were administered, the only object seeming to be the accumulation of wealth at the expense of others. The bishop at once resolved to correct this abuse, and meeting with resistance on the part of the friars, proceeded to deprive the orders of their missions. In a short time he had established thirty-seven new curacies, which formerly had belonged to the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Augustinians. It must be admitted that in some instances he went too far, making a parish out of every district containing a small church or hermitage, if the ecclesiastics failed to appear before him during the short term granted for examination.[1] Finally, when the religious orders realized their inability to battle successfully with the united powers of the bishop and the viceroy, they submitted under protest to the India Council, a measure which was of no avail to them, however, as the conduct of the bishop was approved. The general feeling of the population had doubtless been with the bishop, and they considered the great number of friars as a burden to the country, and one of little benefit; for a few years later petitions were addressed to Spain, urging that no more friars be sent to Mexico, and that no licenses be issued for new convents.
Although an intimate friendship seemed to exist between Escalona and Palafox, which found expression in the frequent visits they paid each other, the former had not been deaf to the complaints of the friars merely for the sake of the bishop's good-will. He required a more tangible compensation, which was nothing less than the assistance, or at least the non-interference, of the powerful visitador. Pleasure, and the acquisition of wealth, were dear to the heart of the viceroy. The duties of his office were a sore burden to him, and he
- ↑ The Franciscans as the most numerous seem to have suffered most, judging from the long complaint of Vetancurt, who says that his order had to suffer many grievances. Only one Franciscan, of Atlixco, submitted to the bishop's demand, and having been approved, was left in undisturbed possession of his doctrina. Vetancurt, Chron. San Evang., 14-16; Gonzalez Dávila, Teatro Ecles., i. 99. See also Cavo, Tres Siglos, ii. 13; Alaman, Disert., iii. app. 28.
