[Footnote:  Grangula’s speech is an example in part of Indian eloquence, and in part of the eloquence of Baron La Hontan, who contributes many striking passages to our knowledge of Frontenac’s period.]

When Le Moyne and the Jesuits had interpreted this speech La Barre ‘retired to his tent and stormed and blustered.’  But Grangula favoured the spectators with an Iroquois dance, after which he entertained several of the Frenchmen at a banquet.  ‘Two days later,’ writes La Hontan, ’he and his warriors returned to their own country, and our army set out for Montreal.  As soon as the General was on board, together with the few healthy men that remained, the canoes were dispersed, for the militia straggled here and there, and every one made the best of his way home.’

With this ignominious adventure the career of La Barre ends.  The reports which Meulles sent to France produced a speedy effect in securing his dismissal from office.  ‘I have been informed,’ politely writes the king, ’that your years do not permit you to support the fatigues inseparable from your office of governor and lieutenant-general in Canada.’

La Barre’s successor, the Marquis de Denonville, arrived at Quebec in August 1685.  Like La Barre, he was a soldier; like Frontenac, he was an aristocrat as well.  From both these predecessors, however, he differed in being free from the reproach of using his office to secure personal profits through the fur trade.  No governor in all the annals of New France was on better terms with the bishop and the Jesuits.  He possessed great bravery.  There is much to show that he was energetic.  None the less he failed, and his failure was more glaring than that of La Barre.  He could not hold his ground against the Iroquois and the English.

It has been pointed out already that when La Barre assumed office the problems arising from these two sources were more difficult than at any previous date; but the situation which was serious in 1682 and had become critical by 1685 grew desperate in the four years of Denonville’s sway.  The one overshadowing question of this period was the Iroquois peril, rendered more and more acute by the policy of the English.

The greatest mistake which Denonville made in his dealings with the Iroquois was to act deceitfully.  The savages could be perfidious themselves, but they were not without a conception of honour and felt genuine respect for a white man whose word they could trust.  Denonville, who in his private life displayed many virtues, seemed to consider that he was justified in acting towards the savages as the exigency of the moment prompted.  Apart from all considerations of morality this was bad judgment.