A more serious matter, involving the right of sanctuary and leading to a civil and ecclesiastical conflict, arose from the conduct of one Juan Manuel Ballesteros, who had fatally stabbed a man. The murderer sought refuge in a convent church, whence he was dogged by a force sent by the alcalde, García de Hijas. He sought refuge behind the grand altar; but the sanctity of the place was not regarded, and despite his struggles he was arrested. The prisoner was immediately put to the torture, and died under its effect. The alcalde was promptly excommunicated, and the ecclesiastics appealed to the king, petitioning for a royal declaration of their rights in such cases. The monarch, by a decree of the 18th of June 1720, decided that in this case the prelate was justified in proceeding against the alcalde, but that all doubtful cases, as a rule, must be decided by the king himself in council.[XXXVII‑30]

During the next twenty years no political event occurred that is worthy of record. Several able prelates occupied the episcopal chair,[XXXVII‑31] but their administration was greatly interfered with by the improper action of the secular and regular clergy. So flagrant were the abuses committed by the priests in the exercise of their duties, that the bishops were embarrassed in their visits, and the natives oppressed by the venal conduct of their pastors. The abuse of this mock religion was carried to such an extreme that the sale of the sacraments, the failure to visit the dying sick, and the charges for the performance of funeral ceremonies[XXXVII‑32] brought on the ecclesiastics the censure of the crown.

In 1729 Juan Gomez de Parada succeeded to the bishopric, and the reforms which he effected were so beneficial that the cabildo ordered his portrait to be painted and preserved, with an appropriate inscription—an honor which had been paid to no prelate except Marroquin. In 1736 Parada was promoted to the see of Guadalajara, and the next bishop of Guatemala, Pedro Pardo de Figueroa, took possession of the episcopal chair.[XXXVII‑33]

The occasion of Figueroa's consecration was made memorable through the action taken by the cabildo, the members of which deemed that their right of municipal claim to seats of honor was not duly acknowledged. The audiencia, the religious orders, and all the principal personages of the city had convened in the cathedral at nine o'clock in the morning, and for some time awaited the arrival of the municipal authorities. These, however, after an ungracious delay, sent a message to the effect that the day was not one on which they could be called upon for the transaction of business. The audiencia attempted to negotiate, and after a fruitless loss of time, without proceeding to their hall of sessions, appointed in the cathedral other alcaldes and regidores, and notified the contumacious cabildo that its members were to consider themselves under arrest. Owing to this jealous claim for precedence on the part of the municipality the enthronement of the bishop did not take place till two o'clock in the afternoon.[XXXVII‑34]

Figueroa decorated the cathedral with sumptuous altars, rare paintings, and exquisite works of art; restored the convent of the Carmelite friars; enlarged the episcopal palace, and rebuilt the church of Esquipulas, in which a so-called miraculous image of the crucifixion was preserved.

During the seventeenth century the elevation of the see of Guatemala to an archbishopric had been frequently brought before the notice of the kings of Spain; and not without reason; the bishopric of Honduras was a suffragan of Santo Domingo, while the far distant archbishopric of Peru was the metropolitan of Nicaragua. In 1742 Pope Benedict XIV. at the request of Felipe V. issued a bull conferring the pallium upon the bishop[XXXVII‑35] of Guatemala.

The suffragan bishoprics were those of Chiapas, Nicaragua, and Comayagua. The pallium was brought to Vera Cruz by Isidro Marin, bishop of Nicaragua, and thence to Guatemala by Francisco Molina, bishop of Comayagua, who arrived at the capital October 28, 1745. On the 14th of November the archbishop was installed and formally invested with the insignia of office by José Cabero, bishop of Chiapas. The event was celebrated with great rejoicings. The archbishop died on the 2d of February 1751, at Esquipulas, and was interred at the foot of the grand altar of the cathedral, beside the remains of Alvarado and other celebrities distinguished in the history of the country.

