CHAPTER XI

THE AUDIENCIA AND THE CHURCH: THE ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION

In the same manner that the audiencia performed the functions of a civil court, so did it exercise jurisdiction as a superior tribunal or court of appeal over prelates, church tribunals, and ecclesiastical judges. It will be our purpose in this chapter to determine the relations of the audiencia with the various ecclesiastical tribunals and to direct attention to the occasions on which it acted as a court, either with original or appellate jurisdiction in ecclesiastical cases.

In this particular phase of the investigation an effort will be made to distinguish between the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the audiencia and its acts relative to the royal patronage. Not only may this distinction be made for conveniences of discussion, but it will be readily seen that the character of the powers and jurisdiction exercised was widely different. When acting as a tribunal of appeal over prelates, provincials, and ecclesiastical courts the chief concern of the audiencia was the administration of justice. When

## acting in defense of the royal patronage, as noted in the preceding

chapter, its authority was primarily executive and administrative, designed always to safeguard the interests of the civil government.

It is, of course, true that all the power exercised by the civil government over the church proceeded from authority invested in the former by the laws of the royal patronage. [804] Nevertheless, it must be observed that there were times when the audiencia exercised the function of an impartial, disinterested court, with no aim or object other than that of maintaining simple justice. It may be conceded, for example, that the authority which the audiencia exercised in the settlement of disputes between religious orders and between the prelates and the regulars partook of the same judicial character as the jurisdiction which it had in settling disputes between civil corporations and individuals. The intervention of the audiencia for the protection of the Indians from the abuses of the churchmen, [805] its entertainment of the recurso de fuerza [806] and its function as a court of appeals for the protection of the natives against ecclesiastical tribunals may be said to have constituted acts in defense of the royal interests as well as in securing the ends of common justice. In restraining church authorities from the intemperate use of the interdict, [807] or from a too liberal extension of the right of asylum, [808] the audiencia was not seeking the ends of justice (though judicial proceedings were instituted) so much as it was defending the royal prerogative and protecting the officials of the civil government. This may also be said of its efforts to prevent the abuse of power by the commissary of the Inquisition. In these last-mentioned activities, therefore, the audiencia may be said to have acted in defense of the royal patronage, though in all these cases its method of procedure was that of a court of justice.

The church in the Spanish colonies had its own judicial tribunals for the trial and settlement of cases arising within it which did not concern the civil government. [809] The division of authority between the civil and ecclesiastical courts and the respective jurisdictions of each are described by Professor Moses, who writes:

The courts of the civil government and not the ecclesiastical authorities considered ... all questions involving the limits of bishoprics, the rights and prerogatives of the holders of benefices, controversies between ecclesiastical councils and their bishops and archbishops concerning the administration of the Church, all disputes between parish priests and their parishes, in a word, all cases that in any manner touched the royal patronage. Even matters spiritual and cases between persons of a privileged tribunal were not excepted from the civil jurisdiction; but certain cases might be brought before the viceroy, and, if desired, an appeal might be taken from the viceroy's decision to the audiencia. [810]

It will be our function in this chapter to determine the participation of the civil courts in these matters.

The power of intervention in ecclesiastical matters which was exercised by the civil tribunals was always a source of discord in the Philippines. The attitude of the churchmen on this question is well shown by a letter written January 20, 1688, by Fray Alonso Laudín, procurator in Madrid for the Franciscans of the Philippines, in protest against the encroachments of civil government. He wrote that

the principal causes of trouble in the Philippines are the disagreements which continually exist between the royal audiencia and the ecclesiastical judges; ... the ministers of the royal audiencia, by virtue of the royal patronage of Your Majesty whom they represent, ... hold ... that the audiencia has ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Church and over purely ecclesiastical persons, over spiritual cases and the administration of the Holy Sacrament, ... and spiritual and territorial jurisdiction in regular and secular parishes. [811]

Laudín described the helplessness of the ecclesiastical judges and the ineffectiveness of their jurisdiction, circumscribed as it was by that of the civil magistrates. He stated that all the judicial acts of the ecclesiastical ordinaries were rendered null by the magistrates of the audiencia and that the ecclesiastical authorities were reduced to such a condition that they did not know where to turn for relief or remedy, as even the papal decrees were rendered ineffectual by the encroachments of the civil jurisdiction. He stated that "the ecclesiastical judges see in all this a meddling and interference with the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which has always been allowed, but they cannot hereafter give fulfillment to the provisions of the audiencia, even at the risk of expulsion from their districts." Laudín was of the opinion that the laws had been misinterpreted by the civil officials and that the king had never intended that the churchmen should be so entirely shorn of their powers. He concluded his appeal with the solicitation that such laws should be made as would determine the questions at issue and bring about harmony between church and state in the Islands. This should be done, he said, "in order that each may be caused to see clearly the duties and jurisdiction which belongs to him and that each may freely make use of his own powers and prerogatives, and thus avoid suits and other disagreements."

The laws of the Indies prescribed that the most harmonious relations should prevail between the ecclesiastical and civil magistrates. The audiencia was commanded to aid the prelates and ecclesiastical magistrates in the exercise of their jurisdiction, neither interfering with them nor permitting them to be molested by other civil authorities. [812] These laws, like those of the royal patronage, not only gave to the civil government a commanding position with relation to the church, but they established the magistrates as the supervisors and guardians of the church courts.

It was the duty of the audiencia, on the other hand, to guard strictly the prerogatives of the civil magistrates, and, in fact, those of all officials of the government, and not to allow the ecclesiastics to infringe on their jurisdiction through acts of fuerza, interdicts, or by any other illegal means. [813] The ecclesiastical courts were forbidden to try laymen or those subject in first instance to the jurisdiction of the civil courts. They were forbidden to imprison private subjects, or embargo or sell their property without first seeking the consent and co-operation of the secular arm. [814] They were forbidden to try any cases except those involving the church, and they could not, without the aid of the civil authorities, impose fines or condemn persons to labor. [815] In general, they were solicited to work in harmony with the audiencia, and to give all possible assistance to that body. [816] Wherein doubt existed or where there was reason to believe that an action might constitute an interference with the civil prerogative, the ecclesiastical judges were ordered to ask the advice of the secular authorities. The ecclesiastical and secular magistrates were enjoined to aid each other actively when occasion demanded, the prelates supporting the audiencia, and the latter dispatching provisions to its magistrates and subdelegates in support of the ecclesiastical judges and tribunals. [817]

The laws cited above did not become effective suddenly, but were evolved through a long period of dissension and dispute between the ecclesiastical and the civil authorities. Before the audiencia was established in the Islands, the parish priests, friars, and ecclesiastical ordinaries in many cases exercised the duties of local judges in both the spiritual and temporal spheres. There can be no question but that the church rendered very efficient service in this

## particular, especially under the leadership of Bishop Salazar. [818]

The surrender of their prerogatives by the ecclesiastics was gradually though reluctantly made as the civil courts became more firmly established in the Islands. At first, the entire clergy, with few exceptions, from the bishop to the most isolated parish priest, opposed the change, and regarded the assumption of their former powers by the civil authorities as unauthorized usurpation. [819] It was with great difficulty that the churchmen were able to adjust themselves to the new conditions. They were required frequently to aid the civil authorities in the apprehension of criminals and in the obtaining of testimony, thus co-operating generally in the administration of justice. [820] A noteworthy conflict arose when the audiencia summoned Bishop Salazar before it to testify as an ordinary witness, and to explain his own actions on various occasions, in retarding the work of the civil courts. These summonses he regarded as detracting from his ecclesiastical immunity. Subsequently, the audiencia was admonished that on no occasion should churchmen be called to act as witnesses. [821] So it came about that although the intervention of the audiencia was prescribed by the laws of the Indies and admitted elsewhere in the Philippines, owing to the strength of the ecclesiastical organization, and its former prominence in affairs of government, the assumption of its legal power by the audiencia was necessarily gradual. Nevertheless, the tribunal ultimately attained extensive authority in ecclesiastical affairs, an analysis of which will now be made.

The audiencia exercised jurisdiction as a high court of appeal over suits to which the religious orders were parties. Most of these cases originated in misunderstandings or contentions over jurisdiction, titles to land, and over the claims relating to occupation of provinces under the royal patronage, which the various orders advanced. Most frequent of all were the suits between the orders, as to jurisdiction over provinces. An example of this is furnished by the contention which arose in 1736 between the Jesuits and the Recollects for the exclusive right to minister in Mindanao. Another case of a similar nature was the adjudication of a dispute between the Recollects and the Dominicans for spiritual jurisdiction in the province of Zambales, as a result of which the Recollects were finally ordered to confine their missionary activities to Mindoro. [822] Another case was the dispute between the Franciscans and the Observant friars. A large number of the latter arrived in the Islands in 1648 with letters from the Viceroy of New Spain. They were at once given territory which had been previously assigned to the Franciscans. On the basis of a brief of Urban VIII, prohibiting the occupation of the same province by two different orders, the Franciscans brought suit in the audiencia with the result that the newcomers were not only dispossessed of the province that had been assigned to them, but their patents and briefs were cancelled on the grounds that they were not properly authorized by the Council of the Indies. [823]

Reference was made in the last chapter to the suits which occurred between the Jesuits and Dominicans, the two orders most extensively interested in higher education, for the right to maintain universities in Manila. The greater number of these disputes, in fact all of them, seem to have been based on the rivalry of their two colleges and on their zeal for royal favor and patronage. When Santo Tomás became a royal university in 1648, and was empowered to grant degrees as such, the Jesuits brought suit in the audiencia for the right to confer honors of a like character in their college of San José. The audiencia denied their petition; the case was appealed to the Council of the Indies, and the higher authority decided that both institutions should enjoy equally the privilege of conferring scholastic honors. [824] The rivalry and bitter feeling between these two orders did not cease with this settlement, but in 1683 the Dominicans again brought suit in the audiencia, seeking to limit the educational activities of the Jesuits. The matter was again carried to the Council of the Indies. Although the decision was made in favor of the Jesuits, the disagreements between the two orders, the charges and counter-charges, and the influence of Archbishop Pardo, a Dominican, in behalf of his own order, went far beyond the authority of the audiencia, whose efforts to restrain them were entirely ineffectual. [825]

Even the natives themselves, at times, went so far as to sue the religious orders in the audiencia. This was done in 1738 when the mestizos of Santa Cruz brought suit against the Jesuits, because the latter had sought to make the residents of Santa Cruz pay for certain improvements in the parishes of that district. These improvements had been authorized by the Jesuits, and from them the society had derived great benefit, while the residents had derived no particular good from them. [826] In 1737, on complaint of the natives, an investigation was conducted by Oidor Calderón which put a check upon certain transactions of the Jesuits in the province of Batangas. It was proved that they had collected rents repeatedly from the Indians for lands to which they had no title.

