In April, 1675, the King and Colbert disposed of the Perrot question. They wrote calmly and with dignity. His Majesty condemned the action of Perrot in imprisoning Bizard, and had the offender confined for three weeks in the Bastile, “that he may learn to be more circumspect in the discharge of his duty, and that his example may serve as a warning to others.” He had already endured ten months of imprisonment in Quebec. The King also told Frontenac that he should not, “without absolute necessity,” cause his “commands to be executed within the limits of a local government, like that of Montreal, without first informing its governor.” Perrot was sent back to his government, and ordered to apologize to Frontenac. Colbert informed the Count of the approaching marriage of his son with the heiress of the house of Allègre, and hinted at the closeness of the connection which existed between the Abbé d’Urfé and himself. Frontenac was urged to show the Abbé “especial consideration,” and also to treat with kindness the priests of Montreal. Fénelon was sustained in his plea that he had the right to be tried by an ecclesiastical tribunal; but his superior, Bretonvilliers, absolutely forbade him to return to Canada, and wrote a letter to the members of his order at Montreal, telling them not to interfere in worldly matters, but to profit by the example of M. Fénelon. He advised them “in matters of this sort” to “stand neutral.”
The King now resolved to make some administrative changes in New France, with a view, it is probable, of lessening the hold of Frontenac on the body politic of the colony. He announced that the appointment of councillors should rest with him alone in future, and promptly filled the vacant office of Intendant by appointing M. Duchesneau whose duty it was to watch the Governor-General, and to manage certain details in executive work. Bishop Laval, who had been absent from Canada for some time, also returned to his see; and Frontenac, who had ruled alone, without bishop, without intendant, and with a subservient council, viewed the new aspect of affairs with ill-concealed disgust. It was not long before the threatened outbreak came. The question of selling brandy to the natives, which had disturbed previous administrations, became again a contention between governor and prelate.[697] The Intendant promptly sided with the Bishop and the clergy, while the latter stood aside at times, and allowed their secular ally to lead the contest, content themselves to give him arguments and advice. One question after another arose. Many of them were of trivial import, but all of them were vexatious and troublesome, and to an imperious mind like Frontenac’s galling in the extreme. The old rivalry of Church and State in the matter of honors and precedence became troublesome. Colbert wrote strongly to Duchesneau, and ordered him not to make himself a partisan of the Bishop, and to pay proper respect to Frontenac. The latter was commanded to live in harmony and peace with the Intendant. The King was incensed at the constant bickerings, and ordered Frontenac to conform to the practice prevailing at Amiens, and to demand no more. The Intendant was roundly berated by the minister, who told him that he ought to be able to understand the difference between a governor and an intendant, and that he was completely in the wrong as regards the pretensions he had assumed.
But if the religious quarrel was settled for a time, a civil difficulty arose. The council no longer remained a mere body for registering the Governor’s decrees. The new order of things gave him a council of men who were opposed in many respects to his views and interests. The King had reinstated Villeray,—a former councillor, and a man wholly under Jesuitical influence. Frontenac, who thought him a “Jesuit in disguise,” called him “an intriguing busybody, who makes trouble everywhere.” The attorney-general was Auteuil, another enemy of the Governor. Tilly was a third member, and the Count at first approved of him; but his opinion was destined to change. Under the ordinance of Sept. 23, 1675, the Intendant, whose official position entitled him to rank as the third man in the colony, was appointed president of the council. His commission, dated June 5, 1675, read: “Présider au Conseil Souverain en l’absence du dit Sieur de Frontenac.” Frontenac was styled in many of the despatches which reached him from the Crown, “Chief and President of the Council.” A conflict of authority immediately arose, and both Governor and Intendant claimed with equal right (one would suppose from the royal documents in their possession) the position of presiding officer. Frontenac bided his time, and remained patient until late in the autumn, when the last vessel cleared for France. Then he asserted his claim to the title of chief and president, and demanded to be so styled on the records of the council. In support of his contention he exhibited a letter from Louis dated May 12, 1678. The Intendant, supported by the clergy, opposed the claim. The Governor refused to compromise, scolded Duchesneau, and threatened to teach him his duty, while he ordered Villeray, Tilly, and Auteuil to their houses, and commanded them to remain there until he should give them permission to leave.[698] Auteuil begged the King to interfere, and the wearied monarch wrote to his representative: “You have wished to be styled Chief and President on the records of the supreme council, which is contrary to my edict concerning that council; and I am the more surprised at this demand, since I am very sure that you are the only man in my kingdom who, being honored with the title of governor and lieutenant-general, would care to be styled chief and president of such a council as that of Quebec.” So the King refused the title of president to either, and commanded that Duchesneau should perform the duties of presiding officer. He also said that Frontenac had abused his authority in exiling two councillors and the attorney-general for so trivial a cause, and warned him to be careful in future, lest he be recalled from office. Several other disputes in the council followed. They were mostly about matters of small moment, but they created great storms while they lasted. The imprisonment of Councillor Amours by order of the Count for an alleged infringement of the passport law, and the presence of his wife with a petition to the council for redress and a speedy trial, caused much discussion and provoked very strong feeling.
