206 RETURN OF FRONTENAC. [1690. 



tied him to it, and began to torture him ; but, as 

 he did not show the usual fortitude of his country- 

 men, they declared him unworthy to die the death 

 of a warrior, and accordingly shot him. 1 



Here was a point gained for the French, but the 

 danger was not passed. The Ottawas could dis- 

 avow the killing of the Iroquois ; and, in fact, 

 though there was a great division of .opinion 

 among them, they were preparing at this very time 

 to send a secret embassy to the Seneca country to 

 ratify the fatal treaty. The French commanders 

 called a council of all the tribes. It met at the 

 house of the Jesuits. Presents in abundance were 

 distributed. The message of Frontenac was rein- 

 forced by persuasion and threats ; and the assembly 

 was told that the five tribes of the Iroquois were 

 like five nests of muskrats in a marsh, which the 

 French would drain dry, and then burn with all 

 its inhabitants. Perrot took the disaffected chiefs 

 aside, and with his usual bold adroitness diverted 

 them for the moment from their purpose. The 

 projected embassy was stopped, but any day might 

 revive it. There was no safety for the French, 



1 "Le Pere Missionnaire des Hurons, prevoyant que cette affaire 

 auroit peut-etre une suite qui pourrait etre prejudiciable aux soins qu'il 

 prenoit de leur instruction, demanda qu'il lui fut permis d'aller a leur 

 village pour les obliger de trouver quelque moyen qui fut capable d'ap- 

 paiser le ressentiment des Francois. II leur dit que ceux-ci vouloient 

 absolument que l'on mit I' Iroquois a la chaudiere, et que si on ne le 

 faisoit, on devoit venir le leur enlever." La Potherie, II. 237 (1722). 

 By the "result prejudicial to his cares for their instruction " he seems to 

 mean their possible transfer from French to English influences. The 

 expression mettre a la chaudiere, though derived from cannibal practices, 

 is often used figuratively for torturing and killing. The missionary in 

 question was either Carheil or another Jesuit, who must have acted with 

 his sanction. 



