The loss of life had been great; and when the convulsions had ceased the appearance which Santiago presented was that of a city crushed by the hand of omnipotence. The cathedral was in ruins, and the churches and convents more or less shattered. The wrecks of demolished houses were seen in every direction, and the few persons who remained were painfully impressed by the silence which had now succeeded to the busy hum of a populous community. Throughout all these distressing circumstances the president and the bishop displayed unflinching courage, and strove to alleviate distress and assuage alarm.[XXXVII‑25]
Many meetings of the audiencia were held to discuss the question of again locating the city. It was finally left to the decision of the king; but when a license for the removal at length arrived, the inhabitants had recovered from their panic, returned to their dilapidated dwellings, and repaired the greater part of the city.
On the 12th of April 1718 the cabildo of Santiago addressed a memorial to the king,[XXXVII‑26] setting forth the pitiable condition to which the city had been reduced, and the impoverishment of its citizens. His Majesty was petitioned to take liberal measures for their relief, and that the church edifices and public buildings might be restored or built anew.[XXXVII‑27] Pedro Antonio de Echevers y Suvisa succeeded Rivas in the presidency.[XXXVII‑28]
During his administration serious riots occurred, caused by the assassination of the presbyter Lorenzo de Orozco, and the barbarous murder of all his household for purposes of robbery. The evidence of a widespread conspiracy was brought to light, and though no arrests were made, many persons were implicated during the progress of the inquiry. Grave disputes also arose between the president and two members of the audiencia; and when the former attempted to banish them, they were rescued by a mob and took refuge in the cathedral.[XXXVII‑29]
RIGHT OF SANCTUARY.
A more serious matter, involving the right of sanctuary and leading to a civil and ecclesiastical conflict, arose from the conduct of one Juan Manuel Ballesteros, who had fatally stabbed a man. The murderer sought refuge in a convent church, whence he was dogged by a force sent by the alcalde, García de Hijas. He sought refuge behind the grand altar; but the sanctity of the place was not regarded, and despite his struggles he was arrested. The prisoner was immediately put to the torture, and died under its effect. The alcalde was promptly excommunicated, and the ecclesiastics appealed to the king, petitioning for a royal declaration of their rights in such cases. The monarch, by a decree of the 18th of June 1720, decided that in this case the prelate was justified in proceeding against the alcalde, but that all doubtful cases, as a rule, must be decided by the king himself in council.[XXXVII‑30]
CHURCH MATTERS.
During the next twenty years no political event occurred that is worthy of record. Several able prelates occupied the episcopal chair,[XXXVII‑31] but their administration was greatly interfered with by the improper action of the secular and regular clergy. So flagrant were the abuses committed by the priests in the exercise of their duties, that the bishops were embarrassed in their visits, and the natives oppressed by the venal conduct of their pastors. The abuse of this mock religion was carried to such an extreme that the sale of the sacraments, the failure to visit the dying sick, and the charges for the performance of funeral ceremonies[XXXVII‑32] brought on the ecclesiastics the censure of the crown.
In 1729 Juan Gomez de Parada succeeded to the bishopric, and the reforms which he effected were so beneficial that the cabildo ordered his portrait to be painted and preserved, with an appropriate inscription—an honor which had been paid to no prelate except Marroquin. In 1736 Parada was promoted to the see of Guadalajara, and the next bishop of Guatemala, Pedro Pardo de Figueroa, took possession of the episcopal chair.[XXXVII‑33]
The occasion of Figueroa's consecration was made memorable through the action taken by the cabildo, the members of which deemed that their right of municipal claim to seats of honor was not duly acknowledged. The audiencia, the religious orders, and all the principal personages of the city had convened in the cathedral at nine o'clock in the morning, and for some time awaited the arrival of the municipal authorities. These, however, after an ungracious delay, sent a message to the effect that the day was not one on which they could be called upon for the transaction of business. The audiencia attempted to negotiate, and after a fruitless loss of time, without proceeding to their hall of sessions, appointed in the cathedral other alcaldes and regidores, and notified the contumacious cabildo that its members were to consider themselves under arrest. Owing to this jealous claim for precedence on the part of the municipality the enthronement of the bishop did not take place till two o'clock in the afternoon.[XXXVII‑34]