History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 3/Chapter 2

by Hubert Howe Bancroft

 

CHAPTER II.

QUARREL OF THE VICEROY AND ARCHBISHOP.

1621-1624.

Appointment of Gelves — His Energetic and Extensive Reforms — Which are Forced also on the Clergy — Hostility of Gaviria and the Regidores — Archibishop Serna Roused — Moral Laxity in New Spain — Arrest of Varaez — Serna Interferes — The Viceroy is Excommunicated — Attitude of the Oidores — The Papal Delegate Plays a Part — More Anathemas — The Prelate Forces Himself into the Presence of the Audiencia — He is Exiled and Carried Away — Imprisonment of Repentant Oidores — A Mexican A Becket.

While not aware how wide-spread was the disorder in New Spain, the newly enthroned Felipe IV. felt convinced that reform was needed, and looked about for a man whose character and attainments should fit him for the task of restoring order. Such a one soon presented himself in the person of Diego Carrillo de Mendoza y Pimentel, second son of the marquis of Tavara, himself conde de Priego and marqués de Gelves.^[1] For many years the marquis had governed Aragon, and was actually a member of the council of war. In the discharge of these high trusts his rectitude and love of justice had been proven, while personal valor was common to those of his princely house. At the same time the long habit of command had developed a disinclination to brook any question of his authority, especially where the extent of his jurisdiction was concerned, and advancing age, for his years were more than sixty, had but served to strengthen this trait.

The usual instructions were given to Gelves, May 11, 1621, in addition to certain special directions from the king. Urged to hasten his departure, he embarked at Seville the 3d of July, in a vessel of the fleet commanded by Juan de Benavides, attended by quite a slender following of officials and dependants.

After a prosperous voyage the fleet arrived at Vera Cruz in August, and the marquis entered with great energy on the discharge of his duties. He visited San Juan de Ulua and the fortifications of the city itself, giving orders for the repairs which he deemed necessary. Personally he inspected the king's slaves, informing himself minutely of their number and condition, and ordering that they should be employed only in the royal service, and under no circumstances in that of officials, or of private individuals, as had been customary. Gelves, having made these and other reforms at the very threshold of the viceroyalty, went on with the work all along the road to Mexico.

Contrary to established usage, he would not allow either Spaniards' or Indians, at the places where halts were made, to be at the least expense for the entertainment of himself and his retinue, peremptorily ordering that everything should be paid for at the highest current value. Nor would he receive gratuitously gifts suggested by the hospitality of the people or those offered to him by the many anxious to curry favor with a new ruler. In this respect he made the rule inflexible during his whole term of office, for his servants as well as for himself. The fame of the marquis preceded him, and on his arrival at Mexico, on the 21st of September, he was received with great pomp.

His inauguration was made particularly brilliant by the elaborate ceremonies and rejoicings which attended the swearing of allegiance to the new king, an event deferred till this time, and leading to prolonged festivities throughout Spanish domains.^[2] There was a significance in it all more than usual in a coronation, for Felipe III. had not only shown himself incapable, but under his rule Spain had suffered many humiliations, under which she was rapidly descending from the high position attained during the golden rule of Ferdinand and Isabella, and sustained by Charles and Philip. The opening acts of Felipe IV. who ascended the throne at the age of sixteen, no less than his generous and reflective disposition, gave promise of better things; but the unformed youth fell too early into the hands of scheming courtiers and his nobler instincts were perverted. He yielded too much to the fascinations of literature and less commendable pursuits, while the administration was surrendered to inefficient and corrupt favorites, who accelerated the descent of Spanish prosperity and influence.

The reform measures of Gelves on the way to the capital had there roused the most conflicting sentiments, for, while honest patriotism hailed the coming of so just a governor, the placemen and their allies apprehended disaster, and they were not wrong. The viceroy soon instituted an examination and found public affairs in a condition of shameless disorder. The evil was greater than either the monarch or himself had thought. Permitted an abnormal growth under the lax administration of Guadalcázar, it had spread everywhere in the land, and its roots had struck deep in a congenial soil. With the energy to be expected of him the marquis undertook reform. His capability for work was great, and he found at the outset that he must attend personally to many things from the consideration of which his subordinates should have relieved him. At Mexico it had ever been a current saying that in keeping the friars and the Indians in order a viceroy had his hands full; Gelves accomplished more in a week than others in a month. But this very excess of zeal wrought his own undoing. The land was indeed in want of cultivation; was it for him who put his hand to the plough to foresee that thorns, not kindly fruits, would be the harvest? In his eagerness the marquis did not reflect that the great extent of newly settled New Spain was totally unlike his compact little government of Aragon, and, though he had crossed it, he was unmindful of the broad ocean rolling between a colonial viceroy and the master whose strengthening hand might at any time be needed. Most of all he forgot, as will be seen, that sweeping reforms, such as that attempted by the strong man in the temple, not infrequently involve in common ruin reformer and reformed.

New Spain awoke to consciousness of the fact that she had a ruler of ability and courage sufficient to redress wrongs and punish evil-doers. Gelves visited the prisons, and at times sat in judgment in the courts. He caused delayed business to be despatched promptly, ordering that in matters of justice no distinction should be made between the rich and the poor, and insisted that no magistrate should sit in any case wherein he was interested. He was accessible always to those who had complaints to make, and his servants were bidden never to deny him to the weak and friendless. Criminals who, though under sentence, were at large, he caused to be arrested and punished, while such as were unjustly detained in prison were released. He ferreted malefactors who through official negligence or wilful ignorance had gone unsuspected. In some instances it came out that certain official personages were sharers in the fruits of robbery. These, also, were punished, but in causing this to be done Gelves gained the enmity of others high in station who were their patrons.^[3] He forbade the exercise of gubernatorial powers in the release of prisoners, and ordered that all such matters should be referred to him for decision. The license to carry fire-arms was prohibited to all save persons of good character, and stringent measures were adopted for the suppression of drunkenness, gambling, and other vices. The growing insolence of the free negroes and half-breeds was checked by compelling them to register in their respective districts, to pay taxes, and to earn their living, such as were incorrigible being banished or enrolled in the militia. This efficient mounted force moved with great celerity, and, being well informed by spies of the movements of bandits, was able to make its blows effective. Arrest was supplemented swiftly by punishment, and highway robbery was completely at an end. "It is doubtful," says Cavo, "whether since the conquest so many criminals had been executed" as during this brief administration.^[4] Gelves earned fairly the appellation of 'juez severo,' or inflexible judge.

