The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies: Sicily—Naples—Sardinia—Milan—the Canaries—Mexico—Peru—New GranadaLea, Henry Charles
History
The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies: Sicily—Naples—Sardinia—Milan—the Canaries—Mexico—Peru—New Granada
Lea, Henry Charles
Inquisition
Concordias were only attempts to restrain existing abuses and they could
not provide for the perpetual new aggressions suggested by the facile
weapon of excommunication through which the Inquisition could overcome
the resistance of the secular authorities. The distribution of
quicksilver, for instance, to the miners was a matter jealously reserved
to the viceroy and the junta of the treasury but, when the Inquisition
wanted it for some mines belonging to it in Zacatecas, it forced, by
threats of excommunication, the royal officials to supply its demands.
Viceroy Mancera, in a letter of December 8, 1666, complains of this and
of a case in which the royal treasurer of Guadalajara owed a personal
debt to the tribunal of 980 pesos and the commissioner there, by order
of the acting inquisitor and visitador, Medina Rico, forced the auditor
of the treasury to pay it out of the royal funds, by threats of
excommunication and of a fine of 500 pesos. Mancera endeavored by
courteous remonstrance to obtain restitution but, after the inquisitors
had insulted him, he only succeeded in getting 600 pesos returned. In
reporting these matters to the king, the Council of Indies pointed out
forcibly how incompatible with subordination and good government were
these arbitrary extensions of inquisitorial jurisdiction over matters
wholly foreign to the objects of its institution.[498]
Indeed, the existence of so uncontrollable and disturbing an element
goes far to explain the ill-success of Spanish colonial administration.
In 1615, Fray Isidro Ordoñez, commissioner in San Francisco del Nuevo
Mexico, under pretext of a fictitious order from the tribunal, gathered
a band of soldiers and citizens, to whom inquisitorial orders were
supreme, and seized Don Pedro de Peralta, Governor of New Mexico, and
held him in irons for nine months. Peralta managed to complain to the
tribunal, which summoned Ordoñez to the capital and assigned to him his
convent for a prison, but Peralta obtained no satisfaction beyond a
declaration that there had been no cause for his arrest, while Ordoñez,
in place of the severe punishment which he merited, was permitted to
attend the general chapter of his Order in Rome, as procurator of the
province of Mexico.[499] Another Governor of New Mexico, Diego de
Peñalosa, fared even worse when, for indiscreet words about priests and
inquisitors and expressions verging on blasphemy, he was exposed to the
humiliation of appearing as a penitent in the auto de fe of February 3,
1668--thus virtually incapacitating him for further service.[500] It was
not without grounds that the Council of Indies, in 1696, addressed a
formal remonstrance to Carlos II, recapitulating a long array of abuses
and violences, showing the impossibility of enforcing observance of the
Concordias or obedience to the royal commands. Prelates and governors
were alike sufferers from the irrepressible audacity which admitted no
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account