Chapter XI: , of this volume (3)

[643] Concepción, Historia general, IX, 44, et seq. Pavón, it will be remembered, had been removed for advising Governor Zabalburú to receive the French papal delegate, Tourón. In 1718 all of Torralba's acts against Tourón and Villa were nullified by the Council of the Indies, and those officials were restored to office, while Torralba was condemned to perpetual exile (A. I., 68-2-8).

[644] Torralba to the King, July 15, 1715, A. I., 68-4-18; another report of Torralba on the same subject, dated September 1, 1717, exists in A. I., 68-2-8.

[645] Royal Fiscal to the Council, August 21, 1719, A. I., 68-4-18.

[646] Torralba to the King, June 15, 1716 [with approval of Council indicated on margin], A. I., 68-4-18; Recopilación, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10.

[647] Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, II, 37-40.

[648] Zúñiga, who was favorable to the rule of the churchmen, writes: "There never appeared less confusion at an insurrection than on the present occasion, every individual seeming satisfied with his lot in being relieved from unjust oppression and violence. The archbishop, who had assumed the reins of government, was the only person whose mind was not at ease; but in a short time he was restored to tranquillity by the arrival of a royal order, enjoining him to suspend the Governor from his office, and imprison him; replace the Royal Audience on the same footing as before; set at liberty Señor Velasco (an oidor who had been imprisoned by Torralba), and assume the reins of government himself, which was exactly what had been effected by the late disturbance."--Martínez de Zúñiga, op. cit., II, 39-40.

[649] Royal order of September 8, 1720, A. I., 106-4-16. Testimonio of cédula of November 23, 1774, A. I., 105-2-9. Two years later, the home government showed its disapprobation of the rigorous acts of Cuesta by demoting him from his place as Archbishop of the Philippines to the minor post of Bishop of Mechoacán in New Spain (Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 432). The assumption of the government by Cuesta invited the suspicion that he had been a party to the murder of the governor. Seven archbishops had already ruled on various occasions in New Spain (Bolton, Guide, 469-470). It is surprising that such an attempt to solve this problem was not made earlier in the history of the Philippines.

[650] Martínez de Zúñiga, op. cit., II, 84-95; Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 480-495.

[651] Martínez de Zúñiga says he carried a special government commission as governor ad interim, and his refusal to accept the office was later used as a precedent by Bishop Espeleta in his refusal to turn over the governorship to Archbishop Rojo (Zúñiga, An historical view, II, 89). Evidently he had all the qualifications necessary to fill the office of governor, for he had been a member of the Audiencia of Quito for seventeen years, and had been also a member of the Council of the Indies (Blair and Robertson, XLVIII, 145-146).

[652] Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, II, 89-90.

[653] Opinion of Pedro Calderón Enríquez, July 26, 1759. Opinion of Francisco Leandro Viana, July 31, 1759, Autos of Appeal, August 3, 1759, A. I., 106-4-16. Montero y Vidal (Historia general, II, 8) states that Espeleta used intimidation to secure the office.

[654] Anda was sixty-two years of age when he left Manila to undertake the defense of the provinces (Blair and Robertson, XLIX, 211).

[655] Relación de la conquista de Manila por los Ingleses y presa del galeón de Santísima Trinidad en el mes de Octubre de 1762. A. I., 107-1-15.

[656] Manifiesto of Viana, March 8, 1762, A. I., 107-3-2.

[657] Rojo's Narrative, Blair and Robertson, XLIX, 210.

[658] Ibid., 210-211.

[659] Testimonio del Secretario de Cámara, 13 de Noviembre, 1762. A. I., 107-3-2.

[660] Recopilación, 2-31-1 to 14.

[661] Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, II, 180.

[662] Testimonio del Secretario de Cámara (authorized and sworn to by Anda), 13 de Noviembre, 1762, A. I., 107-3-2.

[663] Testimonio del fiscal, Francisco Leandro de Viana. 8 de Marzo, 1763. A. I., 107-3-2.

[664] Rojo's Narrative, op. cit., Testimonio de D. Antonio Díaz, (ayudante de Rojo) ... 28 de Noviembre de 1762, A. I., 107-3-4.

[665] Montero y Vidal (Historia general, II, 67; see, also, note 114, Blair and Robertson, XLIX, 176) summarizes the life and character of Archbishop Rojo as follows: "This prelate was more imbecile than traitor.... His obstinacy in submitting the Islands to the dominion of the English; his struggles against Anda ... his absolute ignorance of his powers ... his pardonable ignorance of whatever concerned the military defense of the archipelago, his calm submission to whatever the English advised, even in matters clearly opposed to the integrity and interests of Spain ... give an exact idea of the capacity and character of the unfortunate one who had the misfortune in such an anxious time to exercise a command for which he was lacking in intelligence, valor and in all other attributes necessary to its successful accomplishment."

Le Gentil (Voyage, II, 252) characterizes him as follows: "Archbishop Rojo was a capable man for the management of finances; he was clever in business and very zealous for the service of the king; but he did not understand anything of military affairs; ... he was between two fires, and being of an irresolute disposition, he did not know which way to turn, ... besieged on one side by oidores, on the other side by monks, he would not (otherwise) have waited till the English were on the assault."

Charges of indecent living and riotous conduct were made by Anda in his various letters to the Archbishop. While the English were at the gates of the city, the prelate was passing his hours with indecent women. Anda stated that Rojo alternated between the dance-hall and the pulpit, leaving to others the question of defense. Anda stated that Rojo had allowed himself to be influenced by the traitorous Santiago de Orendaín, refusing to listen to the more loyal counsel of the king's ministers (Blair and Robertson, XLIX, 132-160).

Francisco Leandro de Viana, the fiscal, believed that the archbishop neither wished to be a traitor to the king nor to his country, but he asserted that he (Viana) was the only person in the colony who was so charitable in his opinion. He felt that Rojo's stand was a result of his incapacity, timorousness, irresolution and ignorance. Viana, like Anda, commented on the archbishop's lasciviousness and immorality (Viana to Rojo, March 1, 1763, A. I., 107-3-2).

