Chapter VIII

, note 16. On June 30, 1716, Torralba forwarded an elaborate memorial to the king, showing that the finances were in an excellent state, a net gain of 38,554 pesos having accrued to the treasury since the beginning of the audiencia's rule. On the day that this report was filed there existed in the treasury, according to Torralba's figures, a favorable balance of 294,000 pesos. This report contains the following interesting data: Income from the subsidy, 250,000 pesos; betel monopoly, 13,167 pesos; tributes, 109,152 pesos; royal auctions, 20,377 pesos; medias anatas, 16,373 pesos; almojarifazgo, 20,377 pesos; wine monopoly, 14,000 pesos (Report of Torralba on Financial Affairs, June 30, 1716, A. I., 68-4-18). In a letter dated July 8, 1716, Torralba reported his compliance with the cédula of October 10, 1713, by means of which the king had appealed for a "free gift or contribution on the part of the inhabitants of the Islands to assist in putting down a Catalonian conspiracy." Torralba stated that the audiencia had seen to the fulfillment of this command and had collected the sum of 7,042 pesos (Torralba to King, July 8, 1716, A. I., 68-4-18).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[658] Ibid., 210-211.

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

[660] Recopilación, 2-31-1 to 14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[668] Recopilación, 2-15-180.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[686] Recopilación, 2-15, note 16.

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

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

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

[690] Concepción, Historia general, III, 336, et seq. This is discussed in