Chapter X The Audiencia and the Church: The Royal Patronage
The audiencia was frequently brought into contact with the powerful ecclesiastical organization in the Philippines. We have already referred in this book to some of the notable occasions of this relationship. Before the establishment of the audiencia the church exercised an extensive authority in governmental affairs. The ecclesiastics aided the civil government by administering justice in the provinces when there were no civil courts. The prelates of the Islands, the provincials of the religious orders and even the friars advised the governors and provincial officials on Indian affairs and the administration of the encomiendas. When the advice of the church was solicited by the home government as to the advisability of removing the audiencia, the suggestions of Fray Alonso Sánchez and Bishop Salazar went far toward bringing about a final solution of the problem of government in the Philippines.1 These were some of the ways in which the influence of the church was impressed upon the audiencia.
The creation of an audiencia, with judicial and advisory functions, put an end to the exercise of these extraordinary powers by the church and tended to confine its activities to the ecclesiastical field. Nevertheless, the prelates continued to advise the governors in administrative matters throughout the entire history of the Islands. Their influence was especially strong in matters relating to the natives, their government and protection, and the archbishops even went so far at times as to give advice on questions of foreign policy. Most of the time this counsel was solicited and was well received. From 1650 onwards, as we noted in the last chapter, the church waxed exceedingly strong in the Philippines and the prelates not only advised, but dominated governors and audiencias. In 1668, Governor Diego Salcedo was unseated, imprisoned and exiled by the commissary of the Inquisition, while a pliant magistrate of the audiencia took over the government and administered affairs in a manner entirely satisfactory to his ecclesiastical supporters. The period from 1684 to 1690 showed the weakness of the audiencia when opposed by a powerful prelate allied to a hostile governor. And in 1719 the church reached the climax of its power by bringing about the murder of a governor, and then succeeding him, overcoming every opposing element in the colony, including the audiencia. From that time onward the prelates governed during vacancies in the governorship—something which the audiencia had failed to do. Finally, in 1762, Simón de Anda y Salazar assumed the reigns of government and the obligations of defense, an act which was sanctioned technically because he was an oidor but really because he was an able man, capable of accomplishing what the church had failed to do.
In this chapter it is not our purpose to review the historical facts of the relations of the audiencia and the church or the growth of clerical influence over the audiencia. These matters have been referred to in earlier chapters. It is rather the design to study here the influence which the audiencia, in its turn, exercised in ecclesiastical affairs, noting whence it derived its authority and what was the nature of its powers.
The audiencia was established as the ultimate local authority, co-ordinate with the governor (or the viceroy in New Spain or Perú), for enforcing the laws of the royal patronage.2 Not only was it authorized to act as a tribunal in these matters, but also to officiate as an active executive agent. It is clear that although the governor was the royal vicepatron, he was not expected to act alone and unsupported in dealing with the powerful and often hostile ecclesiastical authority. In former chapters of this treatise attention has been given to the considerations which forced him to share the duties and responsibilities of government, finance, commercial supervision, and even military affairs with the audiencia; the support of that body was even more necessary in dealing with the powerful ecclesiastical organization.
The authority which the audiencia exercised jointly with the royal vicepatron was based upon the law ordering
our viceroys, presidents, oidores and governors of the Indies to see, guard, and fulfill (the laws), and in the provinces, towns, and churches (in the Indies) to see that all laws and pre-eminences which pertain to our royal patronage are guarded and fulfilled,... which they will do by the best means that may appear to them convenient, giving all the orders and instructions necessary to the end that all (the instructions) that we may give shall be carried out in due form; and we pray and charge3 our bishops and archbishops, deans, and ecclesiastical chapters of the metropolitan and cathedral churches and cathedrals and all the curates and occupants of benefices, clerics, sacristans and other ecclesiastical persons, and the provincials, guardians, priors and other religious of the orders, in so far as it is incumbent upon them, to guard and fulfill them (the laws and preëminences of the king) and see them fulfilled and obeyed, conforming with our viceroys, presidents, audiencias and governors as much as may be appropriate and necessary.4
In accordance with this law the audiencia exercised the right of intervention in practically all matters to which the authority of the vicepatron extended. Foremost among these were the supervision and administration of ecclesiastical revenues, the administration of vacant benefices, the extension of missionary influences and the construction of churches and monasteries. The audiencia, moreover, had authority over the reception and installation of prelates, parish priests, and regulars, and their removal for cause. In all these matters the audiencia was responsible directly to the king and made reports thereon; in fact, it may be said that the tribunal, in co-ordination with the vicepatron, served as a connecting link between the church in the Islands and the royal council in Spain.
An analysis of the relations between the audiencia and the church will show that the tribunal exercised two kinds of ecclesiastical powers. These may be regarded respectively as executive and judicial. Although it was in their union that the audiencia exercised its most extensive and far-reaching power of ecclesiastical control, it is advisable for several reasons that these powers should be considered as distinct from one another. They will therefore be discussed separately in this treatise. In this chapter we shall consider only the first of these powers—the one which was most directly concerned with the maintenance of the royal patronage—namely, the authority which the audiencia exercised co-ordinately with the governor in the supervision and control of the church in the colony.
Although there appears to have been no conflict of authority between the governor and the audiencia over their mutual relations under the laws of the royal patronage, it is advisable at the outset to settle one difficulty which may present itself in this connection. Many of these powers which the audiencia exercised were conferred upon the vicepatron exclusively. Indeed, a study of the laws alone would suggest the possibility of a conflict of jurisdiction between the governor and the audiencia in matters relating to the royal patronage. In actual practice, however, the governor shared the powers of ecclesiastical supervision with the audiencia, and their relations were harmonious in all matters appertaining thereto. Indeed, there is record of fewer conflicts between the audiencia and the governor in this field of activity than in any other.
