An unfortunate incident, trivial in itself, destroyed this harmony. It came from the characteristic inflexibility of the soldier governor. He had all the qualities of a soldier who, having made up his mind, is immovable, but he had the defects of these same qualities. What in a good cause would have been constancy in maintaining a point of honour became pigheadedness and impracticability in another. A woman of Quebec had been taken, selling a bottle of wine to the Indians. Her friends and relatives interceded for her to the priest, Father Lalemant, who in turn approached the governor. The governor must have been in a bad humour and not very philosophical, for he did not distinguish between clemency and justice, between a general command and an extenuating circumstance, or legitimate exemption. It was the priest's part to urge clemency, the governor's to exercise justice. Father Lalemant was answered brusquely: "Since the selling of _eau de vie_ is not punishable for this woman, it shall not be so for anyone"--the answer of the man of the sword and not of the lawyer or statesman. Soon the word went around that the governor tolerated the liquor traffic. The obstinate and headstrong soldier would not retract his hasty words and disorders began again. The governor was inactive and shut his eyes, but Laval levelled his threats again at the traders, who now openly revolted, saying they would not be dictated to by bishop, priest, preacher or confessor, since the viceroy was on their side. It was under these circumstances that de Maisonneuve issued his ordinance forbidding at Montreal what was known to be permitted at Quebec. Hence the passage of arms between the two governors as described. Maisonneuve was supported by the clergy of Montreal. Affairs went from bad to worse at Quebec and on August 12, 1662, the vicar apostolic went to France to place the liquor situation before the king. Thither also went the secretary of the Baron d'Avaugour, Péronne de Mazé, to justify his master and the traders. Charge and countercharge, and recriminations, exercised the French court. The bishop and the Jesuits were accused of too much severity and clericalism, the governor and traders of too much laxity and avarice. The problem of the relations of church and state had still to be worked out in New France. In the meantime the bishop won; the Sorbonne in 1662 had justified his action; the liquor traffic was forbidden and d'Avaugour was to be recalled. When Laval returned next year, the new governor, de Mésy, accompanied him, the man of his own choice--an unfortunate one as we shall see.