The defects revealed in the constitution of 1812, and to be expected from its experimental nature, were seized upon as weapons by its opponents. The audiencia took the lead in a lengthy representation to the córtes, of November 18th, explaining the origin and growth of the rebellion, which now affected nearly all natives of the soil, and pointing out the inapplicability of the constitution to the colony, with its mixture of races, interests, and feelings. Afraid to expose the defects of the law itself, they preferred to instance the bad results of its partial enforcement, and the danger of carrying out the full text in the midst of civil war. The people were intent on independence, and would regard any concession as due to fear, using it to promote their ultimate object. The country would inevitably be ruined and lost to Spain unless decisive measures were taken to suppress the rebellion, by endowing the viceroy with necessary freedom of action under previous laws. Only when this had been effected should reforms be introduced.[1]
The argument of the oidores that the constitution favored the independence movement, under present circumstances at least, was not entertained by all Spanish residents. The ayuntamiento of Vera Cruz, which, owing to the exceptional local influence of the merchants, was of a European stamp, but firmly devoted to the liberty party in Spain, insisted that the full enforcement of the constitution would tend to quell the revolution by removing all cause for discontent.
- ↑ The opening paragraphs show that the audiencia retains the duty to interfere by making the present protest, and that the opposition ascribed to Europeans against the constitution consists really in their devotion to the mother country. The clergy fostered rebellious ideas. Art. 132. Whatever the motives of the audiencia, the document contains in its 270 articles a mass of valuable statements, and presents some unanswerable arguments in support of its aim. It is addressed to the king and signed by eleven members, Yañez, an American, alone refusing to sign so 'ignominious' an exposition. Oidor Bodega, appointed to another position in Spain, no longer attended the sessions. Bustamante admits the value of the paper, but declares that 'cada linea de este papel tiene mucho veneno.' Cuad. Hist., iv. 137. He reproduces the whole text in pp. 27-136. Alaman doubts his supposition that Oidor Pedro de la Puente, a Spaniard, prepared it, and ascribes it rather to the relator J. M. Torres Cataño, a trusted and well informed Mexican. Hist. Méj., iii. 438. A valuable synopsis is given in Ward's Mex., i. 490-507.