It would seem that the intervention of the audiencia in ecclesiastical matters developed in the same manner and for the same reason as it came to have authority in matters of government, finance and military administration. The manifest impossibility of the successful administration of the many affairs of civil and ecclesiastical government by the governor (or viceroy in New Spain and Perú) made inevitable the division of power, which, though real, was not always formally recognized by the laws. The audiencia was the only body available with which the governor (or viceroy) might share these responsibilities. Its judicial character, and the talent, training, and administrative ability and experience (wider than that of the governor himself) of its members made it the logical institution to which the executive should naturally turn for advice and assistance. Not only did he require counsel, but the moral and physical support of a tribunal of weight and authority was invaluable in dealing with the united forces of a powerful ecclesiastical hierarchy. This is the best possible explanation of that gradual assumption of authority by the audiencia which seems to have been so indefinitely, yet freely conceded, and which apparently grew up neither in conflict with the law nor yet entirely in accord with it, but which, now recognized, and now ignored, was never denied or prohibited.
The cédula of October 6, 1578, in explanation of the various forms of address in the expedition of royal cédulas, was designed to make clear the respective jurisdictions of the vicepatron and the audiencia in ecclesiastical as well as in other governmental affairs. It ordered that
when our royal cédulas refer in particular to the viceroys, they alone shall attend to their fulfillment without other intervention; if they designate the viceroy, or president or audiencia, they shall all attend to their execution in accordance with the opinion of the greater part of them that are in the audiencia, and the viceroy or president shall not have more than one vote like the rest that may be present, provided that this do not contravene the superior government which we regularly commit to our viceroys and presidents.5
While more than a joint authority with the vicepatron cannot be claimed for the audiencia, and that authority not necessarily coequal, this cédula established beyond question the royal intention of recognizing the audiencia as a support and an aid to the governor. This law applied to all the affairs of government, not pertaining any more extensively to the ecclesiastical than to the administrative sphere, but this cédula, together with what actually happened, may be taken as evidence that the audiencia was meant to have jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs when royal cédulas granting or assuming the exercise of such jurisdiction were addressed to it.
The right of the officials of the civil government to interfere in questions of patronage was seldom seriously questioned by the churchmen, although there were some notable instances in which religious authorities objected to this exercise of power. Bishop Salazar, in his opposition to the plan of Fray Alonso Sánchez at the court of Madrid (1593–1595), expressed his disapproval of the interference of the governor and audiencia in questions of patronage. His opposition is further attested by several of his letters and declarations enunciated previous to that time.6 He admitted that the civil government, by virtue of the bulls of Alexander VI and Julius II, should act as the defender and champion of the church, but he opposed any further participation in ecclesiastical affairs by the civil power. Salazar’s arguments are worth noting because they were advanced during the formative period of the Islands’ history. It was during his prelacy that the basis of all future relations of church and state was established. The arguments of Bishop Salazar were repeated with little variation by Archbishop Poblete in his controversy with Governor Salcedo in 1665 and later by Archbishop Pardo in 1686.7
In considering this question, the calm and impartial judgment of a scholar is eminently preferable to the passionate arguments of a prelate deeply concerned in the outcome of the dispute. Let us turn from the field of original research to a modern Spanish writer on church history and law. Fray Matias Gómez Zamora, writing from the vantage ground of the modern day, characterizes the acts of the government officials of the earlier era as excessive and unjustified by papal bull or ecclesiastical canon. He even goes a step farther when he declares that “many royal decrees and cédulas were wrongfully issued, without proper basis.” He cites examples to prove his contention and among these he points to the foundation of churches and monasteries by civil authorities without the confirmation of the prelate, alleging that such practices were entirely illegal.8 In like manner, he criticises the cédulas of October 19, 1756, and of June 24, 1762, which bestowed upon the governor jurisdiction as vicepatron,9 with the right of settling whatever questions might arise. “But,” he writes, “it is clear that the viceroys, the audiencias and the governors did not have, nor could they have spiritual jurisdiction over the persons or property of the ecclesiastics, because in no case can power which is delegated be greater than he to whom it is delegated.”10 Thus does this distinguished writer attack the foundation of the entire institution whereby Spain controlled the church in her colonies during a period of three hundred years.
Notwithstanding the fact that the governor was the civil head of the church in the colony, it would be possible to fill this chapter completely with quotations of laws which were addressed to the audiencia in recognition of its right of intervention in ecclesiastical matters. The necessity of reserving space for specific cases illustrative of history and practice permits only a scanty summary of the most important of these laws. In practically all these cases the audiencia participated conjointly with the vicepatron. The interposition of the audiencia was authorized in the calling of provincial councils and synods, and the resolutions of these bodies had to be examined by the viceroys, presidents, and oidores to see that they were in accordance with the laws of the royal patronage.11 The audiencia was empowered to examine all papal bulls and briefs and to suspend those which had not been properly authorized by the Council of the Indies. Disputes between prelates and arguments of churchmen based on bulls and briefs were to be referred by the audiencia to the Council of the Indies. The audiencia was authorized to enforce all properly authorized bulls and briefs and to exercise care that the ecclesiastical courts were granted their proper jurisdiction in accordance with canon law.12
The audiencia was authorized to enforce the law which forbade laymen to trade with priests. Punishment in the latter case was not meted out by that tribunal, but the offending churchmen were handed over to the prelates.13 The audiencia, viceroy, and governors were commanded to exercise supervision over the prelates and provincials, receiving from the latter annual reports on the state, membership, and progress of the religious orders and the work performed by them, which information in turn was forwarded to the Council of the Indies.14 All possible assistance was to be furnished by the audiencia and governor to missionaries remaining in the Philippines or going to Japan.15 The governor and audiencia were ordered to supervise closely the work of ecclesiastical visitors in the provinces, exercising special care that the natives were not imposed on or abused. The oidores were prohibited from interference with the internal government of the religious orders.16 Members of orders could not usually be removed by their provincials without the consent of the vicepatron and the audiencia, the authority of the latter extending to the removal and exile of offending priests.17 The audiencia was ordered to make every possible effort to preserve harmony among the religious and to adjust all differences arising between the orders, or within them.18 The tribunal was authorized to keep prelates from exceeding their authority in passing judgment on erring priests, especially to see that no punishments were imposed such as would interfere with the prerogatives of the civil government.19
The following brief summary of laws of the early period, although possibly repeating data already given, shows the extent of the participation of the audiencia in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs:20
All ecclesiastics holding office were first to gain the recognition of the viceroy, president, audiencia or whatever authority might be in charge of the province.
