter which clearly was of the province of morality. 
 They were heralded by the civil officials before their arrival 
 as chosen opponents of the bishop, his clergy, and the Jes- 
 uits; still they were kindly received by those whom they 
 were to oppose. 84 Thereafter, there is not one mention in the 
 letters of Talon, during his second term of office, of the 
 consciences being tortured by the bishop, the clergy, and 
 the Jesuits. 85 In his memoir of November 10, 1670, the in- 
 tendant said the clergy will be greatly relieved by the ar- 
 rival of the new laborers. After asking for the king's bounty 
 on behalf of the Recollects, he petitioned for more recruits 
 "for the more they are, the better the too entrenched au- 
 thority of the first ecclesiastics will be counterbalanced." 
 The provincial of the Recollects who had come to Canada 
 to found the convent, and who after a two month stay was 
 returning on the ship that had brought him over, was 
 charged by Talon to tell Colbert of "the constraint which 
 
 83 Memoir of Talon, 1669, AC, C 11 A, 3:52, RAPQ, 1931, 100-101. 
 Colbert wrote "bon" in the margin. 
 
 s* Talon's annotations to his instructions of May 18, 1669, AC, C 
 11A, 3:39v; RAPQ, 1931, 110; his memoir on Canada of November 
 10, 1670, AC, C 11 A, 3:85-86; RAPQ, 1931, 126-127; cf. the answer 
 of Colbert, February 1, 1671, in Clement, IIP, 517, RAPQ, 1931, 143. 
 Jesuit Relations, 53, 26; La Tour, 200; Lalemant to Oliva, Septem- 
 ber 19, 1670, quoted in Rochemonteix, III, 90, note 1; Laval's letter 
 granting faculties to the Recollects, November 10, 1670 in Sixte Le 
 Tac, Histoire Chronologique de la Nouvelle France, Paris, 1888, Ap- 
 pendix, 185. Charlevoix, III, 148, Faillon, III, 200. Cf. Chapais, Jean 
 Talon, 321. 
 
 ss On the alleged oppression of the consciences by the Jesuits, 
 see Eastman. 25-26. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 101 
 
 the Canadians had thus far endured, and how skillfully I 
 had to act with the Church to safeguard the authority of 
 king, the tranquility of the consciences in order to avoid 
 giving the clergy any pretext to murmur against me." 86 
 
 Whatever tranquillity the consciences experienced after 
 the arrival of the Recollects, the brandy question was not 
 solved. 87 The ordinance which forbade the sale of brandy 
 outside the French settlements and intoxication of Indians 
 in these same settlements, was, of course, illusory. The 
 "exemplary punishment" inflicted by Courcelle on some vi- 
 olators 88 was insufficient to deter the liquor peddlers, for the 
 profits were too great, and the risk of being caught very 
 small. Dollier de Casson complained bitterly of the renewed 
 disorders after Talon's return. To give brandy to the In- 
 dians, he wrote, was equivalent to giving a sword to a mad- 
 man. 
 
 Consider before God, whether brandy should be distributed 
 without any restriction, and whether he who gives it and he who 
 receives it will not be treated alike by that redoubtable Judge at 
 the hour of death, which will bring a great shock to all those 
 who are here daily and deliberately cooperating in this sin with- 
 out the slightest concern. Certain casuists may say what they 
 please, but I do not believe that the boldest would want to die 
 immediately after having supplied an Indian with enough brandy 
 to intoxicate him, which is the same thing as inevitably to make 
 him drunk and cause him to fall into mortal sin, according to 
 the scripture: Woe to him through whom scandal comes! 89 
 
 Section 3. During Frontenac's Term 
 Talon had been sent to New France for two years. 1 At 
 the end of this time, owing to ill health and to difficulties 
 
 se Talon's memoir on Canada, November 10, 1670, AC, C 11A, 
 3:86-86v; RAPQ, 1931, 126-127. 
 
 87 Qf . Histoire Chronologique de la Nouvelle France, Appendix, 
 200, 202, 203. 
 
 ss Margry, I, 189, NYCD, IX, 84. There is, in Jugements et deli- 
 berations, I, 544, one sentence passed against a Huron woman who 
 became intoxicated; she was not condemned because she got drunk, 
 but because while drunk she had slandered some persons. 
 
 89 Histoire du Montreal, 114, cf. Mary of the Incarnation, 642. 
 
 i Louis XIV to Talon, May 15, 1669, AC, B 1:130; RAPQ, 1931, 
 102. 
 
102 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 with Courcelle, he asked to be recalled. 2 Both the intendant 
 and the governor returned to France on the same ship, 
 1672. Frontenac, Courcelle's successor, also held the brandy 
 trade necessary as a source of revenue for the royal treas- 
 ury, for the development of commerce and industry, and for 
 the general prosperity of the colony. The traffic was an in- 
 dispensable means to attach the Indians to the French, and 
 to prevent them from selling their pelts to the English and 
 Dutch. 
 
 By 1673 the article of the ordinance of 1669 which pro- 
 hibited carrying brandy to the Indian villages had become a 
 dead letter; the number of coureurs de bois had increased; 
 liquor was being peddled even in the farthest recesses of the 
 then known New France. This recrudescence led the priests 
 to remind the people that giving brandy to the Indians was 
 a reserved sin and that the declaration of the bishop was 
 still in vigor. Frontenac complained to the minister of a 
 Jesuit who took this as the subject of his sermon, an al- 
 together inopportune reminder, he wrote, for "only two 
 weeks before I had forbidden, under stronger penalties than 
 any other governor ever issued before, bringing brandy to 
 the Indians." 3 Later in the same letter he requested a deci- 
 sion to be rendered while Laval was in Paris, because this 
 refusal of absolution "extremely hampers the consciences. I 
 have told them [the Jesuits] I was writing to you about this 
 and could not in the meantime omit to carry out what M. 
 Talon had established in Canada by order of His Majesty." 4 
 No matter what the Jesuits might say concerning the 
 drunkenness of the Indians, he, Frontenac, could not see 
 why, "provided the Indians were not given brandy in order 
 to make them drunk and by this means to get their peltries 
 cheaper," it was more sinful to give brandy for their wares 
 
 2 Talon to Colbert, October 31, 1671, AC, C 11A, 3:157v; RAPQ, 
 1931, 150; November 2, 1671, RAPQ, 1931, 153; Louis XIV to Talon, 
 May 17, 1672, AC, B 4:58; RAPQ, 1931, 167. 
 
 3 Frontenac must be referring here to his ordinance of Septem- 
 ber 27, 1672, Archives of the Province of Quebec, cf. that of Novem- 
 ber 5, 1674, AC, F 3, 4:329. The ordinance in 1672, however, was not 
 directed specifically against the brandy traffic, but against the 
 coureurs de bois, and against those who went to the woods to trade 
 with the Indians without a permit. 
 
 4 Talon had received no order from His Majesty to grant com- 
 plete freedom to the brandy traders. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 103 
 
 than for the Bordeaux merchants to sell their wine to the 
 Dutch and English, who, in their own country, get just as 
 drunk as the Indians in Canada. 
 
 That was precisely the difficulty; the Jesuits could not 
 persuade Frontenac, because the governor did not want to 
 be persuaded, and had withal a very good reason for refus- 
 ing to be persuaded. Frontenac made here a noteworthy 
 avowal by giving some of the reasons why the Jesuits op- 
 posed the unrestricted brandy trade. Besides the disorders, 
 the missionaries wanted to protect the Indians against the 
 unscrupulousness of traders who made the natives drunk in 
 order to cheat them. Frontenac added: 'With regard to the 
 excesses and disorders, the Jesuits cannot impose upon me, 
 after what I learned in the voyage I made this spring 
 [1673] to Lake Ontario, where were assembled all the Iro- 
 quois nations — whom perhaps no missionary had ever seen 
 — and where I did not notice anything extraordinary or 
 scandalous, although a few young Indians for four days 
 drank much brandy obtained from the English and brought 
 thither, because none of the French with me had dared to 
 give them any in view of my commands to the contrary." 5 
 
 This is an example among many of the kind of argu- 
 ments used by Frontenac. The boast of having seen Indians 
 on whom missionaries never set their eyes, may be passed 
 over. Frontenac conveniently forgot how those mission- 
 aries had been instrumental in determining the Iroquois 
 braves — whom perhaps they had never seen — to meet the 
 governor at Cataracouy. 6 The excesses complained of by 
 the Jesuits were denied existence, because he noticed noth- 
 ing extraordinary at Cataracouy after a few Indians had 
 drunk much English brandy. Against these non-existent dis- 
 orders and excesses, Frontenac himself had to issue an or- 
 dinance three months later. 7 
 
 Colbert made answer the following year to Frontenac's 
 petition to have the brandy question settled in Paris: "As 
 for the brandy trade, it is a police matter, which pertains to 
 
 s Frontenac to Colbert, November 13, 1673, RAPQ, 1927, 32. 
 6Cf. Relations inedites, I, 345-348; Margry, I, 239 ff\; NYCD, IX, 
 96, etc. 
 
 7 Faillon, III, 491. 
 
104 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 the judges and to the Sovereign Council, but it is difficult 
 to enter into the consciences of people." 8 It was much more 
 than a matter for the police; a moral issue was involved. 
 It belonged to the province of the civil tribunals to prevent 
 the upset of good order by brawling drunkards ; and to pre- 
 serve red and white men alike from drunken Indians run- 
 ning amock in the villages. 9 But it was also a moral ques- 
 tion. It concerned directly the consciences of people and 
 priests alike and thereby came within the province of the 
 Church, because first, the brandy trade, as understood by 
 the merchants, the coureurs de bois, and the governor him- 
 self, was the cause of intolerable moral disorders, and sec- 
 ondly, because it threatened to ruin irretrievably the infant 
 Church in New France. Frontenac and his followers, mainly 
 those who profited by the trade, had every motive either to 
 deny the existence of the disorders, or to minimize the 
 havoc wrought by brandy among the Indians. 10 They knew, 
 indeed, that if they admitted its existence, the king would 
 not countenance the continuation of a trade so prejudicial 
 to the true interests of the Indians. Louis XIV would have 
 spurned revenues acquired at such a price. Frontenac, on 
 the other hand, would have agreed with Vespasian that 
 money does not smell. 
 
 Laval's use of spiritual weapons to stem the evil was 
 commended by the doctors of the Sorbonne, 11 and was ap- 
 proved by every upright man in Canada, but not by the rel- 
 atively small, but highly vocal faction of merchants and 
 peddlers whose coffers were being filled by the trade, and — 
 
 What above all causes great injury to Religion at this time, was 
 
 s Colbert to Frontenac, May 17, 1674, RAPQ, 1927, 57; cf. Louis 
 XIV to Frontenac, April 22, 1675, ibid., 82. 
 
 s Cf. Le Clercq, Nouvelle Relation de la Gaspesie, 431-432. 
 
 io The registers of the Sovereign Council testify to the existence 
 of these disorders caused by brandy, cf. Jugements et deliberations, 
 I, 171, 368, "dans les derniers desordres que l'yvresse puisse pro- 
 duire," ibid., 475. It was to prevent those disorders that the Council 
 allowed every Frenchman in New France to sell brandy, ibid., 535. 
 It was because of the disorders that the ordinance of 1668 was modi- 
 fied in 1669, ibid., 558, etc., arid the brandy sellers whose "petit com- 
 merce" caused the disorders, were for the most part officers and sol- 
 diers, cf. Faillon, III, 390-393. 
 
 ii Mandements, I, 94. Gosselin printed the answer of the Sor- 
 bonne theologians in his Vie de Mgr de Laval, II, Appendix, 679-683. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 105 
 
 the opposition of the Recollects to the principles of Mgr de 
 Laval and of the Jesuits with regard to the sale of brandy to 
 the Indians. The ideas of Frontenac and of the politicians of the 
 day would at last triumph! Priests had been found who were 
 of the same opinion as they, who extolled those ideas, and came 
 out as the defenders of those ideas. What had been maintained 
 until now against the bishop and the Jesuits was not so evil 
 after all; and the Jesuits, in showing themselves so uncompro- 
 mising with regard to the brandy trade, had only in mind the 
 tyrannization of the consciences of the people. 
 
 To give an idea of the attitude of the Recollects toward 
 Laval and the Jesuits, the historian of the first Bishop of 
 Quebec continues, quoting from a letter sent by the vicar- 
 general to the bishop : 
 
 One of the principal and best intentioned among the Recollects 
 said yesterday, that the trouble came because there was no 
 agreement on the fundamental principle of the whole question, 
 namely, the bishop and the Jesuits forbid others to sell brandy 
 so as to have the trade of liquor all to themselves. These good 
 Fathers are so convinced of this that no matter what one may 
 say to them, they will not change their mind. And this is not 
 only said among themselves, but convinced of this, they hawk 
 it about to people outside their community, to the Court, while 
 M. de Frontenac, and those who think as he does, publish it all 
 over France and Canada. You can judge what effect all this 
 produces. 12 
 
 12 Gosselin, II, 90-91, the quotation is from a letter of Dudouyt to 
 Laval, dated June 15, 16, 20, 1681, ASQ, Lettres Carton N, no. 59. 
 The passage in question is dated June 20. Cf. Sixte Le Tac, Histoire 
 chronologique de la Nouvelle-France, Appendix, 189: "L'utilite* du 
 commerce des eccl£siastiques, l'establissement de leur credit en excu- 
 sant leurs creatures & excommuniant les autres & leur attache a 
 toutes leurs pens6es sont les veritables motifs de cette deffence . . . 
 La Sorbonne auroit repondu comme l'Universite" de Tholoze si le fait 
 eust este expose" sans passion. . . ." Those who petitioned the Tou- 
 louse theologians had asked whether the bishop could make the sale 
 of brandy to the Iroquois and the Mohicans a reserved case, even in 
 case the vendor was morally certain that, bringing the brandy to 
 their villages, these Indians would get drunk there, but not in 
 French territory. The brandy trade which Laval and the Jesuits 
 opposed was emphatically not that mentioned by the petitioners to 
 the theologians of the University of Toulouse. The good faith and 
 sincerity of these gentlemen is well illustrated by this example, and 
 one can judge how much store can be set on the sentence "si le fait 
 eust este expose" sans passion." Experience has shown that one can- 
 not be too much on guard against those who feel the need to re- 
 assert in and out of season their standing foursquare with the truth: 
 
106 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Moreover it has been observed that: 
 
 In estimating the importance to be attached to this Recollect 
 conviction one must remember that in 1681, these monks were 
 the allies and the proteges of Frontenac and the friends of La 
 Salle, with very slight personal knowledge of the Indian mis- 
 sions. Considering how closely the bishop contained them to 
 
 "Et Comme ceux qui proposent ce cas de conscience scavent bien 
 qu'ils se tromperoient eux mesmes s'ils imposoient a ceux qu'ils con- 
 sultent, ils supplient les personnes qui auront la charite d'y rSpondre 
 de mettre leur ame en repos en s'asseurant aussi de la verite de 
 l'hypothese." It may be noted in passing that this petition was cer- 
 tainly not presented to the University of Toulouse by the Jesuits. In 
 it we find stated that the Iroquois are not in French territory. Two 
 years later, Frontenac was to accuse the Jesuits of acknowledging 
 the sovereignty of England over the Iroquois country, infra. East- 
 man, 283, discussing the Histoire de l'eau-de-vie en Canada by M. de 
 Belmont, quotes the Sulpician, saying: "The University of Toulouse 
 was consulted, but its decision favored the traffic"; and Eastman 
 adds in note: "Perhaps that is why we found no contemporary rec- 
 ord of it." The petition to and the decision of the University of 
 Toulouse taken from a contemporary record has been in print since 
 1888, Histoire chronologique de la Nouvelle France, Appendix, 187- 
 188. The reason why it was not publicized is rather because the 
 petitioners had distorted the facts, not because it favored the traffic. 
 To explain certain gaps in the evidence it seems that the "disappear- 
 ance" of documents is resorted to a little too often. The Jesuits and 
 their supporters are usually given as those who spirited away docu- 
 ments which would damage their cause. It is forgotten, it seems, 
 that those who first had access to the documents took good care 
 that as many as possible which showed their heroes in a rather poor 
 light should "disappear." Cf. de Villiers, UExpedition de Cavelier de 
 la Salle dans le Golfe du Mexique, 1681^1681, Paris, 1931, 60; De- 
 langlez, The Journal of Jean Cavelier, Chicago, 1938, 11-18. For years 
 it has been said that the First Establishment of the Faith was sup- 
 pressed because its author attacked the Jesuits. This legend arose 
 either from a misreading of the text of the Morale pratique, or be- 
 cause the writers made use of a late edition of the works of Arnauld. 
 The Morale pratique, VII, 319, (1716 edition), has: "Pendant quelque 
 temps le Libraire a apprehende pour son Livre [the First Establish- 
 ment], mais lorsqu'on a fait voir qu'il n'y avoit rien a redire, Le 
 Livre a passe, et il s'est toujours depuis vendu librement." They 
 read: "The bookseller a apprehende, feared for his book," as if the 
 text had: "The bookseller fut apprehende, was arrested on account 
 of his book," which is what is found in the 1780 Paris edition of the 
 works of Arnauld. The present writer was unable to consult this edi- 
 tion, the quotation from it is taken from Harrisse, Notes . . . , 159, 
 n. 1. "Pendant quelque temps le Libraire fut apprehende pour son 
 Livre, mais lors qu'on a fait voir qu'il n'y avait rien a redire le Livre 
 a passe\ et il s'est toujours vendu depuis librement." There were 
 three different editions of the First Establishment in two years. It 
 goes to show the accuracy of the still current fable, according to 
 which Hennepin secured the single copy which escaped destruction 
 and used it to write his New Discovery. The present writer saw a 
 dozen copies of that first, annihilated edition in the libraries of this 
 country alone. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 107 
 
 their monastery, it is fair to surmise that the aforementioned 
 accusation was based on hearsay from the party interested in 
 the sale of brandy. Moreover . . . the Recollects themselves aban- 
 doned their early attitude on this subject. And the Sulpicians, 
 who were equally prone to criticize the Jesuits, found no fault 
 with their conduct in the fire-water controversy. 13 
 
 As was seen this stupid calumny had already been aired 
 by Mezy. Ten years before the Recollects were "convinced" 
 of the reasons why the bishop and the Jesuits were opposed 
 to the brandy traffic, Dumesnil had written in the same 
 vein: 
 
 The liquor trade with the Indians was by common consent aban- 
 doned to the bishop who, knowing that his censure [excommuni- 
 cation] was abusive and null, went to the Council, and with the 
 help of his vicar-general and of Father Ragueneau, Jesuit, 
 opened an office, installed an employee, and paid him a salary 
 of 500 livres. This employee is giving brandy to the Indians for 
 their peltries, and thus the bishop hopes to get all the profits of 
 the fur trade for himself. 14 
 
 To such arguments did the opponents of the clerics de- 
 scend — the bishop operating a liquor store! 
 
 Colbert was in a quandary. On the one hand, the mer- 
 chants of Quebec, and those who profited by the trade were 
 sending memoirs minimizing the effects brandy had on the 
 Indians; on the other hand, conditions were very bad, else 
 Laval would not have taken such a grave step. Frontenac's 
 correspondence to Paris during the years 1675-1678 is not 
 extant, and so the development of the controversy must of 
 necessity be followed in the answers of the king and of the 
 minister. In Louis XIV's letter of April 28, 1677, in an- 
 swer to Frontenac's of October 30, 1676, no mention of 
 brandy occurs. 15 From this reply apparently Frontenac had 
 begun to speak about the trade which "the ecclesiastics" 
 were carrying on. It was a new method of attack and it will 
 be dealt with below. Three weeks after Louis XIV had writ- 
 ten, the minister replied to Frontenac, telling the governor 
 that the king had ordered "to make known to you his in- 
 
 13 Eastman, 287. 
 
 i* Memoir of Dumesnil, BRH, XXI, 1915, 199. 
 
 is Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 28, 1677, RAPQ, 1927, 89-91. 
 
108 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 tention on three or four points not treated in His Majesty's 
 despatches." 
 
 With regard to the liquor question, the Bishop of Quebec has 
 had handed to me by his vicar-general a consultation of the Sor- 
 bonne, which contains facts which, if they be true, leave no possi- 
 bility of hesitation about employing all means to prevent brandy 
 being given to the Indians. But to tell you the truth, after having 
 consulted M. Talon, the Sieur Bouteroue, and in general all those 
 who have been in Canada, I found all these facts to be extremely 
 exaggerated, and the authors of the memorandum to have gen- 
 eralized from a few particular cases. I am sending this consulta- 
 tion to the Sieur Duchesneau as well as a few other consultations 
 made by my orders, and I am writing to him to show you all. 
 His Majesty wishes you to examine together all the facts con- 
 tained in the Sorbonne consultation and send him the truth in 
 a joint letter. The intention of His Majesty is that if all the facts 
 contained in this consultation are true, that is, if all the Indians 
 in all the villages get drunk, and perpetrate the crimes, the 
 murders, and other great excesses recounted therein, you must 
 find means to prevent the sending of hard liquor to the Indians. 
 But if these disorders are only caused by a few, and if they, the 
 Indians, are only a little more inclined to drunkenness than the 
 Germans are, or the Bretons in France, then His Majesty wishes 
 you and Duchesneau to make use of his authority, not indeed to 
 say directly anything against the episcopal authority, but only 
 by means of the king's authority to prevent the bishop from un- 
 dertaking anything outside the church on a matter which ex- 
 clusively belongs to the police and is subjected to the laws and 
 regulations which are, and can be made by the judges, with ap- 
 propriate sanctions. 16 
 
 Frontenac, and Talon before him, 17 persisted in asserting 
 that brandy did not cause the awful disorders which had 
 determined the bishop to make the selling or giving brandy 
 
 i6 Colbert to Frontenac, May 18, 1677, RAPQ, 1927, 92. 
 
 17 Yet Talon had realized the evils strong drinks wrought in the 
 colony. That was his reason for building a brewery, in order to re- 
 place brandy and wine with beer. He had the Council issue an or- 
 dinance to restrict the import of wines and brandy as soon as the 
 brewery be completed, Jugements et deliberations, I, 477. Talon 
 signed the ordinance of February 29, 1668, which says that "depuis 
 quelques mois en ca on a veu les sauvages perpetuellement yvres et 
 dans les derniers desordres que l'yvresse puisse produire," ibid., I, 
 475. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 109 
 
 to the natives a reserved case. These assertions, however, 
 did not necessarily imply that these officials spoke against 
 their better knowledge. They did not know better. They had 
 not lived in the Indian villages. Frontenac had seen Indians 
 in great number at Cataracouy and in Montreal for a few 
 days or at the most for a few weeks, but was ignorant of 
 what took place in the villages after the merchants had 
 brought the fire-water to the natives. 18 Naturally, the trad- 
 ers did not report the frenzied orgies, as this would have 
 been against their interests; and moreover, after they had 
 made a whole village drunk and had seized the pelts of the 
 Indians, they hied themselves to healthier surroundings. 
 
 In 1677, Colbert also wrote to Duchesneau. Frontenac 
 had said the brandy trade "was necessary to the develop- 
 ment of commerce. Yet, I see that your opinion is contrary 
 to his; that is, you say the brandy trade with the Indians 
 must be suppressed altogether." Colbert, his letter to the 
 intendant stated, had consulted Talon and Bouteroue. Talon 
 had written a memoir, which the minister was sending, to- 
 gether with other memoirs composed by "clever people" in 
 Paris. 
 
 Before siding with the bishop, you must carefully inquire how 
 many murders, assassinations, how many arson cases, and other 
 excesses have been caused by brandy since your arrival in Can- 
 ada; you must send the proofs to me, because if these things 
 really took place, you must not doubt that the king in his piety 
 will give all the necessary orders to conform with the wishes of 
 the Bishop of Quebec, and His Majesty will issue a very severe 
 order to all his subjects never to engage again in such trade. 
 
 But no proof to such excesses is forthcoming, Colbert 
 continued; far from it, the reports of those who have been 
 in Canada state the opposite. Hence it is not right to for- 
 bid a profitable trade, just because the bishop wishes to pre- 
 vent the abuse by a few of a thing good in itself. Moreover, 
 the Indians will go to trade with the heretics, with the 
 Dutch and English, if the French refuse to give them 
 brandy. Liquor attracts them, makes them come near the 
 
 is "A peine y a il une bande de sauvages dans les bois qui n'aye 
 des francois avec soy et Dieu scait ce qui s'y passe," Ordinance of 
 February 29, 1668, Jugements et deliberations, I, 475. 
 
HO FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 French, and thus they can be civilized, converted to the 
 only true religion. 19 
 
 Colbert did not scruple to repeat hypocritical arguments. 
 Every one had said brandy was the major obstacle to the 
 conversion of the Indians. This was one reason why the 
 bishop, the Jesuits, and the Sulpicians opposed it. In a few 
 months brandy set at nought the life time work of the mis- 
 sionaries. "If brandy were forbidden among the Indians," 
 wrote Dollier de Casson, "we would have thousands of con- 
 versions to report. I have no doubt that all those who fre- 
 quent the French settlements would become Catholics, but 
 this liquor has such a diabolical fascination for them that 
 all the Indians living near the French succumb to it, with 
 the exception of a few Hurons whom God has miraculously 
 preserved." 20 
 
 The attitude of officialdom in Paris with regard to the 
 fire-water controversy is reflected in M. Tronson's letters to 
 his subordinates in Canada. We find in these letters an 
 echo of what Colbert wrote to the governor and intendant 
 of New France, which is natural enough, for the Sulpician 
 was very close to the minister. Tronson believed what the 
 Sulpicians of Montreal wrote about the disorders occasioned 
 by the liquor traffic, but he knew the attitude of the minis- 
 ter revolved mainly around trade. He also knew Colbert 
 considered the reports of the excesses committed by the 
 drunken Indians extremely exaggerated. Just as Frontenac 
 a few years before, Colbert "could not be persuaded" of the 
 magnitude of the disorders. A month before the minister 
 wrote to Duchesneau as quoted above, Tronson wrote : 
 
 One more effort is to be made this year [1677] to have some 
 regulation with regard to the liquor traffic. But I don't believe 
 such regulation will be issued, unless Our Lord intervenes, for 
 they cannot persuade themselves here that brandy is the cause 
 of such disorders, and nothing said about the excesses carries 
 conviction, since no formal proofs are forthcoming. It is an affair 
 which requires much prayer, to which I see no other remedy. 21 
 
 This request for formal proofs, for a judicial investiga- 
 
 19 Colbert to Duchesneau, May 1, 1677, Clement, IIP, 619-620. 
 
 20 Histoire du Montreal, 114. 
 
 si Tronson to Lefebvre, April 5, 1677, no. 6. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE HI 
 
 tion is found in the letter of the minister to the intendant. 
 The tone of the request implies ignorance of the conditions 
 of New France. The greatest disorders, the foulest crimes 
 took place in the Indian villages, where there was no judge, 
 where there were no soldiers, no Frenchmen, except the 
 missionaries. Their testimonies were not accepted because 
 they were exaggerated. Against them was pitted Talon, who 
 just passed through Canada, and "the clever people" in 
 Paris who never went to New France. As noted before, 
 there was no likelihood of brandy peddlers reporting the 
 disorders. One need not feel overcome by the very official 
 request that a judicial inquiry be made. It betokened no 
 remarkable sincerity with regard to arriving at the truth, 
 but rather was indicative of ignorance about the conditions 
 in Canada, or of bluster. Can any one imagine the cumber- 
 some French judicial machinery or some seventeenth-cen- 
 tury Brid'oison transporting himself to the Iroquois or Ot- 
 tawa villages and quizzing the Indians on their last orgy? 
 Nothing else than ' 'formal' ' inquests would have satisfied 
 Colbert. 
 
 Judging by his letter to Duchesneau, Colbert was losing 
 patience. He had written to Frontenac that Laval's vicar- 
 general in Paris had given him the memorandum of the 
 doctors of the Sorbonne. M. Dudouyt in a long letter to 
 Laval narrated his interviews with Colbert. 22 The priest 
 had, he reported, presented himself in the public audience, 
 begging the minister to have regard for the representations 
 touching the moderation to be observed in the liquor traffic 
 with the Indians; all their Christianity and even the wel- 
 fare of the colony depended on such moderation. 
 
 He [Colbert] replied in a very loud and severe tone — which is 
 not usual in public audiences — that we were people who wished 
 to mix in affairs which did not concern us, that we wished to 
 encroach on the powers of the [civil] authorities, that we should 
 attend only to preaching, confessing and exhorting. I told him 
 
 22 Dudouyt to Laval, late in May 1677, ASQ, Lettres, Carton N, 
 48 2 , printed and translated in Report of the Canadian Archives for 
 1885, xcviii ff. After his audience with Colbert, May 12, 1677, Du- 
 douyt wrote a brief outline of the interview with the minister, and 
 promised to write more at length at a later date, ASQ, Lettres, Car- 
 ton S, no. 93. 
 
112 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 we interfered only with what concerned our ministry, and I 
 represented matters to him so that he might regulate them as 
 he should judge necessary, and, at the same time, I presented 
 the resolution of the Sorbonne, which I had in my hand, saying: 
 Here is the resolution of the six professors of the Sorbonne, in 
 which you will see the truth clearly shown, and what can be 
 done in the matter. To which he replied that he had been in 
 possession of this information for ten years; the Bishop of Can- 
 ada should attend to preaching, exhorting, etc., plainly showing 
 me he was not pleased to listen to me on this subject, &c. 
 
 M. Dudouyt then presented another petition concerning 
 the subsistence of the priests in Canada : 
 
 To this he made no precise answer, but again said I might tell 
 you that you should not meddle with other things besides 
 preaching, exhorting, etc., and thereupon dismissed me. I had 
 spoken and listened to him very quietly, although he had treated 
 me in a very austere manner, and appeared to me completely 
 prejudiced against you and all your clergy. 
 
 In this pass at arms Colbert does not get the palm. The 
 fundamental rule of fair debate is to face the question, not 
 to ignore it, evade it, or imitate the lion of the fable. Sur- 
 prisingly, Colbert did not produce the decision of the Uni- 
 versity of Toulouse. It is hardly conceivable that the brandy 
 trade apologists who presented it to the theologians of the 
 southern university did not send it to Paris. If Colbert had 
 it, and he most likely had it, it may be safely assumed that 
 he saw that the brandy trade mentioned in the petition was 
 not the one opposed by Laval and the Jesuits. If the peti- 
 tioners did not send it to Paris, why did they not make use 
 of the decision based on what they asserted were true prem- 
 ises ? 
 
 Some days after, M. de Bellinzany told me, that M. Colbert was 
 much perplexed by the question of the liquor traffic, that he 
 wished to do nothing against Religion and nothing which might 
 be prejudicial to Christianity; that he had sent for two lawyers 
 whom he had informed of the whole settlement of Canada from 
 its beginning and had caused to be read the resolution of the 
 Sorbonne in full, saying that he asked their advice with regard 
 to the liquor traffic with the Indians as a police matter and not 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 113 
 
 as a religious matter; as to the latter, he would seek other 
 advice; that the lawyers asked time till the following day. 
 
 Colbert wanted to hunt with the hounds and run with 
 the hare. He could see how brandy was prejudicial to reli- 
 gion, but he did not want commerce to suffer. He was trying 
 to reconcile his Catholicism with his mercantilism. He en- 
 deavored to separate two questions which, in this case, were 
 of their nature inseparable. When he said the question was 
 entirely political, he merely ignored the other phase alto- 
 gether, and by denying its existence convinced himself that 
 it did not exist. Whatever Lorin may assert, 23 it does not 
 appear a master stroke of political genius to deny the exist- 
 ence of a problem; neither law, nor edict, nor ordinance 
 causes a fact to vanish, even should the document emanate 
 from a great minister. The lawyers consulted promptly re- 
 turned a decision which allowed brandy to the Indians. Then 
 Colbert informed them he would seek advice elsewhere with 
 regard to the religious or moral phase of the question, as 
 though he had not already all the advice he needed. Where 
 would this advice come from? He had the decision of the 
 theologians of the Sorbonne based on facts supplied by 
 those acquainted with the conditions in the Indian villages. 
 The French bishops were clearly not competent, for the 
 conditions in Canada were totally different from those in 
 the mother country. It was precisely this difference upon 
 which the missionaries actually living with the Indians in- 
 sisted so much ; namely, the inability of the Indians to resist 
 getting drunk when enough brandy was supplied to them, 
 and their utter lack of inhibitions when they were intoxi- 
 cated. Police regulation which checked the disorders of 
 drunken Frenchmen had no effect on Indians. They were 
 not deemed responsible for their actions once under the in- 
 fluence of liquor, and at other times they were looked upon 
 as minors. The first consultation presented to the Sorbonne, 
 a decade before Frontenac arrived in Canada, asked 
 whether the bishop of Quebec was justified in excommuni- 
 cating the French who sold brandy to the Indians. For the 
 guidance of the theologians a remark was added: "The gov- 
 
 23 Le Comte de Frontenac, 176. 
 
114 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 ernors of the country cannot govern the Indians as they can 
 the Europeans ; the Indians throughout nearly the whole of 
 America are looked upon as wards and minors against 
 whom no suit can be brought. This is the reason why 
 Frenchmen and other Europeans are forbidden to sell them 
 liquor." 24 In the consultation of 1675, the petitioner pointed 
 out that the severity of the laws enacted in New England 
 was directed against the whites who sold brandy to the na- 
 tives. 25 
 
 M. Dudouyt had to wait two weeks before being granted 
 a private audience with the minister. It took place May 11, 
 1677, at Sceaux: 
 
 I was with him alone for nearly three quarters of an hour, dur- 
 ing which he spoke and listened to me patiently and even kindly, 
 except on some part pertaining to the reserved case. I was begin- 
 ning to say something, when he interrupted, and said: He knew 
 our zeal ; he wished to destroy vice to the very root ; we did what 
 missionaries ought to do, and there are many things it is neces- 
 sary to tolerate as was done elsewhere; we wished to carry 
 things to too great a perfection. 
 
 Colbert seems to have thought the missionaries* con- 
 sciences were clear after they had made their verbal pro- 
 tests ; their duty done, they should let the matter rest. With 
 regard to the toleration spoken of by the minister, it was 
 less bluntly, but no less clearly expressed in the statement 
 made by Lionne ten years before in the instructions to 
 Tracy : "The said Bishop of Petraea and the Jesuit Fathers 
 persist in their first opinions — the reserved case — without 
 reflecting that prudence, and even Christian charity, incul- 
 cate closing the eyes to one evil to avoid a greater, or to 
 reap a good more important than the evil." 26 From this the 
 more important good is clearly the increase of trade, and as 
 was later pharisaically asserted, the conversion of the In- 
 dians, who would come to the French and embrace Catholi- 
 cism, if given their fill of brandy. 
 
 Dudouyt answered Colbert : "If the disposition of the In- 
 
 24 Mandements, I, 41. 
 ™Ibid., 93. 
 
 26NYCD, IX, 22; cf. the petition presented to the University of 
 Toulouse, Histoire chronologique, 187, 188. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 115 
 
 dians with regard to liquor were like that of the people of 
 Europe, it would be unnecessary to think of following any 
 other course than the one followed everywhere else, but the 
 whole difficulty of this matter consists in properly under- 
 standing the difference between the Indians of North Amer- 
 ican and the people of Europe with regard to liquor." The 
 vicar-general then gave an example. If, he said, there is 
 brandy for two days, drunkenness will last two days, if 
 there is enough for a week, it will last a week, and not only 
 will the men be drunk but the whole village, old and young, 
 men, women, and children. The facts with regard to the dis- 
 orders were not misrepresented to the Sorbonne theologi- 
 ans. 27 Only interested persons, "who wish to have beavers 
 from the Indians by means of liquor, without respect to the 
 risk of the disorders they cause by that means, and with- 
 out regard to their own salvation or that of the Indians," 28 
 assert the contrary, or only those who think that all moral 
 considerations should give way to the development of com- 
 merce, such as Talon, who by his memoir, "had rendered 
 bad service to the Church of Canada." 29 Colbert, said Du- 
 douyt, could have inquiries made on the spot by disinter- 
 ested persons. Orders had been sent to this effect, replied 
 the minister. Dudouyt did not ask for the absolute prohi- 
 bition of the liquor traffic, but only for measures regulating 
 it. He would permit its sale in the French settlements only, 
 "where everything would be done in the sight and to the 
 knowledge of the public," to allow a moderate sale of liquor, 
 namely, not enough to make the Indians drunk. The Indians 
 themselves had presented such a petition to the governor. 30 
 Dudouyt is here undoubtedly alluding to the request 
 made in 1676 when some Hurons moved from the Prairie de 
 la Madeleine to Montreal. The chief of these Hurons, knowing 
 the weakness of his fellow Indians, in a moving plea asked 
 Frontenac to protect his people against the solicitations of 
 the brandy peddlers. "Prevent them, after having solicited 
 
 27 Cf. Mandements, I, 91-93. 
 
 28 Cf . Le Clercq, Nouvelle Relation de la Gaspe'sie, 425-427. 
 
 29 La Chesnaye, in 1693, claimed that it was in order to "chagri- 
 ner" the bishop that Talon had the Council pass the ordinance of 
 1668, AC, C 11 A, 12:380. 
 
 30 Cf . Mandements, I, 93 ; Relations in6dites, I, 37. 
 
116 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 us to drink and after having made us drunk, from writ- 
 ing our names in their books, and forbid them, when we 
 come back from our hunt in the spring, to rob us . . ." Fron- 
 tenac made a truly astonishing answer to this plea, con- 
 sidering his knowledge of the propensity of the Indians by 
 this time, and considering his power, if he were willing, to 
 regulate the traffic. He replied to this Indian chief that he 
 would make him and his people happy in Montreal, "but 
 with regard to brandy, Onontio was not the master of it. 
 It is for thee to protect thyself against the solicitations of 
 the French who want to make thee drunk ; if they rob thee 
 or do thee an injustice, thou hast only to complain to me, 
 and Onontio will see that justice be done thee . . ." 31 Such 
 petitions would be pigeon-holed by Frontenac. It would 
 never do to send them to Paris. They would refute an argu- 
 ment of great weight in government circles and one which 
 the traffickers were constantly bringing forward. 
 
 In 1678, Dollier's health had sufficiently improved to en- 
 able him to return to Canada when M. Tronson wrote to 
 him: 
 
 I saw M. Colbert who twice spoke to me about you and asked 
 me whether you were [still] in this city [Paris]. I undertook to 
 write to you to know the truth about what is happening in Can- 
 ada. Thus it is important for you to let us know whether there 
 is fear lest the Indians go to the English, if the French do not 
 give them brandy; whether you believe it would ruin the com- 
 merce of Canada ; what disorders you have heard about . . . 32 
 
 The following week Tronson wrote to M. Ranuyer: 
 
 It is important for us to be enlightened on several things about 
 which I beg you to write to me, not indeed what others may 
 say about them, but what you yourself believe. Do you think 
 most of the Indians who take brandy away with them [to their 
 villages] get drunk? Do you think if they are refused to take 
 brandy to their villages, they will go to New Netherland to get 
 it? Do you think the refusal would injure the commerce or be 
 detrimental to the trade of Canada? Or might it lead to war, 
 
 si Discours des sauvages Hurons qui demandent des Terres aux 
 Seigneurs Du Mont real dedans leur Ille, ASQ, Polygraphie, IV, n. 20. 
 32 Tronson to Dollier, May 16, 1678, no. 59. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 117 
 
 or have other deplorable consequences? Do not scruple to give 
 me fully your opinion on all this. 33 
 
 This argument, the likelihood of Indians going to the 
 Dutch and the English if refused brandy, had been used by 
 Colbert in his letter to Duchesneau. The minister again used 
 it in his interview with Dudouyt. "The French," replied the 
 vicar-general, "would not make five hundred less skins a 
 year by preserving the moderation necessary for Christian- 
 ity and the good of the colony, a very little thing to cause 
 so much disorder." It is a matter of historical knowledge, 
 that it was not the restricted brandy trade which drove the 
 Indians to the English or to the Dutch, but the rapacity of 
 the brandy peddlers, or the coureurs de bois, and their pro- 
 tectors, the merchants and the officials who profited by the 
 trade. 
 
 Colbert objected to the reserved case. Such a procedure, 
 he said, was not followed in France to prevent drunkenness. 
 Dudouyt answered the objection by saying there was a dif- 
 ference between the Indians and the Bretons, and ended his 
 report of the interview with these words: "He told me he 
 saw plainly that he could not convince me on that subject, 
 for he had prepared himself and was resolved to convince 
 me if he could, as he said and as I knew." 
 
 Dudouyt thought it better to change the subject of the 
 conversation. He advised the bishop to send a remonstrance 
 to the king, designed to show plainly and without exaggera- 
 tion the condition of affairs by going into details, for gen- 
 eralities prove nothing. He then suggested a few items so 
 the remonstrance would reveal how churches in Acadia had 
 to be abandoned on account of excesses in liquor and similar 
 causes ; the testimony of persons worthy of credit should be 
 taken in proof of the facts; the possibility of carrying on 
 the liquor trade with moderation, as in Tadoussac and else- 
 where, was to be shown ; the most important decrees and or- 
 dinances should be cited, and the petitions of the Indians 
 for restriction in the brandy trade sent ; in a word, nothing 
 should be omitted by which the truth can be made known, 34 
 
 33 Tronson to Ranuyer, May 22, 1678, no. 61. 
 
 34 That they began to gather such information is clear from the 
 sheaf of documents in ASQ, Polygraphie, IV. no. 19 to 30. these are 
 
118 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 for "I do not doubt that M. de Frontenac and those inter- 
 ested in the trade will do all that is possible to have the 
 contrary said and believed." M. Dudouyt clearly saw that 
 the liquor traffic question would not be settled this year, 
 1677. It would take some time for the inquiries which Col- 
 bert had ordered Duchesneau to make, to get to France. As 
 was seen, those who opposed the brandy trade were just as 
 eager to make the truth appear as Colbert was to know it. 
 Such reports, besides vindicating the truth of the contents 
 of the consultation presented to the Sorbonne theologians, 
 would prove moderation in brandy trade to be necessary 
 and possible. Colbert had answered nothing to Dudouyt, 
 when the vicar-general made clear that the missionaries 
 did not ask for complete prohibition, but only for a moder- 
 ate sale of liquor. 
 
 The opprobrious label of "prohibitionist" applied to the 
 bishop, his clergy, and the Jesuits by some writers who 
 have treated the question, is an inaccurate catchword, and, 
 if used seriously, it reveals a very superficial reading of the 
 evidence. A Protestant historian was the first to point out 
 the difference: "When we read of the tireless zeal of the 
 clergy in their battle against the liquor trade with the In- 
 dians, we must be on our guard against confounding them 
 with the temperance workers of our day. To the moderate 
 usage of brandy by Frenchmen, bishop and Jesuits made no 
 objection . . . Since, then, the priests had no aversion to 
 liquor in itself, for themselves or other white men, we must 
 consider all the more seriously their hostility to its use by 
 Indians." 35 Even this statement should be qualified. Neither 
 the Jesuits, nor the bishop were averse to the moderate use 
 of liquor by Indians. Just as Dudouyt inveighed against the 
 unrestricted brandy trade, so did Le Clercq, 36 so did the 
 Jesuits, and the Sulpicians. 
 
 In his letter to Duchesneau the following year, 1678, 
 Colbert clearly showed he was not in favor of moderation. 
 
 copies of ordinances of the Sovereign Council against the brandy 
 trade, extracts from laws passed in New England, the petition of the 
 Huron Indians to Frontenac, etc., all of which became useless after 
 the promulgation of the royal ordinance of 1679. 
 
 35 Eastman, 76. 
 
 36 Nouvelle Relation de la G-aspesie, 426. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 119 
 
 He wished brandy to be sold, as much brandy as possible, 
 for this would mean an increase in commerce, evidently his 
 main concern. 
 
 Duchesneau examined the memoirs of the "clever peo- 
 ple" and the memoir of Talon, sent to him in Canada by 
 Colbert in 1677. The minister received Duchesneau's reply 
 and manifested his displeasure by reproaching the intend- 
 ant for his subserviency to Laval. 
 
 When you say giving the Indians a sufficient quantity of brandy 
 to make them drunk must be forbidden, you should also say how 
 this word sufficient is to be interpreted, how much that will be 
 and who will judge. To tell the truth, such a thought should 
 never enter the mind of an intendant. Your duty was to investi- 
 gate the facts advanced by the bishop justifying his making the 
 sale of brandy a reserved case, that is to say, to have the matter 
 examined by the judges, as to whether the crimes alleged by the 
 bishop are true or not, and if they are, your duty was to punish 
 the transgressors. Thus, either the punishment would put an end 
 to those crimes, or if they should continue to be perpetrated, the 
 king would follow the sentiments of the bishop. But that an in- 
 tendant without examining the facts, should adopt an opinion 
 held nowhere else in the Christian world, can only come from 
 too much subserviency to the bishop or too much opposition to 
 the governor. 37 
 
 A memoir containing the arguments for the continua- 
 tion or abolition of the brandy trade was sent to Quebec. 38 
 The principal inhabitants were to meet to pass upon the 
 question. The memoir summarizes the arguments of both 
 sides. They have already been recited in the previous pages. 
 There is nothing either new or original in the memoir. 
 Those who opposed the unrestricted trade based their stand 
 on the propensity of the Indians to get intoxicated and on 
 the consequent inevitable disorders. The remedy suggested 
 was permission to sell only a moderate and harmless 
 amount of liquor to the natives, and not absolute prohibi- 
 tion. Nothing was said about the sale to the French, who 
 were unrestricted in their potions. The bishop and the Jes- 
 
 37 Colbert to Duchesneau, May 15, 1678, Clement, IIP, 633. Char- 
 levoix, III, 195, has a resume" of this letter. 
 
 38 Cf . Colbert to Frontenac, May 24, 1678, RAPQ, 1927, 96. 
 
120 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 uits fought for the protection of the Indians in the name of 
 humanity and religion. 
 
 The partisans of the unrestricted brandy trade brought 
 up several points : nowhere else was the sale of brandy ever 
 made a reserved case ; the alleged crimes should be punished 
 by the courts; those who sell brandy should not be held to 
 account. It would be dangerous to interdict the sale of liq- 
 uor in Canada, they claimed, as though there was ever any 
 question of taking such a measure. Since in the kingdom 
 the sale of brandy was not a reserved case, the inhabitants 
 of Canada may become inclined to look upon all the regula- 
 tions of the Church as arbitrary, and dependent upon the 
 whims and fancies of an individual bishop. It is almost a 
 waste of time to refute such logic. Brandy peddling was no 
 reserved sin in France for the simple reason that there were 
 no Indians in the mother country. A few crimes may have 
 been committeed by drunkards, it was grudgingly admitted, 
 but not enough to justify making the sale of brandy a re- 
 served case. Brandy, it was finally maintained, is a means to 
 attract the Indians to Catholicism. If the French refuse to 
 sell it, the natives will go to the Dutch and to the English, 
 and Canada will lose a profitable trade to the advantage of 
 heretics who will convert the Indians to their false reli- 
 gion. 39 "This argument, no doubt, was dashed largely with 
 hypocrisy in those who used it; but it was one which the 
 priests were largely perplexed to answer." 40 Dudouyt seems 
 to have found little difficulty in answering it, and it would 
 have collapsed of itself if Frontenac had sent the petitions 
 of the Indians begging him to forbid the sale of brandy. 
 
 The meeting of the inhabitants was held in Quebec, Oc- 
 tober 26, 1678. Twenty were summoned. The arguments of 
 their speeches are not different from those already known. 41 
 "Unfortunately, most of those who had been selected were 
 interested in the nefarious trade. Fifteen among them 
 
 39 Memoire sur la traite des boissons spiritueuses, May 24, 1678, 
 Clement, IIP, 635-637. Cf. the elaborate answer to these arguments 
 in Mandements, I, 149-156. 
 
 40 Parkman, Old Regime, 324. 
 
 4i AC, F 3, 5:75-83; Margry, I, 405-420; Jugements et delibera- 
 tions, II, 247-253. There is an excellent r£sum£ of the various 
 speeches in Eastman, 191-195. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 121 
 
 maintained that the brandy trade was absolutely necessary 
 for the welfare of the colony . . . five acted as men of char- 
 acter and voted against its continuation." 42 These five were 
 of the opinion that the brandy trade with the Indians ought 
 to be prohibited or restricted. "The majority of these com- 
 mercial men were inclined to minimize the importance of 
 the crimes caused by eau-de-vie. It was their interest to do 
 so, and, besides, living for the most part among Frenchmen, 
 they were not as well situated as were the missionaries to 
 observe the effect of a few barrels of brandy on an Indian 
 village." 43 
 
 On November 7, two councillors, Dupont and Peyras, 
 were dispatched to France with the ballot; the formal in- 
 quiries made by Duchesneau on the disorders attending the 
 brandy trade were also sent to Paris. 44 Peyras was Fron- 
 tenac's man, 45 and it needed little imagination to guess what 
 policy he would advocate in Paris. The welfare of the na- 
 tives would not weigh heavier with him than it did with his 
 master. Hence it was that Laval determined to betake him- 
 self to France and plead in person the cause of the Indians. 
 
 A difficult task awaited the bishop. He probably reached 
 France at the end of 1678 or at the beginning of 1679. In 
 March of the latter year, Tronson wrote to Dollier: "Noth- 
 ing is decided yet about the brandy question; my Lord of 
 Quebec discussed it at length with M. Colbert"; 46 and two 
 days later: "The brandy question is still on the carpet. My 
 Lord of Quebec would like very much to have a decision as 
 soon as possible to return to Canada with the first ships to 
 sail. But I don't know whether it will be settled as soon as 
 that." 47 Again sometime in May, 
 
 The brandy question encounters much opposition. Nevertheless 
 it will be settled this year. It has been referred to my Lord the 
 Archbishop of Paris and to Father de la Chaise. At the ministry 
 they have no mind to give complete satisfaction to my Lord of 
 
 42 BRH, XII, 1906, 375-376, cf. Ferland, Cours d'histoire du Ca- 
 nada, Quebec, 1866, II, 106-107. 
 « Eastman, 195. 
 
 44 Jugements et deliberations, II, 262. 
 
 45 Cf. Frontenac to Colbert, November 13, 1673, RAPQ, 1927, 80. 
 
 46 Tronson to Dollier, March 14, 1679, no. 71. 
 
 47 id. to id., March 16, 1679, no. 72. 
 
122 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Quebec. I don't know yet what the final decision will be, but it 
 will apparently not go as far as to prevent the Indians from 
 bringing brandy to their villages. My Lord of Quebec passes for 
 being too hard and too obstinate, so that little credence is placed 
 on what he says. 48 
 
 A few days before the decision was arrived at by the 
 king, Tronson wrote as follows to another Sulpician of 
 Montreal : 
 
 The greatest difficulty will be with regard to liquor, for they 
 will not issue as strict a regulation as my Lord of Quebec would 
 wish to have, because people are not persuaded that the disor- 
 ders are as universal as he says they are, and because they be- 
 lieve that this trade is necessary for the colony, hence they will 
 not easily adopt his ideas. The question has already been sub- 
 mitted to the king who sent it to my Lord the Archbishop of 
 Paris and to Father de la Chaise, and the decision may be ex- 
 pected any day now. 49 
 
 After the French prelate and the Jesuit had conferred 
 with the Bishop of Quebec, after cognizance had been taken 
 of their deliberations, Louis XIV issued an ordinance to be 
 engrossed in the registers of the Superior Council, and 
 given to the colonial authorities for enforcement. This or- 
 dinance was dated May 24, 1679, and it regulated the 
 brandy trade in New France without modifications for a 
 quarter of a century. It forbade the carrying of liquor to 
 the Indian villages distant from the French settlements. 50 
 The council in Quebec registered it on October 16 of the 
 same year. 51 Colbert wrote to Frontenac that it was drafted 
 on the conclusions reached by the Archbishop of Paris and 
 Father de la Chaise, who "assured His Majesty the Bishop 
 of Quebec would restrict the reserved case to the violators 
 of its provisions. 52 Thus there is reason to hope this great 
 
 48 id. to id., May 1679, no. 74; the words in italics are in code. 
 Cf. Tronson to La Colombiere, April 19, 1685, no. 276; and the pas- 
 sage from Tremblay's letter in Faillon, III, 160. 
 
 49 Tronson to Perrot, May 20, 1674, no. 81. 
 so Edits, I, 235. 
 
 si Jugements et deliberations, II, 320. 
 
 52 The vicar-general in Quebec restricted the reserved case in 
 conformity with the tenor of the ordinance as soon as the document 
 reached Quebec, Duchesneau to Colbert, November 10, 1680, AC, C 
 11 A, 5:54. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 123 
 
 difficulty which has lasted so long will at last be removed." 53 
 The ordinance did not satisfy either party. "My Lord of 
 Quebec brought himself [se resoud] to adopt the expedient 
 proposed by my Lord the Archbishop of Paris and to sus- 
 pend the reserved case for one year." 54 Laval certainly ex- 
 pected more stringent restrictions. If he was not fully satis- 
 fied with the ordinance, Frontenac was not satisfied at all. 
 It put a check on the unrestricted freedom of the brandy 
 trade advocated by the governor, and he considered it a de- 
 feat. His pride was hurt. His repeated and slanderous in- 
 sinuations, his attack against Laval and the Jesuits had 
 met with little success; Colbert made no reference to his 
 letters which indicates that either he or the king actually 
 believed the governor. Frontenac had recourse to a petty 
 revenge. He now vented his wrath on Duchesneau. 
 
 The initial quarrel over the respective powers of the 
 governor and the intendant had abated. The brandy ordi- 
 nance of 1679 caused a renewal of the strife. From 1679 to 
 1682 the registers of the Sovereign Council contain little 
 else than a recital of arbitrary acts, of violences, of com- 
 plaints on the part of the governor against the intendant. 
 In their letters each accuses the other of clandestine trade. 
 Colbert wrote to both, urging union and peace, blaming 
 both, threatening both. The king, too, was losing patience 
 with the cantankerous governor, especially when he learned 
 that the ordinance of 1679 was being violated. 55 Canoes 
 leaving for the Indian settlements were carrying their load 
 of brandy. 56 Furthermore, from the very beginning of his 
 term, Frontenac had been ordered to rid the colony of the 
 coureurs de bois. 57 After a flurry of zeal at the beginning, 58 
 he soon concluded he had better take no energetic measures 
 
 53 Colbert to Frontenac, May 24, 1679, RAPQ, 1927, 101; cf. Col- 
 bert to Duchesneau, May 24, 1679, AC, B 8:18v-19, Clement, IIP, 641. 
 
 54 Tronson to Dollier, June 1, 1679, no. 78. 
 ss Jugements et deliberations, II, 658. 
 
 se Cf. Frontenac's quibbling about the meaning of the ordinance 
 of 1679, Jugements et deliberations, II, 664-665, and d'Auteuil's an- 
 swer, ibid., 668. 
 
 57 Louis XIV to Frontenac, June 5, 1672; June 5, 1673; Colbert 
 to id., June 13, 1673, in RAPQ, 1927, 9, 23, 24, etc. 
 
 ss Frontenac to Colbert, November 2, 1672, RAPQ, 1927, 14; id. 
 to id., November 13, 1673, ibid., 43. 
 
124 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 against them, since their existence was too profitable. 59 He 
 himself wrote to the king that they still numbered more 
 than eight hundred, 60 while he had written to Colbert six 
 years before that only five were left. 61 Frontenac alone was 
 to blame for this state of affairs, wrote Louis XIV, for he 
 had it in his power to put an end to this plague, the greatest 
 obstacle to the colonization of New France as demanded by 
 the king. This disobedience to the stringent royal orders 
 about the coureurs de bois, together with the complaints of 
 the contractors against the governor and his disunion with 
 Duchesneau caused his recall, more than all the other com- 
 plaints about his abuse of power, and very much more than 
 the intrigues of "the Canada-mission party." 62 Any one can 
 see this for himself by reading the king's letters of April 
 29, 1680, 63 and April 30, 1681. 64 The letter sent by Duches- 
 neau, November 13, 1681, 65 the memoirs which the intend- 
 ant's secretary carried to Paris, 66 brought things to a cli- 
 max. Frontenac who had constantly ascribed disobedience 
 to the Jesuits and others was himself the king's most dis- 
 obedient servant. He could do just as he pleased, he boasted, 
 even though his head were to fall. He did not lose his head 
 but he lost his job. 
 
 Yet powerful influences were at work in Paris to prevent 
 what was considered, and was really, his disgrace. The "in- 
 
 59 There were very few condemnations from 1676 to 1681, cf. 
 Jugements et deliberations, II, 260, 263-264, 343-344, 358-359, 578-579, 
 and the letter of Frontenac to Colbert, February 16, 1674, RAPQ, 
 1927, 53. 
 
 eo Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 30, 1681, Clement, IIP, 645; 
 Duchesneau in his letter to Colbert, November 13, 1680, AC, C 11A, 
 5:178, also gives 800 men in the woods; in another memoir of the 
 intendant, of the same date, their number is said to be between five 
 and eight hundred, cf. the king's answer to Duchesneau, April 30, 
 1681, AC, B 8:81. Le Clercq, First Establishment, I, 41, wrote: "In 
 the first two years . . . you [Frontenac] have entirely destroyed the 
 bushlopers." 
 
 6i Frontenac to Colbert, November 14, 1674, RAPQ, 1927, 57, 68. 
 
 62 Lorin, 165. But for the strong assurances of Frontenac's 
 friends in Paris that he would mend his ways, Louis XIV would have 
 recalled him in 1680, RAPQ, 1927, 114. Cf. Chapais, Jean Talon, 471, 
 473. 
 
