Chapter X

, note 35.

[822] Blair and Robertson, XXVIII, 314-15; see XLI, 22-25, 134, 231-4, 239, 255.

[823] Montero y Vidal, Historia general, 283-284.

[824] Letter of Fray Miguel de Solano, May 7, 1753, A. I., 67-6-4.

[825] Orellana to Carlos II, February 24, 1683, Blair and Robertson, XXXVIII, 81-85.

[826] Concepción, Historia general, IX, 107. There are records of many suits of this character throughout the history of Juan de la Concepción. The original documents relating thereto are to be found in A. I., 105-3-1 to 10. See also A. I., 67-6-3, 67-6-9 to 11.

[827] See note 3 of this chapter.

[828] Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, V, 807.

[829] Recopilación, 1-10-10; 2-15-136.

[830] Alzar or quitar la fuerza was the act on the part of a royal tribunal of abrogating, annulling, or reforming the effects of violence committed by an ecclesiastical judge.--Escriche, Diccionario, I, 839.

[831] Recopilación, 2-15-134, 135.

[832] Ibid., 2-15-143.

[833] Ibid., 144.

[834] Ibid., 152 and 142.

[835] Ibid., 2-2-4.

[836] Escriche, Diccionario, I, 712.

[837] Recopilación, 2-15-148: See expediente on affairs in the Philippines, 1690, A. I., 67-6-3.

[838] Ibid., 1-7-47.

[839] Ibid., 2-15-149.

[840] Ibid., 1-10-9.

[841] Ibid., 10; 2-15-136.

[842] This is discussed in the preceding chapter.

[843] A. I., 1-1-3/25; Blair and Robertson, VIII, 275-281; X, 79, 245-275.

[844] Ronquillo to the King, July 12, 1599, A. I., 67-6-6, cited in the preceding chapter.

[845] Cédula of November 13, 1626, A. I., 105-2-1; for cases of the excommunication of viceroys and oidores and other matters relating to the Inquisition in Perú and in New Spain see Lea, The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies, 191-298, 319-451.

[846] Corcuera to Felipe IV, September 25, 1623, Blair and Robertson, XXVI, 104-107.

[847] Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, I, 268.

[848] Relation of 1635-1636, Blair and Robertson, XXVI, 39-40; see also Corcuera to Felipe IV, Blair and Robertson, XXVI, 60-127; Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 195-196.

[849] Montero y Vidal, op. cit., I, 193-197.

[850] The Inquisition, as represented by one commissary and three alternates (who were usually bishops) was established in the Philippines on March 1, 1583. The commissary of the Inquisition had for his special field all questions of faith and heresy, clearing away the errors and superstitions against the dogma and the lax opinions which pervert Christian morals (Pérez y López, Teatro, XXVIII, 208). The Inquisitor of the Philippines was instructed, on his arrival, to present his papers "to the ecclesiastical and lay chapters in order that they might receive him and recognize him in so high and holy an office." The Inquisition was represented continuously in the Philippines until 1813. With the introduction of this dignitary may be noted the presence in the Philippines of at least five authorities with ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The ordinary ecclesiastical tribunals dealt with contentions within the Church. The papal delegate tried cases which had been appealed from these ecclesiastical courts. The regular orders had their own

## particular tribunals for the rule and discipline of their members

and the audiencia exercised such ecclesiastical jurisdiction as we have noted in this chapter. There may be slight wonder, therefore, in view of the presence of so many ecclesiastical tribunals with similar powers, that there were frequent conflicts of authority.

[851] Recopilación, 1-19-1.

[852] Law of May 22, 1610, Recopilación, 1-19-2.

[853] The authorized proceeding in such a case was to appeal to the General Council of the Inquisition, which held its sessions at the court. This tribunal was authorized to nullify or reverse any harmful act or decision which the ordinary inquisitors might resolve upon. (Cédula of March 10, 1553, Recopilación, 1-19-4).

[854] Recopilación, 1-19-18, 19.

[855] Ibid., 16.

[856] Ibid., 21 and 22.

[857] Ibid., 3-15-78.

[858] "When a case may be tried indistinctly either by an ecclesiastical or lay judge it is said that the case is of the fuero mixto and then either of the two judges may take up the case, but the judge who begins it must be the last to try it" (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 832-833).

