The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898. Volume 25 of 55. UnknownЧитать онлайн книгу.
islands; moreover, they buy their goods from the Chinese at sufficient prices to satisfy the latter, and they misrepresent the condition and actions of the Spaniards, so that the Chinese are prevented from coming to Manila. The Portuguese will make no fair agreement as to prices, and some of them remain in Manila to sell their left-over goods; and these even ship goods to Nueva España in the royal ships, with the connivance of certain citizens—all of which defrauds the Spaniards, and violates the royal decrees. Moreover, the Portuguese bring from China only silks, for the sake of the great profits thereon; while cotton cloth and other articles needed by the poor (which formerly were supplied by the Sangleys) are now scarce and high-priced. The Portuguese should be forbidden to carry on the China trade; this would quickly restore its conduct by the Chinese themselves, and funds to the royal treasury from the increase in customs duties. Manila is the only market for this trade, and can easily hold it. The Portuguese have even carried their insolence so far as to attack the Chinese trading ships (for which the Audiencia has neglected to render justice to the Chinese); they also ill-treat Spaniards who go to trade at Macao, and deal dishonestly with those who let them sell goods on commission. If the Portuguese are forbidden to trade in Manila, the Chinese will again come to trade; the citizens will enjoy good profits on their investments, and incomes from their possessions in the Parián. This memorial by Navada is discussed by the city council, who unanimously decide to adopt his recommendations and to place the matter before the governor and the citizens. The Spanish government favor (1634–36) depriving the Portuguese of the Manila trade, and decrees are sent to the islands empowering the governor and other officials to do what seems best in the case. To these papers are added a letter to the king by Juan Grau y Monfalcón, urging that the decree of 1593 be reissued, forbidding any Spanish vassals to buy goods in China, these to be carried to Manila by the Chinese at their own risk. He submits, with his letter, tables showing the comparative amounts of duties collected at Manila on the goods brought by the Chinese and the Portuguese respectively; also a copy of the aforesaid decree of 1593.
A royal decree of February 1, 1636, prolongs the tenure of encomiendas for another generation, in certain of the Spanish colonies, in consideration of contributions by the holders to the royal treasury; and various directions are given for procedure therein. The procurator Monfalcón, in a letter to the king (June 13, 1636), commends the military services of the Filipinos, and asks for some tokens of royal appreciation of their loyalty.
An account of conflicts between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities in 1635–36 is taken from the Conquistas of the Augustinian writer Fray Casimiro Diaz. With this main subject he interpolates other matters from the general annals of that time. Among these is a relation of the piratical raids of the Moros into Leyte and Panay in 1634; the invaders kill a Jesuit priest. In June of the following year arrives the new governor, Sebastián Hurtado de Corcuera. At the same time, Archbishop Guerrero begins his rule over the churches of the islands; and controversies at once arise between him and the governor over the royal patronage and other church affairs. Among these is an attempt to divide the Dominican province into two, which is favored by Corcuera. This arouses bitter controversies, which involve both ecclesiastics and laymen and many conflicting interests. A case occurs in Manila in which a criminal’s right of sanctuary in a church is involved; this leads to various complications between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, involving also the religious orders—the Jesuits siding with the governor, the other orders with the archbishop. The successive events and acts in this controversy are quite fully related, the writer, as would naturally be expected, placing most of the blame upon the governor. A truce is made between the parties (January, 1636), but it soon falls apart and the quarrels begin anew; they go to such lengths that finally (in May of that year) the archbishop is sent into exile on Mariveles Island, in Manila Bay. The cathedral cabildo take charge ad interim of the archdiocese. Within a month, however, the archbishop is released, and permitted to return to the charge of his diocese, but on humiliating conditions. Diaz notes that ever after this episode Governor Corcuera was followed by losses, troubles, and afflictions; that many of his relatives and partisans came to untimely ends; that the archiepiscopal palace of that time was utterly destroyed in subsequent earthquakes; and that after the persecution of the archbishop the sardines in Manila Bay almost wholly disappeared. Even after the prelate’s restoration, other controversies arise, which embitter his few remaining years; and he narrowly escapes capture by the Moro pirates.
Another account of the contentions of the governor with the archbishop and the orders is that given in a “letter written by a citizen of Manila to an absent friend” (June 15, 1636); it is obtained from one of the Jesuit documents preserved at Madrid. The events of that controversy are narrated from a different standpoint than Diaz’s—defending the governor and the Jesuits, and blaming the friars for having caused most of the trouble. The writer makes his account more valuable by presenting various documents and letters concerned in the affair; and describes many occurrences that do not appear in other accounts. This letter is also avowedly despatched to refute certain statements made by the Dominicans in their version of the controversy of 1635–36. It is evidently written by some friend of the Jesuits who was a lawyer—possibly by Fabian de Santillan, whom they appointed judge-conservator against the bishop. In it is a curiously lifelike and interesting picture of the dissensions that then involved all circles of Manila officialdom, both civil and religious; and of certain aspects of human nature which are highly interesting, even if not always edifying.
Governor Corcuera writes to Felipe IV (June 19, 1636), commending the Jesuits and their work in the islands, and asking that more of them be sent thither, in preference to those of other orders. The bishop of Nueva Cáceres also writes by the same mail, commending Corcuera and complaining of the hostility displayed by the orders against the governor, and of their ambition and arrogance. The bishop (himself an Augustinian) arraigns all the friar orders except his own, in scathing terms, saying of these religious: “They live without God, without king, and without law, … as they please, and there is no further law than their own wills.” “They say openly in their missions that they are kings and popes.” Zamudio accuses them of being “notorious traders,” of domineering over both the Indians and the alcaldes-mayor, and of infringing upon the royal patronage; and claims that the conduct of the Franciscans in Camarines is such that he cannot remain there in his own diocese. He ascribes the late troubles with the archbishop mainly to the mischievous influence of the friars, and explains his restoration to his see as “the act of a Christian gentleman” on Corcuera’s part. The friars in Zamudio’s diocese have refused to let him make a visitation among them, although he obtained from the governor a guard of soldiers to protect him. He recommends that the friars be deprived of their missions, and replaced by secular priests.
The archbishop of Manila furnishes (1636) a list of the persons composing the ecclesiastical cabildo of the Manila cathedral; and another, of ecclesiastics outside that body from whom might well be supplied any positions in the cabildo which his Majesty might be pleased to declare vacant. In each case the archbishop mentions various particulars of the man’s age, family, qualifications for office, etc., and of his career thus far in the Church. According to the archbishop, some of those now in the cabildo are quite unworthy or incompetent for such positions.
April, 1905.
Documents Of 1635
• Laws regarding navigation and commerce, 1611–35. Felipe III and Felipe IV; 1611–35.
• Royal decrees, 1633–35. Felipe IV; 1633–35.
• Memorial to the king, in the year 1635. Juan Grao y Monfalcon; September 6.
• Manila treasury accounts, 1630–35. Geronimo de –, and Francisco Antonio Manzelo; August 13, 1638.
• Letter of consolation to the Jesuits of Pintados. Juan de Bueras, S.J.; February 1.
• Letter to Felipe IV. Andres del Sacramento, O.S.F.; June 2.
• Letter