 63 RAPQ, 1927, 113-116. 
 e* Clement, IIP, 644-649. 
 
 65 AC, C 11 A, 5:290-306, 307-323; NYCD, IX, 160, Margry, II, 
 266. 
 
 66 Dudouyt to Laval, March 9, 1682, ASQ, Lettres, Carton N, no. 
 61. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 125 
 
 trigues of the Canada-mission party" had very little if any- 
 thing to do with the recall of Frontenac. There were two 
 men in Paris in a position to know, M. Tronson and M. Du- 
 douyt. The latter was the representative of Laval, the head 
 of the so-called Canada-mission party. It would be ridicu- 
 lous to expect the vicar-general to shed tears over the recall 
 of the governor, but he had nothing to do with the demotion 
 of Frontenac, except perhaps insofar as he encouraged 
 those determined to bring about the fall of the governor. 
 But M. Tronson above all was in a position to know what 
 took place in the bureaus of the Colonial Office. 
 
 Extracts from the Sulpician's letters were given pre- 
 viously, indicating which enemies were working for the re- 
 call of the governor. But his greatest enemy was Fron- 
 tenac's own pugnacious character, which rendered him un- 
 able to live in peace with those around him. In March 1682, 
 Tronson notified Dollier: 'There will be changes in Canada 
 this year. They are convinced here that the welfare of the 
 colony calls for such changes." 67 In his letter to the bishop 
 of Quebec, the superior of the Sulpicians did not enter into 
 details, since M. Dudouyt was to write them at length. 
 There is not much news, he said, "about the principal affair, 
 except that everybody very much bestirs himself, and all is 
 being prepared for a great change. It is hoped we shall 
 soon see the end. It is also hoped they will attend to this 
 business in such a manner as to be over with it or well ad- 
 vanced by next week." 68 It took longer than Tronson 
 thought, because of the bestirrings. Dudouyt, in effect, 
 wrote to the bishop. He waited two weeks before sending 
 the details of the double execution, because he had not been 
 able to get them before. 
 
 M. de Frontenac received great support from his friends. Mme 
 de Frontenac, M. de Menar, M. de L'Estrade and many others 
 have worked strenuously on his behalf. If he had not carried 
 things to such extremes he would have remained governor. 69 But 
 
 67 Tronson to Dollier, March 29, 1682, no. 154. 
 
 68 Tronson to Laval, April 2, 1682, no. 155. 
 
 69 "M. de Frontenac and M. Duchesneau are both recalled. 
 Things were so disposed that their friends who spared nothing to 
 help them were unable to be successful," Tronson to Dollier, May 15, 
 1682, no. 165. M. Tronson said practically the same thing in his letter 
 
126 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 the complaints against him have been so strong, and so well 
 proved that it was not possible to defend him. M. de Seignelay 
 has wanted to make a thorough study of this affair, the king 
 himself has desired to take cognizance of it, 70 and M. Riverin 
 has done his duty well, so that the truth being made known, it 
 was judged that peace could only be restored in the colony by 
 recalling M. de Frontenac. 71 M. Duchesneau was also recalled, 
 because after their quarrels, they did not want to recall the one 
 without recalling the other, lest the governor's authority appear 
 to be impaired, and the friends of M. de Frontenac would have 
 been too much affected if M. Duchesneau had remained as in- 
 tendant while M. de Frontenac was recalled. This does not pre- 
 vent the revocation of M. de Frontenac from being the justifi- 
 cation of M. Duchesneau's conduct. Since all he did and suffered 
 in what has taken place comes from his fulfilling the duties of 
 his charge, he is all the more praiseworthy before God and men. 
 He was well spoken of at the Court. M. Colbert Croissy will give 
 him some position, and M. Tronson will help him. 72 
 
 With the exception of Riverin, the vicar-general does 
 not supply the names of the other champions of the in- 
 tendant, but he gives the names of several of the support- 
 ers of Frontenac, who tried to foil the "intrigues of the 
 Canadian-mission party," which meant, for Lorin and con- 
 sorts, the intrigues of Laval and the Jesuits, mainly the 
 latter. Further in the same letter, after having notified the 
 bishop of the changes and spoken about the officials who 
 were going to Canada to take the places of Frontenac and 
 Duchesneau, Dudouyt wrote: "In the changes [that have 
 taken place], and in the present crisis, it has been a good 
 thing that neither the Church nor you in particular had 
 
 to Duchesneau, May 3, 1682, no. 164, and to Frontenac, June 2, 1682, 
 no. 169, when he sent his sympathies to the two officials. 
 
 70 "M. Dudouyt . . . must have told you how thoroughly M. the 
 Marquis de Seignelay took cognizance of this matter, with what zeal 
 he reported to the king, and how he applied himself to procure peace 
 to the colony," Tronson to Laval, June 9, 1682, no. 170. 
 
 7i See the letter of Seignelay to Laval, May 26, 1682 : "His Maj- 
 esty having resolved to recall M. the comte de Frontenac and the 
 Sieur Duchesneau on account of their continual divisions, he has 
 chosen M. de la Barre . . . and the Sieur de Meules . . ." as their suc- 
 cessors, AC, B 8:129. 
 
 72 Dudouyt to Laval, May 26, 1682, ASQ, Lettres, Carton N, no. 62. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 127 
 
 any share in all the quarrels which have taken place since 
 your return to Canada [in 1680]. " 73 
 
 It has been observed above how, after 1677, the Jesuits 
 well-nigh disappear from the governor's correspondence; 
 not once does he connect them with the "persecutions" he 
 underwent from his "enemies." This is significant, for if 
 they had given the least cause, or if they had shown the 
 least sign of partiality for the faction opposed to Frontenac, 
 he would likely have mentioned it. The proof of this lies 
 in one of the governor's letters of 1674. He was then in the 
 midst of his quarrel with Perrot and Fenelon and the Sul- 
 picians of Montreal. After having presented an interminable 
 account of this imbroglio to the minister, he added: "The 
 Jesuits are the only ones who have not appeared in all this, 
 although they may have as great a share as the others, but 
 they are more clever and hide their hand better; their su- 
 perieur [Dablon] is a very quiet and very prudent man, and 
 not at all a mischiefmaker, with whom I have always got 
 along well, and who, I think, is satisfied with me as I am 
 forced [to say] I am satisfied with him." 74 The insinuation 
 of the Jesuits having perhaps as great a share as the others 
 is merely an indication of the governor's suspicious char- 
 acter. He had enough busybodies who watched the Jesuits, 
 and who knew that any report of the activities of the Jes- 
 uits in behalf of Perrot and the Sulpicians would be sure to 
 be rewarded; he had enough spies in Montreal and else- 
 where to have known whether or not the Jesuits were work- 
 ing covertly for his adversaries. 
 
 As for Laval, the last mention of the bishop is in the 
 governor's letters of November 1679, when the prelate was 
 in France. Frontenac therein complained that the chapter 
 of the Cathedral of Quebec was not functioning, although 
 the bishop received a subsidy to pay its members. 75 Finally, 
 never did Frontenac either at the time of his return m 
 1689, or during his second term, accuse the "Canada-mis- 
 sion party" of having brought about his downfall of 1682. 
 And he would have known it, for his wife, his friends, and 
 
 73 Id. to id., May 30, 1682, ASQ, Lettres, Carton N, no. 62. 
 
 74 Frontenac to Colbert, November 14, 1674, RAPQ, 1927, 73. 
 
 75 Frontenac to Louis XIV, November 6, 1679, RAPQ, 1927, 110. 
 
128 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 his supporters, such as Bernou and Renaudot, had free 
 entry in the bureaus of the Colonial Office in Paris. 
 
 New information derived from the letters of Dudouyt 
 and Tronson absolves the Canada-mission party from the 
 guilt of underhand maneuvering for the recall of Frontenac, 
 and even makes the Canada-mission party, built up by 
 Lorin for the exoneration of his hero, a myth. Until 1682, 
 what Duchesneau lacked was a good press agent in Paris. 
 While Frontenac's friends were besmirching the intendant, 
 the latter had no one to take up his defense, wrote Dudouyt 
 to Laval. In governmental circles, it was said "that nothing 
 was so weak as Duchesneau's reports, that there was noth- 
 ing worth while in them, etc., and it was said that a resume 
 which M. Boisseau [one of Frontenac's guards] had made of 
 his own reports, and which he sent [to the minister] was so 
 good that it could not be better." 76 Duchesneau learned his 
 lesson. In 1681 he sent Riverin, 77 his secretary, with his 
 memoirs to Paris. 78 From what Dudouyt says in the letter 
 quoted above, and from what Tronson wrote to Duches- 
 neau, 79 Riverin, although lacking the powerful influence and 
 the connections of the governor's friends, succeeded, owing 
 to his ability and above all, owing to the weight of proofs 
 he had brought along, in outmaneuvering Frontenac's sup- 
 porters ; the only reason given for recalling Duchesneau was 
 the unwillingness to sadden Mme de Frontenac and those 
 who had tried with might and main to save her husband 
 from the disgrace of a recall. 
 
 Thus ended the first term of Frontenac. As an admin- 
 istrator he was a signal failure. 80 "What progress," wrote 
 
 76 Dudouyt to Laval, May 10, 1681, ASQ, Lettres, Carton N, no. 57. 
 
 7 7 Cf. Memoir of Frontenac on the coureurs de bois, [1681?], 
 RAPQ, 1927, 120; Lorin, 265. 
 
 78 Dudouyt to Laval, March 9, 1682, ASQ, Lettres, Carton N, no. 
 61. 
 
 79 Tronson to Duchesneau, May 3, 1682, no. 164. In later years, 
 d'Auteuil, who also was in Paris at this time, was to boast that he 
 was responsible for Frontenac's recall. 
 
 so The reader wishing: to convince himself of the benefits derived 
 by Canada from the first administration of Frontenac, should read 
 his correspondence for the ten years it lasted. Self-praise, recrimina- 
 tions, complaints, accusations, puerile claims for "dignities," or "hon- 
 ors," describe most of the contents of the governor's letters to 
 France during that period. By way of contrast cf. the correspondence 
 of Talon during his two short terms. 
 
THE BRANDY TRADE 129 
 
 Rochemonteix, "did the colonization of Canada make dur- 
 ing his government? His great admirer, M. Lorin, is asking 
 the question, and sums up his answer in one line: 'We can- 
 not say very precisely in what it consisted, but on the 
 whole, there is an undeniable progress.' " 81 This is particu- 
 larly damaging coming, as it does, from one who wishes to 
 hold up Frontenac as a model colonial administrator. Lorin, 
 in spite of all his good will, is unable to point out any single 
 measure evincing marked administrative ability on the part 
 of Frontenac. The four or five pages he devoted to summing 
 up the achievements of Frontenac during his first term are 
 full of sententious statements. One of these is the "Cana- 
 dian society becoming self conscious." 82 One is entitled to 
 wonder how this can be proved or disproved, and just what 
 it had to do with Frontenac's administrative capacity. 
 
 The ordinance of May 1679 did not solve the brandy 
 problem. Disorders, excesses continued and crimes were still 
 perpetrated by the drunken Indians. The missionaries con- 
 tinued sending their protests, but all in vain. The question 
 entered a new phase during the second governorship of 
 Frontenac; a new champion of the sale of brandy to the 
 Indians appeared on the scene with the emergence in the 
 West of Antoine Laumet, alias de Lamothe Cadillac. This 
 phase, however, belongs chronologically to a subsequent 
 study. 
 
 si Rochemonteix, III, 153. 
 82 Lorin, 247. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 
 
 Section 1. Before 1672 
 
 The brandy ordinance of 1679 incensed Frontenac. He 
 was at this time in straits with the home government be- 
 cause of his past high-handed treatment of the Sovereign 
 Council and councillors. His policy toward the bishop, the 
 clergy, and the missionaries was receiving royal frowns. 
 His frenchification ideas had come practically to nought. 
 His individual letters to the court containing recriminations 
 and justifications had not only been repudiated in part or in 
 whole, but they were also portraying his character in no 
 satisfactory colors, and the picture of himself which he was 
 laboring to produce in the minds of official France was tak- 
 ing an unholy shape, one that would have amazed him had 
 he been given the gift to see himself as others saw him. 
 And now his views on the brandy question had met rebuff. 
 This was bad, but equally bad was what the ordinance sig- 
 nified in its application, a serious curtailment of his trade 
 profits. His scheme of accusing others of violations of or- 
 dinances when he himself was a violator readily came to 
 mind. He had already used this method as a means of di- 
 verting the attention of the government from his own prac- 
 tices, and hence to a similar purpose he bethought himself 
 of accusing the men of the cloth in Canada, Recollects ex- 
 cepted, of trading. How he fared in the progress of the dis- 
 pute about the commercial undertakings of the priests of 
 New France, and especially of the Jesuits, has now to be 
 related. 
 
 It is necessary at the outset to define the term "trade," 
 which will be bandied about. The French word designating 
 all transactions in colonial days was traitte or traite, which, 
 since it was a general term, meant trade or commerce, and 
 also exchange, barter. 1 The meaning depended upon whether 
 
 i Mary of the Incarnation, 122. Soldiers were without arms "pour 
 avoir traite" leurs fusils," Frontenac to Colbert, November 2, 1672, 
 RAPQ, 1927, 16. Hennepin uses the word "troquer" which was trans- 
 lated into English by "to truck," New Discovery, 310, 549, 553. We 
 also find at the beginning of the eighteenth century "faire le troc," 
 RAPQ, 1923, 71. 
 
 133 
 
134 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 one was selling goods in a commercial way for profit or 
 whether one was exchanging his own wares for other goods 
 for use. It is undoubtedly true that the Jesuits — and in fact 
 all missionaries who lived among the Indians — bartered. 
 There was barter for profit and on a greater or smaller 
 scale, and there was barter between individuals who had 
 no motive for gain. In this last named manner, all mission- 
 aries living among the Indians were accustomed to trade. 
 They exchanged French trinkets for beaver skins, the com- 
 mon currency in the colony, and in turn exchanged these 
 beaver skins for the various commodities they needed and 
 could not otherwise acquire. For a long time there was very 
 little specie in New France. Direct exchange of one product 
 for another, even among the French, was the rule. 2 It was 
 cumbersome, unsatisfactory, especially for the transactions 
 for new settlers who had known a more convenient medium 
 of exchange in the old country. There was consequently 
 great satisfaction after the coming of the Carignan regi- 
 ment because the soldiers had brought specie to the colony. 3 
 Later, as a remedy for this situation, colonial card money 
 was issued to facilitate exchanges among the French. 
 
 Between Europeans and Indians, however, bartering pre- 
 vailed until the end of the French regime and long after in 
 what had been New France. 4 The fundamental reason for 
 this was that the Indians did not care for money; 5 they 
 would not have known what to do with it, except perhaps 
 use the coins as ornaments. They preferred useful or "fash- 
 ionable" objects, such as "fire arms, powder, lead, thread 
 for nets, axes, knives, needles, awls," 6 bright color cloth, 
 mirrors, and glass beads known as porcelaine or rassade. 
 
 2Cf. Talon to Colbert, November 10, 1670, AC, C 11 A, 2:85; 
 RAPQ, 1931, 126; NYCD, IX, 68. 
 
 a Mary of the Incarnation, 606; cf. Faillon, III, 246-247. 
 
 * "In St. Louis as late as the first decade of the American occu- 
 pation, and, therefore, well into the nineteenth century, taxes were 
 payable in deer skins at so much money value per pound," G. J. Gar- 
 raghan, Thought, IV, 1929, 45. 
 
 s Cf. E. Salone, "Les sauvages au Canada et les maladies im- 
 porters de France au XVII e et XVIII 6 siecle," in Journal de la So- 
 ciety des Americanistes de Paris, n. s., IV, 1907, 11. Peter Kalm's 
 Travels, II, 472, 519. 
 
 e Lahontan, New Voyages, II, 574 ; cf . Peter Kalm's Travels, II, 
 519-521. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 135 
 
 In exchange, the natives supplied the whites with the prod- 
 ucts of their industry or of their hunt, the last mainly 
 beaver pelts. Naturally, the missionaries, living among the 
 Indians, could make no transactions except according to 
 this primitive economic system. While the Indians might 
 give pelts to the missionaries, more ordinarily they sup- 
 plied food and means of travel for whatever the Jesuits 
 could give them in exchange. Although such goods were 
 bartered, peltries remained the more ordinary medium of 
 exchange, 7 because they could more easily be traded for 
 other necessities, thanks to the warehouse in Quebec where 
 all the pelts brought by the trappers had to be accepted at 
 a set, invariable price, whether the furs were good or bad, 
 thickly or thinly haired. 
 
 At the beginning, the Jesuits do not seem to have ob- 
 tained peltries from the Indians, for we find Father Le 
 Jeune sending some to the missionaries among the Hurons. 8 
 Later, when they bought their needed articles from the In- 
 dians or from the merchants, the missionaries gave pelts in 
 exchange to the latter, trinkets to the former. The peltries 
 they had exchanged with the Indians for attractive Euro- 
 pean goods were in turn exchanged with the merchants. 
 
 In order to avoid all misunderstanding about words in 
 the texts which will be quoted hereafter, it should be noted 
 that all the transactions indicated above were known under 
 the generic name of traite. Faire la traite did not neces- 
 sarily mean to be engaged in trade, in commerce; it also 
 meant to make a trade of one product for another, to pay 
 for one's needs with another product, in this case with pelts, 
 the only general currency of the colony. But in France, 
 whence the accusation of trade against the Jesuits orig- 
 inated, a small coterie of abbes totally ignorant of the eco- 
 nomic conditions in the colony, jumped to the conclusion 
 
 7 "Les pelleteries n'£tant pas seulement en ce pays une marchan- 
 dise, mais encore une espece de monnaie dout on se sert ici pour 
 toutes sortes d'achats et de commerces," Frontenac to Colbert, No- 
 vember 2, 1672, RAPQ, 1927, 19. "Cet officier en [peltries] donna en 
 payement a quelqu'un; car c'estoit l'usage de s'en [peltries] servir 
 au lieu de monnoye dans le pays." Perrot, Memoire sur les Moeurs 
 . . . , 116. 
 
 s Jesuit Relations. 9, 175. 
 
136 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 that faire la traite could only mean to carry on trade of a 
 profitable and commercial nature. 
 
 All this is perfectly known to the student of the begin- 
 nings of North America; it has been here restated to avoid 
 any confusion which might arise from the use of words. 
 The missionaries in these transactions did not buy the prod- 
 uct to sell it and to profit by the sale, but to consume or to 
 use it. If in exchange for merchandise bought from the deal- 
 ers they gave in exchange a few beaver skins, which they 
 had obtained from the Indians or the whites, these were 
 the money of the country, the only money they could use, 
 the only money they received for their services. Such tran- 
 sactions were not, have never been, and are not forbidden 
 by the Church either to priests or religious. 
 
 Before 1636, the issue of trade by Jesuit missionaries in 
 America had not been raised. Parkman, it is true, compla- 
 cently pointed out as "noteworthy that the first contract of 
 the French Jesuits in America relates to a partnership to 
 carry on the fur-trade," 9 and was at pains thereafter 
 throughout his French and English in North America Se- 
 ries to find the Jesuits guilty of trade. He is referring to 
 the Contract d' Association des Jesuites au Traffique du Ca- 
 nada, 20 Janvier, 1611: a contract which "occasioned much 
 hostile comment against the Jesuits, whom their enemies 
 accused of profiting by the Canadian trade." 10 It came about 
 in this wise. Protestant merchants of Dieppe had contracted 
 with Poutrincourt and his associates to equip and load a 
 vessel destined to transport an expedition to America. The 
 merchants, as might be expected, peremptorily refused to 
 receive aboard the two Jesuit missionaries, Fathers Biard 
 and Masse. Then it was that Madame de Guercheville be- 
 came "indignant at seeing some insignificant peddlers so 
 overbearing." 11 She raised 4,000 livres, bought out the in- 
 terests of the two merchants, "establishing at the same 
 time a sufficient capital from which there might each year 
 be paid to the director of the Canadian undertaking an al- 
 
 9 Pioneers of France in the New World, Boston, 1892, 294. 
 io Jesuit Relations, 3, 299, 
 u Ibid., 175. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 137 
 
 lowance for our mission." 12 By so doing, Madame de Guer- 
 cheville had the intention of accomplishing two great bene- 
 fits for New France: 
 
 The first was, that this would always be a good fund with which 
 to maintain the Jesuits there, so that they would not be a bur- 
 den to the Sieur de Poutrincourt, or any one else, nor would it 
 be necessary to repeat every year the taking up of collections 
 for them. The second was, that by this arrangement the profit 
 from peltries and fish, which this ship would bring back, would 
 not return to France to be lost in the hands of the merchants, 
 but would redound to the interests of Canada, and there would 
 remain in the possession and power of the Sieurs Robin and 
 Poutrincourt, and would be used for the maintenance of Port 
 Royal and the French residing there. For this reason, it was 
 concluded that this money, having been applied and used for the 
 benefit of Canada, the Jesuits would share with the Sieurs Robin 
 and Biencourt, and by this association, would have a part in the 
 profits which would be derived therefrom; the management and 
 sales of said merchandise to remain with said Robin and Bien- 
 court or their agents. This was the contract of partnership over 
 which they have cried until they are hoarse, whether or not with 
 reason, may be seen. God grant, that they never have greater 
 cause to rail at us. 13 
 
 Any one acquainted with the history of the missions in 
 the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries knows how benef ac- 
 
 12 Ibid., 2, 215. 
 
 13 Jesuit Relations, 3, 175. Champlain wrote : "C'est ce contract 
 d'association qui a fait tant semer de bruit, de plaintes, et de crieries 
 contre les Peres Iesuites, qui en cela, et en toute autre chose se sont 
 equitablement gouvernez selon Dieu & raison, a la honte et confusion 
 de leurs envieux & mesdisans," Les Voyages de la Nouvelle France 
 Occidentale, dicte Canada, Paris, 1632, part I, 101, Oeuvres, Laver- 
 diere ed., Quebec, 1870, V, 112. Cf. Charlevoix, I, 263, Faillon, I, 104, 
 Harrisse, Notes pour servir . . . a Vhistoire de la Nouvelle France, 
 Paris, 1872, 35-36, Rochemonteix, I, 35-36, Eastman, 2-6. The "out- 
 cries" referred to by Biard and Champlain are in Marc Lescarbot, 
 Relation derniere, Paris, 1612. Parkman did not take the trouble to 
 distinguish what Lescarbot says in his first edition, in a later edition, 
 and in the Relation derniere. The "outcries" are also found in the 
 anonymous Factum du proces entre Jean de Biencourt, S T de Poutrin- 
 court et les Peres Biard et Masse, Jesuites, an exceedingly rare pam- 
 phlet, reprinted in 1887, by Gabriel Marcel. The editor added an in- 
 troduction which contains some instances of historical criticism he 
 would have done much better to omit, cf. Rochemonteix, I, 81, note 4. 
 For the probable author of the Factum cf. H. P. Biggar, The Early 
 Trading Companies of New France, Toronto, 1901, 292-294. 
 
138 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 tors of the missions commissioned merchants to sell mer- 
 chandise given them and to hand over proceeds to mission- 
 aries. 14 The procedure was in vogue to support the mission- 
 aries, and to enable them to carry on their work in pagan 
 countries. However otherworldly their motives, missionaries 
 could not live without food or raiment, and hence the above 
 mentioned means of sustenance had been found practical. 
 Today, Protestant and Catholic missionaries are given a 
 check. The difference is accidental, and the means of sup- 
 port conditioned upon different economic conditions. 
 
 The first accusation of trade in a commercial sense was 
 launched against the Jesuit missionaries of New France, in 
 1636. It did not originate in the colony, but in France. The 
 colonists who knew the economic conditions, understood the 
 meaning of the expression faire la traite, and saw nothing 
 wrong in this the only means of obtaining the needs of life. 
 Father Le Jeune's letter of August 28, 1636, indicates the 
 French origin of the accusation. His major superior in 
 Paris, Father Binet, had written to Canada recalling to Le 
 Jeune the ordinance of the Seventh General Congregation 
 of the Society, which absolutely forbade all transactions 
 under any pretext whatsoever, even those having only the 
 semblance of commerce or negotiation. The French superior 
 then had heard rumors. Other Jesuits in France heard the 
 whispers of the campaigners, and they wrote to their breth- 
 ren in Canada warning them to beware of so much as to 
 cast a glance out of the corner of their eyes at beaver 
 skins, or to touch them with the tip of their fingers. Some- 
 thing was in the air, thought the nonplussed missionaries. 
 What, asked Le Jeune, can be the cause of the warnings ? 
 
 Surely it cannot be that our Society distrusts those it sends to 
 these regions in regard to this matter any more than in a great 
 many others. It seems to me I have heard that in France some 
 who do not know us and do not wish to know us cry out that 
 our hands are not clean of this traffic. May God bless them and 
 make them understand the truth as I am about to utter it, if 
 it is conducive to His glory. We cannot expect to serve long the 
 
 i* F. X. de Ravignan, De Vexistence et de Vinstitut des Jesuites, 
 Paris, 1860, 192; Charlevoix, Histoire du Paraguay, Paris, 1756, III, 
 pieces justificatives, 220. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 139 
 
 Master we serve, without being slandered. These are His liveries, 
 and He Himself would not recognize us, so to speak, if we did 
 not wear them. 
 
 La Jeune hints at a whispering campaign going on in 
 the motherland. The murmurers were in reality making an 
 outcry. They were abbes in France, idling away time amid 
 comfortable surroundings or passing the day in unhealthy 
 political speculations. They had heard to their hypocritical 
 sorrow of missionaries engaged in trade, and this from offi- 
 cials. The horror of the thing — priests violating Church 
 law — penetrated hitherto unexplored recesses of righteous- 
 ness within their souls ! Their feeling of indignation swelled, 
 the more so because of their close alliance with officials and 
 tradesmen, who, by the bye, had volunteered the informa- 
 tion on trade. France had sent officers to the colony, and 
 these heard or said they heard and saw evidence of trade 
 among the clergy, precisely what they had gone to see and 
 hear. As tradesmen and officials they could not brook the 
 sight of pelts in other hands than their own. 
 
 Le Jeune continues: "Now here is what I can write 
 about it, with the same sincerity with which I would some 
 day render an account to God of all my actions." He then 
 explains the place of the pelts in the economic system of 
 the young colony. Peltries, he says, are the coin of the 
 greatest value. Day-laborers would rather receive their 
 wages in this money than in any other. The usage made of 
 pelts is twofold, either as a covering or as money. If skins 
 occasionally come to the hands of the missionaries, they 
 have no scruple to use them for "purchasing" something 
 else, any more that they would have scruples to make shoes 
 from the skins of moose, "that we may walk upon our snow- 
 shoes, for which the common ones are of no use whatever, 
 because they are so hard." When the Jesuits in Quebec have 
 some skins or beads, they send them to the missionaries in 
 the Huron country; "it is the best part of their money, and 
 with it they pay for their frugal provisions of Indian corn 
 and smoked fish, as also for the materials and making of 
 their bark palaces . . . This, in truth, is all the profit we 
 
140 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 derive here from peltries and other rare things of the coun- 
 try — all the use that we make of them." 
 
 Father Le Jeune's whole purpose was to justify his con- 
 duct and that of his brethren with his superior in Paris. 
 Both he and his brethren, he wrote, are willing to drop the 
 practice entirely in order not to offend any one. 
 
 But if, on the contrary, you write us that all this is according 
 to God, without semblance of traffic — although a few slanderers, 
 about whom we should not trouble ourselves, may stir up their 
 passions at it, and turn it into poison — we shall not fail to go on, 
 after having entreated these same lugubrious and irritable na- 
 tures to believe that, if it pleases them to make us give up this 
 innocent practice, they must open their own coffers to assist us 
 in these distant countries, after they have, through caprice, cut 
 off a part of what was necessary to us. 
 
 Why, asked the missionary, should they be blamed for 
 using the money of the country ? 
 
 If France were reduced to such a condition that money was not 
 in circulation, one would be obliged in commerce to use the ar- 
 ticles and commodities themselves, trading one for the other; 
 or even if there were any profit in doing this beyond the mere 
 necessity, and if such were the custom could any one find it 
 wrong that, no matter what profession we make of poverty, we 
 should follow the way of others, and when some objects of value 
 should become ours, whether by purchase or donation — either in 
 exchange or as a pure gift — we should make use of them accord- 
 ing to circumstances . . . But who has ever imagined that it is 
 trafficking to give and take according to the necessity of the 
 ordinary occurrences of human life? Inasmuch as what you get 
 in one place will exceed the value of what you have given for 
 it in another place. 
 
 Father Le Jeune's aim was not to persuade the rigoristic 
 coterie or other calumniators. 
 
 For to consent to answer those who slander us, as if we were 
 secretly making some other use of these skins and sending them 
 to France, this would be making ourselves ridiculous. It is just 
 as well to leave them something to say; and if they find ears 
 ready to listen to these absurdities, I would be culpable in ex- 
 pecting to find them open to the truth. What then? Shall men 
 who have given up greater worldly blessings than they could 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 141 
 
 hope for in the imaginations of these slanderers, finally decide 
 to exchange France for Canada, to go there for the sake of two 
 or three beaver skins, and to trade them off unknown to their 
 Superiors — that is to say, at the expense of their consciences 
 and of the loyalty they owe to Him, to imitate Whom they have 
 so subjugated themselves that they cannot freely dispose of even 
 a pin? Credite posteri! 
 
 Finally would the Company of the Hundred Associates, 
 which had then the monopoly of trade in New France, close 
 its eyes to a traffic in which it had more to lose than any? 
 "But I am wasting my time and imposing upon your pa- 
 tience, in dwelling so long on what did not merit any an- 
 swer." 15 
 
 Preposterous and slanderous as the charge was, it was 
 a mistake on the part of Le Jeune and the other Jesuits 
 not to force the issue by calling upon their accusers for an 
 itemized and categorical list of charges and by refuting 
 them in detail. If this had been done, perhaps Parkman, 
 and later one of his followers, Benjamin Suite, 16 would have 
 read the documents more carefully before perpetuating the 
 legend of the abbes. There is no excuse for failing to see 
 that Father Le Jeune called upon God to witness the truth 
 of what he said, and moreover, publishing the same in the 
 Relation of 1636. Some credence should have been given to 
 his words, as opposed to those of pamphleteers anony- 
 mously basing assertions on and accepting the authority of 
 some vague persons referred to as "on." Perhaps Le Jeune's 
 retort was conclusive, for the abbes became silent for seven 
 years on the matter. But after the death of Richelieu and 
 Louis XIII, they once more found their voices. This time the 
 cry of trader, hurled at the Jesuits, coincided with the con- 
 demnation of the Augustinus, and the revived accusation 
 was answered by Father Vimont : 
 
 Those who believe that the Jesuits go into this end of the world 
 in order to make traffic of skins of dead beasts, account them 
 very rash, and destitute of sense, to go and expose themselves 
 
 is Jesuit Relations, 9, 173-183. 
 
 is Suite gave the measure of his prejudice in connection with 
 these passages. To prove that the Jesuits in New France were en- 
 gaged in trade, he quotes this emphatic denial of Father Le Jeune. 
 
142 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 to such horrible dangers, for a benefit so sordid. It seems to me 
 that they have more generous hearts; and that only God and 
 the salvation of souls, can make them leave their native land, 
 and the comfort of France, in order to go in quest of fires and 
 torments in the midst of Barbarism. Forasmuch, nevertheless, 
 as this error about commerce might slip into the minds of those 
 who are not acquainted with them, it has been judged proper to 
 affix here an authentic attestation, which will show how far they 
 are removed from such thoughts. 
 
 Father Vimont continues his letter, inviting the abbes 
 to come to Canada, where he felt they would "certainly 
 change their tone." Immediately following the Relation of 
 1643 is the authentic attestation or declaration. It is made 
 and undersigned by the Directors and Associates of the 
 Company of New France. The signatories, having heard 
 how certain persons, after persuading themselves, in order 
 to disparage the work done by the Jesuits, circulate the 
 report that the Jesuits had part in the shipments, returns, 
 and commercial transactions of New France, wherefore the 
 undersigned directors and associates of the Company of 
 New France certify: "The Jesuit Fathers are not associated 
 in the said Company of New France, directly or indirectly, 
 and have no part in the traffic of merchandise which is car- 
 ried on by it." 17 
 
 Now with regard to this declaration Parkman wrote: 
 "Its only meaning is, that the Jesuits were neither partners 
 nor rivals of the Company monopoly." 18 Omitting a possible 
 false implication, no one can cavil about this interpretation, 
 since the fathers had no share in profits or capital of the 
 company. But the implication is that the Jesuits did not an- 
 swer other accusations. There were no other accusations at 
 this time. Parkman continues his case: "They [the Jesuits] 
 certainly bought supplies from its magazines with furs 
 which they obtained from the Indians." They certainly did. 
 How could they have bought anything except with pelts, the 
 currency of the colony? To interpret such transactions as 
 "trade" carried on by the Jesuits is an indication that Park- 
 
 17 Jesuit Relations, 25, 75-77; cf. Charlevoix, II, 168-169. 
 is The Jesuits in North America in the XVIIth century, Boston, 
 1912, 365, n. 1. 
 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 143 
 
 man per fas et nefas wanted to find the Jesuits at fault. Or 
 perhaps Shea was not far wrong when he wrote to Parkman 
 that he was uncritically following the lead of Margry, 19 a 
 procedure very difficult to understand. Three times Park- 
 man returned to the ' 'trade of the Jesuits." Speaking in gen- 
 eral of those who accompanied the Jesuit missionaries in 
 the interior as laborers and defenders, he wrote 
 
 Any inhabitant of Canada who chose to undertake so hard and 
 dangerous a service was allowed to do so, receiving only his 
 maintenance from the mission without pay. In return, he was 
 allowed to trade with the Indian and sell the furs thus obtained 
 at the magazine of the Company, at a fixed price. Many availed 
 themselves of this permission; and all whose services were ac- 
 cepted by the Jesuits seem to have been men to whom they had 
 communicated no small portion of their own zeal, and who were 
 enthusiastically attached to their Order and their cause. There 
 is abundant evidence that a large proportion of them acted from 
 motives wholly disinterested. They were in fact dowries of the 
 missions — given, heart and hand, to its services. There is prob- 
 ability in the conjecture, that the profits of their trade with the 
 Indians were reaped, not for their own behoof, but for that of 
 the mission. 20 
 
 Several categories of men are being mixed up. The 
 donnes did not trade. The engages were summarily dis- 
 missed when they traded. A third class of men, those who 
 brought the provisions to the distant posts, were allowed 
 to trade. The profits constituted their pay, and there is not 
 a single recorded instance of their turning over the profits 
 to the missionaries. 21 After having made a jumble of these 
 
 19 Parkman to Margry, January 30, 1870, in Smith College 
 Studies in History, VIII, 1923, 129. 
 
 20 The Jesuits in North America, 364-365. 
 
 2i "After the destruction of the Huron nation by the Iroquois, 
 the Jesuits cared for the refugees on the Island of Orleans. In 1651, 
 they had spent 5,000 livres already and were expecting a new colony 
 of Hurons. In order to provide for the expense," wrote Superior 
 Ragueneau, "we shall use the peltry brought for them last year from 
 their own country, which is worth 20,000 livres," Jesuit Relations, 
 36, 250. "Perhaps the men who had brought the peltries so far used 
 by the Jesuits in caring for the shattered fragments of the Huron 
 people were the lay brothers, the donnas of the mission, who were 
 permitted to engage in commerce," Eastman, 85; Eastman refers the 
 reader for the last statements to Faillon, II, 94, where nothing is said 
 
144 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 various classes of men employed by the missionaries, the 
 historian, apparently eager to prove his point and thus es- 
 tablish a rival trading company for the element of conflict, 
 had recourse to a conjecture based on a truncated passage 
 of a letter of Father Ragueneau to Father Caraffa. Unless 
 the profits accruing from the donnes' trade with the Indians 
 were given to the mission, argued Parkman, it is difficult 
 to explain the confidence with which the Father Superior, 
 Ragueneau, speaks of the resources of the Huron mission. 
 According to Father Ragueneau, there were in the Hu- 
 ron mission eighteen fathers, four coadjutor brothers, 
 twenty-three donnes, seven servants to whom alone wages 
 were paid, four boys, and eight soldiers. Unless the mission- 
 aries were protected against the rage of the Iroquois, they 
 would be destroyed in one hour. Besides affording protec- 
 tion, these men devoted themselves to both domestic duties 
 and farm work, to building fortifications, and to military 
 service. Previously the Jesuits had been protected by the 
 Hurons from hostile attacks, but with these Indians dis- 
 persed and scattered by the fierce Iroquois, the missionaries 
 had to defend themselves with their own strength, their 
 own courage, their own numbers. He continues: 
 
 This our dwelling — or shall I say our fort? — of Sainte Marie, 
 the French who are with us defend, while our Fathers sally 
 forth, far and wide, scattered among the villages of the Hurons, 
 and through the Algonquin tribes far distant from us, — each one 
 watching over his own mission, and intent only upon the minis- 
 try of the word, leaving all temporal cares to those who remain 
 at home. In truth, domestic matters keep so fortunate a course 
 that, although our number has increased, and we greatly desire 
 new help to be sent us, — both of laymen and, especially of our 
 own fathers, — still in no wise is it necessary to increase ex- 
 penses. On the contrary, they are lessened daily, and each year 
 we ask for less temporal aid to be sent us, — so much so that we 
 can, for the most part, support ourselves upon that which is here 
 produced. Verily, there is not one of our brethren who does not 
 feel in this respect great relief from those distresses which were 
 in former years very burdensome, and seemed insurmountable. 
 
 about lay brothers or donnes, but Faillon speaks of the third cate- 
 gory of helpers employed by the Jesuits. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 145 
 
 For we have larger supplies from fishing and hunting than for- 
 merly ; and we have not merely fish and eggs, but also pork, and 
 milk products, and even cattle, from which we hope for great 
 addition to our store. 22 
 
 Not one word about trade appears. What Father Rague- 
 neau described was a farm begun by the missionaries in the 
 Huron country, and their way of living on the products of 
 the farm. The superior was alluding to the hard times in 
 the early days of the mission, when Father Le Jeune was 
 obliged to send a few moose skins to Father de Brebeuf 
 and his companions to buy their frugal fare. How, from 
 this passage in Father Ragueneau's letter, Parkman found 
 that the ' 'profits of the donnes' trade" were handed over to 
 the mission is very difficult to see. He neglected to give the 
 quotation as he found it in the letter of Father Ragueneau, 
 and thus left out the explanation given by the Jesuit for his 
 "confidence" with regard to the material resources of the 
 mission. Parkman gives the following sentences in quota- 
 tion marks, implying direct transcription from the letter: 
 "Though our number is greatly increased, and though we 
 still hope for more men, and especially for more priests of 
 our Society, it is not necessary to increase the pecuniary 
 aid given us." But in the next paragraph, as though the 
 comment were his own, he says: "Much of this prosperity 
 was no doubt due to the excellent management of their re- 
 sources, and a very successful agriculture." The statement 
 is nothing else than what Father Ragueneau says, without 
 any "no doubt" added. The Jesuit gave a full explanation 
 for his "confidence" in the sustaining qualities of the mis- 
 sion without having recourse to trade by fathers, brothers, 
 donnes, and engages alike. There was no excuse on Park- 
 man's part for adding this "trade," nor can ignorance of 
 economic affairs be claimed as an explanation of his so 
 
 22 Jesuit Relations, 33, 253-255. Italics inserted. Eastman, 85, 
 seems to have misread this passage of Father Ragueneau's letter. He 
 writes: "Father Ragueneau assured the general that in spite of the 
 increase in their numbers the Canadian Jesuits would not need any 
 more pecuniary aid, a fact which suggests that they were paying 
 part of their expenses by judicious barter." The reader may see 
 whether it is question of the "Canadian Jesuits," or of those of 
 Sainte-Marie only, and he may look for the "judicious barter" in 
 what Father Ragueneau wrote. 
 
146 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 doing. The evidence, it must be said, was not presented cor- 
 rectly. Furthermore, from his footnote, "Their object evi- 
 dently was to make the mission partially self-supporting," 
 Parkman saw the implication contained in his incomplete 
 quotation. The mystery is : where did he find that this self- 
 support was conditioned on the trade of the donnes, who 
 "probably" handed over to the missionaries the profits of 
 their trade? Farming was not an occupation forbidden to 
 missionaries, nor was there obloquy or moral censure at- 
 tached to this method of supporting a mission. 
 
 As vigilant and laborious people, they began to till the land to 
 feed themselves and do without the supplies from France. Would 
 to God that for the past twenty-three or twenty-four years, So- 
 cieties had been actuated by the same spirit as these good Fa- 
 thers. There would now be in the country several habitations, 
 and the families would never have gone through the anxiety and 
 apprehension they have experienced. 23 
 
 "Even in the highest flights of his enthusiasm, the Jesuit 
 never forgot his worldly wisdom." 24 It was not worldly wis- 
 dom, it was mere common sense. However, agriculture, the 
 backbone of new countries, had little appeal to governors, 
 officers, and explorers. They had come to New France not to 
 colonize the country, but to get rich quickly by selling 
 brandy to the Indians. 
 
 Parkman had, a second time, occasion to speak about 
 the trade of the Jesuits. Speaking of the missionary sta- 
 tions, he says: 
 
 It is evident that the priests had need of other hands than their 
 own and those of the few lay brothers attached to the mission. 
 They required men inured to labor, accustomed to the forest life, 
 able to guide canoes and handle tools and weapons. In the earlier 
 epoch of the missions, when enthusiasm was at its height, they 
 were served in great measure by volunteers, who joined them 
 through devotion or penitence, and who were known as donnes, 
 or "given men." Of late, the number of these had much dimin- 
 ished; and they now relied chiefly on hired men, or engages. 
 These were employed in building, hunting, fishing, clearing and 
 tilling the ground, guiding canoes, and, if faith is to be placed 
 
 23 Champlain, Oeuvres, Laverdiere ed., VI, 127-128. 
 
 24 The French Jesuits in North America, 365, n. 1. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 147 
 
 in reports current throughout the colony, in trading with the 
 Indians for the profit of the missions. This charge of trading — 
 which, if the results were applied exclusively to the support of 
 the missions, does not of necessity involve much censure — is 
 vehemently reiterated in many quarters, including the official 
 despatches of the governor of Canada; while, so far as I can 
 discover, the Jesuits never distinctly denied it; and on several 
 occasions, they partially admitted its truth. 25 
 
 The "many quarters" will be examined in turn. Suffice 
 it to say, these quarters include mainly a few abbes in 
 France, one Sieur Dumesnil and Sieur de la Salle. Parkman 
 might well have observed some cautiousness in analyzing 
 materials containing ' 'vehement reiterations," and an atti- 
 tude of healthy scepticism toward "official" despatches 
 emanating in the disturbed officialdom of Canada would 
 scarcely have been amiss. Yet, the manner in which the 
 despatches of the governor of Canada are referred to leaves 
 the impression that Parkman considered them authoritative 
 and truthful. Perhaps the impression is erroneous, but this 
 cannot be gainsaid: Parkman did not tell his readers that 
 the governor of Canada was Frontenac, and Frontenac 
 spoke of the trade of the Jesuits in one despatch alone. 
 However, Parkman in this instance does not accuse the 
 Jesuits themselves of trading, but rather the engages. 
 Whether the Jesuits countenanced such trade while these 
 men were in their employ will be seen later. 
 
 Parkman manifests a certain progress in his thesis by 
 coming back a third time to the "trade of the Jesuits." The 
 qualifications found previously are forgotten. It is no longer 
 the engages or the donnes who trade, but the Jesuits them- 
 selves. After quoting from a letter to Frontenac, he wrote : 
 "As I have observed in a former volume, the charge against 
 the Jesuits of trading in beaver-skins dated from the be- 
 ginning of the colony." 26 The charges will be presently ex- 
 amined in chronological order. When he wrote his Old Re- 
 gime, he had in his possession the notorious Recit d'un ami 
 de Vabbe de Galinee. Why the historian accepted most 
 
 25 La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West, Boston, 1907, 
 38. 
 
 26 Old Regime, 328, n. 1. 
 
148 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 of the statements contained in this diatribe remains a mys- 
 tery ; perhaps it was because he, like many another, was too 
 much impressed by the "documents" supplied by Margry. 
 
 A few barrels of eels became the occasion for accusing 
 the Jesuits of widespread trading and industrial activities. 
 Parkman stated what he considered proof of trade, then 
 wrote: "The Jesuits entered also into other branches of 
 trade and industry with a vigor and address which the in- 
 habitants of Canada might have emulated with advantage." 
 These "other branches of trade" consisted, if the only exam- 
 ple given is meant as a proof of the general statement, in 
 the sale by the Jesuits in 1646 of several barrels of eels 
 fished at Sillery. 27 One cannot help asking : Just what were 
 the missionaries expected to do with a mess of fresh eels? 
 Did the critics want them to throw the fish back into the 
 river ? What difference does it make whether one exchanges 
 the products of the land or those of the water ? The Jesuits 
 of Canada owned their land and the riparian rights thereof, 
 either through concessions or because they had bought it; 
 they were also the tutors of the Indians who had been 
 "granted" land and its rights, riparian and others, by the 
 French government, and the missionaries took care of what 
 rightfully belonged to their wards; they protected them 
 against the rapacity of the colonial heroes. In Canada, at 
 this time, neither did the officials, nor later, the officers, 
 the "explorers," nor the disgruntled lawyers, consider such 
 a transaction as trade, but the mercantile pursuits of which 
 they accused the Jesuits consisted in commerce of furs. 
 
 Returning to the ending of the quotation given two par- 
 agraphs above, we note Parkman says the Jesuits never 
 denied that the engages traded. For this is what he meant 
 in that passage. He did not say that the Jesuits never de- 
 nied that they themselves were engaged in trade, but said 
 "on several occasions, the Jesuits partially admitted its 
 truth," namely, that the engages traded. But his texts and 
 the comments he added to them leave no doubt as to what 
 he believed. 
 
 A good example of the tyranny of words is found in the 
 
 27 Journal des Jesuites, 69. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 149 
 
 first text used, probably "as a partial admission" on the 
 part of the Jesuits that they were carrying on trade ; at any 
 rate, the text appeared as a "curious passage" to Parkman. 
 It is found in "the private journal of Father Jerome Lale- 
 mant," under date of November 15, 1645. 
 
 The 15th of November — the rumor prevailing that the prohibi- 
 tion was about to be published here [Quebec] which had been 
 published at Three Rivers, to the effect that no one was to trade 
 with the Indians, — Father Vimont asked M. des Chastelets, gen- 
 eral manager, whether we should be in worse condition under 
 them than under Messrs. of the Company. The conclusion was 
 that we would not, and that this matter should proceed for us 
 as usual, but that we should carry it on quietly. Father Vimont 
 added that we would notify Father Buteux, [who was at Three 
 Rivers] and M. des Chastelets approved this. 28 
 
 This passage ceases to be "curious" when it is remem- 
 bered that in this year, 1645, a change took place in the 
 trade monopoly of Canada. Henceforth, the inhabitants of 
 the colony were to share with the Company of the Hundred 
 Associates the profits of the trade. It was forbidden to ex- 
 change pelts directly with the Indians, or with the whites; 
 and all the furs had to be brought to the Company's ware- 
 houses. The privilege granted to the Jesuits was that in- 
 stead of exchanging with the Indians through the ware- 
 house, they were allowed to do what they had been doing 
 before, namely, to barter directly with the Indians or 
 whites. This privilege, lest it be misinterpreted, was waived 
 by the Jesuits themselves two years later. Anxious to re- 
 move even the appearance of trade, they discussed the mat- 
 ter among themselves, namely, two former superiors of the 
 mission, Fathers Le Jeune and Vimont, who had written so 
 vigorously denying that the Jesuits were engaged in trade, 
 and Father Lalemant. The entry in the private journal of 
 the Jesuits reads as follows : 
 
 On the 19th [July 1647], another consultation was held, regard- 
 ing the beaver trade carried on at Sillery, to wit, whether it 
 should be tolerated. Father Le Jeune, Father Vimont, and I were 
 present ; and it was said : 
 
 28 ibid., 13. 
 
150 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 1. That if the warehouse were reasonable, it was an obligation 
 in conscience not to divert them elsewhere. 
 
 2. That if it were not reasonable, people could in conscience 
 frustrate the warehouse, for the inhabitants had the natural 
 right confirmed by the king to trade. 
 
 3. That whether the warehouse were reasonable or not, we were 
 not to trade. 29 
 
 The translation given in Thwaites is inadequate, and so 
 for that matter is the revised translation just given. The 
 consultation was actually a case of conscience, proposed and 
 discussed according to a rather common procedure in re- 
 ligious communities. The terms reveal this fact, but the fic- 
 titious case and the solution from moral principles were 
 very pertinent to the affairs of the moment, and the con- 
 clusion indicates the correct moral procedure to be followed 
 by the Jesuits. A new situation had arisen. In 1645 all pelts 
 were to be brought to the warehouse of the reorganized 
 Company. Eastman remarks: 
 
 As we have said, the directors of the Community were rapacious. 
 At this time they levied a toll of fifty per cent on all furs 
 brought to their magazine . . . Evidently the Jesuits were will- 
 ing to protect the humbler settlers against exploitations, and to 
 feign ignorance when they smuggled their furs on board home- 
 bound ships in order to escape the excessive tax at the ware- 
 house of Quebec. 30 
 
 The tenants of Sillery, we may add, were bartering 
 among themselves and with other settlers, using pelts as 
 currency, without passing them through the warehouse of 
 the Company, in virtue of the universal tendency to elude 
 monopolistic regulations. The question had arisen whether 
 this practice was justifiable before the moral law, as distin- 
 guished from the penal law. The answer of the Jesuits was 
 that if the price paid by the warehouse was reasonable, peo- 
 ple might not trade, exchange, barter, or smuggle their 
 pelts out of the colony without passing through the ware- 
 house. To this the inhabitants were bound in conscience, 
 that is, under pain of sin. But should the Company abuse 
 
 29 Ibid., 91-92; Jesuit Relations, 30, 187. 
 so Eastman, 84-85. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 151 
 
 its privilege, levy too high a toll, then the right to trade 
 given the inhabitants by the natural law, and confirmed by 
 the king, must prevail, and it was deemed no sin to elude 
 the monopoly. Clearly, the three Jesuits were considering 
 a case of conscience they had met in their ministry. The 
 first two divisions of the answer are set down in general 
 terms: on, les habitants, these decisions were to be the 
 norm followed by the confessors in directing their peni- 
 tents. The third division of the answer shows this to be 
 a natural interpretation of this entry in the Jesuit journal, 
 that is, in effect, whether the warehouse was reasonable or 
 not, we, the Jesuits, in contradistinction to the inhabitants, 
 are not to exchange beaver-skins for other products, except 
 through the warehouse. 31 
 
 Nothing is heard about the charge for the next ten 
 years. As in 1636, it was renewed in France. This time the 
 occasion was the success of the Provincial Letters of Pas- 
 cal, which appeared in 1656. 32 The Jansenist faction re- 
 newed the attack against the Canadian missionaries. The 
 general of the Jesuits after a rigorous inquiry, wrote to the 
 provincial of Paris, Father Cellot: "The accusation of trade 
 levelled against our Fathers in the Canadian mission, had 
 been found to be without the least foundation." And the 
 same day, the general wrote to Father Le Jeune, then pro- 
 curator of the Canadian missions in Paris: "I very much 
 rejoice that our Fathers in the Canada mission have been 
 cleared from that notorious accusation of trade which they 
 were said to be engaged in." 33 
 
 3i Parkman, Old Regime, 328, note, has the following for 1647 : 
 "Two years after, on the request of Lalemant, the governor Mont- 
 magny, and his destined successor, Aillebout, gave the Jesuits a cer- 
 tificate to the effect that 'les peres de la compagnie de Jesus sont 
 innocents de la calomnie qui leur a Ste" imputSe, et ce qu'ils en ont 
 fait a 6te" pour le bien de la communaute et pour un bon sujet.' This 
 leaves it to be inferred that they actually traded, though with good 
 intentions." No reference is given for this passage; the present 
 writer has not found it, and lacking the context, he is unable to dis- 
 cuss it. Judging from Eastman, 85, who quotes it and refers to Park- 
 man, he did not find the document either. Suite, Histoire des Cana- 
 diens-Francais, V, 39, quotes the passage from Parkman, but does 
 not even refer to the Old Regime. 
 
 32 Charlevoix, II, 169. 
 
 33 Cited in Rochemonteix, I, 353. Cf. Relations inedites, II, 344- 
 345. Harrisse, Notes pour servir . . . , 303, professes to be astonished 
 
152 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 We find an echo of this accusation in the Relation of 
 1657, the manuscript of which Father Le Jeune forwarded 
 to the provincial of Paris. The Jesuits were entering the 
 Iroquois country to reopen the missions among the Onon- 
 daga and the Mohawks. To dispose the Indians to receive 
 the missionaries, presents were made to the chiefs. The 
 narrator continues: 
 
 It will not be out of place to observe in passing, that these 
 presents consist entirely of wampum belts, arquebuses, powder 
 and lead, coats, hatchets, kettles, and other similar articles. 
 These are purchased from the merchants with beaver-skins, 
 which are the money that they ask in payment for their wares. 
 Now, if a Jesuit received or collects some of these furs, to help 
 to pay the enormous expenses that have to be incurred in mis- 
 sions so distant, to win those peoples to Jesus Christ, and re- 
 store peace among them, it would be desirable that those very 
 persons who ought to incur these expenses for the preservation 
 of the country should, at least, not be the first to condemn the 
 zeal of those Fathers, and in their tales, to paint them blacker 
 than their gowns. They should leave slander of that kind to the 
 low rabble, ever wrongly informed about what is going on, whose 
 calumnies may be excused through ignorance. But let us do 
 what is right, and allow evil to be said of us ; for calumny is also 
 the cement of virtue. They write to us from France that they 
 can no longer provide means for the heavy expenditure that we 
 incur in these new undertakings. We devote to them our labors, 
 our sweat, our blood, and our lives. If, through lack of aid, we 
 be compelled to abandon a post so advantageous for the Faith 
 and for the preservation of the country, those who persecute us 
 will be none the richer for it, and God will be less glorified. 34 
 
 There is not very much originality in the accusation. 
 The question is always the same. The rapacious merchants 
 and the impecunious officers who had come to New France 
 to "make their fortune," could not see pelts in the hands 
 of other people without considering themselves victims of 
 an injustice. The Jesuits had hatchets, needles, kettles, etc., 
 with which to make presents to the Indians; they ex- 
 
 at the result of the investigation. He was easily astonished when the 
 facts did not correspond to his preconceived ideas. 
 34 Jesuit Relations, 43, 171. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 153 
 
 changed pelts with the merchants for commodities and, 
 therefore, they were engaged in business. 
 
 Parkman quotes a few lines from the passage, sufficient 
 to prove the Jesuits engaged in the fur trade, and the 
 charge not "wholly without foundation." He had little re- 
 spect for the intelligence of his readers. 35 A further proof 
 that the charge was not "wholly without foundation," is 
 forthwith added. He quotes from the same Relation of 1657 
 two lines of the speech of Father Chaumonot to an assem- 
 bly of Iroquois. Father Chaumonot "who spoke Iroquois as 
 well as the natives," 36 explained the meaning of the pres- 
 ents the missionaries and the French had brought, and with 
 greater animation told the Indians: 
 
 It is not for purposes of trade that you see us appear in your 
 country. We aim much higher. Your furs are of too little value 
 in our eyes to induce us to undertake so long, so difficult, and so 
 dangerous a journey. Keep your beaver-skins, if you choose, for 
 the Dutch; even those which may come into our hands will be 
 used for your own good. We seek not perishable things. For the 
 Faith, we have left our country; for the Faith, we have aban- 
 doned our relatives and our friends; for the Faith, we have 
 crossed the Ocean ; for the Faith, we have quitted the great ships 
 of the French, to embark in your small canoes; for the Faith, 
 we have given up fine houses, to lodge in your bark cabins; for 
 the Faith, we deprive ourselves of our natural nourishment, and 
 the delicate viands that we might have enjoyed in France, to eat 
 
 35 Cf. Parkman to Margry, February 12, 1877, "It is unneces- 
 sary to remind you of the importance of indicating at the end of the 
 third volume [of the Decouvertes et Etablissements~\ at the latest, 
 the provenance of all the documents. It is true that they speak for 
 themselves, but there are few people intelligent enough or sufficiently 
 educated to appreciate fully the testimony of their internal evidence, 
 and anyway we must forestall all protests," Smith College Studies 
 in History, VIII, 1923, 173. This is rather a summary manner of 
 ruling out the most important section of external criticism. Parkman 
 was unaware of the unsavory reputation Margry had among Euro- 
 pean scholars. Any document coming from Margry should have been 
 doubly checked, its provenance stated beyond doubt, and the original 
 or the copy compared with what Margry issued as a reproduction of 
 the document. Cf. Some La Salle Journeys, 3-9. Suite also thought 
 and repeatedly asserted that he was one of the few chosen souls 
 who could get the obvious or hidden meaning of the "documents," as 
 he said, which documents consisted mainly in works which had been 
 in print for a century when he wrote. 
 