He compelled absentee alcaldes mayores, corregidores, and justicias to return to their jurisdictions. He put a stop to the sale of votes on the part of the ayuntamientos, a practice which obtained very generally in cities and villas distant from the capital, requiring that lists of eligible persons should be sent to him that he might select the names of those to be voted for—the selection being made only after favorable inquiry concerning the character of the person proposed. He compelled those who had embezzled the funds of the public granary to disgorge a certain amount of their plunder, and in the king's name took possession of two other deposits belonging to regidores of the capital. By these means, and by the expenditure of ten thousand pesos of his own, wherewith he made purchases in the neighboring provinces, he accumulated a considerable store of grain.^[5] He broke up effectually the trade in contraband goods between Acapulco and Peru. While this was a-doing it was found that members of the consulado had been concerned, some of them openly, in these practices.^[6] He removed the royal officials having charge of the supplies for the Philippines, putting clean-handed men in their places, and in consequence the amount of supplies sent to that colony was greater than ever before.^[7]

He checked immediately all pilfering of the royal treasury, banishing from the mines the foreigners and others who had defrauded the revenue, ordering that all money received for taxes should be sent at once to Mexico, and putting an end to other practices by which so much of the king's money had remained in the hands of dishonest officials.^[8] Owing to these reforms in the management of the treasury the viceroy was enabled to send an increased amount of money to Spain, where at this time it was sorely needed. After paying all the expenses of administering the viceroyalty and meeting the cost of supplies sent to Manila, a million of pesos was sent to the king in 1622, and a million and a half in the following year.^[9]

The marquis was a religious man and his respect for the clergy was sincere. To the archbishop he spoke privily, regretting the dissensions which rent atwain brethren who should dwell in harmony. He also begged the prelate to cease the unseemly practice of receiving gifts from suitors in the ecclesiastical court, and to reform other abuses.^[10] He restrained the inquisitors from intermeddling in temporal matters not within their jurisdiction. As far as he was able to exercise control he saw that offices in the religious orders were held by men fitted for their several positions.

Convinced by the frequent complaints of the Indians that the appointment of secular clergymen as doctrineros instead of friars would be detrimental to interests of the crown also, the viceroy ordered that the latter should be retained in the doctrinas, and that in the future only friars should be appointed to them. In this matter the viceroy was certainly not strictly impartial. Moreover in this action he undoubtedly laid the foundation for an accusation which afterward his enemies were only too glad to make. While his action in the premises had its origin, undeniably, in a spirit of just kindness to the Indians—for to have substituted for the friars to whom they were with reason attached secular clergymen ignorant of their tongues and customs alike, would have been tantamount to cruelty—it was nevertheless in conflict with the provisions of royal cédulas. Father Bartolomé de Burguillos, his confessor, was a friar of San Diego, and possibly his counsels had sufficient weight with the marquis to induce him thus to slight the wish of the sovereign frequently expressed.^[11]

The course of the marquis was commended by the upright, but these were far less in number than the vicious, and the number of his enemies increased daily. Those high in place, accustomed to have their own way in matters of government, were offended at the summary clipping of their wings. In public they contented themselves with shrugs and with fingers laid aside the nose, while privately they spoke in open anger, and fostered a hatred to the all-unconscious object thereof that merely bided its time for throwing off the mask. Occasionally, however, resentment overcame prudence.

Pedro de Vergara Gaviria, the senior oidor, was a self-willed man, who after the brief taste of power enjoyed before the arrival of Gelves had become unfitted to play the subordinate. He had easily become chief among his fellows, and was not at all inclined to brook the restraint imposed upon him by the just though severe measures of the viceroy. Gelves, always courteous in his treatment of members of the audiencia and the cabildo, went further than necessary in useless attempts to make a friend of this man, who on his part seemed to consider all the favors of the marquis as so many marks of weakness. Gelves made him his asesor in matters relating to war, and Gaviria's inclination to absolutism readily induced him to fall into the habit of giving orders without having troubled himself to consult the viceroy. To this the latter very properly objected.^[12] But the asesor went on in this insubordinate fashion until Gelves found himself constrained to order that he should be confined to his own house.^[13]

This unruly spirit was common among high officials. On a certain day of solemn observance some of the regidores ordered that their chairs should not be taken to the cathedral, whither it was their duty to accompany the viceroy and the other corporations, alleging as an excuse for their conduct some unsettled question of precedence with the royal officials. Noticing their absence, and informed of the cause, the viceroy ordered their attendance, without prejudice to their rights, real or fancied. Nevertheless they did not make their appearance. Gelves, after consultation with the audiencia, sent a corregidor to arrest them in case of a continued refusal to obey. Persisting in their disobedience, they were put under arrest in the casas de cabildo, or city hall.^[14] The justices and others in office had each his grievance. Some of these were incensed because the peculations of which they had been guilty, and which for so long a time they had practised with impunity, were punished by dismissal from office. Others again gave themselves up to the resentment felt by little minds because the crimes which they had been unable to discover were brought to light through the exertions of the viceroy. The friars took umbrage because of what they considered an unwarranted meddling of the viceroy in their elections. The Jesuits were aggrieved that their attempt on the doctrinas had met with signal failure, and these restless intriguers immediately addressed themselves to the work of undoing Gelves as they had undermined others.^[15]

