History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 3/Chapter 32

by Hubert Howe Bancroft

 

CHAPTER XXXII.

THE SECULAR CLERGY.

1600-1800.

Vicious Ecclesiastics — Struggle between the Regular Orders and the Secular Clergy — Influence of the Religious on the Masses — The Royal Prerogative — Privileges of the Ecclesiastics — Right of Sanctuary — The Bishoprics of New Spain — Religious Fraternities — Church Property — Its Confiscation Ordered — Church Revenues — The Inquisition.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the secular clergy included many who had come to New Spain in search of fortune, having little prospect of success in their native country. These were for the most part mere adventurers, vicious, and a cancer in the body ecclesiastic. The natives among the seculars, with a few exceptions, had also become contaminated. Of this we have abundant evidence in papal bulls and royal orders, in the reports of several viceroys, of whom one was a distinguished prelate, and in the edicts of the inquisition. Violations of the vows of chastity, impeding the administration of justice, trading against express prohibitions, manufacturing prohibited liquors, collecting excessive fees, and defrauding the crown, were common practices, and indeed some of their deeds were so scandalous that decency forbids their relation.^[1] Among the orders of monks were always to be found from the earliest days men who had come to America to render good service to God and their king, at the same time ridding themselves of the monotony of conventual life, and winning renown for their respective orders and distinction for themselves. Many of them earned the coveted crown of martyrdom, fearlessly carrying the gospel and the arts of peace among savages, and a much larger number won fame either by their charity and missionary labors, or by their learning and writings upon various topics, especially on the countries where they dwelt or journeyed. Not a few attained to high position, and thus secured a larger field for usefulness. But it must be confessed that the regular orders also contained unworthy members, men who shrank from poverty and discipline, some of whom were vain, covetous, and profligate, and looked upon their mission in the New World only as an opportunity to gratify their desire for a life of ease and pleasure.

After the spiritual conquest of Mexico, it was an easy matter for these ecclesiastics to have themselves assigned to parishes or doctrinas, which, though an outward show of religion was maintained, became hotbeds of vice; even the sacred act of confession being profaned. This scandalous immorality was, in the second half of the eighteenth and early years of the nineteenth century, most noticeable at the seats of some of the dioceses and in small towns; in the capital the clergy were somewhat restrained from open exhibitions of vice by the presence of the superior authorities of New Spain.

The day came when the supreme government decided that the friars should be restricted to their own proper functions, and not be allowed any longer to encroach on those of the secular clergy, and the authorities encouraged the latter to assert their rights.^[2] A long contest ensued, in which the religious orders struggled for every point, but they were defeated; and injunctions came from the crown against any but secular 'clergymen being nominated for vacant benefices.^[3] The result was a better state of affairs; the ranks of the seculars were reënforced by worthy and able men, and they soon gained the ascendency among the people.

During the first two centuries after the conquest the church offered preferment to natives of America, many of whom held bishoprics,^[4] and other high positions; but in the latter part of the eighteenth century, all royal orders to the contrary notwithstanding, the number of native-born priests thus promoted had become very small.^[5] A cédula of May 2, 1792, ordered that one half the prebendaries of the cathedral should be conferred on natives of America; but a suggestion, said to have emanated from Archbishop Haro, to the effect that Americans should have only inferior offices in order to keep them ever humble and submissive, seems to have been adopted. The result of this policy was that in 1808 all the bishoprics of New Spain with one exception,^[6] the greater portion of the canon stalls, and a large number of the rich curacies were in the hands of Spaniards from Europe. The prestige of the church was jealously upheld by law^[7] and the Indians continued to pay the regular clergy the reverence which the early missionaries had won from them, a reverence bordering on veneration. This wrought no mischief so long as it was shown to men worthy of it, for the old friars were firm supporters of the government, but when bestowed on a corrupt and presumptuous clergy it became a source of great danger,^[8] especially as the lower offices of the church were in the hands of discontented natives, who, being in contact with the masses, must have influenced them in political affairs. This element became a powerful agent, and the time came when it worked upon the hearts of a large majority of the inhabitants against the Spanish domination.

 

The church of Mexico, like that of the rest of Spanish America, was under the immediate control of the crown, through its representatives, the viceroy and governors, by virtue of the real patronato. This was a right held as the most valuable of the crown's attributes;^[9] it was claimed on the ground of prior discovery and possession, and the introduction of Christianity, followed by the building and endowment of churches, convents, and monasteries. To this were added the privileges conferred by popes Alexander VI. and Julius II., confirmed by later briefs of the holy see.^[10] The decision of the first ecclesiastical council of Mexico reserving patronage to the king was advanced as an additional reason. The prerogative was claimed as one to be forever held inalienable. No person or persons, ecclesiastical or secular, no church or monastery, was to use the patronage, except under the crown's authority, and severe penalties were provided against infringements of the royal privilege.

The nomination of archbishops and bishops and the bestowal of benefices in the Indies belonged exclusively to the crown, and were consequently confirmed without demur. The king became ipso facto the head of the church in America, and no bull, brief, or other order emanating from the holy see or its apostolic nuncios could be published or carried out without being first submitted to and passed by the council of the Indies.^[11] Repeated cédulas issued from 1644 to 1672 inclusive reiterated those orders, and enjoined viceroys, audiencias, governors, and other rulers to send back to the council of the Indies all documents of this nature which had not been duly passed by that body.

Nevertheless occasional violations of the royal privilege occurred, two of them as late as 1746, when the archbishop of Mexico published two papal briefs without the royal exequatur, whereupon both he and the audiencia were reprimanded, and ordered to rescind them. Later, in 1777, it was ordered that popes' bulls, briefs, and kindred instruments, even if provided with the council's exequatur, were never to be circulated without the permission of the viceroy, or local governor, as vice-patrono.^[12]

The royal prerogative never failed to assert itself. Even in God's temple special honors were paid the viceroy, because of his being the viceregal patron. The appointment of provisores and vicarios generales had to be submitted to the crown for approval. Competitions for vacant stalls in cathedral chapters must be in presence of an asistente real, appointed by the vice-patron. In the selection of parish priests or curates, a ternary of names was to be laid by the ordinary before the vice-patron,^[13] who usually chose the first on the list, to avoid giving offence, and because he seldom knew who was the worthiest.

