[V-38] He sought refuge in the parish church, but was pursued by the crowd. His only safety lay in the pulpit, the remonstrances of the religious, and the presence of the host. The religious succeeded at times in calming the rabble, promising that Flores should be sent into exile. But Antonio Corzo, who was in the court-yard with a few poorly armed militiamen, fired a volley upon the mob, which became still more excited. The women dragged Flores from the pulpit, took him out of the temple, 'y le inmolaron en un claustro bárbara y horrorosamente.' Mem. Rev. Cent. Am., 57-8. Squier's Travels, ii. 396, has it that the Indians had been infuriated by the harangues of a friar from the pulpit, and that the rabble slaughtered Flores at the very foot of the altar, literally rending his body in pieces; the apparent cause of this vindictiveness of the priests being that in the general levy of taxes for the state the property of the convents had not been spared. 'And thus was the movement started by the aristocrats, seconded by their allies, the priests.' Ex-president Morazan, referring to that catastrophe, uses these words: 'Puesto en manos de un feroz populacho, instigado por las funestas ideas que le inculcaron sus sacerdotes, pereció al pié de las imágenes de los santos, á la vista de sus inicuos jueces, y en presencia de la eucaristía, que estos cubrieran.' Apuntes, MS., 4. Flores had been noted for his charity to the poor, specially to the Indians, to whom he constantly gave medical aid, medicines, and other necessaries. The state assembly, after being restored in 1829, decreed honors to his memory, and ordered placed in its hall of sessions an inscription in letters of gold, as follows: 'Al inmortal Vice-jefe Ciudadano Cirilo Flores, mártir de la Libertad, sacrificado en Quezaltenango, en las aras de la ley.' In May 1831 the name of Ciudad Flores was given in his honor to the head town of the district of Peten. Marure, Efem., 17, 28.
[V-39] The liberals looked upon it as the result of an arrangement of Arce and his partisans; the latter declared it to have resulted from an accident, or rather from violent acts on the part of liberals in Quezaltenango, such as forcibly taking horses in the night from private houses and the Franciscan convent. Marure states that he thoroughly examined every document bearing on the subject, and found no evidence against Arce or his party. Bosq. Hist. Cent. Am., i. 275-85. The author of Mem. Rev. Cent. Am., 58, acquits Arce, attributing the act to a sudden popular excitement. See also Astaburuaga, Cent. Am., 15; Crowe's Gospel, 127-8; Pineda, in Guat., Recop. Leyes, iii. 348; Corres. Fed. Mex., Nov. 9, 1826; Doc., in Arce, Mem., 32-3.
[V-40] There was an effort toward reconciliation, the liberals offering to make concessions, and Arce favoring their proposals; but the serviles haughtily refused.
[V-41] Owing, it was said, to the publication of a pontifical bull, which, under Arce's exequatur, had been restricted to Guatemala by the archbishop, a step that Delgado supposed to have been by Arce's instigation, or at least a lack of interest on his part for San Salvador. Mem. Rev. Cent. Am., 60. Arce himself attributed the estrangement to party intrigues. Mem., 60. Dunlop, Cent. Am., 165, assigns disputes about the erection of the bishopric as the cause of the rupture.
[V-42] Arce, Mem., 61, finds fault with Prado's act, when his own had been just as illegal.
[V-43] Colonel Milla invaded the state with a federal force, captured Comayagua on the 9th of May, 1827, and arrested the jefe of the state, Herrera. The whole was a wanton proceeding. Morazan, Apuntes, MS., 6-9.
[V-44] The commander of the Salvadorans was unable to explain his illegal proceeding. Doc., in Arce, Mem., 45-6.
[V-45] Detailed accounts, with copies of the official exaggerated reports, are given in Gaz. de Méx., Apr. 26 till May 1 and May 22, 1827; Marure, Efem., 19; Mem. Rev. Cent. Am., 62-4. Decree of government of Guatemala on the subject, March 28, 1827. Guat., Recop. Leyes, i. 250.
[V-46] Beltranena and several of Arce's officers disapproved the retaliatory plan. Aycinena, on the contrary, favored it, though willing to abide by Arce's decision.
[V-47] Both districts had seceded from the state government of Salvador, attaching themselves to the federal cause.