By far the most formidable of the enemies of the marquis was the archbishop, Juan Perez de la Serna, a man who from the position of canónigo magistral of Zamora had in 1613 been appointed to succeed the deplored prelate-viceroy Guerra as head of the church in New Spain.^[16] He proved zealous in extending spiritual administration through curacies and convents, striving to bring into greater veneration sacred places and relics, and to practise charity^[17] in a manner that brought him in contact with the poor and assisted to make him popular with the masses. Among the rich and the officials he found less welcome, owing partly to his persevering efforts for episcopal rights,^[18] partly to the enforcement of a stricter morality among the higher classes. The unseemly strife between friars and clergy, and the loose conduct of many of them, greatly encouraged an irreligious feeling among those whose means lured them from austerity and strict rules to a life of ease and free indulgence, and to laxity even in sacred matters. Painters, for instance, made efforts to present church ceremonials in a ridiculous aspect, or they painted lewd persons with the attributes and dress of saints. During lent the inhabitants of the capital used to perform pilgrimage to a place called the Humilladero, on foot and in silent meditation. When Serna came he found that this journey of penance had been transformed into a carnival march, wherein the wealthy appeared in carriages, and others in convivial groups, all bent on enjoyment. To this the prelate sought to put a stop, under threat of excommunication, and he also did his best to check drunkenness and other vices, though herein the corrupt and unfriendly officials under the weak Guadalcázar offered no assistance.

The zealous introduction of reforms by Gelves had at first won the admiring cooperation of Serna,^[19] but when he found them extending too far within ecclesiastic precincts impatience turned into open hostility, for the prelate was exceedingly jealous concerning his prerogatives, and possessed of a stubbornness which readily developed into unreasonable zeal. He took in dudgeon the well meant counsels concerning the reform of abuses in the ecclesiastical court, and his resentment was increased by the decision in the matter of doctrinas. On several occasions he forgot the dignity of his station, and that the viceroy was the personal representative of the king whom both served. In the palaces of the great, tale-bearers are never lacking, and reports of the prelatic outbursts lost nothing in the recital, but Gelves, desiring to avoid a rupture, took no notice of them. This moderation, however, did not produce the effect desired, for the prelate began not only to censure the acts of the viceroy with unseemly freedom, but to lean openly to the cause of those opposed to him, as though a formal compact had been entered into between them.

Thus, in the short space of two years Gelves, while he had restored in a signal manner the outward observance of the law, had failed to establish order where order was most needed, and at the close of 1623 he found arrayed against him the archbishop and the friars, the audiencia and the cabildo of Mexico. The lower class of the people knew no will but that of the church, when that will was signified; the upper class, composed almost entirely of men with but a single interest, that of plundering the royal treasury, was manipulated by the two great corporations. Against such a combination any man protected only by an autocrat six thousand miles away must have been powerless, and it needed but the most trivial circumstance to bring about an outbreak. The occasion was not long wanting.

In September 1622, Manuel Soto, a person employed at the public granary of Mexico, denounced to the viceroy Melchor Perez de Varaez, alcalde mayor of Metepec,^[20] accusing him of forcing the Indians of his jurisdiction to purchase grain of him at an exorbitant price, and to sell to him their cattle and produce at merely nominal rates, as well as of other oppressive acts. The viceroy caused the charges to be investigated, and the proofs being irrefutable, ordered the less important to be made grounds of action in Mexico while the more grave he referred to the India council. Meanwhile Varaez had been under arrest in a private house, and Gelves now ordered that, under bonds, he should be given the freedom of the city. Varaez demurred to this, alleging that bonds should not be exacted from him for a cause so trivial, but the viceroy peremptorily ordered compliance,^[21] and referred the cause to the oidor Alonso Vazquez de Cisneros.^[22]

The proceedings went on too slowly to suit the humor of the marquis. After consultation with his legal adviser, Luis de Herrera, but without the concurrence of the audiencia, he ordered the case to be referred to the fiscal of Panamá, Juan de Alvarado Bracamonte, who had just come from Manila. Bracamonte proceeded with activity, sending Sancho de Baraona, a clerk of the audiencia, to the province of Metepec to collect additional evidence. To the new referee Varaez objected, and the viceroy ordered Francisco Enriquez de Avila, a corregidor of Mexico, to sit with him. These judges deemed it advisable to exact from the accused a bond to answer to any judgment they might render, and Varaez, fearing lest he might be again imprisoned, sword in hand and accompanied by dependants, entered a coach and hastened to claim sanctuary at the convent of Santo Domingo. Almost simultaneously the judges sentenced him to pay a fine of sixty thousand pesos, and to perpetual banishment from the Indies.

Shortly afterward, Soto having alleged that Varaez contemplated fleeing to Spain, guards were placed at the door of his cell, and all communication with him was forbidden. He contrived, however, that a memorial should reach the archbishop, in which it was claimed that the presence of the guards was in violation of the right of sanctuary.^[23] The ecclesiastical judge ordered that the guards should be removed within two days, a demand to which the civil judges refused to accede because Varaez, having in effect broken jail, was not entitled to sanctuary. If the point were not well taken it was certainly debatable; but the archbishop, taking the case out of the hands of his provisor, excommunicated Soto, the judges, the guards, and even the counsel employed by them. The persons so excommunicated immediately appealed to the audiencia, and in accordance with the royal provision governing such cases, sentence was suspended, and absolution ad reincidentiam given at first for twenty days and then for a further period of fifteen.^[24]

A few days afterward Gelves called upon the archbishop to send the notary to him that he might be purged of contempt. After repeated instances the prelate reluctantly consented to do so. The notary appeared before the viceroy accompanied by the archbishop's secretary, whom the marquis immediately dismissed, in a very discourteous manner, as was afterward alleged by the prelate.^[25] The notary made certain important statements, but these being reduced to writing he refused to sign the deposition without permission from his prelate. For this he was adjudged guilty of contumacy, and, being condemned to loss of property and banishment, he was taken to San Juan de Ulua that he might be sent to Spain.^[26] This act of the viceroy was undoubtedly legal, but the archbishop immediately declared that he had incurred the censures mentioned in the bull called in cœna domini^[27] He therefore excommuicated him, ordering his name to be placed in the list of excommunicated persons affixed to the church door.