Zúñiga, the ecclesiastical historian, seeing through priestly eyes, affirmed that Rojo was guilty of only one error during his rule. This was his engagement to pay four millions of pesos to the English and to deliver up the Islands to them (Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, II, 239).

[666] Anda to Rojo, October 20, 1762, Blair and Robertson, XLIX, 153-154.

[667] When news of the temporary suspension of hostilities reached him in July, 1763, Anda refused to place confidence in the assurances either of the British or of the archbishop. He held out until the arrival of the new governor, Francisco Xavier de la Torre. See Anda to Rojo, July 29, 1763, A. I., 107-3-4.

[668] Recopilación, 2-15-180.

[669] Anda to Rojo, October 30, 1762 (with testimonios of witnesses), A. I., 107-3-3; Recopilación, 2-15-57 and 58. On October 20, 1762, Anda wrote as follows: "I said and I repeat that the presidency and government fell to the royal Audiencia; and I add that the latter is conserved and continued in me, that I am the sole and only minister, that by my absence from that capital because of the commissions confided to me at a convenient time, I remained free from the enemies ... so that in my person is met the prescriptions of law clxxx of the above-cited book and título, since my associates are lacking and have been imprisoned with your Excellency in the fatal loss of that capital." (Blair and Robertson, XLIX, 136).

[670] Relación de la conquista de Manila por los Ingleses, ... 1761-1764, A. I., 107-1-15.

[671] Memorial of Viana, March 8, 1763, A. I., 107-3-2.

[672] Blair and Robertson, XLIX, 172-175.

[673] Report of Governor Francisco Xavier de la Torre on the Negotiations for the Evacuation of the City of Manila, 1764, A. I., 107-1-15.

[674] Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, II, 234.

[675] Viana to the King, October 30, 1762, A. I., 107-3-2.

[676] By this seizure the sum of 2,253,111 pesos was realized in the interests of his government and at the same time, of course, it was kept from falling into the hands of the British. Anda subsequently reported to Governor Torre that the capture of the treasure of the "Filipino" made possible the conservation of the Islands, "and that the English did not leave them completely desolate, since without this aid, the subsistence of the state would have been impossible." (Anda to Carlos III, June and July, 1764, Blair and Robertson, XLIX, 299).

The fact that the galleon carried a cargo of over two million pesos affords no small insight into the way in which the merchants and officials obeyed the law which forbade an annual return exceeding 1,000,000 pesos. See Martínez de Zúñiga, Estadismo, I, 266-270.

[677] Anda to Carlos III, June 22, 1764, Blair and Robertson, XLIX, 262-268.

[678] Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, II, 234-235.

[679] Ibid., II, 235; see Montero y Vidal, Historia general, II, 65-66.

[680] Montero y Vidal, op. cit., II, 68-70. The treaty of peace between England and Spain was signed on February 10, 1763. Notice had been served on Anda several times that suspensions of military operations had been authorized, but the oidor-gobernador was suspicious, and would not respond to the overtures of the British. The Spanish troops under Anda's command entered Manila on June 10, 1764, and the British forces evacuated the same day. Montero y Vidal (op. cit., II, 71) states that the new governor, Torre, feigned illness on the day of the transfer of sovereignty that Anda might be enabled to receive the keys of the city and thus not be deprived of the honors which he had so faithfully earned.

[681] Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, II, 241.

[682] Anda was made Councillor of Castile on November 6, 1767. A life's pension was bestowed on him on November 19, 1769. He remained in Spain until 1770 when he returned to the Philippines as governor (A. I., 106-4-4).

[683] In Mexico two prelates governed ad interim after this time--Peralta in 1787 and Beaumont in 1809. Bolton, Guide, 469-470.

[684] Cédulas of November 23, 1774, and July 2, 1779, A. I., 102-2-9.

[685] Articles 61 and 63, Royal Instruction of Regents, Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, VII, 22-28. This Instruction transferred to the regent all the powers and prerogatives which formerly belonged to the senior magistrates of the audiencias. These are defined in Recopilación, 2-15-57 and 58.

[686] Recopilación, 2-15, note 16.

[687] Ibid.; also A. I., 102-2-9.

[688] Royal order of October 25, 1806, Recopilación (1841), II, Apéndice.

[689] Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, I, 90-91.

[690] Concepción, Historia general, III, 336, et seq. This is discussed in Chapter II of this volume. Original materials exist in A. I., 68-1-32.

[691] The royal patronage in the Indies was based on the bulls of Alexander VI, dated May 4, 1493, and November 16, 1501, and on that of Julius II, dated July 28, 1508. By the first two bulls the temporal and spiritual jurisdiction of the Indies was conceded to the monarchs of Spain and by the last one the universal patronato was given. Aside from the responsibilities of government, this concession involved the duty of christianizing the natives and the right of collecting tithes from them. By virtue of these papal bulls the Spanish rulers were granted the right of nominating prelates for the Indies, the assignment of benefices and provinces to the different orders, the confirmation of minor ecclesiastical appointments, and, in fact, general supervision and control over the regular and secular clergy in the colonies (Recopilación, 1-6-1 to 7). By these acts the pope was relieved of all direct responsibility for the spiritual government of Spain's over-sea dominions, his authority being limited to the approval of prelates nominated by the Spanish king and to other ecclesiastical duties of a nominal character.

The patronato real in Spain furnished a precedent for that of her colonial empire. Although the royal patronage in Spain and in the colonies were closely associated, the beginning of this relationship may be found in the early years of Spanish history, when concessions were granted by the king to nobles, cities, and similarly, to churchmen, in exchange for fealty of some sort. For example, the vast tracts of land in Spain were received by the church as a gift from the state, wherefore the state reserved the right to declare who should hold these lands and enjoy these privileges and also the power to dictate the conditions under which they were to be held. The right of appointment by the crown to vacant benefices and to all the higher church offices were applications of this principle. (See Cunningham, "The institutional background of Latin American history," in the Hispanic American historical review, Vol, I, pp. 24-39.)

