Chapter VI

, note 54, of this book.

[579] Recopilación, 2-15-46.

[580] Moses, The Spanish dependencies in South America. 1, 221. The Council of the Indies manifested its disapproval of the acts of the audiencia and of Pizarro by commissioning Pedro de Gasca as president of the Audiencia of Lima. Gasca was ordered to restore that viceroyalty to the sovereignty of Spain, and to do whatever the king would do under like circumstances. This was in May, 1546. "He (Gasca) was at the head of every department of the administration," writes Professor Moses; "he might raise troops, appoint and remove officers, and declare war; he might exercise the royal prerogative of pardoning offenses; and was especially commissioned to grant an amnesty to all who had been engaged in the rebellion. He was authorized to revoke the ordinances which had caused the popular uprising and the overthrow of Blasco Núñez; and, returning to the earlier practice, he might make repartimientos, or confirm those which had been previously made. In accordance with his expressed wish, he was granted no specific salary, but he might make any demands on the treasuries of Panama and Peru." Ibid., I, 225.

[581] Ibid., I, 264.

[582] Ibid., I, 267.

[583] Ibid., I, 276-301. See Recopilación, 2-15-8.

[584] Ibid., II, 82.

[585] Ibid., II, 16.

[586] Ibid., I, 361.

[587] Bancroft, History of Mexico, II, 273-295.

[588] Ibid., II, 318-340; 367-381.

[589] Ibid., II, 410.

[590] An audiencia was created at Compostela, Nueva Galicia, in 1548. This tribunal bore the same relation to the audiencia and viceroy in Mexico as did that of Santa Fé de Bogotá to those in Lima. The Audiencia of Nueva Galicia had both judicial and administrative functions, exercising its jurisdiction over the partidos and corregimientos, with their respective alcaldes and corregidores. It concerned itself, moreover, with projects of conquest, discovery, the development of mines, and internal improvement. Subsequently this audiencia was transferred to Guadalajara and given that name. See Recopilación, 2-15-7.

[591] Bancroft, History of Mexico, II, 586.

[592] Ibid., II, 602-7.

[593] It is interesting to note that in 1564, while the Audiencia of Mexico was governing ad interim, the voyage of Legaspi and Urdaneta was undertaken, and the first permanent settlement was made in the Philippines by authorization of that tribunal. Bancroft (History of Mexico, II, 599-600) is both indefinite and inaccurate in his account of the expedition of Legaspi and Urdaneta to the Philippines. He says: "Finally on the 21st of November, 1564, the squadron sailed, and after a prosperous voyage, reached Luzón, where Legaspi founded the city of Manila." It is well known that Legaspi did not sail directly to Luzón, as Bancroft implies, but he visited a number of islands in the Archipelago before he settled at Cebú on April 27, 1565. Manila was not formally claimed until May 19, 1571 (Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 39; Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, 113-119). Bancroft (op. cit., II, 743) states that Manila was founded in 1564 by Miguel de Legaspi. Manila was a prosperous commercial center before the Spaniards came to the Islands. Dr. James A. Robertson in his article entitled "Legaspi and Philippine colonization" (see American Historical Association, Annual report, 1907, I, 154), states on the basis of original documents that "this well-situated and busy trade center was erected into a Spanish city on June 3, 1571, and on the 24th the necessary officials were appointed." Dr. Robertson states in a note (p. 154) that "possession was taken of Luzon, June 6, 1570."

[594] Recopilación, 8-4-24.

[595] Ibid., 3-2-47.

[596] Ibid., 2-15-47 and 48.

[597] King to the Audiencia, November 23, 1774, quotes the cédula of September 13, 1608, as testimonio; A. I., 105-2-9. A copy of this cédula also exists in A. I., 67-6-3.

[598] Testimonio al acuerdo de 19 de Julio de 1654, Audiencia de Manila, A. I., 67-6-3. See Recopilación, 2-15-58.

[599] Copies of the cédula of January 30, 1635, and of April 2, 1664, and of the consulta of September 9, 1669, exist in A. I., 67-6-3.