The suffragan sees of Honduras and Chiapas present little additional material for history during this half century, the proceedings of the church and regular orders being one uninterrupted continuance of labors which year by year became less arduous and were less carefully attended to.[XXXVII‑36] In the latter province the regular orders had become much impoverished by the devastations caused by the Tzendal insurrection, and the Dominicans in particular were so much reduced by the ravages committed upon their sugar and cacao plantations that the proceeds of those estates, together with the yield of their grist-mill, did not supply the means wherewith to repair their church.[XXXVII‑37]

Whether owing to the increasing carelessness and indolence of the ecclesiastics, or to the pertinacious adherence on the part of the natives to the creed of their forefathers, heresy became so prevalent during this epoch that the inquisition of Mexico in 1745 fulminated a terrible anathema against offenders in Central America. In this edict every curse, plague, or misfortune that could fall upon the greatest sinners of mankind was invoked upon the head of apostates.[XXXVII‑38]

In the middle of the eighteenth century the captain-generalcy of Guatemala included the territory lying between 7° 54' and 17° 49' north latitude,[XXXVII‑39] being about six hundred leagues in length from north-west to south-east, and varying in width from sixty to one hundred and fifty leagues, making an approximate area of sixty-four thousand square leagues.[XXXVII‑40]

At this time the ruler of Guatemala held control over the provinces of Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, Soconusco, San Antonio, San Salvador, Chiapas, Sonsonate, and Vera Paz; and the districts of Huehuetenango, Atitlan, and Tecpanatitlan, Quesaltenango, Chiquimula de la Sierra, Escuintla and Guazacapan, Tegucigalpa, Sutiaba, Realejo, Sebaco, and Nicoya.[XXXVII‑41] In 1787 the territory subject to the captain-general included thirteen provinces—those of Soconusco, Chiapas, Suchitepec, Vera Paz, Honduras, Izalcos, San Salvador, San Miguel, Nicaragua, Jerez de la Choluteca, Tegucigalpa, Costa Rica, and Guatemala.[XXXVII‑42]

By royal cédulas of the 11th of March and 20th of June 1776, the office of regent of the audiencias was created.[XXXVII‑43] Although little is said about their doings in Guatemala, they were invested with great powers, and their authority was greater than that of the president. In January 1778 Vicente de Herrera was appointed regent, and between that date and 1800 the office was held by six of his successors.[XXXVII‑44]

In no other respect does any change appear to have been made in the officers composing the government.[XXXVII‑45] Important changes, however, had been introduced in the system of government. Since its organization the political divisions had been subject to many variations. During the seventeenth century there were as many as thirty-two, of which four were governments, nine alcaldías mayores, and nineteen corregimientos.[XXXVII‑46]

About 1660 eight of the corregimientos were abolished and united to the governments,[XXXVII‑47] and from the beginning of the eighteenth century until about 1790 the corregimientos were further reduced, new alcaldías mayores being formed and others abolished.[XXXVII‑48]

At about this latter date the intendencias[XXXVII‑49] were established, reducing the number of provinces to fifteen, which embraced four intendencias, thirty-nine subdelegaciones, four politico-military districts, three corregimientos, and seven alcaldías mayores.[XXXVII‑50]

Between 1752 and 1773 eight governors ruled in Guatemala; but their administrations were marked by no event worthy of special notice. With the accession of Martin de Mayorga at the latter date,[XXXVII‑51] however, began one of the most eventful periods in the history of the country.

Notwithstanding the disasters which the city of Guatemala had experienced, it had continued to increase in wealth and importance, until at this time it was noted for the number and elegance of its private and public buildings and the magnificence of its numerous churches and convents. It still maintained its rank as the second city in North America, being inferior only to Mexico in its advantages of location, scenery, climate, and varied resources. On every side of its well watered and fertile valley extended villages and farms, where cultivated fields and green pastures afforded a pleasing prospect; while high above the hills and mountains, which flanked it on either side, towered in majestic grandeur the three dreaded volcanoes.

In the centre of this beautiful valley, and nearly opposite the Volcan de Agua, stood the city. Over a mile in width at its narrowest part, its numerous streets were broad, well paved, and, excepting in the suburbs, laid out at right angles. Every portion of the city was abundantly supplied with water, and in the principal square there was a large and handsome stone reservoir, fed by two streams. Facing on this square were the governor's and archbishop's palaces, the city hall, mint, and cathedral. The government buildings were remarkable for their solidity; and within their spacious corridors, formed of columns and arches, was displayed every variety of merchandise. The churches of Guatemala, of which there were nineteen, were famed for their architectural beauty, their size, and the richness of their ornaments. Besides the cathedral and the churches, there were eighteen convents and eleven chapels. The cathedral was over three hundred feet in length, one hundred and twenty in width, and sixty-six feet high. It had three naves with eight chapels on each side. Its interior was richly carved and gilded, and decorated with rare and costly statues, paintings, and tablets, while it possessed many precious relics, and numerous utensils of gold and silver. The high-altar was of exquisite design.[XXXVII‑52]