The most significant and decisive judicial authority which the audiencia exercised in ecclesiastical matters, and that which was productive of more conflicts and opposition on the part of the church than any other cause, was the jurisdiction of the tribunal over the secular church courts, at the head of which was the metropolitan tribunal of the archbishop. The method of intervention most frequently followed in cases appealed from the archbishop was by the entertainment of the recurso de fuerza. [827] In this way the civil jurisdiction,

## acting through the audiencia, could intervene for its own protection,

and by means of this special procedure that tribunal actually did restrain the ecclesiastical judges more frequently and effectively in important cases than in any other way. It was on the grounds of fuerza that the audiencia justified its action in practically all cases of interference with the jurisdiction of the church courts.

Cases of fuerza were those which came to the audiencia through the abuse of their judicial powers by prelates or ecclesiastical judges; cases, literally, in which the latter had usurped or trespassed the authority of the civil courts or government. [828] The execution of the decision of an ecclesiastical judge could be suspended by an edict of the audiencia on the grounds of fuerza, while the case was being investigated by that tribunal. [829] The civil government usually took the initiative in these appeals, but there were occasions in the history of the Islands in which ecclesiastical authorities and tribunals interposed recursos de fuerza against the archbishop. In dealing with these cases the audiencia first ascertained whether fuerza had been committed and then, if the results of the investigation were affirmative, the tribunal was empowered to raise the fuerza (alzar or quitar la fuerza) [830] and place limitations upon the ecclesiastical authority in order to prevent future abuse of power. [831] The audiencia was without authority to fine prelates, bishops, or ecclesiastical judges, but it had sufficient jurisdiction to remedy excesses and restore conditions to their former state. The tribunal was urged to use the utmost discretion in dispossessing offending prelates and judges of their benefices or positions, [832] as a punishment for fuerza, and not to proceed to such lengths except in exceptional cases, wherein the strictest measures were necessary. On such occasions the audiencia might exile the offending ecclesiastic, giving account of its act to the Council of the Indies. [833] All proceedings of this nature had to be carried on secretly and with the greatest possible dispatch and brevity, [834] and all churchmen who were deprived of their benefices through the recurso de fuerza had the privilege of an appeal to the Council of the Indies. [835]

In the treatment of cases of fuerza an informal judicial hearing was given; the spirit of the proceeding was supposed to be that of a harmonious investigation, in which both sides, ecclesiastical and civil, were mutually and equally concerned in the solution of a given problem, and in ascertaining wherein error had been committed. The object of this proceeding was said to be the furtherance of the interests of the crown, the salvation of souls and the spread of the benevolent influence of the church. That the spirit of peace and harmony failed to manifest itself at many of these investigations, is shown by the bitter contests which arose between the civil and ecclesiastical judges as results of the entertainment of the recurso de fuerza. The spiritual authorities alleged on these occasions that they regarded the restraining action of the government as presumption, unauthorized by ecclesiastical canons.

In the well-known Pardo controversy (1683-1689), references to which may be found in any history of the Philippines, there occurred many occasions on which the audiencia was obliged to avail itself of the recurso de fuerza. By this means the audiencia sought to restrain Archbishop Pardo from usurping the civil jurisdiction and that of the religious orders and of the metropolitan chapter. Interference with these orders was in violation of the royal patronage, the ultimate authority over them being the patron and not the archbishop. Such

## action, therefore, became a civil offense, punishable by the civil

tribunals, the highest of which and the one properly equipped to deal with such cases, was the audiencia. It will be noted that Pardo paid the penalty of exile for repeatedly ignoring the audiencia and its right of interposition through the recurso de fuerza, and the subsequent ineffectiveness of the audiencia was due to reasons and conditions other than the decline of the authority and importance of the recurso de fuerza. This controversy which is more fully described in preceding chapters affords the best example extant of the operation of the recurso de fuerza, its nature and effects, hence the citation of minor cases is rendered unnecessary.

Closely related to the question of fuerza as illustrating the jurisdiction of the audiencia over the church courts, occurs that of the interdict. A price which the civil authorities frequently had to pay for the entertainment of the recurso de fuerza, or any other opposition, in fact, to the unrestricted authority of the ecclesiastics, was the penalty which usually accompanied the interdict, of being forbidden to participate in religious rites and ceremonies, or to continue receiving the customary spiritual consolations and benefits of the church. [836] The authority of the audiencia to restrain the excessive use of this weapon by the ecclesiastics may be considered to have been judicial in its nature, since the prelates, by undue use of the episcopal censure, went beyond their ecclesiastical jurisdiction and encroached upon the royal prerogative. A form of judicial inquiry was instituted to ascertain the act and degree of encroachment; indeed, the excessive use of the interdict was interpreted to constitute fuerza, and the method just described was employed by the tribunal to combat it.

We may turn again to the Pardo controversy for an example of the intervention of the audiencia to restrain a prelate from excessive use of the interdict. Pardo, after his return from exile, fulminated censures against ex-Governor Juan de Vargas and the entire audiencia which had supported him against the archbishop. The ban against the oidores was quickly removed, technically on the grounds that the magistrates were still royal officials, but in reality for the sake of expediency. Vargas, however, was not absolved. The audiencia, according to the existing laws, had the right to force the prelate to remove the ban, [837] but owing to dissensions within the tribunal, the opposition of the new governor, the increasing power of the archbishop, the certainty that the royal authority had already disapproved of its acts, and the impending visitation of a royal commissioner (Valdivia), who had instructions to settle the discord and strife at Manila at any cost, the oidores thought it best not to take this step. The archbishop refused to absolve Vargas because of the technical reason that his case came under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition.

The audiencia was expected to restrain the interdict whenever this ecclesiastical prohibition interfered with the government or incapacitated the officials thereof from executing their duties. The interdict was not to interfere with the royal prerogative, nor was it to be imposed for insignificant causes or personal reasons. [838] The audiencia was given the special injunction not to interfere with censures generally, but to permit them to be applied in needful cases, the oidores bearing in mind only the requirement that these ecclesiastical measures should not be allowed to interfere with the civil government. [839]

It had frequently been the practice of the prelates to pronounce censures against oidores and alcaldes, who, in proceeding with their duties as inspectors of the provinces, encroached upon what the churchmen regarded as their own particular and private jurisdiction. This, of course, was forbidden, and the audiencia, by way of fuerza, usually entertained appeals from these officials of the civil government and set aside all such acts on the part of the representatives of the church. Reference was made in the last chapter to the circumstances surrounding the effort of Oidor Guerela to inspect the province of Camarines. This magistrate was excommunicated by the bishop of that diocese and was compelled to remain in banishment five months, the audiencia refusing to set aside the censure on account of the personal animosity of the magistrates toward Guerela. Nevertheless, prelates were enjoined to obey the audiencia when that tribunal ordered the cancellation or suspension of an episcopal censure or prohibition. [840] When an appeal was made to the audiencia from such an act by an alcalde, oidor, visitor, or other official at some distance from the capital, the prelate was expected, upon the judicial summons of the audiencia, to suspend his censure until the facts of the case had been ascertained, and the decision of the tribunal had been rendered. [841] This was the law, but occasionally, as in the case of Guerela, local circumstances rendered impossible or undesirable the fulfillment of the law.

It has been shown in the preceding chapter that before the coming of the audiencia, the church had utilized the weapon of excommunication on very slight pretext, and it had been partly for the purpose of restraining this abuse that the audiencia was established. [842] The early governors, especially, had many difficulties with this phase of ecclesiastical high-handedness and the letters of such executives as De Vera, Tello, Dasmariñas, and Morga complained continually against this particular abuse of power by the prelates, [843] regretting the lack of any authority to set aside these excessive acts on the part of the churchmen. All the above-mentioned governors had been excommunicated for various acts in opposition to the ecclesiastical power. Governor Ronquillo, in the characteristic letter which is quoted in another part of this treatise, reported that the audiencia, after its establishment, had effectively restrained the excesses of excommunication on the part of the church. [844] Indeed, during the twenty-five years succeeding Ronquillo's term as governor, the audiencia had so frequently set aside ecclesiastical censures, and so completely terminated the abuses of the privilege of sanctuary by friars and priests, in fact so generally held at naught the principle of ecclesiastical immunity, that the king, on November 13, 1626, was obliged to issue a special cédula in restraint of his Manila tribunal and for the protection of the ecclesiastical jurisdictions. [845]

Examination of a large number of cases shows that the method by which the audiencia set aside excommunication was usually through an ultimate reliance on force. Nevertheless, taking three hundred years of the history of the Philippines into consideration, there were relatively few cases in which matters went so far that the audiencia actually had to use force, the case being usually that the judicial protest of the tribunal against an abuse of this kind was sufficient. Theoretically, any act of excommunication or interdict was suspended, ipso facto, by the intervention of the audiencia pending further investigation, and the prelate was required to abide by the decision of the tribunal.

The following typical cases may be cited to show that the audiencia frequently did rely on the civil power, as a last resort, for the enforcement of its injunctions. In 1623, an oidor was excommunicated for having violated the ecclesiastical sanctuary in seizing Juan Soto de Vega, a fugitive from justice, who had taken refuge in the cathedral. The audiencia, finding itself opposed by the metropolitan court, sent a constable to arrest the provisor who had fulminated the excommunication, threatening the latter with a fine of two thousand pesos and banishment if he did not desist and cancel the censure. The archbishop, who at first supported the provisor, was put under military guard at the behest of the audiencia. The Jesuits then used their good offices in behalf of the government, as a result of which the matter was arbitrated and peace was brought about. [846] In 1636, however, the archbishop and provisor were banished and fined heavily, because they persisted in a censure which the audiencia had restrained. Their continual refusal to harken to the commands of the vicepatron and the royal tribunal and their insistence on the censure were adjudged to constitute fuerza. This case originated in the violation of the right of asylum by the governor and the arrest of a murderer who had taken refuge in the Augustinian convent. So open was the defiance of the civil government that the criminal was executed in the courtyard, under the very windows of the convent wherein were congregated the prelate and his supporters who were commanded not to touch the body for three days. [847] The archbishop was removed from his convent by soldiers at the command of the acuerdo and banished to the island of Corregidor, where he remained twenty-six days, after which mediation was effected and the weak old prelate, tottering with age, was restored to his metropolitan capital. [848] Montero y Vidal states that this case is interesting and important as a test of the power of the governor; for many persons, he alleges, did not believe that the governor could raise an interdict. [849] That he was enabled to do so, with the support of the audiencia and with the aid of his military forces there can be no question.