The concession of 1501 by Alexander VI was only one of a number of privileges of the sort accorded by the popes to the Spanish crown. The emperor, Charles V, obtained from Pope Hadrian VI the perpetual right to nominate prelates and abbots to vacant benefices. In 1543 the Spanish government further demanded and received the concession that all posts within the church in Spain and her colonies should be held by Spaniards. In 1538 the right of the church to issue bulls and briefs affecting the colonies was limited. In 1574 Philip II declared that the right of patronage belonged privately to the king. As a result of this, says Professor Altamira, "the Spanish clergy considered itself more closely bound to the king than to the pope, ... more dependent on the court than on the curia, ... more eager for the privileges of the crown than for the rights of the church, ... the bishops were obliged to obey the monarch more than the archbishop." (Altamira y Crevea, História, III, 418-19.)

The laws of the royal patronage centralized the supervision and control of the clergy of the Philippines in the person of the governor of the Islands. The latter was vicepatron and representative of the king in ecclesiastical matters. He was the responsible head of church affairs in the Islands so far as these matters concerned the government. He was legally authorized and required to receive and assign prelates, to confirm minor appointments by the prelates to parishes and curacies, to make removals from the same when necessary, to make temporary assignments of provinces to the regulars and to support the prelates in the exercise of episcopal visitation. His consent was necessary to the suppression, division, or union of districts, curacies and parishes, and no priest could leave the Islands without his consent. The king was patron, but the exercise of his authority in the colonies was delegated to the respective viceroys and governors. See entire title of Recopilación, 1-6; for general observations on the royal patronage see Gómez Zamora, Regio patronato: Parrás, El gobierno de los regulares de la América, I, 2-16; Mendieta, Historia eclesiástica, 20-21, 186-196; Hernáez, Colección de bulas, 12-28.

[692] This is a translation of ruego y encargo, which form civil officials were required to employ on all occasions in addressing ecclesiastical officials. The king himself observed this rule and his act was supposed to form a precedent for general use within the Spanish colonial empire.

[693] Recopilación, 1-6-47.

[694] Ibid., 2-1-10. Laws 11 and 12 of the same title did not in any way diminish the authority of the royal audiencia. Law 11, dated May 16, 1571, antedating the one above quoted, declared that although cédulas on governmental subjects were occasionally addressed to the "president and oidores," the viceroys and presidents might have private jurisdiction over these matters. Law 12, dated April 6, 1638, recognized the fact that ministers of justice were frequently addressed on (governmental) subjects, which, it declared, should not be construed to prejudice the viceroy's pre-eminence in these matters.

[695] Concepción, as cited in note 1 of this chapter. Salazar's arguments are outlined in Chapter II of this treatise.

[696] Archbishop Pardo's well known opposition to the exercise of governmental control on the basis of the royal patronage and his resistance to the pretensions of ultimate superiority over the church which the temporal government claimed and assumed are referred to in another part of this treatise. In a letter written by the archbishop relative to the ecclesiastical controversy bearing his name, Pardo made the assertion that no person was more zealous to encourage or conform to the royal authority than he, for he realized the necessity of complete temporal jurisdiction over all things secular. He stated that he had always encouraged the ecclesiastics to comply with the just demands of the civil government, "for it is just," he wrote to the king, "to observe the temporal things over which Your Majesty has providence, since the secular power must be obeyed, ... yet I cannot offend the royal person by allowing him or his servants to transgress the rules or authority of God without interposing my influence against it, even at the risk of being disgraced; ... while I am allied to the civil authority in things secular, I am the superior in spiritual matters." He continued: "God has placed side by side the ecclesiastical and temporal authorities and the latter were intended to be subject to the former, and therefore, the temporal ministers ought to cede to the spiritual, according to the rules of the Holy Catholic Church. It is manifestly unjust, therefore, that a governor, maestre de campo, or other royal official should command or summon to justice a prelate who is charged with the welfare of the souls of the people of his commonwealth" (Pardo to King, September 7, 1686, A. I., 68-1-44).

A violent, though ineffective resistance was maintained by the church when Governor Simón de Anda y Salazar sought to abolish certain practices observed in the chanting of mass. Anda based his action on his authority as vicepatron. In his stand he was supported by the archbishop and by two suffragan bishops. However, Bishop de Luna, of Camarines, who was also papal delegate, violently opposed "sending [a copy of] this scandalous mandate to the royal Audiencia--a body consisting of three magistrates, to whom an appeal may lie against the governor" (Letter of a Franciscan Friar, December 13, 1771, Blair and Robertson, L, 318-319.) That a soldier should be the final arbiter in a question belonging so pre-eminently to the ecclesiastical sphere, seemed to this bishop to be entirely subversive of the interests of religion and he turned to the audiencia for protection and support. The governor sent a squad of soldiers to arrest the prelate, and the latter was forced to leave the Islands.

In 1770, Governor Anda was vehemently opposed by the ecclesiastical authorities of the colony in his efforts, as the churchmen described it, "to interfere in the governmental and judicial rights and pre-eminences of the church." This was during the struggle over the question of episcopal visitation; in this matter the governor supported the archbishop. The former had gone so far as to declare that the friars had neither the right nor the authority to administer the sacraments. The replies of Fray Sebastián de Asunción, a Recollect, and of Antonio de San Próspero, of the Augustinians, attacked the whole foundation of the royal patronage, claiming that the church should be given entire control in ecclesiastical matters. According to their views the attention of the governor should be confined to administrative affairs (Expediente de los provinciales de Filipinas, 15 de Julio, 1772, A. I., 107-7-6). As these friars were the provincials of their orders, their opinions are of value in reflecting the ideas of the religious in the Islands on the subject of episcopal visitation. These opinions were contrary to the accepted practices and to the ideas of men of higher standing in Spain's colonial empire.

Archbishop Pardo's well-known opposition to the exercise of governmental control on the basis of the royal patronage gave him pre-eminence in these same matters.

[697] Gómez Zamora, Regio patronato, 330 et seq.

[698] Ibid., 330-354.

[699] Ibid., 378.