 

The secular clergy held a privileged jurisdiction, known as fuero eclesiástico, with special courts, and until near the close of the eighteenth century personal exemption from the control of other tribunals.^[14] Ecclesiastical courts were, however, not only forbidden to encroach on the royal jurisdiction, but expected to afford every possible aid to the common courts. The laws of Castile on this subject had full force in Mexico.^[15] They had no cognizance in cases either civil or criminal over persons not catholics, nor criminal jurisdiction in cases of adultery; they could not sentence Indians to hard labor for this crime, nor impose fines on them for any offence; neither could they inflict capital or corporal punishment on any one. In the administration of clergymen's or intestates' wills the ecclesiastical courts had no jurisdiction, such cases being of the cognizance of the royal courts, except where a clergyman appointed his own soul as the heir—that is, ordered that his estate be used in payment for masses and other religious rites for the benefit of his soul. The council of the Indies could, however, revoke all ecclesiastical decisions.^[16]

By bull of Gregory XIII. dated February 28, 1578, and royal orders of 1606, 1722, and 1731, all suits of whatever nature commenced in the ecclesiastical courts of the Indies were to be terminated in them and not carried elsewhere. This had reference to cases in which the ecclesiastical judge acted in his capacity as the ordinary; but not when he proceeded as the delegate of the pope,^[17] in which event any appeal would have to be to the pope himself.

Thus for more than two centuries the secular clergy enjoyed great privileges, but these were in later times gradually abolished. By a royal decree of October 25, 1795, the common courts were allowed to take cognizance of grave crimes committed by the ecclesiastics. The sala del crímen, or criminal court, now sure of its right, acted with rigor against priests, especially curates, confining a number of them in the same prisons as the lowest classes of the people. In this matter the royal audiencia favored the cause of the clergy. The royal order above named prompted the bishop and chapter of Michoacan to make, in December 1799, a representation to his Majesty,^[18] which contains many wise and liberal suggestions.

The courts connected with the archbishopric of Mexico and other sees were: The provisorato for Spaniards, presided over by the juez provisor, having besides a prosecuting attorney, sheriff, relator, two notaries or clerks, a translator of apostolic letters, keeper of records, and messenger; and provisorato for Indians, with a provisor, notary, clerk, and receiver; the juzgado de testamentos, capellanís y obras pías, with judge, counsellor, relator, chief and second clerks, and a notary for the military chaplaincy in chief.^[19] We have already seen how the powers of this last named court were curtailed in the probate of wills of clergymen. Later a further curtailment took place, reducing still more the ecclesiastical fuero, with the sovereign's declaration of March 22, 1789, making cases of capellanías and obras pías cognizable in the secular courts.^[20] Questions of jurisdiction between the ecclesiastical and civil courts, which were of frequent occurrence, were adjudicated by the viceroy.^[21] This power, while it upheld the crown's prerogative, greatly exalted the prestige and authority of, its representative in Mexico,

 

Offenders against the laws who took refuge in a church or other sacred place were, as we have seen, allowed benefit of asylum, in certain cases not excluded under papal briefs and royal orders. For a long time there had been no limitation, either as to offences, or the number of privileged places. The facility for escaping the penalties provided by law for the gravest crimes had augmented the number of these asylums in countries where churches, shrines, cemeteries, and other places under ecclesiastical control abounded. From time to time modifications were obtained by the king of Spain from the Roman pontiffs. Popes Gregory XIV., Benedict XIII., Clement XII., and Benedict XIV. excluded from that privilege murder, robbery in public places and highways, mutilations of limb, forgery, heresy, high treason, and other grave offences; and Clement XIV. by his brief of September 12, 1772, which was ordered to be enforced by royal decree of November 2, 1773,^[22] very considerably diminished the number of churches that were available as asylums for offenders against the law.^[23]

 

The cathedral church, described elsewhere, possessed large wealth in silver, gold, and precious stones. The sagrario, an appendage of the cathedral, was also a fine edifice. The descendants of Cortés furnished elegant carriages and costly teams of mules for conveying thence the host through the streets during the visitation of the sick.^[24]

The metropolitan of Mexico on certain occasions had the supervision over, and on others the administration of vacant suffragan sees. Among his duties was that of casting his vote at the election of professors of the university of Mexico.^[25]

It was provided by law that in nominations for the chapter of the archdiocese of Mexico and its suffragan sees, preference should be given to graduates of the universities of Spain, Mexico, and Lima, or to clergymen who had served in cathedrals; or to those proposed by the king himself or his representatives in the Indies by virtue of the royal patronage. Where possible two of the canons were to be jurists, and two theologians. The four stalls, called respectively doctoral, magistral, lectoral, and penitenciario, were given to those who excelled in learning and general efficiency. All the members were to be permanent residents, and faithful attendants at the chapter's sessions and other service, and could not absent themselves from their posts without leave from the crown.^[26]

 

The annals of the church in Mexico, after the period of spiritual conquest and missionary labor, contain little worthy of note. I might present an outline of its progress, record the names of prominent priests, glance at conspicuous peculiarities of life or opinion among the clergy, smile here and there at a so-called miracle, but such details would not interest the general reader. The number of suffragan sees in existence at the opening of the nineteenth century was the same as at the close of the seventeenth. That of Puebla had the same number of dignitaries, canons, and prebendaries as the metropolitan, and all its affairs were conducted with the utmost regularity. Its cathedral is one of the most magnificent buildings in Mexico.^[27]

The chapter of the see of Oajaca consisted of a dean, four dignitaries, and eight canons. The rebuilding of the cathedral, founded in 1535, Was begun by the fifteenth bishop. Father Angel Maldonado, in 1702,^[28] and completed by Bishop Santiago y Calderon, who took charge in 1730. The building has three naves besides the chapel, and is said to hold an arm of Saint Chrysostom, the skull of Saint Leontius, martyr, and a portion of the famous cross of Huatulco, to which countless miracles have been ascribed.^[29] As late as 1770 the diocese of Guadalajara included Jalisco, Zacatecas, Chiametla, Culiacan, Sonora, and Sinaloa, to which was added afterward Lower California. All the Spanish settlements and many of the Indian towns were under curates before 1767, the only missions established being those of Nayarit.^[30] The cathedral is of plain exterior, but handsomely decorated internally. The first stone was laid by Ayala, the fourth bishop, on the 31st of July, 1571, and the building was completed on the 19th of February, 1618, and consecrated by Bishop Mimbela.^[31]

The bishopric of Durango was founded by bull of Paulus V. dated October 11, 1620.^[32] The first bishop. Friar Gonzalo de Hermosilla, an Augustinian, was in charge of the see from October 1621 until his decease in January 1631. At the time of the foundation the diocese embraced Nueva Vizcaya, Sonora, Sinaloa, and New Mexico. The cathedral of this diocese is of the Tuscan order. Its construction was begun about 1695 by the ninth bishop, García de Legaspi, who labored under great difficulties for want of architects. In 1699 ten arches of the crypts and a portion of the portals had been built. It was completed during the administration of Bishop Zubiría and consecrated in 1844.^[33]

