M. Perrot did not escape as easily as did M. de Fénelon, at the hands of the king, being sent to the Bastille Prison for three weeks. On the same April 22d as above, the king writing to Frontenac said: "I have seen, and examined with care, all that you have sent me concerning the Sieur Perrot; and after having also seen the memoirs, which he has put in for his defense, I have condemned his action in having imprisoned the officer of the guards sent to Montreal. To punish him, I have put him for some time in the bastille, in order that this punishment may not only render him more circumspect in the future regarding his duty but will serve moreover as an example to restrain others. But having given this satisfaction to my authority, which has been violated in your person, I must tell you, to direct you in my views, that you ought not, without absolute necessity, carry out an order in the territory of a local governor, without having apprised him of it, and also that the punishment of ten months, accorded him, has appeared to me too great in proportion to the fault committed. This is why I have made him undergo the punishment in the bastille only long enough to repair publicly the violation of my authority. Another time, I direct that in a like fault, you must be content with the satisfaction offered you, or with some months in prison, or to transfer the case for decision to me, sending over to France the defaulting officer; imprisonment for ten months being a little too rigorous."
But thanks doubtlessly to M. Talon's interest in his relative, M. Perrot was confirmed by the king in the government of Montreal, as the above letter continues: "After having left M. Perrot some days in the bastille I will send him back to his government and I will order him to call on you and to offer you his apologies for all that has passed. After which I desire that you will not retain any resentment against him, but that you will treat him in accordance with the power I have given him. Finally you ought to punish the habitants only for capital faults, avoiding lengthy punishments, because minds are thus divided, and embittered and are diverted from their principal work, which is to provide for the surety and subsistence of the family."
Colbert's letter of May 13th begged Frontenac to live in good harmony with M. Perrot, urging his family alliance "with persons for whom I have great consideration," of whom, no doubt, Talon was one.
THE GOVERNOR, THE INTENDANT AND THE SOVEREIGN COUNCIL
One of the gravest charges alleged against Frontenac, by the Montrealers now in France, was that he had usurped the powers of the council and that he had rendered himself absolute and all powerful. This brought about that, at Colbert's instigation, the king himself named the councillors and fixed the rank they should hold in the Sovereign Council. In consequence, on April 25th of this year, Louis XIV named M. Denis-Joseph Ruette d'Auteuil as his procureur général; on May 10th following, the seven councillors in order of rank: Louis Rouer de Villeray, first councillor, Charles Legardeur de Tilly, Mathieu d'Amours, Nicholas Dupont, René-Louis Chartier de Lothbinière, Jean Baptiste de Peyras and Charles Denys. To render them the more independent of the governor, the king named on June 5th M. Jacques Duchesneau, then treasurer of France at Tours, as the intendant, making him the real president of the council and reserving for the governor general only a simple presidency of honour. He arrived on September 25th. He further endowed the new intendant [126] with full powers concerning the administration of justice, police and finance, with the order, to see to it that all the inferior judges and other officers of justice should be upheld in the exercise of their functions without any interference—a privilege often demanded by the Montrealers. He arranged that the intendant should judge conjointly with the Sovereign Council all civic and criminal cases, in conformity with the coutume de Paris and that the council should make all police regulations; with this clause, however, that the intendant could, if he deemed it opportune, act alone as supreme judge in civil matters, and could make all police regulations and ordinances. [127]
At this time the remuneration of the governor general was 3,000 livres, of the local governors of Montreal and Three Rivers 1,200, and the members of the Sovereign Council 300 each. This was small, but there were not many inhabitants as yet. A letter of the minister to Duchesneau, dated April 15, 1675, showing surprise that there are only 7,832 persons in Canada, 1,120 guns and 5,117 horned cattle helps us to understand the situation. The smallness of salaries would certainly tempt the governors to engage in commerce.
Finally the king, on June 5th, by a new declaration confirmed the establishment of the Sovereign Council, reserving the right to name the councillors after a place fell vacant. The council was to be composed as before, of the governor general, the bishop of Quebec or in case of his absence in France, of his representative, the grand vicar, the intendant and seven councillors. To take away from the governor general every pretext of mixing himself in the transactions of the council, the king ordered that in conformity with the custom of the sovereign or supreme courts of the kingdom of France, the intendant, although only holding the third place of honour, should, however, as president of the council, consult the opinions of the councillors, count their votes, pronounce their resolutions and enjoy the same advantages as the first presidents of the courts of the kingdom. (Edits et Ordonnances, Quebec, 1854, pp. 83, 84.)
Still, four years later, bitter animosities continued in the council for some months to the exclusion of all other business, as to the exact position of the governor and the intendant. In spite of the ordinance of 1675, Frontenac claimed to be entered in the minutes as the chief and president of the council, in that the intendant was only the acting president. Thus was the governor general "cribbed, cabined and confined." His wings were cut and his powers more closely defined and limited than ever. Moreover, a rival was placed by his side, to be a thorn in it for many a long day. He was no longer absolute in the council chamber. Thence began the long series of vexatious complaints of Frontenac and Duchesneau of encroachment on one another's authority,—this intolerable bickering eventually ending in the recall of both, by the instructions of the king on May 10, 1682. The new form of legislation, however, was a marked improvement, and since it was the outcome of Montreal agitation for clearly defined and responsible government, hence, the length of treatment that has been accorded to its constitutional history of this picturesque period may be not out of place.
Letters went to and fro; one from the minister to Duchesneau on April 25th severely blames him, that in relying on the great power given him and by his title of president, he was wrong in thinking himself nearly equal to the governor, and that the latter can do nothing without consulting him. The reverse should be the position. When the governor interdicts any affair at the council, he had only to submit. The council can only make representations and if the governor does not listen to them, let the matter be submitted to the king. Even then the governor should be shown the complaints, so that he may be in a position to make his reply. This would seem to show that Frontenac's position was upheld. Still the trouble went on and finally produced on May 20, 1679, a decision of the Council of State, that in the minutes of the Sovereign Council M. de Frontenac shall be solely intitled, the governor and lieutenant general of His Majesty in New France and M. Duchesneau as the intendant of justice, police and finance, but that he should also exercise the functions of the first president of the council—a re-affirmation of the declaration of His Majesty of June 5, 1675,—a victory for the Intendant Duchesneau.
In a letter from the king to Frontenac this latter had been styled, "Chief and President of the Council," and relying on this, Frontenac wished to force the recording clerk to inscribe this intitulation. On the other side it was argued, that a private letter giving incidentally this title to the governor, could not prevail against the formal ordinance of June 5, 1675, not revoked. The quarrel became so envenomed that all the business of the council was paralyzed during many months. For as surely as the time came for the minutes to be read and the titles of those present to be enumerated, the pother began anew. The clerk received contrary orders, and nothing was done. Finally he was sent to prison by M. de Frontenac. Some of the councillors, opposing this, came also under his condemnation, and M. de Villeray, M. de Tilly and M. d'Auteuil were sent to "rusticate" with their friends while awaiting the order to go to France to answer for their conduct. Rival factions were also created in the colony, and Montreal was divided.