Gelves now called the oidores and the alcaldes together in order to get their opinion concerning the right of the archbishop to excommunicate him. Their answer was evasive,^[28] and he submitted the matter to a second assemblage, composed of ecclesiastics and laymen, who decided that the archbishop was clearly in the wrong.^[29] Fortified by this opinion the viceroy now retaliated on his antagonist by a decree condemning him to pay a fine of ten thousand ducados, to confiscation of his temporal property, and to banishment. The marquis finally sent the alguazil mayor, Luis de Tobar Godinez, to execute the decree and compel the archbishop to revoke his sentence. The viceroy had notified the archbishop three several times of his decree, but on none of these occasions had the audiencia taken part in the action as according to law they should have done. During this passage at arms neither of the antagonists had conducted himself with the dignity to be expected from persons of their exalted position. They vied one with another in selecting untimely hours and unusual places for the exchange of their peculiar courtesies.^[30]

The appeal to the audiencia, however, was never decided; for while it was pending the judges and other persons excommunicated, seeing the obstinacy of the archbishop, on the 20th of December 1623 appeared before the papal delegate at Puebla.^[31] The delegate peremptorily ordered the archbishop to remove the ban, which the prelate refused to do, on the ground that because of the appeal to the audiencia the tribunal at Puebla had no jurisdiction, alleging also that the time for appeal on the part of the excommunicated had gone by. Thereupon, on New Year's day, the delegate issued a compulsory mandate, ordering the archbishop to absolve the excommunicated. The execution of this decree he intrusted to a Dominican friar, as his sub-delegate, who personally removed from the church door the obnoxious notices.^[32]

From many of the pulpits of the city the conduct of the delegate was reprehended in no unmeasured terms, while, on the streets, knots of heated disputants took one view or the other of the question as their feelings prompted. On his part the archbishop, more than ever exasperated, ordered the spiritual outcasts to be excommunicated anew with all the dramatic accompaniments of bell, book, and candle, and that the list be again posted with the name of the subdelegate added to the rest. On that same night of January 3d, he ordered also that all the churches of the city should announce the threatened interdict. While the ceaseless clamor of the bells, ringing as though for this end only had they been cast, was inspiring in the souls of the people the shadowy fear of some greater ill impending, came the final notification of the delegate commanding the archbishop to remove the ban. The sub-delegate was ordered, in case of the prelate's refusal or neglect, to execute upon him the sentence of fine and banishment. The stubborn archbishop again refused compliance, and the sub-delegate prepared to carry the sentence into effect. He again removed the censures and ordered the ringing of the bells to cease, and now the very silence aroused new-fears among the terrified people.

Early on the morning of the 9th of January the archbishop sent Cristóbal Martinez de Recalde, parish priest of the cathedral, accompanied by notaries, to the viceregal palace with a petition addressed to the audiencia. After setting forth the facts of the case in a manner very favorable to his own view of it, the archbishop demanded that the audiencia should decide immediately the pending appeal.^[33] In presenting this petition to the oidores Juan Paez de Vallecillo, Juan de Ibarra, and Diego de Avendaño, Martinez said that it was in the power of the audiencia to put an end to all disagreements, thus preventing a possible breach of the peace. Vallecillo, who was senior oidor, replied that they had been ordered by the viceroy to receive no petitions from the archbishop or any clergyman, except through the proper channels. Martinez objecting that such an order took away the prelate's opportunity of attempting to restore harmony, Ibarra replied; "You know that this is the order of our president; what, then, would you have us do?" After some further speech of like import, and an intimation of coming trouble from Martinez, he and his companions withdrew.^[34]

Bent on carrying his point, and learning that the sub-delegate was about to execute sentence upon him, the archbishop resolved upon a last desperate resort. At an early hour on the 11th of January, 1624, he caused himself to be taken to the viceregal palace, in a sedan-chair borrowed for the purpose, and attended only by two pages. That he went in this ostentatiously humble manner, instead of in his coach, with crozier upborne before him and accompanied by the members of his household, was of itself a circumstance sufficiently strange to create attention, and on reaching the palace he was surrounded by a crowd of idlers.

The startled oidores asked what he desired.^[35] The prelate replied that he sought justice, and that he would not leave the audience-chamber until he had received it.^[36] He then desired to read a petition in which it was set forth: That he was obliged to appear thus in person because the president of the audiencia had given orders that no communication brought from him by an ecclesiastic would be received, and no layman dared to aid him by presenting one. Since it was not just that he alone in all New Spain should be denied the right to appeal to the audiencia for protection, he humbly besought that body, in the name of God and the church, to pity the wretched condition of the country as well as of his dignity and jurisdiction, and to receive and hear this petition against the threatened action of the papal delegate; further, to decide the appeal pending in the matter of the guards of Varaez without delay. Were this not done, he was determined to go to Spain, there to appeal to the king in person. This petition the oidores refused to receive; and summoned by the viceroy they left the prelate in the audience-chamber. He immediately placed the petition and the accompanying documents on the table beneath the canopy of state, calling upon the multitude present to bear witness that he did so. There were present about one hundred persons, among them some eight or ten clergymen. Fearful lest there might be a disturbance, the viceroy ordered that all persons having no business before the audiencia should depart at once, and presently the archbishop, his notary Aguilar, and the two pages alone remained.

