1 There has been much confusion over Mejía’s date of birth. Celiano Monge discovered his baptismal certificate which noted that Mejía had been baptized by the Presbyter Pedro González Unda in San Marcos, a parish of Quito. See Relieves (Quito, 1935), p. 75. From time to time other dates of birth had been advanced: Alejandro Andrade Coello and Pablo Herrera both noted 1776 and Alfredo Flores Caamaño 1777.

2 In some early writings Mejía used his father’s last name: José Mejía del Valle, in others, José Mejía del Valle Lequerica. In the Cortes at Cádiz, he preferred José Mexía or José Mejía.

3 Neptalí Zúñiga holds that Mejía’s mother, Juana Joaquina Lequerica, was married to Antonio Cerragería. See Mejía, , el Mirabeau de América (Quito, 1947), p. 33 Google Scholar.

4 See Memorias de la Academia Nacional de Historia, Quito, I (1922)Google Scholar, 65 quoting Benjamín Pereira Gamba, “Biografía de Mejía,” El Iris, [Quito] (Septiembre-Octubre 1871).

5 For a short study of the life, ideas, and political activities of Eugenio Espejo and his disciples, see Astuto, Philip L., “Eugenio Espejo: A Man of the Enlightenment in Ecuador,” Revista de Historia de América, Núm. 44 (1957), 369–391 Google Scholar.

6 Zúñiga, pp. 111, 166, 175.

7 From 1736 when the Frenchman Charles de la Condamine headed a geodesic expedition to Quito, the people were keenly interested in scientific matters and in the study and classification of the flora and fauna of the region. In the 1780’s and 1790’s a number of botanical and scientific expeditions, which included José Celestino Mutis and Alexander von Humboldt, worked in the Viceroyalty of New Granada and the Presidency of Quito. For a study of the work of these eighteenth-century scientific expeditions in the Americas, see Astuto, Philip L., “Scientific Expeditions and Colonial Hispanic America,” Thought Patterns, St. John’s university (N. Y.), VI (1959), 1–27 Google Scholar.

8 Letter of Caldas to Mutis, January 6, 1804. See de Caldas, Cartas, in Biblioteca de historia nacional, XV (Bogotá; 1917), 224–226 Google Scholar; Letter of Caldas to Mutis, July 6, 1803, ibid., XV, 214.

9 Letter of Caldas to Mutis, Quito, March 6, 1805. See ibid., XV, 241.

10 While the people of Spain poured out their blood to maintain the independence of Spain and the Spanish throne, Ferdinand himself was adulating Napoleon and congratulating him on his victories! See de Cueto, Leopoldo Augusto, de Toreno, Conde, Historia del levantamiento, guerra y revolución de España, in Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, LXIV (Madrid, 1953), 9; 9, n. 10Google Scholar.

11 Letter of Mejía to his wife, in Flores, Alfredo y Caamaño, , Don José Mejía Lequerica en las Cortes de Cádiz de 1810 a 1813 (Barcelona, [1913]), pp. xxxv–xxxvi Google Scholar.

12 See Diario de las discusiones y actas de las Cortes (Cádiz, 1811-13), I, 1–3 Google Scholar. Herein-after cited as Diario de Cortes.

13 Herr, Richard, The Eighteenth-Century Revolution in Spain (Princeton, 1958), p. 375 Google Scholar.

14 For a study of the conservative and liberal programs, see Lovett, Gabriel H., Napoleon and the Birth of Modern Spain (New York, 1965), II, 424–434 Google Scholar.

15 The many refugees who made up a substantial part of the total population were important in the formation of a liberal majority in the Cortes. Among those who had fled the mainland were many men who advocated reform: writers, professionals, army officers, enlightened clergymen, and former government employees. The suplentes or substitute deputies who represented the occupied provinces and the colonies were selected from these refugees. The Spanish-American deputies, often considered a third group because of the peculiar interests they represented, counted in their midst a strong contingent of men who would often vote for reform, partly because reform would benefit the inhabitants of Spain’s overseas territories.