 36 Jesuit Relations, 43, 169; cf. Charlevoix, II, 262-264. 
 
154 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 your boiled meal and other food, which the animals of our coun- 
 try would hardly touch. 37 
 
 Indeed, even without documents, without prohibition on 
 the part of the Church, without the regulations of their 
 Order, no man in his senses will ever believe that the mis- 
 sionaries had abandoned their mother country, the com- 
 forts of home, had voluntered, even vowed, to come and live 
 with the Indians, just to acquire a few beaver skins. Yet 
 Parkman quotes two lines from this impassioned denial to 
 prove that the Jesuits were engaged in trade: "Keep your 
 beaver-skins, if you choose, for the Dutch ; even those which 
 may come into our hands will be used for your own good." 
 How could the missionaries living in the Iroquois villages 
 avoid using the currency of these villages ? How could they 
 prevent some beaver-skins from coming into their hands? 
 Parkman never explained. 
 
 In December 1657 the provincial of the Province of 
 Paris, told the general that the accusation had been re- 
 newed. The general answered: "In order that all occasions 
 of just complaint be removed, Your Reverence must forbid 
 our Fathers any kind of dealing in beaver skins which 
 should have even the appearance of commerce." Father Re- 
 nault replied that he would communicate this order to the 
 missionaries in New France. The answer came from Father 
 De Quen, dated Quebec, September 3, 1658: "They accuse 
 us of I don't know what kind of traffic in pelts. It is false. 
 As everybody else in the colony, we are using the pelts as 
 a sort of common money for business transactions. We 
 should hardly be able to procure the necessities of life oth- 
 erwise, and we would be without the means to pay the sal- 
 ary of our workmen." 38 
 
 37 Jesuit Relations, 43, 175. 
 
 38 Rochemonteix, II, 176, n. 2. "This warning [of the General] 
 was none too effective, as an entry in their private Journal shows. 
 Two Jesuits and seven other Frenchmen journeyed to the Ottawa 
 region [in 1660]. Father Albanel and six others of the party ulti- 
 mately returned to Montreal with thirty-five canoes and one hundred 
 and fifty Indians. The Jesuits' merchandise had been faithfully bar- 
 tered for beaver-skins, but the cost of the voyage exceeded the value 
 of the beaver by 800 livres. From this entry it is clear that the Jes- 
 uits aimed at making their missionary enterprises pay for them- 
 selves," Eastman, 86. The two texts, Journal des Jesuites, 287, 320, 
 on which the above statements are based are hardly to the point. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 155 
 
 When Laval arrived in Quebec in 1659, he hinted in his 
 letter to the general of the Jesuits at the identity of the 
 accusers. 39 The remonstrances of the Jesuits, to which those 
 of the bishop were soon to be added, angered the brandy 
 peddlers, 40 who waxed vociferous and became as prolific in 
 memoir writing as the idle abbes in France. Nowhere does 
 the bad art of backbiting flourish better than in small 
 towns. At the beginning of the second half of the seven- 
 teenth century, Quebec was and so remained for a long time 
 after a small village. There all too frequently neighbor eyed 
 neighbor; one misinterpreted the actions of the other, and 
 criticized him accordingly, both verbally and in writing. 
 Backbiting had reached such proportion, tongue wagging 
 apparently had become so endemic, that Mary of the Incar- 
 
 The question was how such protracted sojourn in the West was to be 
 financed. The answer is given in the Journal of the Jesuits. Those in 
 Quebec bought merchandise which the Frenchmen of the expedition 
 exchanged, and the profits were used for the upkeep of the mission- 
 aries. It was something similar to what took place in the East, with 
 the difference that in Canada the Jesuits themselves in this particu- 
 lar case had bought the merchandise with money or goods given 
 them by benefactors of the missions, whereas in the East the Por- 
 tuguese merchants were given merchandise directly by the king or 
 by benefactors, and the merchants were to sell it for a profit to be 
 handed to the missionaries, cf. supra, 138, n. 14. The case against the 
 Jesuits must be a weak one when such texts have to be appealed to. 
 Elsewhere, Eastman, 177, wrote: "Even when the Jesuits were not 
 accused of trading directly they sometimes appeared as accomplices. 
 For instance, in 1681, the Council made a seizure of the furs and 
 merchandise belonging to a strolling trader who had carried on il- 
 licit commerce at the Sault. The goods were found in the possession 
 of Father Fr6min." The reference given is Jugements et delibera- 
 tions, II, 620. The word "sometimes" is too strong for the lone in- 
 stance cited. Again, Father Fr6min was deceived with regard to the 
 status of the man who left his goods with him. One Defaye had 
 traded at the Prairie de la Madeleine, had left his goods, money and 
 everything with the Superior of the mission. It was found out that 
 he was a marchand forain, and as such had no right to trade with 
 the Indians. His goods were seized by the police where he had left 
 them, that is, at the mission where he had been trading. In the sub- 
 sequent hearings of the case the accused tried to prove that he was 
 not a marchand forain, but was merely a salesman for his uncle 
 who was a resident of Quebec and who as resident had the right to 
 trade with the Indians at the Sault. Eastman makes Fremin "ap- 
 pear" as an accomplice, even though the police at the time did not. 
 Cf. Jugements et deliberations, II, 687, 706, 874-875. 
 
 39Gosselin, I, 245. 
 
 40 Cf . L. H. Chevalier de Baugy, Journal d'une expedition contre 
 les Iroquois en 1687, Paris, 1883, 153. This comprises the Journal and 
 the letters written by Baugy. The Journal, but not the letters, has 
 been translated in English by Nathaniel S. Olds under the title Jour- 
 nal of Chevalier de Baugy, Rochester, 1931. 
 
156 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 nation called the plague of slanders more harmful to the 
 colony than all the attacks of the Iroquois. 41 
 
 What Baugy wrote about the Canadians applied much 
 more to his brother officers than to the great majority of 
 the habitants. In a letter written to his brother shortly 
 after his arrival in Quebec, he said: "With regard to the 
 French who are born in this country, one can hardly know 
 them. They are all much double-faced; in some ways they 
 take after the Indians. I do not deem fit to tell you here all 
 that I think of them." 42 But Baugy said what he thought in 
 a strictly confidential letter to his brother a month later: 
 "I shall tell you that with regard to the people of this coun- 
 try they are much double faced ; they take after the Indians, 
 great talkers, who for the most part do not know what they 
 are talking about. Most of them claim also to be noblemen. 
 As they do not in the least agree with one another, you 
 should hear them talk about one another. They compete to 
 see who will outdo the other in backbiting, and it is not 
 necessary to put them on the rack to know all things." 43 
 Lahontan puts the following words in the mouth of Adario : 
 "Lying and Slandering your Brethren, is a thing that you 
 can as little refrain from as Eating and Drinking. I never 
 heard four French-Men converse together, without speaking 
 ill of some body; and if you knew what I have heard 'em 
 say publicly of the Viceroy, the Intendant, the Jesuits, of 
 a thousand People that you know, not excepting your Self, 
 you would be convinced that the French are very well vers'd 
 in Defamations." 44 "They write quantities of falsehoods 
 against the holiest and the most virtuous," said Mary of 
 the Incarnation. 45 
 
 With this in mind a historian has to be very chary of 
 evidence taken from "on." Only a small part of what they 
 wrote is extant. Until the date now reached, all the refer- 
 ences are either to the Jesuit Relations or to letters in the 
 Jesuit Archives. 
 
 4i Mary of the Incarnation, 541, 544. 
 
 42 Baugy, Journal, letter of October 27, 1682, 151. 
 
 43 ibid., letter of November 22, 1682, 152. 
 
 44 Lahontan, New Voyages, II, 536, cf . I, 281. 
 4 r > Mary of the Incarnation, 544. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 157 
 
 It is not surprising that before 1663, so few original documents 
 concerning the history of Canada are found in the Archives of 
 the Colonies in Paris. We must not forget that only this year 
 Canada began to be administered by the royal government and 
 only then did Colbert think of gathering the documents sent 
 from the colonies or the despatches sent thither by the govern- 
 ment. Champlain, Montmagny, d'Ailleboust, de Lauzon, d'Argen- 
 son, d'Avaugour, depended on the Companies rather than on the 
 king. It is in the archives of the former Company of the Hundred 
 Associates that most of the papers of these governors should be 
 found. But where have these archives gone? Where have the 
 registers containing the minutes of the meetings of this Com- 
 pany gone? 46 
 
 After 1663, not only does one find more information in 
 the archives of Paris, but also in the registers of the Sov- 
 ereign Council in Quebec. The year following the creation 
 of this body, the minutes show the Jesuits of Canada reply- 
 ing by proxy to the old accusation of trade. On November 
 26, 1664, before the Council assembled, Martin Boutet made 
 a declaration on behalf of the Jesuit Fathers, stating that 
 they 
 
 never made profession of selling, and have never sold anything 
 whatever. The merchandises they gave to private persons were 
 only for the purpose to get their necessities. At present they 
 have nothing left, except for alms, and for the necessities of 
 their own house. If some work has to be done, they will have to 
 pay the workmen with wine, brandy, or with the products of the 
 colony, with cash or with drafts on the merchants. 47 
 
 According to his custom, Parkman quotes a few words 
 from this declaration, and adds, "this is an admission in a 
 thin disguise. The word necessites is of a very elastic inter- 
 pretation." 48 It is indeed, an "admission," but not the one 
 indicated by Parkman, for in the context, clearly he meant 
 an admission of guilt on the part of the Jesuits. 49 It is an 
 
 4 6 J.-E. Roy, Rapport sur les Archives de France relatives a 
 Vhistoire du Canada, Ottawa, 1911, 445; cf. Report on Canadian Ar- 
 chives for 1899, Supplement, Ottawa, 1901, 18, Harrisse, Notes pour 
 servir . . . , Introduction, iii, ff. 
 
 47 Jugements et deliberations, I, 300-301. 
 
 48 Old Regime, 328. 
 
 49 "In brief, the Jesuits of Canada had not made a business of fur 
 trading, but they had traded in furs as circumstances required," 
 
158 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 "admission" that the Jesuits could not live on fresh air and 
 clear water; it is an admission that the Jesuits had to bar- 
 ter, had to pay in the currency of the colony for their neces- 
 sites, which meant then as it means now, the primary neces- 
 sities of life. What those merchandises spoken of in the 
 declaration were will be seen later. Parkman fitted the word 
 necessites to his thought; it meant no more to the mission- 
 aries than the bare necessities. He perhaps had Michelet in 
 mind when he penned this elastic interpretation of the word 
 necessites; according to Michelet the Canadian missionaries 
 were leading a sybaritic life. From a passage of Lahontan, 50 
 Michelet learned there was an ice-box in the college of Que- 
 bec! 
 
 The next text stretched on the Procustean bed by those 
 determined to fortify the case against the Jesuits is taken 
 from the Journal of the Jesuits, under the date August 17, 
 1665. The entry reads: 
 
 Father Fremin is returning as Superior to the Cap de la Made- 
 leine, where the temporal affairs of the mission are in good con- 
 dition. Comme il est delivre de tout soin d'aucune traite, he is 
 to apply himself to the instruction of the Montagnais and of the 
 Algonquins; in such a manner, however, that Father Albanel is 
 to continue in charge of the chief care of this mission. 51 
 
 Eastman, 87, should read "but they paid with the coin of the colony 
 for what they bought." 
 
 so "These Fathers have very convenient and large Apartments, 
 beautify'd with pleasant Gardens, and several rows of Trees, which 
 are so thick and bushy that in the Summer one might take their 
 Walks for an Ice-House: And indeed we may say without strechting 
 that there is Ice not far from 'em, for the good Fathers are never 
 without a reserve in two or three places for the cooling of their 
 Drink," Lahontan, New Voyages, I, 43. The shady walks were "the 
 remains of the forest which stood here when the French began to 
 build this town [Quebec]," Peter Kalm's Travels, II, 448; and the 
 cool drinks which he seems to begrudge were common in Canada 
 even in those days, for it was "customary to put a piece of ice into 
 the water or wine which is to be drunk," ibid., II, 499. According to 
 Hennepin, La Salle also expatiated on the sybaritism of the Jesuit 
 missionaries in India, New Discovery, II, 415. Speaking of the fare 
 of the Jesuits, Parkman had written previously, "It is by no means 
 to be inferred that the household [in the Huron mission] fared 
 sumptuously. Their ordinary food was maize, pounded and boiled, 
 and seasoned, in the absence of salt, which was regarded as a luxury, 
 with morsels of smoked fish," The Jesuits in North America, 366. 
 Cf. Baugy, Journal d'une expedition, 181. 
 
 si Journal des Jesuites, 333. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 159 
 
 Quoting about half of this entry, Parkman italicized the 
 French words as done above. He then explains that "Father 
 Albanel was charged, under Fremin, with the affairs of the 
 mission, including doubtless the temporal interests, to the 
 prosperity of which Father Le Mercier alludes, and the 
 cares of trade from which Father Fremin was delivered." 52 
 Parkman knew very little about the internal organization 
 of the Order about which he wrote very much. The entry 
 merely means that Father Fremin was superior and Father 
 Albanel procurator of the mission. The latter office included 
 the task of looking after the temporal interests, such as 
 preventing the French from cheating the Indians, acting as 
 tutor for the red men, interposing himself between the 
 greed of the merchants and the easily deluded natives. Such 
 was the soin de traite alluded to by Father Le Mercier. The 
 procurator was supposed to buy, exchange the products of 
 the farm, and pay with beaver-skins for services rendered, 
 making the permutations to obtain from the merchants all 
 needful things for the missionaries and for their white 
 workmen, all of which was known under the generic name 
 of traite. The cares of the "trade," as Parkman interpreted 
 the word, existed only in his imagination. 
 
 The "trade of the Jesuits" was fast becoming an idee 
 fixe with Parkman. The entry from the Journal of the Jes- 
 uits is given as a "reasonably clear" explanation of the 
 passage in the so-called 1667 memoir, supposedly written 
 by Talon. The memoir has been examined. It was pointed 
 out how a few months before this memoir was supposedly 
 written, Talon had gone to Montreal, how he had visited 
 every house on the island, inquired about everything; how 
 on his return journey from Montreal to Quebec he also 
 visited the Cap de la Madeleine, near Three Rivers. How 
 will one find in this text a proof that the Jesuits traded? 
 How will they explain that in the whole extant correspond- 
 ence of the intendant, in all the letters signed by him, in all 
 the documents certainly written under his direction, there is 
 not a single reference to the trade of the Jesuits ? How will 
 they explain that when Talon returned from this visit to 
 
 52 Old Regime, 329. 
 
 
160 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 the Cap de la Madeleine where according to these historians 
 he suspected the Jesuits of being engaged in trade and of 
 making such great profits, the intendant promptly paid the 
 Jesuits 5,000 livres, 53 the full amount of the subsidy granted 
 by the king, which he had previously paid in two install- 
 ments? 54 Can it be reasonably supposed that Talon, who 
 had so much at heart the interests of the king and the 
 preachments of Colbert on strict economy, would have 
 parted with 5,000 livres of the king's money to help men 
 who were carrying on such a prosperous and lucrative com- 
 merce ? 
 
 When Talon first went to Canada, the king and Colbert 
 were aware of the charge of trade. Mezy had sent his accu- 
 sations to the king; copies had been made and communi- 
 cated to the governor's friends in France. Some of these 
 copies had found their way back to Canada. In the request 
 for a juridical investigation of the charges, which Father 
 Le Mercier addressed to Tracy, Courcelle, and Talon, the 
 first article deals with the subject. Father Le Mercier hum- 
 bly begged these gentlemen to inquire 
 
 Whether it be true that the Bishop and the Jesuit Fathers are 
 making use of a secret and adroit means to enrich themselves, 
 which is to sell brandy to the Indians in exchange for their 
 pelts, thus shutting the inhabitants out of the fur trade. 
 [Whether it be true that the Bishop and the Jesuit Fathers] 
 have turned their respective houses, as well as three or four 
 houses of the members of their cabal, into shops where more 
 trade is carried on than in the whole of Canada, which makes 
 many people murmur, but about which no one dares speak for 
 fear of the Bishop and of the Jesuits who hold the people in 
 captive subjection. 
 
 The Jesuit asked M. de Mezy, or all those who make his 
 accusations their own, to prove them juridically, failing 
 which they be branded as calumniators. Although the Jes- 
 uits were entitled to bring suit against Mezy as a public 
 defamer, all that they asked was a publication of the truth 
 as well in Canada as in France, and a complete cleansing of 
 
 58 Journal des Jesuites, 356. 
 ulbid., 337, 338. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 161 
 
 their escutcheon from the calumnies of the said Sieur de 
 Mezy. 55 
 
 The petition is dated May 8, 1666. How Father Le Mer- 
 rier was persuaded by Tracy not to push the matter against 
 Mezy has been noted. The viceroy, the governor, and the 
 intendant had written to Paris justifying the Jesuits' ac- 
 tions. This condescension was all the more deplorable since 
 at this very time Sieur Dumesnil was repeating the accusa- 
 tions for which a juridical investigation was requested. "Ac- 
 cording to Peronne Dumesnil, Memoire de 1671, the Jesuits 
 had at that time more than 20,000 francs a year, partly 
 from trade and partly from charitable contributions of their 
 friends in France." 56 
 
 Jean Peronne Dumesnil had arrived in Canada in 1660. 57 
 He had been sent to disentangle the hopelessly muddled ac- 
 counts of the Company of the Hundred Associates. He ar- 
 rived beaming with dignities, for he was at once general 
 comptroller, intendant, and judge. A former avocat au Par- 
 lement de Paris, a prototype of Brid'oison, he soon discov- 
 ered that la fooorme, that many technical formalities had 
 been dispensed with in the account books. He indulged in 
 diatribes not only against the accountants, but against the 
 councillors, the governor, the religious communities, the 
 Jesuits, and the bishop. To obtain the account books, he 
 forced the house of the notary where they were kept. Vil- 
 leray, one of the councillors, was commissioned by the 
 Council to get them back. Accompanied by the attorney- 
 general, two sergeants, a locksmith, and ten soldiers, Vil- 
 leray went to the house of Sieur Dumesnil. The avocat au 
 Parlement shouted ' 'robbers," was gagged, overpowered by 
 the soldiers, and tied up, while Villeray retrieved the pa- 
 pers the Sieur Dumesnil had stolen. Fearing for his own 
 safety, the gentleman hurriedly embarked for France, 
 where he wrote his memoir. 58 
 
 55 Rochemonteix, II, 528-529. 
 
 se Old Regime, 329. The date of the memoir given by Parkman 
 is faulty; its author died in 1667, and hence could not have written 
 it in 1671, cf. BRH, XXI, 1915, 163. 
 
 57 Journal des Jesuites, 287; Jesuit Relations, 45, 163. 
 
 ss BRH, XXI, 1915, 161 ff., Ferland, Cours d'histoire du Canada, 
 Quebec, 1861, I, 499-500; Garneau, Histoire du Canada, Quebec, 1859, 
 I, 163; Jugements et deliberations, I, 4, 6, 27, 135, 136. 
 
162 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 This affair is narrated at great length by Parkman in 
 his Old Regime. He noted "the few mistakes I have been 
 able to detect in his long memorials." 59 As regards Dumes- 
 nil's charges, Parkman concluded his chapter, saying 
 
 The truth seems to be, that the financial managers of the colony, 
 being ignorant and unpractised, had kept imperfect and confused 
 accounts, which they themselves could not always unravel; and 
 that some, if not all of them, had made illicit profits under cover 
 of this confusion. That their stealings approached the enormous 
 sum [3 million livres] at which Dumesnil places them is not to 
 be believed. But, even on the grossly improbably assumption of 
 their entire innocence, there can be no apology for the means, 
 subversive of all justice, by which Laval enabled his partisans 
 and supporters to extricate themselves from embarrassment. 60 
 
 Laval's share in this affair does not concern us. Park- 
 man here as in many other places is merely airing his anti- 
 Catholic prejudices, his target being either Laval or the 
 Jesuits. His picture of the Jesuits at a bungling unconse- 
 quential trade would make them appear stupid indeed. 
 What is not said is how Dumesnil obtained the account 
 books. This is glided over and hurriedly disposed of by say- 
 ing: "That Dumesnil had obtained certain papers unlaw- 
 fully from the greffe or record office." 61 The passage in 
 which Dumesnil accuses the Jesuits of trade says that the 
 revenue of Canada amounts to 48,000 livres, while 
 
 The expenses are only 21,000 livres, namely, 10,000 livres for 
 the Governor of Quebec ; 3,000 livres for the Governor of Three 
 Rivers; and 3,000 livres for the Governor of Montreal. Out of 
 these sums, the governors pay their soldiers. Plus 5,000 livres 
 for the pension of the Jesuits. At the time when the ordinance 
 [of the Council of State, March 5, 1648] was issued, all they had 
 was the said pension. But they have been given since a revenue 
 of 12,000 livres per annum, from the lands granted to them in 
 Canada, over and above all this they make more than 20,000 
 
 59 "His claims," wrote Eastman, 51, "were grossly exaggerated, 
 perhaps quite false." 
 so Old Regime, 143. 
 Mlbid., 139. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 163 
 
 livres a year from their traffic and trade, from the pensions and 
 alms sent them from France. 62 
 
 Although this memoir was addressed to Colbert, Colbert 
 did not stop the pension granted to the Jesuits, nor the fol- 
 lowing year in the instructions to Talon did he mention the 
 trade carried on by them. The charge was simply beyond 
 anybody's credence. In this same memoir, "which contains 
 few mistakes," Dumesnil had asserted that Laval, helped 
 by Ragueneau, had opened a liquor shop in Quebec and had 
 monopolized the trade. Yet in the protracted fight between 
 the bishop and the minister about the brandy trade, Colbert 
 never once alluded to this alleged reason why Laval and 
 the Jesuits were opposed to the traffic. Colbert was not a 
 defender of the Jesuits. He recognized such accusations for 
 what they were. Still these vagaries have been seriously 
 adduced as proofs that the Jesuits were fur traders in New 
 France by a historian who compensates for what he lacked 
 in critical spirit by the magic of a literary style. 
 
 A pastime, albeit one to which smaller minded officials 
 might turn, was enjoyed by the governors, intendants, com- 
 mandants, and civil officials of Canada, and this was send- 
 ing to Paris the bank account of other people. They knew 
 to the last farthing the exact income of everybody else. The 
 balance sheets they drew up invariably showed a huge sum 
 on the credit side of the ledger, and very little expense on 
 the debit side. 
 
 When Dumesnil wrote his memoir he evaluated the rev- 
 enue of the Jesuits in Canada for 1603-1664 at well over 
 37,000 livres. Father Ragueneau, then procurator of the 
 Canada mission in Paris, on July 1, 1665, sent an exact ac- 
 count of the financial status of the mission to the general 
 of the Order. It contains the certain revenue affected to the 
 v/hole mission. The endowment money was in part loaned 
 to Jesuit colleges in France, paying ordinarily 5% interest, 
 in part invested in municipal or government bonds. The net 
 balance of this total revenue amounted to 8,308 livres. Fa- 
 ther Ragueneau added a note saying: 
 
 62 "Memoire concernant les affaires du Canada," Bulletin des 
 Recherches Historiques, XXI, 1915, 197. 
 
 
164 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 The alms sent for our missionaries or for the neophyte Indians 
 are uncertain, sometime we receive more alms, sometime less. 
 For this reason I did not enter them in this account. 
 1 included in the said alms 600 livres which the king allows us on 
 the custom duties; of which 50 livres are for the Ursulines of 
 Quebec, and 50 livres for the Hospitalieres, and so we only re- 
 ceive 500 livres, but all this is very uncertain. 63 
 
 If these 500 livres are added to the total certain revenue, 
 the sum of 9,000 livres is reached. The reason for not in- 
 cluding the 5,000 livres pension granted by Louis XIV is 
 obvious. This pension depended on the king's pleasure and 
 was not more certain than the alms. If this sum is added 
 to the rest, the total is 14,000 livres, and the alms spoken 
 of by Father Ragueneau hardly amounted to 23,000 livres, 
 which would be necessary to make the 37,000 livres spoken 
 of by Sieur Dumesnil. With this revenue, the superior of 
 the mission had to provide food, clothes, shelter for 35 
 priests and brothers, for as many donnes. He had to pay 
 the engages, buy farm implements, help the needy neo- 
 phytes, distribute alms. It is only when the debit side of 
 the ledger is taken into consideration that the untold riches 
 of the Canadian Jesuit missionaries at a time when they 
 were supposed to be rolling in wealth can be truly ap- 
 praised. 64 
 
 In Europe the question of trade by missionaries was 
 again debated when the Bull Sollicitudo Pastoralis, June 17, 
 1669, was promulgated. In it Pope Clement IX revoked cer- 
 tain permissions granted by his predecessors to mission- 
 aries and withdrew the authorization to perform certain 
 acts which, without being commercial transactions, might 
 give rise to suspicion. 65 Devised to protect from calumnies 
 
 63ASJ, Gal., I, 110, 39. 
 
 64 On the riches of the Jesuits, cf . the report of Laval to the 
 Pope, 1660, quoted in Gosselin, I, 250. In 1664 Dablon wrote to the 
 General that thus far they had been able to avoid debts, but if they 
 should build a church as they were thinking of doing, they would 
 necessarily have to borrow money, Dablon to Oliva, August 26, 1664, 
 ASJ, Gal., 110, I, 36. 
 
 es Constitutio prohibens Mercaturam et Negociationes seculares 
 Ecclesiasticis praesertim Religiosis quibuslibet in Indiis Orientalibus, 
 et Amaerica nunc et pro tempore existentibus, Bullarum . . . Roma- 
 norum Pontificum Amplissima Collectio, Rome, 1762, VI, Pars Sexta, 
 344-346. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 165 
 
 missionaries all over the world, it had the opposite effect 
 with regard to the Jesuits. The anti-Jesuit clique in Paris 
 used the bull of Clement IX as evidence of Jesuit trade. 
 The general of the order sent a copy of the bull to Father 
 Jerome Lalemant, then superior of the missions of Canada, 
 ordering him to conform to the order of the pope. After 
 having examined the bull, Father Lalemant replied there 
 was no need to change anything in the mode of selling and 
 buying practiced by the Jesuits in Canada; in this there 
 was no shadow of trade; he did not think Clement IX 
 wished to forbid such transactions; the pope had no right 
 to forbid them, because the preservation of one's life and 
 the legitimate means thereto is a natural and divine precept, 
 which no human being can abrogate. The Jesuits did not 
 seek enrichment, but merely sustenance. However, if such 
 exchanges are now forbidden, and if the Pope condemns 
 them and prohibits their continuation, he and all his breth- 
 ren are ready to abandon the missions in New France. "But 
 who can believe that in this colony, where for lack of specie, 
 buying and selling is ordinarily done by exchange, it is the 
 intention of the legislator to make it illicit for us to pro- 
 cure by exchange from those among whom we live, whether 
 they be barbarians or French?" 66 
 
 Section 2. Frontenac's Indictment 
 It is time to gather up a few threads from the past 
 pages in order to view the position of Frontenac with rela- 
 tion to the charge against the Jesuits. Parkman's thesis has 
 been examined in detail, except for one phase. The accusa- 
 tion of trading, he had said, "is vehemently reiterated in 
 many quarters, including the official despatches of the gov- 
 ernor of Canada." 1 When the ground for such a generaliza- 
 tion is considered, it narrows down to one statement in one 
 despatch of one governor, the Sieur de Frontenac. Quite 
 surprisingly, Parkman said nothing on the matter in his 
 study of the governor. But in this latter work, when dis- 
 cussing the brandy question, one quotation is given as it 
 appeared in a letter of the "most noted of Canadian gov- 
 
 66 Cited in Rochemonteix, I, 357, n. 1, 358, n. 2 and 3. 
 i Parkman, La Salle, 38. 
 
166 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 ernors, to serve as an example" 2 of those accusations. The 
 "official despatches" wherein the charge is insinuated and 
 that in which it is openly made must now be examined in 
 chronological order. 
 
 Frontenac, as has been said, arrived and ensconced him- 
 self in Quebec, and before he could possibly have become 
 acquainted with conditions, wrote in cipher to Colbert that 
 the aim of the Jesuits was as much the conversion of beaver 
 as it was of Indians. 3 This was in November 1672. Colbert 
 deemed the statement unworthy of answer. In 1673 the gov- 
 ernor's long epistle makes no mention of Jesuit trade; he 
 was too busy with the frenchification scheme and with the 
 reserved case of brandy selling. In 1674 he wrote of the 
 Jesuits' lack of enthusiasm for the plan of amalgamating 
 Indians and French, and of the frankness with which the 
 missionaries said they were not come to be cures of French 
 parishes but rather to care for Indians, or, he coyly added 
 in cipher, " 2 20 20 2 39 18 68 17 239," "to gather up bea- 
 vers." 4 A postscript explains an incident which took place 
 
 2 Old Regime, 328. 
 
 s Frontenac to Colbert, November 2, 1672, AC, C 11 A, 3:247; 
 Margry I, 248; RAPQ, 1927, 20. It would be quite naive to look for 
 originality in the letters of the governor. This inane statement had 
 been in print two score years before he sent his ciphered passage to 
 Colbert: "Le General Quer [Kirk] parlant aux Peres Iesuistes, leur 
 dit, Messieurs vous auiez l'affaire de Canada, pour iouir de ce 
 qu'avoit le sieur de Caen, lequel auez depossede\ Pardonnez moi Mon- 
 sieur (luy dit le Pere) [Brebeuf] ce n'est que la pure intention de la 
 gloire de Dieu qui nous y a mene\ nous exposant a tous dagers et 
 perils pour cet effect, & la conversion des Sauuages de ces lieux: 
 ledit Michel pressant dit, Ouy, ouy covertir des Sauuages, mais plus- 
 tost pour conuertir des castors, ledit Pere respond assez prompte- 
 ment & sans y songer, Cela est faux, l'autre leue la main, en luy 
 disant, sans le respect du General ie vous donnerois un souflet, de me 
 desmentir, le Pere luy respond, Vous m'excuserez, ie n'entend point 
 vous desmentir, i'en serois bien fasche, c'est un terme de parler que 
 nous auons en nos escoles, quand on propose vne question douteuse, 
 ne tenant point cela pour offencer, c'est pourquoy ie vous prie me 
 pardonner, & croire que ie me l'ay point dit pour vous donner du 
 desplaisir." Champlain, Les Voyages de la Nouvelle France Occiden- 
 tal, dicte Canada, Paris, 1632, II, 261, Oeuvres, Laverdiere ed., VI, 
 288-289. Jacques Michel was a French Calvinist from Dieppe sold to 
 the English. His fury on being given the lie by Father de Brebeuf is 
 typical. Most of the "colonials" lacked the most elementary respect 
 for truth. When those whom they maligned defended themselves, 
 they went into tantrums. 
 
 * Frontenac to Colbert, November 14, 1674, AC, C 11A, 4:80; 
 RAPQ, 1927, 75. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 167 
 
 at Sault Ste. Marie. There Kilistinou [Cree] Indians had 
 killed ten or twelve Sioux, "who apparently had come to the 
 Sault to bring their beaver pelts to the Jesuits rather than 
 seek baptism." 5 If Frontenac hoped to receive congratula- 
 tions on his wit, he was destined to be disappointed. The 
 minister ignored the jibes in his reply. 6 
 
 The king also saw Frontenac's letter of November 14, 
 1674. He wrote a week after Colbert, speaking at length of 
 the clergy of Canada, of the beaver trade with the Indians, 
 but said not a word about the alleged trade of the Jesuits. 7 
 Nor is there mention of their traffic in the instructions of 
 Duchesneau, drafted a month later. 8 But in the letter Col- 
 bert sent May 30, 1675, the same day the intendant's in- 
 structions were drafted, the minister's first warning to 
 Frontenac is found. The accusations of "the most noted of 
 the governors of Canada" against the Jesuits had been ig- 
 nored by the king and by the minister, but reports that 
 Frontenac himself was guilty of the very misdeed of which 
 he accused others had reached the Court. Colbert wrote : 
 
 His Majesty further ordered me to tell you in secret, that al- 
 though he did not believe what was said here that some trade 
 and pelt traffic was being carried on in your name, yet, you 
 must beware lest any of your servants or any person who is near 
 you carry on such trade. It would be impossible for the colonists 
 to be persuaded that you will protect them and render them the 
 impartial justice which you owe them, as long as they see a few 
 persons who have private access to you engage in trade. 9 
 
 As noted before, there is a gap of several years in Fron- 
 tenac's correspondence. His letter is not extant for 1675. 
 But the governor's counter to the accusation is deduced 
 from the answer the king dated April 15, 1676: 
 
 s AC, C 11 A, 4:83; RAPQ, 1927, 77. 
 
 e Frontenac undoubtedly repeated his bon mot before his crea- 
 tures at Quebec, before the members of his household, which was, 
 should we believe Le Clercq, "a seminary of virtue," II, 78, "military 
 virtues," chuckled Lorin, 28; on the "virtues" practiced in that sem- 
 inary, see La Tour, 206. There is a variant of the ciphered passage in 
 one of La Salle's, Margry, II, 251, and in one of Cadillac's letters. 
 
 7 Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 22, 1675, RAPQ, 1927, 80-83. 
 
 s Instructions pour M. Duchesneau, May 5, 1675, Clement, IIP, 
 594-600. 
 
 o Colbert to Frontenac, May 30, 1675, RAPQ, 1927, 85. 
 
168 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 With regard to what you say about the ease with which the ec- 
 clesiastics, secular and regular, carry on the fur trade by means 
 of the missions, you and Sieur Duchesneau must devise the 
 means to prevent it. You should not find this very difficult if 
 markets are held at stated times, or by means of police regula- 
 tions. Send the information to me and in case you need make use 
 of my authority, I shall give the necessary orders to that effect. 
 . . . With regard to commerce and trade, I am pleased to tell you 
 that you must not tolerate any dignitary, ecclesiastic or civil, 
 or any community to engage in it, even in fur trading [la traite 
 des pelleteries] under any pretext whatever. I do not think it 
 necessary to tell you to show the good example, and not tolerate 
 that your servants or any other person make use of your name 
 or of your authority to carry on any kind of trade, and I even 
 forbid you to grant any trade permit. 10 
 
 Before 1675, Frontenac had implied that the Jesuits 
 were trading. Judging from the letters written by the king 
 and the minister in 1676 to the governor as well as from 
 those written by Colbert to Duchesneau the same year, 
 it appears that Frontenac's letters of 1675 also contained 
 accusations of trade against the "ecclesiastics" of Canada, 
 couched in broad but safely damnatory statements which 
 could not be met with either proof or denial. But in the late 
 summer of 1676, the ships brought to Canada the royal or- 
 dinance of April 15 of that year, which forbade any to go 
 fur trading in the Indian settlements. 11 Just as later the 
 brandy ordinance of 1679 was to incense Frontenac, so did 
 the ordinance of 1676. The letter of the king, which is cited 
 above, contained, as can be seen, an express prohibition di- 
 rected to Frontenac himself from ever granting "aucun 
 conge ny permission pour la traite." The trade ordinance 
 was engrossed in the registers by the Sovereign Council Oc- 
 tober 5, 1676. 12 
 
 Three weeks later Frontenac sent a letter to Colbert in 
 which he accuses the Jesuits outright of being engaged in 
 trade. The present writer did not find this letter. Parkman 
 
 io Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 15, 1676, RAPQ, 1927, 88. Cf. 
 letter of Colbert to Duchesneau, of the same date in Clement, IIP, 
 607-608. 
 
 ii Edits, I, 86. 
 
 12 Jugements et deliberations, II, 73, 75. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 169 
 
 had a copy of it, and so had Rochemonteix. The American 
 gave one sentence in direct quotation, and the Jesuit printed 
 what seems to be a comprehensive summary. Careful search 
 made in Paris failed to locate the letter. Personal investiga- 
 tions in the Archives of Ottawa and Quebec, among the pa- 
 pers of Rochemonteix in Montreal and among those of 
 Parkman in Boston were equally fruitless. 
 
 The Jesuits, Frontenac claimed in this letter, have in- 
 creased their immense influence by all available means. In 
 the missions, they proclaim themselves equal to Onontio. 
 They meddle in all civil affairs either directly or indirectly. 
 All who oppose them, even the governor or the Recollects, 
 are the victims of their boundless ambition. They own vast 
 land estates, magnificent seignories, and they are still ask- 
 ing for more land. They say it is for the Indians, but in 
 reality they intend to appropriate these lands for them- 
 selves later on. They are the absolute masters of a few mem- 
 bers of the Sovereign Council, the bishop, and the inten- 
 dant, and these do nothing without the Jesuits' cooperation, 
 and only carry out what has their approval. They have 
 urged the prelate to make use of ecclesiastical sanctions 
 against the brandy sellers. "They greatly exaggerate the 
 disorders caused by brandy, and they easily convince per- 
 sons who do not know the interested motives which have 
 led them to harp continually on this string for more than 
 forty years. . . . They have long wished to have the fur 
 trade entirely to themselves, and to keep out of sight the 
 trade which they have always carried on in the woods, and 
 which they are carrying on there now." 13 They even go so 
 far as to trade with the New Englanders. 14 
 
 How much of these charges Colbert believed can be seen 
 from the answer sent by the minister to the governor and 
 to the intendant in 1677, as well as from the letter of Louis 
 XIV of April 28. Judging from the king's reply, Frontenac 
 had not been as specific in his letter to the king of October 
 30, 1676, that is, on the day after he had written to Colbert, 
 as he had been in that written to the minister. Louis XIV 
 wrote : 
 
 is Old Regime, 328. 
 
 i* Rochemonteix, III, 137-138. 
 
170 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 I am surprised to hear how you noticed that in spite of my 
 former prohibitions, the ecclesiastics continue to carry on some 
 peltry trade with the Indians; my intention is that you see to 
 preventing such, letting the ecclesiastics know that in so doing 
 they are disobeying my orders, and that if they should continue, 
 you would be obliged to notify me. I would then make use of my 
 authority and apply the necessary remedy. I dare hope that you 
 will easily abolish this custom and that henceforth, I shall hear 
 no more complaints on that score. 15 
 
 Frontenac then wrote telling the king the ecclesiastics 
 "continuent de faire quelque commerce de pelleteries avec 
 les Sauvages" He was careful, and with good reason, not to 
 specify what this ' 'commerce" consisted of, namely, the use 
 of pelts as the only practical currency for bartering avec 
 les Sauvages. 16 Neither did he say the "trade of the ecclesi- 
 astics" was carried on by some of their servants. If the 
 ecclesiastics wanted help they had to pay much higher 
 wages than were paid to other servants, for the very reason 
 that these men were the servants of priests and mission- 
 aries, and as such they were forbidden to trade. A letter of 
 M. Tronson written the same month as that of Louis XIV, 
 explains the situation. The Sulpicians, he said, must not 
 keep servants who are engaged in trade, but must dismiss 
 them, especially after what the intendant had told M. Le- 
 febvre in Montreal. There is an order of the Court forbid- 
 ding trade by all those employed by clerical or civil authori- 
 ties in the colony, and this is enough to prevent its tolera- 
 tion any longer. "It will mean an increase in expenses, and 
 I don't know whether we shall be able to defray them for 
 long. Meanwhile, we are sending this year all that was 
 asked for, hoping that if Our Lord wishes us to continue 
 this work, enough to support [the priests of Montreal] will 
 be found for the following years." 17 
 
 Now Parkman wrote : "The king repeatedly forbade the 
 
 is Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 28, 1677, RAPQ, 1927, 89. 
 
 is Frontenac in his letter of November 2, 1672, to Colbert, in 
 which he said the Jesuits were more interested in the conversion of 
 beaver than of souls, also wrote : "les pelletries n'etant pas seulement 
 en ce pays une marchandise, mats encore une espece de monnaie 
 dont on se sert ici pour toutes sortes d'achats et de commerce " 
 (italics inserted), RAPQ, 1927, 19. 
 
 17 Tronson to Lefebvre, April 5, 1677, no. 6. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 171 
 
 Jesuits and other ecclesiastics in Canada to carry on trade. 
 On one occasion he threatened strong measures should they 
 continue to disobey him." 18 A general reference to the letter 
 quoted above is then given to support these statements. 
 From the direct quotation the Jesuits are not specified in 
 the letter. Nor, as far as the present writer is aware, have 
 there been found more than two instances — and the one just 
 quoted is the second and last instance — of that often re- 
 peated prohibition by the king. Moreover, Parkman did not 
 see fit to mention these letters of Louis XIV were in answer 
 to the misleading use of terms by Frontenac in a letter 
 written to the king the preceding year, and no longer ex- 
 tant. 
 
 The governor's undiscoverable letter of October 29, 
 1678, however, was not addressed to the king but to the 
 minister. Just as on receiving the odious ciphered accusa- 
 tion, so after receiving this more specific charge, Colbert 
 did not deign to answer. The minister saw through Fron- 
 tenac's game. He knew how much land the Jesuits pos- 
 sessed; he knew that Laval did not need the prompting of 
 the Jesuits to launch the excommunication against the 
 brandy sellers; and he also knew that the missionaries had 
 more reason than Frontenac and all the French in Canada 
 to oppose the New Englanders. They were priests, and what 
 was worse still they were Jesuits, the foremost antagonists 
 of the Puritans, who on their part repaid the Jesuits' anta- 
 gonism with usury. Frontenac's wrath once more led him 
 to overshoot the mark. 
 
 A few weeks after Louis XIV had written to Frontenac, 
 Colbert, in his own letter to the governor, states that the 
 king had ordered him to add a few lines on several points, 
 which His Majesty had not discussed in his despatch. Here 
 Colbert has a long paragraph about the brandy trade, but 
 nothing about the reason which Frontenac's despatch gave 
 for the Jesuit opposition to the traffic, and nothing about 
 the Jesuit fur trade. 19 Colbert wrote to Duchesneau: 
 
 You can not take too many precautions to abolish altogether 
 
 is Old Regime, 329. 
 
 19 Colbert to Frontenac, May 18, 1677, RAPQ, 1927, 91-93. 
 
 
172 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 the habit which the ecclesiastics, secular and regular, have con- 
 tracted, of trading or of having their servants trade for them. 
 This goes directly against the orders of the king; you should 
 let them know it, and you should prevent them from continuing 
 this practice, using all the means at your disposal to attain this 
 end. 20 
 
 What the servants' trade was, whether they traded for 
 their employers or for themselves, is described above in the 
 letter of M. Tronson. Paid the same salary as the servants 
 of the other inhabitants of New France, they naturally 
 wished to enjoy the same privileges as those of the other 
 servants, that is, they wished to increase their salary by 
 doing some trading on the side. 21 This privilege, however, 
 was forbidden them only because their masters were ecclesi- 
 astics. Why the French government forbade these men to 
 trade is easily deduced. Louis XIV and Colbert had written 
 to Frontenac that if his servants traded, there could not 
 fail to be among the people a suspicion of partiality toward 
 these men, should contests and law suits arise. Moreover, 
 trading was looked upon in seventeenth century France as 
 an unworthy avocation for the first and second estates. In 
 Paris, the Court wanted to preclude any favoritism. Serv- 
 ants of the clergy might be in a better position to make 
 profits denied to servants of inhabitants because of the po- 
 sition and influence of their masters. Both king and minis- 
 ters wanted to uphold the pontifical decrees which forbade 
 
 20 Colbert to Duchesneau, April 20, 1677, Clement, IIP, 617. 
 
 2i Father Le Mercier is clear about this in his letter to the Gen- 
 eral, August 26, 1670. "Unum est praeterea, de quo rogare Paterni- 
 tatem vram patribus nostris visum est. Attendentes enim ad graves 
 labores, et eximia officia, qua nobis ubique in missionibus praesertim 
 praestant domestici ad vitam, qui privati remanent ingenti lucro, 
 quod, ipsis videntibus, consequuntur in istis regionibus remotis, simi- 
 lis conditionis homines externi, ita ut uno aliquando anno, mille Au- 
 reorum lucrum faciant. Putarent sensum jacturae illius mitigatum 
 iri, alio aliquo insigni lucro spiritali; nullum autem videri commodius 
 quam si placuerit Paternitati vrae facere potestatem Superiori ha- 
 rum regionum, reddendi illos (saltern qui caeteros meritis antecel- 
 lent) participes meritorum et Indulgentiarum Societatis, haec in- 
 signis gratia acerbitatem sensus jacturae illius temporalis deliniret, 
 et currentibus calcar adderet ad stadium, ad finem usque fortiter et 
 feliciter decurrent. Erit et istud singulare benevolentiae et charitatis 
 Paternitatis vrae in hanc missionem monumentum, quod nee primum 
 gratanter agnoscimus, nee ultimum speramus fore," ASJ, Gal., 110, 
 I, 56. (Italics inserted.) 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 173 
 
 the ecclesiastics from engaging in commercial pursuits. 
 There was always the possibility that the ecclesiastics 
 might use their servants as a screen for their own trading. 
 The greedy, money-loving officers and officials, saw this not 
 only as a possibility, but as a fact. Morbid suspicions of the 
 clergy profiting by the trade of their servants are voiced in 
 their letters to France and these are the proofs that the 
 ecclesiastics and the Jesuits devoted their time and energy 
 to commercial pursuits. 
 
 Colbert really did not bother much about it all; in fact, 
 during the heated discussion with M. Dudouyt over the 
 brandy traffic, the minister did not once mention "le com- 
 merce des ecclesiastiques." He did not retort when the 
 vicar-general asked for a higher subsidy for the mainte- 
 nance of the diocesan clergy. If the minister had put any 
 faith in Frontenac's statements, he certainly would have 
 argued that the profits coming to the priests would enable 
 them to get along without further gratuities. With regard 
 to the Jesuits, the minister believed so little in the decla- 
 mations of the governor about the immense revenues from 
 their vast land estates, and the huge profits derived from 
 their trade that, this very year, 1677, a few months after 
 having received Frontenac's accusing letter, he approved 
 paying 6,000 livres to the Jesuits of Canada "a cause de 
 leurs missions." 22 
 
 Such action on the part of Colbert, coupled with the 
 omission of any allusion to the accusing letter of October 
 29, 1676, was not wasted on Frontenac. The governor sensed 
 the disbelief and rebuke. He prepared his ' 'proofs." These 
 were brought to France by none other than La Salle at the 
 end of 1677 or at the beginning of 1678. Now did La Salle 
 give to Colbert the packet of letters, and this one in particu- 
 lar containing Frontenac's proofs, and was this latter then 
 the same as we have it today? The letter of 1677 contained 
 a statement of the trade of the Jesuits and an account of 
 the land concession to them near Sault St. Louis. Surely, 
 La Salle must have delivered the letters. But then several 
 difficulties arise. How, for instance, can Colbert's silence 
 
 22 AC, B 7:91. 
 
174 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 about the proofs be explained? He says nothing about them 
 in his own letters of 1678 to Frontenac. Then again, if the 
 Jesuits were trading, the minister would communicate the 
 information to the king, as a violation of his ordinances. 
 But the king in writing to the governor in May 1678 made 
 no mention of the trade or proofs. Contrary to what would 
 be expected had the Jesuits been under suspicion, the king 
 and Colbert signed for them in May 1678 a decree of amor- 
 tization granted by the king, exempting their landed estates 
 in Canada from royal dues. 23 After getting the replies, 
 Frontenac wrote another letter, the one of 1679, not car- 
 ried by La Salle, in which mention is again made of the 
 concession and his reasons for not granting it. The reaction 
 of the king to this was immediate and final; he informed 
 Frontenac in effect, that the grant to the Jesuits has been 
 made. All of which, namely, the absence of allusions to any 
 Jesuit trading as ' 'proved" by Frontenac in his letter of 
 1677, and the positive favorable grants to the accused, 
 seems to indicate that the king did not get the letter car- 
 ried by La Salle, or, if he did, it was not the same as what 
 we have today. 
 
 One instance of the Jesuits at trade may be selected from 
 these proofs. Father Dablon had asked Frontenac in 1674 
 for the Sault St. Louis concession. Frontenac had put him 
 off until the summer. The governor was averse to make this 
 land grant because, as he wrote to Colbert, "Their [Jesuits] 
 real reason is, I think, that they do not want to have neigh- 
 bors who can observe them at close quarters." Another rea- 
 son, the governor alleged, was: "They already have innu- 
 merable concessions in this country, and that which they 
 are asking for would better accommodate good settlers 
 which large families who are asking me for it." 24 No more 
 is heard about this in the governor's letters until the date 
 of the memoir, to be analyzed presently. He had refused the 
 land grant to the Jesuits until now — he wrote in 1677 — 
 because he had promised it not to fathers of large family, 
 but to the Sieur de la Salle. Yet in spite of such promise on 
 
 23 Amortissement pour les jesuites de Canada, May 12, 1678, AC, 
 B 7:175v-179; Edits, I, 102; cf. Jugements et deliberations, II, 337. 
 
 24 Frontenac to Colbert, November 14, 1674, RAPQ, 1927, 78. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 175 
 
 his part, and even on the part of the intendant, M. Du- 
 chesneau had made over the land to the Jesuits ; but as long 
 as the governor did not sign it, the deed was invalid. Again 
 in 1679, he wrote to the king that three years hence, the 
 Indians of the Prairie de la Madeleine had migrated and 
 had gone to settle "on the land which they [Jesuits] ob- 
 tained from M. Duchesneau, when he arrived in this coun- 
 try. However, I did not think I should give them the title 
 until I knew Your Majesty's intentions, for the reason 
 which I had the honor to give two years ago," that is, in 
 1677. 25 His Majesty returned a swift and sharp answer; he 
 had granted the Jesuits the ' 'concession they asked me of 
 the place called the Sault [St. Louis] adjoining the Prairie 
 de la Madeleine for the establishment of the Iroquois." 26 
 
 We return to the letter brought by La Salle to Colbert. 
 Most likely the king knew nothing of it. Did Colbert receive 
 it? This is very doubtful. It is not found in the Archives 
 of the Colonies where it would have been deposited, but 
 among Bernou's papers, and certainly it was not in the offi- 
 cial French Archives in 1687. In this year, the French to 
 establish a claim prior to that of the English in North 
 America, had a memoir composed on the explorations of 
 Frenchmen in the West. Extracts from letters of Talon, of 
 Frontenac, and of the king were used to prove the better 
 claim of the French. 27 Yet no allusion is made in this mem- 
 oir to Frontenac's letter of 1677. The force of this argument 
 is patent when one recalls that the letter, over and above 
 the accusations of trade, contained a significant passage, an 
 assertion that La Salle had traveled before Jolliet, although 
 it does not state in what part of America. Again, if Colbert 
 received the proofs brought to France by La Salle, the min- 
 ister's silence about the trade of the Jesuits is still more 
 puzzling. Did he see the letter and judge the proofs inane? 
 And what, if he saw the assertion, did he think of La Salle's 
 trip, prior to Jolliet? 
 
 But whether the proofs were handed to Colbert or not, 
 
 28 Frontenac to Louis XIV, November 6, 1679, ibid., 110. 
 
 26 Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 29, 1680, RAPQ, 1927, 115. 
 
 27 Memoire sur la domination des f rancois en Canada jusqu'en 
 1687, AC, C 11 A, 9:260-286. 
 
176 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 they will now be set forth and discussed. The "piquantes 
 accusations" of Frontenac, as Parkman wrote to Margry, 28 
 are contained in a memoir which was written in Paris in 
 1678. The present writer noted its certain peculiarities else- 
 where, 29 but at the time had not seen the memoir except as 
 printed by Margry. 30 Margry's antecedents should have put 
 him on guard against unverified assertions; instead he 
 rashly assumed that for once the compiler could be trusted. 
 There was disillusionment when a photostat of the docu- 
 ment came from Paris, 31 for obviously Margry once more 
 had led astray everyone who used the text he published. 
 Margry's critical annotations as to the external appearance 
 of the documents were erroneous; the text had been tam- 
 pered with; it had been carelessly edited; some unintelligi- 
 ble passages were caused by omissions, and the printed text 
 was sprinkled with blunders. 32 
 
 A first indication that one was in presence of another 
 example of rigging by Margry was the note found in Ice- 
 land, who says the document was a "draft in the hand of 
 Bernou." 33 Margry, however, asserted in a note that "the 
 text on which this copy [which he printed] was made, is 
 en minute, the first, rough draft." 34 A first draft of a letter 
 
 28 Parkman to Margry, August 9, 1876, in Smith College Studies 
 in History, VIII, 1923, 169. 
 
 29 Some La Salle Journeys, 58-60. 
 so Margry, I, 301-325. 
 
 si BN, Clairambault, 1016:43-48v. 
 
 32 Compare, for instance, Margry, I, 304-305, where Laval's 
 yearly income is given, with the text in BN, Clairambault, 1016:44. 
 The passage in the manuscript is full of erasures and changes; the 
 memorialist, Bernou, manipulated what he knew about the revenues 
 of Laval until by clever juggling it reached the total of 25,000 livres 
 a year. A decade later, Bernou was still busy showing how wealthy 
 the Bishop of Quebec was, cf. Bernou to Renaudot, February 10, 
 1685, BN, Mss. fr. n. a., 7497:198-198v. See also Margry, I, 313, 
 where the misreading of the text turns a layman into a person able 
 to absolve a penitent. The Sieur Martial spoken of by Margry is in 
 the text the P[ere] Martial [Limozin], a Recollect, etc., etc. 
 
 33 Leland, Guide to Materials for American History in the Li- 
 braries and Archives of Paris, Washington, D. C, 1932, 172. Leland 
 entered the document as follows: [Frontenac to Colbert] (Draft in 
 the hand of Abbe Bernou). Ptd. Margry, I, 301-325. In her Calendar, 
 issued a few years before Leland's Guide, Mrs. Surrey listed the doc- 
 ument as: [1677?] Bernou to Colbert. Opposition of the Canadian 
 Clergy to La Salle. (Draft.) 12 pp. BN. MSS. Clair. 1016. Margry, 
 I, 301. 
 
 34 Margry, I, 301, note. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 177 
 
 of Frontenac to Colbert by Bernou in 1677 appeared 
 strange. The abbe was then in France, and Frontenac in 
 Canada. There was no reason to doubt Leland; he knew the 
 handwriting of Bernou; he or his staff had examined and 
 analyzed hundreds of pages of the abbe's autograph letters 
 and papers, and the document in question is found among 
 Bernou's papers. Hence Margry's assertions were to be con- 
 trolled. On the second page of the printed version, the edi- 
 tor, Margry, tells us that the document has a marginal note 
 "in the hand of Frontenac." Margry made other critical 
 remarks, such as : a passage concerning the Hospitalieres of 
 Quebec is crossed out; there was moy changed to M. de 
 Frontenac ; several paragraphs are cancelled. 35 
 
 Only a few words need be said with regard to these va- 
 rious statements. The document is not en minute, it is a 
 copy by Bernou of a letter of Frontenac; the verbal and 
 stylistic changes are the abbe's who was a much better 
 writer than Frontenac or his secretaries. The marginal note 
 is not in the hand of Frontenac. The whole document is in 
 the handwriting of Bernou, marginal notes, of which there 
 are many, as well as text. The passage about the Hospita- 
 lieres is not crossed out; Bernou left the place blank; but 
 the two lines about the riches of the Ursulines were can- 
 celled by the abbe. Not only are the three paragraphs 
 spoken of by Margry cancelled, but nine paragraphs are 
 bodily struck out; and M. de Frontenac takes the place of 
 moy many times, especially in the first pages of the docu- 
 ment. 
 
 The outward appearance of the document reveals its na- 
 ture. 36 It is a draft of a memoir by Bernou to be presented 
 
 35 Margry, I, 302, 307-308, 309. 
 
 36 On a previous occasion, Some La Salle Journeys, 60, I made 
 use of the memoir under scrutiny and attributed authorship to Fron- 
 tenac because I rashly followed Margry. I supposed that Bernou had 
 made a transcription, more or less faithful of the original Frontenac 
 letter. After careful study of a photograph of the document, my con- 
 clusion is, that Frontenac wrote a letter in 1677. This fell into the 
 hands of Bernou, who wrote, or at least intended to produce two mem- 
 oirs from its contents. What Frontenac composed has disappeared; 
 what Bernou wrote remains. Now, in the passage of Some La Salle 
 Journeys mentioned above, I wrote: "The only copy extant is in the 
 handwriting of Bernou, and it is this draft which Margry printed." 
 I used the word "copy" not thinking at the time that there was ani- 
 
178 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 to Colbert, based on a letter of Frontenac and filled in with 
 extracts from memoirs brought in by La Salle. The changes 
 made by Bernou consist mainly in modifying some of the 
 crude statements of Frontenac, in inserting, besides the en- 
 closures, reflexions on what he knew about the affairs of 
 Canada, which at that time was not very much. 37 For un- 
 ascertainable reasons, Bernou did not ' 'adapt" the whole 
 letter. Toward the end of his copy, he no longer changed 
 the first personal pronoun into M. de Frontenac. The manu- 
 script also reveals that Bernou was composing two memoirs 
 out of the letter of Frontenac, as is evidenced by some mar- 
 ginal notes indicating that paragraphs crossed out in the 
 copy of the letter were to be used in the "other mem- 
 oir." 38 If Bernou ever made a neat copy of his work, it has 
 not come down to us. 
 
 It is not difficult to reconstruct what took place. La Salle 
 arrived in Paris and cast his lot with the Renaudot group, 
 to whom Bernou belonged. The letter was certainly shown 
 to his new friends, otherwise we cannot explain how Ber- 
 nou was able to copy it. But the abbe realized that as it was 
 it would not have the effect desired. What Frontenac needed 
 was a re-write man, and he could hardly have found a bet- 
 ter one than Bernou. A question naturally arises to which 
 no certain answer can be given. Did Bernou dissuade La 
 Salle from handing over the "proofs" and the letter of Col- 
 bert? As was noted above, none of these documents are 
 found in the official archives. Little is achieved by saying 
 Frontenac's correspondence for the years 1675-1678 is not 
 found in the archives either, for the answers of Colbert and 
 of Louis XIV for these years are extant, and neither makes 
 the slightest allusion of these "proofs." On the other hand, 
 it is unlikely that La Salle would have dared not to hand 
 these letters to the minister. He had a clear interest in let- 
 
 biguity, for some might suppose I was using "copy" in contradistinc- 
 tion to "original." Certainly, as far as Bernou is concerned, it is orig- 
 inal, but rewritten and rearranged from Frontenac's letter. A re- 
 viewer, in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXV, 1938, 386, 
 says that Bernou wrote the letter for Frontenac, but on what grounds 
 the statement is made is not clear. 
 