 

In 1777,^[34] pope issued a bull for the erection of the see of Nuevo Leon. In February, 1779, Oidor Beleña defined its territory, which was detached from other dioceses.^[35] The first bishop of this diocese was Juan Antonio Sanchez de Alozen, who on becoming a Franciscan had taken the name of Antonio de Jesus Sacedon.^[36]

The first cathedral in Monterey was begun by Bishop Ambrosio Llanos y Valdés,^[37] who appears to have lacked the physical strength needed for visiting his vast diocese and making himself acquainted with its condition and needs, for the Franciscan commissary of missions, referring to his decease in 1789, speaks of the necessity of having a young and robust man for prelate.^[38]

In 1779 Pope Pius VI. ordered Sonora, Sinaloa, and the two Californias to form a bishopric with its cathedral in Arizpe. This was carried out in 1781, under a royal cédula, and the first prelate was the Franciscan friar Antonio de los Reyes^[39] who took possession in 1783.^[40]

The cathedral of Mérida in the diocese of Yucatan was finished in 1598 though not consecrated until the 12th of December, 1763.^[41] The revenue of the see was small, yet the cathedral was well provided with everything required for decorous public worship, many of the ornaments and regalia being very rich; some of its paintings were also fine works of art, the king, the bishops, and the canons liberally contributing toward that end. According to the bull of erection, its chapter was to be composed of the same number of members as that of Mexico; but on account of the small revenue from tithes, was afterward diminished.^[42] It is not an easy matter to arrive even approximately at the number of the secular clergy in New Spain. Very early in the present century, however, it was computed at about five thousand.^[43] Most of the sees had special seminaries for the education of young men desiring to enter the priesthood. They were under the real patronato, and had a number of scholarships in the patronage of the king's representative, who made the choice upon the report or recommendation of their respective rectors. There were other scholarships endowed by private individuals and open to competition. There was also a number of professorships whose incumbents were appointed by the vice-patron.^[44] During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a number of religious cofradías or fraternities were established in Mexico and other towns for the purpose, mainly of rendering special worship to God, or the* virgin, in some of their attributes, or to saints in whose influence and intercession in heaven they placed their trust. Among them are many that deserve mention for their exertions in succoring the needy and sick, and in the spread of education as well as of religion. I am unable for want of space to furnish a history of these associations and their work, but as a mark of respect to their good intentions will name a few of them. The colegiata de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, of which much has been said in other parts of this work; an institution of a similar character in Querétaro; the archicofradías of La Cruz and the Santísimo Cristo de San Marcelo, the first named of the two being founded by the conqueror Cortés; the archicofradías del arcángel San Miguel and of La Inmaculada Concepcion; cofradías de San Anton, Nuestra Señora del Socorro, and Santiago; and that of the Santísimo Sacramento in Vera Cruz. The country teemed with sanctuaries, and to some of the images kept therein were attributed miraculous manifestations.^[45]

The church of Mexico owned real estate, probably to the value of between two and three million pesos. After the suppression of the Jesuits few lands went into the possession of the church. Its real wealth consisted of the tithes and vast amounts secured by mortgage, á censo redimible on the lands of private parties. The aggregate value of the church property, both secular and regular, in estates and mortgages, must have been, in the early part of the present century, not less than one half the total value of real estate in the country. As early as 1644 the ayuntamiento of Mexico petitioned King Felipe IV. to check the increase of convents and of investments for religious purposes.^[46] The possessions of the church were considerably reduced in 1767 by the expulsion of the Jesuits, whose estates reverted to the royal treasury, though the rights of the benevolent establishments of which the Jesuits had been in charge were duly respected. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the nineteenth century the aggregate must have been as above stated, and represented a money value of about $44,500,000.^[47]

In 1809, at which date it will be remembered war broke out with France, the Spanish government seeing no escape from impending bankruptcy, in consequence of an over-issue of royal vales, or treasury notes, attempted a very dangerous financial measure, by ordering on the 26th of December, not only the sale of the real estate of the church, but that all its invested funds, of every kind, should be forwarded to Spain and deposited in a caja de consolidacion de vales reales.^[48] The resistance of the proprietors was so strong, however, that between May 1805 and June 1806, the caja de consolidacion had received from the sequestrated estates only 1,200,000 pesos.

Aside from the income obtained from real estate and investments, the revenues of the church were derived from various sources, as the primicias or first fruits, payable to the parish priests, a tax claimed to have existed from the earliest days;^[49] fees for masses, marriages, and burials, which yielded largely in most of the dioceses;^[50] and last, though by no means least, the tithes. The king of Spain possessed under the bull of Pope Alexander VI. issued in 1501, the exclusive right of collecting the tithes in America, subject to the sole condition of providing for the religious instruction of the natives.^[51] The gross amount of tithes collected in all the dioceses was in the decade ending in 1779, 13,357,157 pesos; in that ending in 1789, 18,353,821 pesos.^[52] The total revenue of the nine dioceses for 1803 was 539,000 pesos according to official records.^[53] These figures have been disputed, however, and it has even been positively asserted that the actual revenue of these bishoprics and that of Chiapas amounted in 1805 to twelve or thirteen million pesos, out of which sum four millions fell to the share of the archbishop.^[54]

Property left by bishops and archbishops at their death, resulting from the revenue of their sees, reverted to the crown, under royal cédula of March 28, 1620, and was known under the name of espolios.^[55] All the chief offices of the church were filled by royal appointment, and the incumbents were required to pay the crown the media anata, or one half of the first year's income. The offices of minor importance yielding less than $413 paid the crown only one month's income, known as the mesada.^[56]

Toward the end of the seventeenth century the inquisition had attained great predominance, causing even the viceroy and audiencia to lose much of their power and prestige.^[57] In 1747 the inquisidor general had issued an ordinance in thirty-four sections intended to avert all disputes on jurisdiction, and to maintain intact the prerogatives of each department of government. That ordinance was, however, often disregarded by the inquisitors of Mexico.^[58] Between the year 1600 and the end of the eighteenth century occurred many autos de fé, both particular and general, the records of which have not been completely published.^[59] In the latter part of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, the inquisition, which till then had been mainly engaged in persecuting Portuguese Jews, sorcerers, witches, apostate priests, bigamists, and other offenders, found a new and fruitful field among the readers of modern philosophical works, most of which were Under the ban, and in the list of forbidden publications. The labors of the inquisitors rapidly increased, and we are told that at one time they had upward of a thousand cases pending.^[60] Many edicts were issued, threatening with excommunication those who dared to ignore this prohibition and to read such works.^[61]

The progress of science, the enlightenment of the people, and the defence of popular rights against kingcraft were thus hindered by that tool of bigotry, ignorance, and refined despotism. It was even worse; for by recognizing the existence of sorcerers, witches, and others supposed to be possessed with the evil spirit the venerables inquisidores del santo tribunal, as the king called them, stupidly propagated pernicious errors. The extinction of this tribunal was first decreed by the archbishop of Mexico, on September 27, 1813, by order of the Spanish córtes of February 22d of the same year, but this became a dead letter the next year. On the 16th of June, 1820,^[62] the king ordered the enforcement of this decree, and soon afterward it was carried into execution.