Some reference should be made at this time to the abuses of the interdict by Archbishop Pardo. This prelate went so far as to place a ban upon the church of the Jesuits because it contained the dead body of an offending oidor. For reasons other than the lack of legal authority, the audiencia was powerless to restrain his censures at that time. On another occasion the audiencia and governor, by placing armed guards at the doors of the Dominican church and preventing the celebration of services therein, suppressed an interdict which had been issued through the influence of that order on behalf of Archbishop Pardo. Governor Bustamante claimed that he was acting in accordance with his own properly constituted authority in 1719, when he appointed his own audiencia, set aside repeated interdicts, penetrated the asylum of the church, arrested the archbishop and defied the entire ecclesiastical organization. He seems to have exceeded his powers no more flagrantly than did some of his predecessors under like circumstances; yet, for personal and political reasons, he was unable to count on the support of the other elements of the colony in this struggle with the ecclesiastical power and the battle ended disastrously for him. Acting-Governor Anda, relying on armed force alone, defended Manila against the British, achieved victory for his cause and secured the approbation of the king in the face of repeated ecclesiastical censures from Archbishop Rojo. These incidents, which occupy a prominent place in the history of the Philippines, illustrate the usual method by which ecclesiastical censures were set aside in actual practice, either by the audiencia or by the vicepatron, who was supported by the tribunal.

A department of the church over which the audiencia did not have such complete authority, either judicially or administratively, was the Inquisition. Properly speaking, there was no tribunal of the Holy Office in the Philippines, the Inquisition being represented in Manila by a commissary. [850] This representative was sufficiently powerful, however, to constitute a worthy opponent for the civil power and one who, on account of the immunities which he enjoyed and because of the secret methods which he was able to employ, kept all the tribunals and authorities of the civil government at a respectful distance.

Although the laws of the Indies directed that the inquisitors who were sent to the colonies should present their titles to the audiencias and viceroys, this did not give the civil authorities any advantage over them. The audiencia was expected to formally receive the inquisitors and to pay them all due respect. [851] At the time of the establishment of the Inquisition in Manila, no audiencia as yet existed. From the very beginning, however, the dignitaries of the Inquisition were placed under special royal protection, with complete power over their own sphere. Officials of the government and all other persons were warned and enjoined not to interfere with or oppose them in any way. As early as May 22, 1610, the Council of the Indies placed itself and all subordinate audiencias and governors in a position inferior to that of the Inquisition. The interference of civil magistrates with the inquisitors in behalf of the government was forbidden, [852] even the ordinary means of protection were denied them. The recurso de fuerza could not be employed, nor could the interdicts of the inquisitors be raised, even in notorious cases of their infringement upon the royal jurisdiction. [853] Little change was made in these laws until the latter part of the eighteenth century. The oidores were ordered to lend such secular aid as might be required, and were originally instructed to obey the mandates and carry out the orders of the inquisitors without inquiries into the religious reason for any

## action the latter might take. Each judge, ecclesiastical or royal,

was to limit himself strictly to his own particular field and thus conflicts of authority were to be avoided.

The laws of the Indies prescribed many regulations which were designed to induce harmony and co-operation between the officials of the Inquisition and those of the civil government. Viceroys, audiencias and governors were authorized to execute the sentences of the representatives of the Inquisition and to extend to them every facility and assistance. [854] Oidores and executives were forbidden to open the mail or tamper with the correspondence or legal documents of the inquisitors. [855] Oidores and fiscales were authorized to give legal advice to the judges of the Inquisition when counsel of this kind was required. [856] The inquisitors were to be given precedence over the officials of the civil government in everything pertaining to the official duties of the former, but in questions of civil administration and in matters of ceremony, the oidores took precedence over inquisitors, unless the latter enjoyed higher rank by virtue of some other office. [857]

The tendency of the laws, however, through a period of two hundred years, was to delimit and circumscribe the authority of the Inquisition in matters bordering on the jurisdiction of the civil government. This is seen, especially, in the offense of polygamy, which, up to 1754, was dealt with solely by the Inquisition. By the cédula of March 19th of that year, polygamy was brought under the fuero mixto; [858] the same law ordered that prisoners, after punishment by the inquisitorial tribunal for heresy, should be dealt with by civil judges for an offense against the laws of the realm. On September 7, 1766, this crime was again made punishable solely by the Inquisition, but on August 10, 1788, jurisdiction over cases of polygamy was taken entirely from the Inquisition and given to the royal justices. [859] This may be considered as indicative of the decline of the authority of the Inquisition in the eighteenth century. The inquisitors, of course, were not permitted to exercise jurisdiction over the Chinese, or over the aboriginal inhabitants of the Islands. [860]

In its relations with the civil power in the Philippines, and

## particularly with the audiencia, two charges have been brought

against the Inquisition. The first was that in the early years of the Islands' history, it was utilized by the prelates for the more complete usurpation of powers belonging to the civil government and the audiencia. The tribunal, of course, was left entirely without recourse, by virtue of the exemptions and immunities of the Inquisition mentioned above. On July 20, 1585, the audiencia, in a letter to the king, cited several instances in which Bishop Salazar, unwilling to cede his claims to jurisdiction over certain civil offenders, handed them over to the commissary of the Inquisition, instead of surrendering them to the audiencia, to which jurisdiction over such cases belonged. The audiencia, appealing to the king for aid, alleged that the prelate had taken undue advantage of the civil power, "by sheltering himself behind the Inquisition, ... where the audiencia has no jurisdiction." [861] This charge was also brought against Salazar by the Jesuit, Sánchez, in his memorial of 1591. [862] It is significant that no decree was issued during the earlier era which authorized the audiencia to repair the abuses of the inquisitors, although on many occasions the audiencia and the local court of the Inquisition were respectively enjoined to confine themselves to their own particular fields of authority. [863]

The second charge made against the Inquisition was that it allowed itself to be influenced, utilized, and possessed by individuals and private interests for their own selfish ends. Under these conditions the audiencia was powerless; the Inquisition openly fought the government and vanquished it entirely on various notable occasions. There may be found no better illustration of this than the Salcedo affair in 1667 and 1668, during which the commissary of the Inquisition was the instrument of the governor's enemies, proceeding to such excesses in his zeal that he ultimately proved to be the agent of his own downfall. [864]

The various sacerdotal historians of the Philippines, in treating of the Salcedo affair, agree that the failure of the audiencia to do its duty in checking the so-called excesses of the governor led the prelate and the ecclesiastical dignitaries of the colony to turn to the Inquisition for relief. [865] Among the acts of treason and heresy of which Governor Salcedo was said to have been guilty, the most conspicuous were his negotiations with the Dutch at Batavia for the conquest by them of the city of Manila. [866] This was the leading pretext for his arrest. We have already mentioned in a former chapter that the conduct of the oidores was not above reproach on this occasion. Immediately after the removal of the governor, a dispute arose between magistrates Coloma and Montemayor for the control of affairs, only to be settled by the usurpation of the government by the ecclesiastical candidate, Bónifaz. With Salcedo out of the way and the audiencia intimidated and powerless, the Inquisition and the ecclesiastics ruled with a high hand for a period of three years, until the arrival of the new governor, Manuel de León, in 1671. [867]

The audiencia, after it had been reconstructed by Governor León, gave some account to the king of the excesses of "Fray Joseph de Paternina, religious of the order of San Agustín, and commissary of the Holy Inquisition, who has been so vain and haughty since the imprisonment of Governor Salcedo, a thing very unfortunate for these Islands." [868] The most harmful result of the affair, in the estimation of the audiencia, was the growing feeling on the part of the people of the Philippines "that the Inquisition (was) the most powerful agency there, and that every person in the colony was subject to it." The effrontery of the commissary was said to have gone so far on one occasion that he entered the acuerdo session of the audiencia and violently interfered with its proceedings, forcibly arresting and carrying away persons attendant thereupon. This defiant and insolent act was the greatest offense that could be offered to the royal authority, and the audiencia felt that if a continuance of these excesses were tolerated the royal tribunal would be despised and held at naught by the very citizens who should regard it with the most veneration.

A list of the acts of aggression on the part of the commissary was submitted by the audiencia at this time. He had commuted a sentence pronounced by the tribunal and had excused various fines imposed by the tribunal, declaring publicly that it was not necessary to obey the acts of this body of lawyers. He had excommunicated all the magistrates of the audiencia, who remained for a long period without recourse and without the privileges of religious communion. He had interfered on behalf of an encomendero who was on trial before the audiencia. He had produced such a state of affairs that the impotence of the civil government was a subject of common jest, even in the mouths of the natives. The supporters of the government had been reduced to a panic of fear, not knowing where the wrath of the Inquisition would fall next. The commissary, on the other hand, had fortified himself with claims of immunity and had acted in defiance of royal and ecclesiastical law by erecting a tribunal of which he was the head, notwithstanding the fact that such an institution was forbidden in the Philippines. The audiencia presented this picture of affairs in its memorial, admitting its incapacity to cope with this powerful institution, whose acts were prepared and executed in secrecy. The evil situation for which he was responsible could only be repaired by an appeal to Mexico. Meanwhile the government and people in the Philippines were compelled to suffer the consequences of his assumption of authority.

There was no tribunal or any other agency in the Philippines able to place an effective check on the triumphant inquisitor. The only relief that could come was furnished on June 4, 1671, in the appointment of a new commissary, who was ordered to arrest Paternina and send him back to New Spain. This timely relief emanated from the tribunal of the Inquisition of Mexico, which by this act manifested its disapproval of all that had been done by its ambitious agent. On August 12, 1672, the Council of the Indies also disapproved of Paternina's acts in connection with the establishment of a Philippine tribunal. [869] The new commissary did nothing toward the continuance of the tribunal which his predecessor had established illegally.

With these manifestations of the royal support, the audiencia, which had been reconstituted on the arrival of Governor León, regained its authority and proceeded ably to second the executive in his struggle with the powerful ecclesiastical organization. The new commissary, who had lost his papers in a shipwreck, appealed to the tribunal for recognition and support in a struggle which he had undertaken against the Franciscans. Through the aid given him by the audiencia, he imprisoned the provincial and definitor of that order. Then the audiencia reconsidered its decision and effected the liberation of the two prisoners on the ground that the title of the commissary did not authorize him to act at this time. [870] In interfering with and actually cancelling the acts of the commissary, the audiencia was exceeding its authority, for the laws prescribed that his decisions could be reversed only by his immediate superior, the tribunal of Mexico. However, the audiencia maintained that it was acting in accordance with the law which authorized it to receive and recognize inquisitors. On this occasion it was merely deciding that the commissary was acting without proper authority since his credentials had never arrived. [871] At this time, the moral standing of the Philippine agent of the Inquisition was at a very low ebb, both in Manila and Madrid, which, of course, influenced the decision of the audiencia.

