Montreal, 1535-1914. Vol. 1. Under the French Régime, 1535-1760

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER XXIV

Various griefs fell upon the colony at this time. On November 18, 1671, Madame de la Peltrie, one of the earliest pioneers of Montreal, died at the Ursuline Convent at Quebec, where she had dwelt in humble seclusion for eighteen years, in charge of the linen of the community.

Six months later another, Marie de l'Incarnation, whose valuable letters of this early period, from 1639-72, we have frequently quoted, also went to her reward.

But a greater grief fell upon Montreal on June 18, 1673, when the beloved and venerable Jeanne Mance, now aged sixty-six to sixty-seven years [108] passed away at 6 o'clock in the evening in the quiet of the Hôtel-Dieu which she had so lovingly founded and administered. According to her wish, made verbally to M. Souart, the executor of her last will and testament, her body was buried in the church of the Hôtel-Dieu and her heart was encased in a double vase of metal and placed "en dépôt" under the lamp of the tabernacle of the Blessed Sacrament until the new parochial church, then being built, should be ready to receive it. Unfortunately it never reached its destination, for during the delay of the church erection a fire, breaking out in the Hôtel-Dieu, consumed the venerable relic.

CHAPTER XXV

Accordingly, following the procès verbal, of March 12, 1672, we find Dollier de Casson, representing the Seigneurs, accompanied among others by Bénigne Basset, at once town clerk and town surveyor, tracing the first streets, [109] starting from the site of the land reserved for the projected parish church of Notre-Dame, and making out the limits of the concessions granted. Notre-Dame Street was first marked out, starting from a well opened by a former syndic, Gabriel le Sel dit Duclos, and extending eastward to the mill redoubt on the elevated portion of ground called afterwards "Citadel hill." [110] Notre-Dame Street, then the greatest street of the city, was thirty feet broad. Bénigne Basset placed a post at intervals on either side of this road, affixing the leaden stamp of the seminary to each. St. Joseph Street, now known as St. Sulpice, having been already named and used as a trail and in some sort a street, had a breadth of eighteen feet assigned it, and the property lines marked out. A similar breadth was given to St. Peter Street, in honour of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, the patron saint of M. Pierre Chevrier, Baron de Fanchamp, one of the first founders of the Company of Montreal.

A fourth street was named St. James, the patron saint of M. Jacques Olier. This was north beyond Notre-Dame, beginning with Calvary Street and terminating with St. Charles Street, of which we shall speak later. A fifth street, eighteen feet broad, was that of St. Francis Xavier, parallel to St. Peter. It was called by Dollier de Casson St. Francis, after his own name, Francis, in honour of St. Francis d'Assissi. Later on, Xavier was added in deference to St. Francis Xavier, the apostle of the Indies. Calvary Street, at the extremity of St. James Street, was given a breadth of twenty-four feet; it went north towards the mountain. Another street of twenty-four feet, going in the same direction from Notre-Dame Street, was called St. Lambert, in honour of the brave Lambert Closse. These streets were broader than the rest, for they were meant for carriage service. [111]

A ninth street, eighteen feet broad, parallel to that of St. Joseph, and abutting on St. James Street, de Casson called St. Gabriel, after the patron saint of Gabriel de Queylus and Gabriel Souart.

Finally the tenth street, parallel to the latter and also abutting St. James Street, was named St. Charles, after Charles Le Moyne, Sieur de Longueuil. The city plan being made, it was necessary to carry it out. Some of the streets afterwards formally laid out, had already been marked out by pathways that had grown up. Thus, that running from the fort to the Hôtel-Dieu, became St. Paul Street; that to St. Jean-Baptiste Street, opened in 1684, was started as early as 1655. St. Dizier Street, opened in 1691, was traced as a path in 1664. Another pathway was traced from the fort to Bon Secours Chapel in 1657. The original Place d'Armes, opposite the fort, was opened in 1650. [112]