 

 

1. Morelli, Fast. Nov. Orb., 429-31; Recop. de Ind., i. 90-1; Palafox, Instruc., in Morfi. Col. Docs, MS., 27-9; Mancera Instruc., 469-71; Linares, Instruc., MS., 469-71; Defensor de la Verd., 1; Órd. de la Corona, MS., vii. 77; Crespo, Mem. Ajust., 7, 8; Disposic. Var., v. 5, 13, 29; Reales Cédulas. MS., i. 34-5; Campillo, N. Sistema, 45-6; Villarroel, Enferm. Polit., 6-25, in Bustamante, Voz de la Patria, v. One viceroy, the marqués de Branciforte, gives all the clergy, high and low, a good character, but as he left rather a bad one of his own in the country I hesitate to accept his uncorroborated testimony. Branciforte, Instruc., in Linares, Instruc., MS., 44-6.
2. Reales Cédulas, MS., 90-2.
3. The secularization of the curacies was carried on without trouble as early as 1760. Marfil, Instruc., 20-1, in Linares, Instruc., MS.
4. Zamacois, Hist. Méj., x. 1375-8, tries to prove that the government distributed her favors equally among creoles and natives of Old Spain; but Alaman, who cannot be accused of enmity toward the mother country, says that out of 706 bishops appointed in Spanish America before the revolution, 105 were native Americans, and but few of them were appointed to the most important sees. Hist. Méj., i. 14. In the last century there was discrimination against the creoles. No native of Yucatan was ever bishop of that diocese. Ancona, Hist. Yuc., ii. 333-4.
5. The high offices of the church were reserved for natives of Spain. Zavala, Ensayo Hist., i. 66. Archbishop Lorenzana recommended that the natives should be forced to learn the Spanish language, and as this could not be readily accomplished, the creole priests, who for good reasons opposed that measure, were accused of selfish motives, for as they knew the Indian languages the curacies of Indian towns would all fall to their lot. This was denied by a creole Franciscan, Father Francisco de la Rosa Figueroa, who asserted that the secular priests from Old Spain never desired curatos de Indies, preferring the parishes of Spaniards in Mexico, or higher preferment, 'con la sombra de las sagradas mitras, mayormente los que vn Sr Arzobispo ô Obispo trae en su familia, que luego van subiendo y exaltando hasta ocupar los Juzgados eclesiásticos, ô los chores de las Cathedrales en las Prebendas.' Vindicias de la Verdad, MS., 30-31. The same writer gives 51 names of native Mexicans, and 27 of Peruvians, who became bishops and archbishops. Id., 70-5.
6. That of Puebla, held by Manuel Gonzalez del Campillo.
7. In 1790 a mulatto, for striking a priest, was awarded 400 lashes well laid on. An alcalde de corte, for a similar offence, was excommunicated. A royal order of the same year prescribed the penalty of death for robberies committed in churches. Robles, Diario, 30-7; Ortega, A., Voto Fund., 19. The worship of the masses, who had little instruction in religion, consisted mainly of external show. The duque de Linares said: 'En este reyno todo es exterioridad, y viviendo poseidos de los vicios. . .les parece á lo mas, que trayendo el rosario al cuello y besando la mano á un sacerdote son Católicos, que los diez mandamientos no sé si los conmutan en ceremonias.' Linares, Instruc., MS., 37. An able writer in 1785 severely criticised the religious practices in the capital, denouncing them as barbarous, because they converted the most solemn mysteries of the Catholic church into acts of superstition and fanaticism in the most ridiculous form; he uses these words: 'En ninguna parte del reino cristiano se presume de mas cristiandad y devocion, y en ninguna está ménos radicada que en esta capital.' Villarroel, Enf. Polit., 75-81, in Bustamante, Voz de la Patria, v.
8. The duque de Linares, in view of the prevailing corruption, and remembering the riots against it the marqués de Gelves in 1624, made it a point to avoid all bickering with churchmen. He gave his reasons as follows: 'Porque son capaces de atropel ar el respeto de la persona, é inquietar los animos de los seculares, porque. . . la cantidal de eclesiasticos ignorantes no es poca, . . . y el todo del pueblo de la voz de católicos en apariencia es comun.' Linares, Instruc., MS., 37, 41-2.
9. 'La piedra mas rica, la mas preciosa Margarita de su Real Diadema, Ribadeneyra, Manual Comp., in address to the king, 3-4; Palafox, Instruc., in Morfi, Col. de Doc., MS. . 26.
10. Ribadeneyra, Id., 51458. Antonio Joachin de Ribadeneyra, Manual Compendio de el Regio Patronato Indiano (Madrid, 1755). The author filled high judicial offices in Nueva Galicia and Mexico, and was a member of the king's council, a man fully competent for the work he undertook. He furnished a complete and exhaustive dissertation in clear and laconic style, on the royal patronage, both canonical and civil, in the Indies, with the view of rendering the matter comprehensive and practical. The work contains all the papal bulls, royal orders, and opinions of reliable authorities bearing on the Subject and going to sustain the compiler's statements.
11. Cédula of Felipe IV., April 25, 1643, reiterating others of his predecessors and his own issued between 1564 and 1633. Recop. de Ind., i. 36, 49, 50, 70, 76, 78, 115, 118-19; Reales Cédulas, MS., i. 27-8; Órd. de la Corona, MS., i. 1; Zamora, Bib. Leg. Ult., v. 43; Leyes, Var. Anot., MS., 23. The same rule was applicable to patentes of the generals or superiors of the religious orders. The only ones excepted were such as were for the internal domestic government of the religious within their cloisters. Montemayor, Sumarios, 36-38.
