that effectual measures be taken to solve existing difficulties.[1]
As soon as the tumult in Puebla became known in Mexico it was resolved that the judges themselves should proceed thither. The bishop remonstrated, hinting at serious disturbances which might arise, and showed a desire for a reconcilation; whereupon a lengthy correspondence ensued, the fiscal. Viceroy Salvatierra, and the municipal authorities of Puebla opening negotiations with the prelate for a settlement of the dispute.[2] The preliminaries were arranged; a meeting was convoked by the viceroy for the 15th of June, and all were hopeful that at length matters would be adjusted,when an untoward incident occurred. The bishop suddenly disappeared from Puebla, and none knew of his whereabouts. Whatever may have been the reason which prompted his flight, distrust in the sincerity of the proposed reconciliation seems to have been the principal motive.[3] It was afterward known that he had retired to Tepeaca, nine leagues distant, leaving the affairs of the church in charge of Alonso de Salazar Varaona, Nicolás Gomez, and Juan de Merlo, and advising them not to yield to the pretensions of the Jesuits and their allies.[4]
The rule of the bishop's delegates was very brief. As soon as the flight of Palafox became known in
- ↑ The full text of the report is given in Palafox, Carta, 1-38, and Id., Obras, xi. 27-60.
- ↑ In the beginning of May, the fiscal of the inquisition had presented a petition to the archbishop for that purpose, but was discourteously received and ordered from his presence when he repeated his request. Guijo, Diario, in Doc. Hist. Mex., 1st ser. i. 12-13.
- ↑ Guijo asserts that the partial administration of justice, and the want of a competent tribunal in New Spain to which to appeal, induced the bishop to flee. In a letter to the pope of Jan. 8, 1649, he says that his flight was caused by menaces to imprison, exile, and even to kill him, and that he also wished to evade the bloodshed which otherwise had become inevitable, as his friends at Puebla would have made armed resistance. This assertion, as well as a similar one in the report to the king, is certainly exaggerated. Palafox, Ohras, xi. 68-71, xii. 204-18.
- ↑ The formal appointments were made in a letter from Tepeaca, and confirmed together with instructions by several others from the same place, written during his residence there. Palafox, Obras, xii. 218-22; Satisfacion al Memorial, 55-6.