Those who had taken land adjoining these streets were, by their contract, obliged to build houses, this same year. But some of the proprietors of lands crossed by these traced roads seemed to have neglected the landmarks placed by Dollier de Casson and went on cultivating and sowing as before. This was resented by those anxious to build, as it blocked the way to the hauling of their building materials. Accordingly in March and June of 1673 there are records of an assembly of inhabitants, including Mademoiselle Jeanne Mance and M. d'Ailleboust, addressing a request to M. Dollier de Casson that as he had himself mapped out the boundaries of the streets, apportioning to each its line, length, breadth, angles, and its name for the building and decoration of the town, he should take means to prevent individuals tilling and sowing any of these streets. To this just demand, Dollier acceded, and he forbade any further cultivation of the roadways, leaving each one free to enclose his lot with stakes or quick-thorn hedges. The offending parties submitted, especially so as they saw that the roads crossing their properties increased their value—an elementary principle of city planning. [113]

By 1675, some had neglected to enclose their ground, and in consequence of the complaint of those that had done so, the seigneurs put up a notice, dated January 12, 1675, warning the tardy ones that if they did not bring the necessary building materials immediately after the following spring seeding, "to rear their buildings, destined for the ornamentation and decoration of their town and to facilitate trade both with the inhabitants and the strangers, the seigneurs would reclaim these concessions, redistribute them, on demand, to others presenting themselves."

One of the delays leading to the erection of houses on the streets, of the upper town section, traced in 1671 was the interruption of the building of the new parish church determined on, on the occasion of a pastoral visit of Mgr. Laval, when at an assembly of the inhabitants, held on May 12, 1669, it was settled that operations should begin on June 8th under the direction of Bénigne Basset at a monthly honorarium of thirty livres. But though stones were brought to commence the work at once, two years elapsed before the site could be agreed upon. That which had been chosen, once the property of Jean Saint-Père, was considered as being too low down. Two years later, the naming of Notre-Dame Street indicated the resolution arrived at by the seminary to build the church of Notre-Dame higher up, at the head of St. Joseph Street and facing Notre-Dame Street. At a meeting held on June 6, 1672, the proposition to build on such land bought by the seminary from Nicholas Godé and the wife of Jacques Le Moyne, was accepted.

Besides, a promise of the grant of the land, the sum of a 1,000 livres tournois for three years was offered in the name of M. de Bretonvilliers, the superior of the Sulpicians in Paris. On June 19th, at a new assembly, it was agreed upon to engage François Bailli, a master mason, to take charge of the construction and to receive one écu for every day's work and thirty livres a month while the operations lasted. If there had hitherto been delay, the next steps were very swift.

Next day, on June 20th, the land transfer was made, the contour of the new church traced, and on June 21st the foundations were laid. On June 29th, the feast of SS. Peter and Paul, after vespers, a procession formed from the Hôtel-Dieu Chapel at the foot of St. Joseph Street, to the head of the street, and Dollier de Casson, as superior of the seminary, planted the cross, with a great gathering of people witnessing the ceremony.

Next day, June 30th, after high mass the same gathering repaired thither again in procession. The first five stones were placed, each bearing the following inscription on a leaden plate:

"D. O. M.
et
Beatae Mariae Virginis sub titulo Purificationis." [114]

These five stones were each accompanied by the arms of the persons placing them. The first was placed in the middle of the rondpoint by the governor general of Canada, Daniel Rémy, Seigneur de Courcelles, being one of his last public acts before being succeeded by Comte Frontenac in the September following. The second bore the arms of Jean Talon, intendant, inscribed in advance, for being unable to be present he was represented in the ceremony by Phillipe de Carion, lieutenant of M. de La Motte—Saint Paul's regiment. The third was placed by the governor of Montreal, Chevalier François Marie Perrot, Seigneur of St. Geneviève. [115]

The fourth was placed by Dollier de Casson in the name of M. Bretonvilliers, superior general of the congregation of St. Sulpice in Paris. The last was fittingly placed by Jeanne Mance, the administratrix of the Hôtel-Dieu, who had seen Montreal grow from its earliest infancy and had been so long the mother of the colony. [116]