12. Provid. Reales, MS., 80-1; Órd. de la Corona, MS., i. 201-2. The king's prerogative was so jealously guarded that even alms could not be asked for in the Indies, if to be sent to Spain, without the express leave of his India Council. Archbishops and bishops before assuming the government of their dioceses had to lay before the vice-patrono the evidence of having taken the regular oaths of fealty and obedience to the crown. A viceroy in the 17th century reported one of those violations by Bishop Osorio of Puebla, who was of course compelled to fulfil the law. Mancera, Instruc., in Doc. Inéd., xxi. 612-15.
13. Cedulario, MS., i. 62-3; Revilla Gigedo, Instruc., 7; Pinart, Doc. Son., MS., 6-14; Palafox, Instruc., in Morfi, Col. Doc., MS., 27; Patronatto, 1-83, in Mex. Doc. Ecles., MS., no. 1.
14. Morelli, Fast. Nov. Orb., 192-5; Betancurt, Derecho de las Ig., 1-51.
15. Recop. de Ind., i. 79-80.
16. Recop. de Ind., i. 80-2, 230-2; Montemayor, Sumarios, 39; Ortega, Veto Fundado, 19; Ord. de la Corona, MS., i. 104, 106; v. 1-2; Reales Ord., i. 447-9; Cedulario, MS., i. 64-5; Provid. Reales, MS., 107-9, 134-42, 146-50, 182-3, 281-5; Rescrip. Reales, MS., 36-7.
17. Morelli, Fast. Nov. Orb., 272; Leyes, Var. Anot., 32-3.
18. Informe del Obispo y cabildo eclesiástico de Valladolid de Michoacan al Rey sobre jurisdiccion y Imunidades del Clero Americano.' The whole document, under a somewhat different heading, may be found in Mora, Obras Sueltas, i. 1-68; Queipo, Col. de Docs, 1-65. Humboldt gives the above title, Essai Pol., i. 105.
19. Zúñiga, Calendario, 52-4, gives the names and residences of the officers.
20. Méx. Provid. Diocesanas, MS., 203, 273-81.
21. Revilla Gigedo, Instruc., 21; Alaman, Hist. Méj., i. 68-9.
22. Rescriptos Realex, MS., 62-74; Reales Órdenes, v. 244-59; Cedulario, iii. 226-33; Cédula Real, 1815, 1-21.
23. In 1787 the king decreed that criminals of whatever condition in life, who had taken refuge in churches, should be at once taken thence with the permission of the priests in charge, or the nearest ecclesiastical authority, or without it if the request were not promptly complied with, by the proper official, under a bond {written or verbal, at the prisoner's option), that life and limb would be respected until the immunity plea had been decided. The prisoners would be confined in the public prisons, and supported at their own cost, if they bad means; otherwise at the expense of the public, or the royal treasury. In no instance was sentence to exceed 10 years' labor in chain gangs or navy yards, service in the army or navy, or exile. If the offence were debarred of privilege, then the ecclesiastical court must surrender the prisoner to be dealt with by the proper authorities. Differences arising as to the nature of the crime were to be decided by the audiencia. All authorities were required to aid one another to secure the punishment of crime, and to avoid all abuse of the ecclesiastical immunity. Cedulario, MS., i. 77-8, iii. 221-6; Méx. Provid. Dioces., MS., 46-50, 252-60, 351-62; Rescriptos Reales, MS., 1-8, 147-8; Provid. Reales, MS., 89, 280-1; Reales Cédulas, MS., i. 212-13; Órd. de la Corona, MS., i. 82-7; Colon., Juzgados Milit., i. 238, 327-8; Recop. Ltd. i. 35; Zamora, Bib. Leg. Ult., iii 589-93.
24. Estalla, xxvi. 282-3.
25. In describing the inauguration of the early bishops and archbishops mention was made of their reception under the pallium. This practice was discontinued by royal command in 1608, setting aride the Roman ritual in that respect. The honor was reserved for the king; and the pope acquiesced. The order was reiterated in 1735. Provid. Reales, MS., 89; Reales Cédulas, MS., ii. 134; Montemayor, Sumarios, 34.
26. The chapter of the archdiocese of Mexico consisted of dean, archdeacon, precentor, chancellor, and treasurer; the doctoral, magistral, lectoral, and penitenciario; five other canons called de merced; twelve prebendaries, of whom six were racioneros, and the others medios raconeros; and a secretary. At the end of the eighteenth century the dean received $10,000 a year; the other dignidades a little less; canons, from $7,000 to $9,000; the first class prebendaries, $4,000 each; the second class, $2,000. Estalla, xxvi. 282. The insigne y real colegiata de Guadalupe, so often mentioned in the course of this history, had episcopal honors, being presided over by an abbot, and endowed with ten canons, six prebendaries, and a secretary. Villa-Señor, Theatro, 51; Zúñiga, Calend., 49-51, 54-5.
27. Between 1608 and 1802 it was controlled by 14 prelates. The most prominent of them were: Alonso de la Mota y Escobar, who gave the cathedral $50,000 in ornaments and jewelry; Juan de Palafox, and Diego Osorio de Escobar, who have been spoken of elsewhere; Manuel Fernandez de Santa Cruz, a native of Mexico, who had been bishop of Durango and Michoacan; Juan Antonio de Lardizábal, who declined the archbishopric of Mexico; and Francisco Javier Fabian y Fuero, afterward archbishop of Valencia in Spain.
28. A bequest of $40,000 was left for the purpose of reconstruction. In 1721 there was much dissension between bishop and chapter about needed repairs. Oax., Asuntos, in Doc. Ecles. Mex., MS., ii. no. 2; Id., Repar. de la Cat., in Id., MS., iv. no. 2.