The private dwellings were many of them of great beauty, solidly and commodiously built, richly furnished, and with spacious gardens and courts. The number of inhabitants at this time was little short of twenty-five thousand,[XXXVII‑53] and from the neighboring pueblos, the chief occupation of whose inhabitants was agriculture and various industrial arts, Guatemala was supplied with all the necessaries and many of the luxuries of life.[XXXVII‑54]

Such, in June 1773, was the fair city of Guatemala, destined for a second time soon to be laid low by envious powers. During the past twenty-three years the metropolis had experienced frequent disturbances, some of a political nature, others in the appearance of that familiar and dreaded visitant—earthquake. Two severe shocks, occurring March 4, 1751, did considerable damage, chiefly to the churches;[XXXVII‑55] in 1757 a shock was felt to which the natives gave the name of San Francisco. Two more were felt in 1765; the first, called the holy trinity, was disastrous to the province of Chiquimula, and the second, called San Rafael, desolated the province of Suchiltepeque, but neither did any damage in the city of Guatemala.[XXXVII‑56]

About 1756 a riot occurred in the city on account of the prohibition of the sale of certain liquors, but was soon suppressed by the personal courage and prompt measures of President Arcos.[XXXVII‑57] In 1766 a serious outbreak was threatened because of the establishment of the tobacco monopoly, and was only prevented by reducing the price of that article. The alarm and excitement caused by this danger was increased by the atrocious murder of two friars.[XXXVII‑58]

The minds of the people were for a time diverted from their local troubles by the funeral obsequies of the queen of Spain. The official notification of her death was received in Guatemala March 25, 1759, and on the 29th of the following June pompous funeral ceremonies were celebrated.[XXXVII‑59]

Two years later the oath of allegiance to Cárlos III. was taken.[XXXVII‑60] In October 1762 the valley was flooded, and the town of Petapa, and the portion of the city known as the Barrio de los Remedios was inundated.[XXXVII‑61] But the crowning disaster was yet to come. A few slight shocks of earthquake in the latter part of May 1773 gave no cause for apprehension and were almost forgotten, when on the 11th of June they returned with such violence as to damage several houses and churches, notably the Carmelite and Dominican convents, and the hospital of San Juan de Dios. The shocks continued for several days with diminishing force and frequency until they had nearly ceased. On the 25th of July they were again renewed, but although frequent and violent there was no serious damage until the 29th, when the people had partially recovered from their alarm. Then they were startled by a sudden shock, coming on about four o'clock in the afternoon, which, though comparatively slight, seemed portentous of evil. So great was the apprehension felt by the inhabitants that many instantly abandoned the city, and those who remained were ready at the first indication of its return to flee from their dwellings. Scarcely ten minutes had elapsed since the first shock when there was a second, and of such violence that with the first vibration the work of destruction began. The motions were as varied as they were sudden and destructive; now horizontal, now vertical, the latter uplifting the earth with explosions, and compelling man and beast to remain prostrate. On every side were heard the crash of falling walls, the doleful clangor of the church bells as their towers rocked under the impulse of unseen powers, and above all the loud wailings of the terror-stricken people, who, collected in the squares and streets, vainly implored divine protection.

Throughout the night the shocks continued at brief intervals, and the horrors of darkness were increased by a severe rain-storm, accompanied by thunder and lightning, to which the thinly clad inhabitants were fully exposed, none daring to seek shelter from its fury lest a worse fate should overtake them. When day broke they were enabled to realize the full extent of the calamity. Of the magnificent cathedral nothing was left but a heap of ruins. Not a house in the city had escaped either destruction or serious damage. In many cases where the houses remained standing their foundations had settled or their walls were shattered or twisted. The greatest ruin, however, was caused in that portion called the Barrio del Candelaria. Here every house, including the church and the Dominican convent, was levelled to the ground. In many parts of the city even the pavements of the streets and the tiled floors of private dwellings were uplifted and shattered. The deaths, strange to say, were comparatively few, not exceeding one hundred and thirty within the city, and probably a smaller number in the surrounding country.[XXXVII‑62]

