Chapter III

of this treatise.

[727] Recopilación, 1-14-67.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[734] Recopilación, 3-14-28.

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

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

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

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

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

[740] Recopilación, 2-18-18.

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

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

[743] Recopilación, 2-23-13, 12, 15.

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

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

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

[747] Recopilación, 1-14-1.

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

[749] Recopilación, 1-14-2, 3, 4.

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

[751] Recopilación, 3-14-4.

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

[753] Ibid., 19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[762] Recopilación, 1-16-11, 3.

[763] Ibid., 13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[788] Recopilación, 1-7-38, 39.

[789] Ibid., 37, 40.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[795] Recopilación, 1-3-1; 1-4-25.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[802] Recopilación, 1-4-20.

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

[804] See Note 2 of the preceding chapter.

[805] Recopilación, 2-16-138.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each order, also, had its own judicial machinery for the settlement of cases arising within it. The courts of the orders were presided over by their provincials, generals and commissaries, and were composed of those dignitaries and other magistrates selected in accordance with their own rules. Special investigators or visitors were also delegated to try cases arising within the orders, and to make inspections, ascertaining the general character of the work of the orders, the conduct of their dignitaries and the regularity of their administration.

[810] Moses, South America on the eve of emancipation, 126.

[811] Carta de Fr. Francisco de Laudín ... al Consejo de Indias, 20 de Enero, 1668, A. I., 68-1-44.

[812] Recopilación, 1-7-54; 2-15-150; 3-1-4; Escriche, Diccionario, II, 453.

[813] Recopilación, 1-10-1, 2.

[814] Escriche, Diccionario, II, 453.

[815] Recopilación, 1-10-4, 6, 7, 12; 1-7-12.

[816] Ibid., 11.

[817] Ibid., 2-15-153; 1-10-13; 3-1-3.

[818] As an example of this we may refer to the work of the Augustinians in bringing to the light of judicial scrutiny the abuses of certain encomenderos against the Indians of Mindanao. This was in 1581, before the audiencia was established. The offending encomenderos were brought to Manila and tried by Bishop Salazar, who temporarily deprived them of their holdings and sentenced them to imprisonment and fines (Governor to the King [day and month not given], A. I., 67-6-6).

[819] The opposition of Salazar to what he termed the encroachment of the civil jurisdiction was based on the assumption that the royal patronage did not extend to tribes which lived in an uncivilized and savage state. He contended that the pope had not conceded this, consequently, as bishop, he had entire jurisdiction without interference from the audiencia or governor over the Mohammedans (as he termed all non-Christians) and the Chinese (A. I., 1-1-3/25).

[820] Cabildo de Manila to the King, A. I, 68-1-35.

[821] Fajardo to Felipe III, August 15, 1620, Blair and Robertson, XIX, 155. The pendulum seems, however, to have swung in the other direction at times. In 1604, the audiencia was charged with having tried members of religious orders in absentia without giving them a chance to summon witnesses or otherwise to defend themselves (King to Audiencia, October 30, 1604, A. I., 105-2-1). That the audiencia did not always have power to discipline the friars for infractions of the royal laws in 1626, is attested by the case of an Augustinian who led an assault on an alcalde mayor in Batangas, destroyed his house, maltreated his person, and, in the presence of the natives, publicly accomplished his disgrace. The king demanded from the audiencia a statement of all the facts of the case so that he and the Council might take proper steps for the punishment of the offending religious and the protection of His Majesty's servants in the future (King to Audiencia, May 21, 1623, A. I., 105-2-1). The audiencia conducted an investigation and forwarded the papers relative to the case to the court for final action. See