Duchesneau was the object of Frontenac’s constant displeasure. On him was visited his fiercest wrath; but the Intendant bore it all with varying moods,—sometimes disputing with Frontenac, at others abusing him, and occasionally treating the diatribe of vituperation which flowed from the Count’s lips with lofty disdain and scorn. He wrote letters to the Court, and lodged complaint after complaint against the Governor, who, in his turn, pursued the same course. Out of the council quarrels others involving more important issues sprang up, and nearly all the people in the colony were in time driven to one side or the other. With Frontenac, as Parkman points out, were ranged La Salle and his lieutenant, La Forêt; Du Lhut, the leader of the coureurs de bois; Boisseau, agent of the farmers of the revenue; Barrois, the Governor’s secretary; Bizard, lieutenant of his guard; and others. Against him were the members of the council, Aubert de la Chesnaye, Le Moyne and his sons, Louis Joliet, Jacques Le Ber, Sorel, Boucher, Varennes, and many of the ecclesiastics. Duchesneau received replies from the Court, and they must have been galling to his pride and self-respect. He was plainly assured that though Frontenac was not blameless, his own conduct was far more open to censure. In this strain Colbert’s letter continued, and he said: “As to what you say concerning his violence, his trade with the Indians,[699] and in general all that you allege against him, the King has written to him his intentions; but since, in the midst of all your complaints, you say many things which are without foundation, or which are no concern of yours, it is difficult to believe that you act in the spirit which the service of the King demands,—that is to say, without interest and without passion. If a change does not appear in your conduct before next year, his Majesty will not keep you in your office.” The King returned his usual advice to Frontenac, told him to live on good terms with the Intendant, and prohibited him from trading with the Indians. But neither the letters of the King nor the minister had much effect apparently, for the Governor and Intendant continued to war against each other. At last the King wrote thus sharply to the Count:—
“What has passed in regard to the coureurs de bois is entirely contrary to my orders, and I cannot receive in excuse for it your allegation that it is the Intendant who countenances them by the trade he carries on, for I perceive clearly that the fault is your own. As I see that you often turn the orders I give you against the very object for which they are given, beware not to do so on this occasion. I shall hold you answerable for bringing the disorder of the coureurs de bois to an end throughout Canada; and this you will easily succeed in doing if you make a proper use of my authority. Take care not to persuade yourself that what I write to you comes from the ill-offices of the Intendant. It results from what I fully know from everything which reaches me from Canada, proving but too well what you are doing there. The Bishop, the ecclesiastics, the Jesuit Fathers, the supreme council, and, in a word, everybody, complain of you; but I am willing to believe that you will change your conduct, and act with the moderation necessary for the good of the colony.”
Frontenac felt the ground slipping under him, but he continued his suicidal policy, while he wrote to some friends in France to recount his woes, and to solicit their good offices with the Court.
Seignelay came to power in 1681. He was the son of Colbert, and a man of very good abilities, matured under the eye of the great minister. He soon received long letters from Frontenac and the Intendant, filled with accusations and countercharges. Affairs had gone badly during the spring and summer of 1681. Some blows were struck, and a resort to sharper weapons was hinted at. The Intendant, Frontenac said, had barricaded his house and armed his servants. Duchesneau declared that his son had been beaten by the Governor for a slight offence, and afterward imprisoned in the château for a month, despite the pleadings of the Bishop in his behalf. These matters, and much more, were regularly reported to the new minister. Both officials stated that furs had been carried to the English settlements, and each blamed the other for it. The Intendant maintained that the faction led by Frontenac had spread among the Indians a rumor of a pestilence at Montreal, for the purpose of keeping them away from the fair, and in order that the bushrangers might purchase the beaver-skins at a low price. The allegation was groundless, but it had its effect at court. The King, tired at last of the constant strife, recalled both Frontenac and Duchesneau in the following year.