The prelate was now formally required to return to his palace, there to await the answer to his petitions, which must pass through the usual course. This he refused to do, insisting upon receiving justice and upon the admission of appeals. For this obstinacy he was fined four thousand ducados, and upon his further refusal the sentence of banishment from New Spain was added.^[37] It was afternoon when Gelves ordered Lorenzo de Terrones, alcalde del crímen of the audiencia, to execute the sentence by taking the rebellious prelate to San Juan de Ulúa, there to embark for Spain.^[38] Accompanied by the alguacil mayor, Martin Ruiz de Zavala, his deputy, Baltasar de Peréa, and others, Terrones notified the archbishop of the instructions he had received. The reply of the prelate was that they must remove him forcibly, and Terrones and Perea, taking him each by an arm, but in a respectful manner, led him down to the courtyard, where a hired travelling-carriage drawn by four mules was in waiting. In this the prisoner, having his crozier and the insignia of his rank in the church, and the three officials, seated themselves; some ten or twelve mounted constables under Major Antonio Ocampo^[39] of the palace guard surrounded the equipage, and the whole cortege departed by the streets leading to the causeway of Guadalupe.

So great was the crowd in the plaza that with difficulty a passage was made. On all sides the sobs of the women mingled with the sterner voices of the men, while they asked whither their beloved pastor was being taken, or heaped imprecations on the head of the author of this outrage. Some divested themselves of their mantles in order to throw them in the road of the carriage. The crowd grew by accessions from side streets and from the houses by the wayside, notwithstanding Ocampo's order that none should go further than the church of Santo Domingo, until on reaching Guadalupe, it numbered fully five thousand Indians, negroes, and half-breeds. While the archbishop dined and rested, the people by degrees returned to the city, there spreading the news and arousing general discontent.

That night the three oidores, whether influenced by partisans of the archbishop or fearful that their action had been hasty, took counsel of one another. The result was that Ibarra despatched a messenger to Terrones bidding him go slowly, for on the morrow the order touching the exile of the prelate would undoubtedly be revoked. On the morning of the 12th, accordingly, the three met formally, with Vallecillo as president, passed a resolution declaring that there had been a lack of accord in the proceedings of the previous day, and ordering that, while this point was considered, those having the prelate in custody should return with him at once. Of this the viceroy had speedy information, and ordered the clerk of the audiencia to deliver up the document. The oidores met again, and passed another resolution revoking the four orders of the 11th, on the ground that they had not been passed by a quorum, and ordering that the archbishop should be brought back to Mexico.^[40] Informed of this second meeting of the oidores the viceroy ordered them into confinement within the palace, and that two relatores who had taken part with them should be put in prison. He also ordered that no action should be taken in the matter of the revocation by the oidores, in which he had had no part.

Fearing lest the archbishop might renew the interdict, and having strengthened his resolve by an appeal to the fiscal, the marquis sent Tobar to the cathedral and the churches, to notify the chapter and the parish priests not to obey any such order on the part of their superior till the delegate should have rendered his decision. Tobar found the cathedral doors shut, although the building was full of people, but obtained admittance after some delay. Not without opposition he read the order from the steps of the high altar, and was promised obedience by the provisor and the chapter; but the parish priests replied that they had no power to suspend or impede what their superior might determine.

In order that the archbishop might not attempt to influence in any way the delegate at Puebla, the viceroy despatched a messenger to Terrones, with orders to avoid that city and to take another road.^[41] A halt had been made at the town of Guadalupe for the purpose of allowing the archbishop to rest, and of this he availed himself to issue two additional decrees. In the first, after reciting his visit to the audiencia, his arrest, and his deportation to this place, the prelate declared that the president and oidores, as well Terrones, Zavala, Perea, and Osorio, together with Ocampo and the alguaciles of the guard, had incurred the censures mentioned in the canon clementia si quis suadente diabolo and the bull in cœna domini.^[42] This decree was made known at once to all the persons named therein, except the president and oidores, with an offer of absolution if sought within six hours. The second edict was addressed to the clergy, reciting the facts mentioned in the first edict and ordering an interdict to be established.

The archbishop had wished to remain still longer at Guadalupe, but Terrones insisting, he consented at length to go on, and the night was passed at the hermitage of Santa Isabel. On the following evening he reached San Juan de Teotihuacan. On the morning of the 13th Terrones entering the bed-chamber of the archbishop found him still abed. He desired the prelate to dress and to enter the carriage which was in waiting at the door. Informed of the action of the oidores the archbishop pleaded that his health would not allow him to pursue the journey for the present. Terrones insisting, he replied curtly that a formal order would alone have weight with him.^[43] It was indecent that a person of his quality should be carried off in this manner, when there was nothing in his conduct to warrant such treatment; and were he to go willingly he might be accused of a desire to proceed to Spain on an errand of his own. Not wishing to take extreme measures Terrones sent to Mexico for further orders. Alarm at his spiritual plight may have been one of the reasons why Terrones consented to humor the prelate, but for this he was reprimanded by the viceroy, who also rebuked his negligence in allowing the issue of fresh excommunications,^[44] intimating that a prompt execution of orders would be more pleasing than a waste of time in sending despatches and awaiting answers. A little compulsion would do no harm.^[45]

The afflicted Terrones accordingly issued orders for departure. The luggage was sent on before, the carriage stood in readiness, but no archbishop appeared. At first the attendants of the prelate gave out that he was at his prayers, and then that he had gone for a walk; but, on more special inquiry, it was found that he was actually in the church of the Franciscan convent.^[46] Terrones followed him, accompanied by the alguacil mayor, Torres, and four of the reluctant guard. On entering the church they found the prelate, in rochet, cape, and stole, standing by the high altar, while the ciborium was open with the host in remonstrance within. Terrones, weeping, upbraided him for thus forcing extreme measures, saying that he had lost his honor, and his life was forfeit to the viceroy's wrath. To this outburst the prelate replied calmly that he could not continue the journey, for he was engaged in visiting officially the altar of the parish. Saying this, he took from the ciborium a wafer which he placed on a paten, and holding this in his hands he seated himself close to the altar. But soon the wily priest was carried away by the excitement attendant on a situation so dramatic, or possibly he determined purposely to heighten its effect. When the alcalde again desired him to leave these things and to continue the journey, he burst into tears, exclaiming that he had not wished to resort to this extremity in Mexico, for the land was newly christianized, and he feared lest the faith of the Indians might be shaken by the occurrence of events to them inexplicable. "Here, however," he added, "all are Spaniards; just as I am take me away."^[47] Thus saying, he placed the paten upon the altar.

