such a change would work their ruin, and loud remonstrances found their way even to the court. The city property, now valued at fully fifty millions, would be lost, including a large number of sumptuous temples, fifteen convents, eight hospitals, six colleges, and other public buildings and works. With the growing scarcity of available Indians the cost of rebuilding would be immense, and thousands would be reduced to beggary by the transfer. Besides, how could all the convents and temples be restored, and how could the inmates be supported when present rentals were lost?[1] Those who assisted at the councils for considering the question were most of them too deeply interested in the city property to permit a change, and so the project dropped. They sturdily continued to occupy their houses, although for over four years the city remained practically flooded. The higher parts did come above the surface, but heavy rains on two occasions assisted to keep the waters above the lower lying districts.[2]
Meanwhile a large number of families migrated to Puebla and other towns, and a still larger proportion perished during the floods and from the exposure, want, and diseases which followed, particularly in the poorer and Indian sections.[3] Energetic measures were taken to improve communication and other facilities
- ↑ The most interesting representations on this subject are given in Cepeda. It is also referred to in Fonseca, Hist. Hac., v. 360; in Cavo; Calle, Mem. y Not., 43; Medina, Chrón., S. Diego, 234; Gonzalez Dávila, Teatro Ecles., i. 18. The number of houses is given at 7,700. The oidores who figured at the time and assisted in deciding the question, were Licenciado Francisco del Castillo, Doctor Juan de Canseco, licenciates Alonso de Uria y Tobar, Francisco de Herrera Campuzano, Antonio Cuello de Portugal, Juan de Villabona Zubiaurri, and fiscales Juan Gonzalez de Piñafiel and Juan de Miranda Gordejuela. Cepedo, Rel., i. 29, 37.
- ↑ Vetancurt, Chrón., 121, extends the flood over five years. Velasco, Exalt. Div., 45-6, says four. Alegre specifies till spring of 1633 and states that the rains of 1630 nearly gave rise to a riot. Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 182-3. Some documents imply that the water practically receded between 1631 and 1633 and finally in 1634, Humboldt, Essai Pol., i. 215, while Lorenzana assumes that rains in 1631 and 1634 raised the decreasing waters. Cortés, Hist. N. Esp., 22.
- ↑ Archbishop Zúñiga exaggerated the loss to 30,000 Indians, and states that of 20,000 Spanish families (?) only 400 remained a month after the great inundation. Letter of October 16, 1629. Gonzalez Dávila, Teatro Ecles., i. 60; Medina, Chrón. S. Diego, 121; Grambila, Tumultos, ii.
