Chapter XIII: Appendix (4)

[152] Thus in text, but evidently a clerical error by Bernaldez's amanuensis. A similar discrepancy is seen in the estimate of the trader's profits, below.

[153] The Cortes, as first known by the Spaniards, contained three divisions, the three estates; the ones called in the three periods above-mentioned had but one chamber; the present Cortes contains two houses, the senate and the congress or house of deputies or representatives. The senate consists of three divisions: senators in their own right (the heir presumptive, the grandees, archbishops, etc.; life senators appointed by the crown; and those elected by the people, half of whom are removable every five years. Members to the lower house are elected for five years by electors chosen by the people. No Cortes was held from 1713-1789, and from the latter year until 1810.

[154] For a good account of this period in Spain, which was one of great confusion, see E. W. Latimer's Spain in the nineteenth century (Chicago, 1898, 3d ed.) The machinations of Napoleon and the other events leading up to the establishment of the Cortes of 1810-1813 are well and concisely narrated. See also Hume, Modern Spain (New York, 1900).

[155] The latter, indeed, was granted permission (January 4, 1811) to go to Veracruz for his health; and on July 22, 1811, permission was given to the former to go to the Philippines on private business, although he was later forbidden to leave until the return of his colleague, as his absence before that time would leave the Philippines without representation. The request was renewed on the arrival of Reyes (December 6, 1811), and on the latter's assumption of his seat (December 9), Perez de Tagle was allowed to leave. On September 19, 1813, a discourse was pronounced at Manila by José de Vergara, "deputy-elect for the province of Manila to the general Cortes," and published in that year at Sampaloc. The election of deputies in that year was regulated by a junta composed of Governor Gardoqui, Archbishop Juan de Zúñiga, Manuel Díaz Condé, and three others; one of their decisions exempted the very poor in the community from contributing to the fund raised for paying the traveling and other expenses of the deputies to the Cortes. (Vindel, Catálogo biblioteca filipina, nos. 1874, 1875.)

[156] Such were the decree of October 5, 1810, confirming the essential unity and equality of all parts of the Spanish domain; the abolition of the quicksilver monopoly, January 26, 1811; the provisional creation of a Consejo de Estado to consist of twenty members (six from Ultramar), on January 21, 1812, although the constitution (adopted March 18, 1812) called for one with forty members (twelve from Ultramar): the creation of the Secretaría del Despacho de la Gobernación de Ultramar (April 2, 1812), and the establishment of the Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, and the suppression of the Consejos de Castilla, Indias, and Hacienda (all of them provided for in the constitution); and the suppression of the Inquisition (February 22, 1813). The law of November 9, 1813, abolishing personal services for Indians and regulating public works, seems to have been intended only for America.

[157] February 20, 1812, was the last meeting on the island of León, the Cortes assembling on the twenty-fourth at the church of San Felipe Neri, at Cádiz.

[158] The method of election for the Cortes of 1813 (decree of May 23, 1812) provided for a preliminary election board for each colonial province consisting of the provincial head, the archbishop, bishop, or acting archbishop, the intendant (if there were one), the senior alcalde, the senior regidor, the syndic procurator-general, and two commoners (these last to be chosen by the others). One representative was to be chosen for each 60,000 people. (See the essential clauses of this decree in Montero y Vidal, Historia general, ii, pp. 406, 407.) On the same day was also decreed the creation of provincial deputations, of which one was specified for Manila. In this session of Cortes also, the reorganization of the audiencias was decreed, but the Philippine representative seems to have taken no part in the debate.

[159] Trouble had arisen over the administration by the board of the obras pias which it was usual to loan out to those interested in the galleon trade.

[160] These ordinances were unconstitutional because control of the hospice was vested in a board headed by the captain-general, while by the constitution such organizations were now to be controlled by the ayuntamientos and provincial deputations. The despatch regarding this matter was sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Ultramar, November 27, 1812.

[161] On July 7, 1810, the governor of the Philippines proposed the suppression of the galleon, and requested permission for the inhabitants of the Philippines to ship goods in Spanish bottoms not in excess of 1,000,000 pesos. The suppression was resolved upon by the Cortes by article 3 of the decree of October 8, 1811, regarding commerce.