The Salcedo affair and the succeeding events make it clear that neither the authority of the audiencia nor of the Inquisition was unlimited. The fear and respect with which the latter institution was regarded contributed to its momentary triumph. The audiencia did not interfere with or seek to restrain the acts of the commissary; indeed, the tribunal connived at the exile of the vicepatron since the oidores expected to profit from the act. During these three years the Inquisition allied itself practically to every interest in the colony which had been opposed to the governor. The royal interests were for a time forgotten and wholly unchampioned, owing to the weakness of the audiencia, the removal of the governor, and the united front presented by the ecclesiastical element. This condition was altered by the arrival of a new governor who bore evidence of the disapprobation of the superior government. The tribunal of Mexico discountenanced the acts of its former representative, and that disapproval was further emphasized by the adverse attitude of the Council of the Indies. The audiencia was restored to its proper position, and, in conjunction with the vicepatron, it resumed its status as the agent of the royal will. So it may be asserted that the supremacy of both authorities was relative, recognition depending partially on local circumstances and ultimately on the attitude of the superior government. In fact, it may be said that the latter was the deciding factor. In the struggle itself, before the decision of the home authorities was rendered, the preponderance of power was enjoyed by the Inquisition. This was owing to the advantages which law and precedent had given to it as a privileged ecclesiastical tribunal, although the efficacy of the Inquisition lay for the most part in the immunities which were extended to it and in its swift, unexpected and secret methods. Its ultimate defeat on this occasion, and the continued abuse of its power, did much to detract from its prestige and authority in the Philippines. [872]

During the eighteenth century considerable authority over the Inquisition was given to the civil courts. The former position of supremacy, wherein its authority could not be so much as questioned by a secular tribunal, was gone forever. On August 2, 1748, a decree was promulgated whereby chanceries, audiencias, and corregidores were authorized to restrain any inquisitorial tribunal from maltreating its own prisoners. [873] This same law provided for the punishment by the civil courts of inquisitors who contravened this law. This was the first regulation which really gave to the audiencia the power necessary to restrain the acts of the Inquisition. We find no indication of any such liberal legislation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but by the time this law was promulgated, the power of the church in Spain was considerably reduced and that of the Inquisition was already on the decline. By a number of subsequent laws the Inquisition was gradually but surely limited in power and authority. We have already noted that on August 10, 1788, jurisdiction over the crime of polygamy and over cases involving the infraction of the marriage relation was taken from the Inquisition and given to the civil courts. [874] By the cédula of December 12, 1807, authority was given to the royal justices to receive inquisitors, inspect their titles and to assign them to their districts, assisting them in all possible ways. The civil authorities were ordered to guard against an excessive number of these functionaries. The magistrates were especially instructed to act as guardians of the royal prerogative in dealing with the representative of the Inquisition and to report to the superior government on their relations with them. By this cédula the authority of the inquisitorial agents was distinctly limited to matters of faith, with appeal to the tribunal of the Inquisition. The magistrates were ordered to see that these instructions were followed. [875] In this way the civil authorities, and particularly the magistrates of the audiencias, became the guardians of the royal prerogative against the agents of the Inquisition, who were kept within the proper bounds of a purely religious jurisdiction.

It would be desirable, did time and space allow it, to illustrate further the jurisdiction of the audiencia over ecclesiastical affairs by showing in detail the part which the tribunal played in the friar lands litigation [876] and in the disputes over ecclesiastical visitation in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the Philippines. It will be sufficient here to state that the government sought at irregular intervals and with varying degrees of success, to make the orders prove titles to lands in the same manner that was required of other corporations and individuals. [877] The audiencia, as a tribunal, and the individual magistrates as special commissioners,

## participated judicially in the examination of these titles and in

the correction of the abuses which were discovered. The oidores, when serving as special magistrates for the verification of these titles, officiated in a double capacity. By the very nature of the services rendered they were judges. They were also agents of the royal patron and as such they represented the person of the king, ascertaining whether the royal rights had been usurped or infringed upon.

Closely similar to the jurisdiction of the audiencia as a court of final resort in the testing of the titles to lands occupied by religious orders was that which it exercised in the matter of ecclesiastical visitation. This was a question of a more thoroughly religious character which did not concern the civil government as intimately as did the matter of friar lands. In general, it may be said that the audiencia was utilized by both sides in the various disputes which arose in connection with ecclesiastical visitation. During the ecclesiastical administrations of Archbishops Salazar, Serrano, Poblete, Camacho, Pardo and Justa y Rufina, practically until the end of the eighteenth century, this question was continually agitated. These archbishops attempted to visit and inspect the curacies which were held by friars in lieu of secular priests. [878] The archbishops relied on the audiencia for assistance in the enforcement of their claims and the friars sought its protection as a court of justice to shield them from the visitation of the prelate. As in the matter of the friar lands, so in this question, the audiencia acted both as a tribunal of justice and as an agent and champion of the royal patronage. Indeed, the laws of the Indies established the audiencia as a tribunal and as a compelling authority for the enforcement of ecclesiastical visitation. [879] The archbishop was directed to appeal to the audiencia or vicepatron for assistance in the subjection of offending curates, [880] but he was forbidden to visit the regulars in their convents, [881] which, of course, did not prevent his visiting them when in charge of curacies. On the other hand, the audiencia was forbidden to entertain appeals on the ground of fuerza from regulars who objected to the visitation of the prelates. [882]

Local conditions in the Philippines did much toward determining the character of the support rendered by the audiencia both to the archbishops and to the friars. During the later months of the Pardo controversy, when the audiencia had been demoralized by the triumph of the archbishop and the visitor, Valdivia, the decision of the tribunal had but little weight and the prelate did as he wished in regard to the matter of visitation. In Camacho's time, when the friars were on the point of leaving the Islands rather than submit to visitation, the audiencia and the governor wisely counseled moderation and completely abandoned the obstinate prelate. During Anda's term of office the question was again taken up, but the effort to enforce the principle was abandoned because the government could not find seculars, either Spanish or native, to take the place of the friars who threatened to leave the Islands if visitation were insisted upon. The magistrates likewise rendered invaluable service in imparting legal advice to the vicepatron, friars and others interested. They also kept the court informed as to what was actually transpiring in the colony. It may be seen, therefore, that the audiencia participated in two important ways in the enforcement of episcopal visitation. It was primarily a court; it acted as agent of the royal patron. In these capacities the influence of the tribunal was greatest. It also exercised functions of an advisory character in aiding the authorities concerned to ascertain their rights according to the existing law. [883]

In summarizing the results of the investigation with which this chapter has been concerned, it may be said that the audiencia constituted a court of appeal in ecclesiastical cases wherein the services of an impartial, non-ecclesiastical tribunal were required, or wherein the defense of the royal jurisdiction against the aggression of the churchmen was involved. In defending the civil government from ecclesiastical usurpation the audiencia acted in defense of the royal patronage. Nevertheless, in the cases noted, namely, in settling disputes between orders, between the secular church and the orders, between either of these and the civil government, in entertaining recursos de fuerza, in restraining the interdict, and the abuses of the Inquisition, the audiencia acted by judicial process as a tribunal of justice, and not in the capacity of an administrative committee or an executive agent, as in the cases which have been heretofore described.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF PRINTED WORKS CITED

Alcedo, Antonio de

Diccionario geográfico-histórico de las Indias Occidentales ó América. 5 vols. Madrid, 1786-1789.

Altamira y Crevea, Rafael

Historia de España y de la civilización española. 3d ed, 4 vols. Barcelona, 1913.

Álvarez de Abreu, Antonio

Extracto historial. Madrid, 1736.

Antequera, José María

Historia de la legislación española, desde los tiempos más remotos hasta nuestros dias. 2d ed., Madrid, 1884.

Artigas, Manuel

El servicio de aduanas en Filipinas. Madrid, 1895.

Bancroft, Hubert Howe

History of Central America. 3 vols. San Francisco, 1882-1887.

History of Mexico. 6 vols. San Francisco, 1883-1888.

Barrows, David P.

A history of the Philippines. Indianapolis, 1905.

"The governor-general of the Philippines under Spain and the United States," in The Pacific Ocean in history (Stephens and Bolton, editors), 238-265. New York, 1917.

Beleña, Eusebio Bentura

Recopilación sumaria de todos los autos acordados de la real audiencia y sala del crimen de esta Nueva España. 2 vols. Mexico, 1787.

Blackmar, Frank W.

Spanish institutions of the Southwest. Baltimore, 1891.

Blair, Emma Helen, and Robertson, James Alexander (editors)

The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898. 55 vols. Cleveland, 1903-1909.

Blumentritt, Ferdinand

Consideraciones acerca de la actual situación política de Filipinas. Barcelona, 1889.

Bolton, Herbert Eugene

Guide to materials for the history of the United States in the principal archives of Mexico. Washington, 1913.

Texas in the middle eighteenth century; studies in Spanish colonial history and administration. Berkeley, 1915.

Bourne, Edward Gaylord

Discovery, conquest, and early history of the Philippines. Cleveland, 1907.

Spain in America, 1450-1580. New York, 1906.

"The Philippine 'situado' from the treasury of New Spain," in The American historical review, X, 459-461.

Buzeta, Manuel, and Brave, Felipe

Diccionario geográfico, estadístico, histórico de las islas Filipinas. 2 vols. Madrid, 1850-1851.

Cánovas del Castillo, Máximo

Noticias históricas, geográficas, estadísticas, administrativas y militares de las islas Filipinas. Madrid, 1859.

Castro, Agustín Mariá de

Reseña sobre la guerra de los Ingleses. Manila, 1765.

Cavada y Méndez de Vigo, Agustín de la

Historia, geografía, geología y estadística de Filipinas. 2 vols. Manila, 1876.

Chapman, Charles E.

The founding of Spanish California; the northwestward expansion of New Spain, 1687-1783. New York, 1916.

Chirino, Pedro

Relación de las islas Filipinas í de lo qve en ellas an trabajado los padres de la Compañia de Iesus. Rome, 1604.

Colección de Autos acordados de la real audiencia [y] chancillería de Filipinas. 5 vols. Manila, 1861-1866.

Colección de documentos inéditos para la historia de España. 113 vols. Madrid, 1842-1912.

Colección de documentos inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y colonización de las posesiones españolas en América y Oceanía, sacados, en su mayor parte, del Real Archivo de Indias. 42 vols. Madrid, 1864-1886.

Colección de documentos inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organización de las antiguas posesiones españolas de ultramar. Segunda serie. 13 vols. Madrid, 1886-1887.

Colección de las leyes, decretos, y declaraciones de las cortes y los reales decretos, órdenes, etc., desde 1837 hasta Diciembre, 1845. 13 vols. Madrid, 1845. Continued from 1846 as the Colección legislativa de España.

Colección del real decreto de 27 de Febrero de 1767 para la ejecución del extrañamiento de los regulares de la Compañia. Madrid, 1767.

Colección legislativa de España. 180 vols. Madrid, 1810-1898.

Colín, Francisco

Labor evangélica, ministérios apostólicos de los obreros de la Compañia de Iesus, fundación y progresos de su provincia en las islas Filipinas. Nueva edición ... por el P. Pablo Pastels. Barcelona, 1900-1902. [First ed. Madrid, 1663.]