A list of the members of each order was to be furnished by their provincial to the governing authority. Any changes subsequently made in the membership of the orders had to be reported in the same way.
The names of all religious teachers were to be submitted to the audiencia, governor or other authority in control, for inspection and approval.
The audiencia was instructed to inform itself relative to the efficiency of the clergy and of religious teachers working among the Indians, and to see that those lacking in educational qualifications or in general capacity were not permitted to enter the Islands.21
Notices of removals or of new appointments made among the clergy were to be sent to the governor, audiencia, and to the bishop.22
The jurisdiction of the audiencia under the royal patronage extended to practically all classes of churchmen and church affairs.23 By the cédulas of August 4, 1574, and of October 25, 1667, the audiencia acquired the right of passing on the credentials of prelates who came to the Islands. That tribunal was entrusted with the duty of seeing that bishops and archbishops carried with them the duly attested confirmation of the Council of the Indies, and no prelate was allowed to leave the Islands unless he had the permission of the governor or audiencia.24 The tribunal exercised a check on the governor in this particular and saw to it that in granting this permission he did not show favoritism or otherwise violate the laws of the royal patronage.
Two striking illustrations of the audiencia’s jurisdiction over the inspection of the credentials of the prelates and higher churchmen occur in the history of the Philippines. In 1674, Francisco de Palóu, a French bishop who had been engaged in missionary work in China, was cast upon the shores of the Philippines. The audiencia immediately dispatched orders for his detention, and he was not permitted to return to his district on the ground that his presence and jurisdiction in China constituted an encroachment on the rights of Spain. China had been conceded to Spain by Alexander VI, and by virtue of the royal patronage, the right of making ecclesiastical appointments and the exercise of jurisdiction there were prerogatives belonging to the Spanish crown.25
A similar case occurred in 1704, when Archbishop Tourón, a French delegate destined for China, arrived in Manila. He was received by the governor and audiencia, as he bore a legally executed commission from the pope for the visitation of all the churches in the Orient, and for the settlement of all ecclesiastical controversies which had arisen there. The royal acuerdo considered that the dispatches and credentials which he carried were in accordance with the law. Tourón was accordingly permitted to set up an ecclesiastical court. He suspended Archbishop Camacho from his office and freed from prison some of the worst criminals in the Islands. He ordered the regulars to submit to diocesan visitation; but they refused to obey him since they had already rejected the efforts of the archbishop to enforce the principle. The Council of the Indies ultimately disapproved of the admission of this foreign ecclesiastic without the authorization of the Spanish government26 and as a consequence ordered the removal of the governor and senior oidor, heavily fined the remaining magistrates and reduced Archbishop Camacho to the position of Bishop of Guadalajara.27
In its joint capacity as assistant to the vicepatron and as a high court with jurisdiction over ecclesiastical cases, the audiencia settled disputes between rival claimants to positions of authority in the church, particularly to the position of archbishop. The law which had been in force up to 1619 prescribed that the ecclesiastical chapter should fill the vacancy with a temporary incumbent, but some effort had already been made to have the senior bishop succeed to the post. Bishop Arce of Cebú was opposed to this plan on the ground that each prelate had more than he could do in the proper administration of his own bishopric.28 Nevertheless it may be noted that on January 22, 1630, Arce was made acting archbishop of the metropolitan see of Manila by virtue of the acuerdo of the audiencia and the vicepatron.29 Arce’s accession to the post was in accordance with a papal bull which had been promulgated with the king’s approval at some date between 1619 and 1630. There had been a three-cornered fight between the ecclesiastical chapter, the Bishop of Cebú, and the Bishop of Nueva Segovia, and this conflict had been settled by the acuerdo in favor of Arce, while the chapter appealed to the Council of the Indies. When Guerrero, the new appointee, arrived, he immediately laid claim to the office, which Arce refused to surrender on account of an irregularity in the archbishop’s appointment. Arce appealed to the audiencia, but the tribunal refused to authorize any innovations.30 In a statement to the king, dated October 17, 1655, he related that in 1629 the governor and audiencia had solicited that he come to Manila and take the place vacated through the death of Archbishop Serrano. This would seem to indicate that the audiencia had acted solely on the basis of its authority derived from the royal patronage, but in settling the dispute among the various ecclesiastical authorities it also acted judicially. Guerrero’s credentials finally came, apparently executed in the proper form and they were referred to the audiencia by the governor. The tribunal, when it had satisfied itself that the commission was valid, placed thereon the stamp of its approval and accepted Guerrero as archbishop. Then the latter, in the words of Governor Corcuera, presented himself “in the royal court of justice (the audiencia) before which he appeared to be presented [to his see], he swore upon the gospels not to interfere with your Majesty’s jurisdiction, to respect your royal patronage, and to be always your royal vassal.”31 In other words, he took his oath of office as archbishop in the audiencia.
The above may be considered as a typical case of the temporary designation of a prelate for the archbishopric of Manila by the audiencia. To cite further instances of a similar nature would be unnecessary. The tribunal continued to inspect the credentials of bishops and archbishops before they were admitted to their posts throughout the history of the Islands. This practice was followed even during the period from 1660 to 1762 when the church counted for more as a political institution than either the audiencia or the governor.32
The audiencia exercised intervention in the removal of curates from their parishes.33 As noted, already, these removals were made by the vicepatron upon the recommendation of the prelate concerned. Of course, when the audiencia was governing ad interim it made these removals itself. It also intervened when the vicepatron was present on occasions when he requested the support of the tribunal or failed to act himself. The judicial authority of the audiencia, exercised through its entertainment of appeals from curates who had been removed, will be considered in the next chapter.
