Page:Vol 5 History of Mexico by H H Bancroft.djvu/714

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

694

CONSTITUTION AND REFORMS.

country had been vested in mortmain, disgusted at the praise thus bestowed on the ley Lerdo, assailed it with all their might. The archbishop asked the president to repeal it, setting forth the difficulties of his position, his conscience struggling between his ecclesiastical duty to protect intact the property of the clergy and his sworn obedience to the civil laws, provided the latter did not encroach on the rights of the church; otherwise, rather than to abide by them, he would willingly bear all the suffering that those laws could inflict on him.^[1] Archbishop La Garza acted with moderation, contrasting with the haughtiness and evil disposition of a large portion of the clergy, who openly rebelled against the measure, and resorted to all means to mislead public opinion, alarm the timid, torture conscience by starting doubts, and breaking the public peace. The bishop of Linares, Belaunzaran, and other high ecclesiastics resolved to disobey the orders; likewise, the bishop of Guadalajara and the governor of the diocese of Puebla forbade obedience to the law.^[2] On the other hand, the discontented reformers demanded a radical change in the basis of the transfers, and helped to keep up the agitation, which was fast assuming a serious aspect.

Meanwhile the discussion of the articles of the con-

↑ The prelate foretold that only a few private persons would derive any benefit from the law in question. He reminded the government that the clergy had never failed, in times of tribulation, to contribute toward the relief of public necessities, expatiating also on the greater consideration shown at all times to tenants by the church than by private owners. This was on the 1st of July. On the 7th and 21st he repeated his efforts; his remarks were courteously considered by the minister, Ezequiel Montes, but caused no change in the policy of the government. Garza y Ballesteros, Lázaro de la Contestaciones, 3-54.
↑ The total value of property transferred, under the decree, to the end of Dec. 1856, was $23,019,281. Méx., Mem. Hac., 1857, annex 149, 531-2. An address of Dec. 15th, attributed to the pope, alleged that Bishop Munguía had been exiled because of a representation made by him against the law of June 25th. The fact was, that he was on the point of being expelled for a seditious pastoral he intended publishing; but whether he made satisfactory explanations or did not issue the pastoral, the banishment was not carried out. Munguía's presence in Guanajuato served as a pretext to disturb the public peace, for which he was summoned to Mexico, but there was no disrespect shown to his person or office. Misrepresentations were purposely sent to the holy see of the prelates being abused, intended to create a bad impression against the government. Apuntam. sobre derecho púb. ecles., 11.

[1] The prelate foretold that only a few private persons would derive any benefit from the law in question. He reminded the government that the clergy had never failed, in times of tribulation, to contribute toward the relief of public necessities, expatiating also on the greater consideration shown at all times to tenants by the church than by private owners. This was on the 1st of July. On the 7th and 21st he repeated his efforts; his remarks were courteously considered by the minister, Ezequiel Montes, but caused no change in the policy of the government. Garza y Ballesteros, Lázaro de la Contestaciones, 3-54.

[2] The total value of property transferred, under the decree, to the end of Dec. 1856, was $23,019,281. Méx., Mem. Hac., 1857, annex 149, 531-2. An address of Dec. 15th, attributed to the pope, alleged that Bishop Munguía had been exiled because of a representation made by him against the law of June 25th. The fact was, that he was on the point of being expelled for a seditious pastoral he intended publishing; but whether he made satisfactory explanations or did not issue the pastoral, the banishment was not carried out. Munguía's presence in Guanajuato served as a pretext to disturb the public peace, for which he was summoned to Mexico, but there was no disrespect shown to his person or office. Misrepresentations were purposely sent to the holy see of the prelates being abused, intended to create a bad impression against the government. Apuntam. sobre derecho púb. ecles., 11.

[1]

[2]