Even with this new restatement of the position, the spheres of authority of the governor and of the intendant were still ill-defined. There were apparently two independent heads, yet overlapping; still one was supposedly subordinate to the other. Consequently harmony was impossible and the history of the French régime up to the final fall is one continual attempt to harmonize contradictions. Had the French government been less paternal, less desirous of centralization and less jealous of delegating its powers; had it given a measure of home rule or representative government, the rulers in Canada would have found a way to solve their difficulties, even those of church and state, without having to recur, like children in every trivial dispute, to the jealously guarded center of authority at headquarters, thousands of miles away. "L'état c'est moi," said Louis XIV, Le Soleil, in his brilliant court at Versailles, while Canada was a big growing boy confined to petticoats. If the French Government had even given the governor and intendant some real initiative power, instead of expecting them to be the mere executive arm of a not too well informed directing mind, far away, the sense of responsibility would have kept things in order, with less friction and with more progress. If only it had trusted its own appointed official advisers, instead of encouraging every subordinate Jack-in-office to write to His Majesty criticizing, misrepresenting, and offering suggestions on the administration of colonial affairs, there might have been some unity. The policy of espionage of the departments, on one another, encouraged by the mother country, only provoked tale bearing, tittle-tattle, suspicion, jealousy, cabals, intrigues, discord and infringement on one another's privileges, and was one of the chief causes leading to the slow development of colonization, the paralyzation of the trade and the delay of the progress of New France.
It must not be imagined that M. Perrot was entirely free from further trade arrangements and scandals at Montreal. A document, believed to have been written by Duchesneau in 1681 to the king, speaks of the ill-treatment meted out by him or his employés to many persons. He is accused of ruining the country, of trading publicly, of having a store on the "Common" and holding open market there, of trading himself and through his representatives and soldiers, in the camp of the Indians, and of monopolizing the market by having a guard at the end of the bridge leading to it which allowed only his friends to pass. Thus the habitants had only the fringes of the trade with the Indians. He still encouraged the coureurs de bois and had fitted out a great number of them. His avidity is thus described: "He has been seen filling barrels of brandy with his own hands and mixing it with water to sell to the Indians. He bartered with one of them his hat, sword, coat, ribbons, shoes and stockings and boasted that he had made thirty pistoles by the bargain, while the Indian walked about town equipped as 'governor.'" It is further stated that last year his commerce was valued at 40,000 livres. In his reply in March, 1682, to the above mémoire, he states that he has made little trade since, the result of his business transactions reaching only 13,325 livres. The money of the country being the beaver, trading in peltry was one of the necessities of life. He continued to have troubles with the seminary and in August, 1682, he was removed during the first year of M. de La Barre's governorship and given the government of Acadia!
FOOTNOTES:
[122] The real name was Thomas Tarieu de la Naudière. His son, Pierre Thomas de la Naudière, married the heroine Madeleine de Verchères.
[123] A subplot in this drama is the refusal of M. Trancheville and M. Rémy, Montreal Sulpicians, to appear against de Fénelon before secular judges. M. Rémy, who was fined several times for not appearing, claimed exemption on the same ground that as a son is not obliged to witness against a father, a brother against a brother, similarly an ecclesiastic is not obliged to face a situation which would make him fall into sin and ecclesiastical irregularity. They pleaded the privilege of canon law, recognized in France.
[124] August 17, 27. September 6, 22. October 15, 22.
[125] Archives de la Marine, Registre des Dépêches, 1674-5, Vol. QQ, 12.
[126] Duchesneau arrived on September 25th.
[127] Complément des Ordinances, Quebec, 1856, pp. 42, 43.