 37 Cf. Bernou to Renaudot, February 1, 1684, BN, Mss. fr. n. a., 
 7497:98. 
 
 38 Cf. Clairambault, 1016 :45v. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 179 
 
 ting Colbert know what the Jesuits were doing in Canada, 
 how they allegedly traded and sought to ruin his seigniory 
 of Fort Frontenac. Whichever solution is adopted, the his- 
 tory of this letter remains puzzling. 
 
 Before analyzing the contents of this document as it is 
 found in the archives, in contradistinction to its printed 
 form, it may be asked why Margry published it, and why 
 he published it as he did. An answer to the first question is 
 given in the initial footnote: 
 
 The sentiment of impartiality which led us to publish the ex- 
 tremely eulogistic notice about Father Claude Allouez and cer- 
 tain instructions mixed with reproaches of Colbert to Frontenac, 
 did not allow us to reject a document which contains very im- 
 portant assertions relative to Cavelier de la Salle and Jolliet. 
 Forced to deal with a period replete with prejudices and clashing 
 interests in the midst of which the Mississippi River was dis- 
 covered, the editor of this compilation must not have and sin- 
 cerely has no other aim than to furnish without comments testi- 
 monies to history. It is for history to examine and to pass judg- 
 ment. 39 
 
 This is a good sample of Margry's cant. 40 There was no 
 objection to printing this document, if only the editor had 
 warned the student of its peculiar external appearance, and 
 had not led people astray with his notes. The main reason 
 for publication is said to be the important assertions about 
 La Salle and Jolliet. What these assertions are has been dis- 
 cussed elsewhere. 41 A corrected passage of this memoir was 
 given as one of the four proofs that La Salle discovered 
 the Mississippi before Jolliet, 42 but Margry took good care 
 not to call the reader's attention to the correction or pecu- 
 liarity. At a loss for arguments, Margry used this amended 
 text as his third proof, but did not allow anybody to see the 
 
 ss Margry, I, 301, note. 
 
 40 See another example in ibid., I, Introduction, xxvi, where he 
 asserts that for the sake of truth he is ready to sacrifice "ses inte- 
 rets et son repos," come what may. 
 
 4i Some La Salle Journeys, 58-60. 
 
 42 The "important passage" reads thus : "le l er desquels [Jolliet] 
 ils ont tant vante par avance quoiquil nait voyage quapres le S r de 
 la Salle lequel mesme vous temoignera que ledt Jolliet a menty"; 
 Bernou deleted the words in italics, and inserted between the lines: 
 "la relation du S r Jolliet est fausse en beaucoup de choses," BN, 
 Clairambault, 1016 :48v. 
 
180 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 document itself. He handed out either his own copies of the 
 original or transcripts of these copies made by a scribe. 
 Another reason for publishing the document, but not stated, 
 may have been the indictment it contained of the clergy of 
 Canada, the bishop, the diocesan clergy, the Sulpicians, and 
 the Jesuits. This study is only concerned with the contents 
 insofar as the Jesuits are mentioned. Attention will be 
 called to what is clearly Frontenac's and what is Bernou's 
 own contribution. 
 
 Judging from the summary of Frontenac's letter of Oc- 
 tober 29, 1676, given by Rochemonteix, the parts of the doc- 
 ument which are clearly the governor's do not greatly differ 
 from that letter. The opening paragraphs, which Bernou 
 filled with erasures and verbal changes and which he finally 
 crossed out altogether, are a prelude to the broadside. The 
 wrath of the governor after the ordinance of 1676, is only 
 too evident. He roundly accuses all the clergy of Canada 
 with the exception of the Recollects, of tyranny, ambition, 
 and greed. First their riches are discussed. The sources of 
 their wealth are enumerated — gratuities from the king, 
 alms from their supporters in France, revenues from the 
 most fertile and most advantageously located land in Can- 
 ada; and "finally the trade which they continue to carry on 
 in spite of the orders which the king was obliged to send 
 them to make them desist." 43 To show that these general 
 statements were not invented, the author descends to par- 
 ticulars. Here in Bernou's manuscript, the transcription of 
 Frontenac's letter suddenly breaks off, and the abbe gives 
 a list of the documentary proofs of the trade of the Jesuits, 
 those likely brought to France by La Salle. Here for the 
 first time the missionaries are specifically named. In Fron- 
 tenac's letter these enclosures were "cotte A," but, they are 
 no longer to be found, and Bernou did not copy, but merely 
 summarized their contents. The Jesuits are named a second 
 time, when the governor enumerated their land property in 
 New France, and a third time toward the end of the letter, 
 where their trade is again dealt with. 
 
 There is little to be said about the land concessions. 
 
 *3 BN, Clairambault, 1016 :44v; Margry, I, 302. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 181 
 
 Frontenac enumerated the acreage possessed by the ' 'eccle- 
 siastics" in Canada. Where he speaks of the Jesuits, his 
 statements are too vague to be checked on the official list 
 of the various land grants owned by the Jesuits in New 
 France, a list made at the very time when Bernou wrote 
 this memoir. This is certain, the governor wished to im- 
 press upon the minister that the missionaries possessed 
 numerous and immense tracts of land in Canada. 
 
 The third time the Jesuits are censured, the governor 
 repeats what he had written before respecting the frenchifi- 
 cation of the natives, the brandy traffic with the Indians, 
 and the trade in which the Jesuits were supposed to be 
 engaged. The tirade, it is true, is against "les ecclesiasti- 
 ques" but here it is clear who these are. Frontenac com- 
 plains because the Indians do not speak French; he criti- 
 cizes the "ecclesiastics," that is, the Jesuits, for being op- 
 posed to the amalgamation of French and Indians, although 
 both of these means "are the only way to make true Chris- 
 tians of the Indians. Consequently, in spite of their mission, 
 there are hardly any true Christians among the Indians. My 
 Lord can learn this from several persons who are now in 
 France." As long as the Indians live among themselves, 
 Frontenac asserts, they will abandon the Christian religion, 
 their lawful wives, their huts, and the missionaries at the 
 first caprice. 
 
 But these gentlemen [the Jesuits] have been constantly opposing 
 [the frenchification and amalgamation schemes]. Owing to the 
 ignorance of our language and of our manners in which they 
 keep the Indians, they make them believe anything they please. 
 It is the reason why one of them maltreated and removed the 
 little Iroquois girl I supported at the convent of the Ursulines; 
 and it is the reason why they found it amiss that M. de la Salle 
 has more than fifty [Indian] children taught [French] at Fort 
 Frontenac, several of whom already begin to know how to read 
 and write; it is the reason why they made the Iroquois of the 
 Prairie de la Madeleine move away, because the Indians were 
 too close to the French settlements for their liking. And after 
 they have obtained so many land grants, they have had M. Du- 
 chesneau grant them, in his own name, against the king's orders, 
 the Sault St. Louis concession, which he and I had promised to 
 the Sieur de la Salle. 
 
182 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 To obtain these concessions they proceed in a clever 
 manner. They ask the land for the Indians ; they have these 
 clear the land and rent it to the French, so that there is 
 not one Indian who owns as much as one foot of land. 
 
 But whatever they may do, the Indians themselves begin to see 
 through some of their ruses. One of them, called Marie Felix, an 
 exceedingly clever girl who speaks French as if she were born 
 in Paris, told me several times that the Indians are very much 
 dissatisfied with the missionaries; that they begin to know that 
 the land which the Fathers made them clear belongs to them, 
 ( that they are treated as slaves ; that they are forced to buy all 
 they need from one Hazeur, apparently one of their agents); 44 
 that they were prevented from coming to my help at the time of 
 the fire, the Father telling them that God was punishing me for 
 my sins; that [the Fathers] are constantly disparaging me, and 
 many other things of the same sort. 
 
 An [Iroquois] dictionary they made fell into the hands of 
 Father Louis [Hennepin] . 45 It shows the idea they give of them- 
 selves to the Indians. Explaining for instance the word equal, 
 they put down: "The Black Robe is equal to Onontio." They told 
 other Indians that they are the masters, and that Onontio or 
 the governor carries the sword. They have also said more than 
 once that everything would go wrong until the ecclesiastics con- 
 trol the whole government. 
 
 In truth, they are nearly the masters of the whole col- 
 ony. Their concessions are located at the two entrances of 
 it; they hold the two keys to the country, at the mouth of 
 the St. Lawrence and at Montreal. In this passage, Fron- 
 tenac does not speak specifically of the Jesuits, but he soon 
 returned to his bete noire. 
 
 They have also founded an establishment at Michilimackinac, an 
 
 44 The words in parenthesis are marginal additions, BN, Clair- 
 ambault, 1016 :47v. 
 
 45 Hennepin went to the Iroquois country during the absence of 
 La Salle. "We stay'd some time among these People, lodging with a 
 Jesuite that has been born at Lions, to transcribe an Iroquese Dic- 
 tionary." New Discovery, II, 42. The Jesuit was Father Bruyas, the 
 missionary among the Mohawks and then Superior of all the Iroquois 
 missions. The sentence Frontenac objected to is not found in the 
 Radices verborum Iroquaeorum, of Father Bruyas, published by Shea 
 in 1862. Father Bruyas is also credited with having composed a Vo- 
 cabulaire Frangois-Agnier, which the present writer was unable to 
 consult. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 183 
 
 island by which one must necessarily pass to go to the Lake of 
 the Illinois [Michigan], and they have built a fort which shuts 
 up Lake Superior or Tracy at Sault Ste. Marie. In the latter 
 place, they have cannons, and here took place the massacre of 
 the Sioux ambassadors. The last survivor of these ambassadors, 
 having locked himself in the chapel, was killed with a cannon 
 shot by a missionary brother, whose name is known to the whole 
 colony. So that they will soon be the master of all the avenues, 
 far and near. 
 
 Not only are they engaged in trade, against the ordinances 
 of the king and in spite of the suppression of the conges, but 
 they have an understanding with the English, whom they praise, 
 (at whose councils they sit). 46 They entice the French to trade 
 with the English, and they have made several trips to Albany 
 and to New York, as is proved by their letters enclosed herein. 
 They even went so far as to ask the leave of Major Andros, Gov- 
 ernor of New York or New Netherland, to remain in the Iroquois 
 country, which incontestably belongs to the king [of France]. 
 This is not a made up accusation, for there is [Von a] a letter of 
 Major Andros which proves the last point. 
 
 Last year, 1676, they set a trap for the governor on the 
 occasion of the Iroquois war, then threatening the colony. 
 But a trip to Cataracouy foiled their attempts, which had 
 no other purpose than to ruin M. de la Salle. 
 
 They formerly called him [La Salle] a visionary. Now that by 
 expenses, cares, and extraordinary hardships, he successfully 
 carried out his plan, and has even done more than could be ex- 
 pected and more than he promised, even going so far as to force 
 the Iroquois to build his fort and to till his own land, which 
 nobody had succeeded in doing before him, for it was thought 
 impossible; he has become the object of their envy and of their 
 aversion; all the more since his establishment [Fort Frontenac] 
 impedes their trade with the English, and is an obstacle to the 
 communications they would like to have with those among them 
 who are in the Ottawa country. 
 
 The reason for these maneuvers is then given. They 
 learned that La Salle had the intention of asking for the 
 trade monopoly of Lakes Erie and Michigan; they asked 
 for this concession on behalf of Jolliet and Bazire, two men 
 
 46 The words in parentheses are in the margin, BN, Clairam- 
 bault, 1016:48. 
 
184 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 completely in their devotion. They also want to restore the 
 conges and put them in the hands of Sieur Bazire or in 
 those of a dozen private individuals ; if they succeed in this 
 
 there is no hope left to prevent not only their trade, but even 
 to prevent them from having in their hand most of the com- 
 merce of the colony. I learned that they also intend to found 
 a share-holding society for selling brandy, after having cried so 
 much to have the liquor traffic prohibited. But I have no mis- 
 givings on this score, because I know that your ability will easily 
 see what would be its inconveniences and consequences. It re- 
 mains, my Lord, to beg of you to note how great and wide- 
 spread are the disorders caused by the ecclesiastics in the col- 
 ony. Note that I bring proofs for all the main accusations; that 
 I say nothing about myself, although I have had to suffer more 
 than any one else. I avoided all mention of myself, lest I be ac- 
 cused of pleading my own cause and not that of the whole 
 country, and that to spare their reputation, with the exception 
 of the bishop, I have not given the name of even one of them, 
 although I know their names well. M. de la Salle will give the 
 names to you, if you order him. 47 
 
 Before considering the particular counts of this long in- 
 dictment, a few remarks must be made about the quotations 
 just given. They were certainly in the letter of Frontenac. 
 Only a few complementary marginal additions are by Ber- 
 nou. Two passages are especially noteworthy. In one the 
 Jesuits are accused of being traitors to France, of hobnob- 
 bing with the English and the Dutch, with enclosures in 
 proof. In the second, occurs the statement that to spare the 
 reputation of the "ecclesiastics, no names are given, except 
 that of the bishop." This latter statement of Frontenac 
 seemed strange to the writer, since the pages preceding 
 teemed with names. The document was lacking and there 
 was only Margry's garbled text to go by. But it ceases to 
 be strange once the memoir is at hand. Frontenac did not 
 mention any name in his letter, but names were mentioned 
 in the enclosures, and La Salle filled in the other blanks. 
 Bernou embodied all in the memoir which, as adapted, was 
 to be presented to Colbert. The first of Bernou's insertions 
 
 47 BN, Clairambault, 1016:47v-48v, Margry, I, 319-325. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 185 
 
 deals precisely with all the specific accusations concerning 
 the trading activities of the Jesuits. 
 
 Having transcribed the paragraph of the letter of Fron- 
 tenac in which the governor speaks of the revenues of the 
 "ecclesiastics," of the manner in which they enrich them- 
 selves by various means and above all by their trade, to 
 prove these were no inventions, Bernou inserted 
 
 There is the written avowal of one of them, cotte A, wherein 
 he contends that the fur trade they carry on in two places lo- 
 cated very near each other, only brings 4,000 livres profit per 
 annum, instead of 20,000 livres as rumor had it. 
 
 [There is] the declaration of an Indian squaw named Marie 
 Felix, (who speaks French and who told M. de Frontenac) 48 that 
 Father Chaumonot forbade the Indians whom he instructs at 
 Lorette 49 to buy their needs from the merchants, having prom- 
 ised them to have all kinds of merchandises in their warehouse. 
 
 That [declaration] of Sieur Denison, at present in Paris, who 
 met two overloaded canoes belonging to the missionaries con- 
 taining among other things three Rooles of tobacco, which is the 
 merchandise bringing the greatest profit. 
 
 That [declaration] of the man called Allain [stating] that 
 five canoes belonging to Indians of the Prairie de la Madeleine 
 loaded with beaver, 50 as much as they could carry, having met 
 Socoqui Indians, their enemies, 51 sent to the missionary of the 
 Prairie de la Madeleine to ask whether they should proceed. 
 
 The letter 52 which Father Bruyas wrote to the Sieur D'Alle- 
 rais inviting him to trade with New York. 
 
 The letter which Father de Lamberville wrote to the Sieur 
 de la Salle was brought by an Indian; by it he made known to 
 him 53 of a means of sending beaver pelts to New Netherland. 
 
 The buying by the missionaries in the Ottawa country of the 
 merchandises belonging to the French who have been recalled 
 thence in compliance with the orders of His Majesty, 
 
 48 The words in parentheses were added by Bernou, who took 
 them from what is said further down in the letter of Frontenac. 
 
 49 Margry, I, 303, transcribed the words a lorrette as a Vordi- 
 naire. 
 
 so The manuscript shows that Bernou was summarizing or was 
 copying a summary. He began to write a morte [-charge] as in the 
 preceding paragraph. He crossed out the words a morte, inserted de 
 castor on the top and continued autant qu'ils en pouuoient porter. 
 
 si Leurs ennemis is an interlinear addition. 
 
 52 Bernou had written Les lettres first. 
 
 53 "Par lequel il luy conse [Wait] presentoit un moyen." The 
 abbe" began to write the word in italics, then crossed it out. 
 
186 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 And several other proofs which will be furnished if my Lord 
 wishes. 54 
 
 The frenchification scheme and the brandy trade with 
 the Indians have been discussed at length in preceding 
 pages, and since there is nothing new in what is said by 
 Frontenac, it is useless to delay on these two items. 55 But 
 there are two specific instances which deserve more than a 
 passing mention: the great success of La Salle at Fort 
 Frontenac with regard to the frenchification, and the mi- 
 gration of the Indians from the Prairie de la Madeleine to 
 Sault St. Louis, four miles away. The great success of La 
 Salle's colonization, as distinguished from what Fort Fron- 
 tenac was and remained, will be seen below. But the "edu- 
 cation toute franchise," the successful frenchification at 
 Fort Frontenac is purely imaginary. Nowhere else is there 
 found a reference to this great success. Le Clercq blandly 
 
 54 Bernou had written "et plusieurs autres faicts," he deleted 
 faicts, and wrote preuves instead. He continued "qu'on obmet pour 
 n'estre pas," again deleted these words and replaced them with 
 "fournira si Monseigneur le souhaitte," BN, Clairamtaault, 1016 :43v, 
 Margry, I, 303. 
 
 ss The memoir contains an astonishing passage about the ordi- 
 nance of 1668 allowing freedom of the brandy trade in New France. 
 The text is given as in Margry, I, 312-313, with the cancellations 
 made by Bernou in italics, BN, Clairambault, 1016:46. It is unneces- 
 sary to add that the deletions are not indicated by Margry. "Mais 
 ce qui a fait le plus d'esclat et a quoy ils s'opiniastrent le plus, par 
 des raisons d'interest deduites dans un autre memoire, c'est le cas 
 reserve pour la defense de l'eau-de-vie avec les Sauvages. Le Conseil 
 souverain en a permis la traite par son arrest du 10 Novembre 1668, 
 par Vavls mesme des Reverends Peres Jesuistes, comme il y est 
 enonce; mais, malgre cet arrest et sans attendre la reponse de la 
 Cour sur ce sujet, ils ont interdit le nomme Roland pour cela seul 
 sujet avec des circonstances violentes et odieuses au dernier point." 
 It is almost unbelievable that Frontenac should have written what 
 was so patently false. He had seen the registers of the Sovereign 
 Council; the king was soon to write that he had absolutely no right 
 to keep the registers in his house, Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 29, 
 1680, RAPQ, 1927, 114. He knew that the advice of the Jesuits was 
 not asked on this occasion, cf. Jugements et deliberations, I, 534, 
 and he knew that the Jesuits never had and never would counsel 
 such a measure. Bernou had not seen the registers, but as he was 
 not so foolish as to let the statement stand, he hastened to cross out 
 the blunder. The "avis des Reverends Peres Jesuites" was asked 
 September 28, 1663, that is fifteen years previously, when the Council 
 was deliberating on the decree which forbade any one to trade or 
 give, directly or indirectly, under any pretext whatever, intoxicating 
 drinks to the Indians, under penalty for the first offense of 300 livres 
 fine, and for the second offense lashes or banishment, Jugements et 
 deliberations, I, 38. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 187 
 
 asserted that Fort Frontenac was the means to draw the 
 natives to the Jesuit sedentary missions near Montreal and 
 Quebec. As a matter of truth, the Iroquois were coming to 
 settle at the Prairie long before Fort Frontenac was even 
 thought of. And, as will be shown, the seignior of Fort 
 Frontenac and the governor did their best to wreck the mis- 
 sion of La Prairie. Le Clercq, after having delivered him- 
 self of his statement, continued: 
 
 An Iroquois village gathered, too, near the fort, to which Fathers 
 Louis Hennepin and Luke Buisset were appointed. The former 
 made excursions to the Iroquois nations, drew families from 
 them to the fort, and having perfected himself in their language 
 and the means of gaining them to God, labored there several 
 years with fruit. Father Luke Buisset, a religious of singular 
 merit, profound erudition, and great regularity of life, followed 
 the Indians everywhere, and even twice wintered with them in 
 the woods in order to gain them to Christ. 56 
 
 What is in Leclercq is nothing else than a paraphrase 
 of what is found in the Description of Louisiana, with one 
 noticeable change — in the Description the Indians learn 
 French, while in the First Establishment it is the Recol- 
 lects who perfect themselves in the Iroquois language. 
 There is reason to believe, Hennepin wrote in 1682, a con- 
 siderable colony will be formed at Fort Frontenac, for when 
 he left there were already thirteen or fourteen families 
 and a 
 
 mission house which I built with our dear Recollect Father, Luke 
 Buisset, with the help of Sieur de la Salle, whereby, we at- 
 tracted a pretty large [assez considerable] village of Iroquois, 
 whose children we teach to read with our little French children, 
 and they teach each other their language in turn. This maintains 
 a good understanding with the Iroquois, who clear the land in 
 order to plant Indian corn so as to subsist all the year except 
 the hunting season. 57 
 
 In the summer of 1679, Hennepin tells us he returned 
 to Fort Frontenac, and while waiting for a favorable wind 
 
 se Le Clercq, II, 87. 
 
 57 A Description of Louisiana, Shea's translation, New York, 
 1880, 59. 
 
188 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 We made frequent [plusieurs, i. e., several] Visits to the Sav- 
 ages, whom we had persuaded to settle themselves near the Fort, 
 who, together with their Children, whom we had taught to read 
 and write, lamented our Departure. 58 
 
 When these texts are juxtaposed to other texts taken 
 from the New Discovery and the New Voyage, a very pecu- 
 liar picture of the state of affairs at Fort Frontenac is the 
 result, and the complete French education of the Indian 
 children seems hardly to have been begun. During the two 
 years and a half Hennepin spent there, "they cultivated 
 more than a hundred Acres of land." We do not know who 
 "they" [on] are, whether Indians, or French, or both. Else- 
 where Hennepin says "they" are the Indians, and so says 
 the memoir of 1678. But as will be seen in a moment, the 
 Indians spent very little time at the Fort. When Hennepin 
 departed to undertake his "great Voyage," in November 
 1678, instead of the thirteen or fourteen families of the De- 
 scription, he "left there about fifteen or sixteen families to- 
 gether," 59 that is, French families, husbands with their 
 wives and children. Now, one year before the great voyage 
 began, September 7, 1677, the official census of Fort Fron- 
 tenac gives four settlers [habitants], only two of whom 
 were married, and they had seven children in all. 60 
 
 In the winter of 1676-1677, Hennepin went with La Salle 
 to an "Iroquese Village call'd Ganneousse, near to Rente, 
 about nine leagues from the Fort." He made a speech to the 
 Indians that determined a considerable number of natives to 
 come to Cataracouy, 
 
 in order to form a little village of about forty cottages to be 
 inhabited by them, lying betwixt the Fort and our House of Mis- 
 sion. . . . We had the Apostolick Creed, the Lord's prayer, and 
 our ordinary prayers, translated into the Iroquese language, 
 which we caus'd them to get by heart, and repeat to their chil- 
 
 58 New Discovery, I, 99-100. The French text reads as follows : 
 "Leurs enfants, a qui nous avions donne" quelque teinture des lettres 
 pour apprendre a lire et a ecrire, nous temoignoient le deplaisir que 
 leurs parens & eux avoient de nous voir partir," Nouvelle decouverte 
 d'un tres grand Pays, . . . Utrecht, 1697, 109. The English 1698 Ton- 
 son edition which Thwaites reprinted often renders the French orig- 
 inal inadequately. 
 
 59 New Discovery, I, 47. 
 eoMargry, I, 298. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 189 
 
 dren; and . . . obliging them to frequent converse with the Chil- 
 dren of Europeans that inhabited the Fort; so that they mutu- 
 ally taught one another their Mother- Languages ; which serves 
 likewise to entertain a good Correspondence with the Iroquese. 61 
 
 The "cottages" are the French cabannes. It is usual to 
 count more than two families to the "cottage," and forty 
 would give between 80 and 100 families ; elsewhere, Henne- 
 pin speaks of 50 families. The papooses of these families 
 must have far outnumbered the seven French children of 
 the two families then at the Fort; and even if we had no 
 contradictory statement by Hennepin himself, it is easy to 
 imagine what language was spoken, who taught whom, and 
 what manner of "education toute franchise" was being im- 
 parted at Fort Frontenac. Even if the papooses had learned 
 a few words of French, they forgot them from one year to 
 another. In winter, the Indians went hunting for "five or 
 six Months," taking their families with them "so that their 
 children being absent all the season of Hunting, forgot what 
 we had instill'd into them at Fort Frontenac." 62 
 
 In the New Voyage, Hennepin delivered himself of his 
 views on the evangelization of the Indians. One of the ob- 
 stacles to their conversion, he wrote, is that they have no 
 fixed place. "While I was at Fort Frontenac, Father Luke 
 Buisset and myself, were employed a great part of the Year 
 to teach many [plusieurs, i. e. } several] Children our or- 
 dinary Prayers, and (even) to read in their own Iroquois 
 language." The parents of these children assisted at the 
 service in the chapel of the fort; they seemed to be moved 
 by what they saw, but, adds Hennepin, this was only in 
 order to please the missionaries and in the hope of getting 
 some present. 
 
 But in case they had had some laudable Design, they would 
 quickly have renounced it, because they stay no longer in their 
 Villages than till Harvest be over (que pendant qu'il faut semer 
 
 6i New Discovery, I, 48. "Nous les rendions familiers avec les 
 enfans des nos habitans Europeans du Fort. Ces enfans, qui nous 
 estoient chers, parce qu'ils etoient nez Chretiens, conversans ainsi 
 avec ces petits Iroquois, ils s'entr'apprenoient leurs langues mater- 
 nelles," Nouvelle decouverte, 36-37. 
 
 62 New Discovery, I, 49. 
 
190 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 ou recueillir le ble d'Inde), which is but a small time: All the 
 rest of the Year they pass in Wars and Hunting. Then they carry 
 their Families with them, and are absent eight or nine Months: 
 Their children then, which have begun to learn something, forget 
 all (ce qu'on leur avoit enseigne), and fall to their former Super- 
 stitions and methods of living. 63 
 
 It seems that one is entitled to draw the conclusion that, 
 if during the eight or nine months the Indian children 
 spend in the woods, or even during the five or six months 
 Hennepin had given previously, they forgot the rudiments 
 of religion taught them in their mother tongue, they cer- 
 tainly forgot whatever French they had learned. Contrary 
 to Le Clercq's assertion, Hennepin says "it was impossible 
 for any Missionary to follow the Indians into these wild 
 Desarts," 64 when they went hunting. During one winter, 
 while he remained at the Fort, he instructed a few Indians, 
 but in vain, for after all his work, "these miserable dark 
 Creatures (ces pauvres aveugles spirituels) . . . gave no 
 better sign of Edification, than others in our Articles of 
 Faith . . . and the Children follow'd the unhappy Example 
 of their Parents, insomuch that 'twas no better than a plain 
 profanation of Baptism to administer it to them." 65 
 
 We are then far from the progress spoken of in the let- 
 ter of Frontenac of 1677, according to whom there were 
 fifty Indian children, who, that year, had already begun to 
 read and write French. Something very peculiar stands 
 forth in these various accounts of the schooling at Fort 
 Frontenac, but another peculiarity is found when we com- 
 pare them with the document under present analysis. In 
 1678, Bernou "adapted" the letter of Frontenac. In it, La 
 
 63 Ibid., II, 542, Nouveau Voyage d'un Pais plus grand que VEu- 
 rope . . . , Utrecht, 1698, 257. 
 
 s* New Discovery, I, 48. 
 
 es Ibid., II, 460-461. "The Recollects brand the Savages for 
 stupid, gross and rustick Persons, uncapable of Thought or Reflec- 
 tion: But the Jesuits give them other sort of Language, for they 
 intitle them to good Sense, to a tenacious Memory, and to a quick 
 Apprehension season'd with a solid Judgment. The former allege that 
 'tis to no purpose to preach the Gospel to a sort of People that have 
 less Knowledge than the Brutes. On the other hand the latter (I 
 mean the Jesuits) give it out, that these Savages take Pleasure in 
 hearing the Word of God, and readily apprehend the meaning of the 
 Scriptures," Lahontan, New Voyages, II, 413. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 191 
 
 Salle was reputedly educating the Indian children in read- 
 ing and writing French, yet in 1682, when Bernou "adapted" 
 Hennepin's book to write the so-called "Relation des des- 
 couvertes," he left out precisely what pertains to the teach- 
 ing of French to the papooses — just as the editor of Le- 
 clercq was to do a few years later — and he cut the Recol- 
 lect's text where the direct quotation from the Description 
 given above begins. 66 Had Bernou become aware in the in- 
 terval that he had to take with many grains of salt what he 
 had learned about the "education toute franchise" from 
 Frontenac and from La Salle? 67 
 
 To return to the memoir of 1678. It is safe to assume 
 that no instance of Jesuit trade was left out, notwithstand- 
 ing Bernou's offer to supply several other "proofs" on re- 
 quest. This assumption is warranted, since the purpose of 
 Frontenac's letter was precisely to damnify the Jesuits on 
 the trade question. 
 
 The first specific proof listed is found in a letter of "one 
 of them," stating how much profit from the beaver trade 
 the Jesuits made in a year in two places not far distant 
 from each other. "One of them" was Father Fremin, then 
 Superior of the Prairie de la Madeleine mission. This accu- 
 sation will again appear in a "curious monument," to be 
 analyzed later. Another remark may not be out of place at 
 this point. It was usual for these gentlemen to speak of 
 letters as of original documents allegedly proving their 
 lucubrations. Thus in the "curious monument" just alluded 
 to, the same will appear and Father Louis was to follow 
 suit a few years later. What is remarkable is that no traces 
 of such letters are ever found; after having been seen by 
 the memorialists, they seem to vanish completely. 
 
 In the present case, it is regrettable that Bernou did not 
 transcribe this letter, if it was really one of the enclosures. 
 Erasures in Bernou's manuscript cause doubt to arise. To 
 show that the accusations are not invented, on a Vadveu 
 was the last version set down by the abbe. He had written 
 something else, but it is so thoroughly erased as to be no 
 
 ee See Margry, I, 438. 
 
 67 Cf. Bernou to Renaudot, November 4, 1684, BN, Mss. fr. n. a. 
 7497:169. 
 
192 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 longer legible. He then wrote on the top of the cancelled 
 words, et on vous fera voir Monsgr., which is also scratched, 
 and replaced by a final vague, indetermined on a. 68 Bernou 
 was not as imprudent as were his confederates. 
 
 The probable contents of the letter can be surmised 
 from the following sketch of the Prairie de la Madeleine 
 mission. It is mentioned several times in Frontenac's letters. 
 The mission, later moved to Sault St. Louis, a few miles 
 from its original site, was a bugbear to the governor. The 
 Superior of this Mission, Father Fremin, was guilty of two 
 unforgiveable somethings: first, the Iroquois preferred to 
 settle at the Jesuit mission rather than at Frontenac's trad- 
 ing post, Cataracouy; secondly, Father Fremin had pre- 
 vented the proteges of the governor from opening a saloon 
 in the mission. 
 
 The mission founded in 1667, by Father Raffeix, had 
 very humble beginnings. The Indians, mostly Iroquois, were 
 at first living with the French; they were not numerous 
 enough to become an organized mission until 1671. 69 All 
 Indians were welcome, but those who came and wanted to 
 stay had to forswear plurality of wives and brandy. Hea- 
 then Iroquois heard about this ' 'reduction" ; they came out 
 of curiosity and settled there. As the Indians began to grow 
 in number, the usual trouble arose. The French living in the 
 village tempted the natives with brandy. This happened in 
 1672. Frontenac, anxious to build Cataracouy, had been 
 helped, in 1673, by Father Fremin, who supplied the gov- 
 ernor with flour for his workmen at Fort Frontenac. Out 
 of gratitude he issued an ordinance expressly forbidding the 
 sale of brandy at La Prairie. 
 
 Until now, the converted Indians were still leaving the 
 village during the winter, and on meeting their fellow Iro- 
 quois in the woods during the hunting season, enticed them 
 to come and settle at the mission. Two hundred persons 
 were added in a few years. The French at or near the set- 
 tlement were delighted; 70 they had at hand many Indians 
 to whom brandy could be sold, 
 
 68 BN, Clairambault, 1016 :43v. 
 
 69 Cf. Relations inMites, I, 180. 
 
 70 Ibid., 282. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 193 
 
 and knowing the ill-will of M. de Frontenac whose feelings had 
 changed since last year, they introduced drink by stealth in 
 the village. One of them bolder than the rest opened a saloon 
 in the village itself. But the skill, the firmness and the zeal of 
 Father Fremin put a stop to this unfortunate trade and he saved 
 his flock from being drowned in the waters of the Red Sea about 
 to swallow it. It was on this occasion that the Captains [of the 
 Indians] showed their mettle to those to whom drunkenness was 
 their God by combatting the vice which they had forsaken when 
 they left their country. 71 
 
 The location of the mission was bad, its land too damp, 
 and unproductive. 72 Difficulties having arisen, some Hurons 
 determined to go to Montreal and to ask the Sulpicians for 
 some land. As mentioned before, they requested Frontenac 
 to prevent the sale of brandy to them. But the governor was 
 not going to repeat the "mistake" he had made in 1673. He 
 answered the Huron chief, who was pleading with him, that 
 it was incumbent upon the Indians themselves to resist the 
 irresistible attraction brandy had for them. 
 
 The poverty of the Indians and the poor land, had led 
 Father Dablon to ask of Frontenac the concession of the 
 Sault, where the land was better. As has been explained, 
 the governor for years refused to sign the deed. However, 
 since the land requested was not settled, the Indians moved ; 
 but Frontenac continued to refuse legalizing the land grant, 
 and with reason apparent: Indians who did not drink, who 
 did not buy brandy from the associates of the governor, 
 who attracted to their settlement many of their fellow- 
 tribesmen, who in turn would no longer drink, and who 
 would not pay a high price for the wares sold at Cataracouy 
 by La Salle, such Indians were useless to Frontenac. 
 
 « Rochemonteix, III, 655. The foregoing and following details 
 are taken from a manuscript preserved in the Archives Departemen- 
 tales de la Gironde, Bordeaux, entitled: "La fondation et l'6tablisse- 
 ment de la mission du Sault, au Canada, en 1667, dans le pays des 
 Iroquois, par le P. Claude Chauchetiere, de la province de Guienne, 
 S. J., avec un avant-propos," see Matteson, List of Manuscripts con- 
 cerning American History preserved in European Libraries and noted 
 in their Published Catalogues and similar Printed Lists, Washington, 
 D. C, 1925, 31. The manuscript is incomplete; it was printed in ex- 
 tenso by Rochemonteix, III, 641-678, reprinted and translated into 
 English in Jesuit Relations, 63, 140-244. Cf. also, Relations inedites, 
 I, 179-189; 279-293; II, 49-70; 167-179; 217-227. 
 
 72 Relations inedites, II, 66-67, 167. 
 
194 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 M. le Comte de Frontenac, solicited by malignant persons, re- 
 solved to prevent a chapel being built at Sault St. Louis, but did 
 not succeed. He then resolved to prevent the Indians from ag- 
 grandizing their fields, and in effect, he saw to it that no land 
 be given to the Indians above the Sault. He often threatened the 
 Indians with imprisonment and other penalties. In a word, he 
 would have desired no mission at all. 73 
 
 Frontenac's ordinance of 1673 forbade brandy selling at 
 La Prairie while Indians were there. Now since they had 
 moved, a saloon might be opened. There were protests from 
 the French settlers, who knew what disorders such an in- 
 stitution would cause. They appealed to Frontenac, remind- 
 ing him of his previous ordinance. The appellants were con- 
 demned. A saloon was allowed at La Prairie, but it was for- 
 bidden to sell drink to the Indians of Sault St. Louis. The 
 "greatest governor" cuts rather a sorry figure in his treat- 
 ment of poor, defenseless natives, who did not want to drink 
 French brandy, and who did not buy their necessities from 
 the Sieur de la Salle's shop at Cataracouy. It is an example 
 of the loudly heralded "politique indigene" so much extolled 
 by Lorin. The viewpoint of the missionaries was quite dif- 
 ferent : 
 
 The malice of men brought things to such a pitch this year, 
 1679, that we were threatened from all sides with untoward hap- 
 penings that were to befall the mission. Now, it was said that 
 a warehouse would be built above the village, where what was 
 brought to and from Cataracouy would be stored and that there 
 was an order from the Crown to this effect; now, it was said 
 that the captain of our village would be put in jail in Montreal. 
 They accused this Indian of being the cause of the confusion, 
 they wanted to make him responsible for what the heathen Iro- 
 quois were doing. Again, it was said liquor was about to be in- 
 troduced in the village. This was held as certain because a 
 Frenchman had come several times, during the summer, with the 
 hope of getting leave to do what he wanted; being a gunsmith, 
 he had rendered himself indispensable to the Indians. Amid these 
 perplexities, these contradictory reports, the poor afflicted mis- 
 sionaries had only recourse to God, who heard their prayers, dis- 
 posing everything for Father Fremin's voyage to France at the 
 
 73 Rochemonteix, III, 660. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 195 
 
 end of this year [1679] ; [it was] a successful voyage which 
 enabled the mission to triumph over all its adversaries in such 
 a surprising manner that it would deserve a special relation. 74 
 
 The preceding brief sketch goes far toward explaining 
 why Frontenac was opposed to Fremin, who was stoutly 
 resisting attempts at wrecking his mission. Fremin's letter, 
 charging the Jesuits at Prairie de la Madeleine with trad- 
 ing, is rather famous for its absence. It was never given to 
 Colbert or to Louis XIV, for their action subsequent to the 
 arrival of the Jesuit in France in 1679, was quite the re- 
 verse of what should have occurred had the letter reached 
 their hands. Louis XIV, after the missionary's visit, sent 
 a peremptory order to Frontenac to stop browbeating the 
 Indians of the Sault, for he, the king, had granted the land 
 they needed. Quite probably there was a letter of Fremin. 
 Though it was never produced, the hypothesis in view of 
 the action taken is that its contents did not expose the 
 Jesuits as traders. Rather it may have given the total trade 
 of the Indians at the Sault as 4,000 livres a year. Rumor 
 had 20,000 livres as the profit there, a great amount di- 
 verted, to be sure, from the till in the shop of Frontenac's 
 partner at Cataracouy. But it was in fact only 4,000 livres, 
 and this from all the trade carried on by the Indians. Fre- 
 min as superior of the mission was tutor of the Indians set- 
 tled at the Sault, 75 much more numerous 76 than the handful 
 
 74 Ibid., 664-665. 
 
 75 Just as the Jesuits in South America took care of the affairs 
 of the natives "a raison de l'incapacite des Indiens," Charlevoix, His- 
 toire du Paraguay, 3 vols., Paris, 1756, III, Pieces justificatives, 
 ccxlxiii. 
 
 76 In 1674, there was an increase of more than 200, Relations 
 inedites, I, 287; Father Enjalran wrote that there were 300 Iroquois 
 in 1676, Jesuit Relations, 60, 144. In his report on the state of the 
 missions in New France, Dablon wrote to the Cardinals of the Prop- 
 aganda, Rome, that there were more than four hundred Indians at 
 the Sault in 1679. "Maius [than the one in Lorette] aliud Templum 
 aedhicavimus eorum gratia Iroquaeorum qui patrium, uti jam dixi- 
 mus, solum mutant, Christianam inter Gallos Religionem liberius 
 sanctiusque professuri: Eorum in vicum unum coactorum jam nu- 
 merus ... ad quadringentos et amplius. . . ." Dablon ad EE. RR. 
 DD., Idibus Novembris, [November 13], 1679, ASJ, Gal., 110, III, 
 375. The same year, 1679, Frontenac wrote to the king that the In- 
 dians at the Sault were "en grand nombre," Frontenac to Louis XIV, 
 November 6, 1679, RAPQ, 1927, 108. In 1685, there were 682 Indians 
 at Saint Francois Xavier du Saut, that is, the Prairie de la Made- 
 
196 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 at Cataracouy, and what he most likely acknowledged was 
 that all his Indians were still but small competitors. Until 
 it is found, this hypothesis fits the facts much better than 
 the assertion that the Jesuits were engaged in trade. If a 
 letter by Father Fremin acknowledging a trade profit of 
 4,000 livres a year in one of the Jesuit missions had been 
 written, it would have reached the hands of Colbert and 
 those of Louis XIV. If so, would the minister have ordered 
 payment to the Jesuits of a 5,000 livres grant for the years 
 1679, 1680, and 1681 V 7 And would the king have issued his 
 decree of amortization of 1678, countersigned by Colbert, a 
 few months after having received the information ? The fa- 
 mous 4,000 livres were the legitimate profits made by the 
 Indians of the Sault, who had as much right to trade as 
 any other natives in America, as much right as those of 
 Fort Frontenac, and as much to trade in America as the 
 French and the proteges of the governor. 
 
 The maid rejoicing in the name of Marie Felix is twice 
 cited in the letter and thus willy-nilly comes into history 
 as an authority by reason of her declaration. First, Father 
 Chaumonot is recorded to have forbidden the Indians to buy 
 from the merchants, since all the Indian requirements could 
 be found in "their warehouse." From the context this was 
 the Jesuit warehouse. Later, the clever maid, the letter as- 
 serts, told in her best Parisian French how the Indians 
 were "forced to buy all they needed from one Hazeur, 78 ap- 
 parently one of their factors." (Note the apparently.) 
 These words are not in the text but in the margin and ad- 
 ded afterwards by Bernou. Lahontan commented caustically 
 on the supposed factors: "I've been inform'd by several per- 
 sons, that the Jesuits drive great trade in European Com- 
 modities, and Canada skins; but I can scarce believe it, or 
 at least if it be so, they must have Correspondents and Fac- 
 tors that are as close and cunning as themselves ; which can 
 
 leine of former days, Mgr de Saint-Vallier et VHopital general de 
 Quebec, Quebec, 1882, 56. 
 
 77 See the official "Estats de la depense" for these years, AC, B 
 8:10, 40, 85. 
 
 78 Cf. R[oy], P. G. "Notes sur Frangois Hazeur," in BRH, XXII, 
 1926, 705-711. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 197 
 
 never be." 79 In other words, if the Jesuits had had factors 
 the secret would not have been kept long, especially in New 
 France where each spied upon the other, as Lahontan, 
 Baugy, and other writers testify. 
 
 Now, having disposed of the last of the several ' 'proofs" 
 on the list "furnished" by Bernou, we turn to the top of the 
 list. What the two instances of Denison and Allain prove is 
 difficult to see. Nor is there proof of trade in the fact that 
 the missionaries of the Ottawa country bought the goods 
 from these Frenchmen, who had been ordered to leave the 
 Northwest in accordance with the declaration of the king. 
 They, it may be noted in passing, had not then left the 
 Great Lakes region and did not leave during Frontenac's 
 first term. The governor by adducing such evidence that the 
 Jesuits were at trade because they had allegedly bought 
 merchandises from these traders rather than from those of 
 Quebec, succeeded in making himself ridiculous. 
 
 Far and away more serious was the charge against the 
 Jesuits of treachery: they traded with the English, sympa- 
 thized with them, helped them, acknowledged the jurisdic- 
 tion of these heretics, of these traditional enemies of 
 France over the Iroquois country. Verily, the missionaries 
 were traitors to their Faith and France. In these accusa- 
 tions against the patriotism of the Jesuits, the governor 
 stoops very low indeed. 
 
 The devotion of the missionaries to the French interests 
 was traditional. The English could conceive of no more for- 
 midable adversaries than the Jesuits. Without the help of 
 those same Jesuits, who disposed the Iroquois to go to Ca- 
 taracouy in 1673, 80 it is not idle to surmise how great a 
 fiasco the powwow would have been. The governor sent a 
 Jesuit, Father Albanel, to counteract the machinations of 
 Groseillers. 81 If we may judge by the complaints of the Eng- 
 lish, the Jesuit was successful. 82 Father Nouvel, then at 
 Sault Ste. Marie, also warned Frontenac of the pro-English 
 
 79 New Voyages to North America, I, 385-386. 
 so AC, C 11A, 4:5-9; Relations in&dites, I, 345-348; Margry, I, 
 239-243; Frontenac to Colbert, November 13, 1673, RAPQ, 1927, 36. 
 si Frontenac to Colbert, November 13, 1673, RAPQ, 1927, 50. 
 82 Eastman, 144. 
 
198 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 activities of patriot Groseillers, 83 who, if he had been will- 
 ing to share his trade profits with the abbes in France 
 would have been made as great a hero as La Salle was 
 made later on. 84 It is rather an astonishing thing that the 
 governor should wish to make use of traitors in preference 
 to all others to foil the designs of the English. Frontenac 
 chafed at his need for recourse to the Jesuits in transacting 
 the foreign affairs of his government. He needed the serv- 
 ices of those whose knowledge of the country and Indians, 
 whose long experience in the field and on the international 
 frontier, had made them "missionary-diplomats." 85 His in- 
 feriority in these matters irked the governor. In place of 
 thanks for their help, the Jesuits got from him the vile ap- 
 pellation of renegade traitors. 
 
 Why were not the treasonable letters of Fathers Bruyas 
 and Lamberville produced ? The first of these, Frontenac, at 
 the beginning of his term, was glad to use in order to pene- 
 trate the designs of the English. He ordered the missionary 
 to send a trusted Indian to Albany, to spy upon the Dutch 
 and get information. 86 As Frontenac was about to close his 
 letter, Bruyas' courier arrived in Quebec. Lest the infor- 
 mation received from a Jesuit should appear useful, he 
 chose to disparage it. The letter from the missionary, which 
 just arrived, "seemed to contain a contradiction"; Fronte- 
 nac does not understand the speech of the head of the em- 
 bassy as reported by the Jesuit. Such language can only 
 come from 
 
 people [Jesuits, of course], who fear much more than the In- 
 dians to be watched closely, and who, knowing well that this 
 establishment [Fort Frontenac] may one day lead to the posts 
 which are only known to and occupied by them [Jesuits], would 
 wish to show the uselessness of this establishment, by the as- 
 surances which they say the Dutch gave that they will not at- 
 tack us and will only remain on the defense. [Such language can 
 only come from people with such designs] rather than from a 
 
 83 AC, C 11A, 4:5v; Nouvel to Frontenac, May 29, 1673, Rela- 
 tions inedites, 344. 
 
 s* Cf. Some La Salle Journeys, 11, 98, and the letters of Bernou 
 to Renaudot, in BN, Mss. fr. n. a., 7487:90, 97v, 107, 154, 171. 
 
 ss Eastman, 146. 
 
 se Frontenac to Colbert, November 13, 1673, RAPQ, 1927, 45. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 199 
 
 man who loves his country, who, to win over to the interests 
 of his country, should, it seems to me, rather hide our losses 
 than admit the wretched state to which the king has brought it. 
 The trouble in all this is that we are only told just what they 
 [on, i. e., Bruyas and the Jesuits] want to let us know, and what 
 they [on] think will promote their interests, since there is no- 
 body there to tell the truth about the situation. I hope, however, 
 now that the Sr. Lemoyne will spend the winter on the spot 
 [Iroquois country], I shall be able to unravel everything, and to 
 know the real dispositions of the Dutch and of the Indians; for, 
 as I said, he has much communication and much influence with 
 the latter. 87 
 
 Whatever the Jesuits did, it is evident, was wrong in the 
 eyes of Frontenac. His morbid pride, his psychopathic suspi- 
 cions made him see plots against the shop at Cataracouy in 
 everything they attempted, and wrote and said. The present 
 writer did not find this letter sent by Bruyas, but the one 
 written June 12, 1673, a few months before, is extant. 88 It 
 is an enthusiastic greeting to the governor. The Jesuit an- 
 nounced the coming to Quebec of an Iroquois contingent 
 and assured Frontenac that the Indians would trade with 
 the French in Montreal rather than with the Dutch. In his 
 second letter, Father Bruyas made the mistake of faith- 
 fully reporting what the Indian sent to Albany had said. 
 The news was not pleasing to the governor, who as a con- 
 sequence thought the Jesuit was not attached to his coun- 
 try. Frontenac evidently sought to poison the mind of the 
 minister. He does not accuse the missionary outright of be- 
 ing a traitor. With characteristic caution he merely says 
 that the letter "seems to contain a contradiction," and that 
 the writer, "it seems to him, has no great love for his coun- 
 try." Again, Bruyas had invited the sieur D'AUerais to trade 
 with New York, we are told in the memoir of 1678. These 
 same two misdeeds, attributed to Bruyas, were laid at the 
 door of Frontenac two years later, but with the difference 
 that Duchesneau sent unanswerable proofs of his accusa- 
 tion to Paris. There is a constant repetition, throughout 
 
 87 Frontenac to Colbert, November 13, 1673, RAPQ, 1927, 50-51. 
 ss Bruyas to Frontenac, June 12, 1673, Relations ine'dites, I, 345- 
 346; Margry, I, 341. 
 
200 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Frontenac's first term, of his charging others with the very 
 misdeeds of which he was guilty. 
 
 The treasonable letter of Father de Lamberville, one is 
 supposed to believe, was written to La Salle, who had pub- 
 licly professed to be "Frontenac's man." 89 To write such a 
 letter were indeed tantamount to a lunatic act rather than 
 treason. Granted it was written, how is it that two years 
 later, when in a letter to one of his business associates, La 
 Salle spoke of the "good friends of M. Andros," 90 namely, 
 the Jesuits, but made no mention of this letter addressed to 
 him? The explorer wanted to malign his former brethren 
 by connecting them with Andros. He knew that the year 
 before, while he was engaged in illicit trade on the Great 
 Lakes, they had sent vital information to the governor 
 about the designs of Andros who had come back from Eng- 
 land. 91 Can it be believed that, if Frontenac had doubted the 
 loyalty of the Jesuits, he would have acted as he did a few 
 years later? At the beginning of 1682, when war was 
 threatening the colony, the governor turned to the Jesuits 
 of Quebec for counsel, and held a meeting in the Jesuit 
 house of Quebec. 92 To the Jesuits of the Ottawa country, he 
 entrusted the orders which were to be communicated to the 
 Indian allies if war with the Iroquois should break out. 93 
 At that time too, the traitor Lamberville was of greater 
 assistance to the governor than was the Sieur de La Salle, 
 the slanderous recipient of a supposed treasonable letter, 
 who impugned the patriotism of the apostle of the Onon- 
 daga Indians. 94 
 
 Thus far the analysis of the memoir. At about the time 
 Bernou was fashioning it, the charge of trade came in an 
 anonymous communication to the Assistant to the General 
 of the Society in Rome. One cannot fail to remark a certain 
 
 89 Faillon, III, 495. 
 
 so Margry, II, 219. Margry feared the reader would not under- 
 stand who was meant, he italicized these words; it is unnecessary 
 to say that in BN, Clairambault, 1016:172, the words are not under- 
 scored. 
 
 9i Frontenac to Colbert, October 9, 1679, RAPQ, 1927, 102; Fron- 
 tenac to Louis XIV, November 6, 1679, RAPQ, 1927, 108. 
 
 92NYCD, IX, 168-173. 
 
 93 AC, C 11 A, 6:12. 
 
 94 Cf. ibid., 15, 21, 47-48v; NYCD, IX, 193; Jesuit Relations, 62, 
 154. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 201 
 
 cowardly feature in the accusations, letters in cipher, in- 
 sinuations, general statements which cannot be checked, 
 and specific statements easily refuted. However, the matter 
 was too serious for dismissal without inquiry by the high- 
 est authority of the Order. Incidentally, such inquiries were 
 launched each time the accusation was renewed. The As- 
 sistant for France wrote from Rome to Father Dablon, then 
 Superior General of the Canadian Missions and Rector of 
 the College of Quebec, ordering him to explain. 
 
 Father Louis Andre had asked his immediate Superior, 
 Father Dablon, for a general leave to run the finances of 
 his mission on an independent basis, that is, independently 
 of the mother house of Quebec. Such permission could not 
 be granted by Father Dablon, who advised Father Andre 
 to write to Rome. The missionary showed his Superior the 
 Latin petition he was sending to the General with a view to 
 obtaining that permission. Dablon felt he must explain a 
 passage of the same petition lest it be misunderstood in 
 Europe : 
 
 He [Father Andre] uses the word merces, which might lead one 
 to believe that it is question of merchandise. By this word mer- 
 ces, however, he means the money in use among the Indians 
 who do not know what money is so that one is forced to buy 
 from them Indian corn, meat, fish, and other things by exchange, 
 giving in exchange instead of money, porcelain beads, knives, 
 awls, and other things which serve as money among them. 
 
 The Jesuits had been saying the same for the past thirty 
 years. Surely, Frontenac and other critics in Canada were 
 not unaware of this method of exchange. 95 Yet they chose 
 to speak of it as faire la traite; they knew the expression 
 was equivocal, and they needed a misunderstanding of the 
 term in France to lend color to their accusations. Father 
 Dablon then passes to the anonymous denunciator: 
 
 95 it was noted above how Frontenac himself had written to 
 Colbert that in Canada furs were a kind of money. In that same let- 
 ter he wrote to the minister that the militia men of Canada were 
 disarmed "pour avoir traite leurs fusils," RAPQ, 1927, 16. "Beaver 
 pelts," wrote La Chesnaye in 1670, "are the sole source of revenue 
 of Canada, and its money . . . ," Memoire sur le prix du Castor, AC, 
 C 11 A, 3:150. 
 
202 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 This gives me the occasion to enlighten Your Reverence with 
 regard to what you wrote about the trade which is spoken of in 
 the anonymous letter sent to our Father General, and which is 
 carried on by our brother [Joseph] Boursier [dit Desforges], 
 who, the anonymous writer alleges, is selling wooden shoes, 
 rings, pins, and so forth. I communicated the letter of our Father 
 General and that of Your Reverence to our Fathers Consultors 
 here. Together we have carefully examined everything, and we 
 have judged that brother Boursier, who is the buyer for this 
 house, is doing nothing but what his predecessors have always 
 done. 
 
 Secondly, he is doing nothing but what the secular clergy 
 here, the priests of St. Sulpice in Montreal, the Ursulines and the 
 Hospitalieres are doing. 
 
 Thirdly, it is necessary to proceed in this manner in this 
 country, namely, by exchange, as is done in the Islands [French 
 West Indies] by means of sugar, in the Indies by means of 
 pearls. 96 The reason is that in all these countries, there is no 
 specie, or so little that it amounts to nothing; so that, to buy 
 the provisions necessary to live, we must give in exchange cloth, 
 linen, and other things sent us from France or bought from the 
 merchants here, such as wheat, meat, and the other necessities 
 of life. 
 
 Fourthly, if our brother buyer asked that many little things 
 be sent to him from France as thread, needles, and so forth, he 
 did this out of charity, in order to help the peasants who work 
 for him and who could not get these things elsewhere. Far from 
 finding fault with this course of action, he is on the contrary 
 blessed by every one. 
 
 Fifthly, our brother buyer parts with these things which take 
 the place of money in two cases only; first, to pay his debts; 
 secondly, to buy our needs, such as wheat, meat, milk, and so 
 forth. 
 
 From all this you can judge that it is a great malice on the 
 part of the anonymous writer, who wishes to make us appear as 
 merchants when we are only doing what has always been done 
 in this colony, what the priests and the nuns are doing, and 
 what is done either out of clarity or through necessity, since it 
 is the custom of the country to obtain the necessities of life by 
 permutation. 97 
 
 96 As tobacco in Virginia. 
 
 97 AS J, Gal., I, 110:64-65; an extract from this letter is in Ro- 
 chemonteix, III, 138, note 1. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 203 
 
 This letter of Dablon explains the declaration made 
 fourteen years previously before the Sovereign Council, 
 which Parkman chose to understand as an "admission in 
 thin disguise" of trade. It also explains the declaration of 
 Montmagny of 1647, from which Parkman inferred that the 
 Jesuits "actually traded though with good intentions." The 
 charity of the brother buyer apparently piqued some grasp- 
 ing merchants of Quebec, who, by the bye, were cheating 
 everybody in Quebec and especially the Indians. 98 They 
 wished to force even the brother to buy his stuffs from 
 them. As Lahontan averred: 
 
 There's no difference between the Pyrates that scowr the Seas, 
 and the Canada Merchants ... I have known twenty little Ped- 
 lars that had not above a thousand Crowns stock when I arriv'd 
 at Quebec, in the year 1683; and when I left that place had got 
 to the tune of twelve thousand Crowns. 'Tis an unquestion'd 
 truth, that they get fifty per Cent upon all the Goods they deal 
 in, whether they buy 'em up upon the arrival of the Ships at 
 Quebec, or have 'em from France by way of Commission; but 
 over and above that, there are some little gaudy Trinkets, such 
 as Ribbands, Laces, Embroideries, Tobacco-Boxes, Watches and 
 an infinity of other baubles of Iron Ware, upon which they get 
 a hundred and fifty per Cent, all Costs clear." 
 
 Poor people were not buying these baubles at an arbi- 
 trary and exorbitant price; they could obtain them in pay- 
 ment for their services in or around the college of Quebec; 
 they were paid their salary with what they most desired. 
 If that is trade, the Jesuits of Canada traded, and the poor 
 blessed them for it. To be blessed by the poor for doing 
 what is universally allowed and legitimate is infinitely more 
 to be prized than to be praised by a coterie of rapacious 
 adventurers for not doing it. 
 
