Capítulo VIII

, quoted in Sobre una reseña histórica, 92). Concepción, the Augustinian historian, confirms the above, and gives a more clarifying reason for the failure of the audiencia to oust the governor--namely, that the latter was sharing his commercial profits with the magistrates, thereby purchasing their favors; the oidores were therefore reluctant to take action against the governor (Concepción, Historia general, VII, 137-138, 162-200).

[866] Salcedo was charged with plotting to sell the Islands to the Dutch and with surrounding himself with Flemings, one of whom was a Calvinist. It was alleged that he had already sent large sums of money to Macao, including a large part of the funds in the Manila treasury, and that he was preparing to depart in person. It was said moreover that he intended to return in command of a Dutch squadron and capture the colony for Holland. It is evident that there was no lack of charges against Salcedo (The original correspondence and consultas of the various tribunals which considered the charges against Salcedo may be noted in A. I., 67-6-3. See Blair and Robertson, XXXVII, 37-60, Lea, The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies, 299-318, and the ecclesiastical authorities mentioned in the preceding note).

Dr. Pardo de Tavera, in his account of the arrest of Governor Salcedo, says that "in 1668, Governor Salcedo had some difference with (the friars) ... and the archbishop and as a result, the latter decided to avenge themselves, plotting with the military officials, regidores and merchants to bring him before the Inquisition. They made a conspiracy and, one night while the governor slept, the conspirators, among whom were the provincial of the Franciscans, the guardián of the convent of that order in Manila, and various other ecclesiastics, entered his room, surprising him while he slept, and placed him in irons. He was thus taken to the convent of the Franciscans, but considering the latter insecure, they carried him to that of San Augustín, loading him with a heavy chain" (Pardo de Tavera, Reseña Histórica, 37). After a period of imprisonment in Manila, Salcedo was ordered to Mexico for trial by the tribunal of the Inquisition, as the local authority was without authority to take further action in the matter. Salcedo never reached his destination, however, as he died at sea. This was subsequently the fate of Paternina, the inquisitor who was responsible for his disgrace.

[867] That Governor León had a trying position to fill may be believed by his description of affairs as he found them in Manila, and of his struggles to restore the royal authority to its proper status. He gave a full account of "the excessive presumption of the commissary of the Inquisition in the arrest of Don Diego Salcedo, my (his) predecessor, and his interference in matters wherein he had no real jurisdiction." León reported having prevailed upon the royal audiencia to order the commissary to refrain from meddling in affairs which did not concern the Inquisition. The ways of the Inquisition he described as "dark and secret;" it was "a danger and a fearful power," a "monster, feared by all," working, not in the light of day, but insidiously, constituting a sinister power whose strength was not fully realized (León to Council, June 10, 1671, and July 4, 1672; Consulta of the Council of the Indies, July 16, 1674, A. I., 67-6-3).

[868] Audiencia to the King, June 15, 1671, A. I., 67-6-10.

[869] Consulta of the Council, August 12, 1672, A. I., 67-6-10.

[870] Montero y Vidal, I, 356.

[871] Acuerdo of August 24, 1672, A. I., 67-6-10.

[872] While the Salcedo affair accurately depicts the power which the Inquisition assumed on a particular occasion, the episode cannot be said to illustrate its power and influence throughout the history of the Islands. Indeed, never on any former or subsequent occasion did the Inquisition constitute such a menace to the state. It was generally prevented from exercising too much power in the Philippines by its own isolation. Represented by a single agent, who was not always on good terms with the other ecclesiastical authorities there, and who was thousands of miles from his immediate superior, the tribunal of Mexico, he was confronted and opposed by the combined civil, secular and monastic powers. Owing to these circumstances, the commissary of the Inquisition in the Philippines could not, single-handed and unaided, constitute a long-continued danger to the commonwealth.

[873] Reales resoluciones no recopiladas, Pérez y López, Teatro, XXVIII, 207.

[874] Recopilación, 1-19, note 2.

[875] Ibid., note 1. This tendency culminated in the decree of February 22, 1813, which suppressed the Supreme Tribunal of the Inquisition and renewed the jurisdiction of bishops and vicars over cases involving the faith, as had been the practice before the Inquisition was instituted. All property belonging to the Inquisition reverted to the crown. Soon after the restoration of Ferdinand VII the Inquisition was revived, against the will of that monarch, it is said, but it was again abolished by the decrees of March 9, 1820, and July 1, 1835.