Cómyn, Tomás de

Estado de las islas Filipinas. Madrid, 1820.

Concepción, Juan de la

Historia general de Philipinas. 14 vols. Manila, 1788-1792.

Coroléu é Inglada, José

America, historia de su colonización, dominación é independencia. 4 vols. Barcelona, 1896.

Craig, Austin

The former Philippines through foreign eyes. Manila, 1916.

Craig, Austin, and Benítez, Conrado

Philippine progress prior to 1898. Manila, 1916.

Crétineau-Joly, Jacques

Clemente XIV y los Jesuitas, ó sea la historia de la destrucción de los Jesuitas. Madrid, 1848.

Histoire religieuse politique et littéraire de la Compagnie de Jésus. 5 vols. Paris, 1859.

Cunningham, Charles Henry

"Origin of the friar lands question in the Philippines," in The American political science review, X, 463-480.

"The ecclesiastical influence in the Philippines," in The American journal of theology, XXII, 161-186.

"The inquisition in the Philippines," in The Catholic historical review, III, 417-445.

"The institutional background of Spanish-American history," in The Hispanic American review, I, 24-39.

"The question of ecclesiastical visitation in the Philippines," in The Pacific Ocean in history (Stephens and Bolton, editors), 223-237. New York, 1917.

"The residencia in the Spanish colonies," in The Southwestern historical quarterly, XXI, 253-278.

Danvila y Collado, Manuel

El poder civil en España. 6 vols. Madrid, 1885-1886.

Historia del reinado de Carlos III. 6 vols. Madrid, 1893.

Significación que tuvieron en el gobierno de América la casa de contratación de Sevilla y el consejo supremo de Indias. Madrid, 1892.

Decretos creando y organizando el cuerpo de administración civil de Filipinas. Madrid, 1870.

Decretos de la Reina Doña Isabel II, ... desde 1834 hasta Diciembre de 1836. 2 vols. Madrid, 1835-1837.

Decretos del rey Don Fernando VII ... desde el 4 de Mayo de 1814, hasta fin de Diciembre de 1831 ... y ... desde 1832, hasta fin de Diciembre de 1833. 18 vols. Madrid, 1818-1834.

Delgado, Juan

Historia general sacro-profana, política y natural de las islas del Poniente, llamadas Filipinas. Manila, 1892.

Desdevises du Dezert, Gastón

L'Espagne de l'ancien règime. 3 vols. 1897-1904.

"Vice-rois et capitaines gènèraux des Indes espagnoles a la fin du XVIII e siècle," in the Revue historique, CXXV, 223-264; CXXVI, 14-60, 225-270.

Díaz, Casimiro

Conquistas de las islas Filipinas. Valladolid, 1890 [First ed. 1718.]

Elliott, Charles Burke

The Philippines; to the end of the military regime; to the end of the commission government. 2 vols. Indianapolis, 1916, 1917.

Escriche, Joaquín

Diccionario razonado de legislación y jurisprudencia. 3d ed., 2 vols. Madrid, 1847.

Estadística de las causas criminales, negocios civiles y expedientes de gobierno despachados por la audiencia de Manila durante el año de 1876. Manila, 1877.

Estadística general de los negocios terminados y pendientes de despacho en la real audiencia de Filipinas en fin de año de 1867. Manila, 1869.

Estadística judicial de negocios despachados por la real audiencia de Cebú en 1886. Cebú, 1887.

Suplemento al diccionario razonado de legislación y jurisprudencia. Madrid and Santiago, 1851.

Fabie, Antonio María

Ensayo histórico de la legislación española. Madrid, 1896.

Fernández Martín, Manuel de

Compilación legislativa del gobierno y administración civil en ultramar. 15 vols. Madrid, 1888-1898.

Ferrando, Juan

Historia de dos PP. Domínicos en las islas Filipinas. Madrid, 1870-1872.

Fonseca, Fabián, and Urrutia, Carlos de

Historia general de la real hacienda. 6 vols. Mexico, 1845-1853.

Ford, Worthington Chauncey

"Public records in our dependencies," in American Historical Association, Annual report, 1904, 131-147. Washington, 1905.

Foreman, John

The Philippine Islands. London, 1906.

Gaceta de Manila, La

Publicación oficial, diaria, en la que aparecían todos los decretos, reales órdenes y demás disposiciones dictadas por las autoridades en las cuestiones de gobierno, fomento, hacienda, estado, gracia, y justicia, administración.... Fué creada en substitución del Boletín Oficial por real orden de 18 de Mayo de 1860 y publicó su último número el 12 de Agosto de 1898. Manila, 1860-1898.

Garcia Icazbalceta, Joaquín

Don Fray Juan de Zumárraga. Mexico, 1881.

Gómez Zamora, Matias

Regio patronato, español é indiano. Madrid, 1897.

Govantes, Felipe María de

Compendio de la historia de Filipinas. Manila, 1877.

Vida de Don Simón de Anda y Salazar. Manila, 1862.

Grau y Monfalcón, Juan

Memorial informatorio al rey ... por la ... ciudad de Manila sobre las pretensiones de aquella ciudad, é islas, y sus vecinos, y moradores, y comercio con la Nueva España. Madrid, 1637.

Justificación de la conservación, y comercio de las islas Filipinas. Madrid, 1640.

Griffin, George Butler

"A brief bibliographical sketch of the Recopilación de Indias," in Historical Society of Southern California, Publications, 1887. San Francisco, 1888.

Hackett, Charles Wilson

"Delimitation of political jurisdictions in Spanish North America to 1535," in The Hispanic American historical review, I, 40-69.

Hartzenbusch, Eugenio

Apuntes para un catálogo de periódicos Madrileños. Madrid, 1894.

Helps, Arthur

The Spanish conquest in America. 4 vols. New York, 1900-1904. M. Oppenheim, ed. [First ed., London, 1855-61.]

Hernáez, Francisco Javier

Colección de bulas, breves y otros documentos relativos á la Iglesia de América y Filipinas. 2 vols. Bruselas, 1879.

Histoire de la persecution de deux saints evêques par les Jesuites, ... l'un Dom Bernardin de Cardenas, evêque du Paraguay dans l'Amerique meridionale, l'autre Dom Philippe Pardo, archêveque de l'Eglise de Manila, metropolitaine des isles Philippines dans les Indies Orientales. Manila, 1691.

Humboldt, Alexander von

Political essay on the kingdom of New Spain. 4 vols. London, 1811.

Instrucción que los virreyes de Nueva España dejaron á sus sucesores. 2 vols. Mexico, 1873.

Jagor, Feodor

Viages por Filipinas tradueidas del alemán por S. Vidal y Solar. Madrid, 1875.

Juan de la Concepción

See Concepción.

Lafuente, Modesto

Historia general de España. 25 vols. Barcelona, 1889-1890.

Lannoy, Charles de

L'expansion coloniale du Portugal jusqu' au début du XIXe siècle, in Lannoy and Vander Linden, Histoire de l'expansion coloniale des peuples européens: Portugal et Espagne. Bruxelles, Paris, 1907.

La Pérouse, Jean Francois de Galaup

Voyage de La Pérouse autour du monde. Paris, 1797.

Lea, Henry Charles

A history of the inquisition in Spain. 4 vols. New York, 1906-1907.

The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies. New York, 1908.

Legentil de la Galaisière, Guillaume, Joseph Hyacinthe Jean Baptiste

Voyage dans les mers de l'Inde, fait par ordre du roi, à l'occasion du passage de Vénus, sur le disque de soleil, le 6 juin 1761, & le 3 du même mois 1769. 2 vols. Paris, 1779-1781.

Leroy, James A.

The Americans in the Philippines. 2 vols. Boston and New York, 1914.

"The Philippine 'situado' from the treasury of New Spain," in The American historical review, X, 929-932; XI, 722-723.

Review: Blair and Robertson (editors), The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898, in The American historical review, XI, 681-687; XII, 143-145; 912-915.

Leroy-Beaulieu, Paul

De la colonization chez les peuples modernes. 2 vols. Paris, 1902.

Lowery, Woodbury

The Spanish settlements within the present limits of the United States, 1513-1561. New York, 1901.

Malcolm, George A.

The government of the Philippine Islands, its development and fundamentals. Rochester, 1916.

Mallat de Bassilau, Jean

Les Philippines; histoire, géographie, moeurs, agriculture, industrie et commerce des colonies espagnoles dans l'Oceanie. 2 vols. Paris, 1846.

Marichalar, A., and Manrique, Cayetano

Historia de la legislación y recitaciones del derecho civil de España. 9 vols. Madrid, 1861-1872.

Martínez Alcubilla, Marcelo

Diccionario de la administración española, peninsular y ultramarina. 12 vols. Madrid, 1868.

Martínez de Zúñiga, Joaquín

An historical view of the Philippine Islands: exhibiting their discovery, population, language, government, manners, customs, productions and commerce. Translated by John Mayer. London, 1814.

Estadismo de las islas Filipinas, ó mis viajes por este país.... Publica esta obra por primera vez extensamente anotada W. E. Retana. 2 vols. Madrid, 1893.

Historia de las islas Filipinas. 2 vols. Sampaloc, 1803.

Mas, Sinibaldo de

Informe sobre el estado de las islas Filipinas en 1842. Madrid, 1843.

Maurtua, Victor N.

Antecedentes de la Recopilación de Indias. Madrid, 1906.

Medina, José Toribio

Bibliografía española de las islas Filipinas (1523-1810). Santiago de Chile, 1897-1898.

Historia del tribunal del Santo Oficio de la inquisición en Chile. 2 vols. Santiago de Chile, 1890.

Mendízabal, Francisco

Investigaciones acerca del origen, historia y organización de la real chancillería de Valladolid, su jurisdicción y competencia, in Revista de archivos, bibliotecas y museos, tercera época, XXX, (1914), 62-72; 243-264, 437-452. Madrid, 1914.

Mendieta, Gerónimo de

Historia eclesiástica Indiana. Mexico, 1870.

Montemayor y Córdoba, Juan Francisco

Sumarios de las cédulas, ordenes y provisiones reales ... para la Nueva España y otras partes. Mexico, 1678.

Montero y Vidal, José

El archipiélago Filipino y las islas Marianas, Carolinas, y Palaos; su historia, geografía y estadística. Madrid, 1886.

Historia general de Filipinas desde el descubrimiento de dichas islas hasta nuestros días. 3 vols. Madrid, 1887-1895.

Morga, Antonio de

Sucesos de las islas Filipinas. Obra publicada en Méjico el año de 1609, nuevamente sacada á luz y anotada por José Rizal. Paris, 1890. [First ed., Mexico, 1609. English translation by Henry Stanley, London, 1868.]

Moses, Bernard

South America on the eve of emancipation. New York, 1908.