29. Between 1605 and 1799 there were 18 bishops of this diocese, the last of whom was José Gregorio de Omaña y Sotomayor. Others worthy of mention were: Friar Baltasar de Covarrubias, Juan de Cervantes, Friar Juan Bartolomé Cataño de Bohorques, Alonso de Cuevas Dávalos, who became archbishop of Mexico, Nicolás del Puerto, Isidro Sarañana, and Thomas Montaño. All of them were natives of Mexico, and men of learning and character. Friar Angel de Maldonado, of the order of Saint Bernard, who was in charge of the see from 1702 to 1728, was noted for his humility and charity. Ho declined the mitres of Michoacan and Orihuela. The diocese of Michoacan had a chapter consisting of five dignitaries, ten canons, and 12 prebendaries. In early days, when the revenue was smaller, it had only nine prebends. The cathedral was begun in 1640 by Bishop Prado, with aid from the crown and people. It was rebuilt in 1680, and dedicated in 1706. The building is of mixed style, and of majestic appearance. Iglesias, Rel., 269-72, 233-6. From 1602 till 1809 there were 22 bishops, the last of whom was Márcos Moriana y Zafrilla. Soon after his death Doctor Manuel Abad y Queipo, the vicar-general, was nominated for bishop; but the pope never confirmed the nomination. Others were: Friars Francisco de Rivera and Márcos Ramirez del Prado, the latter of whom spent over $1,000,000 in alms and pious endowments; Friar Payo Enriquez de Rivera, who became archbishop and viceroy; Juan Ortega Montañez, who also became archbishop of Mexico; aud Friar Antonio de San Miguel, who greatly befriended the Indian portion of his flock during the famine of 1786, and the subsequent epidemic of small pox.
30. The chapter of this see in the middle part of the eighteenth century consisted of the dean, archdeacon and precentor, the doctoral and magistral, and two other canons. Villa-Señor, Theatro Am., ii. 205. It seems to have had also since very early days four racioneros. Gonzales Dávila, Teatro Ecles., i. 179.
31. Iglesias y Conv., 302. Among the most distinguished prelates were Alonso de la Mota, a native of Mexico, who was an efficient protector of the Indians against Spanish usurpations, and Friar Antonio Alcalde, who had been bishop of Yucatan. The donations of the latter for the founding of a university and other educational purposes, for hospitals, churches, and convents, for relief of the poor in times of famine and epidemic, aggregated $1,000,000; his clothes, food, and furniture were of the meanest; at his death the furniture of his house was valued at $267. Juan de Santiago de Leon Garavito, another bishop, was so poor that at his death he was buried by charity. The last of the nineteen prelates of Guadalajara, Juan Cruz Ruiz de Cabanas y Crespo, was distinguished for his generosity, and at his death bequeathed his own patrimony, about $23,000, to the poor. He was in charge of the diocese from 1796 to 1824.
32. Concilios Prov., 1° y 2° 368. Cortes, Diario, 1812, xii. 348. Escudero, Not. Est. Son., has it in 1626. Frejes, Hist. Breve, gives 1631.
33. Hermosilla's successor was Alonso Franco y Luna. The list of bishops contains twenty prelates up to the year 1812. The last, Gabriel de Olivares y Benito, ruled from May 29, 1706, to February 26, 1812.
34. N. Méx. Cédulas, MS., 301-2; Frejes, Hist. Preve, 272.
35. From that of Guadalajara, the towns in Nuevo Santander, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, and Texas, and the villa del Saltillo; from that of Michoacan, the towns of Jaumave, Palmillas, Real de los Infantes, and Tula; from that of Mexico, the town of Santa Bárbara. This arrangement was proclaimed in au edict of September 2, 1779. Beleña, Recop., i. 291. The erection was conpleted in 1781. Cortes, Diario, 1812, xii. 348.
36. Beleña in his certificate mentions him as the first bishop. The same is said by Gomez, Diario, 23, 57, 61; Bustamante, Suplem., in Cavo, Tres Siglos, iii. 29-30. Another authority gives Rafael José Berger as the first. Iglesias y Conv., 341.
37. Upon its walls was erected a citadel, in 1846, to defend the city against the American army. Iglesias y Conv., 342.
38. Bishop Sacedon's successors to the end of the 18th century were: Friar Rafael José Verger, 1783-90; Doctor Andrés Ambrosio de Llanos y Valdés, 1792-9. Gonzalez, Col. N. Leon, 98-107, 122, 373-7; Órd. de la Corona, MS., v. 31; Pinart, Col. Doc. Mex., 153-5; Gaz. Mex. (1790-1), iv. 143; (1800-1), X. 121.
39. Beleña, Recop., i. 291; Córtes, Diario, 1812, xii. 348. He was the poorest of the bishops, his annual stipend being only $6,000, and he received no share from tithes. Escudero, Not. Son., 40.
40. His successor was José Granados y Galvez, who was in charge from 1787 to 1794, and was transferred to the see of Durango, but died before taking possession. The third prelate was Friar Damian Martinez de Galinzoga, a Franciscan, and the fourth and last of the 18th century was also a Franciscan; he was named Francisco de Jesus Rouset, and was appointed in 1796, though not consecrated till 1799. His death occurred in 1814. Hist. North Mex. States, ii. this series, Iglesias y Conventos, 342, wrongly asserts that the time of the erection of this see is unknown, and gives Bishop Granados as its first prelate, and Bishop Rouset as the second.
41. By Bishop Alcalde. Its cost was $300,000.
42. Instead of twenty-seven members as at first, the chapter included only the dean, archdeacon, precentor, and chancellor, two canons who acted as magistral and penitenciario, and two raicioneros. Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., 207; Iglesias y Conv., 327-34. Between 1604 and 1802 there were twenty-one prelates. Among them some had opportunities for displa 3 'iug greater qualities of heart and mind than others. Several obtained higher preferments. Diego Vazquez Mercado became archbishop of Manila. Juan Alonso Ocon in 1043, Juan Gomez de Parada in 1728, Francisco Pablo Matos Coronado in 1741, and Antonio Alcalde in 1771, were transferred respectively to the sees of Cuzco, Guatemala, Michoacan, and Guadalajara.

