be corrected regardless of reputation.[1] It is believed, however, that the visitador used a just discrimination. The result of his efforts was that in future, or at least during his term, every branch of the public administration experienced a marked improvement,[2] officials, in the fear of dismission, faithfully doing the right.
Viceroy Cruíllas neglected none of the important duties of his offices, and his wise, energetic policy won him an honorable name in the country. His disagreements with General Villalba, explained elsewhere, and the presence of an official exercising authority independent of him, rendered his stay in New Spain unpleasant. His relief came in August 1766.
The marquis was subjected to a rigorous residencia by the judge commissioner, José Areche, who refused him permission to go to Spain on bail, as had been granted his predecessors. He remained in Cholula till the end of his trial, and then was allowed to depart for the mother country, which he did in the same ship that carried General Villalba.
The forty-fifth viceroy of New Spain was Cárlos Francisco de Croix,[3] marqués de Croíx, a knight of the order of Calatrava, commander of Molinos and Laguna Rota in the same order, and a lieutenant general of the royal army,[4] who had been colonel of the Walloon guards. He had given proofs of military skill in fifty years of service; he had been in command at Ceuta and Puerto de Santa María, and had served as captain-general of Galicia. King Cárlos III. esteemed him highly, knowing that he was a sincere, just man, and a true soldier, ready at all times to sacrifice him-
- ↑ A few of those were at a later day reinstated by the sovereign. Cavo, Tres Siglos, ii. 182.
- ↑ His master mind had been felt everywhere. Alaman, Disert., iii. app. 64.
- ↑ In several documents, both manuscript and printed, the name is written Croíx, which was probably the accent given it by Spaniards.
- ↑ A native of the city of Lille in Flanders, and of a very illustrious family. Lorenzana, Hist. N. Esp., 35; Alaman, Disert., iii. app. 65.
Hist. N. Esp., 34, 35; Panes, Vir. in Monum. Dom. Esp., MS., 121; Gomez, Diario, in Doc. Hist. Mex., 2d ser., vii. 280-1; Gazeta de Méx. (1786-7), ii. 82. Rivera, Gob. Mex., i. 402, wrongly gives 1789 as the year of his death.
