Governor and Bishop were conscious of the opposition of interests which impelled them. On the Bishop's return wrangling over precedence continued. In 1676 the King informed Frontenac that the honors accorded the Governor in the Cathedral of Quebec were greater than those enjoyed by the Governors of the French provinces and that he had reason to be content. However, he was to signal any infraction of the rights and privileges of the crown and of "the liberties of the Gallican Church in matters spiritual."'50

Frontenac's most vehement attack upon the Church and its Bishop was made through his memoir of 1677.

Of his criticisms in general Dudouyt wrote to Laval that same year: "M. le Frontenac has written what he is accustomed to say at Quebec against you and your clergy and the Intendant. His letters were not communicated to me to answer. I believe it was because they were filled with calumnies too great, and that that would have made it necessary to say many things.51

Among these alleged calumnies was that charging the clergy with enriching themselves in Canada. The memoir of 1677 was written under the influence of La Salle who added strength to the obsession of Frontenac.

In the Memoir of 1677, he enumerated the revenues of Monseigneur de Laval and found them to reach 40,000 livres a year. But some of his items will not bear scrutiny. For instance take the first: 6,000 livres from the King. This royal gift had not been forthcoming since 1672. The second item was 6,000 livres from the two abbeys annexed to the bishopric of Quebec. In a public audience with Colbert, Laval's Vicar-General asserted that the annual revenue from this source had not exceeded 2,000 livres.52

50 Cited by EASTMAN, p. 153, Archives Nationales, B. VII, ff. 15, 16. 51 Idem., p. 154, Rapports sur les Archives du Canada 188. 52 Idem., pp. CIX, XCVII.

Frontenac estimated with exaggeration. The episcopal revenues were entirely too meager. Even the Seminary did not escape the eye of this vigilant enemy. Its construction was undertaken under heavy debt with prospect of little revenue and still the governor questioned what he termed the "great and superb buildings."

Bishop Laval met the attack with his usual magnanimity. Supported by his clergy, he was determined to uphold the ascendency of the Church.He had made it known in the Council that he would not conform to the usage of France in his government; he would adhere to duty regardless of the attitude of other bishops. When he endevored to place the church wardens above the local judges and to lessen the honors conferred on the parish seigneurs, Frontenac remonstrated. The Bishop reminded him that he had the power even to excommunicate governors.

The Church in its benevolent efforts to stem the tide of drunkenness excited bitter opposition on the part of the governor and the people of New France. This is easily understood from a temporal point of view-officers and people were swayed by personal gains.

The brandy war raged during the whole of Frontenac's administration. It assumed its acutest phase when the Bishop emphasized his protest against the traffic by making it a cas reservé, thus removing it from the sphere of all civil or legislative action.53

The Bishop was obliged to journey to France in 1678 to plead the cause of religion and civilization with the King.

He managed to find in his charity and the goodness of his heart such eloquent words to depict the evil wrought upon the Church in Canada by the scourge of intoxication, that Louis XIV was moved, and commissioned his confessor, Father La Chaise, to examine the question conjointly with the Archbishop of Paris. According to their advice, the King expressly forbade the 53 DOUGLAS, JAMES, op. cit., p. 456.

French to carry intoxicating liquors to the savages in
their dwellings or in the woods, and he wrote to Fronte-
nac to charge him to see that the edict was respected.
On his part, Laval consented, to maintain the cas re-
servé only against those who might infringe the royal
prohibition. The Bishop of Quebec had hoped for
more; for nothing could prevent the Indians from com-
ing to buy the terrible poison from the French.54

The King was convinced that Frontenac was abusing his confidence. Complaints came in from many different sources. In 1682 both governor and Intendant were recalled. The dominating figure on the stage of politics was gone. The trying years of struggle were telling on the aged bishop but the power of the Church was not broken.

sor.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF BISHOP SAINT-VALLIER.

By an ordinance of November 6th, 1684, the Bishop of Quebec established a chapter composed of twelve canons and four chaplains.55 Then he journeyed to France to tender his resignation in person to the King. The burden of years and labors weighed upon him, and he felt greater vigor than his was demanded to sustain the authority of the Church of New France. The King had granted him the privilege of choosing his succesAbbé Dudouyt, his delegate in France, was directed to seek out a worthy candidate. He consulted the Jesuit, Father le Valois who recommended the King's chaplain, Abbé de Saint-Vallier, a man of exemplary life, high birth and considerable wealth. Tronson, the illustrious superior of the Sulpicians, did not approve of the choice. Neither did Dudouyt. These objected to the youth, inexperience, excessive zeal and austerity of the Abbé. Father le Valois assured them that the candidate was aware of his own defects and was striving to correct them. Saint-Vallier had proposed a council of wiser persons, whose advice he would follow. He declared his intention of remaining a coadjutor during the life time of Laval.

