| Disembarking in the 
		year 1675 on that soil where as apostolic vicar he had already 
		accomplished so much good, giving his episcopal benediction to that 
		Christian throng who came to sing the Te Deum to thank God for the happy 
		return of their first pastor, casting his eyes upon that manly and 
		imposing figure of one of the most illustrious lieutenants of the great 
		king, the Count de Frontenac, what could be the thoughts of Mgr. de 
		Laval? He could not deceive himself: the letters received from Canada 
		proved to him too clearly that the friction between the civil powers and 
		religious authorities would be continued under a governor of 
		uncompromising and imperious character. With what fervour must he have 
		asked of Heaven the tact, the prudence and the patience so necessary in 
		such delicate circumstances  Two questions, 
		especially, divided the governor and the bishop: that of the permanence 
		of livings, and the everlasting matter of the sale of brandy to the 
		savages, a question which, like the phoenix, was continually reborn from 
		its ashes. " The prelate," says the Abbe Gosselin, "desired to establish 
		parishes wherever they were necessary, and procure for them good and 
		zealous missionaries, and, as far as possible, priests residing in each 
		district, but removable and attached to the seminary, which received the 
		tithes and furnished them with all they had need of. But Frontenac found 
		that this system left the priests too dependent on the bishop, and that 
		the clergy thus closely connected with the bishop and the seminary, was 
		too formidable and too powerful a body. It was with the purpose of 
		weakening it and of rendering it, by the aid which it would require, 
		more dependent on the civil authority, that he undertook that campaign 
		for permanent livings which ended in the overthrow of Mgr. de Laval's 
		system." Colbert, in fact, was 
		too strongly prejudiced against the clergy of Canada by the reports of 
		Talon and Frontenac. These three men were wholly devoted to the 
		interests of France as well as to those of the colony, but they judged 
		things only from a purely human point of view. " I see," Colbert wrote 
		in 1677 to Commissioner Duchesneau, " that the Count de Frontenac is of 
		the opinion that the trade with the savages in drinks, called in that 
		country intoxicating, does not cause the great and terrible evils to 
		which Mgr. de Quebec takes exception, and even that it is necessary for 
		commerce; and I see that you are of an opinion contrary to this. In this 
		matter, before taking sides with the bishop, you should enquire very 
		exactly as to the number of murders, assassinations, cases of arson, and 
		other excesses caused by brandy . . . and send me the proof of this. If 
		these deeds had been continual, His Majesty would have issued a most 
		severe and vigorous prohibition to all his subjects against engaging in 
		this traffic. But, in the absence of this proof, and seeing, moreover, 
		the contrary in the evidence and reports of those that have been longest 
		in this country, it is not just, and the general policy of a state 
		opposes in this the feelings of a bishop who, to prevent the abuses that 
		a small number of private individuals may make of a thing good in 
		itself, wishes to abolish trade in an article which greatly serves to 
		attract commerce, and the savages themselves, to the orthodox 
		Christians." Thus M. Dudouyt could not but fail in his mission, and he 
		wrote to Mgr. de Laval that Colbert, while recognizing very frankly the 
		devotion of the bishop and the missionaries, believed that they 
		exaggerated the fatal results of the traffic. The zealous collaborator 
		of the Bishop of Quebec at the same time urged the prelate to suspend 
		the spiritual penalties till then imposed upon the traders, in order to 
		deprive the minister of every motive of bitterness against the clergy. The bishop admitted the 
		wisdom of this counsel, which he followed, and meanwhile the king, 
		alarmed by a report from Commissioner Duchesneau, who shared the view of 
		the missionaries, desired to investigate and come to a final decision on 
		the question. He therefore ordered the Count de Frontenac to choose in 
		the colony twenty-four competent persons, and to commission them to 
		examine the drawbacks to the sale of intoxicating liquors. 
