Bobadilla, however, was not sent from Spain until the beginning of July, 1500, and did not make his appearance in Hispaniola till the 23rd of August of the same year.  Their Highnesses, therefore, must have taken time before carrying their resolve into execution; and what they meant by it is dubious.  Certainly, not that the matter should have been transacted in the coarse way which Bobadilla adopted.  It is a great pity, and a sad instance of mistaken judgment, that they fixed upon him for their agent.  I imagine him to have been such a man as may often be met with, who, from his narrowness of mind and distinctness of prejudice, is supposed to be high-principled and direct in his dealings; and whose untried reputation has great favour with many people:  until, placed in power some day, he shows that to rule well requires other things than one-sidedness in the ruling person; and is fortunate if he does not acquire that part of renown which consists in notoriety, by committing some colossal blunder, henceforth historical from its largeness.

  Columbus sent home by Bobadilla in chains.

The first thing that Bobadilla did on arriving at St. Domingo was to take possession of the admiral’s house (he being at the fort La Concepcion), and then to summon the admiral before him, sending him the royal letter.  Neither the admiral nor his brothers attempted to make any resistance; and Bobadilla, with a stupid brutality, which I suppose he took for vigour, put them in chains, and sent them to Spain.  There is no doubt that the Castilian population of Hispaniola were rejoiced at Bobadilla’s coming, and that they abetted him in his violence.  Accusations came thickly against Columbus:  “the stones rose up against him and his brothers,” says the historian Herrera, emphatically, The people told how he had made them work, even sick men, at his fortresses, at his house, at the mills, and other buildings; how he had starved them; how he had condemned men to be whipped for the slightest causes, as, for instance, for stealing a peck of wheat when they were dying of hunger.  Considering the difficulties he had to deal with, and the scarcity of provisions, many of these accusations, if rightly examined, would probably have not merely failed in producing anything against Columbus, but would have developed some proofs of his firmness and sagacity as a governor.  Then his accusers went on to other grounds, such as his not having baptized Indians “because he desired slaves rather than Christians:”  moreover, that he had entered into war unjustly with the Indians, and that he had made many slaves, in order to send them to Castile.  It is highly unlikely that these latter charges were preferred by a single colonist, unless, perhaps, by some man in religious orders.  The probability is, that they came from the other side of the water; and this does give considerable strength to the report, that the displeasure of the court with respect to the Admiral’s proceedings against the Indians had to do with his removal from the government of the Indies.  If so, it speaks largely for the continued admirable intentions of the Spanish court in this matter.