[162] This decree (which is given by Montero y Vidal, Historia general, li, pp. 412, 413) states that the inhabitants of the Philippines may trade in Chinese and other Asiatic goods in private Spanish bottoms with the ports of Acapulco and San Blas in Nueva España, under the old terms of 500,000 pesos for the outgoing, and 1,000,000 pesos for the return voyage. If the port of Acapulco be closed, they may trade at Sonsonate. For four years the lower rates of duties granted by Cárlos IV by decree of October, 1806, are continued. Boletas, or tickets granting lading space, are to be furnished no longer.

[163] In accordance with a royal order of June 17, commanding the representatives of the colonies to report the petitions pending, or which had not been moved, that had for their object the welfare of the colonies, Reyes petitioned the suppression of the Acapulco galleon; permission of 1,000,000 pesos for the outgoing, and 2,000,000 pesos for the return voyage; unlimited extension of the lower duties conceded October 4, 1806; one or two Peruvian ports open to the commerce of the islands; that natives of the islands be allowed to export goods in Spanish bottoms to any point of the Spanish monarchy free of export and import duties; trade on the northwest coast of America with Spaniards; and that the permission be conceded to bring back all unsold goods (in addition to the amount of imports allowed), on payment to the treasury of a 6 per cent duty. The answers to these requests were as follows: the Acapulco ship was suppressed by order of April 23, 1815; permission of export to the value of 750,000 pesos; the ports of Callao and Guayaquil thrown open to Philippine trade; traffic with the Spaniards on the northwest coast of America; permission to bring back unsold goods to the extent of one-third the amount of imports allowed, paying ten per cent duty for such excess; and free trade for Philippine products at any port of the monarchy in Spanish bottoms for ten years.

[164] On the seventh he took the oath to observe the Constitution of 1812; and on the tenth, by a decree ordered the reëstablishment of the Secretaría del Despachó de la Gobernación[, the first acts of which were the promulgation of the Constitution of 1812, and the reëstablishment of all the organisms created by the Cortes of 1810-1813.

[165] Apparently appointed by the Secretary of Ultramar. Their credentials were approved at the third preliminary meeting of July 5 or 6.

[166] A general decree of October 5, 1820, ordered a uniform and general schedule of duties for the Peninsula and Ultramar; but this law was modified by another law of December 20, 1821, recognizing the impracticability of uniformity of duties for Spain and the colonies, and providing that the schedule be uniform except for the differences rendered necessary in the provinces of Ultramar.

[167] The secretary of Hacienda considered the privileges of the company for the importation of cotton goods as unconstitutional and contrary to the prosperity of national manufactures. At the meeting of August 18, it developed that the company had transferred its monopoly to a foreign merchant of Cádiz. The company was allowed to present its argument, but the report of the committees on Commerce and Hacienda was adopted. Later the company presented a petition requesting the liquidation of the government's indebtedness to it, the privilege of selling its stock of cotton goods, and various other concessions incident to the closing up of its affairs. This petition, sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Hacienda, was referred to the committee on Commerce on November 2. On the fifth, a petition was presented by the Philippine representatives and Gregorio Gonzales Azaolo, of Sevilla, asking that the prohibition of the importation of cotton goods should not affect the Philippines until the industry was developed or established in those islands. This petition having been referred to the committees on Commerce and Hacienda, their report on November 8 recommended the opening of the Oriental trade to all Spaniards trading in Spanish bottoms. This recommendation was embodied in article 3 of the decree of November 9, specifying the kinds of goods which Spanish ships trading by the Cape of Good Hope could introduce into Spain or Spanish America.

[168] The decrees of the Diarios de las Cortes show no decree of this date confirming a previous decree of March 7, 1820, granting exemption of duties for ten years on natural and industrial products of the Philippines, when imported in Spanish bottoms into the Peninsula, as declared by Montero y Vidal. The decree of December 21, 1820, providing for the abolition of the monopoly on tobacco and salt after March 1, 1821, and providing customs and consumption duties, seems not to have affected the Philippines.

