As the provisions of this bloody edict had been all along practised in regard to insurgents generally, they would not have excited any particular attention but for the clauses touching the ecclesiastics, in whom they produced a deep impression;[1] the bishops being
- ↑ A representation, written by Licenciado Bernardo Gonzalez Angulo, legal adviser of the artillery department, was laid before the ecclesiastical chapter of Mexico, asking for its action on behalf of their fueros. The petition gave rise to meetings and discussions of the chapter; but all ended in nothing, owing to pressure from superior authority. The chapter had a full meeting on the 30th of June to discuss whether some step should be taken in defence of ecclesiastical immunity, but it was decided under present circumstances to be inexpedient to act. On this becoming known, 110 members of the secular clergy laid before the chapter on the 7th of July a demand for the protection of their rights; among the subscribers were nearly all the parish priests of the capital, many outside of it, several doctors of divinity, and other distinguished clergymen. The chapter referred it to Doctor Sanchez, the promoter fiscal, who pronounced it an asonada, or attempt at rebellion. On the viceroy hearing of the matter, he demanded the surrender of the documents, which were referred to the royal council, and from the latter to the crown's counsel, who called for the arrest of Gonzalez Angulo; he had concealed himself, and Villalpando, for having taken a marked part in the affair, was imprisoned. Of the priests who had signed their names, fifteen made a formal retraction. However, it was decided to present another representation that was to be drawn by Medrano; but Bataller, president of the junta de seguridad, wanted the signers to insert therein their hatred of Morelos and of the principles of the revolution. All refused their assent to a clause so entirely disconnected with the object of the representation. Much had been written on the subject, both for and against. The Spanish Franciscan friar José Joaquin de Oyarzábal, in Notas sobre la representation del clero, ridiculed the representation, and was answered in Vindication del clero Mexicano vulnerado by J. J. García Torres, and by Oidor Puente in a 4º
as Christians, on leaders, in whatever number; on officers from and including sub-lieutenants up; on all who engaged in mustering men to serve the revolution; ecclesiastics, whether secular or regular, who had taken part or served in the revolution with whatever title or office, that of chaplain inclusive; and the editors of gazettes or publishers of incendiary documents. Those who were not leaders, but had committed hostilities against the royal troops, with out any excuse to screen them from capital punishment, were to be decimated; such as were spared by lot from death, and such as were not subject to capital punishment by the clauses of the edict, were to be sent to the viceroy, circumstances permitting it; but if there should occur any obstacle, then each commander was authorized to dispose of them as he might deem best without subjection to rules, which could not be prescribed for all cases. Ecclesiastics captured while in arms against the royal forces were to be tried and executed without the formality of degradation. These clauses were grounded on the principle set forth in the edict itself, that respecting the head men no risk was incurred of punishing the innocent, nor of inflicting excessive punishment, 'por ser todos verdaderos bandidos, anatematizados por la iglesia y proscriptos por el gobierno, á quienes por lo mismo puede quitar la vida qualquiera impunemente.' In regard to those who were to be decimated, it was stated that this was strictly in conformity with the military ordinances, and counselled by sound reason, when the number of guilty ones was large. Gaz. de Mex., 1812, iii. 685-7; Negrete, Mex. Sig. XIX., v. 98-101; Zerecero, Rev. Mex., 134-5; Puente, P., Reflexiones, 1-243, etc.; Hernandez y Dávalos, Col. Doc., vi. 41; Cedulario, i. 97.