[859] See note to Recopilación, 1-19-4.

[860] Le Gentil, II, 172. Recopilación, 6-1-35.

[861] Audiencia to the King, July 20, 1585, A. I., 67-6-18. On June 26, 1586, the audiencia recommended the discontinuance of the Inquisition in the Philippines on the ground that it had been utilized "as a citadel for the shelter of those desirous of resisting the royal authority" (Audiencia to the King, A. I., 68-1-33). Archbishop Santibañez, on the other hand, was desirous of converting the inquisitorial authority into a tribunal to consist of two ecclesiastics and one oidor. He argued that the distance from Mexico made procedure cumbersome, and it was manifestly unjust that residents of the Philippines should be judged by a foreign court (referring to the tribunal in Mexico.--Santibañez to Philip II, June 24, 1598, Blair and Robertson, X, 151). These same sentiments were expressed sixty years later by Francisco Bello, procurator at Madrid for the religious orders. The Council of the Indies returned the petition which had been submitted by this last-named ecclesiastic, to the Viceroy of New Spain, and to the Audiencia and Archbishop of Manila, respectively, for their advice. The consensus of opinion was against the idea of creating a tribunal in Manila, partially on account of the expense. It was also shown that such a reform would have meant a loss of power to the viceroyalty of New Spain, and by the adoption of such a suggestion there would be created a powerful tribunal which would seriously inconvenience the authority and supremacy of the audiencia and the archbishop at Manila (Consulta of the Council of the Indies, March 15, 1659, A. I., 67-6-22).

[862] Cited already in various connections, particularly in Chapters II and X of this treatise.

[863] In the Philippines, archbishops were frequently able to combine the functions and offices of metropolitan prelate and commissary of the Inquisition. This gave greater pre-eminence to the archbishop and made the situation more difficult for the civil authorities. We have already noted an illustration of this in the case of Archbishop Pardo (1683-1689). Being also commissary of the Inquisition, he refused to grant absolution to ex-Governor Vargas, claiming that his authority as sole inquisitor was not sufficient to justify such action on his part without first receiving advice from the tribunal in Mexico.

[864] Lea, in his well-known work on The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies says that "while this branch of the Inquisition (referring to that in the Philippines) accomplished so little for the faith, it was eminently successful in the function of contributing to the disorder and confusion which so disastrously affected Spanish colonial administration" (p. 308). For a more detailed account of this episode see Cunningham, "The inquisition in the Philippines: the Salcedo affair," in The Catholic historical review, III, 417-445.

[865] The leading church historians of the Philippines--Martínez de Zúñiga, Salazar, Fonseca and Concepción--were naturally unfavorable to Salcedo in their accounts of the events of his administration. All agree, however, that Salcedo was a man of energy and precision, who, at the beginning of his rule, gave promise of universal satisfaction. The correspondence of the civil officials who were contemporaneous with the governor, and the letters of Salcedo himself show that his chief concern was the enforcement of the laws and the elimination of the ecclesiastical and commercial graft with which the administration of the government of the Philippines was permeated on his arrival in the Islands (Letters of Coloma, Bónifaz, Montemayor, León, and the Municipal Cabildo, 1670-1, A. I., 67-6-3; see also note to Ventura del Arco Mss., in Blair and Robertson, XXXVII, 262).

Zúñiga, however, states that Salcedo's commercial reforms were only intended for the benefit of himself and his friends, and that he reserved the chief articles of trade for himself, leaving only second-rate and spoiled goods for the merchants. This same historian states that the governor arranged for the early departure of the galleon on one occasion, with his goods on board, leaving those of the majority of the merchants unshipped (Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, I, 307-308). Fonseca charges him with avarice, maintaining that all classes of society in Manila were disgusted with the governor's commercial transactions and were shocked at his exile of the archbishop. This historian relates that "the magistracy, the army, the merchants, arts and industries, ... all raised their voices against the badly directed government of Salcedo, determining to over-turn him; representative citizens of Manila petitioned the audiencia, asking that it deprive him of the government, ... and the royal acuerdo determined to do so, but at the last moment the judges disagreed over the question of whose signature should precede the others; this question remained in litigation, and blocked the action of the royal acuerdo" (Fonseca, Historia de la provincia de santissimo Rosario. Libro V,