By way of digression, I may present a few penstrokes, but they will be sufficient for any intelligent man. Padre Mariana, high authority in history, states this maxim: History takes no sides until shown a clean record. Señor Zamacois shows no clean record for his assertions. I will present mine. There were sixty-two Viceroys of Mexico, and of these fifty-nine were Spaniards of the Peninsula and three were creoles—Luiz de Velasco, native of the City of Mexico, Juan de Acuña, native of Lima, and Revilla Gigedo the second, native of Havana; in consequence, only one was Mexican. There were thirty-three Bishops of Guadalajara and of these twenty-six were Spanish Peninsulars and seven were creoles; these were ...; that is to say, only five were Mexicans. I confess my ignorance; I do not understand Señor Zamacois’s arithmetic—the equality between 26 and 7. There were thirty-four Bishops of Michoacan, and of these there were thirty Spanish Peninsulars and four creoles; these were ...; that is to say, only two were Mexicans. Thirty equals four? Please, Señor Zamacois. There were thirty-one Archbishops of Mexico, of whom twenty-nine were Spanish Peninsulars and two creoles; these were ...; that is to say, only one was Mexican. Twenty-nine Spaniards and two creoles are equal.
Adolfo Llanos, in treating this matter, goes (as is his custom farther than Zamacois, saying that the ecclesiastical offices of importance were obtained by the creoles, not equally with the Spaniards, but preponderantly over them.) He says:
“Americans were preferred by the Spanish Kings over Europeans, in the assignment of high ecclesiastical dignities.”
Let us leave Llanos and the other blind defenders of the vice-regal government.