A great many reasons for removals were purely ecclesiastical, such as questions of the private lives and conduct of priests and friars and their insubordination and non-compliance with ecclesiastical or monastic rules. With these matters the audiencia did not concern itself unless deportation was involved, or the offenses of the priests constituted crimes against the civil government. There is record of many removals from curacies because of infractions of the marriage laws by priests, such, for instance, as uniting heathen Chinese with Christian women, which was a violation of the pragmatic law of March 23, 1776. Such cases, and indeed all which had to do with removals from curacies after 1795, were settled by ecclesiastical tribunals with appeal to the papal delegate, without the intervention of the audiencia.34
The operation of the removal of regulars for cause was slightly different. Unless the regular was the holder of a parish and subject to episcopal visitation, the prelate had no jurisdiction over him, and neither the governor nor the audiencia could interfere in the matter, unless such intervention was requested by the provincial.35 When the deportation of regulars not holding curacies was decreed, the consent of the vicepatron or audiencia, acting for him, was necessary. This was usually given on the recommendation of the provincial, and the exile accordingly became an act of the civil government. The formal consent of the Council of the Indies was necessary for all deportations of this character, but the complete exercise of this prerogative gradually devolved upon the vicepatron, who notified the Council of the act.36
The crimes of priests or ecclesiastics against the law and order of the realm were punishable in the same manner and by the same agency as the simpler violations of ordinary subjects. Attention has already been given in another part of this treatise to a case in which the audiencia, in 1617, tried and punished six Augustinian friars who had been convicted of murder.37 Their guilt was first ascertained by a preliminary investigation within the order, after which they were handed over to the audiencia.
The statement has been made above that the audiencia was not allowed to interfere in the internal régime of the convents or monasteries.38 However, when the provincials of the orders were unable to keep the friars in subordination they frequently called upon the civil government for support and assistance. This was done in 1715 when the Castilian Recollects rebelled against their provincial, incorporated themselves into a separate chapter, and entrenched themselves in the convent at Bagumbayan, outside the Manila wall. Oidor Torralba, then acting as governor and vicepatron, came to the support of the provincial upon appeal. He cannonaded the recalcitrants, arresting and imprisoning them on their surrender, and finally banished their leaders.39 On this same occasion, it may be noted, the provincial solicited the aid of the archbishop, whose interference the rebellious friars had resisted as an attempt at episcopal visitation.
The disciplinary jurisdiction over priests and friars referred to above suggests a similar authority which the audiencia exercised over the prelates. Within the period of one year after the installation of Archbishop Guerrero at Manila in 1636, the governor, with the support of the audiencia, had banished this same prelate and his ecclesiastical provisor,40 condemning the former to pay a fine of 2000 ducats. The governor contrived also to influence the judge-conservator41 to pronounce a ban of excommunication upon them both, in return for a like censure that had already been passed on the governor by the prelate.42 The banishment of Archbishop Poblete by Governor Salcedo and the audiencia prior to the arrest of that governor by the commissary of the Inquisition, the exile of Archbishop Pardo in 1684, and the imprisonment of Archbishop de la Cuesta by Governor Bustamante and the audiencia in 1719, are incidents in the history of the Islands which serve well as illustrations of the disciplinary and coercive jurisdiction of the vicepatron and audiencia over the churchmen. These events need only be referred to here, as they have already been discussed in relation to other phases of the history of the audiencia.
As visitors of the provinces, the oidores were required to inspect the ecclesiastical work of the parish priests and to note their care and treatment of the Indians.43 In the exercise of these duties they were protected by a law which forbade prelates to proceed against them with censures while they were carrying on such investigations. Le Gentil, the noted French traveller, who visited the Islands during the middle of the eighteenth century, testified that the oidores did not fulfill their duty with great faithfulness. Le Gentil stated that on account of their dependence on the hospitality of the priests when travelling from place to place in the provinces, the visitors’ inspections were merely perfunctory and of little value.44
The above testimony is not corroborated, however, by the report of Oidor Francisco Guerela who was sent to Camarines in 1702 to take account of tribute and to inquire into the state of the encomiendas. He reported that in the curacies which were administered by the Franciscans there was an entire absence of religious instruction, the natives were mistreated, and they were permitted to continue in idolatry, drunkenness, and superstition. Neither the priests nor the alcaldes mayores exerted any uplifting or civilizing influence. The alcaldes mayores, it was alleged, connived with the priests to defraud the natives by the imposition of excessive tribute and by the exaction of all sorts of fraudulent ecclesiastical tithes. The oidor in this case sought to remedy this state of affairs by dispatching reformatory edicts against the friars, and by posting notices and copies of royal decrees and cédulas designed to inform the natives of their rights under the law and to warn them against the imposture of the friars. Whereupon the Franciscans appealed to the Bishop of Camarines and persuaded him to excommunicate the oidor on the grounds that he had usurped the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This appeal to the papal delegate was in direct violation of the cédula mentioned above, protecting such visitations against ecclesiastical censure. The oidor appealed to the audiencia and that body solicited the prelate by ruego y encargo to remove his censures. The audiencia would go no further, however, as two of the magistrates were personally hostile to Guerela, hence the oidor was obliged to remain in the provinces at the mercy of the friars. After six months of isolation, Guerela, who was broken in health, sent an appeal for aid to the king on June 20, 1702. This memorial embodied a full account of his attempts to make necessary reforms in the provinces subject to his visitation.45 It was presented to the Council of the Indies on October 14, 1706.46 Three observations might be made from this incident. First, there was little vigor, promptitude, or effectiveness in the Spanish judicial system as therein exemplified. It took four years for this petition to be presented to the Council and considerably more time for an answer to be made. Secondly, this affair shows to what extent petty spite and private quarrels interfered with good government and efficient administration. Thirdly, it illustrates the fact that the entire civil government, including the audiencia, was very much under the domination and influence of the ecclesiastics.