In 1676 a meeting was held, on January 26th, to raise funds for the completion of the church, and it was determined to hold a canvass in the island, which resulted in a collection of 2,070 livres; and finally, although M. Souart had engaged himself to furnish the necessary wood, all this assistance was insufficient, and the church building, dragging on for two years, was not finished till 1678. The church was in the form of a Latin cross, with "bas côtés," terminated by a circular apse; its front entrance at the south end, built of cut stone, was composed of two orders, Indian and Doric, the last being surmounted by a triangular pediment. The beautiful entrance, erected after the plans of the king's engineer, Chaussegros de Léry, in 1722, was flanked on the right by a square tower with a square belfry tower, surmounted by a fleur-de-lys cross twenty-four feet high. The church was built directly in the middle of Notre-Dame Street and projected into Place d'Armes Square, measuring 140 feet long, 96 broad, while the tower was 144 feet high. This first church of Notre-Dame was of rough stone pointed with mortar. [117]

The erection of the parish church now being on its way permitted funds for the long deferred church of Bon Secours, also to be gathered. The miraculous statute brought from France was meanwhile housed in the little wooden chapel raised in 1657 by Marguerite Bourgeoys before leaving for France and there it remained till the new stone building was commenced. It was not, however, till June 29th, the feast of SS. Peter and Paul, in the year 1675, that M. Souart placed the first stone in the name of M. de Fanchamp, bearing a medal of the Blessed Virgin and a leaden tablet bearing the inscription:

D. O. M.
Beatae Mariae Virginis
et sub titulo Assumptionis [118]

The bell was cast from the metal of a broken cannon used against the Iroquois and given some time previously by M. de Maisonneuve. It weighed a little less than 100 livres and the casting was paid for by M. Souart. [119]

The site chosen was still thought to be far from the town, but near enough for easy pilgrimages. In order to secure its perpetuity the sisters requested the bishop to make it an inseparable annex to the parish church, to be served by the parish clergy. To this the bishop of Quebec [120] acceded in the mandement of November 6, 1678. In addition he imposed upon the curé the duty of having mass celebrated there each Feast of the Visitation, the principal feast of the new order, and of going thither in procession every Assumption Day. These conditions still obtain. A Sulpician of Notre Dame Church today is known as the Chaplain of Notre Dame de Bon Secours, the first being M. Frémont.

As the chapel was at some distance from the chief buildings, its garret was used for the storage of powder for the safety of Ville Marie, there being no other magazine. M. de Denonville, governor general, writing on November 13, 1685, to the minister said: "At Montreal I have found the powder in the top of a chapel towards which the people have great devotion. The bishop has strongly urged me to take it away, but this I have not been able to do since I have found no other place where to put it without danger of fire." The church was burned down in 1754. [121]

To give the reader a comprehensive view of the outlook for Montreal at this period (1674-76) we may quote from Parkman's "Old Régime," where he imagines a journey up the river to inspect the lines of communication by the formation of settlements and villages resting under the newly established feudal system:

"As you approached Montreal, the fortified mill built by the Sulpicians at Pointe aux Trembles towered above the woods; and soon after the newly built chapel of the Infant Jesus more settlements followed, till at length the great fortified mill of Montreal rose in sight, then the long row of compact wooden houses, the Hôtel-Dieu and the rough masonry of the Seminary of St. Sulpice. Beyond the town the clearings continued at intervals till you reached Lake St. Louis, where young Cavelier de La Salle had laid out his seigniory of Lachine and abandoned it to begin his hard career of western exploration. Above the Island of Montreal the wilderness was broken only by a solitary trading station on the neighbouring Ile Pérot."—Parkman, "Old Régime," p. 241.

CHAPTER XXVI

We have now to consider the fortunes of Montreal under the reign of Frontenac, as governor general, and M. Perrot, as local governor. Louis de Buade, Count de Pallua et de Frontenac, arrived in Canada in September of 1672, whereas M. Perrot had been in Montreal since 1670 as governor, by the goodwill of the seigneurs, and by the letters patent of March 14, 1671, he held the rank also by royal commission. He considered himself in a strong position, but Frontenac was also a strong man, and when the clash came in the autumn of next year, the old opposition of Quebec and Montreal was renewed. Both antagonists had powerful protectors at court. Unfortunately Perrot's character was haughty and violent, and his unworthy attempts to enrich himself by engaging in the nefarious liquor trade, leaves us unable to sympathize with his case, as we did with that of the gentle and single-minded de Maisonneuve. To illustrate this, Perrot, as governor of Montreal, could not openly engage in the trade, yet he chose a situation on an island given to him by Talon as his seigneury and named after him, "Ile Perrot," lying at the toe of Montreal, between the seigneuries of Bellevue and Vaudreuil and at the western end of Lake St. Louis, an excellent spot for a receiving station for peltry from the Indians, descending from above. There, he placed a former lieutenant of his company, Antoine de Fresnay, Sieur de Brucy, who acted as his agent and gave protection to the deserting volontaires now illegally becoming coureurs de bois, who were growing numerous around Montreal and were being more or less openly encouraged by the local government. These were given liquor and merchandise in exchange for the products of their hunting expeditions. The consequence was that frequent disorders occurred through their irregularities.

