The conspiracy of 1566 in New Spain (Part 4)

On 4 December 1567, Alonso Muñoz and Luis Carrillo—the two officials from the Council of Indies who had been sent to Mexico City to oversee the criminal trials of those accused in the rebellion—summoned Antonio de Carvajal to appear before them.  Antonio was sworn in as a regidor (city council member) and resident of Mexico City, about 30 years old, more or less. He stated he was the son of Antonio de Carvajal and Catalina de Tapia and that he was married to María de Sosa, daughter of Andrés de Tapia and sister of Pedro Gómez de Cáceres. Antonio declared that he did not have any allocation of Indians in encomienda or any other estate—other than what was given to him by his father, and a ranch where he had some property and several black people in his service.

The officials attempted to attribute guilt to Antonio for two primary reasons: 1) his friendship with the marqués, which implied he likely would have known about and been involved in the conspiracy; and 2) his alleged disclosure to the marqués about Agustín de Villanueva’s mission, at the behest of the oidores, to gather information about the conspiracy.  When he was questioned with respect to what he knew or had heard about the rebellion and conspiracy to uprise against the king, he stated that he had never known, heard about or understood or even imagined any such thing. He had heard about it spoken publicly only after the marqués and Alonso de Ávila had been imprisoned. Asked if he had been a guest at the marqués’s home many times and was very friendly with him, he stated that it was true, but that for about a year and a half before the marqués was taken into custody, he had stopped visiting him because Don Luis Cortés (the marqués’s brother) and Antonio’s cousin Juan de Valdivieso had had an argument. After the marqués was arrested, Antonio had visited him several times, as had many others.

The officials asked if he had been a witness in the defense proceedings of the marqués, and Antonio confirmed that he had been. Asked why he had revealed the secrets that had been divulged to him by Agustín de Villanueva to the marqués, he stated that one day when he was in the home of his cousin Juan de Valdivieso, Agustín de Villanueva had related how he had been summoned by the oidores of the audiencia to go and learn surreptitiously from the marqués what he knew about the conspiracy and had done so and then reported everything back to the oidores. Agustín had said this in front of several people and when Antonio had testified in defense of the marqués, he had simply repeated what he had heard Agustín say that day—and affirmed that he had never told the marqués. Asked who he had told this to, given that the marqués had presented him as a defense witness on this point, he reiterated that after the marqués was imprisoned, he had told this to many people and afterward had been presented as a witness and simply repeated what he had heard from Agustín de Villanueva.

The following day, Antonio’s attorney Juan Caro asked for a certified copy of all the evidence against his client and the next day presented a declaration of Antonio’s innocence. He stated his client had answered all questions truthfully during each of his testimonies and there was no wrongdoing, suspicion, or presumption of guilt resulting from anything he had said. Although some of the alleged conspirators had named Antonio as a co-conspirator, they had only stated that they had heard Alonso de Ávila make this claim without any other evidence. Alonso himself had never named Antonio in any of his judicial confessions, including the statement that he had given on the day he was executed.

On the point of his supposed friendship with the marqués, Antonio had not spoken with or been on friendly terms with the marqués for quite some time before the conspiracy was allegedly discussed, on account of a quarrel that Juan de Valdivieso, Antonio’s cousin, had in the house of the marqués with Don Luis Cortés, Juan’s brother-in-law.  The marqués was therefore on bad terms with Antonio, and it was not reasonable or likely that, if he had wanted to rise up against his royal majesty, he would have discussed it with Antonio. Furthermore, it could not be truthfully asserted that Antonio had had any friendship or dealings with Alonso de Ávila that could possibly be construed in a way to insinuate his involvement in the conspiracy. On the contrary, Antonio had always avoided and distanced himself from Alonso as much as possible, and often spoke disparagingly of him to other people, telling them that he was a vain and very arrogant man. Antonio’s attorney stated that Alonso’s character was entirely different from that of his client, who had always been a person of very humble and simple disposition, averse to arrogance, and a very good Christian, fearful of God and his conscience.

