HISTORY OF MEXICO. 



335 



city which he had himfelf deftroyed ; but the ruin of it 

 was not fo general, but that there remained a confidera- 

 ble number of houfes in the divifion of Tlatelolco, where 

 the Spaniards might have lodged conveniently, with a 

 good number of allies. " Since it has pleafed our Lord," 

 fays Cortes in his laft letter to Charles the V. ff. that 

 " this great city of Tlatelolco fhould be conquered, I 

 " have not thought proper to refide in it on account of 

 " many inconveniences ; I have therefore gone, with all 

 " my people, to flay at Cuyoacan." Had what M. de 

 Paw fays been true, it would have been fufficient for 

 Cortes to have faid that he did not remain in Mexico 

 becaufe there were no houfes left fit tb be inhabited. 

 The palace of Cortes was erected in the fame place 

 where formerly that of Montezuma flood. If Cortes 

 had not ruined this palace, he might have lodged conve- 

 niently in it, as that monarch had done, with all his 

 court. It is falfe that the palace erected for Cortes is 

 (till in exigence ; it was burnt in the time of a popular 

 fedition, in 1692. But it is ftill falfer that the walls of 

 the Mexican houfes were only loofe flones laid one upon 

 another without any cement, as the contrary is proved 

 by the teftimony of all hiftorians, and by the remains of 

 ancient buildings, of which we fhall fpeak in their place. 

 From hence it appears, that the whole pafTage above 

 cited from M. de Paw, is idle and fictitious. 



M. dePaw, not contented with annihilating the houfes 

 of the Mexicans, engages alfo with their temples ; and 

 in anger againft Solis, becaufe he affirms that the tem- 

 ples of Mexico were not lefs than two thoufand in num- 

 ber, including large and fmall, writes thus, " There 

 " never has been fo great a collection of houfes in any 

 " city from Pekin to Rome, on which account Gomara, 



" lefs 