On the following day the duty of interment was begun under the direction of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. Fearful of pestilence the dead were buried wherever found, the grounds having first been consecrated. Hunger and thirst next stalked about the ruins. Most of the supplies within the city had been destroyed or buried beneath the fallen houses, and none dared venture in those yet standing, as the shocks still continued. The aqueducts had been destroyed, and but a scanty supply of muddy water could be obtained. This distress, however, was soon relieved by the prompt measures of the president, who caused to be distributed a quantity of stores destined for the fortress of Omoa. Vigorous measures were also taken to suppress the pillage of the ruined houses, already begun. Thefts to the value of ten pesos or more were made punishable by death, and for lesser amounts, the breaking-open of any trunk, or the approach after evening prayers to the temporary quarters of the nuns, two hundred lashes and ten years' penal servitude was the penalty fixed. As proof of their determination to carry out these measures the authorities caused a gallows to be at once erected in the principal square. The presence of the militia, who had been summoned from the neighboring town, also helped to keep the criminal classes in check.[XXXVII‑63]

Many had left the city for the adjacent villages, or had erected temporary shelters in the outskirts, but more lingered near their homes suffering from lack of food, clothing, and shelter. Within a few days when the shocks had gradually diminished, and it was a question whether the city should be rebuilt or removed to a new site, the president convoked a meeting of the civil and church authorities and prominent citizens, and it was finally decided to remove to the valley de la Ermita, the portion known as the Rodeo being chosen, and the choice approved by a decree of May 24, 1774. But finally, at the instance of the new fiscal of the audiencia, the site was changed to the plain of the virgin adjoining La Hermita, where were greater advantages.

Although a removal was favored by a majority of the prominent persons, subsequent events showed that it was not the free expression of the popular will. Many of the citizens were not in a condition to reason calmly. The apprehension of fresh calamities was kept alive by the continued shocks, which on the 7th of September and 13th of December were unusually severe. Those of the latter date were said by some to have equalled in violence that of the 29th of July, and caused further damage to the remaining buildings. As time went on, however, the fears of the people disappeared, and the opposition to a removal grew stronger among all classes; but still the audiencia objected. This body, together with the royal officials and the troops, had been established in the Hermita since September; but few if any of the citizens appear to have joined them, and not even a petechial fever, which appeared and raged until May 1774 could induce them to abandon the ruined city.[XXXVII‑64]

The president would fain have compelled the removal, but the royal decree which arrived in the latter part of 1774, made the selection of the site subject to the approval of the viceroy of Mexico, and ordered that until such approval was obtained the erection of permanent buildings should not be made. The viceroy was duly informed of the choice of site, but instead of approving it he reported the matter to the crown.

The removal of the city to the plain of the virgin was confirmed by royal decree of November 1775, and immediately following its receipt President Mayorga issued decrees inviting the citizens to select their lots in the new locality. But few responded to this invitation, and none began the construction of houses, believing that this site would be ultimately abandoned.

Toward the end of December a second royal decree arrived with instructions as to the manner of removal, but forbidding the total abandonment of the old city. Suppressing such portions of these instructions as suited his design, the president continued his measures of coercion, but apparently with little success, for on the 29th of July, 1777, he found it necessary to decree that within a year the old city must be abandoned and all buildings pulled down. The ayuntamiento had been ordered to take up their permanent residence in La Hermita at the end of 1775, and their protests, first to the president and subsequently to the crown, appear to have availed nothing.[XXXVII‑65] The archbishop, however, and the ecclesiastics still remained in the ruined city.

The archbishop had opposed the removal from the beginning, and in his numerous representations to the crown had occasion to complain of the minister Galvez. One of these letters fell into the hands of Galvez, who determined on revenge. Through his influence secret and stringent orders were issued for the total abandonment of the ruined city, and a former resignation of the archbishop, made in 1769, and rejected by the crown, was reconsidered and accepted. The orders issued by the president became more and more stringent, but as he refused to show the royal decrees to the archbishop the latter paid no heed to them.