    The following list contains some additional authorities which have been consulted for the prepatration of the matter connected with the several sees and their bishops: Gonzalez Dávila, Teatro Ecles., i. 71-301, passim; ii. 33-4; Fernandez, Hist. Ecles., 135-0; Iglesia Catedral, Reglas y Orden., 1-62; Concilios Prov., 1st and 2d, 248-375; Concilios Mex., iii. and iv. 63, 202; Figueroa, Vindicias, MS., 70-90; Ord. de la Corona, MS., ii. 213; iii. 85, 134; iv. 61; v. 5, 7, 69; Reales Cédulas, MS., i. 100; Provid. Reales, MS., 172-5; Veitia Linage, in Doc. Ecles. Mex., i. no. 5, 37; Patronatto, in Id., i. no. 1; Dávilla Padilla, Teatro Ecles., i. 124-30, 182-5, 231; ii. 64; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., 464, 467, 617, 659-01; Alegre, Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 68, 138-9, 158-9, 471; Florencia, Hist. Comp. Jesus, 232-3, Cavo, Tres Siglos, ii. 86; Villa-Señor y Sanchez, Theatro, i. 241-8; Burgoa, Geog. Descrip., ii. 410; Pap. Franciscanos, MS., i. 1st ser. 414; Remesal, Hist. Chyapa, 704, 718; N. Esp., Breve Resúmen, i. 245-6, 273-4; Medina, Chron. S. Diego, 239-41, 240; Gaz. Méx., 1st ser., in Doc. Hist. Mex., 2d ser. iv. 18-19; Id., 2d ser., in Id.; Id., iv. 75-504, passim; Gaz. Mex. (1784-5), i. pref. 3, p. 114; (1786-7), ii. 21, 257; (1788-9), iii. 145-9; (1790-1), iv. 105-356, passim; (1794-5), vi. 645; (1800), X. 12-14, 73, 89; (1804-5), xii. 117-20; Gaz. Mex., 1728 and 1729, a. Arévalo, Comp., 29-30, 184; Gaz. Gob. Mex. (1810), i. 802; Calle, Mem. y Not., 62, 72, 83, 90-1, 99, 122; Dávila, Continuacion, MS., 193, 285; Vetancurt, Trat. Mex., 26, 27, 52, 53, 71, 72, 77; Velancurt, Menol, 137; Robles, Diario, 223-495, passim; Gomez, Diario, 15-312, passim; Guijo, Diario, 218, 277-8, 371; Castro, 13, 14, 18, 19, 39, 43, 47-8, 56-7; Juarros, Guat., i. 291; Juarros, Comp., 284-90, 297-8, 359-60; Santos, Chrón. Hosp., ii.480; Dávila, Mem. Hist., pt. i. 117-57; Disturbios de Frailes, MS., i. 571; ii. no. 2; Rivera, Diario Curiosa, in Doc. Hist. Mex., 2d ser. iv. 88; vi. 12, 18-19, 26; Oax., Asuntos, in Doc. Ecles. Mex., MS., no. 2, 2, 74; Diario Mex., viii. 285; ix. 177; xi. 207-9, 505; Cedulario, MS., i. 209; iii. 140; Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, viii. 547; Iglesias, Rel., 287-300; La Casas y la Mota, Memorial, 102; Arévalo, Comp., 30; Gaz. Mex., Aug. 1728, in Arévalo Comp., 69; Perez, Orac. Fúnebre, 1-42; Alcedo, Dicc., i. 108; ii. 246; iii. 141; Alcalde, Elog. Fúneb., 34-41; i.-xxviii. 1-49; Sermon Panegírico, 1-23; Oratio Fúneb., i.-xxxix.; Sermon Predic., 1-30; Rel. Senc, del funeral, 1-13; Mora, Revol. Mex., iii. 358; iv. 58; Mota-Padilla, Conq. N. Gal., passim; Descrip, y Prosp., 1-13; Subsidio Ecles., in Doc. Ecles. Mex., MS., iii. no. 1, 59, 276; Jal. Mem. Hist., 205-7; Registro, Yucateco, i. 228-30; ii. 331 43; Castillo, Dicc. Hist., 9-314, passim; Guadal., in Doc. Ecles. Mex., MS., i. no. 6, 9; Castilla, Espejo de Exemp. Ob., passim; Escudero, Estad. Dur., 23; Escudero, Not. Son., 40; Romero, Not. Mich., 14-21, 25, 151; Linares, Cuadro Sinóp., in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da ep. iv. 6.39-40; Montaña, El Corazon de las rosas, passim; Carriedo, Estudios, 67-8, 114-17; Alaman, Hist. Mej., iii. 381; Iglesias y Conv., 175-7, 231-3, 316-20; Sosa, Episcop. Mex., 80, 99, 126, 145, 151, 160, 175-7, 231-3, 316-20; Arroniz, Biog. Mex., 152-5; Lázaro, Sermon Funebre, nos. 6 and 7, in Arteaya Josías Domenech, Hist, du Mex., i. 282; Alfaro y Piña, Cat. de Guad., 5-14; Ancona, Hist. Yuc., ii. 201-518, passim.

