Читать книгу Canada and its Provinces - Various - Страница 13

Table of Contents

The new governor, Lefèbvre de la Barre, and the new intendant, Jacques de Meulles, were informed that they were sent out in order to restore peace and harmony within the colony. La Barre, though a careful administrator, proved to be a very weak governor, and handled the Indian situation, which was then at a critical stage, in a most undiplomatic manner. He undertook a military expedition to Lake Ontario in 1684 with the object of over-awing the Iroquois, yet he managed to give the Indians the very opposite impression. He virtually abandoned to the Iroquois the western Indian allies of the French, weakly accepting the terms proposed by them and hastily retreating to Montreal. The Iroquois naturally regarded him with contempt, and prepared to follow up so easy an enemy. La Barre was recalled, and the Marquis de Denonville succeeded him in 1685. Denonville was a man of firmness and military qualities, but unfortunately a few serious mistakes marred his administration.

The spreading of the small French population over so large an area was an important factor in the ultimate undoing of French power in America. Extension to the west was never the policy of the French court. The danger of premature expansion was the subject of many dispatches from the French kings and their ministers. The Canadian governors and intendants, however, found their hands forced in many ways by conditions in the colony itself. The fur trade—the mainstay of colonial commerce and finance—drew the colonists from the clearing and cultivation of the land. Increasing numbers made their way into the wilderness. Indian missionaries and explorers pushed ever farther into the unknown. To protect these interests trading posts and forts were established. In the end France found herself in possession of an enormous territory, the maintenance of which dissipated the strength of the colony, but the relinquishing of which the pride and glory of France prohibited. ‘All or nothing’ seems to have been the motto of those who were responsible for the extension of French power. In the fullness of time they managed to secure both. Frontenac, though instructed to the contrary, was a believer in the principle of expansion, and in the interests of this policy he had established the fort which bore his name. His successor, La Barre, was instructed to restrict the western exploration to the permits granted to La Salle and to direct the people to the cultivation of the soil in the eastern portions of the colony. The French king had a poor opinion even of La Salle’s discoveries in the Mississippi Valley. He considered them of no value in themselves, and as likely to draw many Frenchmen away from the work of settlement in Canada. La Barre quite agreed with the view of the king. He reported that La Salle had virtually abandoned Fort Frontenac, and, with a number of wastrels, had gone off to establish a kingdom of his own in the West. La Barre found that the upper end of the Island of Montreal was used as a recruiting ground for such men as accompanied La Salle. He gave a very unfavourable account of their manner of life, and suggested that a provost-marshal should be established there with power to give summary judgments without appeal. This colony of vagabonds was a sort of connecting link between the coureurs de bois of the West and the settlements of the East. There were among them many youths of good family and of excellent capacities, but who were too proud to engage in the somewhat prosaic labours of the farms. This led to complaints from the authorities that the Canadian noblesse, to whom there were few other openings, refused to descend to manual labour. The free and unrestricted life of the coureurs de bois, however disastrous to their morals, was more to their liking. In consequence of the reports of the governors, the king issued a decree in 1685, taking away from the Canadian noblesse the excuse that they were prevented by their rank from engaging in physical labour or minor trades. The king also promised to be more careful in future in granting titles of nobility to colonists.

It is believed by many philanthropists that idleness, vice and pauperism are evils incidental only to congested populations and would disappear with freedom of opportunity and access to natural resources. The history of both English and French settlements in America, however, shows that these evils have accompanied every stage of colonial development. The records of New France are filled with attempts, on the one hand, to deal with idleness and vagrancy, and, on the other, with the straits to which the settlements were reduced for lack of servants and workmen in the towns.

Taking a few examples: an ordinance was passed in 1677 attempting to deal with the evil of sturdy beggars who would not work, but who solicited alms on the public highways. This proving difficult to enforce, the evil increased until 1683, when a further ordinance was passed, forbidding begging on the highways or the giving of alms to such beggars. Many of such people, it said, lived in idleness and brought up their families on this basis, with the natural result that these and many other disorders were increased. Five years later, the evil being still unabated, the council ordained the establishment of offices for the investigation of poverty (bureaux des pauvres) in Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal. The object of these offices was to investigate cases of alleged poverty, to deal with deserving cases, and to furnish work for those capable of doing it. In the country districts each parish was required to look after its own poor, that they might have no excuse for wandering over the country.

Though earlier in the history of the colony provision had been made for deporting undesirable immigrants, yet in 1687 the king, it appears, no longer approved of it. The governor, Denonville, having sent back to France a couple of incorrigible women of bad character, the king declared that he should have retained them in the colony and reduced them to a more virtuous condition by employing them at manual labour, such as drawing water, serving masons, or sawing wood.