Thus affairs continued until August 1778, when Don Matías Galvez, a brother of minister Galvez, arrived in Guatemala with the rank of inspector-general and acting president of the audiencia in the absence or sickness of Mayorga. In the beginning of 1779 the entry to the ruined city of all kinds of merchandise was forbidden; repairs on houses, grounds, or streets were prohibited; music, bull-fighting, and all other public diversions were interdicted; the temporary huts in the streets and squares were ordered removed, and all artisans, militia, and others of this class were ordered to transfer their residence to the new site within a limited period.

On the 5th of April Galvez took temporary possession of the presidency, Mayorga being promoted to the viceroyalty of New Spain, for which place he set out toward the end of the month. The appointment of Galvez arrived the 14th of May when he took formal possession of the office. Through his subordinates he at once issued peremptory orders to all seculars for the immediate abandonment of the old city under severe penalties. This tyrannical measure could not be fully carried out, and such was the suffering it caused among the poorer classes that many were allowed to remain among the ruins. The principal cause of all these troubles, however, was the archbishop. The civil authorities could not compel him to leave the old city, and it was hoped that a systematic course of annoyance would induce him to repair to Spain, and that during his absence the new archbishop who had already been appointed would quietly take possession. Having set out on a pastoral visit, August 21, 1778, it was supposed that he had departed for Spain; but in September 1779 he was again in Guatemala City, whence he issued an edict disputing the validity of his successor's claims, this latter, Cayetano Francos y Monroy, having arrived in Guatemala during the preceding month. From the 9th to the 30th the struggle between the archbishop and the audiencia continued. To the former's threats of excommunication the latter replied with demands for the recognition of the new archbishop, and this proving ineffectual he was ordered to depart for Spain, and the recognition of Monroy by the people enjoined under heavy penalties. It is uncertain to what extremes the president might have proceeded had not Archbishop Cortés secretly left for Spain at the end of the month. Monroy at once took possession, and thus ended this scandalous affair.[XXXVII‑66]

Notwithstanding its want of resources the new city, aided by the cession of the revenues for ten years made by the royal decree of 1774, was soon rebuilt, and in 1800 had its paved streets, fine squares, public buildings, and churches. The cathedral, of smaller proportions than that of the old city, and the Jesuit college, were still unfinished.

Alarms and disaster still followed the people of Guatemala. On the 11th of July 1775 a violent though harmless eruption of the volcano of Pacaya occurred; in 1776 the eruption of the volcano De Tormentos, near Amatitlan, destroyed the village of Tres Rios, three leagues distant, and filled with lava the rivers from which it took its name.[XXXVII‑67]

In 1780 the new city was visited by small-pox, which extended over the whole country and carried off many victims. The use of vaccine was now for the first time tried in Guatemala, and proved a success, as few if any of those inoculated died.[XXXVII‑68]

Before these events had fairly passed, the declaration of war between England and Spain in 1779, and the almost immediate invasion of Honduras and Nicaragua, compelled the reorganization of the military force of the kingdom. We have no information of the condition of either the regular army or militia at this date, but it is hardly probable that any material change in their condition had taken place since the report of President Salazar in 1778-9. As therein shown the country was not in a condition for war. The whole number of regular troops in the kingdom consisted of two companies of dragoons numbering sixty men, and who were stationed at the capital. The militia force included all the able-bodied men in the kingdom, the majority of whom were mulattoes; but in the rare event of their being called out for service a certain proportion only was taken from each town, the remainder being indispensable to the cultivation of the soil. Both infantry and cavalry were poorly disciplined, and their arms, usually deposited in the principal towns, would not suffice for one half of the troops, besides being for the most part out of repair for want of an armorer. A few of the mulattoes had rude side arms of home manufacture, but it was rare to find one who had acquired any skill in the use of fire-arms. The regular force was subsequently increased to two hundred, a detachment of one hundred Spanish troops arriving in August 1777.[XXXVII‑69] At this same time infantry and cavalry officers, artillerymen and engineers were asked for by President Salazar to reorganize and instruct the militia and take charge of the artillery and fortifications. The various fortresses and principal cities were well provided with artillery and small arms, but many of them in an apparently unserviceable condition.[XXXVII‑70] At the first note of alarm President Galvez applied himself to the organization of an army, and such was the energy and ability displayed in his conduct of the subsequent campaign, that he earned merited fame and promotion for himself, and, as we have seen, led his troops to victory.[XXXVII‑71]