43. Humboldt, Essai Pol., i. 127; Real Consulado de N. Esp., in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, ii. 6; Mex. Diario, vi. 94. Calle, Mem. y Not., 45, gives the number of clergymen at 6,000 in 1046; he probably meant both secular and regular priests, otherwise his figures appear excessive.
44. Estalla, xxvii. 192-3; Iglesias y Conv., 16, 24, 147-52, 190-1, 230, 275, 304-5, 334; Fab. an. Col. de Provid., 307-11, 522-656, passim; Haro y Peralta, Carla Pastoral, 1-200, passim.
45. The following authorities treat of this subject: Órd. de la Corona, MS., iii. 169-70; Recop. de Ind., 33-4, 189; Navarrete, Rescriptos Reales, MS., 56-62; Rel. Peregrina, ii. 95-248, passim; Siguenza y Góngora, Glorias de Quer., 5 1., 235, 44; Archicof. del Arcángel S. Miguel, 1-48; Cabrera, Escudo de Armas, 97-106; Cédula, Feb. 6, 1768, 1-27; La Casa Peregrina, passim; Covadonga, Constituc., 1-83; Inidulgencias Perpetuas, 1-20; Florencia, O. igen del Célebre Santuario, 1-234, passim; Estalla, xxyi. 326-8; Velasco y Texada, Hist. Milagros. Imágen, passim; Zavala, La Ven. Congreg. S. Felipe Neri, 16-137, passim.
46. The greater portion of the landed property being in one shape or other in the hands of the church, it was feared that if left unchecked it would soon own all the land in the country. No more convents were needed; there were too many nuns and servants there already, and too little with which to support them. The number of friars and clergymen was also represented in the same memorial as excessive, and so was that of holidays, with which 'se acrecienta el caudal de la ociosidad, y daños que causa esta.' Gonzalez Dávila, Teatro Ecles., i. 16-17.
47. Their investments bore the title of capitals de capellanías y obras de la jurisdiccion ordinaria. They were situated as follows: Archbishopric of Mexico, $9,080,000; bishropic of Puebla, $6,500,000; bishopric of Valladolid (very exact), $4,500,000; bishropic of Guadalajara $3,000,000; bishropics of Durango, Nuevo Leon, and Sonora, $1,000,000; bishoprics of Oajaca and Yucatan, $2,000,000; Obras pías, of the regular clergy, $2,500,000; Fondo dotal of churches and of male and female religious communities, $16,000,000. These figures were taken from a memorial of the citizens of Valladolid in Michoacan to Viceroy Iturrigaray, on the 24th of October, 1805. Humboldt, Essai Pol., ii. 475-7. Alaman, Hist. Méj., i. 66-8, claims that the aggregate must have been much larger, grounding his judgment both on the results of the assessments to collect the direct tax in later years, and on the fact that scarcely one single estate was not thus encumbered. Many of the estates were mortgaged for their full value, and some for even more, thus rendering it necessary in the course of time to require the proprietors to produce evidence that their lands were not mortgaged for more than two thirds of their value.
48. Humboldt, Essai Pol., ii. 476; Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da dp. i. 486-95; Suarez, Informe, 7; Diario Mex., vi. 366-8; Mora, Obras Sueltos, i. 70117; Lacunza, Disc. Hist., no. xxxvi. 53.3-4. Zamacois, Hist. Méj., v. 622, tells us that the archbishop and chapter of Mexico had donated to the crown, in 1777, $80,000.
49. If the crop of grain reached six fanegas, the tax was a half fanega, and so in proportion. On live-stock the tax was one head for every twelve; on milk, the quantity obtained in the milking of the first night of each year. Edicto, MS., in Maltrat. de ]nd., no. 7, 1-2; Mex. Represent., MS., in Maltrat. de Ind., no. 1, 1-39.
50. In September 1619, the real audiencia required of the archbishop of Mexico compliance with the royal order of May 12th of the same year, to keep and observe the 'sinodo y aranzel de Sevilla' of burial fees. The pope also issued stringent orders. Changes were made from time to time in the fee bill with the view of reducing it, but it never ceased to be a heavy burden. Montemayor, Autos Acord., 7, in Hontemayor, Sumarios, Morelli, Fast. Nov. Orb., 373-97, 415, 454; Rubio y Salinas, Aranz., 1-19; Lorenzana,Aranz., 1-10; Inform, sobre Aranceles, in Maltrat. de Ind., MS., no. 23, 1-40; Mex. Aranceles Parroq., in Id., MS., no. 24, 1-16.
51. The gross amount of tithes was first divided into four equal parts, two of which went to the bishop and chapter; the other two were divided into nine equal parts; two for the crown, three for building churches and hospitals, two for salaries of curates, and where the amount was insufficient the king allowed them salaries of $100 or $120 a year from his own share: the remaining two parts went to pay the dignitaries and employés of the diocese. Estalla, xxvii. 233-5; Mota-Padilla, Conq. N. Gal., 178. The collection and distribution were provided for in royal orders of 1627, 1631, 1777, 1786. Recop. de Ind., ii. 578; Beleña, Recop., ii. 145-51; Zamora, Bib. Leg. Ult., iii. 40, 42-55. The Collection of primicias and tithes and the adjudication of disputed questions were in charge of the haceduría or juzgado de diezmos, consisting in the city of Mexico of two judges and a notary or clerk. The contaduría or auditor's office had a first and second auditor with a first and second clerk. Zuñiga, Cedulario, 51.
52. Humboldt, Essai Pol., ii. 473-8; Id., Tablas Estad., MS., 41; his figures being taken from an official statement by Joaquin Maniau. Noticias de N. Esp., in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, ii. 8-23; N. Esp., Breve Resum., i. 139, 245, ii. 301-2. According to Estalla's account, xxvii. 9-10, the tithes of Mexico, Puebla, Oajaca, Guadalajara, and Durango were in 1769-79, $10,676,947; in 1779-89, $14,844,987; he omits those of Michoacan; his figures differ somewhat from Maniau's. Pinkerton's Modern Geog., iii. 234.
53. Mexico, $130,000; Puebla, $110,000; Michoacan, $100,000; Nueva Galicia, $90,000; Durango, $35,000; Nuevo Leon, $30,000; Oajaca, $18,000; Sonora, $6,000; Yucatan, $20,000. It was painful to see a diocese like that of Mexico paying curates of Indian towns only $100 or $120 a year. Humboldt, Essai Pol., i. 127-9; Id., Versuch, i. 181; Queipo, Col. Doc., 14, in Pap. Var., 164, no. 1.
54. The rental of the archbishopric proper was acknowledged at $2,944,970; add to the regular revenue the alms, etc., of the clergy, secular and regular, which amount is concealed, and the whole will swell to the sums given above. Notic. de N. Esp., in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, ii. 8.
55. A law of 1652 prescribed the mode in which bishops should make inventories of the property they owned before their appointment. Recop. de Ind., i. 65-6; Estalla, xxvii. 236; Rivera, Gob. Mex., i. 130.
56. Estalla, xxvii. 235; Morelli, Fast. Nov. Orb., 382; Zamora, Bib. Leg. Ult., iv. 268-73; Providencias Reales, MS., 69-71; Fonseca y Urrutia, Real Hacienda, iii. 89-135; Panes, Vir. in Monum. Dom. Esp., MS., 141; Rivera, Id., i. 226.
57. 1727 the king ordered the viceroy to protect the royal jurisdiction against encroachments of the inquisition under pretext of privilege. At the same time he wished the court to be aided in every way, and its officers and attachés respected in their rights and functions. Beleña, Recop., i. 212-17; Provid. Reales, MS., 261-6.
58. This body was seriously rebuked for it in 1785 by the crown. Rescrip. Reales Ecles., MS., 8-19, 27, 113-10; Reales Cédulas, MS., 208-10; Reales Ord., vi. 65-8.
59. A notable one was the case of William Lampart, an Irishman, or of Irish descent, who came to Mexico in 1040, and was known as Guillen Lombardo, alias Guzman, arrested in 1642 as an 'astrólogo judiciario con mala aplicacion de sus estudios,' and put into a dungeon. Dec. 24, 1050, he with another man broke jail, and sent to the viceroy several documents, and scattered others, against the archbishop and inquisitors, accusing the latter of treasonable views, ignorance, and theft. Much trouble might have been occasioned had not Lampart and his companion been recaptured. His fate remains unknown, though there is some reason to surmise that he perished as a heretic in November, 1659. Torquemada, iii. 380-1; Guijo, Diario, 4, 5, 32, 42-53, 105-6, 120-7, 102-3, 220, 427, 492, 525, 501; Puigblanch, La Inquisicion, 84, and notes. 38; Panes, Vir., in Monum. Dom. Esp., MS., 100-1, 130; Diario Méx., V. 380-4; Rivera, Gob. Mex., i. 159-01, 172-0,185; Sosa, Episcop. Mex., 99-102; Robles, Diario, 50-7, 86, 98, 214, 232, 242-3, 292, 315; Gaz. Méx. (1784-5), i. 308-9, 326. Zamacois, Hist. Méj., x. 513, alleges that in the 249 years the inquisition existed in Mexico, there were altogether 30 autos de fé, and 405 prisoners tried, of whom nine were burned alive, 12 burnt after execution, one, the patriot chief Morelos, shot, not for religious but political reasons, and 69 burnt in effigy. Reports of cruelty to prisoners in dungeons he declares false and calumnious, and incited by party spirit. It will be for the reader a question of veracity between the numerous accusers of the inquisition, and of the government sustaining it, on the one pact, and Zamacois' bigotry, and exaggerated 'españolismo,' on the other.
60. Alaman, Hist. Méj., i. 121.
61. Disposic. Var., orig. vi. 2, 15-27, 34-60; Ord. de la Corona, MS., vi. 117-30; Gaz. Méx., v. 346, 355-9; viii. 182-7, 317-22; ix. 55-62, 553-8; x. 317-28; xi. 407-9; xii. 120-4; xiii. 119-36; xiv. 111-13; Diario Méx., v. 367-78; vi. 187-95; ix. 271-5; x. 330; xi. 351-4. 361-7, 373-85.
62. Méx. Provid. Diocesanas, MS., 496-7.