[700] Recopilación, 1-8-2, 3, 6. A dispute concerning the jurisdiction of the audiencia over the findings of synods arose in 1773 and again in 1776, when the Bishop of Nueva Segovia protested against the ruling of the audiencia that all the deliberations of a provincial synod which had been held in that bishopric should be submitted for its approval. The bishop appealed to the Council of the Indies and that body approved the action of the audiencia (King to the Audiencia, October 19, 1776, A. I., 105-2-9).

[701] Recopilación, 1-9-2, 7, 10.

[702] Recopilación, 1-13-23.

[703] Ibid., 1-14-1, 20, 42; 3-14-3.

[704] Ibid., 1-14-34, 38.

[705] Ibid., 44, 67.

[706] This law was nullified by the cédula of August 1, 1795, which forbade the intervention of the vicepatron and audiencia in these matters. See Recopilación, 1-6, note 17, also 1-14-37.

[707] Ibid., 68.

[708] Ibid., 71, 75.

[709] Cédula of June 1, 1574, Blair and Robertson, XXI, 27-31.

[710] Cédula of November 14, 1603, Blair and Robertson, XXI, 50-52, note.

[711] Royal order of April 6, 1609, A. I., 105-2-1.

[712] Recopilación, 1-14; 1-7-54.

[713] Ibid., 1-7-1, 36.

[714] Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 357-358. Illustrative of this same authority on the part of the audiencia and the Council of the Indies was the consulta of the latter tribunal, enacted January 22, 1781. The Audiencia of Manila had called the attention of the home government to the fact that the nomination of Fray Manuel de Obelar, a Dominican, to the post of apostolic vicar of the province of Fukien, China, had been irregular because it had lacked the formality of presentation by the Spanish monarch. Other nominations, namely, those of 1753 and 1759, were cited as examples wherein this formality had not been lacking. The Council of the Indies recommended to the King that the nomination should be accepted and that an ayuda de costa should be voted, but that His Holiness should be notified through the Spanish ambassador in Rome that in the future the requirements of the royal patronage should be observed, and that no appointments in China, Spain, or in the Spanish colonies should be made without the consent of the Spanish monarch (A. I., 105-3-2).

[715] Recopilación, 1-6-31 and 1-14-12, treat of the admission of foreign prelates and visitors to ecclesiastical posts within the Spanish colonial empire. The latter law stipulates, in addition, that all bulls must be confirmed by the Council of the Indies before their introduction into the Indies.

[716] Tourón proceeded to China, where he continued his inspection. He revoked many of the privileges of the Spanish friars there and forced their retirement to Manila (consulta of the Council of the Indies on the report of the proceedings of Cardinal Tourón in China, February 24, 1710, A. I., 68-2-8). That his proceedings were recognized by the Spanish government is shown by the consulta of April 21, 1708, whereby 4000 pesos were voted to defray the expenses of Tourón in the Philippines and China. This money was added to the Philippine subsidy in Mexico (ibid.).

[717] Arce to Philip III, July 30, 1619, Blair and Robertson, XVIII, 238-239.

[718] Díaz, Conquistas, II, 267, et seq.; Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, I, 259.

[719] Tavora to Philip IV, July 8, 1632, Blair and Robertson, XXIV, 224-228.

[720] Corcuera to Philip IV, June 30, 1636, Blair and Robertson, XXVII, 21.

[721] The cédula of December 15, 1797, authorized the installation of the Bishop of Nueva Segovia as archbishop in the vacant see of Manila, on the death of the incumbent, in accordance with the requirements of the royal patronage. On September 8, 1800, the Bishop of Cebú was designated as archbishop in the same manner. The installations were made by the vicepatron on the strength of these cédulas, with the understanding that the latter were to be followed by the proper papal bulls, executed in due form. Cédulas of December 15, 1797, and of September 9, 1800, A. I., 105-2-18.

[722] The vicepatron had a right to do this in conjunction with the prelate until August 1, 1795, when authority was bestowed upon the latter without the interference of the civil government. Recopilación, 1-6-38, note 17.

[723] Cédula of August 1, 1795, and of September 16, 1803, A. I., 105-2-10; Recopilación, 1-6, note 17.

[724] Recopilación, 1-14-71 to 75; the entire title (14) of this book deals with the general subject of the religious orders. The method of procedure in such cases may be illustrated by the efforts of the government to correct the abuses of Fray Alonso Zamudio, an Augustinian, who was in charge of a parish, and who therefore was subject to episcopal visitation. He was charged with immoral and vicious conduct. The provincial of his order made an investigation and reported that the evidence brought against him would warrant his prosecution. He recommended the removal of the friar, which, he stated, he could not himself bring about because Zamudio was acting as a parish priest. The provisor of the archbishopric recommended the banishment of Zamudio, which act was carried out by the governor in acuerdo with the audiencia. A ruego y encargo was dispatched by the tribunal, soliciting the surrender of the friar. He was accordingly handed over to the civil authorities and was incarcerated in Fort Santiago until the sentence could be executed (Información del juez-provisor, y testimonio de los abusos del fraile Alonso Zamudio, May 21, 1650, A. I., 67-6-9).

[725] Recopilación, 1-14-71, 72. An illustration of the operation of this sort of banishment may be noted in the case of three Augustinian friars whose deportation was requested by their provincial. The request was ignored by Governor Anda, whereupon the provincial wrote directly to the court; consequently on April 13, 1777, the king ordered the audiencia to see that these three friars were returned to Spain; Anda was advised to give more attention in the future to matters pertaining to the royal patronage (King to the Audiencia, April 13, 1777, A. I., 105-2-9).

[726] This has been discussed in Chapter III of this treatise.

[727] Recopilación, 1-14-67.

[728] Concepción, Historia general, IX, 190; Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 400-401.

[729] "Provisores and vicarios generales exercise the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction throughout the entire territory of the diocese and reside in the head city of the bishopric or archbishopric" (Escriche, Diccionario, II, 453). The magistrates and other judicial functionaries of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction will be described at greater length in the succeeding chapter.

[730] Juez-conservador, an ecclesiastical or secular (not civil) judge named by the pope with jurisdiction or power to defend a particular church, monastery or convent. (Escriche, Diccionario, II, 260).