The establishment of Spanish rule in America. New York, 1898.

The Spanish dependencies in South America. 2 vols. London, 1914.

Murillo Velarde, Pedro

Historia de la provincia de Philipinas de la Compañia de Jesus. Manila, 1749.

Navarrete, Martín Fernández de

Colección de los viages y descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los Españoles desde fines del siglo xv. 5 vols. Madrid, 1825-1837.

New laws of the Indies for the good treatment and preservation of the Indians (1542-1543). London, 1893.

Ordenanza general formada de orden de Su Majestad para el gobierno é instrucción de intendentes subdelegados y demás empleados de Indias. Madrid, 1803.

Ordenanzas para el régimen y gobierno de la real Audiencia de Manila con el reglamento para su secretaría, aprobadas las primeras por real decreto.... Manila, 1868.

Pardo de Tavera, Trinidad Hipólito

Biblioteca Filipina. Washington, 1903.

Reseña histórica de Filipinas desde su descubrimiento hasta 1903. Manila, 1906.

"The judiciary of the Philippine Islands," in Census of the Philippine Islands, I, 389-410. Washington, 1905.

"The power of the monastic orders," in Census of the Philippine Islands, I, 340-346. Washington, 1905.

Parrás, Pedro Joseph

Gobierno de los regulares de la América. 2 vols. Madrid, 1783.

Pastels, Pablo

See Colín, Francisco.

Misión de la compañia de Jesús de Filipinas en el siglo XIX. 3 vols. Barcelona, 1917.

Pérez y López, Antonio Xavier

Teatro de la legislación de España é Indias. 28 vols. Madrid, 1791-1798.

Pons, Francisco Raymond Joseph de

A voyage to the eastern part of Tierra Firma, or the Spanish Main, in South America, during the years 1801, 1802, 1803 and 1804. Tr. [from the French] by an American gentleman. New York, 1806. [First ed., Paris, 1806.]

Prescott, William H.

History of the conquest of Mexico. Philadelphia, 1890.

Priestley, Herbert I.

José de Gálvez: visitor-general of New Spain, 1765-1771. Berkeley, 1916.

Puga, Vasco de

Provisiones, cédulas, instrucciónes de su magestad de esta Nueva España (1525-1563). 2 vols. Mexico, 1878-1879. [First ed., Mexico, 1563.]

Real ordenanza de 13 de Octubre para el restablicimiento é instrucción de intendentes de provincias y exércitos. Madrid, 1749.

Real ordenanza para el establicimiento é instrucción de intendentes de exército y provincia en el virreinato de Buenos Ayres. Madrid, 1782.

Real ordenanza para el establicimiento y instrucción de intendentes de exército y provincia en el reino de la Nueva España. Madrid, 1786.

Reales ordenanzas formadas por el superior gobierno y real acuerdo de estas islas en 26 de Febrero de 1768. Para el buen gobierno de los gobernadores, corregidores y alcaldes mayores de sus provincias. Manila, 1834.

Recopilación de leyes de los reinos de las Indias. 5th ed., 2 vols. Madrid, 1841. [1st ed., 4 vols., Madrid, 1681; 2d ed., 4 vols., Madrid, 1754; 3d ed., 4 vols., Madrid, 1774; 4th ed., 3 vols., Madrid, 1791.]

Retana, Wencesláo Emelio

Catálogo abreviado de la biblioteca Filipina. Madrid, 1898.

Ricafort, Mariano

Reglamento para establecer la comisión de policía, ordenada con acuerdo de la real audiencia de las islas Filipinas. Sampáloc, 1826.

Robertson, James Alexander

Bibliography of the Philippine Islands. Cleveland, 1908.

"Catholicism in the Philippines," in The Catholic historical review, III, 375-391.

"Legaspi and Philippine colonization," in American Historical Association, Annual report, 1907, I, 143-156. Washington, 1908.

"Notes on the archives of the Philippines," in American Historical Association, Annual report, 1910, 423-425. Washington, 1912.

"The social structure of, and idea of law among, early Philippine peoples; and a recently-discovered pre-hispanic criminal code of the Philippine Islands," in The Pacific Ocean in history (Stephens and Bolton, editors), 160-191. New York, 1917.

Robertson, William

The history of the discovery and settlement of America. New York, 1858. [First ed., London, 1777.]

Rodríguez Bérriz, Miguel

Diccionario de la administración de Filipinas. 17 vols. Manila, 1887.

Rodríguez San Pedro, Joaquín

Legislación ultramarina, publicada con la colaboración de Chorot, Pierre, y Gonzales Junguitú. 16 vols. Madrid, 1865-1869.

Roscher, Wilhelm Georg Friedrich

The Spanish colonial system. E. G. Bourne, ed. New York, 1904.

Salazar, Domingo de

Carta relación de las cosas de la China y de los Chinos del Parián de Manila, enviada al rey Felipe II desde Manila el 24 de Junio de 1590. Madrid, 1897.

Salazar, Vicente de

Historia de la provincia de santissimo rosario de Philipinas. Manila, 1742.

San Agustín, Gaspar de

Conquistas de las islas Filipinas. Madrid, 1698.

San Antonio, Juan Francisco de

Chrónicas de la apostólica provincia de San Gregorio de religiosos descalzos de N. S. P. S. Francisco en las islas Philipinas, China, Japón. 3 vols. Manila, 1738-1744.

Santa Cruz, Baltasar de

Tomo segundo de la historia de la provincia de Santo Rosario de Filipinas. Zaragoza, 1693.

Schmidt, Gustavus

The civil law of Spain and Mexico. New Orleans, 1851.

Schurz, William Lytle

"The Chinese in the Philippines," in The Pacific Ocean in history (Stephens and Bolton, editors), 214-222. New York, 1917.

"The Manila galleon and California," in The Southwestern historical quarterly, XXI, 107-126.

Shepherd, William R.

Guide to the materials for the history of the United States in Spanish archives. Washington, 1907.

Smith, Donald Eugene

The viceroy of New Spain. Berkeley, 1913.

Sobre una reseña histórica de Filipinas. Colección de articulos que han visto la luz pública ... en refutación de los calumniosos errores que el Doctor T. H. Pardo de Tavera ha escrito contra las beneméritas ordenes religiosas de Filipinas en su reseña histórica, impresa en Manila. Manila, 1906.

Solórzano Pereira, Juan de

Política Indiana. Madrid, 1776. [First ed., Madrid, 1647.]

Superior decreto sobre las funciones que debe llenar el Sr. Intendente de Manila tocante al tesoro agricultural é industrial del reino. Manila, 1829.

Stephens, H. M., and Bolton, H. E. (editors)

The Pacific Ocean in history. New York, 1917.

Ulloa, Antonio de, and Juan y Santacilla, Jorge

Noticias secretas de América. Londres, 1826. [Abridged and translated into English, Boston, 1851.]

United States, Library of Congress

Bibliography of the Philippine Islands: a list of books with references to periodicals on the Philippine Islands in the Library of Congress. Washington, 1903.

Vander Linden, Herman

L'expansion coloniale de l'Espagne jusqu'au début du XIXe siècle, in Lannoy and Vander Linden, Histoire de l'expansion coloniale des peuples européens: Portugal et Espagne. Bruxelles, Paris, 1907.

Veitia Linaje, Joseph de

Norte de la contratación de las Indias Occidentales. Seville, 1672.

Vindel, Pedro

Biblioteca oriental ... relativas á Filipinas, Japón, China y otras partes de Asia y Oceanía. Madrid, 1911.

Worcester, Dean Conant

The Philippines, past and present. 2 vols. New York, 1914.

Zamora y Coronado, José María

Apéndice al registro de legislación ultramarina. Havana, 1835.

Biblioteca de legislación ultramarina en forma de diccionario alfabético. 7 vols. Madrid, 1844-1849.

Zúñiga

See Martínez de Zúñiga, Joaquin.

MANUSCRIPT MATERIALS FROM THE ARCHIVE OF THE INDIES [884]

I. Audiencia de Filipinas.

(a) Ramo Secular.

1584-1700: Consultas originales correspondientes de esta Audiencia. 67-6-3. [885]

1568-1808: Registros de oficios y partes: reales ordenes dirigidas á las autoridades y particulares de la audiencia. 105-2-11 to 18. 8 legajos.

1594-1698: Decretos originales correspondientes á dicha audiencia. 67-6-4.

1600-1700: Peticiones y memoriales sueltos decretados por el Consejo. 67-6-5.

1567-1699: Cartas y expedientes del Gobr. de Filipinas vistos en el Consejo. 67-6-6 to 17. 12 legajos.

1583-1699: Cartas y expedientes del presidente y oidores de esta audiencia vistos en el Consejo. 67-6-18 to 26. 7 legajos.

1564-1699: Cartas y expedientes de los oficiales reales de Filipinas vistos en el Consejo. 67-6-29 to 33. 5 legajos.

1565-1650: Cartas y expedientes de personas seculares de dicha audiencia. 67-6-34 to 42. 9 legajos.

1629-1791: Reales cédulas, mercedes y informes sobre encomiendas. 105-2-24.

1651-1699: Cartas y expedientes de personas seculares de esta audiencia. 68-1-1 to 2. 2 legajos.

1616-1700: Confirmaciones de encomiendas de Indios. 68-1-5 to 16. 12 legajos.

1572-1691: Autos y otros papeles del Gobernador de Filipinas Don Juan de Silva contra los oficiales reales sobre uso excesivo de sus oficios. 68-1-21.

1670: Expediente formado de los procedimientos de Don Francisco Samaniego Tuesta, Oidor de la Audiencia de Manila. 68-1-23.

1615-1837: Materias gubernativas. 105-3-12.

1608-1762: Cartas y expedientes del presidente y oidores de aquella audiencia. 68-4-12 to 35. 24 legajos.

1622-1825: Reales cédulas, nombramientos y informes acerca del presidente, oidores y subalternos de la audiencia. 106-2-15.

1651-1850: Duplicados de gobernadores de Filipinas. 105-4-7 to 24; 105-5-1 to 24; 105-6-1 to 24; 105-7-1 to 24; 106-1-1 to 27; 106-2-1 to 14. 111 legajos.

1670-1831: Inventario de cédulas y consultas. 105-2-5.

1671-1756: Indices de la correspondencia del gobor., auda., oficiales reales y sugetos particulares del distrito de aquella real audiencia. 68-2-30.

1675-1765: Cartas y expedientes del gobernador de Filipinas. 68-3-4 to 33 and 68-4-1 to 11. 40 legajos.

1684-1744: Expediente sobre la expulsión de los Sangleyes. 68-5-16.

1685-1688: Testimonios de autos obrados en Acapulco, Méjico y Filipinas, en razón de descubrir los bienes del gobernador de Manila, Don Juan de Vargas Hurtado y su cuñado Don Francisco Guerrero Ardila. 68-1-24.

