CHAPTER XLIV

Of the former government and social customs of these Indians

462. I have already said that our brother and venerable father Fray Juan de Plassencia wrote in the convent of Nagcarlàn and signed (October 24, 1589) a relation describing all the old customs of these Indians, in obedience to a request and charge of the superior government. That relation appeared to all a very truthful statement, as, in order to make it, his examination and vigilance were rigorous.

463. Of this relation I have already used what I thought ought to be set down in their fitting places. Now I shall say in substance what he tells when speaking of the social customs of the Indians and their old-time government, with some additions which serve for the better understanding of the matter.

464. These Indians were not so lacking in prudence in the olden time that they did not have their economic, military and political government, those being the branches derived from the stem of prudence. Even the political government was not so simple among all of them that they did not have their architectonic rule--not monarchic, for they did not have an absolute king; nor democratic, for those who governed a state or village were not many; but an aristocratic one, for there were many magnates (who are here called either maguinòos or datos), among whom the entire government was divided.

465. In the olden days, when, as most of them believe, the Malays came to conquer these islands, they called the boat or ship by the name of barangay, which is well known and much used in these times. In this boat came a whole family, consisting of parents, children, relatives, and slaves, under the government of one who was the leader, captain, or superior of all. In some districts, this man was called maguinòo, and in others dato. And in proportion as they continued to people this archipelago in this manner, it filled up with families and they appropriated their places of settlement, each of them seeking its own convenience for its maintenance and living. And there they lived governed by their own chiefs, not with a hard and fast rule, but all in friendly relations. By virtue of this friendship they were obliged to aid their chief, both in his wars and in the cultivation of his fields; and all to aid one another mutually. But no one was able to usurp the property which belonged to another, even though he were of the same barangay.

466. This barangay consisted of about one hundred persons, more or less, according to the number that they knew were sufficient for their territory. If perchance those of one barangay did any injury to another, cruel wars broke out between them, as broke out between the chiefs of Manila and Tondo when the Spaniards came in to plant with the faith the Catholic dominion, and with it the true peace, which now they enjoy with tranquillity. These chiefs or maguinóos, although some were so by inheritance, commonly did not get these offices by virtue of their blood, but by their merits; or because some one had more power, more wealth, more energy, or more moral virtue than any of the others. This method of government has always seemed so good to these Indians that it is the form followed in all the villages, and all the tributes are divided among various heads of barangays, in accordance with the enumeration of the villages; and those heads are the ones who look after the collection of the royal income, and see that the Indians live like Christians. They must also, by reason of their office, give account to the father minister and the alcalde-mayor of their province, in case there is any fault to find with their respective barangays.

467. No Indian could pass voluntarily from one barangay to another without the payment of a certain sum, which was established among them, and unless he made a great feast to all the barangay which he left. It was much more difficult if they were married. If a man of one barangay married a woman from another, the children had to be divided between the barangays, as was also done with the slaves.

468. The classes of people mentioned in that early age by our brother Plassencia (besides that of chief or dato) are three, as follows. One class is that of the nobles, whom they call mahadlìcas. This word signifies, according to the best vocabularies of the Tagálog language, those who are free, and who were never slaves. The second class are called pechèros; and the third are those who were slaves legitimately. Although I find in one vocabulary that mahadlìca is rendered as "freedman," still I find that freedman is rendered by timava in most trustworthy vocabularies. And although in the common practice of the Tagálog speech, one now says minahadlìca aco nang panginoongco, that is, "My master freed me," I do not believe that it is so; for mahadlìca properly signifies "to give freedom to the slave," only because absolute liberty is its peculiar signification, and they make use of this term when it was given to a slave. Thus this term gives liberty, and the slave remains free from all slavery in the uttermost of its meaning. It is certain that the term timava is more correctly used to signify the freedman. Consequently, the Tagálog speech applies it and uses it, not only to express the liberty of the slave, but also for him who breaks the cord at the gallows and is freed from punishment; and for any fierce animal which makes sport of bonds. They only lengthen somewhat the accent of the last syllable in the latter sense, and say nagtitimavà.

469. The pechèros were the ones called alìping namamahay. Although in strictness, in the Tagálog, the term alìpin signifies "slave," the pechèro was not properly a slave, for he always remained in the house and could not be sold. Consequently, this term could only be applied to express their method of service, namely, an up-stairs servant, as I understand it. These pechèros were married. They served their masters, whether datos or not, with the half of their [time in the] fields, or as was agreed upon at the beginning; and served them as rowers. But they lived in their own houses with their wives and children, and were lords of their property, lands, and gold; and their masters had not the slightest liberty of action or dominion over those things. And, even though they should fall by inheritance to a son of their master, if the former went to live in another village he could not take them from their own native village; but they would serve him in their own village, according to their ability, as they served their former master.