An inspection which was similar to that just described was made by Oidor José Torralba, in 1713, in the provinces of Albay and Cebú. Torralba was unable to complete his work, owing to his recall to Manila, where he was obliged to resume his place in the audiencia on account of the insufficient number of magistrates present in the tribunal. It seems that in the provinces subject to his visitation, the former charges of the Franciscans had been turned over to the seculars, most of whom were natives. Torralba reported that under the careless and incompetent administration of the parish priests, the churches had gone to ruin and all Indian instruction had been abandoned. In his report he commented unfavorably on the stupidity and immorality of the native clergy, alleging that in them lay one of the causes of the poverty and degradation of the people. He recommended the restoration of the regulars.47 Torralba’s recommendations were not followed. Either because of his hurried departure from the provinces where he left his work unfinished, or because of the disinclination or lack of authority of the audiencia and vicepatron, no definite steps were taken at this time for the amelioration of the condition of the people or for the reform of the clergy.
That the interests of the friars were vigorously and effectively championed at the court is evidenced by the royal decree of June 14, 1714, which was dispatched not alone to the Philippines, but which was made general in Perú and New Spain.48 It forbade the governors and audiencias using their authority as vicepatrons to justify their interference with the interior administration of the convents and monasteries of the orders, which it was complained they were doing without authorization. This decree particularly emphasized the principle which has already been set forth in this treatise that the vicepatrons and audiencias should not concern themselves with the discipline and punishment of friars not holding curacies. The promulgation of this decree was brought about as a result of the efforts of the commissary of the Franciscan order in Madrid.
Not only were the oidores required to inspect the work of the parish priests, but the audiencia, in the exercise of the royal patronage, was authorized to receive, assist, and supervise the ecclesiastical visitors who came from Spain or Mexico, or were designated from the ranks of the local clergy to inspect the orders.49 These visitors were also authorized to inspect friars who were in charge of parishes,50 and when on these tours of inspection they might be accompanied by the prelate in charge of the curacies retained by the friars under inspection. The audiencia was to co-operate in all possible ways with these visitors, and should any question arise between them and a prelate over jurisdiction, the tribunal was to do everything possible to bring about a harmonious adjustment of the points of difference. This is illustrated by a case which arose in 1776, when Fray Joseph Pereyra was given a royal commission to make a general investigation of the Augustinian order in the Philippines. Fiscal Andrade of the audiencia demanded that Pereyra should submit all his documents for inspection on the basis of the royal patronage and other laws,51 but the audiencia, under the presidency of Governor Anda, refused to support the fiscal. The king, on April 6, 1778, rebuked the audiencia for its failure to support the royal patronage, citing two cédulas, those of July 2 and of October 14, 1773, respectively, in which he had already admonished the vicepatron in that particular.52 The failure of the audiencia and governor to exercise all their prerogatives in support of the royal patronage on these various occasions can probably be attributed to dissensions within the tribunal and to the corrupting influence of the church.
The statement has frequently been made in this treatise that the audiencia served as a connecting link between the court and the colony. It constituted a channel through which a large amount of correspondence was carried on, and one of the duties most frequently required was that of furnishing special and regular reports and informaciones53 on various subjects connected with the church.54 Notwithstanding the vast number of ecclesiastics present in the colony, who could and did make special and regular reports, and were indeed required to make them, the audiencia was frequently called upon to render reports on precisely the same subjects as those covered by the churchmen. In this way points of view other than the ecclesiastical were obtained. Thus the advice of magistrates, lawyers and men in active touch with the government served to temper ecclesiastical opinion in the same way that the advice of prelates exercised an influence on matters purely governmental. Taking into consideration their position in the colony, the oidores were better qualified to obtain and impart information concerning the church than most authorities.
To indicate the vast field of special subjects in which the oidores were required to report, various instances may be mentioned. On July 1, 1598, the king desired information concerning the alleged need of a greater amount of space on the galleon for the support of the bishopric of Nueva Segovia. The archbishop and the bishop of that diocese had both recommended that more cargo-space be given to the church. The king desired to know whether, in the opinion of the oidores, the privilege of shipping two hundred tons would be sufficient for the needs of the bishopric in question.55 Again, on December 7, 1610, the audiencia was called upon to forward to the Council of the Indies evidence bearing upon a dispute between the natives of Quiapo and the Jesuits over lands claimed by the latter society.56 On another occasion the king requested of the audiencia a report concerning the work, deserts, and financial condition of the convent of Santa Clara, which had asked for royal aid.57 Frequently the audiencia was called upon to take a census of the number of priests, secular and regular, in the Islands and to report on the size of each order, the number of friars holding secular curacies in each, and the number of missionaries.58 It came to be its regular duty to furnish these reports at stated intervals, and when, for some reason, it failed to render them, a royal reprimand was forthcoming. A yearly report was also made on the number of friars entering the Islands, how many had gone to China, the number of souls ministered to by each order, how large was each province, and how many people there were in each curacy.59
It is interesting to know that the churchmen were also held responsible for this information and that reports on these same subjects were required of the prelates and provincials.60 It is evident that the report of the audiencia was utilized as a check to prevent misrepresentation on the part of the friars, especially since it was always the object of each order to prove that it was over-worked and in urgent need of more members. As friars were sent to the Islands at the royal expense,61 and as they were supported after their arrival by the royal treasury, the exercise of economy was always desirable. On the other hand, it was to the interest of an order to make its requirements and accomplishments appear as great as possible.
