were sentenced to heavy payments, for which their property was wholly insufficient. They were sent to Spain in the autumn of 1532, together with the evidence, there to linger in disgrace and poverty.[1]
The encomiendas wrongfully granted to their friends were either restored to the rightful owner, or taken for the crown, yet several holders made appeal and managed to retain their grants.
With the residencia, the administration of justice, and the inauguration of reforms, involving long sittings and rounds of visits, the audiencia had a hard task before them, working daily twelve hours out of the twenty-four, not excepting feast-days. Fuenleal, indeed, felt it necessary to recommend the appointment of two more oidores for a term of two years, the others serving four years.[2] In a special council, assisted by the bishop, a number of friars, Cortés, and several officials and residents, the holding and treatment of the natives were carefully considered, as well as the tribute system and cognate branches, and many valuable conclusions were reached to aid the audiencia in executing the orders for the withdrawal of encomiendas, Under the direction of the empress the several councils in Spain had joined at the end of 1529 to consider Indian affairs, notably the holding of Indians, and had resolved that encomiendas should not be sustained. Their recommendation was to effect this change within one year, granting present holders but half the revenue during that time. In view of the reasons presented by Cortés as well as by the friars in favor of the system, and the danger of so sudden a reform, the second audiencia was empowered
- ↑ Fuenleal, Carta, in Pacheco and Cárdenas, Col. Doc., xiii. 251; Villa Señor, Theatro, i. 14. Two brothers of Delgadillo died in prison for their outrages. Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 230.
- ↑ Two should remain in the capital with the president, the rest should travel, each in his district, to watch over the execution of laws, the collection of revenue, and the welfare generally of the people. A relator was also recommended, and a fiscal, since the order for a lawyer to fill this office at call did not promote impartial pleadings. Cartas, in Pacheco and Cárdenas, Col. Doc., xiii. 207, 225. The advice was partly followed, according to Puga, Cedulario, 84.
