In Frontenac’s dispute with the clergy over the brandy question no new arguments were brought forward, since all the main points had been covered already.  It was an old quarrel, and there was nothing further to do than to set forth again the opposing aspects of a very difficult subject.  Religion clashed with business, but that was not all.  Upon the prosecution of business hung the hope of building up for France a vast empire.  The Jesuits urged that the Indians were killing themselves with brandy, which destroyed their souls and reduced them to the level of beasts.  The traders retorted that the savages would not go without drink.  If they were denied it by the French they would take their furs to Albany, and there imbibe not only bad rum but soul destroying heresy.  Why be visionary and suffer one’s rivals to secure an advantage which would open up to them the heart of the continent?

Laval, on the other hand, had chosen his side in this controversy long before Frontenac came to Canada, and he was not one to change his convictions lightly.  As he saw it, the sale of brandy to the Indians was a sin, punishable by excommunication; and so determined was he that the penalty should be enforced that he would allow the right of absolution to no one but himself.  In the end the king decided it otherwise.  He declared the regulation of the brandy trade to fall within the domain of the civil power.  He warned Frontenac to avoid an open denial of the bishop’s authority in this matter, but directed him to prevent the Church from interfering in a case belonging to the sphere of public order.  This decision was not reached without deep thought.  In favour of prohibition stood Laval, the Jesuits, the Sorbonne, the Archbishop of Paris, and the king’s confessor, Pere La Chaise.  Against it were Frontenac, the chief laymen of Canada, [Footnote:  On October 26, 1678, a meeting of the leading inhabitants of Canada was held by royal order at Quebec to consider the rights and wrongs of the brandy question.  A large majority of those present were opposed to prohibition.] the University of Toulouse, and Colbert.  In extricating himself from this labyrinth of conflicting opinion Louis XIV was guided by reasons of general policy.  He had never seen the Mohawks raving drunk, and, like Frontenac, he felt that without brandy the work of France in the wilderness could not go on.

Such were the issues over which Frontenac and Laval faced each other in mutual antagonism.

Between Frontenac and his other opponent, the intendant Duchesneau, the strife revolved about a different set of questions without losing any of its bitterness.  Frontenac and Laval disputed over ecclesiastical affairs.  Frontenac and Duchesneau disputed over civil affairs.  But as Laval and Duchesneau were both at war with Frontenac they naturally drew together.  The alliance was rendered more easy by Duchesneau’s devoutness.  Even had he wished to hold aloof from the quarrel