eadership of Etienne Marcel, it virtually supplanted the power of the
crown.

[3] See _The Great Intendant_, chap. iii.

{51}

CHAPTER IV

GOVERNOR, BISHOP, AND INTENDANT

At the beginning of September 1675 Frontenac was confronted with an
event which could have given him little pleasure. This was the
arrival, by the same ship, of the bishop Laval, who had been absent
from Canada four years, and Jacques Duchesneau, who after a long
interval had been appointed to succeed Talon as intendant. Laval
returned in triumph. He was now bishop of Quebec, directly dependent
upon the Holy See[1] and not upon the king of France. Duchesneau came
to Canada with the reputation of having proved a capable official at
Tours.

By temper and training Frontenac was ill-disposed to share authority
with any one. In the absence of bishop and intendant he had filled the
centre of the stage. Now he must become reconciled to the presence at
Quebec {52} of others who held high rank and had claims to be
considered in the conduct of public affairs. Even at the moment of
formal welcome he must have felt that trouble was in store. For
sixteen years Laval had been a great person in Canada, and Duchesneau
had come to occupy the post which Talon had made almost more important
than that of governor.

Partly through a clash of dignities and partly through a clash of
ideas, there soon arose at Quebec a conflict which rendered personal
friendship among the leaders impossible, and caused itself to be felt
in every part of the administration. Since this antagonism lasted for
seven years and had large consequences, it becomes important to examine
its deeper causes as well as the forms which under varying
circumstances it came to assume.

In the triangular relations of Frontenac, Laval, and Duchesneau the
bishop and the intendant were ranged against the governor. The
simplest form of stating the case is to say that Frontenac clashed with
Laval over one set of interests and with Duchesneau over another; over
ecclesiastical issues with the bishop and over civil interests with the
intendant. In the Sovereign Council these {53} three dignitaries sat
together, and so close was the connection of Church with State that not
a month could pass without bringing to light some fresh matter which
concerned them all. Broadly speaking, the differences between
Frontenac and Laval were of more lasting moment than those between
Frontenac and Duchesnea