wishes, he was doomed to disappointment. The system of movable curés, by which the bishop like a military chief could compel each member of his clerical army to come and go at his bidding, was from the first repugnant to Louis XIV. On the other hand, the bishop clung to it with his usual tenacity. Colbert denounced it as contrary to the laws of the kingdom. * “His Majesty has reason to believe,” he writes, “that the chief source of the difficulty which the bishop makes on this point is his wish to preserve a greater authority over the curés.” ** The inflexible prelate, whose heart was bound up in the system he had established, opposed evasion and delay to each expression of the royal will; and even a royal edict failed to produce the desired effect. In the height of the dispute, Laval went to court, and, on the ground of failing health, asked for a successor in the bishopric. The king readily granted his prayer. The successor was appointed; but when Laval prepared to embark again for Canada, he was given to understand that he was to remain in France. In vain he promised to make no trouble; *** and it was not till after an absence of four years that he was permitted to return, no longer as its chief, to his beloved Canadian church. **** * Le Ministre a Duchesneau, 15 Mai, 1678. ** Instruction a M. de Meules, 1682. *** Laval au Père la Chaise, 1687. This forms part of a curious correspondence printed in the Foyer Canadien for 1866, from originals in the Archevêché of Quebec. **** From a mémoire of 18 Feb., 1685 (Archives de Versailles) it is plain that the court, in giving a successor to Laval, thought that it had ended the vexed question of movable curés.