Antonio’s attorney further argued that his client did not reveal or disclose any secret that Agustín de Villanueva had told him, because what Agustín had told him in Juan de Valdivieso’s house had been said in front of many people and not a secret. Furthermore, since Alonso de Ávila and his brother Gil González had already been executed for their crimes, such information would have been of little use to any of the conspirators. Antonio’s attorney closed his argument by extoling the virtues of the family and their status in the city, saying that Antonio was the legitimate son of Antonio de Carvajal, a resident of the city who had been a councilman and one of the first conquerors of Mexico City and New Spain, and who had served His Majesty during the conquest as a captain and in other prominent roles. Continuing his father’s legacy, Antonio had also served in whatever capacity had been required for His Majesty’s royal service, including as chief magistrate in the province of Chautla, where he had performed admirably in that office.

That same day, Juan Caro began to record depositions from witnesses to substantiate the points he had raised in Antonio’s defense. From December 6th to December 23rd, twenty-three witnesses provided testimony. Given Antonio’s status, it’s not surprising that almost all of them were high-ranking officials and/or his relatives, including:

• Antonio de la Cadena, a former factor of the royal treasury, who had come to Mexico City in 1524 and had succeeded his brother-in-law, Gonzalo de Salazar, who had been the first factor. After the death of his first wife, Antonio de la Cadena had married Antonio de Carvajal’s aunt, María Vásquez de Tapia.

• Martín Cortés, half-brother of the marqués.

• Luis de Velasco, son of the late viceroy.  He later served as the viceroy of New Spain from 1590-1595 and 1607-1611 and was also viceroy of Peru from 1596-1604.

• Fernando de Portugal, treasurer of the royal treasury.

• García de Albornoz, city council member.

• Leonel de Cervantes, alcalde ordinario and Antonio de Carvajal’s brother-in-law through his marriage to his sister, María de Carvajal

• Gonzalo Gomez de Cervantes, who would later marry Antonio de Carvajal’s sister Catalina de Carvajal.

• Juan de Valdivieso, Antonio de Carvajal’s first cousin.

Meanwhile, on 10 December, the chief prosector, Francisco de Sande, presented the formal indictment of Antonio de Carvajal. Rather than attempting to do justice to it by summarizing its contents, I provide a translation of it here in its entirety. The prosecutor:

“.... criminally accuses Antonio Carvajal, imprisoned resident and regidor of this city, and, the solemnities required by law having been observed, said that the aforesaid man, with little fear of God and of justice, and to the great harm of his conscience and of the public good that was his charge as such regidor, in the past years of ‘65 and ‘66, and on many days during them, committed treason against Your Highness, being a conspirator, aware, participant, favorer, and concealer of the treason and uprising that in this city was plotted and arranged against Your Highness, in which it was intended to raise up as tyrant-king Don Martín Cortés, Marqués del Valle, and as such to deliver to him this New Spain, which belongs to and is within Your Royal Crown.

And having known and understood this, the aforesaid man—being obliged to reveal and immediately disclose it—not only consented to the treason, but was present at many meetings, dinners, and agreements, and other dealings to carry it out, and with this intention and will kept it concealed for a year, more or less, although he could have revealed it the first day that he learned and understood it. But instead, he sought and recruited people and persons who were his friends, inciting and drawing them in, as he indeed drew them in, to consent to and pursue the treason, and he also readied horses and arms for that purpose.

For all this he is subject to conviction, proven by evidence that I introduce in accordance with what royal law requires, and in everything he did what lay within his power so that the treason might be carried out, in which he committed the crime of lese majestatis (offence against the king) and is deserving of punishment and rebuke.

Therefore, I petition and beg Your Highness, accepting my account as true or at least the portion sufficient for the purpose, to declare the man to be such a person as I have stated, and to condemn him to the greatest and most severe penalties established in law, and that his goods be confiscated by the royal treasury, revoking any donations, contracts, dealings, or alienations that the aforesaid man may have made, or that another person may have made on his behalf, after he committed this treason, declaring him an ignoble and vile person, taking from him any insignia of arms that he may have in any place, and ordering this to be carried out upon his person and goods, so that it be punishment for him and an example to others, I hereby ask for justice.

Furthermore, I petition and beg Your Highness to order that he be submitted to torture, according to the atrocity of the crime, so that he may reveal his accomplices, for which I ask for justice.”