[169] In October, 1820, the preliminary board for the election of representatives was organized in Manila, but inasmuch as the elections were not held until after the Constitution had been sworn to in Manila in May, 1821 (and later in the provinces), no regularly-elected representatives were present at the second session.

[170] Wrongly called a decree by Montero y Vidal. This order was addressed to the Secretary of War in answer to a question raised by the Council of War.

[171] The special discussion arose over the item of 50,000 reals for missions and a note in the report reflecting on the native clergy in the Philippines. Some of the Americans, who were quite fully imbued with the free thought of the French philosophical school, declared for the suppression of the missionaries (meaning friars), inasmuch as they were useless and even harmful. The committee answered this by asserting that the missionaries in the Philippines were used by the government as civil and political agents, and that they did do much good work in their own legitimate line. The passage concerning the incapacity of the native clergy was meant to apply to the Philippines alone, but if desired it could be removed as it was not essential to the report. An American representative moved that the 50,000 reals be used in the establishment of normal schools in Ultramar. The Philippine representatives seem to have taken no part in the debate except that Camus y Herrera moved that the obnoxious clause concerning the Filipino clergy be stricken out. The report was accepted as read.

[172] Each university was to have a public library, a drawing school, a chemical laboratory, cabinets of physics, natural history, and industrial products, another of models of machines, a botanical garden, and an experiment farm. The university to be established in Manila was to have theological and law courses for the doctorate. Manila was also to have a medical school, a school for veterinary medicine, a school of fine arts, and commercial and nautical schools. Professorships were to be filled by competition, and those for the Philippines were to be examined by persons designated by the Subdirection of Studies in Mexico. Girls were to be taught to read, write, and cipher; while the older female students were to be taught the work suitable to their sex. This matter of education for girls was left to the provincial deputations.

[173] On the twenty-third there was a discussion as to the legality of the substitutes for the representatives of Ultramar being allowed to hold over; and it was finally declared that only those for the Philippines and Peru could sit during this session.

[174] This exclusion was in accordance with a decision of the committee on Credentials handed in February 11, 1822, to the effect that government employes did not cease, to be such until their resignations were accepted by the government. Posada did not present his credentials at the meeting of February 15, declaring that they had been robbed with his baggage en route from Cádiz to Madrid. He did present them, however, at the next meeting of February 20. At the third and fourth preliminary meetings (February 22 and 24) the matter was debated, and he was excluded on the grounds of being still a government employe.

[175] Foreman states wrongly (p. 362, ed. of 1906) that seventeen deputies were elected and sat during the Cortes of 1820-23, and he names eight of them. He may have confused the names of electors with those of representatives. The four elected (of whom only three are known) were perhaps elected for the districts of the archiepiscopal see and the three suffragan sees of the Philippines; although Montero y Vidal says that both Sáenz de Vizmanos and Posada were elected from Nueva Cáceres.

[176] Although a provincial deputation had been organized in Manila in 1822, almost its only act was to petition (April 12, 1823) for more missionaries.

[177] Fernando's infant daughter, Isabel II, ascended the throne under the regency of her mother María Cristina. Through the efforts of the liberals, six important decrees were passed March 24, 1834: suppression of the Consejo de Estado, during the minority of the queen; suppression of the Consejos de Castilla and de Indias, in whose place was established a Tribunal Superior de España é Indias; suppression of the Consejo Supremo de Guerra, and in its place the establishment of the Tribunal Supremo de Guerra y Marina y de Extranjería; suppression of the Consejo Supremo de Hacienda, replacing it by a Tribunal Supremo de Hacienda; an order to the Secretary of the Despacho de Gracia y Justicia to propose the new organization of the Consejo Real de las Ordenes; and the institution of a Consejo Real de España é Indias to have general supervision of American and Philippine matters.

[178] The first news of reform and the fact that the new Cortes were to be summoned was received unofficially at Manila by a United States ship sailing from Cádiz in June, 1834, and reaching Manila toward the end of the same year.