A delegation consisting of the foremost citizens called on M. Perrot, respectfully remonstrating on this situation. Among them were Migeon de Branssat, Charles Le Moyne, Picoté de Bélestre, Jacques Leber, and Vincent de Hautmesnil. The haughty governor received them with insult and he imprisoned their spokesman, Migeon de Branssat, who as procureur fiscal was acting as judge in place of M. d'Ailleboust, then absent. "I am not like M. de Maisonneuve," said he, "I know how to keep you in your proper places." Next day, Dollier de Casson as a representative of the seigneurs expostulated at such imprisonment, especially as the course of justice was being held up; but to no avail at the moment. Perrot was governor by royal commission, and he meant to show it. Eventually, however, the procureur fiscal was freed and the court sittings continued.

It will be remembered that Marie François Perrot had espoused Madeleine de La Guide, niece of Talon, and under the régimes of Courcelles and his uncle, Talon, the illicit commerce had either passed unperceived or authority had closed its eyes. But he was to meet his match under the new government.

Let us now turn to Frontenac, who was soon to cross swords with Perrot of Montreal. The new governor general, now a man of fifty, having been born in 1622, was a very complex character with high qualities and serious defects. He was every inch a Gascon, a boastful talker, an exaggerator, fond of posing and a little of a bully. Yet he could be gay, was a lover of a good table, a man of the world, brilliant, communicative, and generous with his friends, as he was haughty and distant with those he disliked.

From the age of fifteen he followed camp life, serving at first under Maurice, Prince of Orange, and his reputation for bravery was sound. He was placed at the head of a Norman regiment and distinguished himself in Flanders, Germany and Italy; at the battle of Orvietto he broke his arm. In 1664, while at St. Gothard, Turenne sent him to fight against the Turks, to the Island of Candia, whence he returned to Paris, covered with glory. He rose to the rank of a maréchal de camp or brigadier general. His married life was not too domestic. Himself, the godchild of Louis XIII, his father being the chief majordomo and captain of the Château de St. Germain-en-Laye, he married the daughter of one of his neighbours in Paris, Lagrange Trianon, a master of accounts. Madame de Frontenac was handsome, gallant, witty, fond of high society, imperious, and very independent. In these qualities, she resembled monsieur and after a time Frontenac found warring more to his taste than the fireside, and madame lived with Mademoiselle Montpensier, and together these two "divines" held a kind of court of their own in their "apartment," in which they set the tone for the best society of Paris. It was, therefore, no doubt through her influence, combined with his services as a distinguished soldier to the king, that the office of governor general of Canada was secured for him, to help him in his poverty.

As a governor he had high gifts of administration; according to Charlevoix, "his work and his capacity were equal; ... his views for the development of the country were great and just." He knew how to maintain his position, and even to gain the affection of those he ruled, especially the Indians. But he was absolute, dominating, despotic, violent, headstrong, ambitious, jealous, choleric and impatient of opposition. He also came full of prejudice against the clergy and especially the Jesuits.

On arriving at Quebec, this "High and Puissant Seigneur," as he prefixed to his title of "Governor, Lieutenant-General for the King in France," introduced a gayety and high style of living, somewhat surprising and unaccustomed to the Canadian bourgeoisie. In official, governmental life he assumed the reins with a high hand. He was, as he thought himself, a "vice-roi" and he would model the colony on the lines of France. Thus his preliminary act was to call a representative convocation of the people in three several orders or estates, the clergy, the noblesse, and the third estate, to receive the oath of fealty from them, a proceeding which Colbert evidently disapproved of as too democratic, and opposed to the centralizing policy, then in favour in France, a policy which eventually ruined the initiative and delayed the progress of the colony. The minister wrote on June 13, 1673: "It is good for you to know that in the government of Canada you always ought to follow the forms practiced in France, where the kings have for some time considered it better for their service, not to assemble the 'Etats Généraux.' Also, you ought but rarely, or better say, never, give this form to the body of habitants of your country; it will even be necessary, in a little time, and when the colony is stronger than it is now, gradually to suppress the office of the syndic, who presents the requests in the name of all the inhabitants; it being good that each speaks for himself and not one for all." What is everybody's business is no one's, was evidently Colbert's view. Thus the people never learned the art of self-government.

