and thus dissensions which threatened to end in a serious rupture between him and the archbishop were avoided. They had been caused by the complaints of the latter about several of the religious orders, and were decided against the primate when brought before the audiencia. The government even threatened him, though in vain, with a suspension of the temporalities. Ribera refused to obey, but was finally persuaded to do so under protest through the intercession of the inquisition.[1]
When the end of his second term of office drew near, Mancera had requested to be relieved; but the sovereign was not willing to part with such an able governor, and prolonged his term for three years more, the news reaching Mexico in the beginning of October 1670.[2] At about the same time a cédula arrived by which the viceroys of New Spain were again authorized to appoint governors ad interim for the Philippine Islands, a right which had been revoked in 1664, but was now restored[3] upon the representations of the viceroy to the India Council., Although the condition of affairs in New Spain was at this time fairly prosperous, several calamities occurred during Mancera's administration. Soon after his succession to the viceroyalty an eruption of Popocatepetl took place, lasting four days, and the showers of ashes and stones threw into consternation the entire population of the surrounding districts.[4] At about the same time a tornado struck Vera Cruz, causing an inundation, which flooded the city and did considerable damage.
- ↑ According to Robles, Diario, i. 83-4, a rather powerful influence was exercised by the marqués' consort, who threatened to enter the convent of Santa Teresa if no reconciliation were effected.
- ↑ A few days before, a large torch-light procession had been held in honor of the king's birthday.
- ↑ By Cédulas of October 22, 1669, and May 6, 1670. Mancera, Instruccion, in Col. Doc. Inéd., xxi. 462-3, and in Instrucc. Vireyes, 266.
- ↑ Authorities differ about the date. Lorenzana, Hist. N. Esp., 25, says it was in the same year when Mancera arrived, but gives the latter erroneously as 1665. Cavo, Tres Siglos, ii. 47, also adopts 1665, in which he is followed by Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, i. 95, but this writer makes the blunder of placing it under the rule of Baños.