470. The slaves who were strictly such were called alìping sa guiguilir. This term comes in strict Tagálog to mean the servants below stairs; for the term guilir signifies "the lower part of the house," or "its lower entrance." These were bought and sold, or acquired by war, although those who were born in a family were seldom sold, for affection's sake. Such served their master in all things; but the latter would give them some portion of his field, if they were faithful and zealous in their labor. If they gained anything by their industry, they could keep it. If they were slaves because of debt, a condition that was very frequent among them, when the debt was paid they were free; but they were also obliged to pay for their support and that of their children. At times it was usual to transfer the debt to another, for the obtaining of some profit; and the poor wretches remained slaves, even though such was not their condition. Much of this is found yet, although not with the rigor of slavery, but by the force of obligation; but these poor pledged creatures suffer a certain kind of slavery in their continuous and toilsome service. The authorities ought to employ all their care for the uprooting of so keenly felt an abuse.

471. If perchance these slaves sa guiguilir acquired any gold through their industry, they could ransom themselves with it and become pechèros; and that ransom did not cost so little that it did not amount to more than five taes of gold, or thereabout. If one gave ten or more, then he became free from every claim, and became a noble. For this purpose a certain ceremony took place between the master and the slave, namely, the division between the twain of all the furniture that the slave used--and that with so great strictness that, if a jar was left over, they broke it and divided up the bits; and if it were a manta, they tore it through the middle, each one keeping half.

472. From the time when our brother Plassencia explained this difference of slaves, many acts of injustice which the Indians practiced on one another were remedied; for they made slaves of those who were never so, because, as the term alìpin is so confused, and the alcaldes-mayor did not know the secret, they declared one to be a slave in all rigor, because the Indians proved that he was alìpin, which signifies "slave," being silent, in their malicious reserve, as to whether he was namamahay or sa guiguilir. There were many such acts of trickery.

473. Those born of father and mother who were mahadlìcas were all also mahadlìcas, and never became slaves except by marriage. Consequently, if a mahadlìca woman married a slave, the children were divided. The first, third, and fifth belonged to the father, while the mother had the second, fourth, and sixth, and they alternated in the same way with the other children. If the father were free, then those who pertained to him were free; but slaves, if he were a slave. The same is to be understood in regard to the mother and her children. If there were only one son, or if there were an odd number, so that one was left over in the division, the last was half free and half slave. However, it has been impossible to determine at what age the division was made, or at what time. The slavery of these children followed the native condition of their parents in all things, and the children were divided as they pertained to them, whether they were male or female, as they were born. The same thing occurred when one was poor, and did not have the wherewithal with which to endow or buy his wife for marriage; and then, in order to marry her, he became her slave. Hence it resulted that the free children who belonged to the mother were masters and lords of their own father, and of the children who belonged to the father, their own brothers and sisters.

474. If the mahadlìcas had children by their slaves, mother and children were all free. But if the mahadlìca had intercourse with the slave woman of another, and she became pregnant, the mahadlìca gave the master of the slave woman one-half tae of gold because of the danger of the death of her who was pregnant, and because that her legitimate master was deprived of the services of the pregnant woman, by reason of him. When the woman gave birth, one-half the child remained free, and the father was bound to take care of its support; and, if he did not do that, he meant that he did not recognize the child as his, and it remained all slave.

475. If any free woman had children by any slave who was not her husband, all were free. If a free woman married a half-slave, the children were slaves only to the one-fourth part, and they considered that in the question of their service. The service was divided among all those who were considered as masters, by weeks or months, or as the masters might agree. But they had the right because of the parts that were free to compel their masters to free them for a just price, which was appraised in proportion to the character of their slavery. But if one were wholly slave, he could not compel his master to free him for any price, even if he became a slave only for debt provided he did not pay the debt at the expiration of the time.

476. Another form of servitude was found among them, which they called cabalangay; it included those persons who begged from the chief who was head of their barangay whatever they needed, with the obligation of serving him whenever they were summoned to row, work in his fields, or serve at his banquets--they helping to meet the expense [of these] with the tuba or quilàng, which was their wine. Thus did their headman give them what they needed, with this agreement.

477. This tyranny of slaves was so extensive in this archipelago that when our Spaniards conquered it, there were chiefs with so many slaves--of their own nation and color, and not foreign--that there were those who had one, two, and three hundred slaves; and most of these were not slaves by birth, but for slight reasons, and even without reasons. For since their best kind of property, after gold, consisted in slaves, as their own conveniences were increased considerably by their services, they expended care in nothing to a greater extent than in increasing the number of their slaves; now by usury and interest, in which they had no respect for their own parents and brothers and sisters; now by petty wars and engagements among themselves, in which the prisoners became slaves; now by the punishment for some slight crime such as for not having observed the interdict on speaking during the funeral obsequies, or if anyone passed by the chief's wife while she was taking a bath, or if, while the chief was passing by the house of any timava, some dust accidentally fell on him. Or they were made slaves because of other reasons, as tyrannical, as trivial, such as are natural for those who have not the light of the holy gospel.

478. After this [report of Father Plassencia] was promulgated, the above abuse was so thoroughly removed that now there is not the slightest amount of slavery among the Indians, in accordance with apostolic briefs, which have been confirmed by various royal decrees of our Catholic monarchs. Thus we are all soldiers of one and the same divine Lord; all militia under the holy cross, which is our Catholic standard; and citizens and sharers of the heavenly Jerusalem, which is our kingdom. Thus do we live in these islands, Spaniards and Indians, all vassals of one Catholic monarch in regard to human matters. This point can be seen in extenso in the Politica Indiana of Solorzano in

## book 2,