16 The Americans in Cádiz recognized the need for substitute deputies in the existing emergency, but from the first they sought adequate representation for the overseas majority in the empire. They were bitterly dissatisfied with the thirty deputies assigned to the Americas and the Philippines, in comparison with more than double that number of Peninsular representatives; and they voted only after presenting a formal protest during the preparatory meeting of the American electoral junta. For the text of the protest which preceded the election, see Comenge, Rafael, Antología de las Cortes de Cádiz, I (Madrid, 1909), 212–213 Google Scholar.

17 Session of September 25, 1810, Diario de Cortes, I, 10–13. The text of the draft decree, not included in the sketchy minutes of the early sessions of the Cortes, is reproduced in de Mier, Servando Teresa, Historia de la revolución de Nueva España, antiguamente Anáhuac, 2nd ed. ([Mexico], [1920]), II, 219–220 Google Scholar. The draft decree provided that since some of the proprietary deputies whose elections by the provincial ayuntamientos had been ordered by the Regency’s decree of February 14, 1810, might have already sailed for Spain, these should be recognized as such and their number subtracted from the larger number to be apportioned by population. It also provided that since the ‘“disturbances ”overseas were not really separatist movements, all punitive measures taken against them should be suspended and their existing authorities recognized.

18 Morales Duárez is not mentioned by name in the minutes, but the Peruvians Feliú and Inca Yupangui later stated in debate that only one American disagreed with the draft decree (Sessions of September 5 and 7, 1811, Diario de Cortes, VIII, 186, 221). Morales Duárez, commenting on the newspaper account of this episode in El Conciso (No. 17, of September 26, 1811), which was reproduced in de Castro, Alfonso, ed., Cortes de Cádiz: complementos de las sesiones verificadas en la isla de León y en Cádiz ([Madrid], [1913]), I, 155–156 Google Scholar, wrote confidentially to a friend in Peru about the committee which formulated the draft decree. He viewed the Mejia group as “the other America” secretly working for independence, while he favored reform within the Empire. See Soldán, Luis Alayza Paz, “Vicente Morales Duárez a través del archivo de D.F. Moreira y Matute,” in Valega, José M., El virreinato del Perú ([Lima], [1939]), p. 289 Google Scholar; also King, James F., “The Colored Castes and American Representation in the Cortes of Cádiz,” Hispanic American Historical Review, XXXIII (1953), 39–40; 40, n. 14Google Scholar.

19 Session of October 1, 1810, Diario de Cortes, I, 24. A more detailed account of this episode, as published in Observador, El , Cádiz, together with this newspaper’s version of the memorial and draft decree (dated September 29, 1810), are reproduced in Castro, ed., I, 171–175 Google Scholar. See also Session of September 5, 1811, Diario de Cortes, VIII, 186; Mier, Historia, II, 220–221.

20 Session of October 3 1810, Actas de las sesiones secretas de las Cortes . . . 1810 . . . 1814 ([Madrid], [1857]), p. 8 Google Scholar. The Cortes held daily secret sessions, recording only the sketchiest minutes, which nevertheless constitute an important supplement to the Diario of the public sessions. Mejía had proposed secrecy when the matter was first discussed in the public session of September 25 (Diario de Cortes, I, 12). The Americans were always regarded with suspicion. Conde de Toreno, a liberal Peninsular delegate writing many years later, was uncertain whether Mejía’s proposal was motivated by “prudence,” or “fear that words spoken in the Cortes would echo overseas, words which might be fatal for the independents, who still stood on shaky ground.” (Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, LXIV, 299)Google Scholar. Actually, the issue was the type calculated to stir up revolutionary fervor in America, and Mejía’s proposal was intended as an evidence of good faith.

21 Session of January 18, 1811, Diario de Cortes, III, 14.

22 Ibid., III, 12.

23 Ibid., III, 13.

24 Historia, II, 222–223.

25 Session of January 18, 1811, Diario de Cortes, III, 16.

26 Session of December 20, 1810, ibid., II, 68–69.

27 Session of January 18, 1811, ibid.. III, 17.

28 The American delegates’ eleven propositions set forth a comprehensive program to do justice to the Indies and thereby quell the “disturbances ”that were threatening the unity of the empire. Mier, , present in Cádiz at the time, believed the Peruvian Morales Duárez to be the author (Historia, II, 230)Google Scholar. Both the Diario de Cortes and the Actas de las sesiones secretas are completely silent on the background and presentation of these proposals. These proposals were widely reproduced by contemporary writers as propaganda against the Spaniards. See Mier, Historia, 224–230; Fajardo, Manuel Palacio, Outline of the Revolution in Spanish America ([London], [1817]), pp. 76–79 Google Scholar; Alamán, Lucas, Historia de Méjico desde los primeros movimientos que prepararon su independencia en el año de 1808, hasta la época presente (México, 1849-1852), III, 13–15 Google Scholar.