 It may be said that Father Dablon was speaking of what 
 took place in Quebec. Could not the Jesuits carry on trade 
 in the missions and the letter of Father Dablon still be true 
 or partly true ? If trade had been carried on by the Jesuits 
 on the scale spoken of by some critics, the anonymous 
 
 98 Cf. Lahontan, New Voyages, II, 421-422, 535, 591; Hennepin, 
 New Discovery, II, 542-543. 
 
 99 Lahontan, New Voyages, I, 374. 
 
204 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 writer would have known it. He would evidently have had 
 a better case than that of the few pins and needles used as 
 money by the buyer of the college of Quebec. What took 
 place in the missions is set forth in a letter to the General 
 of the Order by one who, when he wrote, had been nearly 
 sixty years in the missions of Canada. The letter is dated 
 October 21, 1717, long after Frontenac had passed from the 
 scene. The writer, Father Julien Gamier, was a veteran mis- 
 sionary. He had arrived in Canada in 1660, had lived 
 through the end of the heroic period, had spent years in the 
 Iroquois missions, and he knew the conditions prevailing 
 in New France. 100 At the age of seventy-four, when ordered 
 by the General to explain the nature of the Jesuit trade in 
 New France, it is unlikely that he would hide or varnish 
 the truth. 
 
 Most willingly do I heed your Reverence's command, as you wish 
 to hear from me what is done by some of our missionaries with 
 regard to the commerce of pelts. 
 
 First. In the remotest regions [the Ottawa country, for in- 
 stance] whence the French bring here [Quebec] most of the 
 pelts, our Fathers are commanded not to engage either directly 
 or indirectly in any kind of fur trade whatsoever. Much more 
 than this, they stipulate in the contract [paciscuntur] passed 
 with the hired laborers [engages] that they are not to carry on 
 any trade as long as they remain with us, and if they secretly 
 engage in some trade of any consequence, they are either forced 
 to live up to their engagements or they are discharged. 
 
 The importance of this statement showing the practice 
 of the missionaries is better realized when we recall how 
 the lesser calumniators of those days claimed that if the 
 Jesuits themselves did not trade, the engages did. This dec- 
 laration also disposes of the gratuitous assertion of Park- 
 man about the engages trading with the Indians for the 
 profit of the missions. Father Gamier pursues: 
 
 Secondly. There is up there [Ottawa country] one of our co- 
 adjutor brothers who is a blacksmith, and whose work earns 
 for our Fathers the necessities of life. He repairs the guns and 
 all that is necessary for hunting, fishing, and other activities. 
 
 ioo Cf. Lafitau, Moeurs des Sauvages Ameriquains ,,.,1, 2-3. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 205 
 
 For his salary he asks the Indians for meat, fish, Indian corn, 
 etc.; and from those who have no victuals, he accepts whatever 
 they offer, even pelts. From the French he accepts merchandises, 
 stuff, linen, etc., for in that place, neither gold nor silver is used 
 as specie. 
 
 Thirdly. Our Fathers accept pelts or other things which are 
 freely offered by the Indians, because the latter feel offended if 
 their gifts are not accepted, although they hardly ever give any- 
 thing except in the hope of receiving in return more than they 
 have given. 
 
 Fourthly. [In that place] it is more often the case for the 
 French to offer pelts to the Church either in fulfilment of some 
 vow made in time of peril, or in order that what is useful or 
 conducive to the ornamentation of the temple may be bought. 
 Fifthly. In the neighboring missions [Lorette, Sault St. Louis, 
 Sillery] where all the Indians are Christians, when some one 
 dies, all that belonged to the deceased, to which his relatives 
 also add something of their own, is offered to the church, or to 
 the more fervent Christians, or to the poorer Indians of the vil- 
 lage, or, and this is the most common occurrence, to the Church 
 in order that prayers be said for the deceased, that masses be 
 celebrated [for the repose of his soul]. 101 That which is given to 
 the Church is called church property, and the missionary takes 
 care of it as guardian. When the Indians leave for the hunt, 
 each one borrows from the church what he is most in need of, 
 and pledges himself to return to the church part of the product 
 of his hunt [for what he has borrowed]. Others, when their hunt 
 has been successful, spontaneously offer pelts to the church in 
 thanksgiving to God ; while others still offer pelts that a solemn 
 mass be celebrated for their deceased parents. 
 The missionary keeps all these things until the time the ships 
 come from France, that he may buy at a lower price what is 
 useful for the temple or for its decoration, or again to buy what 
 is useful for the poor, the widows and the orphans. This is what 
 renders the missionary suspect of trade on the part of the more 
 ignorant Frenchmen, who, craving only for gain, consider as 
 stolen from their pockets whatever comes into other people's 
 hands. The missionary, however, does not become, nor does he 
 intend to become richer by these transactions. He merely takes 
 
 101 Cf. Relations in€dites, I, 310, II, 55, 76; Chauchetiere, Narra- 
 tion annuelle de la mission du Sault, in Rochemonteix, III, 656. 
 
206 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 care of that which belongs to the church and is performing an 
 act of charity. 102 
 
 Frenchmen are not lacking who are so eager for gain that by 
 means fair or foul they would willingly snatch away the pelts 
 from the Indians. When these borrow from the French, they 
 charge the highest price, twice dearer than the ordinary price. 
 Hence, the Indians are driven to the English, not far distant 
 from here. Their faith is jeopardized by the English and by their 
 fellow tribesmen who are opposed to the religion they intend to 
 profess here. Wishing to prevent this evil, a missionary supplied 
 the neophytes with their necessities at a moderate price. There- 
 upon the French spread the rumor that he was engaged in trade. 
 To remove even the appearance of evil, I transferred that mis- 
 sionary to the French [settlements]. Now the Indians are com- 
 plaining that a very kind father who took care of them in their 
 spiritual and corporal necessities has been taken away from 
 them. Thus far about trade. 103 
 
 A detailed examination of Frontenac's correspondence 
 has revealed in "the official despatches of the most noted 
 of Canadian governors," one letter which contains specific 
 instances of Jesuit trade. These "proofs" were sent shortly 
 after the promulgation in Quebec of the trade ordinance of 
 1676. The ordinance had as its object a curtailment of the 
 profits Frontenac derived from the conge game, which with 
 the unrelenting opposition of the Jesuits to the brandy 
 trade was unbearable to the governor. That Frontenac in 
 contravention to the orders of the king levied a tribute on 
 the merchants of Canada and shared in the profits of the 
 trade of the coureurs de bois is not and cannot be denied by 
 the governor's admirers. 104 As far as the present writer is 
 concerned, it is a matter of indifference whether Frontenac 
 and his satellites traded or not. The great majority of co- 
 lonial officials sent to New France traded , 105 and looked 
 
 i°2 See supra, p. 195, note 75. 
 io3 AS J, Gal., I, 110:326-327. 
 
 104 Lahontan, New Voyages to North America, I, 382; Gravier, 
 Cavelier de la Salle, 36; Parkman, Frontenac, 63; Lorin, 183-185, 426. 
 Anyone who consults the contemporary records will be as surprised 
 as Faillon was, III, 456, when reading of Frontenac in Charlevoix, 
 Histoire et Description, II, 237, that "on ne l'accusa jamais d'etre 
 intSresse," that he "was never accused of self interest," as Shea 
 translates this sentence, V, 94. 
 
 105 cf. Tronson to Dollier, May 25, 1683, no. 210; April 18, 1684, 
 no. 231; April 20, 1684, no. 256. Parkman, Old Regime, 305. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 207 
 
 upon their position first and foremost as a means of getting 
 rich quickly. Hence, the shady tripotages, the jobberies, the 
 graft of the governor are discussed only because the writer 
 contends that he accused the Jesuits of trade mainly to di- 
 vert attention from his own violations of the orders of the 
 king. 
 
 The government in Paris had reason for prohibiting offi- 
 cials in New France to trade. In 1675, Colbert, writing to 
 Frontenac, assured him he did not believe the current talk 
 about trade being carried on in the governor's name, but 
 he warned him to beware lest his servants and friends en- 
 gage in it for fear the colonists would lose confidence in his 
 impartiality. 106 Most of the trouble during Frontenac's first 
 term was rooted in trade rivalries, despite the fanfare about 
 1 'honors" to be paid the governor. In 1676, the king in tell- 
 ing Frontenac to stop the trade which he had accused "les 
 ecclesiastiques" of carrying on, also reminded him: "for the 
 sake of good example not to allow his servants or any other 
 person to trade in your name or by your authority; and I 
 even forbid you ever to issue any license or permit for the 
 [Indian] trade." 107 
 
 Frontenac's men were using their positions to facilitate 
 their own acquirement of the conges which the governor 
 had been forbidden to grant. 108 The conges can be described 
 best by one word of present-day coinage and implication — 
 a "racket." The tribute coming to the governor was levied 
 directly and paid in cash, and thus all traces of the trans- 
 action were obliterated. And hence the governor could as- 
 sure the king that no one could produce proof of the af- 
 fair. 109 But the mail bringing this statement to France also 
 
 ice Colbert to Frontenac, May 30, 1675, RAPQ, 1927, 85. 
 
 107 Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 15, 1676, NYCD, IX, 126. 
 
 los Cf. the proces-verbal of August 12, 1680, in AC, F 3, 2:66. 
 
 loo Frontenac to Louis XIV, November 6, 1679, AC, C 11 A, 5:114, 
 RAPQ, 1927, 106. It is not probable that the writer of the following 
 lines was ever much interested in or ever made a study of the eco- 
 nomic conditions of New France under Frontenac; yet by changing 
 only a few words, one finds an adequate description of the state of 
 affairs in Canada during Frontenac's time. "A racket [conges] can 
 never exist in any area where the law is enforced. A racketeer 
 [coureur de bois] thrives on the cupidity of politicians and the weak- 
 ness of law enforcement agencies [Frontenac in New France]. There 
 are ample laws on the statute book of every state [for instance, the 
 
208 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 brought Duchesneau's circumstantiated account, wherein 
 Frontenac was exposed as in partnership with coureurs de 
 bois. The governor had been ordered repeatedly to rid the 
 colony of these, among whom were Duluth and La Taupine, 
 covertly protected by him. 110 The yearly trip of Frontenac 
 to Montreal, Duchesneau asserted, was prompted by some- 
 thing more tangible than a good-will visit to the Indians. A 
 personal tax had to be paid, "a certain number of packages 
 of beaver skins," which Frontenac called his "presents," 
 had to be handed in before trading could begin. 111 
 
 Of course, writers lost in admiration for the governor, 
 put no credence in Duchesneau's declarations. They discard 
 it on the ground that the intendant too was trading. 112 
 They betray impatience even as did Colbert, when proofs of 
 the governor's partnership with and protection of coureurs 
 de bois were sent to Paris. Colbert wrote to Duchesneau 
 quite critically of the spirit of the letters, which, he said, 
 "prevents me from believing what you say about his trade; 
 nor can I trust the copies of the documents you are sending 
 
 ordinances, decrees and orders of Louis XIV] to make racketeering 
 difficult if not impossible, should the police and other law enforce- 
 ment authorities wish to end the practice [which is what the king 
 wrote to the governor]. It is, therefore, an axiom that if a racket 
 exists officials are lax [the king did not speak otherwise]. . . . The 
 racketeer pays for his right to mulct others, not only of their money 
 and possessions, but also of their legal rights [namely, the right of 
 all the inhabitants in New France to trade with the Indians by hold- 
 ing fairs at stated times and places]. He is a protected person. He 
 is always protected in his privilege to violate the law and the rights 
 of others. It must be assumed, even where it cannot be proved, that 
 he pays for such protection. Whether he splits with politicians or 
 works under some other arrangement, the racketeer is responsible 
 to the politician. The man higher up in every racket is a politician. 
 Even where racketeers have been caught and convicted, . . . rarely, 
 if ever, are the political protectors of the racketeers apprehended. 
 They are hardly ever bothered, because the tie-up is remote and 
 generally unprovable." George Sokolsky, "Rackets and Labor," The 
 Atlantic Monthly, CLXII, 1938, 392-393. 
 
 no Duchesneau to Colbert, November 10, 1679, AC, C 11A, 5:39, 
 NYCD, IX, 131. 
 
 m/d. to id., AC, C 11A, 5:46v, NYCD, IX, 134-135. Frontenac 
 went to Montreal, not so much to prevent likely brawls between 
 French and Indians, cf. Lorin, 184, but the governor went to the 
 Montreal fair "to get his share of the pie," as Lahontan bluntly puts 
 it, New Voyages, I, 54; cf. Louis XIV, to Duchesneau, April 30, 1681, 
 AC, B 8, 82v. 
 
 112 Parkman, Frontenac, 63, Lorin, 183. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 209 
 
 me to prove it. You must send the originals." 113 But in the 
 following year, 1679, when the latest letters of Frontenac 
 and of Duchesneau were in and the matter examined, the 
 minister, Frontenac's constant supporter, wrote him. The 
 king has seen "all the documents you sent me to prove that 
 it is the intendant who is supporting them [coureurs de 
 bois] and who is sharing in the profits of their trade. His 
 Majesty orders me to tell you that ... as the public deposi- 
 tions are always against you, and the documents themselves 
 which are produced are much stronger, His Majesty can 
 not help having more faith in these depositions and docu- 
 ments which are against you than in those which you have 
 sent against other people. Those which you have sent have 
 appeared to His Majesty as a mere form of recrimina- 
 tion. . . ," 114 
 
 There was not much improvement in 1680. 115 The year 
 following, the king notified the intendant of the governor's 
 assurance to His Majesty that the orders received about 
 trade and the coureurs de bois would be obeyed. 116 Fron- 
 tenac indeed was sending denials to his friends, to Colbert, 
 and to the king. 117 But Louis XIV was not satisfied with 
 mere verbal protests. "You have not executed my orders on 
 one of the most important points for the good of my serv- 
 ice," namely, the union the king expected between the two 
 officials. To Frontenac's accusation of trading against Du- 
 chesneau, the king replied : "I can only repeat what I have 
 said in my former letters. All that you write about the com- 
 merce of the intendant and the interest he takes in the 
 coureurs de bois seems to spring from a spirit of recrimina- 
 tion rather than based on a real foundation." If Fron- 
 tenac had done his duty, said Louis XIV, there would not 
 be so many coureurs, "and I cannot accept the reason you 
 
 us Colbert to Duchesneau, May 15, 1678, Clement, IIP, 633. 
 
 "4 Colbert to Frontenac, April 4, 1680, RAPQ, 1927, 113, this 
 letter in Clement, IIP, 643, is dated December 4, 1679. 
 
 us Duchesneau to Seignelay, November 13, 1680, NYCD, IX, 143. 
 
 lie Louis XIV to Duchesneau, April 13, 1681, AC, C 11 A, 5:340v, 
 id. to id., April 30, 1681, AC, B 8:80. This is the same letter but the 
 date differs in the two series. 
 
 H7 Cf. letters to Frontenac to [Bellefonds], AC, C 11A:158- 
 158v; RAPQ, 1927, 117, to Colbert, ibid., 269, to Louis XPV, ibid., 277, 
 281, etc. 
 
210 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 allege that their number comes from the connivance of the 
 intendant." 118 
 
 The harsh tone of Colbert's letters to Duchesneau has 
 been contrasted with that of the minister's letters to Fron- 
 tenac. 119 Fault has been found with the relentless drive of 
 Duchesneau, 120 who, year after year, in spite of rebuffs from 
 Colbert, told how Frontenac profited by the fur trade and 
 protected law-breakers. Judging from their letters to Fron- 
 tenac, neither the king nor Colbert seem to have minced 
 their words with the governor. As for the intendant, he 
 merely defended himself, answering accusations of Fron- 
 tenac with circumstantiated proofs, and so to speak, forc- 
 ing the court to believe him. By 1681, Duchesneau had been 
 writing for six years, even since he came to Canada, yet, 
 he asserts, in his complaints he named specifically only 
 seven, Frontenac, Chartier, Perrot, La Salle, Duluth, Becan- 
 cour, and Bolduc. 
 
 I have never written anything about the Count de Frontenac 
 without proving it with documents, which I have sent to Paris. 
 And in doing this, I only obeyed the orders of the king, without 
 considering my private interest, according to which I had all to 
 gain by getting along with him [Frontenac] ... I could not keep 
 silent with regard to the conduct of the Sieurs Perrot, although 
 a relative of my wife, de la Salle, and Duluth. 121 
 
 If he said Frontenac was working hand in glove with 
 the coureurs de bois, he had proved his statement beyond 
 cavil. In another letter of the same date, the intendant 
 writes : 
 
 In regard to the coureurs de bois, and the protection which I 
 last year stated had been given them by M. de Frontenac, and 
 the interest he has in common with them, I could not help re- 
 porting it, since what I stated on this point was not advanced 
 without reflection, and I had transmitted the proofs whereof; 
 and the governor's conduct again this year, which I shall explain 
 
 us Louis XIV to Frontenac, April 30, 1681, AC, C 11 A, 5:349- 
 352; Clement, IIP, 644-645. 
 
 us Lorin, 160, cf . Parkman, Frontenac, 55. 
 
 izoLorin, 159 ff. 
 
 121 Duchesneau to Seignelay, November 13, 1681, AC, C 11A, 
 5:295v-296v. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 211 
 
 to you in course, will convince you that the affair of the cou- 
 reurs de bois was his. 122 
 
 Duchesneau, indeed, was using his right of self defense. 
 Frontenac, who found profit in protecting the coureurs de 
 bois, had accused the intendant of doing precisely what he 
 himself was doing. One of the reasons why Frontenac's par- 
 tisans resent Duchesneau's accusations is because the in- 
 tendant defended himself, just as certain writers cannot 
 forgive the Jesuits for having defended themselves against 
 the accusations of Frontenac, La Salle, and Cadillac. 123 Hav- 
 ing made heroes of very ordinary adventurers, they chose 
 to consider any criticism of these adventurers as aspersions 
 on their own character. "My Lord," says the intendant else- 
 where in the letter quoted above, "as to what regards the 
 representation I transmitted relative to the conduct of Sieur 
 Perrot, Governor of Montreal, of which His Majesty in- 
 forms me I did not send any proofs, you will admit, my 
 Lord, by those I send you this year, that I have not written 
 anything but the truth." 124 
 
 In 1674, Frontenac had tried to break Perrot's busi- 
 ness. 125 Modern slang terminology for Frontenac's maneuver 
 would have it accurately and descriptively as "muscling in." 
 After the return of the governor of Montreal, Frontenac 
 realized how much better an understanding with Perrot 
 would be. The latter was amenable. There was enough 
 money for two. 126 Frontenac had also recognized Perrot as 
 a power to be reckoned with because of his friends and con- 
 nections, and hence chose to be friendly. Duchesneau wrote : 
 
 122 Duchesneau's memoir of November 13, 1681, NYCD, IX, 152. 
 
 123 cf. Rochemonteix, III, iii. 
 
 124 NYCD, IX, 154. 
 
 125 This affair is too well known to need repeating, the best and 
 most complete account is that of Faillon, III, 457 if., and 464 ff. 
 Lorin's endeavors, 169, 183, to show that there was a difference be- 
 tween the trade of Perrot and that of Frontenac are supported by no 
 shred of evidence. 
 
 126 in 1683, news reached Paris that Perrot had sold for 100,000 
 livres worth of beaver pelts at Niort, cf. Tronson to Dollier, May 25, 
 1683, n. 210. "Mr Perot the Governor of the Town, who had but a 
 thousand Crowns a year Sallary; had made shift to get fifty thou- 
 sand crowns, [ecus, or one hundred and fifty thousand livres] in a 
 few years, by trading with the Savages in Skins and Furs," Lahon- 
 tan, New Voyages, I, 53. 
 
212 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Inasmuch as the details of matters, so important as those which 
 I have just laid before you, my Lord, cannot be embraced in one 
 letter, I have, in order to avoid being too importunate, thought 
 proper to submit them in special memoirs supported by proper 
 proofs. 
 
 The first will show you that the king's commands are not exe- 
 cuted, that justice is overpowered, that its officers are perse- 
 cuted and the guilty remain unpunished. 
 
 The second will lay before you the disorders created by the cou- 
 reurs de bois; what has encouraged the disobedience to the 
 king's orders, and still sustains it; and the fact that an open 
 trade is carried on with the English, to whom our peltries are 
 conveyed to the prejudice of the king's contractors, who pur- 
 chase those peltries much dearer and sell their merchandise 
 cheaper than we do. 
 
 The third will convince you, my Lord, of all that I communicated 
 last year relative to Sieur Perrot, governor of Montreal. You 
 will notice the continuance of his ill conduct, as well as that of 
 Sieur de la Salle, governor of Fort Frontenac, and of Sieur Du- 
 luth, Captain of the coureurs de bois, and discover some private 
 associations very prejudicial to the country. 127 
 
 Section 3. La Salle's Accusations 
 The name of La Salle as a partner of Frontenac often 
 recurs in the letters of Duchesneau. And with good reason, 
 for the explorer was at this time a superior type of coureur 
 de bois. 1 Under the circumstances of partnership and pur- 
 suit, one might expect La Salle to accuse Jesuits of trade. 
 And so, as Parkman wrote: "La Salle gives many other 
 particulars, especially relating to Michilimackinac, where, 
 as he says, the Jesuits had a large stock of beaver-skins." 2 
 The "many other particulars" are reviewed below, and what 
 La Salle actually wrote will be examined. 
 
 La Salle arriving in Canada in the latter part of 1667, 
 made an attempt at colonization near Montreal. He soon 
 tired of it. After selling the land given him by the Sulpi- 
 cians, he accompanied, in 1669, Dollier and Galinee in their 
 Western expedition. He feigned sickness, parted with the 
 
 127NYCD, IX, 157-158. 
 
 i The characterization is Eastman's, 193, speaking of La Salle in 
 1678. 
 
 2 Old Regime, 329. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 213 
 
 two Sulpicians, spent the next few years roaming the 
 woods, and traded in the Iroquois country. 3 It was because 
 of his knowledge of this section of the country that Fron- 
 tenac commissioned him to go to the various Jesuit mis- 
 sionaries with a message to prepare the Iroquois for the 
 meeting with the governor at Cataracouy in the summer 
 of 1673. 4 
 
 Out of gratitude for this commission and in the hope of 
 further bounties, La Salle took sides with the governor in 
 the Fenelon affair. He had met the governor, most prob- 
 ably for the first time in Quebec after the Cataracouy pow- 
 wow, 5 and back in Montreal proclaimed ' 'himself openly M. 
 de Frontenac's man. One and all he cautioned to be on their 
 guard when speaking in his presence of the governor, for 
 he, La Salle, would not fail to report all that might interest 
 the person of M. de Frontenac." 6 How completely La Salle 
 had passed over to the governor's side is better realized 
 when it is remembered that La Salle had been helped by 
 the Sulpicians of Montreal on his arrival in Canada. They 
 had given him an extensive tract of land to start a settle- 
 ment and they had befriended him in many ways. His in- 
 gratitude toward the Sulpicians was on a par with the atti- 
 tude of hostility he was soon to adopt toward his former 
 brethren, the Jesuits. 
 
 The reward from Frontenac came a few months after 
 the scene in the church of Montreal, where, rising up in the 
 middle of Fenelon's sermon, La Salle called the attention of 
 the congregation to the fact that the preacher was censur- 
 ing the governor. In November 1674, when La Salle was 
 leaving for France, Frontenac highly praised "his man" in 
 a letter to the minister. 7 On this voyage to the mother coun- 
 try, he took a petition to the king for proprietorship and 
 
 3 Some La Salle Journeys, 17 ff . 
 
 4 Frontenac to Colbert, November 13, 1673, RAPQ, 1927, 36, 45; 
 Margry, I, 198; NYCD, IX, 97. 
 
 5Cf. Lorin, 79, 93, 94. 
 s Faillon, III, 495. 
 
 7 Frontenac to Colbert, November 14, 1674, AC, C 11 A, 4:84; 
 Margry, I, 277; RAPQ, 1927, 78. 
 
214 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 seigniorial rights of Fort Cataracouy, which he immediately 
 baptized Fort Frontenac. 8 
 
 Returning to Canada in 1675, La Salle attempted to 
 found a colony at Fort Frontenac. As far as colonization 
 went, it was a fiasco, just as the attempt at Lachine had 
 been. Fort Frontenac was never more than a comptoir, a 
 trading post, 9 and a far from prosperous one. The head of 
 such a post needed certain qualities, which were lacking in 
 La Salle, prudence, a knowledge of men, and the right man- 
 ner of dealing with them. The post, as a trading center, 
 soon became rather a liability; the trade with the Iroquois 
 on which much store had been set was rapidly diminish- 
 ing. 10 La Salle found nothing better than to accuse his for- 
 mer brethren of using their influence with the Iroquois to 
 prevent them from coming to trade at his fort. He quite 
 conveniently forgot that it was as easy, if not easier, for the 
 Indians to go to the Dutch where they would be paid three 
 or four times as much for their pelts as they would be at 
 Cataracouy. The Indians were not so foolish and they did 
 
 sNYCD, IX, 122, Margry, I, 278. The petition was granted the 
 following year, NYCD, IX, 123-124, Margry, I, 281. 
 
 s Faillon, III, 458, 473-474 ; cf . Baugy, Journal d'une expedition 
 contre les Iroquois en 1681, 78. Faillon does not prove his contention, 
 says Lorin, 197-198, who proceeds to show that Fort Frontenac, be- 
 sides being a trading post, was also a colonization center. When one 
 checks on the texts given by Lorin, a truly novel method of history 
 writing is revealed. The first proof is a quotation from a document 
 saying that a land concession was granted to a sergeant, the implica- 
 tion being that it was cultivated. The second proof is taken from the 
 utterly worthless Recit d'un ami de Vabbe de Galinee. The third 
 proof consists in a quotation from the letters patent of May 12, 1678, 
 as if what is said therein were a proof of what actually took place 
 at Fort Frontenac. The fourth proof is a statement found in the re- 
 lation of Tonty, which actually contains no word about the coloniza- 
 tion supposedly flourishing at Fort Frontenac. Tonty merely says: 
 "II y a quelques habitations franchises, une maison de recollects et 
 tout proche un village d'Iroquois," Margry, I, 575. These four so- 
 called proofs are crowned with a fifth: "La Salle lui-meme, dans un 
 memoire soumis a Seignelay en 1681, d£clarait qu'il y avait autour 
 du fort 'plusieurs habitants frangais et quantity de nations sauvages 
 jusqu'au nombre de plus de dix-huit mille, qui ont bati des maisons 
 et ensemence" quantite de terre pour commencer une puissante co- 
 lonic' " This is the best proof of all. The document is not by La 
 Salle; it is not of 1681, but of 1684; it does not speak of Fort Fron- 
 tenac but of Fort St. Louis, in the Illinois country. There were never 
 18,000 Indians around the Illinois fort, cf. Some La Salle Journeys, 
 72; Lorin himself had misgivings about this number, see his foot- 
 note; and cf. supra for the "colonization" at Fort Frontenac. 
 
 io NYCD, IX, 211. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 215 
 
 not deem the privilege of trading with the seignior of Fort 
 Frontenac worth such a price. 
 
 In 1677, La Salle left his fort and went to France a sec- 
 ond time. On May 12, 1678, he was given a commission to 
 achieve the exploration of the Mississippi. He was to fi- 
 nance the expedition out of his own pocket. As a compen- 
 sation, he was granted ownership and government of forts 
 to be built, and he was to have the monopoly of buffalo 
 hides ; but trade with the Ottawa and other tribes bringing 
 their pelts to Montreal was strictly forbidden to him. 11 
 
 While in France at this time, La Salle supposedly had 
 ten or twelve interviews with a friend of M. de Galinee. At 
 these conversations were present very intelligent gentlemen, 
 all endowed with an excellent memory. The anonymous 
 friend of the Sulpician took down in writing what La Salle 
 said, and communicated the report to the aforementioned 
 witnesses of the interview, who unanimously and separately 
 asserted — thanks to their excellent memory — that they well 
 remembered that the written report contained what they 
 had heard La Salle narrate. 12 
 
 A passage of this document has been discussed else- 
 where. 13 On the strength of the entry in the Calendar of 
 Manuscripts, the document was noted to have been pub- 
 lished by Margry with omissions. Considering the purpose 
 of the editor who wished to prove by this single document 
 La Salle's priority in discovering the Mississippi, before 
 Jolliet and Marquette, it was safe to surmise that nothing 
 would be omitted which even remotely supported Margry's 
 contention. Again, it sufficed then to show that the passage 
 from purely internal criticism was worthless as documen- 
 tary proof of the claimed priority. But in connection with 
 the trade of the Jesuits in New France, a more complete 
 critique is imperative, since this question is aired through- 
 out the document. Another reason is that since his previous 
 use of the Recit, sl photograph of the complete text has been 
 seen by the present writer. 
 
 ii Margry, I, 337; NYCD, IX, 127. 
 
 12 Margry, I, 345-401. 
 
 1 3 Some La Salle Journeys, 48-50. 
 
216 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Parkman called it a "curious monument." 14 With regard 
 to the use made of it to prove La Salle's priority in the dis- 
 covery of the great river, Winsor wrote : 
 
 There are some embarrassing facts for Margry and his ad- 
 herents to surmount in any endeavor to put La Salle before 
 Marquette as the actual discoverer of the Mississippi. It was 
 notorious at the time when this Histoire [the title of the second 
 part of the document] purports to have been written (1678), 
 that Marquette had first reached the great river in 1673, and in 
 the intervening years there had been no denial of the fact. If 
 this paper [the Recif] produced by Margry is genuine, it is 
 strange that La Salle's brother and other kindred, when making, 
 after La Salle's death, a memorial to the king for compensation 
 on account of their kinsman's services, do not mention any such 
 expedition of 1671. 
 
 The inference is hardly to be avoided, either that the ques- 
 tionable document has deceived Margry, or that he knows more 
 of its history than he cares to disclose. It is unfortunate that 
 there is any suspicion attached to any paper in the important 
 collection of documents which the United States government has 
 assisted M. Margry to publish. 15 
 
 When Winsor wrote these lines he knew of Margry's un- 
 savory reputation. 16 It may be stated with certainty that 
 the document which will be criticized presently was known 
 by Margry as worthless, from beginning to end, with the 
 exception of the extract of the letter of La Salle, and no one 
 can say how faithfully this is reproduced in the document. 
 The proof that Margry was aware of the worthlessness of 
 
 14 La Salle, 95. 
 
 is Winsor, Cartier to Frontenac, Boston and New York, 1894, 
 226, 227. 
 
 16 Cf. Narrative and Critical History of America, V, 245, the 
 critical discussion is by Winsor himself. In note 1, page 245, Winsor 
 said: "The curious reader interested in M. Margry's career among 
 manuscripts may read R. H. Major's Preface (pp. xxiv-li) to his 
 Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, London, 1868. Mr. Major has 
 clearly got no high idea of M. Margry's acumen or honesty from the 
 claim which this Frenchman has put forth, that the instigation of 
 Colombus' views came from France. Cf. Major's Select Letters of 
 Colombus, p. xlvii." The present writer succumbed to the curiosity 
 spoken of by Winsor. After studying the documents published by 
 Margry on the discovery of the Mississippi Valley, the conclusion 
 reached is that the Frenchman was as dishonest in editing his sec- 
 ond compilation as he had been in that criticized by Major. Cf. Some 
 La Salle Journeys, 4-10. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 217 
 
 the document, aside from his reticences with regard to its 
 provenance, is found in the manner in which he published 
 it. When the whole document is seen, there remains little 
 doubt as to its nature. Margry, indeed, did not "care to dis- 
 close" what he knew of the history of the Recit > except in 
 a vague manner adding some irrelevant comments, and he 
 certainly did not care to publish the document in full. 
 
 His acumen, as Major thought, may not have been very 
 sharp, but Margry knew better than to reveal his deficien- 
 cies to the educated world. He had indeed given historians 
 in this country to understand that their ideas about the ex- 
 ploration of the Mississippi Valley would have to be revised 
 when he would publish documents in his possession. The 
 great, erroneous idea lay in thinking Jolliet and Marquette 
 the discoverers of the Mississippi. This honor, claimed Mar- 
 gry, was La Salle's. When, thanks to the exertions of Park- 
 man, the United States Government agreed to finance the 
 publication of his papers, the Frenchman had to produce his 
 mysterious documents. As the Recit was the only proof of 
 the alleged priority, Margry had to publish it, unless he 
 preferred to retract and to admit himself mistaken, and 
 thus confess he had practiced deception with his dark hints 
 as to the true discoverer of the Mississippi. Apparently he 
 was unwilling to do either. On the other hand, he could not 
 publish the document as he found it, because this would also 
 amount to a retraction. Scholars in this country would have 
 detected the hoax immediately and would have pilloried him 
 for ignorance or dishonesty, as scholars in England and in 
 France had done on a previous occasion. 
 
 When Margry published his first volume, he felt that he 
 had to say a few words about the authenticity and the 
 provenance of the Recit. He said its author, beside being a 
 friend of Galinee, was also a friend of Ama\ild. Margry 
 added that the name of the illustrious Jansenist which 
 would be met with in the text, should put the reader on 
 guard against statements of the author of the document. 
 The original, he warned, was found in a sheaf of manuscript 
 writings brought to him, all hostile to the Jesuits. 17 
 
 17 Margry, I, 345, note. 
 
218 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Later, when urged to give more information about the 
 provenance of the document, he merely repeated what he 
 had said in his first volume. When he wanted to see again 
 "this important document" to check the proof sheets of his 
 book, he said he could no longer find it. The last person to 
 see it was Faillon. The papers, among which was the Recit, 
 were formerly in the French National Archives, series K 
 1286, where Margry first saw it, but in the interval they 
 had been transferred to K 1232. In this new file, he recog- 
 nized many documents he had seen before, but did not find 
 the Recit among them. 18 This shapes up to a queer explana- 
 tion, considering that the document is found today in K 
 1232, and, what is more, is the first "piece of the file. 
 
 Faillon saw the document in file K 1286. He gives this 
 press mark for the three statements he took from it. 19 His 
 last reference to the Recit is a sort of confirmatory proof 
 of what Faillon had found in the second memoir of M. 
 d'Allet, a Sulpician, published by Arnauld. 20 Harrisse read 
 the reference given by Faillon too hastily. The critic 
 thought by consulting K 1286, p. 53 — in the early seventies, 
 K 1232 — he would find that the Jesuit Relations were sup- 
 pressed at the request of Courcelle, the Governor of Can- 
 ada. He found this file filled with documents on Canada, 
 "but these boxes contain no memoirs by M. d'Allet, nor any 
 documents bearing on the [Jesuit] Relations" 21 Rochemon- 
 teix made capital of this reference to a non-existing docu- 
 ment, 22 but both the critic and the Jesuit attributed to Fail- 
 lon what the historian never said. The typographical ap- 
 pearance of this note shows that it is given merely as a 
 confirmation. The passage in the Morale Pratique speaks 
 not only of the suppression of the Jesuit Relations at the 
 request of Courcelle, but it also states in general that they 
 had been suppressed because they are full of falsehoods. 
 The latter is what is found in K 1286, p. 53, today in K 
 
 is Margry, III, 626. 
 
 "Faillon, II, 428, note 1; III, 189, note 2; 312, note 5. 
 
 20 Morale pratique des Jesuites, 1716 2 , VII, 334-343. 
 
 2i Harrisse, Notes pour servir a Vhistoire . . . de la Nouvelle- 
 France, Paris, 1872, 60, note. Cf. Roy, Rapport sur les Archives de 
 France, 52, 55-56. 
 
 22 Rochemonteix, I, xxviii f . 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 219 
 
 1232, and in Margry, I, 374. Such would have been the an- 
 swer of Faillon, had he been alive when Harrisse published 
 his book. 
 
 In the other two passages where the document is quoted, 
 Faillon does not speak of its author, nor of its nature. Hav- 
 ing seen it complete, he could not fail to trace the main, 
 ultimate source but for some reason Faillon did not criti- 
 cize the document. Margry also saw the whole document; 
 he copied it in full, and quoted one paragraph in the intro- 
 duction to his fifth volume, giving the reference: Memoires 
 d'un Sulpicien, Archives Nationales. 23 But Margry was care- 
 ful not to say that this memoir which he attributes to a 
 Sulpician was the main source of the Recit, nor did he say 
 that he had suppressed the passage in his printed version 
 of the Recit, lest one might recognize it, and lest, even 
 without having seen the full text of the document, one 
 might deduce what were its component elements. 
 
 The document was divided by Margry into two parts. 
 The title Recit d'un ami de Vabbe de Galinee, and the first 
 subtitle Entretiens de Cavelier de la Salle sur les onze pre- 
 mieres annees en Canada, were added by Margry. The first 
 subdivision covers thirty printed pages, the second twenty- 
 five; the manuscript itself down to where Margry stopped 
 has ninety-eight pages of text. 
 
 It is the reporter of these entretiens who took great 
 care lest any word falling from the mouth of La Salle be 
 lost. He set down all about the customs of the Indians, their 
 origin, their history, their language, their government, and 
 the state of the Christian religion in North America. Except 
 for the last item, he could have obtained his story from 
 almost any account of the customs of the North America 
 Indians then in print. Here and there are illustrations in 
 which Frontenac figures, and a few events which La Salle 
 witnessed or may have witnessed are added. But our re- 
 porter soon tired of being a mere record keeper. He quotes 
 the opinion of other men, for instance, of one Abbe de la 
 Vergne, who had heard something from a missionary, and 
 of Thomas Gage on the Mexican Indians. When he came to 
 
 23 Margry, V, cxi. Margry's copy is in BN, Mss. fr. n. a., 9288 
 18-40. 
 
220 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 the Indian legends, he apparently forgot altogether that La 
 Salle was supposed to be speaking, but caught himself with 
 the sentence : "M. de la Salle was interrupted as he was tell- 
 ing me this." Another peculiar thing is to be noted; in the 
 first twenty pages and throughout the Recit for that mat- 
 ter, the recorder deposed that he immediately set down 
 names and dates with particular care, because one is most 
 liable to forget them. Yet, after a few pages, the first time 
 a name was supposedly given by La Salle, it is left out. 
 
 These same first twenty pages are clearly only a hors 
 d'oeuvre. The reporter was hastening toward the last divi- 
 sion, the state of the Christian religion in North America. 
 In the very first paragraph of this division, as published, 
 Margry began to suppress what would have led toward the 
 identification of the narrator and the nature of the docu- 
 ment. At the beginning of the Recit the reporter has La 
 Salle speaking. He gives the explorer a bill of honesty; La 
 Salle is depicted as a man averse to exaggeration, who dis- 
 tinguished perfectly between what he knew and who mod- 
 estly confessed his ignorance about what he did not know. 
 Margry's task demanded that the reporter be made to ap- 
 pear just as honest, as trustworthy as La Salle. To achieve 
 his task then, in the first paragraph, treating of the state 
 of the Christian religion in America, Margry suppressed 
 two statements, one patently false, the other giving the real 
 source of the reporter's assertion. In the document, let us 
 repeat, La Salle is not speaking, but, in the publication of 
 the same by Margry, La Salle is made to be speaking by 
 the suppression of certain lines. The text as in the docu- 
 ment is given below, the words struck out by Margry are 
 italicized. 
 
 The Recollects are too poor, says the text, to carry on 
 the work of evangelization, 
 
 As for them [Jesuits] they have taken care of their affairs 
 in such a manner as to forestall any objection on that score, for 
 I find in the manuscript memoir that they own in that country 
 [New France] eight thousand seven hundred leagues of land. 2 * 
 
 Before ascertaining the truth of the statement giving 
 
 24 AN, 1232, n. 1:31; Margry, I, 363. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 221 
 
 the Jesuits combined tracts of land larger than the State of 
 Illinois — a statement found in a paper said by Parkman to 
 be of ''unquestionable historical value," 25 — the memoir 
 spoken of by the reporter has to be found. There will be in 
 the Recit other allusions of the mysterious, well-informed 
 memoir. Margry did not think of everything; he did not 
 want to 'mutilate' this "remarkable memoir" 26 more than 
 he could help; nor, to be sure, did he wish to attribute to 
 La Salle statements which the explorer could not possibly 
 have made. 
 
 The Recit then which was supposed to be made up of 
 conversations its author had with La Salle turns out to be 
 merely the concoction by some individual who put together 
 a few passages culled from some books he may have read 
 on the manners of the North American Indians, who used 
 the so-called memoir of Talon of 1667, that of Bernou of 
 1678, and another "memoir" spoken of in the above passage 
 suppressed by Margry. Our reporter had this memoir before 
 his eyes when he wrote the Recit. In the Archives Natio- 
 nales, it follows immediately upon the Recit, and the pa- 
 gination of the whole document is continuous. Margry's 
 mangled printed version stopped with page 98; the whole 
 document continues twelve pages more to page 110. Mar- 
 gry knew better than to publish the Recit as he found it, 
 knew better than to publish the whole document, for it 
 shows beyond question the so-called interviews to be ficti- 
 tious. It is not hereby meant that La Salle did not give in- 
 terviews, did not hold conversations, did not speak of the 
 Indians, of their manners, of their customs, for there are 
 extant notes taken after a conversation on these subjects 
 with La Salle. 27 But what is here denied is that the ten or 
 twelve conversations spoken of by the author of the Recit 
 ever took place. The real interviews of La Salle suggested 
 to the author of the Recit the form he would give to his 
 mendacious, worthless account. 
 
 Later in the Recit, Margry suppressed whole pages, be- 
 
 25 La Salle, 96. 
 
 26 ibid., 107. 
 
 27 The Canadian Historical Review, XVIII, 1937, 167-177. Cf. 
 ibid., 174, and Margry, I, 353. 
 
222 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 cause it was too evident, even to Margry, that La Salle 
 could not possibly have spoken in such a manner, and be- 
 cause he did not want the reader to catch the reporter con- 
 tradicting himself. It is really an amazing thing that Mar- 
 gry after all this rigging, had still the effrontery to speak 
 of his love for truth, of his impartiality, of his serene ob- 
 jectivity. 28 Margry's career among manuscripts, as Winsor 
 said, is truly remarkable, and his editing of the La Salle 
 papers is on a par with his earlier adventures in the his- 
 torical field. And most amazing of all, the printing of such 
 worthless material was financed with public money. Park- 
 man himself, through whose exertions the printing was 
 made possible, was forced to discard altogether the evidence 
 in this "most curious monument," pertaining to Mississippi 
 exploration. Did Parkman fail to see Margry's deceit? Per- 
 haps not, for in Chapter VII of his La Salle, the American 
 is strenuously trying to persuade himself and his readers 
 of the unquestionable historical value of the document. If 
 Parkman had been more familiar with the productions of 
 the French Jansenist pamphleteers of the seventeenth cen- 
 tury, he would have recognized in the Recit the trade-mark 
 of the sect. This lampoon does not mirror "the jealousies 
 and enmities that beset the path of the discoverer," 29 but it 
 merely reflects the partisan feeling of some member of the 
 Jansenist party. Margry had undoubtedly recognized the 
 worthlessness of the document from a historical point of 
 view, especially with regard to the history of the explora- 
 tion of the Mississippi, since, in his third volume, he de- 
 scribed the Recit: "One of several memoirs in a thick copy- 
 book after the manner of Arnauld's work entitled Morale 
 
 28 Cf. Margry, I, xxiv. 
 
 29 La Salle, 117. After quoting a few passages from Le Tac, cf. 
 infra, Margry, V, ex, repeated apropos of the Histoire chronologique 
 what Parkman wrote about the Recit. Le Tac, we are told, shows the 
 "partis en presence" during the two terms of Frontenac as governor. 
 As a matter of fact, Le Tac's book is on a par with the R6cit. Park- 
 man wavered in his appraisal of the trustworthiness of the Re'cit; in 
 an earlier edition of his La Salle, he had ended the chapter thus: 
 "Here ends this remarkable memoir; which, criticize it as we may, 
 undoubtedly contains a great deal of truth," The Discovery of the 
 Great West, Boston, 1871, 113. Where this "great deal of truth" is 
 to be found was never said. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 223 
 
 pratique des Jesuites." 30 No serious student would ever go to 
 such a source for his material, that is, if he were interested 
 in history and not in fiction. But, as was said previously, 
 the compiler had very strong motives of his own for pub- 
 lishing it anyway, and for publishing it after mutilating it. 
 
 The memoir used as one of the sources of the Recit is 
 entitled Memoire de la conduite des Jesuites en Canada. 31 
 It is divided into four sections dealing respectively with the 
 confessional, marriages, the brandy trade, and preaching. 
 Any man so belaboring the truth does not sign his prose, 
 but internal evidence leads toward a beginning of identifi- 
 cation, although the present writer has been unable to give 
 a definite name to its author. 
 
 The first division deals with the wholesale violation of 
 the confessional secret by the Canadian priests in general 
 and by the Jesuits in particular. The memorialist singles 
 out Father Chastelain as the principal Jesuit offender in 
 this matter. Father Dablon is said to have urged a man 
 called Langevin to lie to the judges. Langevin is made to 
 give Dablon a lesson in elementary ethics, and, we are told, 
 the accused reported everything to our memorialist, who 
 names the two condemned men and specifies the date, Au- 
 gust 28, 1667, when the capital sentence was carried out 
 against Langevin's accomplice, a soldier called Champagne. 
 It appears strange that a death sentence should be carried 
 out the day Tracy embarked for France, 32 and it is curious 
 that a man should be condemned to death when there was 
 no meeting of the Sovereign Council. A man was condemned 
 to death for desertion on June 2, but there was no such 
 salacious story connected with it as our memorialist con- 
 tends, nor are the names of the so-accused mentioned in 
 this capital sentence in any way similar to those set down 
 in the memoir. 33 
 
 so Margry, III, 626. The manuscript in the hand of a copyist has 
 no general title. The first part lacks a sub-title and comprises 56 
 pages; the second, 57-99, bears the sub-title "Histoire de M r de la 
 Salle"; the third, 99-111, is the basic "Memoire de la conduite des 
 Jesuites en Canada," AN, K 1232 :n. 1. 
 
 3i AN, K 1232, n. 1:99-111, in Margry's copy, BN, Mss. fr. n. a., 
 9288:38-40. 
 
 32 Journal des Jesuites, 356. 
 
 33 Jugements et deliberations, I, 397. 
 
224 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 The memorialist really takes to Jesuit-baiting with a 
 vim. Next we are told that "they" force people to go to con- 
 fession "in the middle of the fields, in the streets, in the 
 houses without any previous examination of conscience; 
 they merely tell the people: 'Just stay where you are, I'll 
 hear your confession.' " "They" are then specified. There is 
 M. Morel, the parish priest of Beauport, who revealed 
 knowledge gained in confession from the pulpit. Father 
 Chastelain spoke in public of what he knew of the confes- 
 sion of Governor Courcelle. There are fifteen or sixteen 
 depositions dealing with the breaking of the sacramental 
 secret in the hands of M. Talon. "His prudence will dictate 
 to him when and where to make these depositions public. 
 Their contents make one's hair stand up." Until now the 
 memorialist has not yet revealed his identity, but the next 
 paragraph gives the first indication as to who he is. 
 
 On that account [the wholesale revelations] M. de Courcelle is 
 asking me for a priest with power to absolve and he will not go 
 to confession until I send him one. Many other inhabitants cry 
 for mercy and loudly say that they have no freedom of con- 
 science, even the poor nuns whose confession I heard at the time 
 of the last jubilee. Although the nuns must have an extraor- 
 dinary confessor every three months, they can never obtain one, 
 for the bishop, who is an out and out Jesuit, always refuses 
 them one. 
 
 This indicates that the memorialist was a priest, who 
 seems to have had other priests under him. More informa- 
 tion is found in the next paragraph: "In a word everybody 
 cries for freedom of conscience. I shall prove this to you 
 by the testimony of the Public Prosecutor [M. le lieutenant 
 general criminel et civil] of Quebec, who came hither with 
 us from that country." 
 
 The second division of the anonymous memoir used by 
 the author of the Recit, deals with marriages. After having 
 accused the clergy of Canada and the Jesuits of the most 
 heinous crime a priest can commit, he proceeds to give ex- 
 amples of how Jesuits and diocesan priests simply break 
 marriages, how they favor divorces, and allow bigamy right 
 and left. He seems to have been obsessed by the number 
 
 < 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 225 
 
 one hundred. One hundred persons in Canada will testify 
 that confessions are revealed. M. Patoulet, Talon's secre- 
 tary, was himself refused the absolution one hundred times ; 
 Morel, the parish priest of Beauport, dissolves marriages, 
 grants divorces for one hundred pistoles, and with regard 
 to bigamy, "M. Chartier, the Quebec Public Prosecutor, 
 knows one hundred of such cases. He is here in this city, 
 very much persecuted by the Jesuits, because he always 
 blamed their foolishness, and because being an honorable 
 man, he never wanted to be a member of their cabal." The 
 next four paragraphs contain a tirade against the Sainte- 
 Famille, where allusion is made to the difficulties which 
 arose in 1667, between Laval and Talon. 
 
 The third division of the memoir which deals with the 
 brandy trade and the trade of the Jesuits is here translated 
 in full: 
 
 Although His Majesty only allowed brandy this year, that is, 
 freedom to sell brandy to all sorts of persons, nevertheless the 
 bishop, a Jesuit to the core, loudly asserted that the king could 
 not and ought not give this permission. M. Talon as well as I 
 heard the said bishop say this ; the said bishop cares nothing for 
 the orders of the king when they go counter to the wishes of the 
 Jesuits. 
 
 All the creatures of the Jesuits have at all times covertly 
 sold brandy to the Indians, although it was then forbidden, and 
 they themselves [Jesuits] are selling brandy to the Indians day 
 and night for their beaver pelts. That is the reason why they 
 discharged one of their servants, Robert by name, because he 
 made known that they were selling brandy day and night. 
 
 Father Albanel sold at the Cap [de la Madeleine] for 700 pi- 
 stoles of moose and beaver skins; he himself told it to me in 
 1667. He is selling bread, wine, wheat, bacon, and he is running 
 a shop at the Cap, just as in Quebec Brother Joseph is selling 
 all kinds of merchandises. What scandalizes everybody is that 
 this brother makes a profit of 500% on everything he sells. 
 
 The Jesuits are engaged in the brandy as well as in all other 
 trades. They do everything they please. They possess all that is 
 best in land, the woods they own are the finest, the most exten- 
 sive, their land the most fertile. In a word, they have eight thou- 
 sand seven hundred leagues of land in that country. They are 
 
226 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 all powerful, and the king is but a small land owner [petit 
 seigneur] in comparison with them. 
 
 Previously, they excommunicated those who sold brandy to 
 the Indians, while they themselves were selling it. 
 
 They built their college partly with the money from their 
 trade, and partly with money borrowed from the population. The 
 10% tax is now being paid to clear the latter debt. And all this 
 to build their college which costs 400,000 livres; they said that 
 it was for the bishop. Everybody is complaining about it now. 
 Their garden eight hundred steps long is made of filled in land. 
 
 Beside all this information about the trade of the Jesu- 
 its, something more is learned about the memorialist him- 
 self. He was a man moving in governmental circles. He 
 heard the protests of Laval against the ordinance of No- 
 vember 1668. 
 
 The last division of the memoir adds a last stroke to 
 the pen picture the author drew of himself. The first three 
 paragraphs deal with a sermon preached by Father Pardy 
 [Bardy] March 12, 1666. The Jesuit is said to have insulted 
 Courcelle and Talon from the pulpit, calling them "pump- 
 kins born in the night," perturbers of the public peace. 34 In 
 a sermon at Three Rivers, Father Albanel said that "the 
 priests sent by Abbes de Queylus and de Bretonvilliers were 
 Jansenists and priests of the Antichrist." In another ser- 
 mon at Three Rivers, the same preacher had asserted that 
 all the secular priests were drunkards and debauchees. "I 
 say nothing of the calumny against me, of my so-called 
 drunkenness, for M. Talon will tell you how my innocence 
 triumphed over their false calumnies." 
 
 The attempt at identification of the author of this mem- 
 oir is to be made from internal evidence alone, for the whole 
 document is in the handwriting of a copyist, and from its 
 neatness and carry-over words at the foot of the pages, it 
 was evidently ready for publication. Another question has 
 to be disposed of at the outset. Did the author of the Recit 
 make a faithful copy of the memoir reproduced at the end 
 of the first two parts of his composition ? The answer seems 
 to be affirmative, because in the Recit where all this was to 
 
 34Margry cut this passage out of the R6cit. He used it in his 
 introduction to volume V, cxi. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 227 
 
 reappear, the author felt that he had to tone down some 
 statements which appeared impossible even to him. 
 
 If we gather up the data supplied by internal criticism, 
 we find that the author of the memoir was a priest with 
 some sort of superiorship. He had been in Canada, was in 
 Quebec in 1666, went up the St. Lawrence, stopped at the 
 Cap de la Madeleine in 1667, and wrote his memoir in Paris 
 at the beginning of 1669. He seemed to have returned to 
 France with Talon 1668 while Courcelle remained in Can- 
 ada. He asserts that he crossed over to France with M. 
 Chartier de Lotbiniere, the Public Prosecutor of Quebec. 
 
 Since internal evidence shows beyond doubt that every 
 event narrated or alluded to took place during Talon's first 
 term of office, and since there are so many traits of the 
 memorialist, it would seem at first blush easy to identify 
 him. The difficulty is that these traits do not fit one man, 
 one priest. From internal evidence again, the memorialist 
 was most likely a priest of St. Sulpice — the Sulpicians 
 alone are not censured — Margry saw this: and the silence 
 of Faillon seems to indicate that he too thought that the 
 author of the memoir was one of his confreres. It is known 
 for certain that prominent Sulpicians crossed over to 
 France three times. The Abbe de Queylus a priest with au- 
 thority over other priests went to France with the Quebec 
 Public Prosecutor, but they embarked in October 1659, 
 which is nearly ten years too early to fit in with the rest 
 of the traits of the memorialist. 35 Another Sulpician with 
 authority, M. Souart, went to France in 1667, 36 but M. de 
 Lotbiniere did not cross the Atlantic that year. 37 Nor did 
 the prosecuting attorney go to France in the fall of 1671, 
 when M. de Queylus, d'Allet, and de Galinee returned defi- 
 nitely to the mother country. 38 And there is not one shred 
 
 35 Journal des Jesuites, 267. 
 
 36 Dollier to Casson, Histoire du Montreal, 109. 
 
 37 M. P.-G. Roy was consulted about the voyages of M. de Lot- 
 biniere, and kindly answered that the Prosecuting- Attorney went to 
 Paris in 1679. The records in Quebec show that he was in the colony 
 in 1668, 1670, and 1671. 
 
 ss Dollier de Casson, Histoire du Montreal, 116. Margry wrote in 
 pencil "Tronson?" on the first page of his copy of the Memoire, BN, 
 Mss. fr. n. a., 9288-38, as though the Superior of the Sulpician were 
 perhaps the author of the lampoon. It is a gratuitous insult to the 
 memory of the saintly Sulpician. 
 
228 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 of evidence proving that any of these Sulpicians was ever 
 accused of drunkenness. Persistent and diligent search of 
 the records, printed and manuscript, yielded nothing. Per- 
 haps some other student will be more successful in identi- 
 fying the author of the memoir. 
 
 The memorialist rather had the Jesuits caught on the 
 charge of violating the secrecy of the confessional; they 
 were put at a very grave disadvantage. Take Father Chas- 
 telain, for instance, accused of making public what he heard 
 in confession from Governor Courcelle. If he had known 
 the foul accusation and particularizing had answered it in 
 his defense, he might easily work harm to the sacrament 
 of penance; hence it was possible for him to answer only 
 in general terms, which would prove a weak defense; if he 
 kept silence, there were some capable of supposing this an 
 admission of guilt. 
 
 The whole of Talon's correspondence about the fifteen or 
 sixteen depositions he possessed is devoid of any remark 
 about confessional violations even though he several times 
 refers to the "gehenne" of consciences. The bigamy business 
 is more stupid still. Then as now it was a crime against the 
 civil law, yet the Public Prosecutor of Quebec, who knew 
 "one hundred" such offenses, did not pursue the offenders. 
 The Jesuits are not only trading in all kinds of merchan- 
 dises, but in brandy as well, day and night, at the Cap de 
 la Madeleine and in Quebec. And Talon, who is in Quebec, 
 who sees this brandy trade going on under his very eyes, 
 whose brandy policy was opposed by Laval and the Jesuits, 
 Talon does not object? The evidence reveals the colossal 
 bias of the memorialist rather than the guilt of the accused. 
 
 The next two items of the memoir reveal its author as 
 a case for psychopathic investigation. The Jesuits, he said, 
 own 8,700 leagues, that is, square leagues of land in Can- 
 ada. Taken roughly (seven square miles [2.7x2.7] to the 
 square league), this is an area of 60,900 square miles, 
 equivalent to the area of the States of Illinois and Connec- 
 ticut combined, nearly thirty-nine million acres! There are 
 fortunately two official documents pertaining to the land 
 bought by or granted to the missionaries about the time 
 when our memorialist was thus deeding them a kingdom. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 229 
 
 The first is a copy of the declaration made to the in- 
 tendant in October 1663, a few years before the memorial- 
 ist's generous concessions. An ironical fate placed this copy 
 of the declaration of land possessed by the Jesuits in the 
 same file of the French Archives as the memoir. 39 Without 
 entering into a long analysis of this document, suffice it 
 to say there were two kinds of land grants, those of culti- 
 vated land, and those not yet cleared, because nobody had 
 asked for them. Near Quebec 300 people were living on the 
 16,000 acres of land that had been granted to or bought by 
 the Jesuits, and a great part of the huge tract of 150,000 
 acres near Three Rivers had also been sublet to settlers, 
 who were paying an insignificant rent. Much vaster were 
 the lands "which were not yet of value, and which were not 
 yet cleared for lack of habitants," forming an area of more 
 than 250,000 acres. The total land possessions of the Jesu- 
 its in Canada at that time amounted in round numbers to 
 500,000, quite a difference from the memorialist's thirty- 
 nine million acres. And Talon did not grant the Jesuits the 
 38,500,000 acres they lacked to make these possessions 
 agree with what the memorialist wrote. A decade after the 
 date of the memoir, another official document, the decree of 
 amortization, recognized as owned by the Jesuits less than 
 500,000 acres. 40 The memorialist took a rather expansive 
 view of things, it would appear. 
 
