Dated March 6th, another document of de Maisonneuve is preserved, in which it is recorded that the above five had been ordered to appear before the governor to take the oath, and had done so, but Le Sel and Leduc, having said and declared that they did not know how to write or sign, the three others signed the commission of appointment. Meanwhile the position of de Maisonneuve as governor of Montreal was becoming insecure and in June of this year he was called to Quebec by M. de Mézy who named Captain Etienne Pézard, Sieur de la Touche, to succeed him in his position. What the reason was, beyond the jealousy of the governor general, or a possible secret instruction from the government, we do not know. Yet this latter appointment never took place, for we find de Maisonneuve still governor till his final removal by Tracy at the end of 1665, and even then M. Dupuis, the town major, was only appointed as commandant till Perrot was officially appointed in 1669.[93] At Quebec the early months of 1664 were signalized by the outburst in flame of the smouldering dissatisfactions and the growing discord marring the harmony hitherto existing between Laval and de Mézy, the joint chiefs of the Sovereign Council. The dual rule was found impossible, especially as the council was considered by de Mézy to be a packed one in favour of Laval. It came to a head on February 3d, when the governor sent his major, the Sieur d'Angouville, to announce to the bishop that he had forbidden three of the council, de Villeray, d'Auteuil and Bourdon, the king's procurator, to appear at the council until they had been justified by the king for the cabals he alleged had been fomented against himself by them. He prayed the bishop to confirm this interdiction of those "who had been named in his favour" and to proceed in the nomination of three others. He did more: he proclaimed the same interdiction at the sound of the drum by a proclamation signed also by the three other councillors. Further, on February 13th, he published another declaration forbidding several practices which he said he felt bound to stop, so as not to betray the interests of the king. This rupture was inevitably the result of the impossible dual government. In France the vesting of temporal power in a bishop was not so likely to prove unsuccessful as in a new country needing a military governor. But to place the spiritual and civil authorities "ex aequo" in civil government was not the wise move for the good of the church it had been intended to be.