The most compelling witnesses that the prosecutor had to call upon were Baltazar and Pedro de Quesada, the brother who were also now in prison for their role in the conspiracy. Recall that they had been the first to name Antonio as a co-conspirator when questioned in June 1566. On December 11th, under oath, both said that they stood by their earlier statements. The prosecutor continued summoning eleven more witnesses through December 22nd to make his case. Their testimony showed the great friendship that existed between Antonio, the marqués and the other conspirators; Antonio’s involvement in the plans for the rebellion; and how he had revealed to the marqués the information that Agustín de Villanueva had told him.

Then on 18 December 1567, Antonio’s father passed away. We can only imagine the anguish that the trial of his only son must have caused him, particularly given the gravity of the allegations and their potential to ruin the entire family. The very next day, the prosecutor formally requested that the tribute from the pueblo of Zacatlán be embargoed, given that the elder Carvajal was deceased and the encomienda had passed to his son. On December 20th, the two officials overseeing the criminal trials, Muñoz and Carrillo, authorized the embargo of all the property of the accused prisoners.

On December 24th, Juan Caro requested that his client be placed under house arrest or at least moved to the prison of the court, from where he would be able to settle the affairs of his late father, as the executor of his estate. This request was apparently denied, as Antonio next requested that he be allowed to communicate with his relatives regarding the settling of his father’s affairs. On New Year’s Eve, a royal scribe arrived at Antonio’s residence to take an inventory of all of the property so that it could be embargoed. There he found María de Sosa, Antonio’s wife, who complied with the order (the manuscript lists all of the items found in the home). Likewise, officials travelled to the pueblo of Zacatlán, where on January 13th they interviewed the natives to determine the quantity that they paid in tribute to the Carvajals annually, and inventoried and embargoed all of the property they found.

On 9 January 1568, Juan Caro appealed once more to the court for his client to be moved to the prison of the court, explaining  that Antonio de Carvajal was his father’s sole male heir, with nine sisters (only two of which were married) and a brother-in-law who was presently outside of the city. He requested that if this petition was denied, for the court to allow Leonel de Cervantes and Gonzalo Gomez de Cervantes to communicate with Antonio to settle his father’s affairs. The prosecutor asked for a guilty verdict to be rendered by the court and once again asked that Antonio be tortured to reveal everything he knew about the plot. There is no evidence that the prosecutor’s request was granted.

That same day, Baltazar and Pedro de Quesada—who had been sharing a prison cell with the first informant, Baltazar de Aguilar— received word that they had been sentenced to death for treason. They were mounted on mules with their hand and feet bound and taken to the public plaza where they were led up the to the raised platform and beheaded. According to an account by the contemporary historian Juan Suárez de Peralta, when the church bells had tolled to announce the execution, the members of the public who gathered in the plaza had presumed that it would be Balthazar de Aguilar or perhaps members of the Bocanegra clan who would be punished. When the crowd learned that it was the Quesada brothers, “It was a terrible sight to see people slapping each other and crying, screaming at the top of their lungs, for these gentlemen were very well-liked and highly respected, and there was no one in the whole city who would have imagined such a thing.”

With the only informants who had named Antonio as a co-conspirator now deceased, it remained to be seen how the rest of his trial would play out.

Continued in Part 5. Subscribe to the blog to receive email updates.

---

 Sources:

Manuel Orozco y Berra, Noticia histórica de la conjuración del marqués del Valle. Años de 1565-1568 (Mexico: Tip. de R. Rafael, 1853).

Guillermo Porras Muñoz, El gobierno de la ciudad de México en el siglo XVI, "Los alcaldes ordinarios," UNAM, 1982.

Juan Suárez de Peralta, Tratado del descubrimiento de las Yndias y su conquista, Transcription of manuscript from 1589 by Giorgio Perissinotto, (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1990).

Real Academia de la Historia, Biography of Luis de Velasco.

https://historia-hispanica.rah.es/biografias/45023-luis-de-velasco-y-castilla

Archivo General de Indias

Proceso contra Antonio de Carvajal: rebelión Nueva España

Patronato, 220, R. 1

https://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/description/125983?nm