[600] Recopilación, 2-15-45. It will be seen that this law was slightly modified by laws promulgated in the eighteenth century.

[601] Ibid., 60.

[602] Ibid., 56; 3-2-12, 13, 53, 28-33.

[603] Ibid., 9-11.

[604] Ibid., 10.

[605] Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 94; Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, I, 184-192.

[606] Ibid., I, 192.

[607] Ibid., I, 199.

[608] Montero y Vidal, op. cit., I, 106-107; Martínez de Zúñiga, op. cit., I, 195.

[609] Morga's Sucesos, Blair and Robertson, XVI, 61.

[610] Acuña designated Almansa to supervise military affairs instead of Oidor Maldonado, who was in reality senior magistrate, and as such should have assumed the direction of military affairs in accordance with the practice elsewhere, and in compliance with the laws of the Indies. The fiscal objected to this illegal procedure, as he termed it, alleging that the governor was not authorized by law to choose his own successor. He pointed out that, according to the existing laws, the senior magistrate should succeed to the military command by his own right, without the interference either of the governor or the audiencia. Notwithstanding this protest, Almansa continued to hold the post of acting captain-general, for which it was said that he was better fitted than Maldonado.

[611] Audiencia to Felipe III, July 6, 1606, Blair and Robertson, XIV, 140-148. These demands were ultimately met by a subsidy from the treasury of New Spain. It may be remarked in this connection, that the oidores were probably interested in somewhat more than increased revenue for defense, since they were known to have been absorbed in commercial ventures. This episode marks the beginning of a struggle on the part of the Manila merchants for increased trading privileges--a battle which continued until the close of the eighteenth century. They were opposed by the merchants of Cádiz and Seville, and it was in the interest of these last-mentioned cities that the Manila trade was restricted (Royal order of November 10, 1605, and King to the Audiencia, February 6, 1606, A. I., 105-2-1).

[612] Although the laws of the Indies forbade the oidores from trading (Recopilación, 2-16-59, 60, 62, 64, 66), and the correspondence of the period shows that the oidores were at first denied trading privileges, (King to Conde de Monterrey, April 14, 1597; A. I., 105-2-1), they were allowed to send to Spain sufficient cloth, silk and other dress materials for their own use and for that of their families (Recopilación, 2-16-63). This last-mentioned privilege was abused, however, until the right of each official to send only a limited amount of cargo on the galleon was generally recognized. For example, the cargo list of the galleon "Trinidad" in 1753, shows that ministers were assigned six boletas, or bales, of the nominal value of 125 pesos each--that being only half the amount usually allowed. This reduction, effected by Governor Arandía, caused much opposition on the part of the audiencia (Expediente of January 30, 1754; A. I., 108-3-11). The officials having first claim on the right to send goods in the galleon were those of the municipal cabildo of Manila. On March 27, 1714, they were conceded the right to ship 132 fardillos, the specifications of which were not given. It was mentioned, however, in the consulta which recommended this bestowal that this was a re-enactment of the grant of 1699, and that it was the policy of the king to be generous to the regidores in this matter because they were not given salaries (A. I., 68-2-8). The royal order of June 30, 1786, bestowed on the regidores the right to ship one ton of goods. This right was confirmed by the consulta of October 7, 1789 (A. I., 105-3-5). The cédula of April 25, 1803, conceded five boletas, each valued at one hundred pesos, to each regidor. The oidores were each allowed ten boletas by this cédula (A. I., 106-2-15).

[613] Audiencia to Felipe III, July 6, 1606, Blair and Robertson, XIV, 147.

[614] Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, I, 230-331.

[615] Ibid., I, 239, et seq.; Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 162, et seq.

[616] Martínez de Zúñiga, op. cit., I, 241; Montero y Vidal, op. cit., I, 166.

[617] Inventario de Residencias, A. I. op. cit.

[618] King to the Audiencia, August 9, 1609, A. I., 105-2-1.

[619] See