The rule of President Galvez ended on March 10, 1783, when he was transferred to the viceroyalty of New Spain. His administration was an exceedingly prosperous one for Guatemala, and his departure was greatly regretted by all classes.[XXXVII‑72] His successor was José Estachería, who assumed office the 3d of April the same year. He was brigadier-general and ex-governor of Nicaragua. His term of office expired December 29, 1789. To him succeeded Bernardo Troncoso Martinez del Rincon, lieutenant-general, formerly king's lieutenant of Habana and ex-governor of Vera Cruz, who was in power until 1794, and José Domas y Valle, a knight of Santiago, gefe de escuadra, who held office from the latter date until the 28th of July 1801.[XXXVII‑73]

From May 13, 1753, until June 24, 1765, the archiepiscopal chair of Guatemala was filled by Doctor Francisco José de Figueredo y Victoria, who had been promoted from the see of Popayan.[XXXVII‑74]

The only event of importance during his rule was the partial secularization of missions. The order was received from Mexico by the audiencia sometime after the death of President Vazquez, but was not made public until 1754, when the secularization of the missions in the valley of Guatemala at once began.[XXXVII‑75]

On the arrival of President Arcos, a little over a month later, the Dominicans, who had appealed to the crown against this measure, prevailed on him to delay, under some pretext, the transfer of their missions. This, however, proved only a temporary relief; for though the provinces of Vera Paz and Quiché were left to these friars, Archbishop Figueredo reported the conduct of the president to the crown, whereupon the secularization was ordered continued, and Arcos was reproved. The Dominicans redoubled their exertions, but succeeded only in obtaining a cédula ordering that the transfer of the remaining missions should be made only on the death of the friars in charge. Later, even this concession was revoked by the archbishop of Guatemala.[XXXVII‑76]

At the time the missionary field in the province of Guatemala proper seems, with the exception of the Lacandon territory, to have been exhausted; for we find that the Franciscan college of Cristo Señor Nuestro Crucificado, founded April 27, 1756, had missions in Veragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Mosquitia, but there is no mention of any in Guatemala.[XXXVII‑77] In 1790 the parish priest of Palenque made a feeble attempt to reduce the Lacandones. Having obtained pecuniary aid from the intendente of Chiapas, he founded a town, baptized several natives, and won their good-will by numerous presents; but the advantage thus gained does not appear to have been improved.[XXXVII‑78]

Some excitement was caused in Guatemala City in July 1772 by a disturbance in the convent of the Recollets. Owing to violent dissension among the inmates, the audiencia, at the request of the friar, caused the arrest and remittance to Spain of two of the ringleaders. The populace, ignorant of the cause of this interference, were with difficulty quieted. This action of the audiencia was approved by the crown, and the remainder of the turbulent friars were suspended.

Having become blind from old age, being now in his eightieth year, Archbishop Figueredo petitioned the crown to appoint a coadjutor. Accordingly, Doctor Miguel de Cilieza y Velasco, a native of Guatemala and chancellor of the cathedral, was selected; but the archbishop died before he was consecrated, and he was nominated for the see of Chiapas, whence he departed in October 1767. The archbishop's death occurred June 24, 1765. In accordance with his request his remains were deposited in the church of the Jesuit college, to whose members he had been warmly attached.[XXXVII‑79] The archiepiscopal chair remained vacant after Figueredo's death until 1768, when it was occupied by Doctor Don Pedro Cortés y Larraz.[XXXVII‑80] Preceding his arrival in 1767 the famous decree of expulsion against the Jesuits was carried into effect in Guatemala, but was unattended with any of the serious disturbances which marked its enforcement in New Spain.[XXXVII‑81] The utmost secrecy and despatch were observed. At 6 o'clock on the morning of the 26th of June, troops having been stationed at certain points, the president and audiencia with an escort of dragoons proceeded to the Jesuit convent. It was the feast of the sacred heart, and service had already begun. Awaiting a favorable opportunity the president requested the celebrants to cease, and the sacrament having been covered and the doors closed, in tears he notified the friars of the fatal decree. Silently and with bowed heads they signified their submission. The convent was surrounded by a guard of militia, and all communication with friends forbidden. On July 1st they were conducted to Golfo Dulce and embarked on a Spanish frigate, and a month later the members of their order from Chiapas joined them. The decree was published on the 30th of July. The total number of exiles was eleven. The rector and two lay brothers remained, the former to deliver the church property, and the latter because they were unable to travel.[XXXVII‑82]