 The other paragraph in the memoir brings out other 
 elements of rashness in the memorialist's character. We are 
 told that the 10% tax was levied to pay the debts con- 
 tracted by the Jesuits when building their college. But the 
 proceeds of this tax went to liquidate the debts contracted 
 by the communaute des habitants. The tax was a custom 
 duty levied on all merchandise entering Canada. 41 To say 
 the colonists were complaining of this tax because they thus 
 had to pay the debts of the Jesuits is a clear indication of 
 the type of person the memorialist was. 
 
 39 AN, K 1232, n. 40, printed in Jesuit Relations, 47, 258-271. The 
 Recit of which the memoir is an integral part is AN, K 1232, n. 1. 
 
 ±o Amortissement pour les jesuites de Canada, AC, B 7:175v- 
 179; Edits, I, 102. 
 
 4i Cf . origin and development of this tax in Jean Talon, 263 ; see 
 the contract for the collection of this tax, BRH, XXXIII, 1927, 125. 
 
230 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 It is, of course, impossible to find out what, if anything, 
 Father Albanel said to the memorialist in 1667, but after 
 so many flagrantly false assertions, it would be rash to ac- 
 cept what is said about the trade of this Jesuit at Three 
 Rivers with no other evidence than the word of our me- 
 morialist. 
 
 Finally, we are told that Talon and Courcelle were pub- 
 licly insulted on March 12, 1666, were called pumpkins and 
 threatened with demotion unless they mended their ways. 
 Yet in November of that year, the intendant wrote his eu- 
 logistic letter, quoted above, to the General of the Jesuits. 
 The memorialist could not have been more unfortunate in 
 his examples. On March 12, 1666, Courcelle was not in Que- 
 bec; he returned on the seventeenth of that month, 42 and, 
 horrible to relate, less than three weeks after the said in- 
 sulting sermon, we find him going on a pilgrimage to Ste. 
 Anne with the very Jesuit, Father Bardy, who had so 
 grievously flayed him from the pulpit. 43 It would be unkind 
 to re-quote here the passage in which the memorialist refers 
 to his * 'so-called drunkenness" and innocence triumphant. 
 
 Out of such testimony was gathered proof of the trade 
 of the Jesuits, of their ambition, and vindictiveness. 44 Inci- 
 dentally, those who made use of this testimony which they 
 took from the Recti have remarked that all said therein 
 might not be altogether true, 45 but after paying this lip 
 service to historical criticism, quotations from and refer- 
 ences to this "most curious monument" are given to corrob- 
 orate groundless theories. 46 These writers, however, with 
 the exception of Faillon and Margry, were handicapped. 
 They only knew the garbled printed version, but Lor in 
 could easily have consulted the "document" in the Archives 
 Nationales, when he was writing his doctoral thesis. It is 
 
 42 Journal des Jesuites, 342. 
 
 ^Ibid., 343. 
 
 44 See Faillon's comments on the alleged sermon of Father Al- 
 banel at Three Rivers, II, 487-488. 
 
 45Parkman, La Salle, 107; Old Regime, 325; Suite, V, 41; Lorin, 
 168, 172. 
 
 46Parkman, Old Regime, 329, 351; Lorin, 197. It has long been 
 known that Gravier was devoid of all critical sense; what he wrote 
 about the genuineness, the trustworthiness of the Recit is an added 
 proof of his deficiencies, if such proof were needed, Cavelier de la 
 Salle de Rouen, Paris, 1871, 50. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 231 
 
 difficult to follow the reasoning of Eastman with regard to 
 the contents of the Recit. Taking for granted that La Salle 
 is the author of the statements about the trade of the Jes- 
 uits, he wrote: "The accusations formulated by La Salle 
 himself are extremely direct, and some substantially just." 47 
 It would have helped if the specific La Salle accusations had 
 been given. On the next page, Eastman wrote : 
 
 In most of La Salle's accusations there was palpable exaggera- 
 tion and gross misrepresentation, but there was other evidence. 
 In his memoir of 1671, Dumesnil had stated that a clerk whom 
 the bishop and Father Ragueneau hired to trade for them bought 
 furs from the Indians with liquors and that for a time the clergy 
 had a monopoly of this traffic. Had this charge been well founded 
 the commerce in question could hardly have escaped the keen 
 eyes of Talon. 48 
 
 This is very true, and it is an answer which those who 
 hold the traffic theory prefer to ignore. But if the brandy 
 traffic asserted in the Recit had been well founded in East- 
 man's mistaken supposition that La Salle had reported the 
 same to Paris, would it have escaped the keen eyes of Fron- 
 tenac? It is somewhat surprising to find the accusations 
 found in the Recit and those found in Dumesnil mutually 
 supporting each other. 
 
 Having ascertained the main source used by the friend 
 of Galinee, the last part of the Recit can be quickly exam- 
 ined. In the first paragraph, the reporter, beginning to 
 speak of the state of the Christian religion in New France, 
 goes promptly to the reserved case. The Jesuits caused the 
 bishop to promulgate the measure, wrote the author of the 
 Recit, and yet they themselves sell brandy to the Indians; 
 "although they hide their brandy trade, M. de la Salle con- 
 tends that it none the less exists ; that besides its being well 
 known, he has unimpeachable proofs of it; that he caught 
 the Jesuits in the act of carrying on the traffic, while they 
 
 47 Eastman, 176. 
 
 48 Eastman refers to Old Regime, ch. xxi. This question, in the 
 edition used, is treated in ch. xviii; on p. 325, note 2, specific instances 
 are given from Dumesnil's memoir and from the R6cit\ Parkman 
 added : "I give these assertions as I find them and for what they are 
 worth." In passing it may be said that to neglect criticizing the 
 sources used is an unusual way of writing history. 
 
232 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 had set trap to catch him at it." One cannot check such 
 testimony as "it is well known" and "all say/' and the like. 
 What M. de la Salle's proofs were will be seen below. Con- 
 trary to what is asserted above, La Salle never produced the 
 unimpeachable proofs. Nor did he say where he had caught 
 the Jesuits selling brandy to the Indians. It was certainly 
 not at Fort Frontenac, nor in the Iroquois country. In 1678, 
 he had not been farther west than Lake Ontario; he had 
 not even approached the Jesuit Western missions. The 
 "traps" were not set by the Jesuits, but by La Salle himself 
 at a later date. Having no evidence of the Jesuit trade, he 
 resorted to a method, currently known as "framing," in or- 
 der to compromise the Jesuit missionaries in the West. 
 
 It is a far from pleasant task to tear off the mask of 
 individuals who have left records not so much of the prog- 
 ress of the exploration, colonization, and civilization in the 
 valleys of the St. Lawrence and of the Mississippi, as of 
 their personal spleen. But too much has been written to ex- 
 toll such individuals at the expense of others who stood 
 between these "colonizers" and the Indians. Whatever these 
 "explorers" said or wrote has been accepted practically 
 without question and mainly because they belonged to the 
 camp opposed to the Jesuits. One might, it seems, differ 
 from the missionaries' point of view, their aim, and be out 
 of sympathy with their ideal, their purpose and with the 
 means adopted to achieve it, and yet do them justice inso- 
 far as their motives were concerned. Their method of col- 
 onization was criticized in their day because it clashed with 
 the method favored by merchants and peddlers whose mo- 
 tive was financial gain ; and while it is not difficult to under- 
 stand that these rapacious hawkers of fire-water would be- 
 smirch the motives of the missionaries, it is difficult to un- 
 derstand why reputedly objective historians merely echo ac- 
 cusations and recriminations. After all, seventeenth century 
 New France was a hot bed of hatred, of spite, of meanness, 
 of jealousy, the like of which it would be difficult to match 
 anywhere else during any given period. Statements found 
 in documents hatched in such a milieu have been accepted 
 uncritically, have been imposed upon people as the truth, 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 233 
 
 have been used to round out a glorified picture of an in- 
 glorious scene. 
 
 In the Recit, after reporting La Salle's general accusa- 
 tion about the trade of the Jesuits, the narrator continues : 
 "Here is what I find on that trade in a memoir which was 
 given me and which was composed when M. Talon, intend- 
 ant of Canada, came back to France [1668]." This is the 
 memoir discussed at length in the preceding pages. The 
 friend of Galinee transcribed what he found on the brandy 
 trade, on the trade carried on at the Cap de la Madeleine 
 by Father Albanel, on the 400,000 livres for the college, on 
 the 10% tax levied on the colonists to clear the debts of the 
 Jesuits. The last item argues an ignorance of the financial 
 affairs of Canada as great as the reporter's ignorance of 
 the geography of New France, when the time came to plot 
 La Salle's journey and the "discovery" of the Mississippi in 
 1671. The 10% tax, the same which was levied when the 
 memorialist wrote, was also levied under Frontenac, at least 
 until 1674. 49 It does not seem that the reporter knew of this, 
 for to imply that Frontenac would levy a tax to pay the 
 debts incurred by the Jesuits is simply foolish. 
 
 Our reporter next passes to Frontenac's time. He cer- 
 tainly had access to Bernou's memoir of 1678. The protests 
 of the Jesuits against the rumor that they were making 
 20,000 livres profit a year, when they only made 4,000 livres 
 are cited. In Bernou's composition, as was noted, the name 
 of "one of them" who had sent such a confession, was not 
 given. In the Recit the guilty man is named; he is Father 
 Fremin, the Superior of La Prairie de la Madeleine. Messrs. 
 Frontenac and La Salle had very special reasons for accus- 
 ing this missionary. He, we are told, answered the gov- 
 ernor's expostulations about the traffic "with a note which 
 has been preserved [que Yon a conserve] and of which I 
 could have had a copy if I had asked for it." This is another 
 example of the disappearance of the proofs spoken of pre- 
 viously and it will be met again at the end of the most 
 curious monument under consideration. It is a pity that a 
 
 49 Cf. Frontenac to Colbert, November 13, 1673; Colbert to Fron- 
 tenac, May 17, 1674; Frontenac to Colbert, November 14, 1674, in 
 RAPQ, 1927, 48, 59, 64. 
 
234 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 man so eager as the author of the Recit to prove the trade 
 of the Jesuits should have missed the opportunity to secure 
 a copy of such a compromising letter. 
 
 Next comes an enlivening touch, the treasonable deal- 
 ings of the Jesuit missionaries with Andros. It was seen 
 how in Bernou's memoir, Frontenac vaguely refers to these, 
 claiming that he was sending proofs which Bernou did not 
 see fit to transcribe. In the Recit, the story is more inter- 
 esting, more "convincing," since the author invents a little 
 tale about an unrecorded trip of Father Bruyas to New 
 York at some indefinite, unspecified time. To add verisimili- 
 tude, a dialogue is reported as having taken place. Doubt- 
 less La Salle was either present or eavesdropping, in order 
 so faithfully to recount all that took place during the inter- 
 view between Andros and Bruyas to the friend of Galinee, 
 who in turn wrote everything down. The means used by 
 Andros to convict the Jesuits of trade is indicated. Lest 
 there might still be some doubt lingering in the reader's 
 mind, the reporter says: "We have [on a] this bill of lad- 
 ing," to prove the Jesuits engaged in trade. Very curiously, 
 with the bill of lading in existence, the name of the ship is 
 unknown. 50 
 
 The Andros affair disposed of, the reporter turns his at- 
 tention to the West, to the Jesuit Missions of Sault Ste. 
 Marie and Michilimackinac, repeating what is found in Ber- 
 nou's memoir, but adding some disfigurements for good 
 measure. Brebeuf , Gamier, and other Jesuits were not killed 
 by the Iroquois in hatred of the faith; they died fighting, 
 gun in hand. The shooting of the Sioux ambassadors is nar- 
 rated in great detail. One would almost believe that the re- 
 porter was there. However, one detail is omitted, the name 
 of the second Indian tribe "escaped me." An altogether re- 
 grettable lapse in one who took such care to jot down all 
 such names as soon as La Salle had spoken them. To de- 
 feat the Indians, the French had the alternative of firing 
 the cannon or burning the church, but the Jesuits were op- 
 
 50 The manuscript has "un vaisseau nomine" tel," (a ship called 
 so and so), AN, K 1232:36; Margry's copy has the same, BN, Mss. 
 fr. n. a., 9288:24, but he printed it thus: "un vaisseau nomm6 ***," 
 I, 365. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 235 
 
 posed to the latter because "their beaver pelts were between 
 the roof and the ceiling of the chapel." La Salle at this time 
 had not gone West, he could not have seen these pelts, but 
 this detail was to be repeated in one of the explorer's letters 
 three years later. 
 
 The Jesuits were accused of being more interested in 
 converting beavers than Indians. The reporter supplies 
 proof for this by saying the missionaries abandon the mis- 
 sion posts when the merchants go and when only Indians 
 are left. A curious little apologue accompanies this "curious 
 monument" of unquestionable historical value. It is said, 
 "At times, the memoir is fully sustained by contemporary 
 evidence, but often, again, it rests on its own unsupported 
 authority." 51 Enough has been said about those passages 
 which rest on the sole authority of the reporter or of the 
 memorialist copied by the reporter. Each one of their state- 
 ments which could be checked proved either to be wholly 
 false or wilfully distorted. The statements "sustained by 
 contemporary evidence," are generalizations, for instance, 
 the fact that the Recollects were protected by Frontenac, 
 and that the governor was irked by the union existing be- 
 tween the Jesuits and the diocesan clergy. These facts were 
 public property, and they are not corroborated because they 
 are also found in the Recit; nor is the trustworthiness of 
 the Recit increased because these true but general facts are 
 found therein; nor can one speak of confirmation when the 
 author of the Recit copies Bernou's memoir of 1678. The 
 particular statement that the missionaries "abandon" the 
 Indians when the traders leave the territory might seem to 
 be "sustained by contemporary evidence," since it is also 
 found in a book published under the name of Christian Le 
 Clercq." 2 This confirmatory proof is found in Chapter XV, 
 which was most probably written by a member of the 
 "party," a close friend of the author of the Recit, if the 
 
 • r -i Parkman, La Salle, 96. 
 
 • r >2 Le Clercq, I, 104. Hennepin, New Discovery, III, 545, copied 
 Le Clercq verbatim, and added some personal touches. To do away 
 with any doubts about the truth of the abandonment of the Indians 
 by the Jesuits when pelts became scarce, Hennepin says he was there 
 and heard the complaints made by the natives to Frontenac. 
 
236 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 two lampoons, Le Clercq's book and the Recit, were not 
 written by the same individual. 
 
 Thus far the author of the Recit has given little infor- 
 mation about himself. He was a friend of Galinee; he met 
 La Salle and was satisfied to play the humble role of re- 
 porter. He was also a Jansenist and a friend of Arnauld. 
 How close a friend of Arnauld is shown by the next para- 
 graphs of the Recit. We are told the Jesuits in Canada do 
 not tolerate the presence of other missionaries in the col- 
 ony, and for this reason they opposed M. de Queylus and 
 his confreres, whom the Jesuits call Jansenists, although 
 nobody is more opposed to the sect than the Sulpicians. M. 
 de Queylus was so affected by all the injustices done him 
 by the Jesuits while he was in Canada, "that one day hav- 
 ing a talk with M. Arnauld on the occasion of a little pil- 
 grimage the latter made to Mont Valerien, where M. de 
 Queylus had retired, he complained to him [Arnauld] about 
 the Jesuits, and said about them as much as Port-Royal 
 could say," which, we may add, would not be little. It is 
 more than a coincidence to find this interview between 
 Queylus and Arnauld also narrated in a chapter of Ar- 
 nauld's book, the Morale pratique. The tenth chapter deals 
 with the First Establishment of the Faith in New France. 
 Le Clercq's book indeed was certainly tampered with by a 
 member of the party, and Arnauld's comments supposedly 
 made on the Recollect's statements, are merely an amplifi- 
 cation by the leader of the sect of what one of the members 
 had inserted in the book. Le Clercq speaks of the "opposi- 
 tion made to him [M. de Queylus] on all sides both in 
 France and in Canada." 53 Whence came such opposition, 
 asks Arnauld ? He answers his own question by saying that 
 it can only come from "influential persons in both Frances," 
 the new and the old, namely, from the Jesuits. 
 
 But however strong are those conjectures of mine; I have no 
 need of them. I know all that is to be known on this affair from 
 the very mouth of that pious abbe, although I saw him only 
 once in my life. I had gone with two of my friends to see the 
 Bishop of Pamiers at Mont Valerien. The Abbe de Queylus was 
 
 bs Le Clercq, II, 20. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 237 
 
 living there at the time. They told him that I was there. Taking 
 me aside, we strolled in the garden for quite a long time, and 
 he opened his heart to me on the conduct of the Jesuits of Can- 
 ada, and everywhere else. The gentlemen of St. Sulpice know 
 well what he told me about the conduct of the Jesuits, and I am 
 sure that they will not say that I considered lies what M. de 
 Queylus said about the Jesuits. 54 
 
 These two quotations clearly show that both Arnauld 
 and the author of the Recit are speaking of the same inter- 
 view between Arnauld and de Queylus. Arnauld states that 
 he only saw Queylus once in his life. In his voluminous 
 works, Arnauld never mentions what he heard from the 
 Sulpician, very likely because the abbe said nothing of a na- 
 ture capable of being twisted into an attack on the Jesuits ; 
 otherwise, we may rest assured, the chief would not have 
 hesitated to repeat these complaints. At some later date, 
 M. d'Allet, also a Sulpician who had been Queylus' secre- 
 tary in Canada, handed two memoirs to Arnauld, who has- 
 tened to print them. Again, if we suppose Queylus to have 
 said something worth while, even if Arnauld had not 
 printed it, he would have mentioned it to his friend, our 
 reporter, the author of the Recit. Instead, the latter wrote : 
 
 M. de Galinee, whom I mentioned at the beginning of this rela- 
 tion, although much attached to St. Sulpice and consequently 
 little in favor of those who are called Jansenists, spoke of them 
 in the same manner [as Queylus]. As M. Arnauld only spoke to 
 me in a general way of the complaints of M. de Queylus [against 
 the Jesuits] and as I don't remember the facts in which M. de 
 Galinee grounded his complaints, I'll say no more about it. 55 
 
 The Arnauld-Queylus interview is followed in the Recit 
 by a repetition of what is found in Bernou's memoir of 
 1678, plus a few details designed to augment still more the 
 huge yearly income of the bishop. Laval, in order to keep 
 the money for himself, 40,000 livres, "not counting the 
 tithes," (quite an improvement on the 25,000 livres of Ber- 
 nou), let the inhabitants of Canada die without the sacra- 
 ments. "He keeps an open shop in his house where even 
 
 r,4 Morale pratique des Jesuites, VII, 270. 
 M Margry, I, 368. 
 
238 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 meat and wooden shoes are sold, so that he is very rich, 
 and he is able to have, on a height dominating Quebec, a 
 palace now being built, which when finished will cost from 
 four to five hundred thousand livres." This, it may be noted, 
 was during Frontenac's time. Can one imagine the gover- 
 nor shutting his eyes to such a lucrative trade carried on 
 openly in Quebec by the bishop, his "enemy." Or would La 
 Salle have dared to say this in Paris? 
 
 The narrator then passes to the Sainte-Famille associa- 
 tion, and copies directly from the memoir. Here Margry 
 omitted two pages from the Recit. This suppressed passage 
 contains the story of the condemnation of the men to death 
 in 1667, and in which Father Dablon figured. The reporter 
 himself abbreviated the story as found in the memoir he 
 had before him, but kept the part about the Jesuits and M. 
 Morel favoring bigamy for those "of their faction." He 
 wound up by saying, "M. Chartier, Public Prosecutor of 
 Quebec, knows many such cases." 
 
 After these paragraphs are a few lines which give a 
 clue to the identity of the reporter. There is question of the 
 practice followed in the Eastern Church with regard to con- 
 fessions. Considering that the reporter knew La Salle, was 
 a Jansenist, a friend of Arnauld, and had access to the 
 Bernou's memoir and to the so-called memoir of Talon of 
 1667, one may point to Eusebe Renaudot. Later in the Re- 
 cti, Margry has a note to the effect that he believed the 
 abbe to be the author of the document, and for once one 
 can agree with Margry. 56 But in spite of this isolated in- 
 stance of harmony with Margry, it is not possible to come 
 to anything more than high probability. If the Recit was 
 not written by Renaudot himself, it certainly was inspired 
 by him. Margry did not print the whole passage about con- 
 fessions in the Eastern Church. Here too the reporter is 
 selecting from the memoir he was copying; he evidently 
 did not believe that the priests of Canada were violating 
 the sacramental secret, no more than Bernou did when he 
 copied the letter of Frontenac of 1677. 57 In the lines omit- 
 
 ™ Ibid., 392. In the introduction, xxi, to his first volume he had 
 likewise given Renaudot as the author; cf. Some La Salle Journeys, 
 23 
 
 57 BN, Clairambault, 1016 :45v. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 239 
 
 ted by Margry, it is said that a man in possession of such 
 secrets can make himself redoubtable, "when he takes the 
 liberty to speak of them according as his own interests re- 
 quire it. This is what the Jesuits are accused of doing, and 
 it is said that M. Talon has in his hands fifteen or sixteen 
 depositions of revelations [of confessions] which contain 
 things to make one's hair stand up." 
 
 As for the preaching, "the Jesuits do it with impunity 
 against those who displease them. M. de la Salle told me 
 horrible examples which I do not remember well enough, 
 but here is what I find in a memoir which was handed to 
 me and which had been written when M. de Courcelle, gov- 
 ernor, and M. Talon, intendant, came back to France," 
 (1672). The author of the Recit was not bothered very 
 much with chronology. Shortly before this same memoir 
 had been written in 1668; now, it has been written at the 
 end of 1672. How does it happen that those "horrible ex- 
 amples" mentioned by La Salle are so conveniently forgot- 
 ten after the great pains taken to commit to writing what 
 the explorer had said? Margry here too "amended" the text 
 of the manuscript. Intending to use this passage in his in- 
 troduction to volume five, where he gives the reference to 
 the memoir, he did not want to make the said memoir 
 stand out too clearly as the basis of the Recit. The reporter, 
 however, had to explain what became of those fifteen or 
 sixteen depositions in the hands of Talon. When the intend- 
 ant returned to France "he spoke so frankly that the Court 
 gave him to understand they did not want to know all that." 
 Talon had not to speak ; he had only to hand in the famous 
 fifteen or sixteen depositions. We recall how high the in- 
 tendant stood with Colbert. If he had come with these depo- 
 sitions to Paris, with accusations against the Jesuits violat- 
 ing the sacramental secret, and promoting bigamy, Colbert 
 would have started the wheels of justice, or at least would 
 have had Frontenac weary investigating the hundred cases 
 of bigamy. 
 
 After a paragraph which reproduces the accusations of 
 Father Albanel against the Sulpicians, taken verbatim from 
 the memoir, the reporter pursuing his trouble-making ways 
 launches into a very much disputed question of his day, the 
 
240 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 conversion of the Indians. La Salle is instanced as prevent- 
 ing Jesuits from baptizing Indians little disposed to receive 
 the sacrament, just as if the merchant La Salle were en- 
 dowed with some episcopal authority to determine whether 
 the natives were prepared or not. The first part of the Recit 
 ends with a flourish : the Jesuit Relations ceased to be pub- 
 lished because they contained many falsehoods. 
 
 The second part of this monument has for its direct 
 object La Salle, his "history." The opening paragraphs were 
 examined elsewhere. In the discussion referred to, a point 
 was made, namely, "Incidents that happened before the de- 
 parture of the expedition of 1669 as narrated by Galinee 
 were so disfigured that no one will be accused of maligning 
 the author in asserting that he was determined to be in- 
 accurate, or, in plainer English that he wilfully lied." 58 
 
 The detailed analysis of the remarkable memoir has re- 
 vealed its character and the character of the author, as well 
 as traits of the author of the memoir used by the reporter. 
 Items pertaining to La Salle may be considered briefly. The 
 name of the missionary at an Indian village to which La 
 Salle is said to have gone, is forgotten by the scribe. La 
 Salle made no journey to the Mississippi in 1671, and so 
 there is no call for discussion on this point. The story of 
 the attempted seduction of La Salle, found nowhere else, 
 was inserted to enliven the narrative. It can be rejected out- 
 right. So may what follows. Jean Cavelier is supposed to 
 have come back from France between 1676 and 1677. 59 La 
 Salle's brother did not leave Canada from 1666 until 1679. 60 
 The so-called opposition of the Jesuits to the trading post 
 of Cataracouy has been briefly mentioned before. The added 
 
 ss Some La Salle Journeys, 23-24. 
 
 59 The reason behind this imaginary journey of Jean Cavelier was 
 a scandal in the colony involving his brother, who, it was rumored, 
 had betaken himself to Fort Frontenac with a woman. Abbe" Cavelier 
 would have gone to expostulate with his kinsman over the scandal. 
 Cf. Margry, I, 381. This may be the Re'cit version of what Parkman 
 is referring to when he speaks of a "Letter of La Salle in the posses- 
 sion of M. Margry," La Salle, 102. For the story see Mid-America, 
 XXI, 1939, 298-313. 
 
 eo The Journal of Jean Cavelier, 4. Cf. Tronson to Lefebvre, 
 April 5, 1677, no. 6, and Tronson to Remy, 1680, no. 99. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 241 
 
 details, such as the name of a Jesuit brother, Boquet, 61 are 
 again distortions. 
 
 Exceedingly nimble wits are portrayed in the next scene. 
 Lemoyne and La Salle are in conversation. An Indian wit- 
 ness who knows no French stands by, and by an art un- 
 known to whites, understands what is said. The Indian 
 wished to accuse the Jesuits, which he did as follows. He 
 took off La Salle's hat, "which was black," and moved it up 
 and down the latter's body, and thus indicated to Fronte- 
 nac that he had meant the Black Robes! Only persons 
 highly intelligent in Indian ways could know from this lone 
 sign the complete thought of the Red man. 
 
 An unlooked for defense of the Jesuits suddenly occurs. 
 La Salle, while in France, had accused them of being the 
 moral cause of a great crime. They had sent one of their 
 emissaries to poison him. 62 But a fragment of one of his 
 letters inserted in the Recit clears them of all guilt in this 
 matter. 63 Hence, says the reporter, what La Salle does not 
 retract about the Jesuits is true. As already seen, the accu- 
 sations of La Salle in the Recit have very little that is defi- 
 nite. The reporter ' 'forgot" the specific instances given by 
 the explorer, and he supplied this lapse of memory with 
 some examples from the memoirs he used. 
 
 In La Salle's letter, the Fort which Tonty had gone to 
 build, 64 200 leagues from Quebec, is given a specific purpose. 
 
 si Charles Boquet was not a Jesuit, but a donn6. There was 
 question of letting him begin his novitiate, Journal des J6suites, 266, 
 but he never took the vows. His name often occurs in the Journal of 
 the Jesuits, cf. Jesuit Relations, 62, 273, n. 10. In the census of 1681, 
 he is listed as one of the donnas residing at the College of Quebec, 
 Suite, Histoire des Canadiens-Frangais, V, 53, his age is given as 56. 
 The last mention of Boquet which was seen is in the letter of Lam- 
 berville to Frontenac, September 20, 1682, AC, C 11 A, 6:47; NYCD, 
 IX, 193; Jesuit Relations, 62, 154. He had brought the letter of the 
 governor to the missionary in the Iroquois country. 
 
 62 The Nicolas Perrot, nicknamed Jolycoeur, was not, as Park- 
 man thought, La Salle, 104, n. 1, the famous traveler. There is a 
 Joly-Coeur mentioned in the roster of Fort Frontenac, Margry, I, 
 297. 
 
 63 What is "so honorable" for La Salle to retract a foul calumny 
 he hawked about while in France? La Salle, 106. Is it thereby meant 
 that La Salle should not have retracted? To see the hand of his 
 former brethren in everything untoward that happened to him was 
 one of La Salle's weaknesses, cf. Some La Salle Journeys, 24, n. 7. 
 
 e* Fort Conti, near Niagara Falls. 
 
242 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 This fort, says La Salle — if the fragment is genuine 65 — will 
 be an obstacle to the Jesuits' lucrative intercourse with 
 Mexico. This trade of the Jesuits with Mexico existed only 
 in La Salle's imagination, and the ' 'rather frequent visits" 
 of the Recollects to the Jesuit mission in the Iroquois coun- 
 try existed only in the imagination of our reporter. The 
 "visits" narrow down simply to Hennepin's picnic during 
 the absence of La Salle. 66 The Recollect did not go to the 
 Iroquois country to secure "a few catechisms," but while a 
 guest of Father Bruyas — whose name strangely enough the 
 reporter also forgot — he copied an Iroquois dictionary. All 
 of which is in Bernou's memoir of 1678, and with this at 
 hand one can see how the reporter doctored everything he 
 touched. 
 
 An episode having nothing to do with La Salle is note- 
 worthy for its ridiculousness. One Deslauriers wished to go 
 to Cataracouy. He begged a Recollect, Hennepin, to take 
 him. Hennepin, reluctant, asked for a letter from Father 
 Bruyas, the Jesuit missionary among the Iroquois, attesting 
 that he, Hennepin, was acceding to the requests of Bruyas 
 and Deslauriers. The reporter then invents a disaster. Bru- 
 yas' letter to the Recollect Superior fell into Hennepin's 
 hands, and in it Hennepin is accused of forcing Deslauriers 
 to go to Cataracouy. Had Hennepin been thus falsely ac- 
 cused, he would have shrieked to the high heavens at the 
 injustice done him by the Jesuit, and his cries would be 
 ringing down the ages in his book of 1683 and certainly in 
 that of 1697. But nothing is said where Hennepin narrates 
 his journey to the Iroquois country. 
 
 La Salle is reputed to have come to France in 1677 for 
 two reasons, to defend Frontenac against the calumnies of 
 
 65 That La Salle wrote to Renaudot in 1678 is certain, see BN, 
 Clairambault, 1016:173. Margry, II, 221, garbled some names of 
 addressees, thus he gives M. Fodard-Renaudot, for Monsieur do- 
 dart [,] Renaudot. The first name is that of the naturalist who inter- 
 viewed La Salle in Paris in 1678, cf. Canadian Historical Review, 
 XVIII, 1937, 167-168. In the fragment inserted in the Recit, there is 
 a stray allusion to "chemical medecine," and a paragraph of excuse 
 for having dwelt so long "on a science about which I know so little." 
 The fragment might well be a mixture of these letters to Renaudot 
 and to Dodart. 
 
 ee The visit of Hennepin to the Seneca, Description of Louisiana, 
 74, and New Discovery, 80-88, occurred in the winter of 1678-1679. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 243 
 
 the Jesuits, and to ask "for letters patent authorising him 
 to establish several colonies in the countries he had discov- 
 ered." The reporter was a little hasty. In 1678, La Salle 
 had discovered nothing. He had merely roamed over the 
 Iroquois country, and had been following trails blazed by 
 traders and missionaries for half a century previously. 
 
 The Jesuits sent to France more than a year ago one of their 
 donnes called Jolliet with a map drawn on hearsay. The donne 
 attributed to himself the honor of having made this discovery. 
 This imposture did not meet with success and did not turn out 
 to the honor of the donne, who, according to all appearances did 
 not answer satisfactorily to the questions asked in similar occur- 
 rences. M. Galinee let it be understood to one of my friends that 
 he knew only one man able to make such a discovery: that man 
 is M. de La Salle. 
 
 Here the discovery of the Mississippi by M. de la Salle 
 in 1671 is put forward. No comments are necessary. M. de 
 Galinee, who was dead at the time, could be quoted without 
 fear of contradiction. Unfortunately for the reporter, Gal- 
 inee had left on record what he thought of the capability 
 of La Salle. The young Sulpician was not deceived by the 
 "belles paroles" of the explorer. 67 
 
 The arrival of La Salle in Paris, his difficulties in ob- 
 taining an audience with Colbert, his petition to the minis- 
 ter, for the concession of Sault St. Louis are next narrated 
 in the Recit. The reason why La Salle wanted this land 
 grant was because "it was certain to block the commerce 
 the Jesuits were carrying on in that country notwithstand- 
 ing the prohibitions of the Pope and of the king." Amusing 
 is the diligence of La Salle. His concessions, Fort Fronte- 
 nac, Fort Conti, Sault St. Louis, were asked for always in 
 order to block the trade of the Jesuits. But his motives as 
 regards a foothold at the Sault were, however, somewhat 
 complex in that he had some brandy to sell to the Indians 
 settled near the spot. 
 
 While in Paris, it is fairly certain, La Salle in gadding 
 about told his new friends things they wanted to hear about 
 the Jesuits. This, however, was to no practical end unless 
 
 er Some La Salle Journeys, 15-16. 
 
244 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Colbert and Louis XIV also heard his indictment. Besides, 
 the author of the Recit realized that evidence better than 
 the mere word of a trading adventurer was needed. In 
 other words, some proofs had to be produced or manufac- 
 tured. Naturally, the reporter would be expected to have 
 seen these proofs. He had said previously that he could 
 have had a copy of Father Fremin's letter virtually admit- 
 ting that the Jesuits were engaged in trade. Now, with re- 
 gard to the proofs brought by La Salle, his genius brought 
 forth a documentary concoction, not unlike that invented 
 before in connection with La Salle's expedition on the Mis- 
 sissippi in 1671, when all the witnesses were spirited away, 
 lest one be found to contradict what La Salle chose to say 
 about his "discoveries." 
 
 Besides what M. de la Salle found occasion to tell the minister 
 about the conduct of the Jesuits in Canada and about that of the 
 bishop, who is exercising a cruel inquisition in that country in 
 conformity with the wishes of these Fathers, he had M. Tronson, 
 Superior of the Sulpicians and spiritual director of Colbert, hand 
 in an exact memoir on the conduct of the Jesuits, filled with nu- 
 merous and circumstantiated details, of which M. de la Salle 
 pledged to give proofs — original papers signed by the Jesuits, an 
 innumerable multitude of witnesses, and public knowledge. 
 
 I cannot help saying here with sorrow that he [La Salle] 
 had promised me a copy he had had made of that memoir. But 
 this copy, unbeknown to him, was, instead of his letters patent, 
 put in a box by one of his servants. The servant reached La Ro- 
 chelle and embarked before the arrival of M. de la Salle, who 
 had hardly time to dismount and board the ship when it sailed. 
 
 The interview of La Salle with Colbert took place dur- 
 ing the first months of 1678. Even if M. Tronson did not 
 hand to Colbert the "exact memoir," La Salle, according to 
 the Recit, said enough to the minister to prompt an investi- 
 gation into the traffic of the Jesuits, of the bishop, into 
 their wealth, etc. Yet, there is not one word about all these 
 accusations in the letters of Colbert of 1678, nor in those of 
 the following years. Why should La Salle turn in the mem- 
 oir to Tronson? Why did he not give it to Colbert himself 
 when he spoke to the minister? 
 
 The Recit ends with a fanciful account of the interview 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 245 
 
 of Dudouyt with Colbert. The author was evidently not 
 aware of the second interview which took place two weeks 
 later at Sceaux. 
 
 M. Colbert ordered M. de la Salle to send the original of a law 
 suit which contains peculiar facts. It seems that the minister 
 wishes at least to have a thorough knowledge of the state of 
 affairs in that country. But, unless the influence the Jesuits have 
 at Court changes, there is little appearance that this knowledge 
 will have any other effect than reprimands in France, which will 
 make no great stir in Canada. 
 
 This last paragraph of the Recit is absurd. Why should 
 Colbert ask for more proofs, if La Salle had already given so 
 many proofs? The minister was not in the habit of asking 
 adventurers to send the original of a law suit. Which law 
 suit was this ? Why, if the law suit was not wholly imagin- 
 ary, ask for the originals when there were certified copies 
 in the registers of the Sovereign Council? Does the author 
 of the Recit wish us to believe that Frontenac, who at this 
 time was keeping the registers in his house, would certify 
 that the official copy was different from the original deeds 
 produced in the law suit, if it was a true copy? Colbert 
 knew all he needed to know. He had the letters of Fronte- 
 nac, and the so-called information brought by La Salle. All 
 the influence of the Jesuits in France would never have pre- 
 vented the minister and the king from punishing the Jesu- 
 its in Canada, if proofs of trading activities had been sent 
 to Paris. The king especially would not have countenanced 
 such a disobedience to his formal orders, as is seen from 
 the step he took, once he had the proof that Frontenac was 
 disobeying them. Nor would the Jesuits, who had little in- 
 fluence with Colbert, have been able to stay the minister. 
 The point is that in La Salle's time some people wanted to 
 hear certain things against the Jesuits and wanted to be- 
 lieve them. In Margry's time a similar mentality manifested 
 itself, and he himself was ignoble enough to bequeath the 
 chit-chat procedure to an American generation. 
 
 This long analysis of the Recit has tended to a complete 
 evaluation of its trustworthiness. Langlois and Seignobos 
 would seem to have had in mind these two "remarkable 
 
246 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 memoirs," the Recit and Bernou's composition of 1678, 
 when they wrote their directions for historical criticism : 
 
 It is usual to say of the historian that he "fails in criticism" 
 when he neglects to distinguish between documents, when he 
 never mistrusts traditional ascriptions, and when he accepts, as 
 if afraid to lose a single one, all the pieces of information, an- 
 cient or modern, good or bad, which come to him, from whatever 
 quarter. 68 
 
 To have omitted an examination of the Recit would have 
 in no way benefitted history. It is by no means intended by 
 these remarks to accuse all who have written upon the 
 history of New France of carelessness in criticizing docu- 
 ments, even though some writers have been so misguided as 
 to accept as authentic sources such contemporary refer- 
 ences as "it was said," "rumor had it," and "reports cur- 
 rent in the colony." More diligent investigators have con- 
 sulted contemporary manuscript and printed accounts, some 
 extensively, some casually, for an answer to the question, 
 "Did the Jesuits of New France trade?" Study of the an- 
 swers of the writers of all classes reveals an astounding 
 confusion of opinions. Some suspend judgment, some avoid 
 the subject, some with or without study answer positively 
 in the affirmative or in the negative, depending upon their 
 bias. The French methodologists may be quoted once more : 
 
 The critical investigation of authorship saves historians from 
 huge blunders. Its results are striking. By eliminating spurious 
 documents, by detecting false ascriptions, by determining the 
 conditions of production of documents which had been defaced 
 by time, and by connecting them with their sources, it has ren- 
 dered services of such magnitude that today it is regarded as 
 having a special right to the name of "criticism." 69 
 
 We turn now to an inquest into the Jesuit trade question 
 
 68 Langlois and Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of History, 
 G. G. Berry translator, New York, 1898, 98. 
 
 es Ibid. They add in a note: "Nothing amuses the gallery more 
 than to see an historian convicted of having built a theory on falsi- 
 fied documents. Nothing is more calculated to cover an historian 
 with confusion than to find that he has fallen into the error of treat- 
 ing seriously documents which are not documents at all," and in the 
 case of the Recit, mere vaporings of propagandists committed to 
 paper. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 247 
 
 in the West. "La Salle," wrote Parkman, "gives also many 
 particulars especially relating to Michilimackinac, where, as 
 he says, the Jesuits had a large stock of beaver skins. ,,7 ° 
 This is an allusion not to the accusations supposed to have 
 been made by the explorer and found in the Recit, for at 
 that time, 1678, the explorer had not gone near Michili- 
 mackinac, but the historian refers to what is contained in 
 La Salle's letters. 
 
 From 1678, the year of his return to Canada, to 1683, La 
 Salle came in contact with the Jesuits in the West, at Green 
 Bay, Michilimackinac, or the Sault. He mentions the mis- 
 sionaries in his letters during that period, but though in- 
 sinuations of trade are found in them, there is no direct 
 accusation. In his letter of September 1680, to M. Thouret, 
 one of his business associates, he says, in enumerating his 
 losses, that in the summer of 1679, one of the deserters 
 "stole from me 3,000 livres worth of beaver skins which 
 were deposited at Michilimackinac;" and further down, that 
 the deserters "had stolen beaver skins which I had [depos- 
 ited] at Michilimackinac." 71 The "large stock of beaver 
 skins" spoken of by Parkman did not all belong to the Jes- 
 uits. The Jesuit houses, the attics of their churches, were 
 used by Indians and coureurs de bois to store their pelts, 72 
 for the simple reason that it was the only safe place in the 
 western wilderness. In another letter of the following year, 
 1681, La Salle wrote: 
 
 On September 16, I arrived at Sault Ste. Marie, where I had 
 come to take from the house of the Jesuit Fathers the pelts 
 which those same deserters had deposited there. But the good 
 Fathers, unable to elude in any other way the order of M. de 
 Frontenac brought thither by four soldiers, gave me their word 
 as religious, that they did not know which belonged to these 
 men from the other peltries. There were many furs, so many in 
 fact that the attic of their church, a very large attic, was full 
 
 70 Old Regime, 329. Lorin also tells us, 168, on the word of La 
 Salle, Margry, II, 116, that the missionaries, that is, the Jesuits, had 
 "dans leurs stations principales, de vrais entrepots, comme celui du 
 Sault-Sainte-Marie." 
 
 7i Margry, II, 67, 70. Compare what is said here by La Salle 
 with the little romance excogitated by the author of the Recit, Mar- 
 gry, I, 396. 
 
 72 Cf. La Potherie, Voyage de VAme'rique, II, 209. 
 
248 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 of them. They offered to open it for me, so that I could take 
 what I wanted. I replied that I was afraid to be excommunicated 
 for taking church property, if I should inadvertently take their 
 own peltries, which I could not tell apart from mine. I left the 
 following day with nothing done. 73 
 
 The implication here is obvious. The great number of 
 peltries of the Jesuits at the Sault came from trade. La 
 Salle wished his correspondent thus to understand it. Park- 
 man so understood it. If, for the sake of argument, the little 
 dialogue here reported actually took place, the fear of ex- 
 communication was a vain fear. If these beaver pelts be- 
 longed to the Jesuits, they would have known which were 
 theirs. And if they were bickering traders, they would have 
 known their possessions, and could have prevented La Salle 
 from taking what belonged to them. Moreover, how did La 
 Salle know so many pelts were in the attic of the church? 
 Of his own confession he declined the offer made by the 
 Jesuits to open the doors. 
 
 In 1681, La Salle wrote another rambling commercial 
 letter to one of his associates. He speaks of the St. Francis 
 Xavier mission, at the mouth of the Fox River: "There is 
 a house of the Jesuits, who really hold the key to the fur 
 country, where a lay brother and two helpers turn more 
 iron into beaver than the Fathers turn Indians into Chris- 
 tians." 74 Beside being a variant of Frontenac's remark of 
 1672, La Salle's saying was designed to imply a lively trade 
 in process at the St. Francis Xavier mission. In the same 
 letter, he gratuitously accuses the Jesuits of weaning away 
 his men. The accusation may be passed over without com- 
 ment in view of what is rather generally known of La 
 Salle's relations with his men. In this letter, he defends his 
 conduct toward his fellow adventurers. In proof of his le- 
 nience, he gives by way of example the return of some of 
 the deserters. Among these, Moi'se Hilaret, daily regretted 
 having listened 
 
 to the bad advice of those who incited him to do what he did 
 [to desert]. The same is true of two other men who have re- 
 
 73Margry, II, 116. 
 74Margry, II, 251. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 249 
 
 turned to their duty. One of them, called Gabriel Minime, was 
 not only persuaded to desert, but to help him in his desertion, 
 an ecclesiastic of this place [Fort Frontenac] lent him mer- 
 chandises worth fifty crowns, and hid him until he could find the 
 means to leave secretly for the Ottawa country in spite of the 
 orders [forbidding him to go]. 75 
 
 The ecclesiastic spoken of here was certainly not a Jes- 
 uit, for there is no example of La Salle's letters of his ref- 
 erence to them except "the Fathers," and moreover, La 
 Salle in this betrayal would have very specifically indicated 
 one of them. No Jesuit was at Fort Frontenac until a de- 
 cade later. The priest in charge at the time was Father Luc 
 Buisset, Recollect, the companion of Hennepin, 76 but again 
 La Salle does not refer to the Recollects as "ecclesiastics;" 
 it may be that by "d'icy" he meant Canada. 
 
 The Jesuit brother, Louis Le Bohesme, who at Sault Ste. Marie 
 works as a gunsmith for the Indians, advised him [Gabriel Mi- 
 nime] to hide the merchandises he stole from me in the house 
 of the Jesuits; and in order, said the brother, that I may swear 
 to know nothing about it, put them in my room when I am not 
 there, my child. Another [deserter] called Andre Hunault, de- 
 posited [in the Jesuit house] eight packages of beaver skins, 
 each worth 150 livres. Brother Louis and Father Bailloquet, re- 
 ceived an order from Father Nouvel, then Superior, to hand over 
 the said peltries to M. de Tonti, whom I had sent for that pur- 
 pose, but they counselled this young man [Hunault] to keep two 
 of the packages, which he did. He left the packages in their 
 house. They swore on their word as religious that [the six pack- 
 ages] were all there was. I have a hundred other proofs of the 
 advice given to my men which, if needs be, I shall produce. 77 
 
 These instances do not necessarily imply a Jesuit trad- 
 ing enterprise in the Ottawa country, but they are calcu- 
 lated to leave the impression of Jesuit expertness in pelt 
 dealings. Minime and Hunault, especially the first, as will 
 presently be seen, knew what to say to La Salle to win for- 
 giveness for their desertion. 
 
 75 Margry, II, 226. This letter is dated Fort Frontenac, August 
 22, 1682 [1681], BN, Clairambault, 1016:170-187. 
 
 7 6 Hennepin, Description of Louisiana, 59, 264; New Discovery, 
 I, 109, 330; Le Clercq, II, 87. 
 
 77 Margry, II, 226. 
 
250 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 The above are the only quotations in La Salle's letters 
 connecting the Jesuits with trade. In these letters, certainly 
 written by him and distinguished from what he is made to 
 say in the Recit, La Salle does not once accuse outright his 
 former brethren of being engaged in the traffic, he is satis- 
 fied with insinuating it. If the correspondent or the histo- 
 rian puts the worse interpretation on the insinuations, well 
 and good, but La Salle could always defend himself against 
 a libel charge by saying that he did not accuse the Jesuits 
 of trading. If La Salle had any, even slight, concrete evi- 
 dence which would brand the Jesuits as traffickers in pelts, 
 he would not have hesitated to produce it. Two men who 
 were companions of his gave testimony to his lack of evi- 
 dence. These are Gabriel Barbier, alias Minime, whose re- 
 pentence for deserting La Salle has been mentioned, and 
 Father Hennepin. Minet's unabridged journal was utilized 
 by de Villiers, who wrote : 
 
 His [La Salle's] hatred against them [Jesuits] went so far, if 
 we believe his companions, as to make him conceive a plan which 
 is simply odious. Barbier told Minet that to take his revenge on 
 the Jesuits, La Salle sent him with another Canadian called An- 
 dreussy to trade peltries with the Indians at Michilimackinac. 
 They were to ask the Jesuits to keep their pelts in depot and to 
 give them to the Fathers' servants when these came to Quebec. 
 He [La Salle] would go to Montreal about the time the Jesuits 
 send their men down, and would see to it that they be caught 
 with the goods, [qu'on les feroient surprendre], thus showing to 
 the people how those Fathers were carrying on trade. "But," 
 added Barbier, "the plan did not succeed." 78 
 
 It is not necessary to comment on the odious scheme of 
 the "prince of the French explorers." It is an indubitable 
 proof that the Jesuits were not trading. In his roaming in 
 the Iroquois country and in the Great Lakes region, La 
 Salle had found no evidence whatsoever of guilt and hence 
 his recourse to such a strategem. 
 
 There is another instance of La Salle's unmanliness. He 
 wished others than himself to admit a knowledge of the 
 trade which he knew did not exist. Should his wish come 
 
 78 Villiers, M. de, L 'expedition de Cavelier de la Salle au Golfe 
 du Mexique, 1684-1687, Paris, 1931, 152. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 251 
 
 true, he could claim to have heard trustworthy people, the 
 Recollects for instance, assert it before witnesses. Beyond 
 the portage from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie, in August 
 1679, Hennepin wrote: 
 
 While we continu'd there, M. La Salle told me, That he under- 
 stood by some of our Men, that I very much blam'd the Intrigues 
 of some Monks of Canada [the Jesuits] with the Iroquese, and 
 their Neighbours of New-York and New-Orange; which oblig'd 
 me in his presence, to tell my Brethren the Franciscans, That I 
 perceiv'd M. la Salle was minded to surprise me, and oblige me 
 to revile some Persons, whom he represented as Traders and 
 Merchants [the Jesuits] ; and then abating somewhat of my 
 Tone, I concluded, That notwithstanding the false Reports that 
 had been made to him, I would entertain a good Opinion of 
 those very Persons [the Jesuits] whom he design'd to make my 
 Enemies ; and that I wou'd rather give over our Enterprize than 
 be imposed upon at that rate. This vigorous Answer surpriz'd 
 M. la Salle, who told me, That he was persuaded that those who 
 had made him those Reports, were not honest Men. 79 
 
 After two such instances, the insinuations contained in 
 the letters of La Salle about the trade of the Jesuits can be 
 dismissed as malicious attempts at slander. The insinua- 
 tions, or even positive assertions, if such there were, of an 
 agent provocateur, and of one who stooped to underworld 
 methods, are utterly worthless. No unprejudiced court of 
 justice would accept his evidence. 
 
 Can we accept these two testimonies? Very little is 
 known about Barbier's trustworthiness, but much is known 
 about Hennepin's lack of it. Yet these two testimonies are 
 independent, are voluntary, are by associates, and point to 
 the same fact regardless of their respective contents. The 
 journal of Minet, where Barbier's words are reported, was 
 not known to Hennepin. Barbier could not know in 1684- 
 1685, what the Recollect would publish twelve years later. 
 There was no collusion between them to malign La Salle in 
 this instance. The convergence of the two reports then 
 leads to one conclusion, the explorer had found no evidence 
 of the trade of the Jesuits and tried to fabricate some. 
 
 Hennepin, New Discovery, I, 104. 
 
252 frontenac and the jesuits 
 
 Section 4. The Testimony of Hennepin, Le Clercq 
 and Le Tac 
 
 It has been often pointed out that Hennepin in his first 
 book, the Description of Louisiana makes no mention of the 
 Jesuits except of a compatriot of his, Father Pierson, his 
 skating companion at Michilimackinac. In the New Dis- 
 covery, however, is found a systematic disparagement of 
 the work of evangelization carried on by the Jesuits. The 
 Jesuits had come decidedly into the scope of his frets. 1 Above 
 we have given his rebuke to La Salle, yet in the New Voyage 
 published the year after the New Discovery, we find Hen- 
 nepin implying that the Jesuits were engaged in trade. He 
 copied almost verbatim a passage from his confrere Le 
 Clercq, wherein the Jesuits are said to follow the fur trad- 
 ers ; abandoning the missions when pelts became scarce. 2 To 
 add an air of verisimilitude, Hennepin said he was present 
 when the Indians complained of the departure of the Jesuit 
 missionaries. 
 
 It were indeed too much of a task to collect the pas- 
 sages in which Hennepin contradicts himself. Consideration 
 here is given only to his mention of the Jesuits and their 
 trade. Rescued by Duluth from the clutches of the Indians, 
 Hennepin spent the winter of 1680-1681 at Michilimackinac. 
 In the spring he went to Quebec, and left for France late 
 in 1681 on a fishing boat. Two other missionaries accompa- 
 nied him, Father George Harel, a brother Recollect, and M. 
 Trouve, a Sulpician. They landed at Le Havre in the begin- 
 ning of 1682. Among his luggage, Hennepin had a canoe. 
 He had this souvenir painted, had the arms of the king fas- 
 tened on it, and in this colorful equipage, paddled up the 
 Seine on to Paris. 3 M. Dudouyt thought this picturesque 
 manner of traveling unbecoming two Franciscan mission- 
 
 i Cf. Chinard, L'Ame'rique et le reve exotique dans la litterature 
 francaise an XVII* et au XVIII e Steele, Paris, 1913, 161 ff., where a 
 few of the texts from the Nouvelle Decouverte are brought together. 
 
 2 New Discovery, II, 545, and Le Clercq, I, 404. 
 
 3 Of course, for one who had bucked the swift current of the 
 Mississippi River at flood time, who had ascended some 1,700 miles of 
 furious waters at a speed far greater than any Olympic champion 
 was ever able to attain on still water for one mile, to go up the 
 Seine, less than 150 miles, was mere child's play. Cf. "Hennepin's 
 Voyage to the Gulf of Mexico, 1680," Mid-America, XXI, 1939, 43-76. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 253 
 
 aries. In his letter to Laval, he noted that M. Trouve, with 
 more sense of decorum, was "too prudent" to join them. 
 When Hennepin landed at St. Germain, he 
 
 began to retail against you [Laval] against the Jesuits and 
 against M. the Intendant [Duchesneau] all kinds of calumnies 
 and in general all that M. de Frontenac is wont to say and write. 
 This forced me to go a second time to the Father Provincial [of 
 the Recollect Province of St. Denis] asking him to send Father 
 Hennepin back to his own Province [of Artois]. I told the Pro- 
 vincial I had heard what that Father was saying. He [Hennepin] 
 had sixteen letters written by the Jesuits of Canada, he showed 
 them around, published their contents, and pretended that by 
 means of these letters, he would convict the Jesuits of many 
 things, among which that they were engaged in trade [quils 
 faisoient la traitte], that they routed beaver pelts to Holland, 
 that they were the ones who caused the Iroquois to wage war 
 against the Illinois in order to involve M. de la Salle and his men 
 with these [Illinois] Indians. He relied on a letter of Father 
 Dablon, which he pretends is a convincing proof showing that 
 the Jesuits had made the Iroquois wage war on the Indians. 
 
 When Dudouyt had first complained to the Provincial 
 about the Recollect's actions in Canada, the Superior had 
 answered that Hennepin was extravagant, that it would be 
 difficult to prevent him from talking, that he knew Hen- 
 nepin well, that it was not he who sent Hennepin to Can- 
 ada, and that when he returned, the best thing would be to 
 ship him back to his Province. When Dudouyt came back 
 with fresh complaints about the loquaciousness of the Re- 
 collect returned to France, the Provincial had changed his 
 mind. It would be difficult, he said, to send Father Louis 
 back to his Province. M. Colbert would not approve of it, 
 because the Father had to remain in Paris on account "of 
 the discoveries he had made." On Dudouyt's insistance, the 
 Provincial again promised to send Hennepin where he be- 
 longed. Since the Provincial was not sending Hennepin 
 away, 
 
 Father Vaultier went to see the Superior and complained of the 
 calumnies the Recollect was spreading against his brethren, and 
 above all he complained that Hennepin was publicizing their 
 [private] letters. He was hawking about a memoir of 52 articles 
 
254 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 wherein he collected all that M. de Frontenac is wont to say 
 against you, against M. the Intendant and against the Jesuits. 
 ... In spite of all Father Vaultier and I have done, Father Louis 
 is still at St. Germain, although he received an order from his 
 own Provincial to return to his province, and although his own 
 Provincial sent a traveling companion for the journey back. He 
 so skillfully maneuvered especially by means of the friends of 
 M. de Frontenac and of M. de l'Estrade that he is still here. The 
 Recollects here say that they wish he were gone. 4 
 
 These details are in one of the letters of M. Dudouyt to 
 Laval; it has been published by Father Lemay, 5 and he ex- 
 ploited it in an article which appeared subsequently. 6 After 
 quoting from the letter, comments were added which con- 
 cern the Jesuits and which call for rectification. This letter 
 of Dudouyt, we are told by Lemay, "evokes the whole po- 
 litico-religious question, and treats of the conduct of the 
 Recollects under Laval." The problems are too vast, too 
 complex, and had too many ramifications for Lemay who 
 confesses he cannot pass a certain judgment on "all the 
 controverted points. Those who are initiated will under- 
 stand me." Initiated or uninitiated, we do understand, espe- 
 cially in the light of what follows. 
 
 To his eyes [Dudouyt's] nothing is more evident, and no proof 
 is needed: the governor [Frontenac] is wrong all along the line, 
 the bishop and the intendant are right in everything, this does 
 not need to be demonstrated. Consequently the accusations and 
 allegations of Father Hennepin are pure calumnies, as well as 
 are those of M. de Frontenac. This is not how history speaks. 7 
 
 To bolster the last sentence a quotation from Lorin is 
 given, in which the biographer of Frontenac speaks about 
 "two different conceptions of Canadian society." This, 
 we are assured is the only just interpretation, all the others 
 are false, for thus spake history, or better, M. Lorin. When 
 Frontenac arrived in 1672, Laval "et les Jesuites" "were 
 governing the Canadian church according to their concep- 
 
 4 Dudouyt to Laval, March 1682, ASQ, Lettres, Carton N, no. 61. 
 
 s Bibliographie du Pere Louis Hennepin, recollet. Les Pieces Do- 
 cumentaires, Montreal, 1937, 17 ff . 
 
 e "Le Pere Hennepin, recollet, a Paris, 1682," in Nos Cahiers, III- 
 1938, 105-140. 
 
