The Fighting Governor | Page 3

has
upbraided Laval for thinking so much of the mission that he neglected
the spiritual needs of the colonists. However this may be, the colony
owed much to the missionaries--particularly to the Jesuits. It is no
exaggeration to say that the Society of Jesus had been among the
strongest forces which stood between New France and destruction.
Other supports failed. The fur trade had been the corner-stone upon
which Champlain built up Quebec, but the profits proved disappointing.
At the best it was a very uncertain business. Sometimes the prices in
Paris dwindled to nothing because the market was glutted. At other
times the Indians brought no furs at all to the trading-posts. With its
export trade dependent upon the caprice of the savages, the colony
often seemed not worth the keeping. In these years of worst
discouragement the existence of the mission was a great prop.
On his arrival in 1672 Frontenac found the Jesuits, the Sulpicians, and
the Recollets all actively engaged in converting the heathen. He desired
that more attention should be paid to the creation of parishes for the
benefit of the colonists. Over this issue there arose, as we shall see by
and by, acute differences between the bishop and the governor.
Owing to the large part which religion had in the life of New France the
bishop took his place beside the governor and the intendant. This was
the triumvirate of dignitaries. Primarily each represented a different
interest--war, business, religion. But they were brought into official
contact through membership in the Conseil Souverain, which
controlled all details of governmental action.
The Sovereign Council underwent changes of name and composition,
but its functions were at all times plainly defined. In 1672 the members
numbered seven. Of these the governor, the bishop, and the intendant
formed the nucleus, the other four being appointed by them. In 1675
the king raised the number of councillors to ten, thus diluting the
authority which each possessed, and thenceforth made the
appointments himself. Thus during the greater part of Frontenac's

regime the governor, the bishop, and the intendant had seven associates
at the council-board. Still, as time went on, the king felt that his control
over this body was not quite perfect. So in 1703 he changed the name
from Sovereign Council to Superior Council, and increased its
members to a total of fifteen.
The Council met at the Chateau St Louis on Monday morning of each
week, at a round table where the governor had the bishop on his right
hand and the intendant on his left. Nevertheless the intendant presided,
for the matters under discussion fell chiefly in his domain. Of the other
councillors the attorney-general was the most conspicuous. To him fell
the task of sifting the petitions and determining which should be
presented. Although there were local judges at Quebec, Three Rivers,
and Montreal, the Council had jurisdiction over all important cases,
whether criminal or civil. In the sphere of commerce its powers were
equally complete and minute. It told merchants what profits they could
take on their goods, and how their goods should be classified with
respect to the percentage of profit allowed. Nothing was too petty for
its attention. Its records depict with photographic accuracy the nature of
French government in Canada. From this source we can see how the
principle of paternalism was carried out to the last detail.
But Canada was a long way from France and the St Lawrence was
larger than the Seine. It is hard to fight against nature, and in Canada
there were natural obstacles which withstood to some extent the forces
of despotism. It is easy to see how distance from the court gave both
governor and intendant a range of action which would have been
impossible in France. With the coming of winter Quebec was isolated
for more than six months. During this long interval the two officials
could do a great many things of which the king might not have
approved, but which he was powerless to prevent. His theoretical
supremacy was thus limited by the unyielding facts of geography. And
a better illustration is found in the operation of the seigneurial system
upon which Canadian society was based. In France a belated feudalism
still held the common man in its grip, and in Canada the forms of
feudalism were at least partially established. Yet the Canadian habitant
lived in a very different atmosphere from that breathed by the Norman

peasant. The Canadian seigneur had an abundance of acreage and little
cash. His grant was in the form of uncleared land, which he could only
make valuable through the labours of his tenants or censitaires. The
difficulty of finding good colonists made it important to give them
favourable terms. The habitant had a hard life, but his