		Unfortunately, the persons chosen for this enquiry were engaged in trade 
		with the savages; their conclusions must necessarily be prejudiced. They 
		declared that " very few disorders arose from the traffic in brandy, 
		among the natives of the country; that, moreover, the Dutch, by 
		distributing intoxicating drinks to the Iroquois, attracted by this 
		means the trade in beaver skins to Orange and Manhattan. It was, 
		therefore, absolutely necessary to allow the brandy trade in order to 
		bring the savages into the French colony and to prevent them from taking 
		their furs to foreigners." We cannot help being 
		surprised at such a judgment when we read over the memoirs of the time, 
		which all agree in deploring the sad results of this traffic. The most 
		crying injustice, the most revolting immorality, the ruin of families, 
		settlements devastated by drunkenness, agriculture abandoned, the robust 
		portion of the population ruining its health in profitless expeditions: 
		such were some of the most horrible fruits of alcohol. And what do we 
		find as a compensation for so many evils ? A few dozen rascals enriched, 
		returning to squander in France a fortune shamefully acquired. And let 
		it not be objected that, if the Indians had not been able to purchase 
		the wherewithal to satisfy their terrible passion for strong drink, they 
		would have carried their furs to the English or the Dutch, for it was 
		proven that the offer of Governor Andros, to forbid the sale of brandy 
		to the savages in New England on condition that the French would act 
		likewise in New France, was formally rejected. " To-day when the 
		passions of the time have long been silent," says the Abbe Ferland, " it 
		is impossible not to admire the energy displayed by the noble bishop, 
		imploring the pity of the monarch for the savages of New France with all 
		the courage shown by Las Casas, when he pleaded the cause of the 
		aborigines of Spanish America. Disdaining the hypocritical outcries of 
		those men who prostituted the name of commerce to cover their 
		speculations and their rapine, he exposed himself to scorn and 
		persecution in order to save the remnant of those indigenous American 
		tribes, to protect his flock from the moral contagion which threatened 
		to weigh upon it, and to lead into the right path the young men who were 
		going to ruin among the savage tribes." The worthy bishop 
		desired to prevent the laxity of the sale of brandy that might result 
		from the declaration of the Committee of Twenty-four, and in the autumn 
		of 1678 he set out again for France. To avoid a journey so fatiguing, he 
		might easily have found excuses in the rest needed after a difficult 
		pastoral expedition which he had just concluded, in the labours of his 
		seminary which demanded his presence, and especially in the bad state of 
		his health; but is not the first duty of a leader always to stand in the 
		breach, and to give to all the example of self-sacrifice ? A report from 
		his hand on the disorders caused by the traffic in strong liquors would 
		perhaps have obtained a fortunate result, but thinking that his presence 
		at the court would be still more efficacious, he set out. He managed to 
		find in his charity and the goodness of his heart such eloquent words to 
		depict the evils 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 
		French to carry intoxicating liquors to the savages in their dwellings 
		or in the woods, and he wrote to Frontenac to charge him to see that the 
		edict was respected. On his part, Laval consented to maintain the castle 
		reserve only against those who might infringe the royal prohibition. The 
		Bishop of Quebec had hoped for more; for nothing could prevent the 
		Indians from coming to buy the terrible poison from the French, and 
		moreover, discovery of the infractions of the law would be, if not 
		impossible, at least most difficult. Nevertheless, it was an advantage 
		obtained over the dealers and their protectors, who aimed at nothing 
		less than an unrestricted traffic in brandy. A dyke was set up against 
		the devastations of the scourge; the worthy bishop might hope to 
		maintain it energetically by his vigilance and that of his coadjutors. 
		Unfortunately, he could not succeed entirely, and little by little the 
		disorders became so multiplied that M. de Denonville considered brandy 
		as one of the greatest evils of Canada, and that the venerable superior 
		of St. Sulpice de Montreal, M. Dollier de Casson, wrote in 1691: "I have 
		been twenty-six years in this country, and I have seen our numerous and 
		flourishing Algonquin missions all destroyed by drunkenness." 
		Accordingly, it became necessary later to fall back upon the former 
		rigorous regulations against the sale of intoxicating liquors to the 
		Indians. Before his departure 
		for France the Bishop of Quebec had given the devoted priests of St. 
		Sulpice a mark of his affection: he constituted the parish of Notre-Dame 
		de Montreal according to the canons of the Church, and joined it in 
		perpetuity to the Seminary of Ville-Marie, "to be administered, under 
		the plenary authority of the Bishops of Quebec, by such ecclesiastics as 
		might be chosen by the superior of the said seminary. The priests of St. 