Terrones then ordered the notary to instruct the captain of the guard to do as the viceroy had ordered. As, in obedience to the thrice repeated order, Armenteros and one of the guards began to ascend the steps of the altar, the archbishop arose, and lifting the paten on high before them he said: "Let us see if there be a Christian man so dead to shame as to lay hands on Jesus Christ." The intangible power of the church was still paramount. Serna successfully played the part of Becket, but to Armenteros and his men the spirit of the Norman knights was lacking; bursting into tears they retired.^[48] On his part Terrones exclaimed: "My lord, you have wrought my undoing!" To this Serna replied: "Sir doctor, I but work in the cause of your worship and that of these poor fellows." The alcalde took his wonted way out of difficulties, and bade Torres ride with speed to Mexico in order to give an account to the viceroy of the turn matters had taken. The latter merely replied that Terrones should be recalled and give place to a man who would carry out orders rather than write despatches. All that night the prelate remained at the post he had chosen near the high altar, taking such rest as he could on its steps, regardless of the cold. All night the sacrament remained exposed on that altar while the guard kept watch by turns.^[49]

 

 

1. He was also a knight of Santiago, holding the commandery of Villanueva de la Fuente.
2. 'El resto del año se pasó en fiestas no solo en la capital, sino también en todas las ciudades y villas de aquel nuevo mundo.' Cavo, Tres Siglos, i. 265-6. This and some other authors assume that the long preceding mourning was ordered during an interregnum under the audiencia.
3. Among these the following were among the most noteworthy instances: The assayer's stamp, used for marking the weight and value of bars of silver, had been counterfeited, and the authorities were unable to discover the counterfeiters. Gelves took the matter in hand, and the guilty were arrested, tried, and condemned, by a cédula dated June 15, 1622, to be strangled and burned at the stake. Mex., Rel. del Estad., 4. Before Gelves' arrival the treasury at Mexico had been entered forcibly, and some 8,000 pesos abstracted therefrom. In an arbitrary manner proceedings had been begun against the treasury officials, who complained to the viceroy of the injustice. By his exertions the persons really guilty of the crime were discovered and punished.' Mex., Rel. Sum., 2.
4. ‘Los caminos de la Nueva España estaban inundados de salteadores.' Tres Siglos, i. 266.
5. He also ordered that maize should not be fed to cattle within fourteen leagues of Mexico and ten of Pueblo, and that throughout the viceroyalty the price of this staple should not be more than twenty reales the fanega. Abundance soon brought the price down to less than this, and it sold as low as sixteen reales. This public benefaction was acknowledged by the cabildo of Mexico, in a formal manner, toward the close of 1623. Mex., Rel. del Estad., 7-8. The viceroy also ordered that Juan Juarez, fiscal of the audicncia, should be present at the granary, at certain determined hours daily, for the purpose of seeing that the poor were impartially treated. He caused the butcher-shops of the archiepiscopal palace to be closed and prohibited the sale of all articles of food at the exorbitant prices hitherto prevailing. Grambila, Tumultos, MS., 3.
6. In the prosecutions growing out of this matter the viceroy allowed no appeal; this was afterward qualified as an act of tyranny by the audiencia in their answer of February 8, 1624, to Gelves' protest from his cell in the convent of San Francisco. Mex., Rel. Sum., 15.
7. In 1622 the value of these supplies was nine hundred thousand dollars, and in the following year two thirds of that amount. Mex., Rel. del Estad., 5.
8. Gelves had been told that it would be impossible to recover money turned into the treasury in partial payment of taxes. On investigation it was found that there was nearly a quarter of a million of dollars thus owing, some of it since 1598, and of this amount about one half was recovered. Mex., Rel. del Estad., 4.
9. This was more than had been sent heretofore in any corresponding period. Grambila, Tumultos, MS., 10; Mex., Rel. del Estad., 5.
10. The abuse of the privilege of sanctuary was notorious, and criminals availed themselves of false witnesses in order to prove that they were entitled to it. Gelves required the fiscal to use every diligence in order to arrive at the truth in these matters. One Juan de Rincon having brought forward 11 witnesses to prove his right to immunity, on the testimony of 29 others these men were shown to have forsworn themselves, and were condemned to penal servitude at Manila. They were sent out of the city together with other convicts; but notwithstanding the opposition of the viceroy, the audiencia, on the ground that the sentence was excessive, caused them to be brought back, and finally they went unwhipped of justice. Mex., Rel. Sum., 2.
11. For the provisions of many different cédulas, too numerous for insertion here, see Recop. de Ind., in the titles of book first relating to clérigos, religiosos, doctrineros, and doctrinas.
12. On a certain occasion, having received one of these reproofs, Gaviria, in the viceroy's ante-chamber and in the presence of several persons, snatched from the hand of the secretary the papers to which objection had been made and tore them in pieces, exclaiming petulantly that he would not continue in office if he were not allowed his way in all things. Mex., Rel. Sum., 2.
13. In the letter of the cabildo of Mexico to the king, dated February 19, 1624. in which an account was given of the riot of the preceding month, it is asserted that Gaviria's imprisonment was entirely owing to his having allowed to be read before the audiencia certain petitions of some friar of La Merced complaining of their vicar-general. Fray Juan Gomez, a great favorite of the viceroy. Mex., Cartas de la ciudad á S. M., in Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. iii. 130. In another letter of the same date, in which the cabildo recommends Gaviria, and Dr Galdos de Valencia, another oidor whom Gelves had found it necessary to remove from office, to the royal favor, it is stated that the imprisonment of the former lasted for eighteen months. Id., 171-2.
14. Thence, however, they rallied at their will, in order to inveigh in public against the marquis. Mex., Rel. del Estad., 2.
15. The venom of one of them appears in a manuscript in my possession copied from the original in the collection of Gayangos. Although it is anonymous there is sufficient internal evidence to show that it was the work of a Jesuit. Relacion de un estupendo y monstruo caso, in Mexico y sus disturhios, i. 631-57.
