e Society, as they
were manifestly injurious. Before he was notified of this act, the
secretary read to him his appointment as judge-conservator made on
behalf of the Society. This is apparent by the identical acts, which
I have seen. I advise your Grace of this so that you may have accurate
information on this point; for it is stated and restated often, in the
other relation, that the archbishop was not notified legally before
they notified him of the act of the judge-conservator. He was notified,
for it is certain that the first document read to him by the secretary
was the appointment as judge-conservator, as above stated. Later,
the same secretary read to him the bull for judge-conservators,
and that of Gregory XIII, in which he concedes authority to the
fathers of the Society to preach anywhere. The secretary entering the
archbishop's hall with the documents, the latter asked him what he
had, and he answered that they were the bulls. "But why?" added the
archbishop; and Fray Antonio Gonsalez, who was in his company, said:
"He has been tired, for we have already seen them in the collection
of bulls." If this is so, I am surprised that the hostile relation
states that the act of the judge-conservator was null and void, as
he did not first exhibit the briefs (of which no notice was taken)
to the archbishop. The latter's procurators also were not bashful,
and were so bold as to allege the same in public session of the
Audiencia. But they were convinced by the secretary that he read
the acts, whereupon an auditor declared: "We must pay heed to this,
and not to the new falsehoods that they bring."

Next day the archbishop presented himself with a plea of fuerza, during
prison inspection, before the auditor Don Alvaro de Mesa y Lugo _[sic;
sc._ Zapata?]; and as there was no other auditor, he issued the usual
order. On Tuesday, the sixth of the same month, recourse was had to
the royal Audiencia, on behalf of both the archbishop and the Society,
to examine the records. The royal Audiencia, seeing that the order
issued during the prison inspection was not sufficient, but defective,
issued another and new one, and nothing further was discussed in
that meeting of the Audiencia. Next day, Wednesday, November seven,
the records were brought. The archbishop was represented by the
father prior of St. Augustine, Fray Juan de Montemayor, and the
father reader, Fray Diego de Ochoa, of the same order; the father
definitor of the Rec