[179] No provision was made in the third Cortes for substitute representation for Ultramar (except in the decree of August 21, 1836, calling a Cortes for October 24 under the rules of the Constitution of 1812), which is in point with the ignorance manifested throughout this period by the officials at Madrid with regard to the Philippines. This accounts for the islands having no representation for some of the sessions of the Cortes.

[180] Andrés García Camba resided in Manila during 1825-35, and became so popular that he was elected a deputy to the Spanish Cortes; he was afterward (August, 1837-December, 1838) governor of the Philippines, and wrote a book (published at Cádiz, 1839) regarding his experiences while holding that office. Himself liberally inclined, he was constantly opposed by reactionary influences. Although his name does not appear in the pamphlet Filipinas y su representación en Cortes, he is generally considered as its author; and he alludes to it in the memoir above mentioned. (Vindel, Cat. bib. filip., nos. 1881, 1886.)

[181] Foreman says that Lecaros was a mestizo; and Montero y Vidal that he was a Filipino lawyer. The board of electors was mainly composed of peninsulars.

[182] Camba proposed (Filipinas y su representación en Cortes, 1836) a special mode of election to Cortes for the Philippines, which was to be by the Manila Ayuntamiento, as that was the only political organization in the islands worth mentioning, and was in direct contact with affairs. The law to be adopted for Ultramar, Camba argued, must take into account the condition of the country and the inhabitants. During this session, the Philippine representatives presented two petitions to the Secretario, del Despacho de Hacienda, asking in one for a moderation of the excessive duties on the introduction of Spanish brandy into the Philippines, and in the other the sending of few pensioners and subaltern employes to the islands, as this was a prejudice to the native Philippine Spaniards. Lecaros presented a plan to Mendizábal, the provisional president of the Consejo de Ministros, for the suppression of the monopoly on tobacco in the Philippines, but Mendizábal took measures to make the monopoly more remunerative to the state. See Montero y Vidal, Historia general, ii. pp. 554, 555, note.

[183] He wrote Memoria sobre las Islas Filipinas (Valencia, 1842).

[184] July 31, 1837, the new commercial treaty made September 22, 1836, between the governor of the Philippines and the sultan of Joló was referred to the committees on State and Commerce, was reported on favorably on October 4, and was accordingly approved on the twelfth of October. This treaty stipulated that every three-masted schooner porting at Joló with Chinese passengers from Manila was to pay 2,000 pesos fuertes, and lesser boats in proportion to their size. As the most important cargo ever sent to Joló from Manila never exceeded 2,500 pesos in value, it is hard to see the value of this treaty so greatly lauded in Madrid. No Joloan vessels went to Manila. In this matter the officials showed a woful ignorance of the Philippines, the minister of the navy stating that all vessels stopped at Joló on their way to the Philippines. This treaty, as well as the one made by the governor of Zamboanga with the chief of Maluso near Basilan, only made the Moros bolder in their piracy. See Montero y Vidal, Historia general, ii, pp. 557-560.

[185] On May 25, 1869, an amendment was presented by Julián Pellón y Rodriguez in the Spanish Cortes demanding that parliamentary representation be granted to Filipinas. Among the signers to this amendment were Victor Balaguer and Francisco Javier Moya. (Vindel, Cat. bib. filip., no. 1883.)

[186] The host was stolen at least three other times in the history of the Philippines: once in Camarines; once in Malate; and in 1730 from the Franciscan convent and church at Maycavayan. See San Antonio, Chronicas, i, p. 181.

[187] In 1808, the Manila diocese comprehended the provinces and districts of Manila, Bulacan, Batangas, Cavite, La Infanta, Laguna, Mindoro, Morong, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Principe, Tarlac and Zambales. It had 219 parishes, 24 parish missions, 16 active missions, 259 parish priests, or missionaries, and 198 native secular priests who acted as assistants to the parish priests (who were mainly regulars). See the Rept. of the Phil. Com., for 1900, i, p. 132, and iv, p. 107.

[188] Foreman, Philippine Islands (N. Y., 1906 ed.), p. 597, note 2.