16. He was born at Cervera, studied at Sigüenza and Valladolid, became a professor at Durango, and in 1597 canónigo magistral of the church at Zamora, a position won from nine competitors 'grandes.' On January 18, 1613, he was appointed archbishop. Vetancurt,Trat. Mex., 24; Gonzalez Dávila, Teatro Ecles., i. 45; Concilios Prov., 1555-65, 216-17.
17. All charities being given by his own hands, 'porque dezia ser mucha la diferencia que ay, de oir la miseria del pobre en relacion, à verla por vista.' Gonzalez Dávila, Teatro Ecles., i. 45.
18. Among other troubles was the attempt by officials to deprive him of the procuracion tribute given by towns and villages visited by the prelate. Gage gives his income at 60,000 ducats a year. Voy. (Amst. 1720), i. 201.
19. See his letters in Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. ii.-iii., passim.
20. The count of La Cortina says that his jurisdiction was that of Ixtlahuaca. Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. iii. 62; Alcaraz, in Liceo Mex., ii. 122, makes the same mistaken statement. The two places are near to one another. Varaez was a person of some consequence and a knight of Santiago. Sosa, Espicop. Mex., 60. He was the intimate friend of the powerful oidores Pedro de Vergara Gaviria and Galdos de Valencia, who through their influence with their associates in that body had procured for him an appointment as corregidor of Mexico. The fiscal had claimed that he could not hold both offices. On appeal to the India Council that body decided that he was incompetent, and condemned the oidores to pay each a fine of one hundred ducados. They resisted payment, but Gelves, who had arrived meanwhile, compelled them to pay it. Mex., Rel. Sum., 8; Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. iii. 62-3.
21. Varaez alleged further that his denouncer was an insignificant mulatto unworthy of credence. What he and his friends felt the most was that the viceroy would not allow these to be his judges, and that undoubtedly he would be obliged to return to his jurisdiction. In this way their trading operations would come to an end. Id., Mex. Rel. Sum., 4.
22. He had arrived recently from Spain, and bore the reputation of being an honest man. For two months he refused to accept the charge, but the viceroy compelled him to do so. Soto alleged that Cisneros was not impartial in this matter, since he was an intimate friend of Gaviria and his guest. Ubi sup., and Alcaraz, in Liceo Mex., ii, 123.
23. That the prelate himself visited Varaez, as is stated by the author of the Relacion Sumaria, seems extremely improbable. Still the circumstance is also mentioned by the conde de la Cortina: 'y con estruendo y aparato y licenciosa ostentacion, y visitando al retraido, volvia á su casa mas prendado, y dado el file á los aceros.' The count also states that Varaez objected to the guards only because of the expense occasioned to him by their presence. Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. iii. 645; Mex., Rel. Sum., 5. In the matter of the right of sanctuary civil authorities in Spain had issued a number of exemptions which greatly restricted the privilege.
24. The archbishop demanded a copy of certain orders from the clerk of the audiencia, C. de Osorio, and being denied he excommunicated him.
25. Gelves was attended by Herrera, Bracamonte, Father Burguillos, and Baraona. These men, together with the vicar of La Merced, some superiors of the religious orders, and a few others, were the viceroy's trusted advisers. Father Alonso de Villaroel, a priest who afterward testified in support of the archbishop's side of the controversy, calls them: 'aquellos malos cristianos de sus consejeros aduladores . . . que le engañaban y le adulaban y le dieron por consejo diciéndole que él era legado del Papa en las Indias y rey en ellas, y así podia hacer en nombre de S. M. lo que quisiese en las Indias.' Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. ii. 356.
26. The cabildo of Mexico, in the letter to which reference has been made, asserts that this man was kept in prison for two days and a night, after which, at midnight, he was hurried away to the fortress, where he still remained (19th February 1624), notwithstanding the fact that meanwhile several vessels had sailed thence for Spain. It is not at all probable that the archbishop would allow the man, about whose arrest he made such trouble, to remain in durance for more than a month after the downfall of the viceroy.
27. This celebrated bull is of great antiquity, and received its name from the fact that it was read publicly in the presence of the pope on Maundy-thursday, by a cardinal-deacon, accompanied by several other prelates. It contains a general excommunication of all heretics, and of those guilty of contumacy and disobedience to the holy see. One of its 34 paragraphs provides that laymen who venture to pass judgment on ecclesiastical judges and cite them to appear before their tribunals shall incur the censure specified in the bull. On this paragraph the archbishop probably based his action.
28. Their answer was that they had not studied the point. Cavo, Tres Siglos, i. 270. It indicates what their purpose was. At this time, as at any other previous to the breaking-out of the riot, the audiencia might have calmed the rising storm had its members chosen. Peace-making, however, was far from their intention.
29. In defense of the decision of this assemblage Father Burgnillos, already mentioned, published a memorial, which was printed, addressed to the visitador Carrillo. The memorial is contained in 28 octavo pages of close print, and is a learned production. The Franciscan, citing a host of canonical authorities, denies the authority of any prelate to excommunicate in such a case. Memorial, in Tumultos de Mex., 67-80.
30. On the feast of the Purísima Concepcion, Tobar, by order of Gelves, notified the archbishop of a decree while he stood in all the dignity of his sacred office at the high altar of the cathedral, with the host uncovered, and in the midst of the solemnity of the mass. The outraged prelate, declaring that he would not permit such profanation, nor that the people should be so scandalized, refused to receive the notice. Serna, Representacion, in Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. ii. 165. The cabildo, in its letter to the king, asserts that the viceroy ordered proclamation made that none should pass by the archiepiscopal palace nor assemble in numbers within one block of it. Mex., Cartas de la ciudad á S. M., in Id., iii. 134. On the other hand the archbishop was 'ciego por el deseo de la venganza que el llamaba celo divino.' Mora, Mex. y sus Rev., iii. 244. He also 'apresuróla por instantes con diligencia estraordinaria; mandaba hacer á media noche notificaciones esquisitas.' Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. iii. 64.