1687-1690: Testimonios de autos sobre la rebelión, conversión y expulsión de los Sangleyes de China. 68-1-25.

1699-1760: Cartas y expedientes del Virrey de Nueva España que tratan de asuntos de Filipinas. 68-3-1 to 3. 3 legajos.

1703-1850: Duplicados del presidente y oidores de la Audiencia de Filipinas. 106-2-17 to 25; 106-3-1 to 28; 106-4-1 to 21. 58 legajos.

1711-1722: Expte. sobre la restitución de las plazas de oidores de la Audiencia de Manila á Don Gregorio Manuel de Villa y Don José Antonio Pabón; y lo resuelto contra Don José Torralba, oidor de la misma audiencia. 68-5-30 to 31. 2 legajos.

1715-1727: Expte. sobre los procedimientos del Gobr. Don Fernando Bustillo Bustamante y sobre la muerte violenta que sufrió dicho gobernador y su hijo. 68-6-1 to 5. 5 legajos.

1718-1784: Expte. sobre competencia entre el gobernador y audiencia sobre remisión a España bajo partida de registro de Don Diego Martínez de Araque, regente de la misma y otros ministros. 106-5-1 to 3. 3 legajos.

1728-1829: Remisiones al consejo, cámara y ministros. 105-3-10 to 11. 2 legajos.

1729-1748: Gobiernos de los capitanes generales, Marqués de Torre Campo, Don Fernández Valdés Tamón, Don Gaspar de la Torre, é interino del Obispo de Nueva Segovia. 105-3-25.

1740: Duplicados de la causa criminal y prisión de Don Cristobal Pérez de Arroyo, fiscal de aquella audiencia, remitido por el gobernador. 106-4-23 to 28. 6 legajos.

1746-1767: Gobierno del capitán-general, Marqués de Obando. 105-3-26.

1752-1762: Gobiernos de los capitanes-generales, Don Pedro Manuel de Arandía y Don José de Crispo. 105-4-1.

1753: Correspondencia del Gobernador Marqués de Obando, dando noticias del estado de aquellas Islas. 105-4-2.

1755-1789: Expediente sobre expulsión de los Sangleyes ó Chinos Católicos por delitos de infidelidad y otros durante la ocupación de la plaza por los Ingleses. 107-2-27 to 30. 4 legajos.

1759-1821: Correspondencia con gobernadores. 105-4-3 to 4. 2 legajos.

1762-1766: Expediente de la reclamación hecha por Inglaterra de dos miliones de pesos capitulados en la toma de la plaza de Manila. 107-3-1 to 2. 2 legajos.

1765-1824: Informes sobre materias gubernativas. 105-3-13 to 14. 2 legajos.

1769-1780: Gobierno del Capitán-General Don Simón de Anda. 105-4-5.

1776-1787: Gobierno de los Capitanes-Generales Don José Vazco y Vargas y Don Felipe Veringuer de Marquina. 105-4-6.

1691-1819: Informe sobre el ramo de tributos y renumeración de Indios. 108-1-9.

1682: Materias de real hacienda. 107-3-12.

1733-1824: Materias gubernativas de la real hacienda. 107-3-11.

1751-1833: Expte. sobre bienes de difuntos. 107-3-9.

1755-1830: Cuentas de tributos, contribución directa y ramo á cargo de los corregidores y alcaldes mayores. 108-1-10 to 13. 4 legajos.

1759-1833: Cuentas de real hacienda. 107-7-25 to 32; 108-1-1 to 8. 16 legajos.

1762-1765: Expte. relativo al sitio y toma de Manila por los Ingleses. 107-3-3 to 6. 4 legajos.

1773-1821: Expedientes de provisiones de empleos de real hacienda. 107-3-13 to 14. 2 legajos.

1783: Expte. sobre avalúo de la alcaicería de San Fernando, manejo, ejercicio y facultades de su castellano y lo actuado contra Don Fernando de Mier y Noriega que fué el primero. 107-3-8.

1787-1849: Duplicados de superintendentes é intendentes de ejército y real hacienda. 107-5-15 to 31; 107-6-1 to 31; 107-7-1 to 21. 69 legajos.

1784-1787: Expediente sobre establicimiento de intendencias y sub-intendencias. 107-5-14.

1794: Expte. de Don Frco. Fernández Cendero, Alcalde Mayor y Capitán de Guerra de la provincia de Ilocos, sobre su residencia pendiente de informe de la audiencia. 106-5-4.

(b) Ramo Eclesiástico.

1579-1697: Cartas y expedientes del Arzobispo de Manila. 68-1-32 and 33. 2 legajos.

1569-1700: Cartas y expedientes de los misioneros de Filipinas. 68-1-37 to 41. 5 legajos.

1570-1696: Cartas y expedientes de personas eclesiásticas de Filipinas. 68-1-42 to 44. 3 legajos.

1586-1700: Cartas y expedientes del cabildo eclesiástico de Filipinas. 68-1-35 to 36. 2 legajos.

1597-1698: Cartas y expedientes de los obispos sufraganeos de Manila, á saber, Nueva Segovia, Nueva Cáceres, Santissimo Nombre de Jesús o Cebú. 68-1-34.

1626-1795: Reales cédulas y informes sobre diezmos. 108-5-24.

1681-1689: Testimonios de autos respectivos al Arzobispo de Manila y otros. 68-2-1 to 2. 2 legajos.

1692: Expte. sobre la extrañeza y prisión del Arzobispo de Manila Don Fray Felipe Pardo y discordias ocuridas entre las religiones de Santo Domingo y la Compañia de Jesus. 68-2-4 to 5. 2 legajos.

1702-1832: Consultas de materias y provisiones eclesiásticas. 108-5-21 to 22. 2 legajos.

1726-1815: Reales cédulas y informes sobre medias anatas y mesadas eclesiásticas. 108-5-19.

1751: El Gobernador Marqués de Obando da cuenta con testimonio de los informes que se han podido adquirir sobre el número de religiosos que hay en aquellas islas y de los que necesitan para la reducción de los indios gentiles. 108-6-27 to 28. 2 legajos.

1760: Expte. del Obispo de Cebú, gobernador interino de aquellas Yslas y el Arzobispo de Manila sobre en cual de los dos había de recaer el mando de ellas. 108-6-29.

1762: Expte. sobre embargo de bienes de Don Santiago de Orendain y su mujer Doña Maria Dominga Arráez, vecinos de Manila, por deudas al ramo de bulas de la Cruzada y otros excesos. 108-7-18 to 19. 2 legajos.

1769: Pliegos remitidos al Consejo por el arzobispo para S. S. sobre el estado de curato y fundamentos de los regulares para eximirse de la jurisdicción del diocesano. 108-6-5 to 6. 2 legajos.

1772: Expte. sobre la remoción de los religiosos de S. Agustín de las doctrinas de la Provincia de Pampanga, secularización de curatos de aquellas Yslas y sujeción de las religiones al real patronato y visita de los ordinarios. 108-6-31 to 35. 5 legajos.

1777: Expte. sobre competencia entre el Arzobispo de Manila, Obispo Sufragano de Nueva Cáceres, vice-patrono real y fiscal de la real audiencia, por disposición al presbítero Don Vicente Ygnacio de Arroyo del curato de Santa Cruz. 108-6-36.

1778: Expte. sobre aprobación de las ordenanzas de la Casa de Misericordia de Manila é el permiso concedido para que esta pueda remitir sus cuentas sin intervención de la real audiencia. 106-5-8.

1778: Expte. de la real audiencia sobre el espolio del Arzobispo Don Manuel Antonio Rojo y demandas introducidas contra él. 108-7-1 to 2. 2 legajos.

1780: Cuatro exptes. unidos sobre pago de diezmo por los religiones y naturales de aquellas Yslas, sin embargo de no estar en practica.... 108-7-3.

II. Secretaria de Nueva España.

(a) Ramo Secular y Eclesiástico.

1630-1759: Consultas y decretos originales. 68-2-8 to 12. 5 legajos.

1671-1756: Indices de la correspondencia del gobernador, audiencia, oficiales reales y sugetos particulares del distrito de aquella audiencia. 68-2-31.

(b) Ramo Secular.

1724: Expte. sobre el registro del galeón de Filipinas nombrado el Santo Cristo de Burgos que hizo viage el año 1723 desde el puerto de Cavite al de Acapulco. 68-6-11.

1728-1732: Expte. de la Hermandad de la Misericordia de Manila sobre amplificación de sus facultades y privilegios. 68-6-16.

1735-1741: Expte. sobre los 162,992 pesos que se sacaron del comercio. 68-6-23.

1739-1746: Testimonio de autos originados sobre la visita y composición de tierras encargadas al Oidor Don Pedro Calderón, del Consejo de S. M. 68-6-26.

1740-1744: Expte. sobre la prisión y causa criminal seguida contra Don Cristobal Pérez de Arroyo, fiscal de la Audiencia de Manila. 68-6-28 to 31. 4 legajos.

1741-1751: Exptes. y autos sobre la sublevación de los pueblos tagalos y otros por vejaciones recibidas de los religiosos de Santo Domingo y San Agustín, pacificados por el Oidor Pedro Calderón. 68-6-40 to 44. 5 legajos.

1743: Testimonio de autos de la visita que hizo el Oidor Don José Ygnacio de Arzadún, remitidos por la Audiencia de Manila. 68-3-32 to 35. 4 legajos.

1743-1753: Exptes. sobre la presa que hicieron los Ingleses del navío Covadonga y libertad de los oficiales que mandaba.... 68-6-38 to 39. 2 legajos.

1745-1755: Exptes. del subdelegado Don Pedro Calderón de la Barca sobre tierras. 68-6-45.

1752-1755: Expte. sobre las altercaciones sufridas por el comercio de Filipinas á causa de las novedades introducidas por el Gobernador Marqués de Obando. 68-6-50-51. 2 legajos.

1756-1758: Expte. sobre los excesos cometidos por el Gobernador Don Pedro Manuel de Arandía. 68-6-53.

1644-1760: Provisiones de plazas togados de la Audiencia de Manila. 69-1-1.

1654-1745: Testimonios de autos que se hallaron sin cartas de remisión entre los papeles del distrito de la Audiencia de Manila. 69-1-13 to 17. 5 legajos.

(c) Ramo Eclesiástico.

1660-1761: Cartas y expedientes de personas eclesiásticas del distrito de aquella audiencia. 69-1-24 to 29. 6 legajos.

1604-1696: Expedientes sobre la visita de los religiosos por los ordinarios. 69-1-30 to 32. 3 legajos.

1691-1696: Exptes. sobre que en las vacantes del arzobispado de Manila, gobierne el cabildo eclesiástico. 69-1-34.

1698-1704: Expediente sobre la resistencia hecha por las religiones á presentar sus títulos de las tierras y estancias. 69-1-37.

