Meanwhile the party that had taken Father Le Moyne to Onondaga with the promise of leading back the twenty French prisoners in forty days had not returned, and great fear was entertained at Montreal for their safety. On October 5th, however, nine were brought back by the intercession of the friendly chief named Garacontié, the rest having been kept behind with Father Le Moyne during the coming winter.
On October 25th another disaster occurred in the little island à la Pierre, above St. Helen's Island, [88] whither a party had gone the day before to quarry stone for the new seminary, for up to this the Sulpicians still dwelt in the Hôtel-Dieu. Along with the party, joining them on the second day, was M. Lemaître's successor as "economus;" another Sulpician priest, M. Vignal, who went to supervise the work. Hardly had the party in the first boat, in which was M. Vignal, put foot to land, when they fell into an ambuscade, and M. Vignal was pierced with a sword, along with Sieur de Brigeac, a young soldier of thirty years of age; M. Maisonneuve's private secretary, René Cuillérier, and Jacques Dufresne. M. Vignal was thrown in the enemy's canoes and taken to La Prairie de la Madeleine, facing Montreal. The rest of the French escaped, except Jean Baptiste Moyen, who was left mortally wounded.
After two days they put the priest to death, roasted his body on a funeral pyre and ate it. His bones were never found. This death gave great grief at Montreal as well as Quebec, for M. Vignal it will be remembered had been the chaplain of the Hospitalières there.
After this cruel and horrible repast the party broke up; the Mohawks took Jacques Dufresne with them, while the Oneidas led away the Sieur de Brigeac and René Cuillérier. Both of these were condemned to be burned and de Brigeac, after being horribly mutilated and slowly burned, succumbed after twenty-four hours' torture, "praying," as the Historian de Casson relates, "for the conversion of his tormentors without uttering a cry of complaint."
The same fate awaited Cuillérier, but he had an intercessor in the person of the sister of the chief, who wished to adopt him as her brother. Eventually he escaped to the Dutch at Fort Orange, and he finally made his way back to Montreal in the following year.
During the summer the Vicar Apostolic, Mgr. Laval, made his first visit to Montreal. He was received with honour on the evening of August 21st. On this occasion he showed great solicitude for the Hospitalières of the Hôtel-Dieu, who, by the failure of M. Dauversière, now become a bankrupt, had lost the funds entrusted to him, and had nothing to live on, unless the one thousand livres' income, granted to the Company of Montreal by Madame de Bullion for the support of a hospital, was transferred to them. They were now thinking of going back to France, but Mgr. Laval arranged, on the request of the inhabitants of Montreal, that the income of the hospital could support them.
At the same time Montreal was visited again by the Abbé de Queylus. He arrived at Quebec, incognito, on the third day of August. Since his absence he had not been idle in pushing the ecclesiastical position of Montreal, for on calling on the vicar apostolic, he astonished him by communicating to him the results of his visit to Rome, viz., the apostolic Bull of the Dateria, creating Montreal into an independent parish, and a mandate from the archbishop of Rouen charging the bishop of Petrea to preside at the installation of M. de Queylus as the canonical "parochus." Finally the vicar general reminded M. de Queylus of the lettre de cachet of February 27, 1660, forbidding his return. Queylus retorted by quoting a contradictory "lettre de cachet" annulling it. The vicar general refused to accept the Bull of the Dateria on the ground that it was obtained surreptitiously, and he cancelled the jurisdiction of Rouen as incompatible with his own as vicar apostolic. On August 4th he forbade Queylus to go to Montreal under penalty of disobedience. This he communicated to d'Argenson, but the night of the 5th or 6th of August saw de Queylus making for Montreal furtively by canoe, with no obstacle placed in his way by the sympathetic governor. M. de Queylus had large landed property interests in Montreal, in fact he was one of the largest proprietors and one of its chief mainstays. It was therefore argued that he could not, as a private individual, be stayed from attending to his business there. On the 6th, Laval issued the ecclesiastical suspension of de Queylus unless he returned to Quebec. Meanwhile the abbé remained at Montreal and no doubt received Laval on his official visit of August 21st, already mentioned. On August 29th he grieved with his brethren over the massacre of his fellow Sulpician, M. Lemaître, and he performed several important business transactions as "Superior of Ecclesiastics Associated for the Conversion of the Savages."
In the meantime Laval had written to Rome exposing his case. He looked upon the peculiar pretensions for ecclesiastical monopoly of Montreal and the presence of Queylus, as injurious to the interests of the church in Canada, as menacing its unity and fostering schism. Accordingly prevailing in this view, his protests brought letters demanding the return to France of M. de Queylus, which took place October 22d, from Quebec, the new Governor d'Avaugour being intrusted with its execution.
It is well to avoid reading into these ecclesiastical disputes personal hostility or the clash of rancour among high placed churchmen. Each would have fought, lawyer-like, on principle, for a case of canonical jurisdiction not yet settled in the ecclesiastical courts, owing to the doubt remaining as to the validity of the overlordship of Rouen and the acquiescence of Rome in its pretensions. Law at that time seems also to have been unsatisfactorily managed, and the facility with which "lettres de cachet" were sent to and fro, countermanding one another, did not tend to simplify matters, as we have seen.
Add to these the difficulties inherent in the foundation of a young French colony and the inevitable struggles for precedence and "locus standi," especially among representatives of a nation that adored etiquette and the preceding quarrel will be looked upon as an interesting episode in a difficult period of history rather than as an ecclesiastical scandal needlessly resuscitated by the historian, for the purpose of opening old sores. Later on it will be seen that when the archbishop of Rouen had relinquished his pretension, de Queylus returned in 1668 as Laval's appointed vicar general at Montreal, and the Sulpicians had no greater friend than the fighting bishop.