Si&orieoftbe Inc/ier. lib.y. 515 



that no T*PAMCA# fhould have any commerce or trap- 

 ficke with any Mexicaine, that they fliould not goe to 

 their Cittie, nor receive any into theirs, vpon paine of 

 death. Whereby we may vnderftand that the king did 

 not abfolutcly commaund over his people,and that he 

 governed more like a Conful, or a Duke, than a King, 

 although fince with their power , the commaund of 

 Kings increafed, growingabfoluteTyrants^asyou (hal 

 fee in the laft Kings . For it hath beene an ordinaric 

 thing among the Barbarians , that fuch as their power 

 hath beene, fiich hath beene their commaund ; yea in 

 our Hiftories tfspainc, we finde in fome anticnt kings 

 that manner of rule which theTapancansvfed. Such 

 were the firft kings of the Romans, but that Rome decli 

 ned from Kings to Confuls, and a Senate,till that after 

 they came to be commaunded by Emperours . But 

 thefe Barbarians,of temperate Kings became tyrants,of 

 which govcrnements a moderate monarchy is the beft 

 and moft afTurcd. But returne we now vnto our hifto- 

 rie. 



The king of Aztafuzalco feeing therefolution of his 

 fubieds,which vvas tokilthe Mexicans 5 in treated them 

 firft to fteale away the yong king his grand-childe, and 

 afterwards do what they pleafed to the Mexicans. All 

 in a manner yeelded hcerevnto, to give the king con- 

 tcntment, and for pitty they had of the child; but two 

 of the chiefeft were much oppofite, inferring, that it 

 was bad counlell, for that Chimalfofoc* , although hee 

 were of their bloud, yet was it but by the mothers fide, 

 and that the fathers was to be preferred , and therefore 

 they concluded that the firft they muft kill was Chimal- 

 popoca king of J/m^ 5 protefting fb to doe. The king of 

 fb troubled with this contradidion, 



and 