29 Session of February 1, 1811, Diario de Cortes, III, 205.

30 Session of April 28, 1812, ibid., XIII, 146–147.

31 Session of April 8, 1811, ibid., V, 20.

32 Session of October 13, 1811, ibid., IX, 234.

33 The legal briefs of Dios Morales and Rodríguez de Quiroga are extant. See Andrade, Roberto, Historia del Ecuador ([Guayaquil], [1934-1937]), II, 492–523, 574–651 respectivelyGoogle Scholar.

34 See Astuto, Philip L., “Eugenio Espejo: Quiteño de la Ilustración,” in Cuarta Reumán de Consulta sobre Historia del Instituto ‘Panamericano de Geografía e Historia, enero 18–26 de 1959 (Cuenca, 1960), pp. 286–296 Google Scholar.

35 For a study of the events leading up to the revolt of August 10, 1809, in which Quito’s side is given, see Cevallos, Pedro Fermín, Resumen de la Historia del Ecuador desde su orijen hasta 1845 (6 vols.; Lima, 1870-1889)Google Scholar; for a more recent history which includes many original documents, see Andrade, Roberto, Historia del Ecuador (7 vols.; [Guayaquil], [1934-1937])Google Scholar. The crown’s side is given in a report of the Ministry of Grace and Justice which is found in Flores y Caamaño, pp. 325–328.

36 Session of November 1, 1811, Diario de Cortes, X, 8.

37 Executive Session of January 7, 1811, Actas secretas de Cortes, p. 134.

38 Session of February 18, 1811, Diario de Cortes, IV, 259–263.

39 Sessions of April 25, 1811; May 9, 12, 18, 20, 1811, ibid., V, 183–188; V, 393, 437–438, VI, 14–15, 25 respectively.

40 Session of April 21, 1811, ibid., V, 136–137.

41 Agustín Argüelles, called El Divino for his oratorical gifts, had a lion’s share in pushing through the Cortes the laws that shaped modern Spain. Only portions of Argüelles’ speech on freedom of the press were preserved. See Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, LXIV, 300; also Comenge, I, 345–346.

42 Mejía’s speech on freedom of the press was saved almost by accident. The speech caused so much comment and discussion that in order to satisfy the curiosity of the people of Cádiz, it was printed on hojas sueltas and then sold or distributed on the streets. Only one copy of this reprint was found in the Archivo Municipal de Cádiz and the chronicler of that city and province, Gautier, E. y Arriaza, , printed it in his interesting work Cortes generales y extraordinarias, 24 de Septiembre de 1810. Noticias y sucesos dignos de mención referentes á esta época (Cádiz, 1896)Google Scholar. Only in December 1810 did stenographers begin to take down verbatim the speeches of the deputies. For the debates up to that time we must rely on eyewitnesses such as the Conde de Toreno, contemporary newspapers, or on the summaries provided by the Diario de las discusiones y actas de las Cortes. See Comenge, I, 351.

43 Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, LXIV, 302; Session of October 19, 1810, Diario de Cortes, I, 49–50.

44 Session of June 25, 1811, ibid., VI, 443–447.

45 The editor and author of the article was an intimate friend and companion of José Mejía. Portions of the article in question are quoted in Flores y Caamaño, p. 224, n. 2. The Spanish historian Rico y Amat attributed the article and the direction of the newspaper to Mejía, although this allegation has not been substantiated. The newspaper issued six or seven numbers in all from February 29, 1811, to the end of March. For information on the newspaper and its editor, see Imaz, Manuel Gómez, Los periódicos durante la guerra de independencia (1808-1814) (Madrid, 1910), pp. 309–314 Google Scholar. For background on this episode, see Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, LXIV, 411; Menéndez, Marcelino y Pelayo, , Historia de los heterodoxos españoles, ed. Enrique Sánchez Reyes (Santander, 1943), VI, 49–50 Google Scholar; Comenge, I, 388–404.