Another function which the audiencia came to exercise by virtue of its authority in behalf of the royal patronage was that of general supervision over the colleges and universities. In the laws of the Indies this duty was imposed upon the viceroys and governors,62 and nothing was said of the authority of the audiencia in that particular. According to the laws of the Indies, in fact, the audiencia had little jurisdiction or authority over colleges, universities and seminaries, but as the administration of these was entirely in the hands of the church, the audiencia came to exercise much the same authority over education that it did over other church activities.63 Oidores and fiscales were forbidden to act as rectors, but they might participate in the law examinations to satisfy themselves whether the standard of instruction in the royal universities and colleges was sufficiently high, and whether the education, training and ability of candidates for the licentiate’s degree gave evidence of their fitness.64 According to the royal decree of November 27, 1623, the University of Santo Tomás was founded in the Philippines with the advice of the governor and acuerdo of the audiencia.65 Here again that tribunal may be seen in the act of assuming non-judicial functions which primarily belonged to the governor through the unwillingness or inability of that official to act alone.
The audiencia early exercised advisory powers in educational affairs. The Jesuits as early as 1585 had requested permission to found and establish a college or seminary in Manila, and the king, on January 11, 1587, requested of the audiencia a report on the general conduct, progress and accomplishments of the Jesuit order, asking in particular what benefit would accrue from the establishment of a Jesuit college in Manila. The audiencia, in its report of June 25, 1588, characterized their work as very effective, the learning and ability of their personnel remarkable, but in the opinion of the oidores there was scarcely any need of a college in Manila at that time, and there were no means of supporting one.66
When Santo Tomás became a royal university in 1648, the Jesuits were obliged to sue in the audiencia for the right to continue the bestowal of academic degrees. Their request was denied by the tribunal, but the decision was reversed by the Council of the Indies in 1653.67 On May 3, 1722, San José was made a royal college and was subjected to the visitation and patronage of the audiencia. In 1769, when the Jesuits were suppressed, an attempt was made to continue San José as a secular institution under the supervision of the audiencia. This brought forth such determined opposition from the Dominicans and from the friends and supporters of Santo Tomás that on June 30, 1778, a cédula was issued ordering the audiencia to close San José and hand over all students in attendance there to the archbishop, so that they might be placed in secular colleges and seminaries.68 This was done, and the audiencia rendered to the Council of the Indies a report on the administration of the finances pertaining to the transaction. The revenues derived from all unsold properties belonging to the Jesuits were included in the temporalities, and the income from these were transmitted to the royal treasury. Subsequently the archbishop attempted to assume jurisdiction over these Jesuit properties and funds, and to this the audiencia objected. In 1784 the matter was finally settled by the decree of the king in answer to an appeal which had been carried by the prelate from the audiencia to the Council of the Indies. He sustained the audiencia and forbade the prelate from interfering with these temporalities.
The Dominicans were more successful in the maintenance of an educational institution.69 On the occasion of the extension of the charter of the University of Santo Tomás on May 17, 1680, the king ordered “my president and the auditors of my Audiencia of that city, and request and charge the archbishop of the city, the bishops of the said islands, the ecclesiastical and secular cabildos, the superiors of the orders, and any other of my judges and justices,”... to acknowledge the University of Santo Tomás as a beneficiary of the royal patronage. Its title was formally extended on June 21, 1681, by act of the audiencia.70 The tribunal not only exercised the right of patronage over the Dominican university, but also over the College of San Juan de Letrán, a seminary for boys which was founded in 1640 and maintained by the Dominicans as an adjunct to Santo Tomás.
Reports, recommendations, and informaciones exist in abundance to prove that the audiencia exercised considerable influence in the life and history of these institutions. The tribunal celebrated acuerdos to improve the instruction in mathematics, physics, law and medicine. It provided for the examination of students, passed on their credentials, made regulations for the bestowal of degrees and decided upon the fitness of prospective teachers.71 It supervised the records of these institutions, audited their finances and sent reports to the king and Council concerning the work of the universities and colleges. In its jurisdiction and authority over these educational institutions the audiencia served in behalf of the sovereign as his royal tribunal. These were royal universities, endowed with special royal charters and privileges and it was fitting that they should be controlled by the royal audiencia in the king’s name. In addition to this, as they were administered by the church, the audiencia and the vicepatron exercised joint control over them, in the name of the royal patronage in the same manner that they supervised other ecclesiastical activities.
As we have already noted, the audiencia exercised jurisdiction over matters of church finance. The most notable examples of its control may be seen in the administration of tithes,72 the funds of temporalities, obras pias, funds of the Crusade, and espolios of the prelates.