 7 Nos Cahiers, III, 1938, 122. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 255 
 
 tion, and their influence was great even in the administra- 
 tion of civil affairs." 8 
 
 It is best not to dawdle away time, arguing over concep- 
 tions of church administration and whether those of the 
 Jesuits, of the bishop, or of Frontenac should have pre- 
 vailed. All this is fine theory excogitated to whitewash a 
 few ecclesiastical adventurers, and a layman sent to Can- 
 ada to re-gild his coat of arms. 9 History spoke a strange 
 thesis through the mouth of M. Lorin. He was bent on find- 
 ing profound explanations for everything Frontenac did, 
 wrote, or said. Lorin would see a symbol of the struggle be- 
 tween light and darkness in a cat and dog fight if it had 
 taken place in Canada during the time of Frontenac. While 
 there is virtue in putting the best interpretation on men's 
 actions, there is none in excusing indefensible actions by 
 laying the blame at the door of others. One thing history 
 does say, does literally shout out from the documents of the 
 period, is the unequivocal opposition of bishop and Jesuits 
 to unrestricted selling of brandy to Indians as advocated 
 by officialdom and by Frontenac. Lorin saw this to be the 
 root of all the difficulties, for he is ever at pains throughout 
 his book to find excuses for his hero all afire for the nefar- 
 ious traffic. Now, some Recollects sided with the governor 
 against the bishop on this question. Naturally, if one omits 
 the brandy trade controversy, one must necessarily fall 
 back for the cause of this antagonism on some vague, ether- 
 eal clash of "principles," on the clash between the idea of 
 a politician and the "idealistic views upheld by inflexible 
 authority. 10 To speak of "the pretended systematical oppo- 
 sition of the Recollects to the bishop . . . raised by some to 
 the dignity of a thesis, of a postulate," and to declare that 
 this is "simplified and false formula which misrepresents 
 history and calumniates the Recollects," 11 can only come 
 from having initially overlooked a well established fact. It 
 is not those who maintain that some Recollects system- 
 atically opposed the bishop in the brandy question who dis- 
 
 s Ibid., 124. 
 
 9 See Memoires de Saint-Simon, VI, 170. 
 
 io Nos Cahiers, III, 123. 
 
 ii Ibid., 113. 
 
256 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 tort history, nor do they who assert that some Recollects 
 upheld Frontenac's ideas about the brandy trade calumniate 
 them. 12 
 
 This, however, is only by way of parenthesis. We are not 
 concerned with the Recollects, but with a few members of 
 the Order who have aired their views on questions which 
 involve the Jesuits, and specifically on the trade they were 
 engaged in. It is an astonishing sort of reasoning to hear 
 that because one refutes downright falsehoods of a few men 
 who happened to belong to the Recollect branch of the 
 Order of St. Francis, therefore one does not like, one is an 
 enemy, one slanders a great Order out of which have come 
 legions of heroes, scholars, and saints. 
 
 The Recollect [Hennepin] is accusing the Jesuits of being en- 
 gaged in trade [de faire la traite]. This was in 1682. Now, 
 neither in the Description of Louisiana, which he was then writ- 
 ing, nor in the New Discovery which he was to publish in 1697, 
 does Father Hennepin make this accusation. Much more, in 1697, 
 he will tell the incident ... of 1679, when he had, as he said, 
 taken the defense of the Jesuits against La Salle on the question 
 of the trade carried on by the Jesuits. Had Father Hennepin 
 changed his mind in the past two years ? It does indeed seem so, 
 and the basis is the sixteen letters of Jesuits which he had in 
 his possession. 13 
 
 A few explanatory paragraphs added to the one just 
 quoted do not modify the implicit conclusion: Hennepin 
 based his accusations on letters written by Jesuits. Can one 
 ask for a better proof of guilt than the written confession 
 of the accused ? How did Hennepin get these letters ? A poor 
 attempt at humor is made when it is said: * There is little 
 probability that he was the addressee. What then ? . . . Then 
 a very curious question arises and one to which I can give 
 no answer at all." 14 Yet, the answer is relatively simple. 
 Hennepin got these letters from the Jesuits of Quebec, from 
 
 12 Cf. Chapais, Jean Talon, 321-322. 
 
 is Nos Cahiers, III, 131. 
 
 14 Ibid., 132. Previously, another would be witty remark had been 
 made: "II ne faudrait pas, j'irriagine, chercher dans Thwaites la 
 lettre [of Dablon] qui 6tait aux mains du P. Hennepin, non plus que 
 les seize autres lettres de jesuites par lui d^tenues . . . ," ibid., 117, 
 note 37. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 257 
 
 the Superior, because he could thereby render them a kind 
 service. The mail ships had left, and Hennepin's charity 
 would enable the Jesuit missionaries to communicate once 
 more this year with the home land. The Jesuits of Quebec 
 were evidently deceived by "our great Hennepin" 15 who 
 shamelessly opened these private letters, read them, pub- 
 lished them, instead of giving them to the addressees. He 
 could not resist his curiosity. He had to see what these let- 
 ters said and having seen had to cover his contemptible 
 action by claiming that they contained the proof so long 
 sought, that the Jesuits were trading. A little over a decade 
 ago an attempt was made to foist on the public an apology 
 for Hennepin. The Recollect is presented as endowed with 
 every honorable quality, with humility, exquisite charity, 
 zeal, disinterestedness, sincerity, absolute truthfulness, dig- 
 nity, meekness, discretion, he was a second Bayard, for he 
 was "sans peur et sans reproche." 16 The author of this 
 charming bit of fiction had evidently not heard of the vio- 
 lation of private letters. 
 
 In 1682 Hennepin, busy composing his Description of 
 Louisiana, made no mention of the trade of the Jesuits. Yet 
 had he not those sixteen letters? In 1697, when he wrote 
 his piece of "brazen mendacity," 17 in the New Discovery, he 
 had seen these letters, yet in this book he says he defended 
 the Jesuits against La Salle's innuendoes. Hennepin, be it 
 noted, wrote the incident of 1679, not two years before he 
 got the letters, 1681, but fifteen years after he had seen 
 them, 1697. 
 
 To whom did Hennepin first show the letters? To the 
 friends and supporters of Frontenac, M. de l'Estrade, Mme. 
 de Frontenac, Bernou, and Renaudot. Each of these persons, 
 but especially the last two, could have put these so eagerly 
 awaited "proofs" in the hands of the minister without de- 
 lay. Yet in the private letters which Bernou wrote to Re- 
 naudot less than a year later, although the Abbe had often 
 occasion to speak of Hennepin and of the Jesuits, there is 
 
 is Goyens, "Le P. Louis Hennepin, O. F. M. . . . Quelques jalons 
 pour sa biographie," Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, XVIII, 
 1925, 482, page 38, in the reprint. 
 
 is Goyens, loc. cit., 327 and 10. 
 
 17 Parkman, La Salle, 123. 
 
258 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 no mention made of this most damaging evidence. And the 
 reason for this silence is clear. Neither Renaudot, nor espe- 
 cially Bernou was an idiot. Both saw that the construction 
 put on these letters by Hennepin would not stand examina- 
 tion. Neither wished to appear ridiculous in the company of 
 the bragging Recollect. The interpretation did not convince 
 even Hennepin, else he would have mentioned them again 
 when he wrote his New Discovery. M. Dudouyt wrote that 
 the Recollect "pretendoit convaincre par ces lettres les Je- 
 suistes de beaucoup de choses et entre autres, quils fai- 
 soient la traitte. . . ." He contended that by means of these 
 letters he would convict the Jesuits. He added only to his 
 dishonesty. 
 
 A further palliative for the reputation of the Recollect 
 is added by his apologist : 
 
 The accusation [of trade] was not new, even as early as 1682, 
 and since then it has often been renewed. In 1900 M. Desire 
 Girouard, as conscientious an historian as he was a profound 
 lawyer, wished to remove all doubts about the matter. After 
 studying the question under all its aspects, under the historical, 
 legal, and canonical aspects, he came to the conclusion that the 
 Jesuit missionaries did not trade [ne firent pas la traite] in the 
 commercial sense of the word, which in the case of missionaries 
 would also imply censure. 18 
 
 When Judge Girouard examined the question, the means 
 of checking on the authors of the documents he criticized 
 were not as easily available as they are today. 
 
 On this point [the trade of the Jesuits] again Father Hennepin 
 espouses the well known ideas of the governor. Was the Recol- 
 lect in good faith? One has only to read the study of M. Gi- 
 rouard to realize that very often the circumstances of the traffic 
 carried on by the Jesuit missionaries were such that many, very 
 sincerely deceived by the appearances, believed that they were 
 engaged in trade, while such was not at all the case. Father Hen- 
 nepin too may have been deceived, as he was deceived after his 
 poorly digested reading of sixteen letters written by Jesuits. 19 
 
 is Nos Cahiers, III, 131. 
 
 is A written text meant nothing to Hennepin, he pretty much 
 read it as he pleased. Thus he asserts that he read the dismissorial 
 letter of La Salle attested by the General of the Jesuits. In this let- 
 ter, the explorer is said to have spent the whole time among the 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 259 
 
 There to my mind is not the great harm, but rather because he 
 declared open war on the Jesuits sur une matiere controuvee. 
 Prudence as well as charity demanded that he keep a discreet 
 silence. 20 
 
 Not only prudence and charity, but truth demanded that 
 he keep silent. He prattled about the trade of the Jesuits, 
 because he knew what Renaudot and Bernou wanted to hear 
 about it. He also knew that neither Frontenac, nor La Salle 
 had found proofs, but he, the "great Hennepin," was at last 
 bringing those long awaited proofs. Hennepin was not "de- 
 ceived by the appearances." He roamed over all the Jesuit 
 missions, in the Iroquois country and in the West. He lived 
 in the missions longer than any other accuser. He knew the 
 exchanges made by the missionaries in the mission were not 
 trade in the commercial sense, knew the meaning of 
 traiter, of faire la traite in Canada. The assumption is, 
 after spending six years in New France, Hennepin saw no 
 trade in the missions, but sixteen letters made him realize 
 he had been blind to the obvious. Regrettably, the writer 
 was not specific as regards the other "many sincerely de- 
 ceived by appearances." It v/ould be interesting to know 
 who they were and to see the documentary proofs. 
 
 Hennepin must have been "undeceived" when he wrote 
 his New Discovery in 1697. "Had he convinced himself, 
 since 1682, that the letter of Father Dablon on which he 
 based [his accusation that the Jesuits were the cause of the 
 Iroquois-Illinois war] was not saying what he first thought 
 it said?" 21 This question was asked, because, when Hen- 
 nepin wrote the history of this war in detail in the New 
 Discovery, he did not mention the Jesuits. The same ques- 
 tion may be asked about the trade of the Jesuits. If he had 
 convinced himself of the erroneousness of his interpretation 
 
 Jesuits, eight and a half years, "without giving the least suspicion 
 of Venial Sin. These are the very Words of the Act, for I have 
 perus'd it my self," New Discovery, I, 99. Again, in the New Voyage, 
 "He [La Salle] shew'd me a letter written at Rome by the General 
 of that Order [Jesuit] wherein he testified that the said Sieur de la 
 Salle had behav'd himself prudently in everything without giving 
 the least occasion to be suspected of a venial Sin," ibid., II, 428. Cf. 
 the letter of the General to La Salle in Rochemonteix, III, 47, n. 2. 
 
 20 Nos Cahiers, III, 132. 
 
 si Ibid., 132. 
 
260 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 of 1682, what brought about this new conviction? He can- 
 not be said to have changed his mind on account of new 
 facts learned in Renty, in Gosselies, in Antwerp, in Amster- 
 dam, or in Utrecht. No one would go to these places to find 
 such counter evidence as would change one's "conviction" 
 about the trade of the Jesuits in Canada. Hennepin was al- 
 ready known as an irresponsible prevaricator. An ingrate 
 toward Duluth, he maligned La Salle, Tonti, and the In- 
 dians. In 1682, to pay his court to a small coterie in Paris, 
 he repaid the recent kindnesses and the confidence of the 
 Jesuits in an unmanly fashion. 
 
 Beside Hennepin, two other Recollects wrote about New 
 France in the second half of the seventeenth century, Sixte 
 Le Tac and Christian Le Clercq. The books have the set 
 purpose to decry the Jesuit Relations, to ridicule their con- 
 tents, and this is specially true of the fifteenth chapter of 
 Le Clercq. 22 The incongruity of this is striking, when one 
 realizes it would be difficult to find in historical literature 
 works teeming with more fabrications than this trilogy. 23 
 What is found in these historical novels, however, is not 
 a criticism of the Relations as they were published and as 
 they are known today. The authors distorted, grossly per- 
 verted, and burlesqued the narratives, then proceeded to 
 criticize what they said was contained in them. The proce- 
 dure still has adherents. The fifteenth chapter in Le Clercq 
 and most of those which follow were added by another 
 hand. 24 Throughout the text of the First Establishment of 
 the Faith in New France, are found inconsistencies, sup- 
 pressions of facts, ignorance of facts concerning Le Clercq 
 
 22 Le Clercq, First Establishment of the Faith in New France, 
 Shea's translation, New York, 1881, I, 376-410. Cf. Harrisse, Notes 
 pour servir . . . , 159. 
 
 23 Suite, IV, 108, fully approves what is contained in this chapter. 
 It goes to show that he either did not read the Relations, or if he 
 read them, he did not understand what he read. A few lines after 
 his solemn utterances about the Relations, Suite modestly attributes 
 to himself the monopoly of knowledge and of critical spirit. Then: 
 "Le premier hableur venu fait parler un journal . . ." It would be 
 difficult to find a better characterization for Suite, hdbleur; cf. J. C. 
 Tache, Les Histoires de M. Suite, Montreal, 1883, and Bulletin des 
 Recherches Historiques, XXXII, 1926, 340. 
 
 24 Harrisse, Notes pour servir . . . , 159, Shea, First Establishe- 
 ment of the Faith, 31-32; Some La Salle Journeys, 67, note 10; The 
 Journal of Jean Cavelier, 9-10, 16-20. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 261 
 
 himself, indicating other authorship. 25 Le Clercq's book got 
 the distinction of being commented upon by the head of the 
 Jansenist party. 26 
 
 The first intimation that the Recollects were cleared of 
 any leanings toward trade occurs in connection with their 
 being interpreters for the French : 
 
 It is true that our Fathers had always kept aloof from trade, so 
 as to avoid the slightest appearance, the gentlemen of the Com- 
 pany often used interpreters in their trade ... in all other in- 
 tercourses with Savage nations [beside trade relations], either 
 for peace or for war, as well as for the establishment of the 
 Faith no interpreters were employed except the Recollects. 27 
 
 But patently, other missionaries, Jesuits for instance, 
 were not so careful of their vow of poverty. The horror of 
 trade reaches the proportion of a phobia when the author 
 quotes from another Recollect, Sagard. 28 The latter was not 
 as squeamish, and did not hesitate to use the word ' 'trade." 
 Le Clercq or the editor used Sagard extensively for the 
 early years of the evangelization of Canada, but they mu- 
 tilated Sagard, omitting passages where the word "trade" 
 is used. Thus in one suppressed passage Sagard flatly con- 
 tradicts the assertion quoted above. Printing a letter to Fa- 
 ther Joseph de la Roche d'Aillon, also a Recollect, Sagard 
 has: "I have always seen them [Hurons] constant in their 
 resolution to go with at least four canoes to the trade if I 
 would guide them, the whole difficulty being that we did 
 not know the way." 29 This passage, as well as several others 
 on trade, was suppressed by the "editor." So, too, were the 
 protests of Father de la Roche d'Aillon 30 against the famous 
 amalgamation of French and Indians, so strongly advo- 
 
 25 Cf. Le Clercq, II, 80, 88. 
 
 26 Morale Pratique des Jesuites, 1716 2 , VII, 235-326, Chapter X, 
 "Reflexions sur un livre donne" au public par les RR. PP. Recollects 
 en 1691, intitule" : Premier £tablissement de la foi dans la Nouvelle 
 France." 
 
 27 Le Clercq, I, 250, cf. 358. 
 
 28 Cf. Le Clercq, I, 266, 267, 270, 271, for the omissions of the pas- 
 sages from the letter in Sagard where the "word" trade is found. 
 Shea supplied these passages in his translation. 
 
 29 Sagard, Histoire du Canada . . . , Paris, 1636, 885. 
 
 30 Sagard, Histoire du Canada . . . , 890-891. 
 
262 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 cated in the First Establishment of the Faith in New 
 France. 31 
 
 The insinuations about the Jesuit trade found in Le 
 Clercq became positive assertions in Sixte Le Tac. 32 On the 
 word of Suite the editor asserts the manuscript to be in the 
 Recollect's handwriting. 33 If Le Tac is the author, the first 
 page should prejudice the reader against him. He hid him- 
 self behind a mask, he concealed his identity, telling the 
 addressee of the dedicatory epistle that he is a soldier. The 
 editor absolves his Recollect from an outright lie, explain- 
 ing, "If the author — Le Tac — were found out, he could have 
 answered that he was waging war, 'holy war.' " 34 It is 
 rather surprising to find Reveillaud indulging in this kind 
 of casuistry. According to his coreligionists the Jesuits had 
 the monopoly of it. 
 
 The manuscript of the Histoire chronologique contains 
 several passages deleted by the author and printed between 
 brackets by the editor. In the margin is found a note by Le 
 Tac saying: "Read what has been crossed out, if you wish. 
 The remorse of my conscience made me delete these pas- 
 sages, believing them to be against charity. However, as 
 there is here nothing but the truth, you may read them if 
 you wish." 35 The editor suggests that if this manuscript had 
 been published at the end of the seventeenth century, the 
 author would have omitted the passages crossed out. If Le 
 Tac considered he was truthful in the bracketed passages, 
 his case does not belong to the historian, but to the psy- 
 chiatrist. In the first passage in brackets, we are told : 
 
 I flatter myself that I am sincere in what I am about to say. 
 But because truth breeds hatred, I do not think it expedient to 
 make myself known to the public, especially as I have to speak 
 
 3i Cf. Le Clercq, I, 188, 189, 254-256, II, 79. 
 
 32 Histoire chronologique de la Nouvelle France ou Canada, de- 
 puis sa decouverte (mil cinq cents quatre) jusques en Van mil six 
 cents trente deux, Paris, 1888; on this lampoon, cf. A. Bouchard, 
 "Une Histoire du Canada," Revue Canadienne, XXIV, 1888, 348-366, 
 729-737, H. P. Biggar, The Early Trading Companies of New France, 
 Toronto, 1901, 287-290. 
 
 33 Histoire chronologique, vii-viii; on authorship cf. Revue Cana- 
 dienne, XXIV, 1888, 349, 733-736. 
 
 34 Histoire chronologique, I, note. 
 
 35 ibid., 5. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 263 
 
 of certain people [Jesuits] who do not know how to spare those 
 who wish to correct them. It suffices that you should know me. 
 I submit my manuscript to your censure. Do with it what you 
 please. 36 
 
 Next to the passage where the Jesuits are accused of 
 trade is found a marginal note reading: "Who are the 
 happy ones and the unhappy ones" in Canada? There are 
 three printed pages in brackets where we are told of the 
 great authority of the Jesuits, of the hampering of con- 
 sciences, of the tyranny of the inquisition-like organization 
 the Sainte-Famille, etc., the ordinary fare found in the early 
 letters of Frontenac and later in those of Cadillac. 
 
 The workmen who are not debauched live at ease and can make 
 money. The merchants become rich in a short time. The profit 
 which can be made on merchandises causes the rich communities 
 to have them brought from France. Each of these communities 
 has its warehouse. The priests of the Seminaire and the Jesuits 
 are the happiest and the richest. They share among themselves the 
 profits that can be made both among the French and among the 
 Indians. The first, beside the pension paid them by the king, are 
 canons or parish priests in the best parishes of the country, for 
 which they are granted 300 livres bonus by the Court, so that a 
 priest who is a seminarist, a canon, and a parish priest has three 
 sources of revenue at once, and makes a great profit for the 
 Seminaire. The Jesuit Fathers who abandon the care of the par- 
 ishes to the [diocesan] ecclesiastics reserve to themselves that 
 of the Indians, who are a source of great temporal profits; since 
 by giving some merchandise to those barbarians, they amass 
 a quantity of beaver skins. They easily carry on this little traf- 
 fic, because they are alone among the Indians and because they 
 allow the French to go thither [in the missions] only rarely and 
 with difficulty, unless the French share the profits with them. 37 
 
 36 ibid., 8-9. 
 
 37 Histoire chronologique, 26-29. Margry in the introduction to 
 the fifth volume of his compilation, cviii, quoted this and a few other 
 passages from the Histoire chronologique. He attributed it to a mili- 
 taire; Suite had not as yet decided who the author was. Margry's 
 reason for quoting it, he said, was because he feared to appear a 
 partisan rather than a lover of truth. Enough examples of his love 
 for truth have been given in the preceding pages to comment on this 
 assertion. Cf. also I, Introduction, XVIII. "Pour nous qui ne cher- 
 chons que la verity, nous sommes oblige" de dire qu'ici, a bien regar- 
 der, les livres des R£collets ne sont pas non plus des guides stirs 
 pour l'histoire." Margry is speaking too often of his love for truth, 
 
264 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Had the book been published, the last assertion would 
 have appeared rash and ridiculous to the whole of New 
 France. A great hero of Le Tac, Sieur de la Salle, 38 visited 
 and traded in most of the western Jesuit missions, and to 
 our knowledge there is no record that either he or any 
 other of the 800 coureurs de bois at the time when Le Tac 
 wrote ever made any payment to the Jesuits, the only mis- 
 sionaries in the West. Le Tac was never in the West; who 
 told this to him? Neither Frontenac nor anybody else ever 
 mentioned this Jesuit tribute. The editor adds in a note, 
 "The picture of the Jesuits is not a flattering one." It is not 
 hard to agree with Reveillaud. But, continues the same edi- 
 tor, "in spite of the bitterness which is felt between the 
 lines of our historian, [his testimony] cannot be doubted 
 after so many concurring testimonies of all the chroniclers 
 of the time." And to clinch the argument, Reveillaud refers 
 to Suite ! It were better to leave out all appeal to Suite's au- 
 thority. The broad statement about the universal concur- 
 rence of chroniclers of the period shows beyond doubt 
 Reveillaud's very limited reading. Lahontan, continues the 
 learned editor, "is the only one who feigns to doubt it," 
 namely, that the Jesuits were engaged in trade. He quotes 
 the passage in which the baron states in unmistakable 
 terms that the Jesuits did not trade, and had no factors, 
 either of which, if facts, people in Canada would know. 39 
 Lahontan was in the West, whereas there is no record that 
 Le Tac ever went farther than Three Rivers. The baron was 
 at Michilimackinac and at Sault Ste. Marie. He cared noth- 
 ing for the reputation of the Jesuits, or for anybody else 
 when he published his book in 1703. 40 Unless the evidence 
 
 of his seeking after truth, he is too often disclaiming partisanship 
 to be believed even if one lacked proofs that truth and impartiality 
 were the least of his worries. 
 
 38 Histoire chronologique, 46. 
 
 39 New Voyages, I, 385-386. 
 
 40 "The whole is writ with a great deal of Fidelity; for I repre- 
 sent things just as they are. I neither flatter nor spare any Person 
 whatsoever. . . . Notwithstanding the Veneration I have for the 
 Clergy, I impute to them all the mischief the Iroquese have done to 
 the French Colonies, in the course of a war that had never been 
 undertaken, if it had not been for the Counsels of these pious Church- 
 Men," New Voyages, I, 6. "I flatter no Man, and I spare no body. I 
 scorn to be partial; I bestow due praise upon those who are in no 
 capacity to serve me, and I censure the Conduct of others, that are 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 265 
 
 had been such as almost to force him to deny that the 
 Jesuits carried on trade in their missions, we can be assured 
 that Lahontan would have had no scruples in stating that 
 they did. Yet, added Reveillaud, "one feels the intention to 
 speak ironically in these lines." The editor had a very keen 
 sense of "feeling." Perhaps this "feeling" approach may be 
 the solution of many an historical problem of criticism; in 
 fact, it would eliminate criticism. 
 
 Le Tac, in another deleted passage, speaking of the 
 trade of the Jesuits of Canada, has them very rich. They 
 keep for themselves the alms received for the Indians and 
 they charge six times the price of the goods they sell to the 
 Indians, which, he adds, "the Recollects would never do, for 
 they do not run after the pelts, nor after riches." 41 Now, 
 when Reveillaud saddled a Recollect with this "drunk with 
 choler" lampoon, no wonder a Canadian reviewer wrote: 
 "Thus a Recollect, it is claimed, wrote the history of Can- 
 ada. But as he knew that if he had published such abomina- 
 tions, the whole colony would have arisen to brand him on 
 the forehead, he took good care to hide his manuscript and 
 to hide himself behind a mask." 42 
 
 Section 5. Conclusion 
 And thus the evidence usually produced to brand the 
 Jesuits with the guilt of trade in New France has been ex- 
 amined and quoted at length, and men prominent in the 
 history of New France have passed in review. One fact must 
 stand out prominently: the assertions credited to contem- 
 porary writers have proved in the main to be veiled insinu- 
 ations, and no positive proof has ever been produced by the 
 anti-Jesuit party in France or in Canada. The latter gave 
 themselves over to accusations couched in general terms; 
 "they expressed their opinion of the Jesuits rather than ex- 
 pressing the truth." 1 Those who have accepted the legend 
 
 capable of doing me an injury by indirect Method. . . . 'Tis beneath 
 me to mince or alter the matter of fact, contained either in the Let- 
 ters I sent you some ten or twelve years agoe, or in these Memoirs," 
 ibid., I, 299-300. 
 
 4i Histoire chronologique, 123. 
 
 42 Revue Canadienne, XXIV, 1888, 357. 
 
 i G. M. Wrong, The Rise and Fall of New France, New York, 
 1928, I, 441. 
 
266 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 have allowed their judgment to be ruled by preconceived 
 ideas rather than by the available evidence. This attitude 
 of religious bias has notoriously obfuscated the history of 
 New France, in which the Jesuits played only a part, and it 
 will take considerable time and patient spading to clear 
 away the litter. The bogey of Jesuitism filled the mind of 
 the nineteenth century bourgeoisie. Jesuitism was vague 
 enough for attack, and notoriety could thus be attained by 
 ecclesiastical adventurers and other pamphleteers imbued 
 with the tradition that where Jesuits are concerned no 
 proofs are necessary no matter how preposterous the state- 
 ments may be. Under these circumstances of warped minds 
 and atavistic prejudices, the ultimate answer to the ques- 
 tion "Did the Jesuits of New France trade?" could be only 
 affirmative. 
 
 At present a far more scholarly and critical spirit in 
 weighing the assertions of actors in the French-American 
 drama is making itself felt. The attitude of the Jesuits to- 
 ward the brandy trade is today attributed to other motives 
 than to a desire to monopolize the nefarious traffic to them- 
 selves in the hope of filthy lucre. 2 Their irreconcilable at- 
 titude was the only attitude they could take in the matter, 
 the only attitude defensible from the moral standpoint. Had 
 they catered to the politicians, they might have earned the 
 dubious approval of the eager grafters of New France ; they 
 may even have been considered zealous, broadminded mis- 
 sionaries who knew how to put the consciences of the peo- 
 ple at ease, while in France, the prattling abbes might have 
 shouted "Laxism!" For this approval, however, they would 
 have to sacrifice principles of much greater moment than 
 the praise of a few ruined petty noblemen. "Hatred, and 
 perhaps to a greater extent, pecuniary interests can explain 
 their [Frontenac's, La Salle's, and Cadillac's] language. The 
 Jesuits were the most determined adversaries of the brandy 
 trade among the Indians, and this alone rendered them 
 accursed in the eyes of those men who wished to get rich 
 no matter by what means." 3 And Eastman commented: "It 
 
 2 Eastman, 290. 
 
 3 D. Girouard, "Lies JSsuites ont-ils traffique' dans la Nouvelle- 
 France?" in La Semaine Religieuse de Montreal, XXXV, 1900. 230. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 267 
 
 is quite natural that the men with whose commerce or in- 
 dustry Jesuit piety seemed to interfere should retaliate by 
 insinuating that the missionaries were animated by mer- 
 cenary motives." 4 Whether natural or not is beside the 
 point, the question is : is it true ? 
 
 It was soon realized by the missionaries [Jesuits] that but mea- 
 ger results could be obtained until the Indians were induced to 
 lead a sedentary life. Their wandering habit nullified all at- 
 tempts at permanent instruction to the young; it engendered 
 improvidence and laziness, bred famine and disease; and the 
 constant struggle to kill fur-bearing animals for their pelts rap- 
 idly depleted the game while the fur trade wrought contamina- 
 tion in many forms. Missionary efforts were at first conducive to 
 the interests of the fur trade, by bringing far distant tribes 
 within the sphere of French influence; but as soon as the Jesuit 
 sought to change the habits of the natives, to cause them to be- 
 come agriculturists instead of hunters, and to oppose the rum 
 traffic among them, then the grasping commercial monopoly 
 which controlled the fortunes of New France, and was merely 
 "working" the colony for financial gains, saw in the Jesuit an 
 enemy, and often placed serious obstacles in his path. 5 
 
 A protestant writer has vindicated the Jesuits with re- 
 gard to the liquor question thus: "From the standpoint of 
 the aborigines, the brandy trade was an unmitigated curse. 
 The attitude of the Church and its supporters has been ap- 
 proved by subsequent experience, and endorsed by the more 
 humane government of civilized countries." 6 Apologists of 
 the greedy adventurers may excuse their heroes for not 
 being ahead of their time, but this does not excuse criti- 
 cal historians for failure to inquire into the value of the 
 testimony they so readily accepted and for their acceptance 
 of depositions from anticlericals whose profits were cur- 
 tailed by the clergy of Canada. The bishop and his priests, 
 the Sulpicians and the Jesuits were determined to protect 
 the defenseless Indians, and consequently, since their atti- 
 tude sprang from a more developed sense of justice, of hu- 
 
 4 Eastman, 89. 
 
 s Thwaites, Jesuit Relations, Introduction, I, 18-19. 
 
 e Eastman, 291. 
 
268 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 manity, and of religion, credit for being ahead of their time 
 should justly have been given them. 
 
 The same Protestant writer also showed that on the 
 whole the Indian liquor traffic was harmful for the French 
 colony. 7 If the Jesuits had shut their eyes to this evil, they 
 would not have been accused of encroaching upon the sac- 
 rosanct royal prerogatives. The gallican regalists of Can- 
 ada, civil or ecclesiastical, have still to produce concrete 
 proofs of Jesuit violations of any laws. "All the vague, un- 
 proved allegations which are found in the memoirs sent 
 to the Court only prove the ill-will and impotence of the 
 enemies of the missionaries." 8 The only time the Jesuits in 
 New France came in conflict with the secular authorities 
 was with regard to the brandy question. Four score years 
 ago, Father Felix Martin issued a challenge, asking for 
 proof of another instance of a purely civil or political na- 
 ture which caused a clash between the missionaries and the 
 civil authorities. His challenge has never been answered, 
 except by pompous individuals, self-styled scholars afflicted 
 with psittacism. 
 
 Neither the bishop, nor the Jesuits ever attempted to meddle 
 unduly in the temporal government of the colony. They never 
 showed a pretention to direct or dominate the administration of 
 justice, questions of tariffs and taxes, they never framed police 
 regulations, conducted expeditions, decided peace or war. 
 
 When they were asked for their advice they gave it. Of 
 course, neither the bishop, nor the Jesuits claimed the priv- 
 ilege of infallibility in their public acts. They made mis- 
 takes. "We energetically maintain that the accusation that 
 they wished to usurp political and temporal authority in 
 the colony was nothing else than a groundless Gallican 
 quarrel." It was one of the aspects of civil Gallicanism, 
 always on the watch to denounce the encroachments of the 
 Church. In Canada, this was merely a pretext, what the 
 Gallicans objected to was the firmness with which Laval 
 and the Jesuits exercised their spiritual authority in the 
 
 7 Ibid., 292. 
 
 8 Relations inedites, II, 355. 
 
THE TRADE OF THE JESUITS 269 
 
 repression of abuses, but above all in their uncompromis- 
 ing fight against the brandy traffic. 9 
 
 In South America, in Brazil especially, the accusations 
 against the Jesuits, the calumnies launched against them, 
 the various expulsions from the Portuguese dominions, 
 their difficulties with the colonists, and with the civil au- 
 thorities, all sprang from one source — the missionaries op- 
 posed in season and out of season the enslavement of the 
 defenseless Indians. In New France officialdom had another 
 way of enslaving the Indians. Instead of exterminating them 
 or enslaving them, the same results were obtained by selling 
 brandy to the natives. To explain a "politique indigene" 
 based on brandy, a few adventurers are defended on the 
 ground that they opposed the ambition of the bishop and 
 the missionaries, as if it were not manifestly idle to give 
 the morbid suspicions of the politicians of the day as 
 "proofs" of the existence of such ambition. 
 
 As already noted, Judge Desire Girouard treated at 
 length the question of the Jesuit trade. In his article pub- 
 lished in La Semaine Religieuse de Montreal, he examined 
 successively the facts themselves, the reasons why the Jes- 
 uits were suspected, the juridical value of these suspicions. 
 His unequivocal verdict is "not guilty." After quoting the 
 saying of Kalm: "Neither the priests nor the Jesuits carry 
 on any trade with furs and skins, leaving that entirely to 
 the merchants," 10 Judge Girouard continued: 
 
 Such is also my opinion on the so-called trade of the Jesuits. 
 I sketched this question in my book 11 and I have treated it at 
 length here, after having read the recently arrived fifteen vol- 
 umes of the Correspondance generate covering the end of the 
 seventeenth century. It was not an easy task to reach this con- 
 clusion. Despatches, memoirs, letters, nearly all the documents 
 which treat of this delicate question are so full of contradic- 
 tions, accusations, recriminations, behind which one can only 
 too often discern pecuniary interest and greediness, hatred and 
 jealousy, that it has not always been easy to distinguish truth 
 from falsehood, or even from error. I have been sadly surprised 
 
 9 Chapais, Jean Talon, 44-45. 
 
 io Peter Kalm's Travels in North America, A. B. Benson ed., 
 New York, 1937, II, 451. 
 
 ii D. Girouard, Lake St. Louis, Montreal, 1893, 295-297. 
 
270 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 to see that at the beginning of our history — called by Lord Elgin 
 the heroic period — when there were many heroes and martyrs, 
 men and women, clerics and laymen, there should have been so 
 many rascals. But, and this must be said, the rif-raf was not 
 found among the clergy, the religious communities, or in the 
 body of the settlers, that is, among the owners and clearers of 
 the soil, seigniors and tenants, but rather among the nobles, the 
 officials, the governors, the judges, the officers of all grades, 
 brave in time of war, if one wishes, but who were in the colony 
 to make their fortune, and who did not remain here. The Marquis 
 de Denonville wasn't far from the truth when he wrote that the 
 nobility of this new country was a most beggarly crowd. Fron- 
 tenac, La Salle, and Lamothe Cadillac ceaselessly wrote to the 
 court that the country was full of envious people, of backbiters, 
 of slanderers, that it is almost impossible to see through so many 
 cabals, intrigues, calumnies, hatred, and clashing interests. The 
 task of arriving at the truth in the company of such a lot is not 
 easy. I have done my best to discover it. I do not know whether 
 my work will throw some light on the matter. I do not expect 
 it to be the last word. I flatter myself, however, to have re- 
 mained exempt from prejudice or sympathy. I have not even 
 the honor of knowing the Jesuits personally. I was educated by 
 the Sulpicians whom Father de Rochemonteix does not always 
 handle gently; but I would deem myself unworthy of my Alma 
 Mater if I failed to render a favorable verdict to those who have 
 a right to it. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 MANUSCRIPT SCOURCES 
 Ottawa. 
 
 The letters of M. Louis Tronson. On this correspondence, cf. 
 text, p. 12, n. 6. 
 
 Paris. 
 
 Archives des Colonies, (AC). Series B. This series contains 
 the letters sent by the home government, king and ministers, 
 to the officials in Canada. Letters in vols. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, were 
 consulted; transcripts of these letters were found in the Do- 
 minion Archives, Ottawa, Canada. The series is calendared in 
 the Report on Canadian Archives for 1899, Supplement, Ottawa, 
 1901, 245 ff. Many of the utilized documents are printed in vari- 
 ous publications as indicated in the footnotes. 
 
 AC, Correspondance Generate, Canada, (C 11A). The series 
 contains the letters and memoirs sent from the colony to the 
 mother country. This was the main source. Volumes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 
 cover the period studied; they are calendared in the Report on 
 Canadian Archives for 1885, Ottawa, 1886, xxix-lvii. Talon's cor- 
 respondence is in vols. 2 and 3; it is printed in the Rapport de 
 VArchiviste de la Province de Quebec pour 1930-1931, (RAPQ), 
 Quebec, 1931, 1-182. The archivist says in the introduction : "Les 
 lettres de Talon que nous publions ici ne changeront aucune des 
 appreciations de M. Chapais. Elles ajouteront meme tres peu a 
 son livre, mais il convenait de les mettre au jour d'une facon 
 definitive parce que celles de ces lettres qui ont ete publiees dans 
 des recueils de documents sont tronquees ou incompletes. Le 
 texte que nous offrons a ete photographie sur l'original meme de 
 chacune des lettres de Talon. On pourra done s'y fier comme si on 
 avait la lettre originale sous les yeux." There are, however, pe- 
 culiarities which the printed page cannot show, and it will repay 
 to compare it with the photographs themselves. Photostats 
 of these letters are in the Library of Congress. Besides the let- 
 ters of Talon found in these two volumes, M. P.-G. Roy, the 
 archivist of the Province of Quebec, included others which are 
 found in other series. A few letters of Talon or to him are trans- 
 lated into English in E. B. O'Callaghan, ed., Documents relative 
 to the Colonial History of the State of New York, (NYCD), IX, 
 Albany, 1855. 
 
 271 
 
272 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 The letters of Frontenac in volumes 4, 5, 6, of this series 
 have also been published in the Rapport de VArchiviste de la 
 Province de Quebec pour 1926-1927, Quebec, 1927, 1-144. They 
 cover the governor's first term in office, 1672-1682; those of his 
 second term have been published in subsequent Rapports. The 
 publication of Frontenac's letters, although incomparably better 
 than in any previous collection, is not as satisfactory as the pub- 
 lication of the letters of Talon. Some documents found in other 
 series, for instance in the Moreau de Saint-Mery collection (AC, 
 F 3), were not included. Moreover, after 1675, the letters of 
 Duchesneau are indispensable for an adequate understanding of 
 the state of affairs in the colony. A few are in Clement and in 
 NYCD. The same may be said of Frontenac's second term. M. Roy 
 did not publish the letters sent by, or addressed individually to 
 the intendant Champigny. Before their publication in 1927, 
 relatively few of Frontenac's letters were in print. Clement pub- 
 lished some, others could be found in the Collection de Manu- 
 scrits (infra) and in the Correspondance echangee (infra). 
 Margry has a few valueless extracts. Extracts from some letters 
 of Frontenac and Duchesneau are translated in NYCD. 
 
 A few documents from volumes 9 and 12 of AC, C 11A, were 
 also utilized. 
 
 AC, F 3. Documents in volumes 2, 3, 4, 5 proved serviceable. 
 Volume 5, ff. 75-82, contains the speeches pronounced in the 
 "brandy parliament"; the document is printed in extenso in 
 Margry, I, 405-420 and in Jugements et deliberations, II, 247- 
 253. The papers of this series were assembled by Mederic-Louis- 
 Elie Moreau de Saint-Mery, cf. J.-E. Roy, Rapport sur les Ar- 
 chives de France, 490-495; until they were given the present 
 press-mark, F 3, they were cited under the collector's name. 
 Volumes 2 to 16 are calendared in the Report on Canadian Ar- 
 chives for 1899, Supplement, 39-191. 
 
 Archives des Affaires Etrangeres, (AE), Memoires et Docu- 
 ments, Amerique, vol. 5. With the exception of the letter of Louis 
 XIV to Laval, March 2, 1668, the few pertinent documents in 
 this volume were found in other series. 
 
 Archives Nationales, (AN), K 1232 :n. 1. The original of 
 the document known as the Recit d'un ami de Vabbe de Galinee. 
 —Text, p. 215 and ff. 
 
 K 1232 :n. 40. "Declaration des Terres que les pere[s] 
 Jesuites possedent dans le pays de la Nouvelle France en 1663." 
 A note on the first page reads: "Cecy est la copie de la declara- 
 tion qui a este mise entre les mains de M r l'intendant En octobre 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 273 
 
 1663." The document is printed in R. G. Thwaites, ed., The 
 Jesuit Relations, 47, 258-271. 
 
 Bibliotheque Nationale, (BN), Collection Clairambault, 1016: 
 43-48v; Bernou's memoir of 1678, cf. text, p. 175 ff. In the same 
 volume are some autograph letters of La Salle printed in Margry, 
 vol. n. 
 
 BN, Manuscrits francais, nouvelles acquisitions, (Mss. fr. n. 
 a. ) , vol. 7497 ; a volume of autograph letters of Claude Bernou to 
 Eusebe Renaudot. 
 
 Volume 9288, ff. 18-40, Margry's copy of AN, K 1232 :n. 1. 
 
 BN, Melanges de Colbert. Some of the letters of Talon to 
 Colbert in this series are printed in the Rapport de VArchiviste 
 de la Province de Quebec pour 1931. There are other letters 
 about Talon, for instance in volume 153bis ; of Laval to Colbert, 
 in vols. 164 and 176 ; of the Provincial of the Recollects, in vol. 
 171; of Frontenac, November 10, 1674, ibid., f. 54; of Eustache 
 Maupassant, November 12, 1674, ibid., f. 57. The last two are 
 printed in the Bulletin des Recherches Historiques, XXXVII, 
 1937, 602-603, and 677-679, respectively. In this publication the 
 date of the letter of Father Maupassant is given as 1679. 
 
 Quebec. 
 
 Archives du Seminaire de Quebec (Laval University), (ASQ). 
 The present writer was given every facility to consult these 
 archives by the former archivist, Mgr A. E. Gosselin. The vari- 
 ous series are divided into cartons (boxes), the label indicating 
 the general contents. For certain series that have many docu- 
 ments, each box is lettered or given a roman numeral; all the 
 documents are numbered. Several students have drawn on this 
 important archival depot, among them E. C. H. Langevin, 
 Auguste Gosselin, T. Chapais, H. Lemay. Most useful was the 
 series Lettres, Carton N, where Dudouyt's correspondence with 
 Laval is found. The following are quoted in the text: 
 Lettres, Carton N, no. 27, Colbert to Laval, March 7, 1668, no. 
 48 2 , Dudouyt to Laval, (May, 1677), published, French and 
 English, in the Report on Canadian Archives for 1885, xcviii- 
 cxxxi. The next five are all from Dudouyt to Laval, no. 54, April 
 11, 1681; no. 57, May 10, 1681; no. 59, June 15, 16, 20, 1681; no. 
 61, March 9, 1682 ; no. 62, May 26, 1682.— Carton M, no. 11 and 
 no. 21, Glandelet to Tremblay, September 3, 1691, and March 21, 
 1696.— Carton S, no. 93, Dudouyt to Laval, [May, 1677]. 
 
 Polygraphie, IV, no. 19 to 30. Twelve documents on the brandy 
 trade. — Text, p. 117, note 34. 
 
274 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Rome. 
 
 Jesuit Archives, (ASJ). The following documents of the 
 series Gallia 110 have been utilized: 
 
 1) 1664, August 26, Dablon to Oliva, I, 35-36. 
 
 2) 1665, July 1, "Le revenue de la mission de Canada le l er 
 iour de Juillet 1665," I, 39. 
 
 3) 1666, November 10, Talon to Oliva, III, 366-366v, printed in 
 Rochemonteix, Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle-F ranee, III, 34, 
 note 1; reprinted in Bulletin des Recherches Historiques, 
 XXXVII, 1931, 659. 
 
 4) 1670, [August 26], Le Mercier to Oliva, I, 54-56. 
 
 5) 1678, November 13, Dablon to the Cardinal of the Congre- 
 gation for the Propagation of the Faith, III, 370-376. 
 
 6) 1717, October 21, Gamier to Tamburini, II, 326-327. 
 
 PRINTED SOURCES 
 
 The following bibliography seems as complete as necessary. 
 Not all the books or articles read or consulted in the prepara- 
 tion of this volume have been listed, but each book quoted at 
 least once is mentioned below. After some contemporary or quasi- 
 contemporary accounts bearing directly on the questions treated 
 in this volume, a few words of comment have been added or 
 references given to the text where the particular passages of 
 these accounts are discussed. The contemporary accounts are 
 listed twice, under the names of their author and editor when 
 these do not coincide. For instance, the Memoire sur les Moeurs 
 of Perrot is listed after Perrot, the author, and after Tailhan, 
 the editor. Compilations of sources have been evaluated accord- 
 ing to the selection made of documents with which the present 
 author is concerned, but especially with regard to the manner 
 in which they are edited. 
 
 As for secondary accounts, monographs, modern interpreta- 
 tions, the more important have been commented upon, and the 
 remarks bear only on what their authors have had to say with 
 regard to the questions treated in this volume. Some works 
 listed below are clearly popular accounts. Their authors were 
 satisfied with merely elaborating or summarizing the interpre- 
 tations of their guides; they belong to the third or fourth hand 
 classes of books. In most cases the interpretations they found in 
 secondary accounts were accepted or rejected by them on general 
 principles, without attempt to study the primary evidence. 
 Finally among the books in this bibliography, some are listed 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 275 
 
 because they treat of a particular phase of the history of 
 Canada. They were read because they contain information not 
 found in general histories, such are the works of Lanctot, De- 
 lalande, Munro, Cahall, on civil administration in New France. 
 The present writer is not qualified to pass judgment on the value 
 of such studies and monographs. He would be guilty of tres- 
 passing were he to comment favorably or adversely on works 
 that are outside his competence. The saying attributed to Apelles 
 — ne supra crepidam — finds its application not only to critics of 
 works of art, but to critics of historical works as well. 
 
 Arnauld, A. Morale Pratique des Jesuites, s. 1. 1716 2 , vol. VII. — 
 Text. pp. 223, 236. 
 
 Basset, J. S., ed. "Letters of Francis Parkman to Pierre Margry," 
 in Smith College Studies in History, VIII, 1923. 
 
 Baugy, L. H. Chevalier de. Journal d'une expedition contre les 
 Iroquois en 1687, Paris, 1883.— Text p. 155, note 40. 
 
 [Belmont, F. Vachon de.] "Histoire de l'eau-de-vie en Canada," 
 in Collection de Memoires et de Relations sur Vhistoire an- 
 cienne du Canada, n. 8, Quebec, 1840. 
 
 Benson, A. B., ed. Peter Kalm's Travels in North America, 2 
 vols., New York, 1937. See vol. II, 171, note 2, the judgment 
 of the editor on the value as Kalm as source. 
 
 Boislile, A. de, ed. Memoires de Saint-Simon, 25 vols., Paris, 
 1879-1913, vol. VI. 
 
 Boucher, P. Histoire veritable et naturelle des Moeurs et Pro- 
 ductions du pays de la Nouvelle-France, G. Coffin, ed., Mon- 
 treal, 1882. 
 
 Champlain, Samuel de. Les Voyages de la Nouvelle France Oc- 
 cidentale, dicte Canada, Paris, 1632. 
 
 Clement, P., ed. Lettres, Instructions et Memoires de Colbert, 
 7 vols., Paris, 1861-1873, vol. Ill, second part.— Text, p. 7, 
 note 9. 
 
 Coffin, G., ed., Boucher, P., Histoire veritable et naturelle des 
 Moeurs et Productions du pays de la Nouvelle-France, Mon- 
 treal, 1882. 
 
 Collection de Manuscrits contenant lettres, memoires et autres 
 documents historiques relatifs a la Nouvelle France, 4 vols., 
 Quebec, 1883-1885. 
 
 This collection contains extracts — sometimes only a few 
 lines — from letters of Louis XIV, Colbert, Frontenac and 
 Duchesneau, and they deal mostly with Acadian affairs. Stu- 
 dents have justly complained of the manner in which they 
 
276 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 were edited, cf. G. Stewart, "Sources of Early Canadian His- 
 tory," in Royal Society of Canada, Proceedings and Trans- 
 actions, series 1, III, 1886, section 2, 40. 
 
 Correspondance echangee entre les autorites frangaises et les 
 gouverneurs et intendants, vol. I, Quebec, 1893. 
 
 Owing to lack of funds, only one volume was published. 
 It has three distinct, although not formal parts. The first 
 ranging from 1620 to 1761 contains the letters sent by the 
 kings of France exclusively. In this part are found the royal 
 instructions to Talon, to Frontenac, and five extracts from 
 the letters of Louis XIV to the governor. The second part 
 begins p. 99; it has only four documents for the seventeenth 
 century; the deliberations and orders of the Conseil de la 
 Marine, which had charge of the affairs of the colony from 
 1715 to 1723 fill another hundred pages. In the third part 
 are the letters sent by the ministers, Lionne, Colbert, Seigne- 
 lay. There are four extracts of letters of Colbert to Fron- 
 tenac and one extract from a letter of the minister to 
 Duchesneau. 
 
 Dangeau, Philippe de. Journal du Marquis de Dangeau, E. 
 Soulie, Dussieux, et al., ed. 
 
 [Dollier de Casson, F.] "Histoire du Montreal," in Manuscripts 
 relating to the Early History of Canada, published under the 
 auspices of the Literary and Historical Society of Quebec, 
 third series, n. 1, Quebec, 1871. It had been published in the 
 Memoires de la Societe Historique de Montreal, Montreal, 
 1869, and in the Revue Canadienne of the same year. It was 
 translated by R. Flenley, (text and translation on opposite 
 pages), under the title A History of Montreal, New York, 
 1928. 
 
 Dudouyt, J. Letter of [May 1677] to Laval, printed in Report 
 on Canadian Archives for 1885, xcviii-cxxxi. — Text p. Ill ff. 
 
 Dumesnil, J. P. "Memoire concernant les affaires du Canada," in 
 Bulletin des Recherches Historiques, XXI, 1915, 166-173, 193- 
 200, 225-227.— Text, p. 161 ff. 
 
 Edits, ordonnances royaux, declarations et arrets du Conseil 
 d'Etat du Roi concernant le Canada, 3 vols., Quebec, 1854- 
 1856. 
 
 Factum du proces entre Jean de Biencourt, Sr de Poutrincourt 
 et les Peres Biard et Masse, Jesuites, G. Marcel, ed., Paris, 
 1887.— Text, p. 137, note 13. 
 
 Flenley, R., ed. [Dollier de Casson, F.], A History of Montreal, 
 New York, 1928. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 277 
 
 Ganong, W. F., ed. Le Clercq, C, New Relation of Gaspesia, 
 Toronto, 1910. 
 
 Goyer, O. "Oraison funebre du tres-haut et tres-puissant Sei- 
 gneur Louis de Buade, comte de Frontenac et de Paluau . . . 
 prononcee en l'eglise des recolets de Kebec, . . . le 19 de- 
 cembre, 1698," in Bulletin des Recherches Historiques, I, 
 1895, 66-76, 82-89; annotations, 99-108. 
 
 Hennepin, L. Description de la Louisiane nouvellement decou- 
 verte au Sud'Oiiest de la Nouvelle-France, Paris, 1683. 
 
 Hennepin, L. Nouvelle decouverte d'un tres grand Pays, situe 
 dans VAmerique entre le Nouveau Mexique, et la Mer Glaciale, 
 Utrecht, 1697. 
 
 Hennepin, L. Nouveau Voyage d'un Pais plus grand que VEurope 
 Avec les reflections des entreprises du Sieur de la Salle, sur les 
 Mines de Ste Barbe, &c, Utrecht, 1698. 
 
 For Hennepin's views on the topics discussed in the text, 
 see index, s. v. Hennepin. 
 
 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, R. G. Thwaites, ed., 
 73 vols., Cleveland, 1896-1901. 
 
 Le Journal des Jesuites, Laverdiere, C. H., and Casgrain, H. R., 
 ed., Quebec, 1871. 
 
 [Juchereau de Saint Ignace, F.] Histoire de VHotel-Dieu de 
 Quebec, Montauban, (1751). 
 
 Jugements et deliberations du Conseil Souverain de la Nouvelle 
 France, 1663-1710, 6 vols., Quebec, 1885-1891. 
 
 The title sufficiently indicates the importance of this 
 source. The information found in these volumes complements 
 that of the letters sent to France by the colonial officials. 
 
 Kalm, P. Peter Kalm's Travels in North America, A. B. Benson, 
 ed., 2 vols., New York, 1937. 
 
 Lafitau, J.-F. Moeurs des sauvages ameriquains comparees aux 
 moeurs des premiers temps, 2 vols., Paris, 1724. 
 
 Lahontan, A. L. de l'Om Darce, baron de. New Voyages to 
 North America, R. G. Thwaites, ed., Chicago, 1905. 
 
 For a general appraisal of the trustworthiness of La- 
 hontan, cf. J.-E. Roy, "Le Baron de Lahontan," in Royal 
 Society of Canada, Proceedings and Translations, series 1, 
 XII, 1895, section 1, 63-192. For the value of his testimony 
 on the subject of this volume, see text, pp. 196, 264. 
 
 La Potherie, C. C. Le Roy, sieur de Bacqueville de. Voyages de 
 VAmerique, contenant Ce qui s'est passe de plus remarquable 
 dans VAmerique Septentrionale depuis 153^. jusqu'a present, 
 4 vols., Amsterdam, 1723. 
 
278 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 For the years 1697 to 1701, La Potherie was an eyewitness 
 of many of the events he narrates; for the previous period, 
 his testimony is secondary; he had access to Perrot's notes, 
 but what is Perrot and what is his is difficult, almost im- 
 possible to ascertain. Cf. J.-E. Roy, "Claude Charles Le Roy 
 de la Potherie," in Royal Society of Canada, Proceedings and 
 Transactions, series 2, III, 1897, section 1, 3-44. 
 
 La Tour, L. B. de. Memoires sur la vie de Mgr de Laval, premier 
 eveque de Quebec, Cologne, 1761. 
 
 La Tour spent two years in Canada, 1729-1731. Only one 
 volume was published; it is said that the publication of the 
 second volume was prevented by the family of Bishop Saint- 
 Vallier. La Tour was in full agreement with the policy of 
 Laval with regard to the brandy traffic. Cf. H.-A. Scott, 
 "Louis Bertrand de la Tour et son Oeuvre," Royal Society of 
 Canada, Proceedings and Transactions, series 3, XXII, 1928, 
 section 1, 113-140, reprinted in Nos anciens Historiographes, 
 Levis, 1930, 183-224. 
 
 Laverdiere, C. H., ed. Champlain, Oeuvres, 6 vols., Quebec, 1870, 
 vol. VI. 
 
 Laverdiere, C. H., and Casgrain, H. R., ed. Le Journal des 
 Jesuites, Quebec, 1871. 
 
 Le Clercq, C. Nouvelle Relation de la Gaspesie, Paris, 1691. 
 
 Le Clercq, C. Premier Etablissement de la Foy dans la Nouvelle 
 France, 2 vols., Paris, 1691. 
 
 That Le Clercq's book was tampered with may be con- 
 sidered certain, cf. text, pp. 187, 236, 260. How much he wrote 
 of the first volume, what share he had in the composition of 
 the second, is by no means certain. 
 
 Lemay, H. Bibliographie du Pere Louis Hennepin, recollet. Les 
 Pieces Documentaires, Montreal, 1937. — Cf. Mid- America, 
 XXI, 1939, 34-43. 
 
 Lescarbot, M. Relation derniere dece qui s'est passee au voyage 
 du Sieur de Poutrincourt en la Nouvelle-France depuis 20. 
 mois enga, Paris, 1612. — Text, p. 137, note 13. 
 
 Le Tac, S. Histoire chronologique de la Nouvelle France. E. 
 Reveillaud, ed., Paris, 1888.— Text, p. 262 ff. 
 
 Mandements, Lettres pastorales et circulaires des tlveques de 
 Quebec, H. Tetu and C.-O. Gagnon, ed., vol. I, Quebec, 1887. 
 
 Marcel, G., ed. Factum de proces entre Jean de Biencourt, S r de 
 Poutrincourt et les Peres Biard et Masse, Jesuites, Paris, 1887. 
 —Text, p. 137, note 13. 
 
 Margry, P. Decouvertes et Etablissements des Frangais dans 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 279 
 
 VOuest et dans le Sud de VAmerique Septentrionale, 6 vols., 
 Paris, 1876-1888, vols. I and II. 
 
 The criticism of the two documents printed in volume one 
 of this compilation, text, p. 173 ff., and p. 215 ff., may serve 
 to illustrate the manner in which Margry understood his duty 
 as publisher of texts. The checking of Margry's versions on 
 the documents themselves will convince any student that he 
 was unfit for his task; aside from the tendentious character 
 of the whole compilation. The extracts wrenched from their 
 context are perhaps the most objectionable feature of his 
 method, that is, leaving out downright mutilation of docu- 
 ments as is the case with the Recit. This systematic garbling 
 of the evidence has been labelled "instances of bad judg- 
 ment." The name one chooses to give to the process matters 
 little, provided attention be called to this euphemism. His 
 compilation must be referred to for the convenience of the 
 reader, but it is rash to quote from it without seeing the con- 
 text for the extracts, and without checking the text either 
 on the originals, on photostats or on certified copies of the 
 documents. 
 
 Marie de l'Incarnation. Letters de la Venerable Mere Marie de 
 VIncarnation premiere Superieure des Ursulines de la Nou- 
 velle France, Paris, 1681. 
 
