Count Frontenac / Makers of Canada, Volume 3

by William Dawson LeSueur

The extraordinary thing is that the reverend gentleman who had caused all this trouble, when spoken to on the subject by the Superior, gave his word as a man of honour and a priest, that he had no intention whatever of alluding to the governor-general, adding that those who so applied his remarks were doing much dishonour to that high officer. The Abbé Faillon does not like to call M. de Fénelon's word in question, but he says that he manifestly lacked "one quality very important in a missionary, the prudence which directs the exercise of zeal, and keeps it within the bounds that circumstances require."

It was not only by this sermon that the Abbé Fénelon showed his lack of prudence. Madame Perrot had come out from France with her husband when he was appointed to the governorship of Montreal in 1669, and now that he was in trouble, and his case was likely to come before the king, she was anxious to get some testimonial from the people of Montreal in his favour. As to the kind of a governor Perrot had really been, we may safely rely on the judgment pronounced by the industrious author of the Histoire de la Colonie Française en Canada, who says[15]: "This governor contributed more than any one else to that fatal revolution which changed entirely the moral aspect of this colony [Montreal]. . . . The whole course of his conduct in Canada justifies us in thinking that when, in 1669, he decided to come here, it was in the hope of making a great fortune through the influence of M. de Talon, whose niece, Madeleine Laguide, he had married." The abbé goes on to explain that the Seminary (as seigneurs of the Island of Montreal) would never have nominated Perrot had they known his true character, and would certainly not have retained him in office after his character became known, if they had been free to act in the matter. What stood in the way was that, through Talon's influence, his commission as governor had been confirmed by the king, and that he had thus, in a manner, been rendered independent of the Seminary authorities. "From that moment," the writer continues, "he considered himself free from all control in the matter of the traffic in drink which he was already carrying on with the savages to the great scandal of all the respectable inhabitants. . . . It is certain that he himself gave open protection to the coureurs de bois, not only in his own island through M. Bruey, his agent, but also throughout the whole extent of the Island of Montreal. . . . In order to have, without much expense, coureurs de bois under his orders, he allowed nearly all the soldiers in the island to desert and take to the woods, without either pursuing them, or notifying the governor-general of their desertion." It may be added that, when some of the most respectable inhabitants of Montreal ventured on a timid remonstrance respecting the irregularities that were taking place, he assailed them in the lowest and most ruffianly language, and put their principal spokesman, who at the time was the acting judge of Montreal, into prison.

This was the man, then, in whose interest, when Madame Perrot could not get any one else to do it, M. de Fénelon undertook to go round the Island of Montreal, and get the inhabitants to sign a petition. The petition, it is true, only stated that the signers had no complaints to make against M. Perrot; but its object was to throw dust in the eyes of the court, and it is impossible to think highly of the candour of the man—elder brother, though he was, of the great Archbishop of Cambrai—who was the chief agent in procuring it.

It is not surprising, in view of these proceedings, that M. de Fénelon received an order to repair to Quebec. Before summoning him, Frontenac had carried on a prolonged correspondence with the Seminary at Montreal. He first of all required them to banish Fénelon from their house as being a factious and rebellious person. To save his brethren trouble, Fénelon retired of his own accord, and took up parish work at Lachine. Frontenac then asked for signed declarations as to what had been said in the sermon. These the Sulpicians declined to give, saying they could not be called upon to testify against a brother. "Then send down a copy of the sermon," the governor said. The reply to this was that they had no copy of it. For form's sake they consented to ask the vicar-general at Quebec, the highest ecclesiastical authority in the absence of the bishop, to request M. de Fénelon to furnish the original. The vicar-general did so, and the abbé promptly replied that he would do nothing of the kind; he did not acknowledge himself to be guilty of any misdemeanour, but, if he were, he could not be required to furnish evidence against himself.

These pourparlers consumed considerable time, as letters were not exchanged in those days with modern rapidity between Quebec and Montreal. Moreover, Frontenac took a slice out of the summer in order to pay a visit to Montreal at the height of the trading season, not impossibly with some thrifty design, though it is known that he attended to the king's business to the extent of capturing, through his officer M. de Verchères, no less than twelve coureurs de bois. It was not till some time in the month of August that M. de Fénelon appeared to answer for himself at Quebec.