The new governor very soon showed his desire to be sole master of the situation. Of his own responsibility he had made several police regulations and had established aldermen at Quebec and, contrary to the rights of the Company of the West Indies, then still existing, he had attributed to them the power of administering police regulations. This brought a letter from Colbert, dated May 17, 1674: "His Majesty orders me to tell you, that you have therein passed the limits of the power given by him. Besides, the police regulations ought to be made by the Sovereign Council, and not by you alone. The power which you have been given by the king gives you entire authority in the command of the army, but with regard to what concerns the administration of justice, your authority consists in presiding at the Sovereign Council. The intention of His Majesty is that you take the advice of the councillors and that it is for the council, to pronounce on all matters which belong to its jurisdiction."

On his arrival he quickly turned his gaze on Lake Ontario, lately visited by M. de Courcelles, and already the construction of a fort was in his mind, to divert the fur trade towards Montreal, and on to Quebec in place of it descending to Albany. Writing to Colbert, on November 2, 1672, two months after his arrival, he says: "You will have heard from M. de Courcelles of a post which he has projected on Lake Ontario and which he believes to be of the utmost necessity, in order to prevent the Iroquois taking peltry to the Dutch and to force them to trade with us, as it is but just, seeing that they hunt on our lands.

"The establishment of such a post will strengthen the mission at Kenté, already settled there by the Messieurs de Montréal. I beg you to believe that I will spare no trouble or pains or even my life to attempt to do something to please you."

It is alleged by the Duke de St. Simon in his mémoires (Paris 1829, Vol. II), that Frontenac came to France a "ruined man," that he was given the governorship for his means of living, and that he would sooner go to Quebec than die of hunger in Paris. His disinterestedness in setting up a trading post for the good of the colony is therefore somewhat discounted.

Frontenac determined to construct this fort before the return of the vessels from France. In order to obtain the necessary men, boats and canoes, he relied on the precedent of M. de Courcelles' official visit as governor general to Lake Ontario. To impress the Indians with the dignity of the French conquerors, he called a corvée from Quebec, Montreal, Three Rivers and other places to supply the above at their own expense. In the meantime he had built two bateaux to face the rapids and currents and mounted on them two pieces of cannon. These he had painted, which was considered a novelty.

At Montreal there was no little murmuring at his novel and burdensome corvées, for to avoid the Rapids of St. Louis, he made the inhabitants repair the road leading to Lachine. He requisitioned about 200 canoes and 400 men and kept them at work until he finished his fort there.

La Salle was then in Montreal, and Frontenac, seeing an ally in this already experienced traveler, wrote to him to proceed to Onondaga, the ordinary rendezvous of the Iroquois nation, and there to explain, that the projected expedition was a visit of courtesy to the Mission of Kenté and to the neighbouring tribes. La Salle, nothing loath, set out ahead, leaving Montreal in the beginning of May, 1673. Frontenac left Quebec on June 3d and arrived at Montreal on June 15th, having delayed his journey, being received in the other towns on his way. Arriving at 5 o'clock that evening, the governor general was met at the wharf by Perrot, the governor of Montreal—no doubt with some jealousy and some resentment at the corvées demanded by his superior—and the principal citizens, with their military companies. After the volleys of musketry and cannon, there came the addresses of the officers of justice and that by Sieur Chevalier, the syndic of the people. Then they made their way to the temporary parish church attached to the Hôtel-Dieu and there the clergy held their reception and also harangued him. After which the Te Deum was sung in thanksgiving for his happy voyage and the governor retired to the hospitality of Fort Maisonneuve, not as yet demolished as we know.

