ollects, Fray Pedro Barreto; the father guardian
of St. Francis, Fray Juan de Pina; and Bachelor Fulgencio de Ribera,
a secular, and the deacon and servant of the archbishop. The Society
was represented by Father Diego de Bobadilla, [65] and Father Lorenco
Goreto, masters of theology. The latter, before all else, declared that
they had no quarrel with the holy orders, and that in consequence the
fathers had nothing to do there. But the others replied that they had
been authorized by the archbishop. The royal Audiencia ordered the
authorization to be read. It made mention only of the father reader,
Fray Diego de Ochoa, father Fray Pedro Barreto, and the bachelor
Fulgencio de Ribera. Thereupon, they ordered from the room the father
prior of St. Augustine, and the father guardian of St. Francis,
who went out somewhat shamefacedly. The secretary read the records,
but was interrupted at every step by the reader Fray Diego de Ochoa,
which resulted in some animosity. After the reading, the president
asked the representatives of the archbishop whether they had anything
to state. The bachelor Fulgencio de Ribera took the floor, and said in
few words that the judge-conservator was not legitimately appointed,
for there were no manifest injuries in the case. Then the president
invited the two religious who had remained [to speak]. They said that
those of the Society should state their case first, and accordingly
the latter were given the floor--Father Diego de Bobadilla first,
and then Father Lorenco Goreto. They proved in the judgment of those
of us who were present (and it so seemed to me, although not much is
obtained from these things) that the acts which I have mentioned are
manifest injuries; and that, consequently, the judge-conservator was
legally appointed. In order that your Grace may understand more of
what was declared, I am sending you a summary of the allegation made
by the fathers of the Society, which one of them communicated to me,
and I enclose it herewith. Hence I shall not go into greater detail
here, by mentioning what I have heard erudite men say in reply to
certain arguments by which the other relation tries to prove that
the enactments of the judge-conservator were null and void. I shall
only say a word, if I remember it, on three or four points which the
relation heaps together, but which are of small moment. It declares
that the judge exceeded his authority in not giving the archbishop more
than one hour's