54 BRUMATH, A. L. DE, op. cit., p. 174. 55 IDEM., p. 197.

This satisfied the Bishop of Quebec, and with his own resignation, he sought also the nomination of his successor. A serious quarrel between Pope Innocent XI and Louis XIV in the matter of the right of regale56 prevented the immediate issue of a bull. Bishop Laval remained in France to urge the cause with the Holy See and Saint-Vallier set out for Canada, as Vicar-General, to visit his future diocese. He arrived at Quebec on July 30, 1685.

At first he was favorably impressed with what he saw. He attributed the prosperity of the country to the great good wrought through religion, and attributed the flourishing condition of the Church to the enterprise and zeal of Laval to whom he rendered due praise. He was especially pleased with the priests of the seminary of whom he wrote: "Tout le monde y fit les exercises de la retraite spirituele avec tant de benediction, que depuis les plus jeunes Clercs jusqu' aux Ecclésiastiques les plus avancez dans les saints Ordres, chacun apporta de son propre mouvement tout ce qu il avoit en particulier pour être mis en commun: il me sembla, pour lors voir revivre dans l'Eglise de Canada quelque chose de cet esprit de détachment que faisoit, une des principales beautez de l'Eglise naissante de Jerusalem du temps des Apotres?" Their virtues so attracted him that he gave up all his personal property, even his library, to their common fund. His zeal prompted him to make a complete visitation of his diocese a novel experience for a priest direct from the French Court.

The burning of the Ursuline Convent on October 20, 1686, left him no time to rest from the fatigues of his four months' journey. In two pastoral letters he pointed out certain dangerous tendencies in balls, dances, comedies and immodest fashions of dress, not hesitating to remind the governor and his lady of the good example they should set their people. He returned to France November 18, 1686.

During his stay in Paris he published a monograph on The Present State of the Church and The French Colony of New France, which produced an excellent impression at court. The

56 A right, belonging formerly to the Kings of France, of enjoying the revenues of vacant bishoprics.

57 DE SAINT-VALLIER, JEAN BAPTISTE, Estat Present de L'Eglise Dans La Nouvelle-France, pp. 11-12, Paris, 1856.

admiration he manifested therein for what he had seen in his diocese was in painful contrast with his subsequent upsetting of established institutions. The Quebec clergy accustomed to the paternal and wise rule of Laval, remarked in his successor an unfortunate tendency to change everything and to manage all things by himself. Although he was only Vicar-General, he made new regulations, even in the Quebec Seminary, where he resided, and thus enabled clearsighted people to foresee the troubles of his laborious and vexatious episcopate. These forebodings were communicated by letter to Laval in France. Efforts were made to have somebody else appointed Bishop of Quebec, but in vain; for when the King offered a French bishopric to Saint-Vallier, he peremptorily refused, and insisted that his bulls for the see of Quebec should be obtained in Rome.58

The bulls were dispatched on July 27, 1687,59 and Bishop Laval having resigned on January 24, 1688,6° Saint-Vallier was consecrated on the following day by Monseigneur Jacques Nicholas Colebert, coadjutor of the Archbishop of Rouen. With the permission of the King and at the request of the governor Laval returned to Quebec June 3, 1688.91 Saint-Vallier took possession of the See August first, 1688.62

But when he returned to Canada, one illusion after another was dispelled. He came into close touch with the city, though only a provincial one, and its sins; he recognized that the love of power was as strong in priest as in politician, and as likely to distort the judgment of the cleric as of the civil ruler. Then, like all men of vigor and passion, when they change their opinions, he went from one extreme to another. Instead of primitive purity, he now saw only sin and selfishness in priest and layman, while he described the country as being on the very verge of ruin.63

58 SHORTT, A. and DOUGHTY, A. G., op. cit., pp. 424-25.

59 TETU, op. cit., p. 94.

60 IDEM., p. 94.

61 IDEM., p. 95.

62 IDEM., p. 96.

63 DOUGLAS, JAMES, op. cit., p. 488.