To follow in detail the incidents of the abortive inquiry into Perrot's insubordination, and the equally unsatisfactory proceedings in the case of the refractory abbé, would be tedious and unprofitable. Two of the councillors, Tilly and Dupont, were appointed a commission to examine Perrot. The latter made no objection at first to answering their questions, but a few days later he took it into his head to protest the competency of the council to try the charges against him. The governor, he said, was his personal enemy, and the members of the council, holding office during his good pleasure, could only be considered as his creatures. The council disregarded the protest, and continued the inquiry; but on each subsequent occasion Perrot refused to answer any question till his protest had been duly entered in the minutes. One of his answers almost betrays a sense of humour. He was asked why he had not arrested the coureurs de bois who made his private island their headquarters. "Because," he said, "I had no jurisdiction; my government does not extend beyond the Island of Montreal." In other words, he had chosen a spot for his illegal operations where, in his private capacity, he could, so to speak, snap his lingers in his own face in his official capacity. Possibly it was an attempt on Frontenac's part to repay humour with humour, when he caused one of these very coureurs de bois, a man whom Perrot probably knew very well, to be hanged directly in front of his prison window.

During the summer a despatch was received from the minister for the colonies which somewhat disquieted Frontenac, and doubtless had some effect also on the minds of the councillors. In order to lay an account of Perrot's rebellious conduct at the earliest possible moment before the king, Frontenac had taken the unusual course of sending a letter by way of Boston in February, hoping that it might reach the minister's hands in time to be answered by the ship leaving in the spring or early summer. Colbert wrote under date the 17th May 1674, evidently without having received the letter, for he terminated his despatch with these words: "His Majesty instructs me to recommend to you particularly the person and interests of M. Perrot, governor of Montreal, and nephew of M. Talon, his principal valet de chambre." Nothing could well have been more awkward, considering that the person so warmly recommended was at that moment, and had been for months, in durance vile, as a rebel against the governor's authority, and indirectly against his Majesty's.

The Abbé Fénelon, when he appeared before the council, was more defiant by far than Perrot. He was told to stand up. He said, No, he would sit down, as he was not a criminal; and, if he were, he could only be tried by an ecclesiastical court. He was asked to remove his hat; to which he replied by jamming it harder on his head, saying that ecclesiastics had a right to keep their heads covered. In the end the council began to fear that the governor was getting them into trouble; and they consequently determined, in both cases, that they would confine themselves to taking evidence, and leave the court to pronounce judgment. This conclusion was not pleasing to Frontenac, who wished to have a distinct decision of the council in his favour. He, too, was "weakening," however, as we may see by his letter to the minister, dated 14th November 1674, and despatched by the same vessel by which the governor of Montreal—released at last after ten months' confinement—and the fiery abbé sailed for France. "I am sending," he says, "M. Perrot and M. de Fénelon to France, in order that you may judge their conduct. For myself, if I have failed in any point of duty, I am ready to submit to his Majesty's corrections. A governor in this country would be much to be pitied if he were not sustained, seeing there is no one here on whom he can depend; and should he commit any fault he might assuredly be excused, seeing that all kinds of nets are spread for him, and that, after avoiding a hundred, he is liable to be caught in the end. So, My Lord, I hope that, should I have had the misfortune to take any false step, his Majesty will be kind enough to sympathize with me, and to believe that the error was due to an excess of zeal for his service, and not to any other motive."

The tone of this communication, it must be confessed, is not quite what one would expect from a man of Frontenac's character and antecedents. It shows what influence at court counted for in that day. The letter was accompanied by a docket of enormous proportions containing the charges against Perrot and the abbé, and all the evidence taken in the course of the prolonged investigation at Quebec. He received replies both from the king and the minister. In regard to Perrot the king wrote: "I have seen and examined all you have sent me concerning M. Perrot; and, after having seen all that he has put forward in his defence, I have condemned his action in imprisoning the officer you sent to Montreal. To punish him I have sent him for some time to the Bastille, in order that this discipline may not only render him more circumspect for the future, but may serve as an example to others. But, in order that you may thoroughly understand my views, I must tell you that, except in a case of absolute necessity, you should not execute any order within the sphere of a local government without having first notified the governor of the locality. The punishment of ten months' imprisonment you inflicted on him seems to me sufficient; and that is why I am sending him to the Bastille for a short term only, in order to vindicate in a public manner my violated authority." His Majesty added that he was sending Perrot back to his government, but that he would instruct him to call on the governor-general at Quebec and apologize for all his past offences; after which Frontenac was to dismiss all resentment, and treat him with the consideration due to his office.

As regards Fénelon, he was not allowed to return to Canada; and he was censured by the Superior of his order for having busied himself with things with which he had no concern. At the same time Frontenac was informed that he was wrong in instituting a criminal process against that ecclesiastic, as well as in calling upon his brethren of the Seminary to give evidence against him. The king made it clear that he thought Frontenac had been unduly harsh and autocratic in his proceedings generally. It would have been well for that dignitary if he could have taken the admonition more deeply to heart.