		Sulpice having by their efforts and their labours produced during so 
		many years in New France, and especially in the Island of Montreal, very 
		great fruits for the glory of God and the advantage of this growing 
		Church, we have given them, as being most irreproachable in faith, 
		doctrine, piety and conduct, in perpetuity, and do give them, by virtue 
		of these presents, the livings of the Island of Montreal, in order that 
		they may be perfectly cultivated as up to now they have been, as best 
		they might be by their preachings and examples." In fact, 
		misunderstandings like that which had occurred on the arrival of de 
		Queylus were no longer to be feared; since the authority to which Laval 
		could lay claim had been duly established and proved, the Sulpicians had 
		submitted and accepted his jurisdiction. They had for a longer period 
		preserved their independence as temporal lords, and the governor of 
		Ville-Marie, de Maison-neuve, jealous of preserving intact the rights of 
		those whom he represented, even dared one day to refuse the keys of the 
		fort to the governor-general, M. dArgenson. Poor de Maisonneuve paid for 
		this excessive zeal by the loss of his position, for d'Argenson never 
		forgave him. The parish of 
		Notre-Dame was united with the Seminary of Montreal on October 30th, 
		1678, one year after the issuing of the letters patent which recognized 
		the civil existence of St. Sulpice de Montreal. Mgr. de Laval at the 
		same time united with the parish of Notre-Dame the chapel of Bonsecours. 
		On the banks of the St. Lawrence, not far from the church of Notre-Dame, 
		rises a chapel of modest appearance. It is Notre-Dame de Bonsecours. It 
		has seen many generations kneeling on its square, and has not ceased to 
		protect with its shadow the Catholic quarter of Montreal. The buildings 
		about it rose successively, only to give way themselves to other 
		monuments. Notre-Dame de Bonsecours is still respected; the piety of 
		Catholics defends it against all attacks of time or progress, and the 
		little church raises proudly in the air that slight wooden steeple that 
		more than once has turned aside the avenging bolt of the Most High. 
		Sister Bourgeoys had begun it in 1657; to obtain the funds necessary for 
		its completion she betook herself to Paris. She obtained one hundred 
		francs from M. Mac£, a priest of St. Sulpice. One of the associates of 
		the Company of Montreal, M. de Fan-camp, received for her from two of 
		his fellow-partners, MM. Denis and Lepretre, a statuette of the Virgin 
		made of the miraculous wood of Montagu, and he himself, to participate 
		in this gift, gave her a shrine of the most wonderful richness to 
		contain the precious statue. On her return to Canada, Marguerite 
		Bourgeoys caused to be erected near the house Of the Sisters a wooden 
		lean-to in the form of a chapel, which became the provisional sanctuary 
		of the statuette. Two years later, on June 29th, the laying of the 
		foundation stone of the chapel took place. The work was urged with 
		enthusiasm, and encouraged by the pious impatience of Sister Bourgeoys. 
		The generosity of the faithful vied in enthusiasm, and gifts flowed in. 
		M. de Maisonneuve offered a cannon, of which M. Souart had a bell made 
		at his expense. Two thousand francs, furnished by the piety of the 
		inhabitants, and one hundred louis from Sister Bourgeoys and her nuns, 
		aided the foundress to complete the realization of a wish long cherished 
		in her heart; the new chapel became an inseparable annex of the parish 
		of Ville-Marie. These most precious 
		advantages were recognized on November 6th, 1678, by Mgr. de Laval, who 
		preserved throughout his life the most tender devotion to the Mother of 
		God. On the other hand, the prelate imposed upon the parish priest the 
		obligation of having the Holy Mass celebrated there on the Day of the 
		Visitation, and of going there in procession on the Day of the 
		Assumption. Is it necessary to mention with what zeal, with what 
		devotion the Canadians brought to Mary in this new temple their homage 
		and their prayers? Let us listen to the enthusiastic narrative of Sister 
		Morin, a nun of St. Joseph: "The Holy Mass is said there every day, and 
		even several times a day, to satisfy the devotion and the trust of the 
		people, which are great towards Notre-Dame de Bonse-cours. Processions 
		wend their way thither on occasions of public need or calamity, with 
		much success. It is the regular promenade of the devout persons of the 
		town, who make a pilgrimage there every evening, and there are few good 
		Catholics who, from all the places in Canada, do not make vows of 
		offerings to this chapel in all the dangers in which they find 
		themselves." The church of 
		Notre-Dame de Bonsecours was twice remodelled; built at first of oak on 
		stone foundations, it was rebuilt of stone and consumed in 1754 in a 
		conflagration which destroyed a part of the town. In 1772 the chapel was 
		rebuilt as it exists now, one hundred and two feet long by forty-six 
		wide. |