After the departure of Frontenac the Iroquois once more became troublesome. They attacked the Indian allies of the French and threatened to come down upon the colony itself. The strength of the Iroquois lay in their ability to obtain supplies from the English with whom they traded. Troops and stores were urgently requested from France to meet the threatened invasion. In 1683 the king wrote in a reassuring manner, saying that he had made everything all right in America through his influence with the English court. In fact, Colonel Dongan, a good Catholic, had been appointed governor of New York, and had received express orders from the English king to respect the French rights in America. Dongan’s religious faith was undoubtedly of the right order, but his nationality was more doubtful. Being an Irishman, and a very vigorous Irishman, he put his own interpretation on his instructions from London, and it was very decidedly in the interests of the colony over which he presided. The joy with which his arrival as governor was greeted in Canada was soon turned to mourning, and urgent petitions were sent to the French king to secure his speedy recall. Louis xiv again wrote to his minister at London, Barrilon, to persuade the Duke of York, afterwards James ii, who at the time held a proprietary right to the colony of New York, to instruct his governor, Dongan, not to furnish assistance to the Iroquois, but, on the contrary, to join with the French in exterminating them.

Dongan, however, disappointed the expectations of the French court. He claimed for England all the land to the south of the St Lawrence and the Great Lakes, including the Iroquois territory. This involved the further claim that the Iroquois were subject to the English king and under his direction. Moreover, the governor of New York warned all the French settlers between the Kennebec and the St Croix to leave the country at once or become English citizens. The English, too, were very aggressive in the direction of Hudson Bay, where they had of late seized a number of Frenchmen with their furs and carried them off to London. The French laid claim to all these territories on the ground of their being the first discoverers, though in many cases they had done nothing towards the development of the territory. On being informed of the pretensions of the English, Louis xiv still relied upon his influence with the English court, and had no doubt but that his ambassador in London would secure the disavowal of the conduct and the claims of the governor of New York.

When the governor, Denonville, surveyed the situation after his arrival in Canada, he, too, reached the conclusion that there was but one safe solution of the western Indian problem, and that was for the French king to purchase the colony of New York from the English. He considered that this should be comparatively easy since the English king, owing to his troubles at home, would undoubtedly stand in need of the money of the French court.

In the meantime a project was already on foot for the framing of a treaty of neutrality between the French and the English dominions in America. The idea of the treaty originated with Stapleton, governor of the British West Indies, who proposed it to the Comte de Belnac, governor of the French West Indies. The proposition was favourably regarded by the French king and recommended to his minister in London, who brought it to the attention of the English court and secured its adoption. The treaty was finally concluded at London on November 16, 1686. It provided for the continuance of peace on land and sea between the French and English dominions in America. The officials of either power were not to aid, in men or provisions, any savages who were at war with the other. There should not be any trading or fishing by the subjects of one power within the jurisdiction of the other. No pirates were to be permitted to find shelter in the harbours of either. Even if war should arise between the two crowns in Europe, there should be no war between the colonies in America.

This treaty, when adopted, met with strong opposition on the part of the English colonies, since they claimed that it was very one-sided in its practical operation. But the treaty was scarcely proclaimed when James ii, who was so compliant to the wishes of Louis xiv, was driven from his throne. His successor, William iii, was the leader of the French king’s enemies. All thought of peace between French and English in any part of the world now vanished.

In 1687 the Iroquois peril had assumed an alarming aspect. Acting on what he thought to be the wishes of the king, Denonville had induced a number of the Iroquois chiefs to meet him at Cataraqui. The chiefs were seized and sent to serve in the French galleys. This act of treachery did more than even the weak conduct of La Barre to precipitate a bitter and prolonged war with the Iroquois, in which the scattered French settlements suffered all manner of outrages. To make matters worse,^[1] Dongan, the governor of New York, sent a bellicose letter to Denonville, demanding that the French should relinquish their claims to the territory, restore what they had taken from the Indians, and send back all prisoners. On these conditions he undertook to live peaceably with the French—being himself a devout Catholic—and to see that the Indians of the Five Nations should not molest them.

The chief hope of the French now lay in the influence of the coureurs de bois with the Indians and the loyalty of these outlaws to the French cause, especially under such leaders as Tonti, La Durantaye and Dulhut. If only the French king could arrange to obtain the colony of New York^[2] all their western troubles would be at an end.

At the outbreak of King William’s war the chief points of dispute between France and England in North America were: first, the ownership and suzerainty of the Iroquois country; second, the ownership of the Hudson Bay territory; third, the right to the southern portion of Acadia as far south as the Kennebec River which is now part of the State of Maine. The Hudson Bay question was finally settled by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, but, in spite of all treaties, the others remained the centres of dispute and of successive wars until the overthrow of the French power.

The note of hopefulness and confidence which for twenty-five years had pervaded New France disappears with the beginning of the war in 1689. The domestic development of the colony fell into the background. From this time forward the burden of every dispatch relates to an existing or impending struggle with the English colony.

[1]

In 1688 the French court persuaded James ii to recall Dongan, who proved so objectionable to the French interests. Andros, another Catholic, was sent in his place, but with instructions to live on good terms with the French. Before long, however, Andros was reported by Denonville to be, if possible, worse to deal with than Dongan.

[2]

De Callières, the governor of Montreal, suggested that the king might exchange some of the French West Indies for New York. The minister reported, however, that it was not possible to make the proposed exchange at the time. Whatever opportunities there may have been at one time were doomed never to occur again. Later, when the hope of bargaining was past, de Callières advocated an immediate attack on New York.