As a result of the suppression of the Tribunal of the Inquisition on March 9, 1820, and the transfer of its authority over matters of faith to the vicars and bishops, Escriche says that "in the exercise of their jurisdiction some of these prelates exceeded their authority and established in their respective dioceses juntas de fé, which turned out to be in reality inquisitorial tribunals with practically the same authority which former tribunals had exercised. They inflicted corporal and spiritual punishments and guarded in their ministry the most inviolable secrecy." As soon as reports of this unexpected assumption of authority came to the notice of the government, Ferdinand hastened to order the suppression of these self-constituted tribunals, without immediate success, however. Escriche tells us that they continued their excesses for some time, "depriving accused persons of the means of defense, keeping from them the names of persons testifying against them," flagrantly disregarding the dispositions of the brief of Pius VII, dated October 5, 1829, in prohibition of exactly these abuses. On February 6, 1830, a cédula was expedited which authorized appeals in cases of this nature until three conforming decisions were rendered. The decree of July 1, 1835, abolished these tribunals, ordering the prelates to exercise jurisdiction with appeal to the Department of Grace and Justice (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 773).

[876] The author has treated this subject in a separate monograph entitled "The origin of the friar lands question in the Philippines," in The American political science review, X, 463-480.

[877] The friar lands litigation began in 1687 and continued until 1751. The efforts of the government met with considerable opposition. The oidores who were charged with the inspection of the titles to these lands frequently abandoned their commissions and recommended that the friars be left alone. However, in the year last mentioned, the opposition of the Franciscans, the last of the resisting orders, was overcome (Correspondence regarding friar lands exists in A. I., 68-4-12 and 68-6-26). See also the Camacho Controversy, Blair and Robertson, XLII, 25-116; Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 385, et seq.; Concepción, Historia general, VIII, 192-206; Philippine Census, I, 342-343; Sobre una reseña histórica by the Dominicans of Manila, 65-89.

[878] "In America [and in the Philippines] the monks were given a somewhat unusual position. According to the canon law they were not able to hold beneficed curacies, but the extent of the American field, and the limited number of the clergy available to occupy it, induced Leo X, Adrian VI, Paul III, Clement VIII, and Pius V to permit them to become parish priests. Under this order a very large number of these parishes in America in the first century were occupied by friars. But in the middle of the eighteenth century, this privilege was withdrawn, leaving them only two friars in a conventual province" (Moses, South America on the eve of emancipation, 138-139).

[879] See Cunningham, "The question of ecclesiastical visitation in the Philippines," in The Pacific Ocean in history, 223-237.

[880] Recopilación, 1-15-28.

[881] Ibid., 29.

[882] Ibid., 31.

[883] Valuable materials, for the most part original, on the visitation controversy may be found in Blair and Robertson, XXIV, 247; XXIX, 191; XLII, 25-116; XX, 87; XXI, 32-78; XXXVII, 193-200. See also A. I., 69-1-29, 68-4-16, 106-4-21, 105-2-9, 106-4-31. Montero y Vidal (Historia general, I, 86-87, 295, 398; II, 134-138, 257 et seq.) presents a good secondary account of the subject.

[884] This legajo list was obtained from the index of the collection of manuscripts in the section known as Audiencia de Filipinas, of the Archive of the Indies in Seville. The aim is only to present legajos which contain material on the audiencia. A more complete list covering all the Philippine material in this depository may be found in Blair and Robertson, LIII.

[885] The above system of reference to documents in the Archive of the Indies is used universally, and it has been employed consistently in this treatise. The manuscripts are wrapped and tied in bundles (legajos), which, in turn, are to be found in large cases (estantes), and the shelves (cajones) of the cases are numbered. The meaning of the above reference therefore is Estante 68, Cajón 6, Legajo 3, indicating that legajo number 3 is to be found on Shelf 6 of Case 68 of the Archive. A legajo contains in the neighborhood of 2,000 pages of hand-written manuscript. The documents may be originals, certified copies or ordinary drafts or duplicates. They are supposed to be grouped according to subject-matter, and usually the materials in a given cajón deal with a phase of the same question. Legajos in a given cajón and manuscripts in a given legajo, roughly speaking, are arranged chronologically, though in many cases they have lost their original order owing to careless handling. This description is sufficient to identify any document to which this classification is applied, as these numbers are not duplicated, though often the documents are, and copies of the same manuscript may be found in different cajones.