[731] Nuns of St. Clare to King, Blair and Robertson, XXVI, 24.

[732] Recopilación, 2-31-1, 8; 6-10-8, 9.

[733] Le Gentil, in Blair and Robertson, XXVIII, 218.

[734] Recopilación, 3-14-28.

[735] Guerela to the Council, June 20, 1702, A. I., 68-4-12.

[736] Report of Torralba, July 20, 1713, A. I., 68-4-16. Torralba was charged in his residencia with having received bribes from the Franciscans for making this report, which was favorable to them and which was designed to bring about the restoration of the curacies to the friars of that order.

[737] Royal decree of February 14, 1713, A. I., 68-4-18.

[738] Recopilación, 1-14-42 to 46; 1-7-21 to 31; 1-6-49; 2-15-146 and 147.

[739] Royal decree of December 31, 1622, Blair and Robertson, XX, 253.

[740] Recopilación, 2-18-18.

[741] King to the Audiencia, April 6, 1778, A. I., 105-2-9.

[742] Información, a legally-attested document establishing proof of some act or crime (Escriche, Diccionario, II, 156). In the broader sense an información was an opinion or a body of evidence on a special topic drawn up and legally attested by the proper authority. These informaciones appear to have been submitted by the audiencia, or by individual oidores, contadores, oficiales reales and others, but in all cases they were legally drawn up and sworn to. An información was always a special report, drawn up in compliance with a request or command and is thus to be distinguished from a regular yearly or semi-annual report.

[743] Recopilación, 2-23-13, 12, 15.

[744] King to the Audiencia, July 1, 1598, A. I., 105-2-1.

[745] King to the Audiencia, December 7, 1610, Blair and Robertson, XVII, 151-152.

[746] King to the Audiencia, August 17, 1628, A. I., 105-2-1.

[747] Recopilación, 1-14-1.

[748] Ibid., 1-14-31 to 34, 38, 40, 91, 92; 2-33-11 to 15. Hundreds of these reports appear in A. I., 105-2-1 to 10.

[749] Recopilación, 1-14-2, 3, 4.

[750] Ibid., 1-14-90, 91, 20. Missionaries were so badly needed in the colonies in the sixteenth century that they were sent free of expense. The governors and viceroys were commanded to pay particular attention to them, assisting and providing for them in all possible ways. "Until the members of the different orders were enabled, by their sufficient numbers and increased prosperity, to establish themselves in communities ... both king and pope extended privileges and protection to them in order to facilitate the labors of their calling." (Bancroft, History of Mexico, III, 702.)

[751] Recopilación, 3-14-4.

[752] Ibid., 1-22-7.

[753] Ibid., 19.

[754] Ibid., 1-22-53.

[755] Audiencia to Felipe II, June 25, 1588, Blair and Robertson, VI, 318. The Jesuits, on July 8, 1598, again requested permission to bestow the degrees of licentiate and doctor, urging that the distance from Europe was so great that the universities there were inaccessible to students of the Philippines. At that time the petition of the Jesuits was not granted, but that order succeeded in getting permission to establish the college of San José in 1601. This institution was enabled to maintain itself without royal aid until 1767. Its chief support was derived from the immense wealth of the society and from the large donations of individuals.

[756] Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 283-294; Pastel-Colín, Labor evangélica, III, 414-418.

[757] Cédula of June 30, 1778, A. I., 105-2-9.

[758] The college of Santo Tomás was founded on August 15, 1619, eighteen years after the foundation of the rival college of the Jesuits. Due largely to the guiding influence and paternal care of a number of Dominican archbishops it grew and prospered. It became a royal university in 1645 and its title was extended at various times subsequently (Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 169 [note], 283).

[759] Blair and Robertson, XXXVIII, 78-80.

[760] A number of testimonios exist in A. I., 105-2-6 bearing on suits of natives and Chinese mestizos who aspired to enter the royal university. In later years they were admitted, but these institutions were primarily intended for the children of Spaniards. Of especial interest was the suit brought in the audiencia by the Chinese mestizo, Francisco de Borja, against the University of Santo Tomás for the degree of master of arts, which the educational institution refused to grant on account of the nationality of the plaintiff. The suit was carried to the Council of the Indies, and that tribunal, after requiring the opinion of the royal fiscal, declared in its consulta of July 17, 1780, that the laws of the Indies (Recopilación, 1-22-57) denied to mestizos, Chinese, and mulattoes the right of studying in the royal universities, but once having qualified, however, there was nothing in the origin or nature of an infidel that should prevent his receiving his degree (A. I., 105-3-1). Another question which was deliberated with much care was whether illegitimate children should be admitted as students or qualified as licentiates.

[761] Ecclesiastical tithes (diezmos), according to Martínez Alcubilla, were "taxes upon the products of the earth which the producers paid from the entire product of their labor, without deduction of the expenses to which they were put, or consideration of the capital invested" (Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, V, 412). Escriche defines the ecclesiastical tithe as "the part which is paid by the faithful for the maintenance of the ministers of the church," usually consisting of a tenth of their products, although at times it was less, varying with the use and custom of the locality (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 638). This payment was required from merchants, farmers and encomenderos (Recopilación, 1-16-1 to 10). In 1537 Viceroy Mendoza was directed to exact tithes from the natives (Bancroft, History of Mexico, III, 666). This was again ordered by the cédulas of July 12, 1778, and January 20, 1786 (A. I., 105-2-9). Subsequently the agricultural estates of friars were made liable to the payment of tithes. As early as 1655 the Jesuits in New Spain were obliged to pay tithes on all crops and productions of their estates (Bancroft, History of Mexico, III, 668).

The purpose to which these funds were theoretically devoted was the support and maintenance of the church. The right of collecting and administering them was conceded to the crown by Pope Alexander VI in the bull of November 16, 1501, in "full, absolute and irrevocable ownership, with the condition that the crown should assist the church with a sum sufficient for the decent support of divine worship, its prelates and ministers" (Recopilación, 1-16-1 and 23). The cédula of April 29, 1648 reaffirmed and amplified this bull, ordering in addition that one-third of all money arising from vacant benefices should be set aside for the support of the church, while the residue should be sent to Spain (ibid., 1-7-41; see also 1-16-28 and Article 8, Real Ordenanza de Intendentes de Buenos Ayres; Robertson, History of America, IV [Bk. viii], note XXXII).

