ere long pitied the duke on account of the new viceroy's harsh proceeding, explaining his alleged malefeasance as the calumniations of his enemies, and his mistakes in the government as originated by the bad counsel of his advisers. Later events seemed to justify this opinion, and having remained in the convent of Churubusco till the end of 1642 Escalona removed to the small town of San Martin, about sixteen leagues from Mexico, and three months later returned to Spain.[1] Here he vindicated his conduct so satisfactorily that the king intended to reinstall him in office, but afterward bestowed on him the viceroyalty of Sicily and a grant of six thousand pesos of rental. His opinion was also consulted about the government of New Spain, and among other suggestions he made was that of resuming the expeditions to California. There is no doubt that he became a victim to the visitador's ambition or scruples, and that on account of his innate indolence his friends and attendants were allowed too much influence in the control of affairs, but no evidence has been produced strong enough to convict him of disloyalty.[2]
Whatever the reasons which controlled the conduct of Palafox in all affairs where Escalona was concerned, once in charge of the highest magistracy of New
- ↑ With him he took written testimony of the city council, other corporations, and many prominent persons, giving evidence of his innocence.
- ↑ El Venerable Señor Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza. . . justificado en el Tribunal de la Razon, Mexico, 1831, pp. 79, published by Cárlos Maria de Bustamante. This work forms part of the Voz de la Patria, and contains documents bearing on the altercations between Escalona and Palafox. The first is a relation, written by a contemporary, apparently a friend of the bishop, but full of valuable information and less biassed than might have been expected. The second is a memorial to the king by the son of the ex-viceroy, asserting the duke's innocence and severely accusing Palafox. Another, apparently coetaneous copy exists in my manuscript collection under the title Escalona, Defensa. The last document is the bishop's reply to the king concerning the charges preferred against him. Both the memorial and the reply, partial as their origin necessarily stamps them, add few historical facts to the first document, but are valuable because they reveal occasionally the reasons which guided the two antagonists. Of later writers, most have adopted the version that the removal of Escalona was an act of unnecessary caution in view of the slight reasons against him; others, like Alaman and