31. This office was created by a special bull of Gregory XIII. for the decision of difficult cases of this very nature. The delegate generally resided at Puebla.
32. The Dominican, by order of the viceroy, was accompanied by a guard for the purpose of preventing any opposition that might be offered by partisans of the archbishop. Father Cavo with his usual bias asserts that the sub-delegate was a 'pobre clérigo sacristan de monjas, por no haber querido ningun sugeto de carácter encargarse de semejante comision.' Cavo, Tres Siglos, i. 271.
33. He stated moreover that it was with difficulty he could find a notary who dared to publish the decree of excommunication; also that in notifying his decrees the viceroy behaved 'con menos decencia de lo que convenia,' and, finally, that the proceedings against Varaez were unwarranted by law, and were undertaken solely for the purpose of causing delay. Serna, Rep., in Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. ii. 151-72.
34. 'Y el dicho S. Lic. Vallecillo dijo, andad con Dios que ya está proveido y con esto los porteros le dijeron que callase, no embargante lo cual el dicho Lic. Martinez volvió á replicar.' Id., ii. 175. Informed that the audiencia would not receive the petition, the archbishop caused another to be addressed to Pedro de Arévalo Sedeño, fiscal of that body, calling upon him to act as though it had been received, and to take immediate steps for the purpose of preventing any harm which might result from want of action on the part of the audiencia. This was delivered by Aguilar to the fiscal, together with copies of the petition and of the documents in the case of Varaez, and evoked merely an evasive manner. 'Su merced respondió, que yo el notario dijese á S. Sa. Illma. del arzobispo mi señor, que le besaba los manos y. . . hará todo lo posible, y lo que debe.' Id., 178.
35. In its letter the cabildo asserts that the archbishop remained at the door of the audience-chamber, asking leave to enter, and that receiving no answer, he ventured within, and himself addressed the oidores, telling them his errand. Mex., Carta de la Ciudad á S. M., in Id., iii. 136. This letter is based, not only in this particular but in many others, on the representation of the archbishop. Id., 183.
36. ’No se iria de allá aun cuando lo hicieran pedazos, hasta que no se la hiciese justicia.' Mex., Rel. Sum., 6.
37. This sentence was based on more than one royal decree. One oidor did not take part in this act, which he chose to regard as executive matter.
38. The order was supplemented by another fuller and more specific in its instructions. In the latter, Terrones was ordered to take the prelate directly to San Juan de Ulúa, there to embark in the first ship sailing for Spain that might suit him. For each day of service, going and coming, Terrones would receive twelve ducados de Castilla, the notary four pesos de oro comun, and the guards their usual pay. All of these expenses, as well as others which might be incurred, were to be met by the archbishop, and the tithe collector of the cathedral was obliged to pay 2,000 pesos at once. Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. ii. 253-7, 419-21.
39. The viceroy had sent for Captain Diego de Armenteros to command the escort, but the captain apparently having no stomach for the duty kept out of the way.
40. The document was not properly authenticated because the deputy clerk stood in fear of the viceroy. Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. ii. 247-50.
41. He should send back Osorio, whose services were needed in Mexico.
42. The names of the excommunicated were ordered to be posted in the usual manner. Id., 191-8.
43. Y no en otra manera, y que esto daba y dió por respuesta.' Id., 259.
44. While expressing sympathy for the illness of his grace, Gelves intimated that the complaint might be merely a pretence.
45. Torres, the messenger, afterward testified that Gelves bade him tell Terrones: 'Si el dicho señor arzobispo dificultase el proseguir en la jornada y para esto se acostase, que ordenase á Don Diego de Armenteros y á las guardas, que con la misma cama se metiese en el coche habiéndole apercibido primero que se vistiese y aprestase.' Father Domingo Navarro Fortunio, who accompanied the archbishop on the journey, testified that on receiving this order Terrones said, his eyes filling with tears: 'Qué compadrazgos tengo yo con el señor arzobispo, ni qué he hecho yo para que se me trate tan infamemente.' Id., 405, 261. An order also came that four members of the cathedral chapter, who had come to San Juan Teotihuacan by vote of the chapter for the purpose of accompanying the archbishop to Vera Cruz, should travel one day's journey at least in advance.
46. Armenteros says that the archbishop went to the church in an artful manner, without even a hat, and as if for a short stroll. Id., 423.
47. 'Y puesto en esta forma, hablando las dichas palabras, dijo le llevasen como estaba.' Id., 263. The account of the archbishop's taking refuge in the church rests in the main on the sworn testimony of Diego Torres, the notary, who in his official capacity has full opportunity of knowing whereof he spoke, and whose words bear with them intrinsic evidence of their truth. He stated that the archbishop accused Gelves of having forced the oidores to pass the order for his exile, adding that the viceroy was the greatest tyrant in the world, and that Torres might tell him so. Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. iii. 8.
48. I have already had occasion to speak of the faint-heartedness of Armenteros in this matter. He lamented that he was an unfortunate man. 'Que no tenia mas que una vida, y esa la habia de perder por Dios y su rey.' Id., ii. 423.
49. In the morning the archbishop, wishing to celebrate mass, desired all who had come under the ban of the church to withdraw. This request however was denied, for Terrones held that neither he nor any of his party were excommunicated, since, as the prelate well knew, they were acting under compulsion, and the mass was left unsaid. The request for continuing the journey again met with a refusal. The archbishop said he knew the audiencia had issued an order for his return to Mexico, but if Terrones could produce one of later date from the same body, whereby he was required to pursue his way to exile, he would cheerfully obey it.