1702-1761: Cartas y expedientes del Arzobispo de Manila. 69-1-18 to 20. 3 legajos.

1704-1719: Expte. sobre causa formada á Fray Bartólome Marrón, de la Orden de Predicadores, por un manifiesto esto que imprimió y publicó sobre varios puntos de real patronato. 69-1-38.

1710-1730: Expte. sobre corregir las ordenanzas del Colegio Seminario de San Felipe, etc. 69-1-40.

1730-1740: Tres testimonios de autos pertenecientes á un expediente ... del cabildo eclesiástico de Manila, sobre organización de boletas. 69-2-1.

1737-1746: Expte. sobre erección de un seminario para la educación de religiosos misioneros de la Orden de San Agustín. 69-2-3.

NOTES

[1] Vander Linden, in his L'expansion coloniale de L'Espagne (p. 360), states that the Philippine audiencia exercised fewer governmental functions than did the audiencias of New Spain and Peru. It is true that the jurisdiction of the Audiencia of Manila was confined to a territory which was politically and economically of less importance to Spain and to the world in general than New Spain and Perú. It is the conviction of the writer that the distance and isolation of the Philippines, their proximity to Japan, China, and the hostile colonies of the Portuguese and the Dutch, the necessities of self-dependence and defense, the corruption of the governors and officials and the problem of dealing independently with the ecclesiastical organization within the colony, forced the Audiencia of Manila to take upon itself powers and responsibilities as extensive, at least, as were assumed by the Audiencia of Mexico.

[2] "Título expedido por los Reyes Católicos, 30 de Abril, 1492," in Navarrete, Colección de viages, II, 9-11; also see Vander Linden, op. cit., 277-283; 338.

[3] See Altamira, Historia de la civilización española, II, 477-480; Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 247-288; Helps, Spanish conquest, (1856), I, 187-227:

In the Spanish colonies an alcalde was usually an ordinary judge, not always trained in the law to the extent of being a letrado or togado. An alcalde ordinario or an alcalde de ayuntamiento tried cases in first instance. An alcalde mayor or an alcalde de partido might try cases on appeal from these. Generally speaking, alcaldes ordinarios were town judges, in contrast to alcaldes mayores who had provincial jurisdiction as well. Alcaldes ordinarios and regidores were members of the town ayuntamientos or cabildos (municipal councils). Regidores did not exercise judicial functions.

[4] Recopilación de leyes de los reinos de las Indias (hereinafter to be referred to as the Recopilación), lib. 2, tit. 2, ley 13. For an account of the Recopilación, see footnote 40, below.

[5] Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 269; see note 27 of this chapter.

[6] In some of the early Spanish colonies the alcalde was elected by his fellow-townsmen. He exercised the functions of judge and chief executive, subject to the governor, or adelantado, and in the absence of the latter assumed the government of the colony. Alcaldes in new settlements or on expeditions were different in character and exercised functions distinct from those of the alcaldes of the later periods. This earlier type probably existed in Española under Columbus (see Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 175, 330, note 7). That their duties varied in different colonies may be deduced from the statement of Bancroft that "the alcaldes mayores of New Spain under Cortés were merely entrusted with judicial powers ... later those of San Luís Potosí and other places acted also as lieutenants for captains-general, and exercised, in other respects, the duties and ceremonies of governors" (Bancroft, History of Mexico, III, 520). The term, therefore, does not always convey a clear impression of the exact nature of the duties attached to the office.

[7] Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 269.

[8] Altamira, Historia, II, 479.

[9] Bourne, Spain in America. 222; Vander Linden, L'expansion coloniale de l'Espagne, 339; see note in Bancroft, History of Central America, I. 280-283.

[10] Bourne, Spain in America, 222; Moses, The Spanish dependencies in South America. I, 250-1; see Col. Doc. Ined., XXXI, 139-155.

[11] Recopilación, 9-1-2, 5.

[12] Ibid., 2-2-82, auto 36; Desdevises du Dezert, Espagne de l'ancien régime. Les institutions. 100-101; see Veitia Linaje, Norte de la contratación de las Indias Occidentales, passim.

[13] Zamora y Coronado, Biblioteca de legislación ultramarina, 1, 450-451; II, 374 et seq.; also Recopilación, 9-1-1, note 1; Vander Linden, op. cit., 344.

[14] Desdevises du Dezert, op. cit., 100.

[15] Escriche, Diccionario, I, 578; see Desdevises du Dezert, Les institutions, 95-102; Robertson, History of America, IV (Book VIII), 21.

[16] Recopilación, 2-2-2.

[17] By the royal decree of March 24, 1834, the Consejo de Castilla and the Consejo de Indias were amalgamated. In place of these was created the Tribunal Supremo de España é Indias, with judicial functions and a Consejo Real de España é Indias for governmental and administrative affairs. On September 28, 1836, the Consejo Real de España é Indias was suppressed. On July 6, 1845, the Consejo de Estado assumed charge of affairs pertaining to the Indies, with a separate Ministerio de Ultramar. This reform was re-enacted on September 24, 1853 (Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, III, 313-315; Escriche, Diccionario, I, 578-579).

[18] It became the practice in later years to reward successful colonial administrators, including viceroys, governors, and magistrates, with membership in this council. Among those so elevated were Juan Solórzano y Pereyra, magistrate of the Audiencia of Perú, José de Gálvez, visitor of New Spain, Governor Simón de Anda y Salazar, and the able fiscal, Francisco Leandro de Viana, of the Philippines. These men rendered very distinguished service in the colonies.

[19] Recopilación, 2-15-2 to 14; see Danvila y Collado, Reinado de Carlos III, III, 151-157. No attempt is made here to indicate all subsequent changes.

[20] Oidor, a ministro togado who heard and sentenced civil suits in an audiencia (Escriche, Diccionario, II, 661). In this treatise the Spanish term oidor will be retained throughout to designate a magistrate of that particular class. Oidor is sometimes incorrectly translated into "auditor", which in English means a reviewer of accounts (Spanish, contador). The Spanish term auditor has a special meaning, referring to a particular kind of magistrate, as auditor de guerra, auditor de marina or auditor de rota (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 369-371). Blair and Robertson, in their Philippine Islands (Cleveland, 1908), have used the terms oidor and "auditor" interchangeably, or rather, in almost all cases they have translated oidor as "auditor", but this usage will not be followed here for the reasons given.

The oidor is also to be distinguished from the alcalde del crimen. The latter existed only in the larger audiencias of Mexico and Perú, or in Manila, Havana or Puerto Rico in the later nineteenth century. Alcaldes del crimen in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were subordinate in rank to oidores, but by virtue of the reforms of 1812, 1836 and 1837, the latter were required to be togados, and the ministers of all the audiencias were placed in the same class. (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 154; I, 363-369; II, 661; Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 297; see also Pérez y López, Teatro de la legislación, XXI, 351-369; IV, 525-528; Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, I, 525-526.)

[21] The original cédulas refer to this audiencia as La Audiencia Real de la Nueva España--see Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, f. 7.

[22] Zamora y Coronado, Biblioteca, I, 452; I, 483-486; Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, VIII, under "Justicia". See also Danvila y Collado, Reinado de Carlos III, VI, 157-158.

[23] By the royal decree of May 23, 1879, the audiencias at Havana and Manila were each given a civil and criminal sala and a fiscal was provided for each sala as in the audiencias of Mexico and Lima. When it was necessary, oidores could be transferred from one sala to the other.--Colección legislativa de España, CXXII, 1093-1100.

[24] Recopilación, 2-15-1.

[25] See Professor Shepherd's brief description of the governmental machinery of Spain's colonies, in his Guide to the materials for the history of the United States in Spanish archives, 10-12; note also the articles recently published by Desdevises du Dezert in the Revue historique (CXXV, 225-264; CXXVI, 14-60, 225-270) under the title of "Vice-rois et capitaines généraux des Indes espagnoles a la fin du XVIII siècle."

[26] Recopilación, 2-15-17.

[27] Ibid., 2-15-2. Although the Recopilación and Danvila y Collado (cited in note 19) give the date of the establishment of the Audiencia of Santo Domingo as 1526, the royal decree issued at Pamplona, October 22, 1523, is addressed to nros oydores de la audiencia real de la Ysla Española (A. I., 139-1-6, tom. 9, fol. 225). There are various references antedating 1526 in this and the following legajo.

[28] Ibid., 2-15-3. For the exact limits of this audiencia see Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, ff. 12-13; 47-48, and Hackett, "Delimitation of political jurisdictions in Spanish North America to 1535," in Hispanic American Historical Review, I, 60, note 102.

[29] Ibid., 2-15-13, 14, 15.

[30] Ibid., 5-1-2, 3; 2-15-4, 12.

[31] Ibid., 5-1-16.

[32] Zamora y Coronado, Biblioteca, I, 486-487. The following will give some idea of the size and rank of the respective audiencias of the Spanish colonies in the later eighteenth century. This table was compiled from the Reglamento de 4 de Mayo, 1788 (Pérez y López, Teatro, IV, 522-524).

Audiencia. No. of No. of Magistrates. Salary of Total Salas. fiscales. regent, budget, pesos. pesos. Lima 2 2 15 10,000 95,000 Mexico 2 2 15 9,000 85,500 Charcas 1 2 5 9,725 43,745 Chile 1 2 5 9,720 43,740 Buenos 1 2 5 6,000 36,726 Ayres Manila 1 2 5 7,000 31,500 Guadalajara 1 2 5 6,600 29,700 Guatemala 1 2 5 6,600 29,700 Santo 1 2 5 6,600 29,700 Domingo Santa Fé 1 2 5 6,600 29,700 Quito 1 2 5 6,600 29,700 Cuzco 1 1 3 9,000 27,000 Caracas 1 1 3 5,000 18,200

[33] Solórzano y Pereyra, Política Indiana (Madrid, 1647). This was the first great general work on the political institutions of the Indies, and probably the most valuable and comprehensive of its kind ever published, barring possibly the Recopilación. It comprises history, description, law, discussions of suits and cases, litigation and legal citations. Its ample title-page states that it is "divided into six books, in which, with great distinction and study, are treated and resolved all matters relating to the discovery, description, acquisition and retention of the Indies, and their peculiar government, as well as concerning the persons of the Indians and their services, tributes, tithes and encomiendas, as concerning spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs and doctrine, inquisitors, commissaries of crusade and of the religious. And in regard to temporal affairs, concerning the secular magistrates, viceroys, presidents, audiencias, the Supreme Council and its junta de guerra, including a setting forth of the many royal cédulas which have been despatched for the latter." Solórzano y Pereyra contributed largely to the codification of the laws of the Indies.

[34] See Chapter X of this book.

[35] Recurso de fuerza, see footnote 3, Chapter XI of this work.

[36] The origin and nature of the acuerdo is explained in Chapter VI , note 78, of this book; see also