On February 3, 1541, Charles V prescribed that the tithes should be divided into four equal parts, two of which were to go to the prelate and chapter of the diocese, while the remaining two parts were to be further separated into ninths (novenos), of which two were to be reserved for the crown, three for the construction of churches and hospitals, two for salaries of curates, and the remaining two portions were to be set aside to pay the dignitaries and subalterns of the diocese (Recopilación, 1-16-23).

In case the portion reserved for the salaries of curates proved insufficient, the royal treasury guaranteed a yearly stipend of from one hundred to a hundred and twenty pesos to each priest. This cédula was amended by the regulation of March 28, 1620, which provided that the royal ninths should be taken from the gross amount of tithes paid in (Recopilación, 1-16-25). So it developed that the crown came to assume entire jurisdiction over the administration of the tithes, retaining a portion of these episcopal rents for non-ecclesiastical purposes. The royal share was placed in the treasury and was administered by the oficiales reales, leaving only seven-ninths of the money actually obtained to be expended for the support of the church. These funds were collected in the provinces by the provincial revenue officials, subject to the supervision of the alcaldes mayores, who were responsible in turn for this particular matter to an oidor and a royal treasury official of the central government (Ibid., 1-16-1, 30).

These novenos were not infrequently farmed out in New Spain, and at the auctions thereof frauds were as repeatedly committed as at the sales of other royalties. Instructions were issued ordering the Audiencia of Mexico to investigate the nature of these transactions. In March, 1728, the royal novenos were leased for a period of nine years at $19,000 annually. When this lease expired they were let again for a similar period at $20,000 a year (Bancroft, History of Mexico, III, 666-668 and note 57); see Priestley, José de Gálvez, 249-253, for data on the administration of tithes in New Spain.

[762] Recopilación, 1-16-11, 3.

[763] Ibid., 13.

[764] Ibid., 24; also Real Ordenanza de Intendentes de Nueva España, Art., 193.

[765] Royal order of September 25, 1768, A. I., 107-5-23; see also Royal decree of July 9, 1785, A. I., 106-2-15.

[766] Testimonios accompanying auto of December 11, 1775, A. I., 105-2-9.

[767] King to the Audiencia, July 12, 1778, A. I., 105-2-9.

[768] Decree of January 20, 1786, repromulgated December 16, 1796, A. I., 105-2-10. While the laws of the Indies make no mention of the requirement that the natives should pay tithes, the above cédulas expressly order it. This is interesting, in view of the fact that Gómez Zamora, in his Regio Patronato (381 et seq.) says that in the Philippines the natives were not called upon for tithes. Montero y Vidal (Historia general, III, 179) cites the cédula of May 23, 1801, which exempted Indians from the payment of tithes.

[769] Montero y Vidal, Historia general, III, 179; also King to the Audiencia, October 6, 1792, A. I., 105-2-10.

[770] Aguilar to Soler, July 31, 1799, A. I., 107-5-23.

[771] On August 17, 1853, the superintendent of real hacienda of Manila made an effort to revive the payment of tithes, which practice had become extinct. He ordered the religious provincials to present in the administración general de tributos lists of all taxable property under their jurisdiction (Montero y Vidal, Historia general, III, 178).

[772] While the temporalities were originally the endowments of the sovereign for the support of the clergy, in the Philippines at this time they were chiefly derived from the sale of jewels, lands, live-stock, and other chattel properties of the Jesuit order, which had been suppressed in 1769. Property to the value of 2,000,000 pesos fell into the hands of the government on this occasion. The temporalities did not include convents, school buildings, colleges, churches and church furnishings. The latter were turned over to the archbishop and the secular church.

[773] Cédula of January 22, 1803, A. I. 107-5-29.

[774] A very instructive and hitherto unexplored field of investigation lies in the reports of the different officials and bodies in the colonies which were entrusted with the duty of collecting and forwarding money to help Spain in putting down the various revolts of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. We may note the letter of Governor Aguilar, dated July 20, 1804, in which he reported compliance with the royal order of June 20, 1798, relative to the raising of money for the purposes indicated. He had opened two public subscriptions for "voluntary offerings" to aid in putting down the Catalonian revolt of 1798. In the first subscription, 80,946 pesos were raised and in the second, 15,397 pesos. The Dominicans alone gave 5000 pesos, the magistrates of the audiencia, the members of the consulado, the contadores, oficiales, reales, obras pías, prelates, temporalities, the Compañia de Filipinas, the monte pio militar, the veteran soldiers, religious orders and other organizations and individuals each contributing their share. Aguilar reported that subscriptions had been opened in all the provinces by the corregidores, alcaldes mayores and intendentes. The various provinces and districts contributed on this occasion as follows: Tondo, 11,059 pesos; Laguna, 2768 pesos; Cebú, 300 pesos; Albay, 85 pesos; Cápiz, 318 pesos; Leyte, 21 pesos; Antique, 4 pesos; Samar, 1090 pesos; Zambales, 41 pesos; Calamianes, 1607 pesos; Mindoro, 221 pesos. This money was sent to the Viceroy of New Spain, and was forwarded to Spain by him together with the remittances collected for the same purposes in that viceroyalty. Reports of alcaldes mayores show that these assessments (contribuciones voluntarias or directas, or donativos voluntarios) varied from half a real from the poorest Indian to five hundred pesos from the wealthier landlords and merchants. In many cases these assessments practically amounted to confiscations (Aguilar to the King, July 20, 1804, A. I., 105-3-23).

On June 18, 1806, the king acknowledged receipt of money which had been confiscated from the common funds of the village communities (King to Aguilar, June 18, 1806, A. I., 105-2-18).

Hume, in his Modern Spain (158), says that in 1809 the colonies contributed 3,000,000 pounds sterling for the relief of the home government. Priestley, José de Gálvez, 370-71, sheds some light on the matter of these forced contributions in New Spain.