For thirteen days, there was a great bustle at Montreal, fixing up canoes and loading them, and arranging the men in companies,—all requisitioned in the name of the king. The last preparations for the important journey were broken, however, by the celebration of feast of St. Jean Baptiste; on this occasion M. de Salignac Fénelon, the brother of the famous archbishop of Cambrai, returned from Kenté with M. Durfé, and about to return together, with the expedition, pronounced an elegant eulogium on the governor-general. At last all to join the vice-regal party had left the town and gone by road to Lachine, whence on June 28th, all being reunited, the expedition started—two flat bateaux, nearly one hundred and twenty canoes and about four hundred men, among them being Charles Le Moyne, who was a skilled interpreter.

We cannot follow its progress. For us, it is interesting to record it in connection with Montreal as resulting in the establishment of Fort Frontenac, or Cataracqui, the modern Kingston, the construction and management of which was now entrusted to a Montrealer, Sieur de la Salle to whom, on May 13, 1675, on the occasion of his visit to France, letters of nobility were given with the property and government of the new fort and some adjacent leagues of land. La Salle had gone to France in 1674, well recommended by Frontenac. His family, seeing a fortune in the new trading station, procured the necessary funds for him to pursue his career, and presented a memorial of La Salle's discoveries and his good actions, which secured the above privilege. La Salle named his seigneury Fort Frontenac in honour of his patron. His enemies say that he became Frontenac's agent, as de Brucy was that of Perrot.

On returning from Lake Ontario, Frontenac and Perrot soon began their duel. Towards the end of autumn, 1673, Frontenac, receiving Perrot at Quebec, reprimanded him severely for the continued disturbances already mentioned at Montreal. Perrot respectfully promised better care, in regard to the observances of the king, for the future, and returned to Montreal. But hardly had he been back eight days, when trouble began. Two coureurs de bois had returned and gone to lodge with M. Carion, the officer of whom we have spoken. Charles D'Ailleboust, the judge, sent Sergeant Bailly to arrest him, whereupon Carion obstructed and ill treated the sergeant. Instead of punishing Carion, Perrot sent for D'Ailleboust and reprimanded him for having sent the sergeant to the house of an officer, without warning him, and threatened him with prison himself, if he repeated his conduct, notwithstanding any orders from the governor-general.

The astonished D'Ailleboust acquainted Frontenac with this incident, and he, scenting rebellion, immediately dispatched three of his guards with their lieutenant, Sieur Bizard, to arrest Carion. Bizard did this faithfully, leaving a guard over him. But he had made a grave error in etiquette in so doing. Before leaving Quebec he had received from Frontenac a letter for Perrot, acquainting him of the intended arrest in his jurisdiction, but fearful of the wrath of the local governor, Bizard sought the house of Jacques LeBer, to leave the letter there, so that it might be delivered to Perrot after the departure of the guard from the town. Meanwhile Madame Carion had quickly acquainted Perrot of her husband's arrest and immediately the indignant governor, with a sergeant and a guard from the garrison, angrily confronted Bizard at LeBer's house and threw Frontenac's letter, presented him, back in Bizard's face.

"Take it back," he said, "to your master and warn him to teach you your official duties, better, a second time." He then put him into prison but released him the next day with a letter to M. Frontenac. Bizard, however, had a statement of his arrest made out which was signed by Jacques LeBer, La Salle and a domestic, the witnesses of it. Four or five days later, Perrot, coming to hear of this, sent LeBer to prison without any form of justice; but La Salle he left alone, keeping him under watch during the day. But by night the nimble explorer, with Norman adroitness, leaped the enclosure of the house and hurried secretly to Quebec to tell his patron Frontenac of his flouted authority. Thither also journeyed later the friends of M. LeBer to make their protestation.

If Frontenac's officer had erred in trespassing on the prerogatives of the governor of Montreal, the latter, by imprisoning Bizard, had similarly encroached on those of the governor-general. They could have cried quits, but it is alleged that Frontenac was eager to deprive Montreal of its autonomy, and herein was his excuse. It was Frontenac's policy to appear to smoothen out the situation. He wrote to Perrot inviting him to set LeBer at liberty and to come himself to Quebec to render an account of his conduct, and to M. de Salignac Fénelon, the Sulpician, who had eulogized him in the parish church of Montreal before departing to Fort Frontenac, he wrote another, saying that he wished to terminate amicably the differences between himself and M. Perrot. Both fell into the trap. M. Fénelon, determined to accompany M. Perrot, started with him on the ice of the river in the heart of winter, and they arrived at nightfall in Quebec on the 28th of January, 1674.