 Montezon, F. de, and Martin, F., ed. Relations inedites de la 
 Nouvelle-France (1672-1679) pour /aire suite aux anciennes 
 relations 1615-1672, 2 vols., Paris, 1861. 
 
 Perrot, N. Memoire sur les Moeurs, Coustumes et Relligion des 
 Sauvages de VAmerique Septentrionale, J. Tailhan ed., Leip- 
 zig and Paris, 1864. 
 
 [Raudot, A. D.] Relation par lettres de VAmerique Septen- 
 trionale, C. de Rochemonteix, ed., Paris, 1904. — Text, p. 65, 
 note 44. 
 
 Relations inedites de la Nouvelle-France, Montezon, F. de, and 
 Martin, F., ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1861. 
 
 Reveillaud, E., ed. Le Tac, S., Histoire chronologique de la 
 Nouvelle France ou Canada, depuis sa decouverte (mil cinq 
 cents quatre) jusques en Van mil six cents trente deux, Paris, 
 1888.— Text, pp. 262-265. 
 
 Rochemonteix, C. de, ed. [Raudot, A. D.], Relation par lettres 
 de VAmerique Septentrionale (annees 1709 et 1710), Paris, 
 1904.— Text, p. 65, note 44. 
 
 Roy, P.-G., ed. Rapport de VArchiviste de la Province de Quebec 
 pour 19261927, Quebec, 1927.— Cf. Manuscript Sources. 
 
280 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Roy, P.-G., ed. Rapport de VArchiviste de la Province de Quebec 
 pour 1930-1931, Quebec, 1931.— Cf Manuscript Sources. 
 
 Sagard Theodat, Gabriel. Histoire du Canada et Voyages que 
 les Freres Mineurs Recollects y ont faicts pour la conversion 
 des Infidelles, Paris, 1636. 
 
 Saint-Simon, Louis de Rouvroy, due de. Memoires de Saint- 
 Simon. A. de Boislile, ed., 25 vols., Paris, 1879-1913. 
 
 Shea, J. G., ed. A Description of Louisiana by Father Louis Hen- 
 nepin, New York, 1880. 
 
 Shea, J. G., ed. First Establishment of the Faith in New France 
 by Father Christian Le Clercq, 2 vols., New York, 1881. 
 
 Soulie, E., Dussieux, et al., ed. Journal du Marquis de Dangeau 
 public en entier pour la premiere fois par MM. Eud. Soulie, 
 Dussieux, de Chennevieres, Maintz, de Montaiglon, avec les 
 additions inedites du due de Saint-Simon publiees par M. 
 Feuillet de Conches, 19 vols., Paris, 1854-1860. Vol. II. 
 
 Tailhan, J., ed. Perrot, N. Memoires sur les Moeurs, Coustumes 
 et Relligion des Sauvages de VAmerique Septentrionale , Leip- 
 zig and Paris, 1864. 
 
 Tetu, H., and Gagnon, C.-O., ed. Mandements, Lettres pastorales 
 et circulaires de Eveques de Quebec, 6 vols., Quebec, 1887- 
 1890. Vol. I. 
 
 Thwaites, R. G., ed. A New Discovery of a Vast Country in 
 America by Father Louis Hennepin, 2 vols., Chicago, 1903. 
 
 Thwaites, R. G., ed. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, 
 73 vols., Cleveland, 1896-1901. 
 
 Thwaites, R. G., ed. New Voyages to North America by the 
 Baron de Lahontan, 2 vols., Chicago, 1905. 
 
 GENERAL WORKS AND SPECIAL STUDIES 
 
 Biggar, H. P. The Early Trading Companies of New France, To- 
 ronto, 1901. 
 Bois, L. E. Esquisse de la vie et des travaux apostoliques de Sa 
 
 Grandeur Mgr. Fr. Xavier de Laval-Montmorency, Quebec, 
 
 1845. 
 Bouchard, A. "Une histoire du Canada," in Revue Canadienne, 
 
 XXIV, 1888, 348-366, 729-737. Review of the Histoire chron- 
 
 ologique of Sixtie Le Tac. — Text, p. 262, 265. 
 Cahall, R. D. The Sovereign Council of New France, New York, 
 
 1915. 
 Champris, G. de. Monseigneur de Montmorency -Laval, premier 
 
 eveque de la Nouvelle-F ranee, Paris, 1924. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 281 
 
 Chapais, T. Jean Talon: Intendant de la Nouvelle France, (1665- 
 1672) , Quebec, 1904. The best and only dependable account 
 of the two tenures of office of Talon. 
 
 Chapais, T. The Great Intendant, Toronto, 1914. A popular ac- 
 count in English of the preceding. 
 
 Charlevoix, P. F. X. de. Histoire du Paraguay, 3 vols., Paris, 
 1756, vol. III. 
 
 Charlevoix, P. F. X. de. History and General Description of New 
 France, J. G. Shea, ed., 6 vols., New York, 1866-1872. 
 
 Charlevoix was the first to make use of the French Ar- 
 chives. The summaries of the documents he quotes is satisfac- 
 tory. There are mistakes in his work, examples of carelessness, 
 failures to evaluate his documents, but these slips are easily 
 understood when it is remembered that he wrote two centuries 
 ago. One has not to look very closely into the writings of some 
 of his critics to find much more serious faults. The value of 
 Charlevoix's text is greater in the English edition than in 
 the French original owing to the abundant notes added by 
 his translator, John Gilmary Shea. Cf. J.-E. Roy, "Essai sur 
 Charlevoix, Premiere partie," in Royal Society of Canada, 
 Proceedings and Transactions, series 3, I, 1907, section 1, 
 3-94, only one part was published; H.-A. Scott, Nos anciens 
 Historiographes, Levis, 1930, 167-181. 
 
 Colby, C. W., The Fighting Governor, Toronto, 1915. 
 
 [Daniel, F.] Histoire des grandes families frangaises du Canada, 
 Montreal, 1867. 
 
 Delalande, J. Le Conseil Souverain de la Nouvelle France, Que- 
 bec, 1927. 
 
 [Desmazures, A. C. G.] Colbert et le Canada, Paris, 1879. 
 
 Dionne, N. E. "Le Seminaire de Notre-Dame-des-Anges," in 
 Revue Canadienne, troisieme serie, III, 1890, 65-81, 148-166. 
 
 Delanglez, J. The French Jesuits in Lower Louisiana, 1700- 
 1763, Washington, D. C. and New Orleans, 1935. 
 
 Delanglez, J., ed. The Journal of Jean Cavelier, Chicago, 1938. 
 
 Delanglez, J. Some La Salle Journeys, Chicago, 1938. 
 
 Dussieux, L. E. Le Canada sous la domination frangaise, Paris, 
 1855. 
 
 Eastman, M. Church and State in Early Canada, Edinburgh, 
 1915. 
 
 The author of this doctoral dissertation went to the 
 sources; he reached conclusions at variance with the tradi- 
 tional interpretations of the Margry, Parkman, and Lorin 
 school. 
 
282 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Faillon, E. M. Histoire de la Colonie Frangaise en Canada, 3 
 vols., Villemarie, 1865-1866. 
 
 Ferland, J. B. A. Cours d'histoire du Canada, 2 vols., Quebec, 
 1861, 1865. 
 
 Garneau, F. X. Histoire du Canada depuis sa decouverte jusqu'a 
 nos jours, 3 vols., Quebec, 1859. 
 
 Girouard, J. D. "Les Jesuites ont-ils trafique dans la Nouvelle- 
 France?" in Semaine Religieuse de Montreal, April 17, 1900. 
 —Text, 266, 269. 
 
 Girouard, J. D. Lake St. Louis, old and new, illustrated, and 
 Cavelier de la Salle, Montreal, 1893. 
 
 Gosselin, Aug. Vie de Mgr de Laval, premier eveque de Quebec 
 et apotre du Canada, 1622-1708, 2 vols., Quebec, 1890. 
 
 In this biography of Laval, with whose views on the 
 questions treated in the present volume Gosselin fully agrees, 
 the author made use of the archives of Seminaire and of the 
 Archbishopric of Quebec, as well as of most of the works in 
 print when he wrote, especially La Tour. He did not draw 
 directly on the French official archives, he cites the docu- 
 ments as in Ferland, Faillon and Parkman. 
 
 Goyens, J. Le P. Louis Hennepin, O. F. M., missionaire au Ca- 
 nada au XV IF siecle: Quelques jalons pour sa biographie, 
 Quarrachi, 1925. 
 
 Harrisse, H. Notes pour servir a Vhistoire, a la bibliographie et 
 a la cartographie de la Nouvelle-France et des pays adjacents, 
 1545-1700, Paris, 1872. 
 
 Johnson, I. A. The Michigan Fur Trade, Lansing, 1919. 
 
 Lanctot, G. L' administration de la Nouvelle France, Paris, 1929. 
 
 Lanctot, G. "Les Fonctions de l'intendant," in Canadian His- 
 torical Association, Annual Report, 1929, 73-90. 
 
 Langevin, E. C. H. Notice biographique sur Frangois de Laval, 
 Montreal, 1874. 
 
 Legendre, N. "Frontenac," in Royal Society of Canada, Pro- 
 ceedings and Transactions, series 2, IV, 1898, section 1, 37-52. 
 
 Leblond de Brumath, A. Bishop Laval, Toronto, 1906. 
 
 Leland, W. G. Guide to Materials for American History in the 
 Libraries and Archives of Paris, vol. I, Libraries, Washington, 
 D. C, 1932. 
 
 Lemay, H. "Le P. Hennepin, recollet a Paris," in Nos Cahiers, 
 III, 1938, 105-140.— Text, p. 254 ff. 
 
 Lemieux, L. J. The Governors-General of Canada, 1608-1931, 
 London, 1931. 
 
 Le Sueur, W. D. Count Frontenac, London and Toronto, 1926. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 283 
 
 Lomasney, P. J. 'The Canadian Jesuits and the Fur Trade," in 
 Mid-America, XV, 1933, 139-150. 
 
 The article is based mostly on Rochemonteix ; pertinent 
 passages from a few documents in the official archives are 
 quoted. 
 
 Lorin, H. Le Comte de Frontenac, Paris, 1895. 
 
 The most elaborate study of Frontenac's two terms and a 
 systematic apology for the governor. Lorin undoubtedly had 
 a thorough knowledge of the archives; however, in his quo- 
 tations from documents, a few words or a line or two lifted 
 from the context have often been considered sufficient to 
 prove the author's point. His criticism of the sources fall 
 short of what one would be led to expect. Further, general 
 references are given seemingly in support of the author's 
 contentions, but when these references are examined nothing 
 of what they purport to prove is found in them. An instance 
 of this latter procedure will be found in the text, p. 214, note 
 9. His explanation of the "suppression" of the Jesuit Rela- 
 tions is an illustration of history a priori based on insufficient 
 evidence. A peculiar feature of this study is the frequent use 
 of rhetorical questions. This device is of course effective in 
 suggesting answers, but unfortunately the least shred of evi- 
 dence is lacking in support of these answers. Since the book 
 was Lorin's doctoral thesis, it may be that this technique was 
 adopted with an eye to the verdict of the examiners. 
 
 Massicotte, E. Z. "Arrets, edits, ordonnances, mandements et 
 reglements conserves dans les archives du palais de justice de 
 Montreal," in Royal Society of Canada, Proceedings and 
 Transactions, series 3, XI, 1918, section 1, 147-174. 
 
 Matteson, D. M. Lists of Manuscripts concerning American His- 
 tory preserved in European Libraries and noted in their Pub- 
 lished Catalogues and similar Printed Lists, Washington, 
 D. C, 1925. 
 
 [Melancon, A.] Liste des Missionnaires-Jesuites Nouvelle- 
 France et Louisiane 1611-1800, Montreal, 1929. 
 
 Munro, W. B. "The Office of Intendant in New France; a Study 
 of French Colonial Policy," in American Historical Review, 
 XII, 1907, 15-38. 
 
 Munro, W. B. The Seigniorial System in Canada, New York, 
 1907. 
 
 Myrand, E. Frontenac et ses amis, Quebec, 1902. Is mainly con- 
 cerned with Mme de Frontenac. 
 
 Nolan, J. F. "The Liquor Problem and the Jesuit Missions in 
 
284 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 New France," in Acta et Dicta, III, 1911, 91-141. Based al- 
 most exclusively on the Jesuit Relations. 
 
 Parkman, F. Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV, 
 Boston, 1891. 
 
 Parkman, F. The Jesuits in North America in the XVIIth Cen- 
 tury, Boston, 1912. 
 
 Parkman, F. La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West, 
 Boston, 1907. 
 
 Parkman, F. The Old Regime in Canada, Boston, 1892. 
 
 Parkman, F. Pioneers of France in the New World, Boston, 1892. 
 Parkman, wrote James Truslow Adams, "falls short of 
 complete comprehension of the part that the church and the 
 Jesuits had in the contest," Dictionary of American Biog- 
 raphy, XIV, 250, Parkman. "His treatment of the Jesuits is 
 open to criticism as frequently lacking in fairness to their 
 point of view," R. G. Thwaites, France in America, New York 
 and London, 1907, 297. Examples of the lack of fairness men- 
 tioned by Thwaites have been pointed out in this volume. 
 
 Ravignan, F. X. de. De Vexistence et de Vinstitut des Jesuites, 
 Paris, 1860. 
 
 Riddel, W. A. Rise of Ecclesiastical Control in Quebec, New 
 York, 1916. 
 
 In spite of an impressive list of mnauscript sources, this 
 doctoral dissertation is a third hand account. The quotations 
 from documents in series C 11A — listed and presumably con- 
 sulted — are actually taken from Parkman. The writer seems 
 to have been unaware of the extent of this series. Even some 
 references to Charlevoix are given as in Parkman. 
 
 Rochemonteix, C. de. Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle-France au 
 XVW siecle, 3 vols., Paris, 1895-1896. 
 
 Rochemonteix made an extensive use of the Jesuit Ar- 
 chives, of the documents in print when he wrote — Clement, 
 Margry, Jugements et deliberations — of contemporary ac- 
 counts. He merely scratched the surface of the manuscript 
 official correspondence. 
 
 Roy, J.-E. Rapport sur les Archives de France relatives a Vhi- 
 stoire du Canada, Ottawa, 1911. 
 
 Sait, E. M. Clerical Control in Quebec, Toronto, 1911. 
 
 Scott, H.-A. Bishop-Laval, London and Toronto, 1926. 
 
 Sulte, B. Histoire des Canadiens-Frangais, 8 vols., Montreal, 
 1882-1884, vol. V.— Text, p. 260, note 23. 
 
 The few pages Suite published in the Revue Canadienne, 
 n. s., XXI, 1918, premiere partie, 162-164, under the title "La 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 285 
 
 traite des Jesuites," should be read. He wrote: "On decida 
 que les Jesuites feraient la traite." Who is "on"? "D'ailleurs, 
 la pauvrete, les miseres et les privations des hommes heroi- 
 ques qui prechaient l'evangile aux sauvages du Haut-Canada, 
 du Lac Superieur, du Wisconsin et du Michigan, sont connues 
 de tous ceux qui s'occupent d'histoire et font justice de toutes 
 ces accusations mahonnetes," that is, accusations of trade. 
 After a disquisition on the word magazin found in Lahotan, 
 we are told that the Jesuits were not commergants. The last 
 sentences of this article must be quoted: "J'ai tout lu dans 
 les anciens livres, en regardant par derriere la toile ou der- 
 riere la page! — et je pardonne a ceux qui se trompent. Quant 
 a ceux qui mentent, ma police les surveille; je ne crois 
 qu'apres avoir vu." 
 
 Salone, E. La colonisation de la Nouvelle France, Paris, s. d., 
 Second edition. 
 
 Salone, E. "Les sauvages du Canada et les maladies importees 
 de France au XVIP et XVIII 6 siecle: La picote et 
 l'alcoolisme," in Journal de la Societe des Americanistes de 
 Paris, n. s. IV, 1907, 7-20. 
 
 Shea, J. G., ed. History and General Description of New France. 
 By the Rev. P. F. X. Charlevoix, S. J., 6 vols., New York, 1866- 
 1872. 
 
 Surrey, N. M. Calendar of Manuscripts in Paris Archives and 
 Libraries relating to the History of the Mississippi Valley to 
 1803, 2 vols., Washington, 1926-1928. 
 
 Villiers du Terrage, M. de. Vexpedition de Cavelier de la Salle 
 dans le Golfe du Mexique (1684-1687), Paris, 1931. 
 
 Winsor, J. Cartier to Frontenac, Boston, 1894. 
 
 Winsor, J. Narrative and Critical History of America, 8 vols., 
 Boston, 1884-1889, vol. IV. 
 
 Wrong, G. M. The Rise and Fall of New France, 2 vols., New 
 York, 1928. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abenaqui, 63. 
 
 Acadia, churches abandoned in, 
 117. 
 
 Adario, 156. 
 
 Ailleboust, Louis d\ 157; against 
 brandy trade, 69. 
 
 Aillon, Joseph de la Roche d\ 261. 
 
 Albanel, Charles, 158, 159; in Me- 
 moir e sur la conduite, 230; to 
 Hudson Bay, 107; at Cap de la 
 Madeleine, 225, 233; and Sulpi- 
 cians, 239. 
 
 Albany, 183, 198, 199. 
 
 Aldermen, election of, 6. 
 
 Algonquins, 38, 40, 47, 144, 158. 
 
 Allain, declaration, 185, 197. 
 
 Allet, Francois d', 218; returns to 
 France, 227; gives memoir to 
 Arnauld, 237. 
 
 Allouez, Claude, 179. 
 
 Amalgamation of French and In- 
 dians, 37; Jesuits on, 56; objec- 
 tions to, 69; d' Aillon on, 261. 
 
 Amsterdam, Hennepin at, 260. 
 
 Amyot de Villeneuve, Mathieu, 
 90. 
 
 Andre\ Louis, 201. 
 
 Andreussy, 250. 
 
 Andros, Sir Edmund, 183, 200, 
 234. 
 
 Anne of Austria, 75. 
 
 Antwerp, Hennepin at, 260. 
 
 Archives, 121, 122, 157. 
 
 Argenson, Pierre de Voyer, vi- 
 comte d', 157. 
 
 Arnauld, Antoine, 217, 218, 222; 
 friend of author of Re'cit, 236; 
 interview with Queylus, 236- 
 237. 
 
 Augustinus, 141. 
 
 Auteuil, Denis-Joseph de Ruette 
 d\ 21; exiled, 12; Francois- 
 Madeleine-Fortune\ sieur de 
 Monceau et d', 32. 
 
 Avaugour, Pierre Du Bois, baron 
 d\ 157; allows brandy trade, 
 73-74; recall, 75; death, 76. 
 
 Bagot, Jean, 25. 
 
 Bailloquet, Pierre, 249. 
 
 Barbier, alias Minime, Gabriel, 
 250, 251. 
 
 Bardy, Claude, sermon, 226, 230. 
 
 Barrois, 28. 
 
 Bartering, 134 ff. 
 
 Baugy, Henri de, 156, 197. 
 
 Bazire, Charles, 183. 
 
 Becancour, Rene" Robineau de, 
 210. 
 
 Bellefonds, Bernardin Gigault, 
 marquis de, 14, 31, 32. 
 
 Belmont, Francois Vachon de, 58. 
 
 Bellinzani, 112. 
 
 Bernieres, Henri de, 24, 30. 
 
 Bernou, Claude, 128, 175, 177, 257, 
 258, 259; memoir of 1678, 176 
 ff., 184, 190, 191-192, 221; mem- 
 oir of 1678 in Recit, 233, 234, 
 235, 237, 238. 
 
 Biard, Pierre, 136. 
 
 Bigamy said to be allowed in 
 Canada, in Memoire sur la con- 
 duite, 224; in Recit, 228, 238. 
 
 Binet, Etienne, 138. 
 
 Bishops, French, on brandy trade, 
 113. 
 
 Boisseau, 128. 
 
 Bolduc, Louis, 210. 
 
 Boquet, Charles, 241. 
 
 Bourdon, Jean, 76. 
 
 Boursier, Joseph, 202, 225. 
 
 Bouteroue, Claude de, replaces 
 Talon, 97; instructions, 98, 99; 
 on brandy trade, 108, 109. 
 
 Boutet, Martin, 157. 
 
 Brandy, introduced by English, 
 69; attraction for Indians, 96, 
 110, 113, 115; said to be sold by 
 Jesuits, 231; brandy at Prairie 
 
 287 
 
288 
 
 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 de la Madeleine, 193 ff.; disor- 
 ders caused by brandy, 5, 69, 
 70, 71, 74, 102, 108, 109, 111, 
 115, 116, 120, 129; investigation 
 of disorders, 111, 115, 117, 121; 
 views on disorders, Colbert, 110, 
 in France, 122, Frontenac, 108, 
 Talon, 108, Tronson, 110; bran- 
 dy a means of conversion, 109, 
 110, 114, 120. 
 
 Brandy trade, 5, 26, 56, 72, 186; 
 source of conflict in Canada, 
 69; mixed question, 104, 113; 
 necessary for prosperity in 
 Canada. 116; shareholder so- 
 ciety to sell brandy, 184; rea- 
 sons for continuance of sale of 
 brandy, 74; memoir for and 
 against, 119; vote on brandy 
 trade, 120; restrictions on bran- 
 dy trade annulled, 96 ; moderate 
 sale to Indians, 118, 119; or- 
 dinance, of 1679, 122, 123, 129, 
 133; views on the brandy trade, 
 early governors, 69, Colbert, 
 103, 107, 109, Dollier, 101, 
 Frontenac, 102, 117, 133, In- 
 dians, 115, 117, 120, 193, 
 Jesuits, 99, 107, 255-256, 266- 
 267, Laval, 97, 121, 255-256, 
 Lionne, 114, Queylus, 99, Recol- 
 lects, 105, 106, 107, 255, 256, 
 Sorbonne, 104, 111, 112, 113, 
 Talon, 85, 98, 115, 119. 
 
 Brebeuf, Jean de, 145, 234. 
 
 Bretonvilliers, M. de, 94, 226. 
 
 Bruyas, Jacques, goes to New 
 York, 234; and Hennepin, 242; 
 writes to Frontenac, 198-199; 
 writes to d'Allerais, 185. 
 
 Buisset, Luc, at Fort Frontenac, 
 187, 189, 249. 
 
 Buteux, Jacques, 149. 
 
 Cadillac, Antoine Laumet, alias 
 de Lamothe, 39, 63, 129, 211, 
 263, 266, 270. 
 
 Canada, Church in, 84; brandy 
 
 trade in, 69 ; Jesuit authority in, 
 22; measures for increasing 
 population in, 42; Recollects re- 
 turn to, 36. 
 
 Cap de la Madeleine, 52, 158; 
 Talon at, 92, 159; Jesuits trade 
 at, 92, 225, 233. 
 
 Caraffa, Vincent, 144. 
 
 Carignan regiment, returns to 
 France, 89; brings specie to 
 Canada, 134. 
 
 Cataracouy, 52, 103, 109, 188, 192, 
 193, 194, 195, 199, 214; Fron- 
 tenac to, 183; powwow of 1673, 
 197, 213; Jesuits opposed to, 
 240; see Fort Frontenac. 
 
 Cavelier, Jean, voyage to Can- 
 ada, 240. 
 
 Cellot, Louis, 151. 
 
 Champagne, 223. 
 
 Champigny, Jean Bochart de, 9, 
 10, 19. 
 
 Champlain, Samuel de, 3, 157; 
 opposes brandy trade, 69. 
 
 Chapais, Thomas, 83, 85, 90; au- 
 thenticity of memoir of 1667, 
 88, 91. 
 
 Charlevoix, Pierre-FranQois-Xavi- 
 er de, on frenchification, 48; on 
 Frontenac's accusations, 62; on 
 Mezy's memoirs, 77, 78. 
 
 Chartier, Louis ThSandre, 210, 
 225, 227, 238. 
 
 Chastelain, Pierre, in Memoire sur 
 la conduite, 223, 224, 228. 
 
 Chaumonot, Pierre Joseph Marie, 
 51, 153, 185, 196. 
 
 Chaumont, Chevalier de, 83. 
 
 Clement IX, 164. 
 
 Clergy, diocesan, number in Can- 
 ada, 92; charged with torment- 
 ing consciences, 27, opposing 
 frenchification, 49; oppose bran- 
 dy trade, 70; land owned in 
 Canada by, 182; in memoir of 
 1678, 180; trade of, 180, 207. 
 
 Colbert, marquis de Croissy, 
 Charles, 126. 
 
INDEX 
 
 289 
 
 Colbert, Jean-Baptiste, 6, 8, 15, 
 19, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 160, 
 178, 184, 239, 244, 253; on pow- 
 ers of governors and intend- 
 ants, 9; on disunion in Canada, 
 11; on frenchification, 40, 41, 
 48; blames Jesuits with regard 
 to frenchification, 42, 48; on 
 brandy trade, 103, 107, 112; on 
 disorders caused by brandy, 
 109, 110; on moderate sale of 
 brandy, 119; conversations with 
 Dudouyt on brandy trade, 111 
 ff.; in Recit, 245; writes to 
 Duchesneau, 15, 109, 119, 171; 
 instructions to Frontenac, 20, 
 21; writes to Frontenac, 7, 9, 
 25, 27, 51, 54, 55, 107, 167, 209; 
 La Salle's audience, 243, 244; 
 writes to Laval, 43, 44; writes 
 to Talon, 41, 42, 87; trade of 
 clergy, 173; of Frontenac, 208- 
 209; of Jesuits, 170, 195, 245. 
 
 Company of the Hundred Asso- 
 ciates and Jesuit trade, 141. 
 
 Conges, 206, 207. 
 
 Consciences of people hampered, 
 93, 100, 101, 102. 
 
 Cree Indians kill Sioux, 167. 
 
 Cr^pieul, Frangois de, 23. 
 
 Councillors of Sovereign Council, 
 method of appointment, 7; ex- 
 iled, 12. 
 
 Courcelle, Daniel de Remy, sieur 
 de, to Canada, 76, 86; returns 
 to France, 102; and brandy 
 trade, 94, 95; punishes brandy 
 traders, 101; in Memoire sur la 
 conduite, 224, 226, 227, 228, 
 230; Le Mercier's petition to, 
 160; and Jesuit Relations, 218; 
 writes to Louis XIV, 78. 
 
 Coureurs de bois, 19, 57, 102, 206, 
 209, 264; number, 124; protec- 
 tion by Frontenac, 125, 210, 
 257. 
 
 Dablon, Claude, 27, 253, 259; 
 Frontenac and Dablon, 127; pe- 
 
 titions Frontenac for conces- 
 sion of Sault St. Louis, 174, 
 193; answers trade accusations, 
 201 ff.; in Memoire sur la con- 
 duite, 223; in R6cit, 238. 
 
 D'Allerais, letters of Bruyas to, 
 185, 199. 
 
 Daniel, Antoine, 37. 
 
 Denison, declaration of, 185, 197. 
 
 Denonville, Jacques Rene* de 
 Brisay, marquis de, 270. 
 
 Denys, 90. 
 
 De Quen, Jean, answers accusa- 
 tion of trade, 154. 
 
 Des Chastelets, 149. 
 
 Description of Louisiana, 187, 188, 
 191, 252; Jesuits and, 256, 257. 
 
 Deslauriers, 242. 
 
 Detroit, 63, 64. 
 
 Divorce said to be allowed in Can- 
 ada, 224-225. 
 
 Dollier de Casson, Frangois, 11, 
 12, 16, 59, 60, 125; returns to 
 Canada, 116; on brandy trade, 
 101, 110; expedition of 1669, 
 212. 
 
 Bonnes, 143, 146; trade of, 144, 
 145. 
 
 Dubois des Prinzeles, Jean Bap- 
 tiste, 94. 
 
 Duchesneau, Jacques, 9, 13, 19, 
 20, 28, 31, 32, 55, 60, 199 f ar- 
 rival in Canada, 8; criticized, 
 10; reproved by Colbert, 15, 
 119; and the brandy trade, 108, 
 109, 121; accused by Hennepin, 
 253, 254; defends himself, 210; 
 accuses Frontenac of trade, 123 
 ff., 208; favorable to Jesuits, 
 10; land grant to Jesuits, 56, 
 175, 181; recall, 126, 128; writes 
 to Colbert, 60-61. 
 
 Dudouyt, Jean, 125, 173, 258; com- 
 plains against Hennepin, 253 
 ff.; writes to Laval, 111 ff., 253; 
 and Frontenac's accusations, 
 28; on Frontenac's recall, 125- 
 
290 
 
 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 126; interviews with Colbert, 
 
 111 ff.; in R6cit, 245. 
 Duluth, Daniel Greysolon, sieur, 
 
 210, 212, 260; rescues Henne- 
 pin, 252. 
 Dumesnil, Jean Peronne, 147, 164; 
 
 accusations against Jesuits, 107, 
 
 160, 231. 
 Dupont de Neuville, Nicolas, 121. 
 Durham, John George Lambton, 
 
 lord, 88, 90. 
 Eastman, Mack, 83, 150; on Jesuit 
 
 opposition to the brandy trade, 
 
 266, 267, 268; and Recit, 231. 
 Elgin, James Bruce, lord, 270. 
 Engages, 143, 204; trade of, 146, 
 
 148. 
 English and the Jesuits, 197. 
 Estates General, 5, 6, 7. 
 Estrade, de 1', supporter of Fron- 
 
 tenac, 125, 254, 257. 
 Excommunication for selling 
 
 brandy to the Indians, 73, 74; 
 
 resented by Talon, 95. 
 Faillon, Etienne Michel, on Recit, 
 
 218, 227, 230. 
 Faire la traite, meaning, 138, 201, 
 
 259. 
 Felix, Marie, 182, 185, 196. 
 F6nelon, Francois de Salignac de 
 
 La Mothe-, 21, 58, 127, 213. 
 Ferrier, Father, 23. 
 First Establishment of the Faith, 
 
 36, 187; on amalgamation, 261, 
 
 authenticity, 236, 260. 
 Fort Conti, 243. 
 Fort Frontenac, 192, 215, 232, 
 
 243, 249; trading post, 214; La 
 
 Salle at, 183; Indians at, 189; 
 
 frenchification at, 181, 186 ff.; 
 
 settlers at, 187, 188; see Cata- 
 
 racouy. 
 Fort Ste Anne, 89. 
 Fort St. Jean, 89. 
 Fort St. Louis, 89. 
 Fox River, Jesuit mission on, 248. 
 Fr6min, Jacques, 55, 158, 159, 
 
 193; helps Frontenac, 192; goes 
 
 to France, 194; trade letter in 
 memoir of 1678, 191, 195-196; 
 in Recit, 233, 244. 
 
 French claims in North America, 
 175. 
 
 Frenchification, 5, 35 ff., 186; of 
 girls, 46-47; and Frontenac, 49 
 ff., 55, 60-61, 62, 133; change of 
 policy, 54, 57; at Fort Fron- 
 tenac, 181, 186 ff.; and clergy 
 of Canada, 49; Jesuits, 41, 42, 
 49, 52, 181; Colbert, 40, 43; 
 Laval, 45, 50; La Salle, 191; Le 
 Jeune's plans for, 36; Queylus, 
 45; Raudot, 64; Recollects, 49, 
 53, 56; Souart, 45; Sulpicians, 
 44, 46, 50, 58; Talon, 40 ff., 48. 
 
 Frontenac, Louis de Buade, comte 
 de Palluau et de, 8, 184, 191, 
 239, 245, 256, 263, 266, 270; in- 
 structions of Louis XIV, 20, of 
 Colbert, 21; arrival in Canada, 
 5, 20, 22; ciphered letters, 23, 
 53, 166; to Cataracouy, 183; ad- 
 ministration, first term, 4, 13, 
 128, 133; brandy trade, 120 ff., 
 105, 108, 117, 133; answers pe- 
 tition of Indians, 116, 120, 193; 
 frenchification, 49, 51, 55, 133, 
 181; trade of clergy, 107; accu- 
 sations against Jesuits, 20, 24, 
 29, 166; and the Jesuits with 
 regard to the brandy trade, 
 102 ff . ; trade of the Jesuits, 147, 
 165, 168, 173, 206; calls Jesuits 
 traitors to France, 197; debts 
 of Jesuit college of Quebec, 
 233; helped by Frgmin, 192, by 
 Lamberville, 200; refuses land 
 grant to Jesuits, 174, 193; pre- 
 vents building a chapel by 
 Jesuits, 194; Recollects allies 
 of Frontenac on brandy ques- 
 tion, 106, 254 ff.; Duchesneau, 
 123 ff.; Frontenac accused of 
 trade, 167, 168, 199, 206 ff.; 
 praises La Salle, 213; Fron- 
 tenac and Perrot, 127, 211; and 
 
INDEX 
 
 291 
 
 Sovereign Council, 8, 133; in 
 R6cit, 219 ff.; coureurs de bois 
 supported by, 125, 210, 257; 
 memoirs against, 12, 13; Louis 
 XIV's warning, 15, 29; recall, 
 16, 18, 124-128; writes to Belle- 
 fonds, 14, 31; to Colbert, 21-22, 
 23-24, 25-26, 50-51, 102, 198- 
 199; to Louis XIV, 53-54, 58; to 
 Pontchartrain, 62. 
 
 Frontenac, Anne de la Grange- 
 Trianon de Neuville, Mme de, 
 28, 58, 59, 125, 128, 257. 
 
 Gage, Thomas, 219. 
 
 GalinSe, Rene Francois Br6han 
 de, 237, 240; expedition of 1669, 
 212; on La Salle, 243; returns 
 to France, 227; author of Recit 
 is friend of, 215, 217, 233, 234, 
 236. 
 
 Ganneousse, Iroquois village, 188. 
 
 Gamier, Charles, 234. 
 
 Gamier, Julien, letter on Jesuit 
 trade, 204 ff. 
 
 Girouard, Desire, on Jesuit trade, 
 258, 269-270. 
 
 Godefroy, sieur de Linctot, Jean- 
 Baptiste, 90. 
 
 Gosselies, Hennepin at, 260. 
 
 Governors against brandy trade, 
 69. 
 
 Goyer, Olivier, 17. 
 
 Green Bay, Jesuit mission, 247. 
 
 Groseilliers, M6dard Chouart, 
 sieur des, 197. 
 
 Guercheville, Antoinette de Pons, 
 marquise de, 136. 
 
 Harel, Georges, 252. 
 
 Harrisse, Henry, 218. 
 
 Hazeur, Francois, 182, 196. 
 
 Hennepin, Louis, 249; at Fort 
 Frontenac, 187; to Kente\ 188; 
 to Iroquois country, 242; gets 
 Iroquois dictionary, 182; re- 
 turns to France, 252; defends 
 Jesuits, 251; accuses Jesuits of 
 trade, 252-258. 
 
 Henry rv, 3. 
 
 Hilaret, Moise, 248. 
 
 Histoire chronologique, manu- 
 script, 262. 
 
 Hospitalieres, 164, 177, 202. 
 
 Hudson Bay, Albanel to, 197. 
 
 Hunault, Andre\ 249. 
 
 Hurons, 35, 36, 38, 40, 110, 261; in 
 seminary, 37-38; petition Fron- 
 tenac to restrict brandy trade, 
 115, 193. 
 
 Illinois Indians, 61, 253, 259. 
 
 Indians, effect of brandy on, 70, 
 71, 72; attraction of brandy on, 
 113, 115; petition to restrict 
 brandy trade, 117; social organ- 
 ization, 50. 
 
 Iroquois country, 89, 199, 232, 
 250, 256; Hennepin to, 187, 242; 
 Jesuits re-enter, 152; La Salle 
 in, 213, 243. 
 
 Iroquois Indians, 45, 63, 103, 111, 
 199; girls, 47; build Fort Fron- 
 tenac, 183; go to Fort Fronten- 
 ac, 197; embassy to Montreal, 
 51; give children to Frontenac, 
 50, 51; at Prairie de la Made- 
 leine, 187, 192; at Sault St. 
 Louis, 175; war with Illinois, 
 253, 259. 
 
 Jesuits, number in Canada, 92; 
 chapel, meeting place of the 
 Estates General, 5-6; college of 
 Quebec, cost, 226, debt, 229, 
 233; charged with allowing di- 
 vorce, 224, being brandy trad- 
 ers, 225, 231, encroaching upon 
 royal authority, 22, 25, 27, 77, 
 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 268, torment- 
 ing consciences, 26, 30, 102, 
 violating the seal of confession, 
 26, 223, 228, 239, opposing 
 frenchification, 49, abandoning 
 their missions, 235, 252, caus- 
 ing the Iroquois-Illinois war, 
 253, being traitors to France, 
 184, 197-198, 234, being opposed 
 to Fort Frontenac, 240, at- 
 tempting to poison La Salle, 
 
292 
 
 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 241 ; ask for juridical investiga- 
 tion, 78, 160; oppose the brandy 
 trade, 70, 74, 75, 97, 99, 102, 
 110, 114, 255, 266; are not op- 
 posed to moderate sale of bran- 
 dy, 118; missions useless, 78; 
 sedentary missions, 187; mis- 
 sions in the West, 234, at 
 Michilimackinac, 182, at Sault 
 Ste Marie, 183; revenue, 162, 
 163; land in Canada, 181, 220, 
 225, 228-229; decree of amorti- 
 zation, 174, 196; Jesuit Rela- 
 tions, 260, suppressed, 218, be- 
 cause false, 240; Jesuits com- 
 plain of d'Avaugour, 75; in 
 memoir of 1678, 180; accused 
 by Dumesnil, 107; English and 
 Jesuits, 197; accuse Hennepin, 
 242; defended by Hennepin, 251; 
 accused by Hennepin, 253, 254, 
 256; Jesuits and Frontenac, 4, 
 32, 102 ff., 197; in Frontenac's 
 letters, 20, 21, 23, 24, 35, 127; 
 and Frontenac's recall, 19, 127; 
 and La Salle, 213; accused by 
 La Salle, 231, 240, 244; scheme 
 of La Salle against Jesuits, 
 250; Mezy's accusations, 76, 78, 
 107; Jesuits and Queylus, 236; 
 Laval, 85, 155; Recollects, 52, 
 105, 254 ff.; Ressan's accusa- 
 tions, 87, 88; Talon prejudiced 
 against, 83; Jesuits praise 
 Talon, 82, 98; in Talon's letters, 
 87 ff. 
 Jesuit trade, 93, 173, 235, 243; 
 proofs, 185, 232, 253, 256, 265; 
 accusers, 155; accusations, 136, 
 138, 141, 151, 154, 157, 164, 201; 
 proofs, 185, 232, 253, 256, 265; 
 inquiries and declarations, 141, 
 142, 151, 160, 203, 211; at Cap 
 de la Madeleine, 225, 228; at 
 Sillery, 150; with Mexico, 242; 
 in the West, 247; in the Ottawa 
 country, 185, 197, in St. Francis 
 Xavier mission, 248; Colbert, 
 
 170, 173, 174; Dablon, 201 ff.; 
 De Quen, 154; Dumesnil, 160; 
 Frontenac, 147, 165, 168, 173, 
 206; Hennepin, 253 ff.; Gamier, 
 204 ff.; Girouard, 258, 269-270; 
 Hennepin, 253 ff.; Kalm, 269; 
 Lahontan, 196, 264; Lalemant, 
 165; La Salle, 212, 244-245, 250, 
 251; Le Jeune, 138 ff., 152; Le 
 Mercier, 160; Le Tac, 262-265; 
 Louis XIV, 167, 174; memoir of 
 1678, 180, 191; Mezy, 160; Park- 
 man, 141, 143 ff., 153, 157, 207; 
 in Recit, 225; Talon, 159; Vi- 
 mont, 141. 
 
 Jolliet, Louis, 175, 179, 183, 215, 
 217, 243. 
 
 Kalm, Peter, on Jesuit trade, 269. 
 
 Kente, 23; La Salle and Hennepin 
 to, 188. 
 
 Kilistinou (Cree) Indians kill 
 Sioux, 167. 
 
 La Chaise, Frangois de, 121, 122. 
 
 Lachine, 63, 214. 
 
 Lahontan, Armand Louis de l'Om 
 Darce, baron de, 156, 158, 197; 
 on Frontenac, 7; on Jesuit 
 trade, 196, 264. 
 
 Lake Erie, 251; trade monopoly 
 on, 183. 
 
 Lake Michigan, trade monopoly 
 on, 183. 
 
 Lake Ontario, 50, 232, 251; Fron- 
 tenac to, 103. 
 
 Lake Superior, 183. 
 
 Lalemant, Jerome, 73, 149; an- 
 swers accusation of trade, 165. 
 
 Lamberville, Jean de, 32, 198, 200; 
 helps Frontenac, 185; letter to 
 La Salle, 185, 200. 
 
 Lamothe, Antoine de, see Cadil- 
 lac. 
 
 Langevin, 223. 
 
 Langlois, Charles Victor, 245. 
 
 La Rochelle, 244. 
 
 La Salle, Robert Cavelier, sieur 
 de, 147, 173, 174, 179, 184, 187, 
 193, 194, 198, 212, 220, 236, 259, 
 
INDEX 
 
 293 
 
 260, 264, 266; arrives in Can- 
 ada, 212; history in Recit, 240; 
 journeys, 233, discoveries, 243; 
 expedition of 1669, 212-213; to 
 Mississippi prior to 1673, 179, 
 215, 216, 240, 244; Galinee on, 
 243; Frontenac's courrier, 213; 
 goes to France, 213-214; to 
 Kente\ 188; to France, 1677, 
 215, 242; brings in letters and 
 memoirs, 173, 175, 178; inter- 
 views of 1678, 221, 244; attempt 
 to poison, 241; seduced, 240; 
 letters of, 216, 241-242, 247; let- 
 ter of Lamberville to, 185; land 
 grant at Sault St. Louis prom- 
 ised to, 174, 181; made pro- 
 prietor of Fort Frontenac, 214; 
 builds Fort Frontenac, 183; suc- 
 cess in frenchifying the Indians, 
 181, 186 ff., 191; trading activ- 
 ities in the West, 200, 210, 212, 
 247; on Jesuits, 200, 213, 236, 
 244; reports on Jesuit preach- 
 ing, 239; on baptism of Indians, 
 240; accuses Jesuits of trade, 
 211, 250, 251; in the West, 247; 
 with Mexico, 242; proofs of 
 Jesuit trade, 180, 232, 244-245; 
 scheme against Jesuits, 250; 
 friend of Recollects, 106. 
 
 La Taupine, Pierre Moreau dit, 
 208. 
 
 La Tour, Louis Bertrand de, 69, 
 73. 
 
 Laumet, Antoine, see Cadillac. 
 
 Lauzon, Jean de, 157; against 
 brandy trade, 69. 
 
 Laval de Montigny, Francois de 
 Montmorency-, 3, 21, 27, 30, 
 75, 162, 228, 237; arrival in 
 Canada, 72, 155; to France, 25, 
 74, 102, 121, 127; obtains recall 
 of d'Avaugour, 75; Hennepin's 
 memoir against, 253, 254; and 
 Jesuits, 79, 85, 155; in memoir 
 of 1678, 180; and Recollects, 
 105, 254; and Talon, 83, 96, 99, 
 
 225; and brandy trade, 70, 72, 
 73-74, 97, 104, 114, 255; ordi- 
 nance of 1679, 123; moderate 
 sale of brandy, 118; said to be 
 a trader, 237, to have opened a 
 liquor store, 107, 163, 231; 
 frenchification, 43, 45, 50. 
 
 Le Bohesme, Louis, 249. 
 
 Le Clercq, Chrestien, 40, 190, 260; 
 First Establishment of the 
 Faith, 236; on frenchification, 
 35, 39, 57; at Fort Frontenac, 
 186; against brandy trade, 118; 
 copied by Hennepin, 252; Jes- 
 uits, 235. 
 
 Le Havre, Hennepin arrives at, 
 252. 
 
 Le Jeune, Paul, 134, 145, 149, 151; 
 on frenchification, 35 ff., 41; 
 letter on Jesuit trade, 138 ff., 
 152. 
 
 Leland, Waldo G., 177. 
 
 Lemay, Hugolin, on Hennepin, 
 254 ff. 
 
 Le Mercier, Francois, 79, 159; pe- 
 tition to Tracy, Courcelle and 
 Talon, 78, 160. 
 
 Le Moyne, Charles, 90, 199, 241. 
 
 Le Tac, Sixte, 260, 262, 264. 
 
 Lionne, Hugues de, instructions 
 to Tracy, 80, 114. 
 
 Lorette, 61, 185; mission at, 205. 
 
 Lorin, Henri, 14, 17, 18, 19, 113, 
 126, 128, 194, 230, 254, 255. 
 
 Louis XIII, 141. 
 
 Louis XIV, 6, 8, 10, 29, 31, 104, 
 178, 244; organizes government 
 of New France, 4; instructions 
 to Frontenac, 20-21; warns 
 Frontenac, 13; on Frontenac's 
 trade, 207, 209; Jesuit trade, 
 195; writes to Frontenac, 10, 
 13-14, 16, 29-31, 57, 124, 168, 
 170, 209; to Laval, 43, 44. 
 
 Louisiana, 64. 
 
 Maisonneuve, Paul de Chomedey, 
 sieur de, against brandy trade, 
 69. 
 
294 
 
 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 Major, Richard Henry, 216. 
 Margry, Pierre, 143, 148; edits 
 memoir of 1678, 176, 177, 179, 
 184; edits Recit, 215, 245; muti- 
 lates Recit, 220-222, 239; au- 
 thorship of Recit, 238; Major 
 and Winsor on, 216. 
 
 Marquette, Jacques, 215, 216, 217. 
 
 Marriages of Indians and Whites, 
 42-43. 
 
 Martin, Felix, 268. 
 
 Mary of the Incarnation, 74, 156; 
 on frenchification, 42, 46-47; 
 Talon's administration, 98. 
 
 Masse, Ennemond, 136. 
 
 Memoire sur la conduite des Jes- 
 uites en Canada, author, 224, 
 226, 227; source of R6cit, 223, 
 233. 
 
 Menar, supporter of Frontenac, 
 125. 
 
 M6zy, Charles Augustin Saffray, 
 sieur de, 75, 76, 77, 94; accusa- 
 tions against Jesuits, 76, 77, 78, 
 80, 107, 160. 
 
 Michelet, Jules, 158. 
 
 Michilimackinac, 64, 247, 250, 
 252; Jesuit mission at, 182, 234, 
 247; trade at, 212; Lahontan at, 
 264. 
 
 Minet, journal of, 250, 251. 
 
 Minime, Gabriel, 249, see Barbier. 
 
 Missionaries, support of, 137-138. 
 
 Mississippi River, La Salle's com- 
 mission to explore, 215; priority 
 of discovery, 179, 217, 240, 244, 
 in R6cit, 222; Valley, 3. 
 
 Mohawks, mission re-opened, 152. 
 
 Mohegans (Mohicans), 61. 
 
 Montagnais, 36, 38, 158. 
 
 Montagne, see Mountain mission. 
 
 Montmagny, Charles Huault de, 
 157; against brandy trade, 69; 
 on Jesuit trade, 203. 
 
 Montreal, 20, 21, 59, 63, 109; sem- 
 inary of, 23; sodality at, 45, 61; 
 frenchification, 45. 
 
 Mont Vaterien, 236. 
 
 Morel, Thomas Joseph, 224, 225; 
 favors bigamy, 238. 
 
 Morale pratique des Jesuites, 218, 
 223. 
 
 Mountain Mission, 59, 61, 63. 
 
 New Discovery, 188, 252, 256, 257, 
 258, 259. 
 
 New England, 39; laws against 
 brandy trade, 114. 
 
 New Foundland, 3. 
 
 New France, Church in, 104; 
 colonization, 40, government, 4, 
 75. 
 
 New Netherlands, 39, 116, 183, 
 185. 
 
 New Orange, 251. 
 
 New Voyage, 188, 189, 252. 
 
 New Spain, 8. 
 
 New York, 183, 199, 251. 
 
 Nicolet, Jean, 37. 
 
 Notre-Dame de Foy, 23. 
 
 Notre-Dame des Anges, 36, 37. 
 
 Nouvel, Henri, 197, 249. 
 
 Onondaga Indians, 200; mission 
 re-opened among, 152. 
 
 Onontio, 116, 182. 
 
 Ottawa Indians, 111, 215; coun- 
 try, 183, 197, 204, 249; Jesuits 
 in, 200; Jesuits trade in, 92, 93, 
 185. 
 
 Pamiers, Bishop of, 236. 
 
 Parkman, Francis, 143, 147, 154, 
 159, 176; and R6cit, 216, 221, 
 222; on Jesuit trade, 136, 141, 
 143 ff., 153, 157, 165, 170, 203, 
 247; trade of engages, 204; let- 
 ter of Ragueneau, 145-146; and 
 declaration of the directors of 
 the Company of New France, 
 142; La Salle accusations, 212, 
 248; Dumesnil's memoir, 162. 
 
 Pascal, Blaise, 151. 
 
 Passports needed by missionaries, 
 23, 30. 
 
 Patoulet, Jean-Baptiste, 86, 224. 
 
 Perrot, Francois Marie, 21, 58, 59, 
 127; trading activities, 210, 211, 
 212. 
 
INDEX 
 
 295 
 
 Petraea, Bishop of, 48, 72, 79, 82, 
 87, 88, 114; see Laval. 
 
 Peyras, Jean-Baptiste, 121. 
 
 Pierson, Philippe, 252. 
 
 Pontchartrain, Louis PhSlipeaux, 
 comte de, 62. 
 
 Poutrincourt, Jean de Biencourt, 
 sieur de, 136, 137. 
 
 Port Royal, 137, 236. 
 
 Prairie de la Madeleine, 55, 57, 
 61, 115, 185, 186; migration of 
 Indians, 175, 181; land grant, 
 86; Jesuit mission at, 187, 191, 
 192 ff.; brandy at, 194. 
 
 Provincial Letters, 151. 
 
 Quebec, founded, 3; Recollects at 
 21; Seminary of, 24; population, 
 155. 
 
 Queylus, Gabriel de Thubiere de 
 L6vy de, 226; on brandy trade, 
 99, frenchification, 45; returns 
 to France, 227; complains of 
 Jesuits to Arnauld, 236-237. 
 
 Raffeix, Pierre, 192. 
 
 Ragueneau, Paul, 145, 164; letter 
 to Caraffa, 144; Jesuit revenues 
 in Canada, 163-164; said to have 
 opened a liquor store in Que- 
 bec, 107, 163, 231. 
 
 Ranuyer, M., 116. 
 
 Raudot, Antoine Denis, 64. 
 
 R6cit d'un ami de Vabbe de Ga- 
 linee, author, 235-236, 238; text 
 of, 215 ff.; authenticity, 217; 
 provenance, 218; criticism, 219 
 ff.; source of, 220 ff.; memoir 
 of 1678 in, 233; La Salle's his- 
 tory in, 240. 
 
 Recollects, 20, 21, 24, 27, 36, 51, 
 133, 180, 235, 251, 265; to Can- 
 ada, 25, 27, 30, 31, 36, 100; at 
 Fort Frontenac, 187; and bran- 
 dy controversy, 105, 106, 107, 
 255; and frenchification, 35, 49, 
 53, 56; and trade, 261; in R6c\t, 
 220; and Jesuits, 52, 105, 254 ff.; 
 and La Salle, 106; and Laval, 
 105, 254. 
 
 Relations par lettres, 64. 
 
 Renaudot, Eusebe, 128, 178, 238, 
 257, 258, 259. 
 
 Renault, Jacques, 154. 
 
 Renty, Hennepin at, 260. 
 
 Reserved sin to sell brandy to In- 
 dians, 27, 96, 102, 109, 119, 120; 
 Colbert's objection to, 117; re- 
 stricted to terms of ordinance 
 of 1679, 122; in R6cit, 232. 
 
 Ressan, Octave Zapaglia, sieur 
 de, 84, 87, 88, 92. 
 
 RSveillaud, Eugene, 265; on Le 
 Tac, 262; on Jesuit trade, 264. 
 
 Richelieu, Cardinal, 141. 
 
 Richelieu River, 89. 
 
 Richez, 28. 
 
 Riverin, Denis, defends Duches- 
 neau, 126, 128. 
 
 Robert, 225. 
 
 Robin, 137. 
 
 Rochemonteix, Camille de, 29, 128, 
 169, 180, 218, 270. 
 
 Sagard Theodat, Gabriel, on amal- 
 gamation, 56; on trade, 261. 
 
 St. Aubin, 28, 29. 
 
 Sainte-Famille, 85, 225, 263; in 
 R6cit, 238. 
 
 Sainte Marie, Huron mission, 144; 
 farm at, 145. 
 
 Saint Francis Xavier, Jesuit mis- 
 sion, 253. 
 
 Saint-Germain, Hennepin at, 253, 
 254. 
 
 Saint Lawrence Valley, 3. 
 
 Sault Ste Marie, 167, 197, 249; 
 Jesuit mission, 183, 234, 247; 
 Lahontan at, 264; La Salle at, 
 247. 
 
 Sceaux, 114, 245. 
 
 Seal of confession said to be vio- 
 lated, 26, 223; in Re'cit, 228, 238, 
 239. 
 
 Seminary for Indian children, 35, 
 36 ff., 38, 40, 41, 42; at Sillery, 
 39. 
 
 Shea, John Gilmary, 143. 
 
 Sillery, 40, 61, 148, 150; seminary 
 
296 
 
 FRONTENAC AND THE JESUITS 
 
 at, 38; mission, 206; trade at, 
 149. 
 
 Sioux, killed by Cree, 167, 183; in 
 Recit, 234. 
 
 Socoqui Indians, 185. 
 
 Sorbonne, on brandy trade, 104, 
 108, 111, 113, 115, 117. 
 
 Souart, Gabriel, on frenchifica- 
 tion, 45; returns to France, 227. 
 
 Sovereign Council, created, 4; and 
 Frontenac, 5 ff., 133; reorgan- 
 ized, 8; and brandy trade, 95, 
 97, 98. 
 
 Sully, Maximilien de Bethune, due 
 de, 3. 
 
 Sulpicians, 20, 21, 23, 51, 52, 93, 
 202, 236, 267, 270; frenchifica- 
 tion, 44, 45, 46, 50, 58, 60, 61; 
 brandy trade, 70, 99, 107, 110; 
 in memoir of 1678, 180; in 
 Recit, 227 '; Albanel, 239; and 
 La Salle, 213. 
 
 Suite, Benjamin, 141, 264. 
 
 Syndic, suppressed, 7. 
 
 Tadoussac, brandy trade at, 64, 
 117. 
 
 Talon, Jean, 6, 10, 22, 36, 42, 45, 
 163, 227, 228, 229, 233; to Can- 
 ada, 40, 160; second term, 44, 
 89, 98, 99, 100; instructions to 
 Talon, 75, 79; returns to 
 France, 102; and the brandy 
 trade, 85, 95, 96, 98, 108, 111; 
 writes memoirs on brandy ques- 
 tion, 108, 109, 115, 119; and 
 frenchification, 40, 45, 48; mem- 
 oir of 1667, 88 ff., 159, 221, 238; 
 at Cap de la Madeleine, 159, 
 160; and Laval, 83, 94, 225; and 
 Jesuits, 82, 83, 86, preached 
 against by Bardy, 226, 230; 
 depositions in the hands of Ta- 
 lon, 224, 228, 239; Le Mercier 
 petition to, 160; writes to Col- 
 bert, 22, 40, 41, 82, 84, 86, 100; 
 to Louis XIV, 78; to Oliva, 82. 
 
 Thouret, letter of La Salle to, 
 247. 
 
 Three Rivers, Jesuit land near, 
 229. 
 
 Tonti, Henri de, 241, 249, 260. 
 
 Toulouse, University of, decision 
 on brandy, 112. 
 
 Tracy, Alexandre de Prouville, 
 marquis de, 48, 88; to Canada 
 to investigate Mezy, 76; in- 
 structions, 80, 114; and brandy 
 trade, 94; writes to Louis XIV, 
 78, 79; Le Mercier petition to, 
 160; returns to France, 84, 94, 
 223. 
 
 Trade, denned, 133; clandestine, 
 123; of clergy, 31, 107, 168, 170, 
 180; of engages, 146-147, 148; 
 of donnes, 144, 145, 146; of offi- 
 cials in New France, 206-207; 
 of servants of clergy, 170, 171; 
 at Prairie de la Madeleine, 191; 
 at Sillery, 149, 150; Sagard on, 
 261; see Frontenac, Jesuits, La- 
 val. 
 
 Traite, traitte, denned, 133; tr -alt- 
 er, 259; faire la traite, 135, 136. 
 
 Tronson, Louis, 11, 12, 16, 58, 125, 
 172; brandy question, 110 ff.; 
 given a memoir by La Salle, 
 244; writes to Bailly, 60; to 
 Dollier, 11, 12, 16, 58-59, 60, 
 116, 121, 125; to Lefebvre, 110, 
 170; to Perrot, 122; to Ranuyer, 
 60, 116. 
 
 Trouve, Claude, 252, 253. 
 
 Ursulines, 46, 55, 164, 202; and 
 frenchification, 47, 61. 
 
 Utrecht, Hennepin at, 260. 
 
 Vaultier, 253, 254. 
 
 Vergne, abbe* de la, 219. 
 
 Villeray, Louis Rouer, sieur de, 
 and Frontenac, 21, 24, 28, 31; 
 exiled by Mezy, 76; and Dumes- 
 nil, 160. 
 
 Villiers du Terrage, Marc de, 250. 
 
 Vimont, Barthelemy, 38, 42, 141, 
 149. 
 
 Winsor, Justin, on Recit, 216. 
 
 Zapaglia, see Ressan.