[775] Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, X, 719. The obras pías were charitable associations or corporations, usually under ecclesiastical control, which were founded and supported by persons who contributed or willed their money for beneficent objects. In Manila there were two leading societies of this character, the Santa Misericordia and San Juan de Diós. The former was a branch of a larger organization of the same name, which had originated in Portugal, and was quite generally established throughout Spain, Portugal and their colonies. A branch was founded in Manila in 1596, with the object, as stated in the articles of establishment, of erecting and maintaining a college for orphan children, the support of the poor, and particularly of the orphans and widows of soldiers. This society flourished from the beginning under the favor of certain governors and oidores and by their assistance and by that of other friends, and through the endowment by the government of a large amount of free space on the galleon, it became a wealthy and powerful institution. San Juan de Diós, which was organized as a brotherhood, was established in the Philippines in 1617 with avowed charitable purposes. In the cédula of February 10, 1617, the king ordered the audiencia at Manila to place the hospitals under the care of this brotherhood (Blair and Robertson, XLVII, 164-165). Though it did not attain the wealth or importance of the Misericordia and it never had the extensive relations with the government of the other society, it did exceedingly valuable work in the Islands, going far toward accomplishing the purposes for which it was founded.

[776] By 1660, the Misericordia had received in contributions the sum of 356,363 pesos. In 1619, the treasury at Manila had become so exhausted by the expenses involved in resisting the Dutch that Governor Fajardo borrowed from the society the sum of 39,599 pesos. Later Governor Corcuera exacted a loan of 104,609 pesos. In all, up to 1670, an aggregate of 441,909 pesos had been borrowed from this wealthy society for the current expenses of the government. In 1762-3 the Misericordia contributed the sum of 195,588 pesos as tribute money to the British and was, according to its own accounts, despoiled of 301,597 pesos, making a total of 506,184 pesos, and leaving a balance of 193,246 pesos (Procurador de la Misericordia de Manila al Rey, 23 de Julio, 1764, A. I., 106-5-8).

The capital of the Misericordia of Manila on January 31, 1755, was estimated at 701,477 pesos (Informe del Contador de Cuentas, 31 de Enero, 1755, A. I., 106-5-8). In the occupation of Manila by the British and in the loss and despoliation of property suffered thereby, the Misericordia received a blow from which it never entirely recovered. By July 20, 1804, the capital of the society had dwindled to 151,625 pesos (Aguilar to the King, July 20, 1804, A. I., 107-5-29).

[777] Cédula of November 8, 1747, with testimonios of previous correspondence, A. I., 106-5-8.

[778] Informe del Contador de Cuentas del Consejo de Indias, 31 de Enero de 1755, A. I., 106-5-8.

[779] Cédula of April 19, 1755, A. I., 106-5-8.

[780] Arandía to the King, July 24, 1757, A. I., 106-5-8.

[781] Cédula of February 21, 1759, A. I., 106-5-8.

[782] King to the Audiencia, April 25, 1778, A. I., 105-2-9.

[783] Cédula of August 2, 1787, A. I., 105-2-10.

[784] Aguilar to the King, July 20, 1804, A. I., 107-5-29.

[785] The capital of the society was at that time estimated at 151,625 pesos.

[786] King to the Audiencia and Consulado, June 7, 1775, A. I., 105-2-9.

[787] The term espolio was applied to the properties which archbishops and bishops left at the time of their death, such property having accumulated when they were in office. All possessions of deceased prelates reverted to the crown in accordance with the cédula of March 25, 1620. The rents from vacant benefices accumulated from the time of the death of a prelate to the appointment of another to succeed him (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 735; Bancroft, History of Mexico, III, 699). The money derived from espolios and vacant benefices was aggregated to the royal treasury for such subsequent distribution as appeared necessary for the relief of cathedrals, parishes, colleges, asylums, and charitable institutions.

[788] Recopilación, 1-7-38, 39.

[789] Ibid., 37, 40.

[790] Cédula of June 24, 1712, A. I., 68-4-17; Recopilación, 1-7, note 8.

[791] Auto de Espolio of Bishop Gorospe, May 28, 1715, A. I., 68-4-18.

[792] In the colonial bishoprics the temporary successor of a deceased prelate was usually designated by the local diocesan chapter. If, as was the case in the Philippines, the latter body were lacking, the archbishop, by virtue of his position, became temporary ecclesiastical governor, with jurisdiction over the revenues of the diocese. The benefice was considered vacant until the appointment of a regular bishop.

[793] A fairly typical example of an espolio was that of Bishop Arévalo of Nueva Cáceres, rendered by the audiencia on July 19, 1759. The total sum left by that prelate was 19,000 pesos. The leading items of the espolio were: costs, 1919 pesos; bequest to College of Santo Tomás, 2000 pesos; bequest to the cathedral of Nueva Cáceres, 400 pesos; bequest to the brother of the deceased, the Marquis of Monte Castro, 1000 pesos. The remaining portion was paid to creditors in sums varying from 20 to 300 pesos, leaving something over 6000 pesos for the crown (Auto de Espolio, 20 de Julio, 1759, Audiencia de Manila, A. I., 106-4-16).

On June 14, 1774, the audiencia reviewed the autos of espolio of the Bishop of Cebú, the total of which aggregated 11,210 pesos. The papers were duly forwarded to the Contaduría General, at Madrid, and were approved by that tribunal on June 20, 1778 (A. I., 105-2-9).

Owing to the anarchical conditions prevailing at the time of the death of Archbishop Rojo, his espolio had to be postponed until June 26, 1777, and the royal treasury received 3078 pesos therefrom. The prelate left a valuable library to the College of San Ildefonso in the city of Mexico, and 13,617 pesos in money to be distributed among his personal creditors and heirs (Consultas del Consejo, 20 de Marzo, 1778, A. I., 108-7-1 and 2; 105-3-2).

