legal, and marked by no imprudent or hasty steps. The friars, however strongly opposed to secularization on general principles, had no just cause for complaint against Echeandía. There was now, however, a popular feeling in favor of the proposed changes far in advance of Echeandía's personal views, and largely due to the influence of José María Padrés, the newly arrived ayudante inspector. Padrés was a man of considerable ability: personally magnetic, and moreover a most radical republican. He soon became a leading spirit among the young Californians just becoming prominent in public life, intensified their nascent republicanism, taught them to theorize eloquently on the rights of man, the wrongs of the neophytes, and the tyranny of the missionaries; and if he also held up before the eyes of the Carrillos, Osios, Vallejos, Picos, Alvarados, Bandinis, and others bright visions of rich estates to be administered by them or their friends, their young enthusiasm should by no means be termed hypocrisy or a desire for plunder.
But events in Mexico seemed to favor the friars, and were not encouraging to the views of Padrés and his disciples. It is not apparent whether or not the success of Bustamante or its bearing on Californian matters was known in July and August 1830, the date of the diputacion's acts; but when the day of Victoria's arrival drew near, and no approval of the plan came from Mexico, Echeandía was persuaded, probably without much difficulty, to essay a golpe de estado. Accordingly he issued, January 6, 1831, a decree of secularization, which he took immediate steps to carry into execution before turning over the command to his successor. Victoria was known to be more a soldier than a politician, and it was hoped with the aid of the diputacion in some way to sustain the decree and reach a result favorable to the anti-mission party. Echeandía's act was wholly illegal, uncalled for, and unwise. It was simply a trick, and an absurd
