At this period the affairs of New France claimed the unexpected attention of the French court. From the year 1665 the colony had been successfully administered by three men:
Daniel de Rémy de Courcelle, the
governor,
Jean Talon, the
intendant, and the
Marquis de Tracy, who had been appointed lieutenant general for the French king in America; but a difference of opinion had arisen between the governor and the intendant, and each had demanded the other's recall in the public interest. At this crisis in the administration of New France, Frontenac was appointed to succeed Rémy de Courcelle. He exercised an independence of action that did not coincide with the views of his minister
Colbert. Although the governor was not allowed to intervene in matters handled by the Sovereign Council and the intendant, persons in these formal posts had to respect the governor as the ultimate voice of authority. Such compliance was based on the notion that the governor was the king's representative. The governor was not merely an intermediary or a stand-in but extended the king's authority from France to the North American colony. As one of his first acts as governor, he established the three estates in Canada – nobles, clergy and people – and convened a colonial
Estates General to have the estates pledge fealty to him. Pledging fealty to the governor implied that all of the colony's settlers also pledged allegiance to the king and Frontenac did not take this lightly. The royal policy, however, was averse to the granting of extensive political rights to the Canadian settlers, and Frontenac's reforms in this direction were disapproved of. Thus, measures were adopted to curb his ambition by increasing the power of the
Sovereign Council and by once again reviving the office of intendant. Frontenac was a dominant man, jealous of authority, and prepared to exact obedience from all and yield to none. In the course of events he soon became involved in quarrels with the intendant regarding questions of precedence and with the ecclesiastics, one or two of whom ventured to criticize his proceedings. The church in New France had been administered for many years by the religious orders; for the see of Quebec, so long contemplated, had not yet been erected. But three years after the arrival of Frontenac, a former vicar apostolic,
François-Xavier de Montmorency-Laval, returned to Quebec as bishop, with a jurisdiction over the whole of New France. The governor found a vigorous opponent in Laval, who was determined to render the state subordinate to the church. Frontenac, following in this respect in the footsteps of his predecessors, had issued trading licenses which permitted the sale of intoxicants. The bishop, supported by the intendant, tried to suppress this trade and sent an ambassador to France to obtain remedial action. The views of the bishop were upheld and authority was divided. Troubles ensued between the governor and the
Sovereign Council, over its expansion and over the
corvées required to build the new forts. Under the king's edict of 1679, it was forbidden for a governor to arbitrarily imprison any subjects. After a deliberation in Versailles, both governor and intendant were recalled to France in the year 1682. The progress of events during the next few years proved that the recall of the governor had been ill-timed. The Iroquois were assuming a threatening attitude towards the inhabitants, and Frontenac's successor, La Barre, was quite incapable of leading an army against such foes. At the end of a year, La Barre was replaced by the
Marquis de Denonville, a man of ability and courage, who, though he showed some vigour in marching against the western Iroquois tribes, angered rather than intimidated them, and the
massacre of Lachine on 5 August 1689 must be regarded as one of the unhappy results of his administration. ==Second term in New France==