The large sum of 12,000 pesos was netted to the royal treasury by the espolio of Bishop Espeleta of Cebú on May 6, 1783 (A. I., 105-2-10). By way of contrast, the fact may be noted that the espolio of Archbishop Santos y Rufina yielded 92 pesos. (Auto de Espolio del Arzobispo Santos y Rufina, 20 de Octubre, 1792, A. I., 105-2-10.)

[794] Real Ordenanza de Intendentes de Nueva España, Artículos 227, 228, 229.

[795] Recopilación, 1-3-1; 1-4-25.

[796] Ibid., 1-2-14.

[797] Fajardo to the King, August 15, 1620, Blair and Robertson, XIX, 163.

[798] King to the Audiencia, June (?) 1604, A. I., 105-2-1.

[799] King to the Audiencia, October 30, 1634, A. I., 105-2-1.

[800] Recopilación, 1-3-1, 1-6-2. The expediente covering this case is in A. I., 105-3-1. The cédula of April 6, 1778, and testimonios are in A. I., 105-2-1.

[801] See Cunningham, "Origin of the friar lands question in the Philippines," in The American political science review, X (August, 1916) pp. 465-480.

[802] Recopilación, 1-4-20.

[803] Ibid., 1-2-20.

[804] See Note 2 of the preceding chapter.

[805] Recopilación, 2-16-138.

[806] See Note by A. P. Cushing, in Blair and Robertson, V, 292. Escriche (Diccionario, I, 838-9) defines fuerza as "the wrong which an ecclesiastical judge does to a party when he assumes jurisdiction over a case which does not belong to him, or when he fails to observe the rules prescribed by the laws and canons, or when he unjustly denies appeal." Recurso de fuerza is defined as the reclamation to a civil judge, made by a person believing himself aggrieved by an ecclesiastical judge, imploring the protection of the former in order that the fuerza or violence may be terminated or undone. There are three ways mentioned by Alcubilla in which an ecclesiastical judge may commit fuerza: 1. When he assumes jurisdiction in a purely temporal case, which by its very nature is not rightfully subject to his authority. 2. When, by trying a case whose jurisdiction belongs to him, he fails to observe the method and form prescribed by the laws and canons. 3. When he refuses to allow appeals which should be rightfully allowed (Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, V, 807).

[807] Recopilación, 2-15-148, 149. The interdict, as defined by Escriche (Diccionario, I, 712), is a prohibition, mandate, or censure, pronounced by an ecclesiastical authority by which is prohibited the use of certain spiritual privileges which are common to all. The effect of the interdict may be to prohibit Christian burial, the administration of the sacraments or the celebration of divine services. Exception may be made in rare cases of baptisms, confirmation and confession for the dying. Even though the interdict may be pronounced it does not prohibit the saying of mass in a low voice behind closed doors and without the ringing of bells. A priest who violates the interdict may be pronounced "irregular", but a layman who does so may incur the penalty of excommunication (see Catholic Encyclopedia, under "Interdict").

[808] This refers to the privilege extended by the church to offenders against the laws of the realm, who were allowed to take refuge from the civil authorities in a church or convent. This practice was recognized by the government. By a bull of Clement XIV, the right of extending asylum was limited to a few churches only, the number of these depending on the population of the town or city. Those guilty of certain specified crimes of the most heinous character were denied the privilege of sanctuary. The act of sheltering oneself under the protection of God was supposed to be spontaneous and not premeditated. The privilege was often abused by individual churchmen (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 353).

[809] A clarifying description of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction has been given by Escriche. He defines it as "the power of the Church for the trial and adjudication of civil and criminal affairs exercised either by its own right or by concession of princes." This jurisdiction, says Escriche, is of two kinds, inherent (spiritual) and privileged (temporal). After classifying the different cases which fall naturally under each category, he describes the tribunals for the interpretation of canon law. "The ecclesiastical jurisdiction," he writes, "the inherent, as well as the privileged, is exercised, in first instance, by the bishops and archbishops in their respective dioceses, in the second, by the metropolitan with respect to the suffragans, and in the third, by the papal delegate. The bishops and archbishops do not exercise the jurisdiction by themselves but by means of their provisores or vicarios. These latter may be either generales or foráneos.... The term provisor or vicar-general is used to designate him who exercises the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the entire territory of the diocese and resides in the episcopal city situated therein; ... foráneos are the others established as delegates in certain parts of the diocese in order to facilitate the administration of justice; no appointments to these offices may be made without the royal approbation. The authority of the provisores and vicarios cease by death of the prelate from whom they obtained the nomination, and is reassumed by the cabildo or chapter, sede vacante, which selects persons to succeed them" (Escriche, Diccionario, II, 453).

Escriche further describes this hierarchy of ecclesiastical judges: "The metropolitans, then, are the ordinary judges of first instance with regard to the archbishoprics and at the same time they are the judges of appeal from the suffragans, and, accordingly, they are accustomed to appoint, aside from the provisores or vicarios, ordinarios who discharge the functions of judges of first instance. As the obispos exentos are not subject to a metropolitan, but directly to the holy see, recourses of appeals from their decisions go to the papal delegate." The cases of appeal from the metropolitans and other ecclesiastical judges were heard in third and last instance by the tribunal known as the rota of the papal delegate, which was composed of the nuncio of the pope, and the ecclesiastical auditors appointed by the crown.

The ecclesiastical courts of the Philippines conformed generally, in organization and limits of jurisdiction, to the scheme outlined in the preceding paragraphs. The three bishops of Nueva Segovia, Camarines, and Cebú had their courts in the chief towns of their respective dioceses. They were assisted by the customary provisores. Appeals were carried from them to the court of the metropolitan which was located in Manila; this latter tribunal consisted of the archbishop, the vicar-general, and a notary. Above this court was that of the papal delegate who tried cases of appeal from the lower tribunal in accordance with canon law. In conformity with a bull of Gregory XIII, dated May 15, 1572, the authority of the papal delegate in appeal cases was final; "he might overrule and even supersede the metropolitan, as being the judge in final appeal." The Bishop of Camarines most frequently acted as papal delegate (Blair and Robertson, XLII, 27, Note 4). Aside from these courts there was that of the commissary of the Inquisition whose jurisdiction will be subsequently noted.