The audiencia was authorized to guard the royal interest in the matter of the collection and the administration of tithes, particularly with a view to seeing that over-ambitious churchmen did not obtain more than their share, and that in the collection of the tithes they did not oppress the natives. The special care of the oidores was to see that tithes be not paid directly to the prelates.73 In fact, these funds were to be administered by the civil government, and prelates were not to be allowed to interfere with their collection. No changes were to be made in the authorized manner of collecting these funds on the responsibility of colonial officials. Recommendations for reform should be made to the Council of the Indies either by the prelate or by the audiencia.74 The audiencia was ordered to see that the proper division and distribution of tithes were made, and that the two-ninths of the gross sum collected was duly set aside for the crown, in accordance with the law.75
Further evidence that the audiencia was regarded as the instrument of the royal will in these matters is afforded by the circumstances leading up to the reforms of 1768 and 1786; and it should be noted particularly that the king and Council relied on that tribunal for advice and assistance in the drafting and execution of these measures. A number of tentative laws and proposals for changes in the system of collection and administration of the tithes was sent to the audiencia, from time to time, prior to 1768, and the magistrates were required to submit opinions as to the availability and applicability of the proposed measures. In 1768 a decree was issued fixing the tithe at ten reales per Indian. Previous to that year a number of religious orders owning large tracts of agricultural land had refused to pay these taxes, and the audiencia, by virtue of the royal order of September 25, 1768, was ordered to enforce the law, which it did, even proceeding to the seizure of the chattels of the recalcitrant friars.76 On December 11, 1775, the audiencia passed an ordinance diminishing the tithes to be paid by natives, mestizos, Chinese and Japanese by one-half real per person.77 On July 12, 1778, the king asked the audiencia to submit evidence on the question of whether the law worked any hardship on the inhabitants of the colony, and whether encomenderos and friars were paying their share.78 At the same time, and on the same date, the royal approval was given to the auto which the audiencia had enacted on December 11, 1775. The recommendations of the audiencia were also largely followed in the decree of January 20, 1786, which was merely a repromulgation of an earlier auto of the audiencia, which ordered that tithes should not be collected directly from the Indians unless the latter were owners of lands. Otherwise they were to be collected from the landlords.79
By subsequent laws the audiencia was temporarily deprived of its jurisdiction over tithes. When the Philippine government was reorganized in 1787 by the Ordinance of Intendants, many of the special commissions which had been previously retained by the magistrates were ceded to the superintendent of real hacienda. The actual collection of tithes was made the duty of the superintendent by cédula of October 6, 1792,80 but because of its relation to the royal patronage the audiencia, in practice, found it convenient to retain control. Governor Aguilar, who was also superintendent of real hacienda, wrote to the king on July 31, 1799,81 alleging that there was no reason why the audiencia should exercise this authority, when, by virtue of its financial nature, this duty belonged to the superintendent. He stated that the audiencia had been given this jurisdiction when there had been no other authority for the collection of tithes, but that as it was not a controversial matter, there was no reason for the continuance of this condition. In the letter referred to Aguilar stated that he had attempted to put his interpretation of the law into execution, but in so doing had been opposed by the audiencia. The answer to this appeal does not appear in connection with the original, but the royal cédula of April 21, 1803, restored to the audiencia jurisdiction over the collection of tithes.82
It may be said, however, that with the creation of the superintendency the audiencia was shorn of many of the miscellaneous functions with which it had been formerly endowed. The funds of the temporalities, however, did not come under this category. They were greatly augmented in 1767 when the Jesuits were suppressed, and as was usual with such miscellaneous and unclassified duties, as well as on account of the audiencia’s relation to the royal patronage, the administration of these funds came under the charge of an oidor whose official title was “administrator of the funds of the temporalities.”83
Nevertheless, the audiencia’s share of direct control over these funds was still considerable. On January 23, 1803, a cédula was issued ordering that the money of the temporalities and obras pias should be put at the disposal of the acuerdo of the audiencia.84 A report was submitted to that tribunal by Superintendent Aguilar on July 20, 1804, in accordance with this cédula. The report of Aguilar showed a balance on hand of 151,625 pesos waiting to be sent to Spain by the first transportation. In 1809, the jurisdiction of these funds was completely restored to the audiencia, with the provision that the oidores who acted as their administrators should receive a three per cent commission. As the funds were constantly drawn upon, and there were no further confiscations of property of this sort, they can be accounted as of little importance, yielding practically no revenue from that date. Owing to the continual appeals of the government for money with which to defray the expenses of putting down the various insurrections from 1808 to 1814 and subsequently, the funds of the temporalities, like every other peso that came into the treasuries of the colonies, were sent to Spain as rapidly as they were collected.85
The audiencia also audited the accounts of the obras pías, though its jurisdiction over these funds was often opposed.86 The chief foundations of the obras pías in Manila were the Santa Misericordia and San Juan de Diós. The wealth and power of the Misericordia became so great,87 and so well did it profit by the various immunities extended to it, that by the early part of the eighteenth century it had become the object of the distrust and envy of all classes of Manila society. It was chiefly disliked because it had been permitted to utilize so much free space on the galleon. Other inconveniences had arisen from its participation in trade, wherein, possessed of so many advantages, it was enabled to derive profits and benefits that were denied to competing merchants in the colony. Complaints were made against it by certain religious orders, merchants, treasury officials, oidores, and the governor, himself. It was the consensus of opinion among these that the accounts of this society should be inspected by the government, and, in accordance with these recommendations, a cédula was expedited, ordering the society to submit its accounts to the audiencia for inspection and approval.88
The suspicions of the general public were confirmed, and the popular distrust increased when the inspection of Oidor Calderón revealed that the finances of the society had been carelessly kept, and that the books contained numerous discrepancies. The scrutiny of the oidor showed the existence of a deficit of 383,437 pesos; that is, the records called for property in the hands of the society to the value of that sum which could not be found. The Misericordia, in a series of protests, accounted for the discrepancies by alleging that the audiencia had declared many of its debtors bankrupt. Relief from the inspection was requested on the grounds that the local feeling and the prejudice of the oidores would cause them to be unfair to the society. It pleaded that the inspection should be made by the chief accountant of the Council of the Indies (contador de cuentas) once in five years. In this request it was supported by the recommendation of this official.89
