64
ITURRIGARAY'S DEPOSAL.
him in military chiefs, and his intended establishment of a national congress. [1]
These arguments were combated by his supporters, who noted the fact that Iturrigaray had taken the oath of allegiance to Fernando, and denied any intention to establish an independent government. The removal of the artillery from San Juan de Ulúa was done, they asserted, for the purpose of avoiding the mortality which prevailed among the troops stationed at Vera Cruz [2] by placing them in more healthy localities. While they thus repudiated the accusations of treasonable designs, they nevertheless acknowledged many grave defects in his administration. [3]
- ↑ How strongly opposed the European party was to such a congress may be seen from Bishop Queipo's views expressed on the 26th of September: 'Una junta nacional. . .es una verdadera rebelion.' Col. Doc., 29; Pap. Var. 62, no. 19, 28-34.
- ↑ 'Que en Veracruz perecerían, como siempre, a millares.' Rev. de N. Esp., Censura Particular, 3. Lerdo de Tejada, Apunt. Hist., 362, makes the strange statement that Iturrigaray entertained such an infatuated belief in his military skill that he dismantled the battery for the purpose of enticing the English to make an attack on Vera Cruz, being confident of victory. 'pero afortunadamente para el virey, no sucedió así, y á esto debió el que su reputacion militar no quedase tan perdida como la de gobernante.' Lacunza, Doc. Hist. Museo Mex., 534, makes the same statement.
- ↑ Bustamante, one of his stanchest defenders, remarks: 'Conozco los graves defectos de su administracion; uno de ellos es la venta escandalosa de los empleos que hizo.' Sup., Cavo, Tres Siglos, iii. 245. The deposal of Iturrigaray was the subject of various works and the theme of innumerable diatribes which rancorously discussed the cause of his fall, and its bearing on the future destiny of Mexico. These writings embrace productions of every dimension, from the size of a volume to small pamphlets or a couple of leaves in a periodical. They were issued during a period which extended from the time of Iturrigaray's trial before the council of the Indies till long after the declaration of independence. A large proportion of the pamphlets and smaller essays are anonymous. Their style, which is usually virulent, shows the bitterness with which the two chief factions regarded each other. By far the most important of these productions are published by Cancelada, Lizarza, Mier y Guerra, and Martiñena. Juan Lopez Cancelada, the editor of the Gazeta de Mexico, represented in Spain the interests of the commercial community of Mexico which endeavored to obtain a revocation of the decision which liberated Iturrigaray, released him from the accusation of treason, and restored his ill-gotten wealth. Cancelada proved himself an inveterate enemy of the fallen viceroy, and probably was influenced by personal feeling. In the Gaz. de Mex., xv. 522, of the 2d of August, 1808, the editor published a rumor that Fernando had been restored to the throne. This incensed Iturrigaray, who summoned Cancelada before him and banished him. By the intercession of the vice-queen, however, the order was withdrawn, and Cancelada allowed to remain in Mexico, but was made to retract his assertion. After the deposal of Iturrigaray, Cancelada assailed Villa Urratia by petitioning the audiencia to pronounce him a traitor, and punish him as such; but his language was so malignant that he was condemned in a fine of 500 pesos for calumny,
