ereign on the ground that its enforcement would have deprived the settlers of means of subsistence, given cause for revolt, and discouraged immigration. The royal revenue would fail, conversion would cease, and the country itself might be lost.[1]So general were the remonstrances that with the advice of the India Council the prohibition was withdrawn and servitude confirmed.
Even while assured in the possession of their serfs, the conquerors had still grievances enough in connection with the terms, and especially the amount and nature of the distribution. Indeed, with so many claimants, 1t was impossible to satisfy the expectations and caprices of all. The favored few were naturally declared by the dissatisfied many to be less deserving of reward than they. Nor were these accusations altogether unjust, for besides securing to himself large and choice rewards, Cortés gave freely to recently arrived friends, who had taken no part in the conquest, and to others whom policy made it advisable to court.[2] Leading natives were also propitiated with a share. The conditions of the grant required the holder to pledge himself to an eight years' residence in the country in order to assure the interest both of crown and natives. This was readily evaded by obtaining deputies and leave of absence, while many made use of their grant merely to exchange or sell it.[3] Further, the holder must build a house at the place of
- ↑ 'Mas que lo que hasta ahora se sabe del mundo.' Cartas, 328.
- ↑ In Cortés, Residencia, i. 48, 61-2, 259-62, etc., the complaints axe freely ventilated; even Zumárraga is blunt about it, while Gomara naturally defends his patron's course against insatiable malcontents. Bernal Diaz considers that the country should have been divided into five parts: the best for the crown; the next for the church, for benevolent purposes, and for special rewards, the remainder to be distributed among the conquerors, including Cortés, according to their standing. Hist. Verdad., 187-8.
- ↑ Whole villages were sold for a paltry 509 to 1,000 pesos. Peralta, Not. Hist., 128. By cédula of March 20, 1532, holders were obliged to obtain royal permit for absence, or forfeit their grant; and by another cédula of the 16th exchanges and partnerships were declared void. Puga, Cedulario, 10, 11, 79. The marriage regulation could not well be enforced among these loose adventurers, and this evoked strong representations from such officials as Albornoz and President Fucneal(?), Carta, in Pacheco and Cárdenas, Col. Doc., xiii. 75-6, 226-7.