The next morning M. Perrot made his call on the governor and hardly had he set his foot across his threshold than he was arrested by Lieutenant Bizard, his sword being taken from him and then led to prison in solitary confinement in the Château St. Louis without any formal process, and there he remained till the following November. The simplicity of M. Fénelon was rudely shocked by this "volte face." He sought the governor to intercede for his friend and when he strove to obtain a pass to see the prisoner he only angered Frontenac, who accused him of wishing to corrupt his guards.

Back went Fénelon on the St. Lawrence on his snowshoes. Hardly had he reached Montreal when Dollier de Casson received several letters from the governor-general, complaining of the conduct of M. Fénelon "as unworthy of a man of his character and birth." There is reason from after-events to believe that Fénelon's zeal was not sufficiently tempered with discretion. Montreal having now need of a governor, Frontenac speedily appointed on the 4th of February, as commandant in his absence, one of his devoted friends, M. de la Nouguère, [122] an ensign in a cavalry regiment. In the act, making this appointment, he explains his superseding of the town major, Sieur Dupuis, as due to the advanced stage of his age, but he bids him to have de la Nouguère recognized by the officers of the garrison. (Vide this document in the City Hall Archives, dated February 10, 1674.) He then ordered the new commandant to arrest Sieur de Brucy and two of his servants, and to send M. Gilles de Boisvinet, the judge of Three Rivers, to conduct the trial and to inform against all coureurs de bois in Montreal—an insult to M. Charles D'Ailleboust, whose faith and sympathy he distrusted. Certainly Frontenac had made himself master of Montreal.

These actions, derogatory to the privileges of the Seigneurs granted in 1644, were borne with wise moderation, though under protest, to avoid undue friction in a difficult position. A document of Dollier de Casson, dated March 22, 1674, on the occasion of a protest against Boisvinet, who had gone beyond the limits of his commission, following a former juridical protestation against the infringement of their right to appointment of a governor, dated March 10, 1674, shows this clearly and explains the neutral policy now adopted.

Meanwhile in his prison at Quebec, the deposed governor of Montreal refused to be judged by Frontenac and the Sovereign Council, and asked to have his case tried by the king. In justification of his firm action at Montreal, Frontenac wrote to Colbert some months later, that he had hanged one of the coureurs de bois, the same that had lodged with Carion, and that the others, to the number of thirty, had been thus intimidated and had submitted to fines and had taken up lands as habitants. "I can assure you," he says, "with certainty, that there are now not more than five coureurs de bois in Canada, of whom three belong to M. Perrot's garrison, whom he allowed to desert; the fourth is a farmer on the island bearing his name. You will gather from this whether I have reason or not, in retaining him as a prisoner."

That there were only five coureurs de bois in Canada seems an exaggeration unless we take it that they were dispersed over the North American continent. For from Montreal there wandered many an expedition which left its mark there. Accompanying these were the "voyageurs," "coureurs de bois" and "bois brulés," as they were variously named. These often allied themselves with women of the Indian tribes and united the vices of both races. Restlessly they pursued their vagabond life, and it would be impossible to find a northern Indian tribe unaffected by these wanderers. In 1678 David Greysolon Duluth or the Sieur Du Luth built the first trading post at the western end of Lake Superior. The only post of Minnesota bears his name. He was by no means a saint—he was a worthy gentleman of the wild woods—a knight of the fur trade—a great leader of the coureurs de bois, and he enhanced his fortunes with illicit trading in spirits. But he was a power among the Indians in the land of the Dakotas (Minnesota), which was the name of one of the principal tribes formed into a league, or Dakota, and given to the general body. They were called the Ojibways north of Lake Superior and Nadowaysioux, the last syllable of which, "Sioux," being used as a nickname for them by the French. Other historical sites as that of Chicago were first visited by those who started from Montreal, such as Marquette, the Jesuit, and Joliet, who arrived at the site of modern Chicago in August, 1673.