Archbishop Cortés took possession of his office in February 1768. The chief event during his rule was his difficulty with the audiencia, owing to his opposition to the removal of the city, and which has been related in connection with that event. These differences, however, were evidently of an earlier date. Cortés, who had been appointed by the king in opposition to his council, did not find matters to his liking in Guatemala, and accordingly in August 1769 he tendered his resignation. This was rejected by the king, who expressed himself as satisfied with his conduct, and this rejection was considered final. In opposing the removal of the city, however, he did not count on the influence of President Mayorga, who was protected by the chief minister of the royal council; and however justifiable in the beginning this opposition may have been it was unwisely prolonged. Minister Galvez succeeded in having the resignation of Cortés reconsidered, notwithstanding the protests of that prelate. He caused his brother to be appointed Mayorga's successor, had Cortés transferred to the bishopric of Tortosa, and, as we have seen, a new archbishop nominated to Guatemala. The refusal of Cortés to surrender his chair, it is claimed, was because he had not received his bulls confirming his appointment to the bishopric of Tortosa. After leaving Guatemala, as previously narrated, he proceeded to his new bishopric, where he continued until his death, which occurred in 1786. His interest in the welfare of Guatemala did not end with his departure, for he subsequently donated sixty thousand dollars with which to found a college for the education of the young.[XXXVII‑83]

Doctor Cayetano Francos y Monroy, his successor, was installed and duly recognized after Cortés' departure;[XXXVII‑84] but not satisfied with the manner in which he had been appointed he procured a confirmatory bull from Pope Pius VII. in 1779. This irregularity was also recognized by the council of the Indies, as is shown by the fact that they declared that the revenues of the archbishopric of Guatemala until December 1779 belonged to Cortés, whose appointment to Tortosa was not confirmed until this date.

Thus we have traced the history of Spanish conquest and colonization in Central America from the time when Rodrigo de Bastidas first touched Tierra Firme to the close of the eighteenth century. We have seen the sword and the cross side by side, without a shadow of right or recompense, enter in and take possession of the broad area from Darien to New Spain; then sitting down to wrangle and to rest. During the process of gradual extinction the natives broke out in occasional rebellions; but for the most part they were docile, and submitted with philosophic or Christian resignation to the inevitable, which was too often infamous on the part of civilization and Christianity.

It was a period of repose, the two and a half centuries of Central America's existence under Spain's audiencias and governors, a period of apathy and stagnation as far as intellectual and moral progress are concerned. Nor is there much to be said in the way of material improvement. Neither God nor mammon could truthfully claim much higher or nobler results from the country under European domination than under American. The province and policy of rulers, civil and ecclesiastical, were fixed, and the duties of subjects was determined. Although the people did not know it, the grasp of the mother government upon the country, however nervous and jealous it might be, was in reality weak, for the parent herself was rapidly declining.

There was nothing to fight for, and nothing to work for. If we except an occasional attempted subjugation of unpacified peoples, and the descent of pirates, the greatest issues of the time were those affecting precedence and place. It was easier to evade obnoxious laws than to quarrel with them. The natives found it less burdensome to perform the little labor necessary to the support of themselves and their masters than to endure the penalties of opposition. Between the poor kings of Spain and the pirates of England, France, and Holland, the wealth of the people was far from secure; there was no great incentive to enterprise in any direction, and had there been it is not certain that men would have exerted themselves. Simple existence satisfied them; high development and limitless wealth could do no more.

The appearance on their shores of legalized robbery and murder, in the form of freebooters, was not generally regarded as retribution, though their infamies were scarcely greater than those which had been perpetrated by the Spaniards in this quarter a century or two before. The buccaneers and Scotch settlers were right enough in looking upon the Spaniards as intruders, having no more ownership in the country than they, except such as priority in wrongs committed gave them; which wrongs by no means made right the cruelties and injustice of the English and French inflicted upon the Spaniards.