judge ordered that the guards should be removed within two days, a demand to which the civil judges refused to accede because Varaez, having in effect broken jail, was not entitled to sanctuary. If the point were not well taken it was certainly debatable; but the archbishop, taking the case out of the hands of his provisor, excommunicated Soto, the judges, the guards, and even the counsel employed by them. The persons so excommunicated immediately appealed to the audiencia, and in accordance with the royal provision governing such cases, sentence was suspended, and absolution ad reincidentiam given at first for twenty days and then for a further period of fifteen.[1]
A few days afterward Gelves called upon the archbishop to send the notary to him that he might be purged of contempt. After repeated instances the prelate reluctantly consented to do so. The notary appeared before the viceroy accompanied by the archbishop's secretary, whom the marquis immediately dismissed, in a very discourteous manner, as was afterward alleged by the prelate.[2] The notary made certain important statements, but these being reduced to writing he refused to sign the deposition without permission from his prelate. For this he was adjudged guilty of contumacy, and, being condemned to loss of property and banishment, he was taken to San Juan de Ulua that he might be sent to Spain.[3]
- ↑ The archbishop demanded a copy of certain orders from the clerk of the audiencia, C. de Osorio, and being denied he excommunicated him.
- ↑ Gelves was attended by Herrera, Bracamonte, Father Burguillos, and Baraona. These men, together with the vicar of La Merced, some superiors of the religious orders, and a few others, were the viceroy's trusted advisers. Father Alonso de Villaroel, a priest who afterward testified in support of the archbishop's side of the controversy, calls them: 'aquellos malos cristianos de sus consejeros aduladores . . . que le engañaban y le adulaban y le dieron por consejo diciéndole que él era legado del Papa en las Indias y rey en ellas, y así podia hacer en nombre de S. M. lo que quisiese en las Indias.' Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. ii. 356.
- ↑ The cabildo of Mexico, in the letter to which reference has been made,
guards only because of the expense occasioned to him by their presence. Doc. Hist. Mex., série ii. tom. iii. 645; Mex., Rel. Sum., 5. In the matter of the right of sanctuary civil authorities in Spain had issued a number of exemptions which greatly restricted the privilege.