46 Session of January 28, 1811, Diario de Cortes, III, 127. See also Flores y Caamaño, pp. 225–226, n. 2; Comenge, I, 389–401.

47 It is alleged that the report of the Commission favoring reactivation of the Inquisition was pigeonholed for many months because a small well-organized group in the galleries, paid for and instructed by various Masonic lodges and patriotic organizations, intimidated the Cortes to nullify the report. See de Vélez, Rafael, Apología del altar y del trono (Madrid, 1818-1825), I, 126–134 Google Scholar; Menéndez y Pelayo, Heterodoxos, VI, 50, n. 1; Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, LXIV, 411.

48 The Diccionario came out on April 15 and a week later the author was in jail after the Provincial Censorship Junta of Cádiz condemned the tract as “atrociously subversive . . . and insulting to different Ministers of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Religious orders.” It is alleged that many friends of Gallardo encouraged him to write it, but later became frightened by the violent reaction to its publication. See Gallardo, Jerónimo y Font, de, Proceso de Gallardo, D. Bartolomé y Blanco por su diccionario crítico-burlesco (1812-1813), Congreso Histórico Internacional de la guerra de la independencia y su época (1801-1815), III (Zaragoza, 1910), 105–139 Google Scholar; also Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, LXIV, 410.

49 For background and details, see Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, LXIV, 411–412.

50 Session of July 21, 1812, Diario de Cortes, XIV, 210–216. For a detailed account of the struggle, see Menéndez, y Pelayo, , Heterodoxos, VI, 50–61 Google Scholar; Comenge, I, 404–432.

51 The Constitutional Commission read its report on the Inquisition (adopted by only a small majority) on December 8, 1812. The report traced the history of the institution from its inception in southern France in the early thirteenth century, through its introduction into Castile in 1478, to the resistance it had aroused in Spain from the sixteenth century onward. The Inquisition was declared to be an institution that had been introduced into the realm against the wish of its inhabitants and which had never been authorized by the old Cortes. It was incompatible with the independence and sovereignty of the nation, with its Constitution, and with individual freedom. However, since the Constitution explicitly stated that it would protect the Catholic religion, it was suggested that the medieval practice of punishing heresy by special episcopal tribunals be revived. A copy of the Constitutional Commission’s report can be found in Comenge, II, 153–214. The debate on the Inquisition is contained in a 694-page volume published in Cádiz in 1813 and entitled Discusión del proyecto de decreto sobre el Tribunal de la Inquisición; also Diario de Cortes, XVI, XVII.

52 Just prior to and right after the report of the Constitutional Commission, the various factions met separately outside the chambers to map out strategy. Some thirty American delegates met at Mejia’s home and vowed to bring down the Inquisition; other important Spanish liberal leaders such as Muñoz Torrero, Argüelles, and Toreno were determined to do the same. Comenge, II, 152.

53 Session of January 11, 1813, Diario de Cortes, XIV, 65.

54 For a study of ecclesiastical and popular reaction to abolition of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, see Lovett, II, 478–485; Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, LXIV, 450–451, 453–454; Artola, Miguel, Los orígenes de la España contemporánea, I (Madrid, 1959), 448–453 Google Scholar.

55 This young man, who had married a woman in Quito double his age, met a young lady, Gertrudis Sanalova y Benito, in Cádiz, whose name alone has come down to us today. Little else is known of this private episode in Mejia’s life. Her name appeared in the last will and testament dictated by Mejia on his death bed on October 25, 1813, in which he made this single woman heir to most of his worldly goods. For a copy of the will, see Flores y Caamaño, pp. xxxvii-xxxix.

56 There are many fine works which deal with the return of Ferdinand and the subsequent demise of the Constitution of 1812. See Ballesteros, Antonio y Beretta, , Historia de España y su Influencia en la Historia Universal (Barcelona, 1919-1941), VII, 145–162 Google Scholar; Lafuente, Modesto y Zamalloa, , Historia Generai de España (2nd ed.; Madrid, 1869), XXVI, 67–112 Google Scholar; Lovett, II, 415–490; Menéndez, y Pelayo, , Heterodoxos, VI, 99–173 Google Scholar; Zabala, Pío y Lera, , Historia de España ye de la Civilización Española, I (Barcelona, 1930), 1–136 Google Scholar.