demned not by the innuendoes of Meulles, but by his
own failure to cope with the Iroquois.

The presence of the Dutch and English had stimulated the Five Nations
to enlarge their operations in the fur trade and multiply their
profits. The French, from being earliest in the field, had established
friendly relations with all the tribes to the north of the Great Lakes,
including those who dwelt in the valley of the Ottawa; and La Salle and
Tonty had recently penetrated to the Mississippi and extended French
trade to the country of the Illinois Indians. The furs from this
region were being carried up the Mississippi and forwarded to Quebec by
the Lakes and the St Lawrence. This brought the Illinois within {93}
the circle of tribes commercially dependent on Quebec. At the same
time the Iroquois, through the English on the Hudson, now possessed
facilities greater than ever for disposing of all the furs they could
acquire; and they wanted this trade for themselves.

The wholesome respect which the Iroquois entertained for Frontenac kept
them from attacking the tribes under the protection of the French on
the Great Lakes; but the remote Illinois were thought to be a safe
prey. During the autumn of 1680 a war-party of more than six hundred
Iroquois invaded the country of the Illinois. La Salle was then in
Montreal, but Tonty met the invaders and did all he could to save the
Illinois from their clutches. His efforts were in vain. The Illinois
suffered all that had befallen the Hurons in 1649.[1] The Iroquois,
however, were careful not to harm the French, and to demand from Tonty
a letter to show Frontenac as proof that he and his companions had been
respected.

Obviously this raid was a symptom of danger, and in 1681 Frontenac
asked the king to send him five or six hundred troops. A further
disturbing incident occurred at the {94} Jesuit mission of Sault Ste
Marie, where an Illinois Indian murdered a Seneca chieftain. That
Frontenac intended to act with firmness towards the Iroquois, while
giving them satisfaction for the murder of their chief, is clear from
his acts in 1681 no less than from his general record. But his forces
were small and he had received particular instructions to reduce
expenditure. And, with Duchesneau at hand to place a sinister
interpretation upon his every act, the conditions were not favourable
for immediate action. Then in 1682 he was recalled.

Such, in general, were the conditions wh