On April 19, 1755, the cédula of November 9, 1747, was modified on the basis of these protests, and in lieu of the annual inspection of the oidor was substituted the requirement that once in three years the Misericordia should submit its own accounts.90 This brought forth a storm of protest from the residents of Manila, headed by Governor Arandía, who went to some length to describe the abuses which had arisen in the past from the unrestricted liberty which the Misericordia had enjoyed. He accused the society of dishonest political practices, interference with the government, bribery and corruption. He said that behind its commercial operations there existed a veiled scheme by which the church was seeking to monopolize the trade of the Islands.91 The opposition of the governor and residents bore fruit to the extent that a compromise was made in the royal cédula of February 21, 1759, which restored the practice of having oidores inspect the accounts of the Misericordia, though the examination was to be held only once in five years. This, of course, was sufficiently lenient to defeat the entire scheme. Oidores were forbidden to interfere with the property of the society at any other time and in any other manner.92
The Misericordia maintained a stubborn and vigorous resistance to the principle of visitation by the audiencia, but as far as may be judged by the data at hand, the law was not changed again, and the audiencia continued to exercise supervision. That the audiencia was prone to overstep its authority in the matter of these inspections is shown by an incident which occurred in 1776–1777. In the regular quinquennial inspection of the records of the Misericordia a number of abuses were uncovered. The funds were found to have been carelessly administered, and the books inaccurately kept, owing to the negligence, incapacity, and corruption of the members to whom the funds had been entrusted. Governor Sarrio, as vicepatron, appointed Oidor Calderón as receiver and administrator of the funds, with the charge that the oidor should suspend all payments until the accounts were straightened out. The Misericordia protested and on April 25, 1778, the king ordered the governor and audiencia to desist from further interference with the funds of the society, the royal disapproval being based on the cédula of February 21, 1759, which, while authorizing the inspection of the books of the society, forbade any minister “to interfere with or interrupt said House in the administration or distribution of its funds.”93
The cédula of February 21, 1759, was reaffirmed on repeated occasions when the Misericordia refused to submit its books to the audiencia. The last law touching upon this particular question was promulgated on August 2, 1787, when it was decreed that the accounts, books, records, and work of the Misericordia and its officials should be subject to the inspection of the audiencia.94
Not only was the opposition of the Misericordia a source of dispute between that society and the audiencia, but the matter of financial inspection caused disputes between the audiencia and other officials and departments of the government. The reforms of 1787 made trouble between the superintendent and the audiencia. Since this was a financial matter, the former claimed the right of auditing these accounts, which the audiencia refused to concede for the reason that it had always had supervision over these funds (when the right was exercised by any secular authority). The question was definitely settled by the cédula of January 22, 1803, which ordered that “the money of temporalities, pious funds, and charitable societies should be put at the disposal of the acuerdo, and that if any matters relative to those branches were then pending before the superintendent, they should be remitted at once to the audiencia.”95 This was accordingly done by Governor (and Superintendent) Aguilar,96 and after that time the jurisdiction of the audiencia was no longer questioned.
Shortly after the establishment of the consulado of Manila in 1769, a bitter dispute arose between that body and the audiencia for jurisdiction over cases involving the commerce of the Misericordia. On the basis of the cédula of July 8, 1774, the consulado claimed exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes involving trade which arose between merchants. It advanced the contention that in all suits involving losses of galleons the society should be considered in the case of an individual merchant. The audiencia, basing its claims on the royal patronage, declared the consulado to have exceeded its powers, in assuming the jurisdiction described above, and fined several of its members. The consulado appealed the case, and in reply the king promulgated a cédula on June 7, 1775, declaring that neither to the audiencia nor to the consulado belonged the jurisdiction over such cases, but that they should be tried in first instance by the Council of the Indies.97 The reasons assigned for this decision were that the consulado could not try such cases because merchants constituted its membership and because the fiscal and two oidores also belonged to its tribunal. Neither the audiencia nor the consulado, accordingly, could impartially try commercial suits between merchants and the Misericordia; accordingly thereafter all evidence should be submitted to the Council for special action.
The audiencia and the governor had supervision over espolios and vacant benefices.98 When a prelate entered into office it was his duty to file with the fiscal an inventory of all properties belonging to him at the time of his advent to the diocese.99 On the occasion of his death a treasury official was designated to estimate and administer the property left, pay the debts of the deceased churchman, execute his will with regard to his property in accordance with the law, and turn over the residue to the royal treasury. This process was known as taking the espolio.
The espolio of a deceased prelate was taken, according to the early laws, by an official of the royal treasury, who was designated by the president for the purpose, and who officiated under the supervision of the audiencia. The tribunal verified the autos and substantiated the proceedings of the agent.100 Whether any modifications in the manner of collecting, distributing or accounting for the funds or properties derived from these espolios were made elsewhere is not clear, but in the Philippines the abuses which arose in the settling of these ecclesiastical estates and benefices made the personal intervention of the oidores necessary on a number of occasions. By royal cédula of June 23, 1712, it was ordered that in all the audiencias of the Indies the magistrate next in rank to the senior oidor should be constituted as the
private judge, who, with the concurrence of the oficiales reales, should have jurisdiction over and should proceed against, receive and collect all the products and rents of the vacant archbishoprics and bishoprics until the day on which the new prelates should take possession of their offices, proceeding with full cognizance... to the collection... of whatever might be due,... with the assistance of the oficiales reales who in this matter are subject to the royal audiencia.101
By this same law the audiencias, viceroys, presidents and tribunals were forbidden to interfere with this judge in the execution of his duties, or to impede the execution or the law in any manner whatsoever. The estates of prelates were thus placed on a basis similar to that occupied by the properties of civilians, which, we have noted, were administered by a special magistrate of the audiencia. This cédula also provided that all money left as a residue, after the debts of the prelates were paid, should be sent to the king for distribution.
In view of the above-mentioned law, the practice followed in 1715, on the death of Bishop Gorospe of Nueva Segovia, seems to have been a direct violation of the royal command, and somewhat different from the usual method of settling the estates of prelates. As soon as Gorospe died at Magaldán, Pangasinán, the alcalde mayor of the province sent immediate notification to the governor and audiencia. The tribunal, in acuerdo, on the motion of the fiscal, authorized the alcalde mayor and the treasury officials to take the espolio of that prelate, which order was duly complied with.102 The audiencia also dispatched a formal notification to Archbishop de la Cuesta and the metropolitan chapter, designating the former as the ecclesiastical governor of the bishopric.103
The significant feature of this espolio is that it was taken by an official as inferior in rank as an alcalde mayor through the express authorization of the audiencia, instead of being conducted by the second magistrate of the audiencia as the law directed. It is possible that the arrival of the cédula of June 24, 1712, had been delayed, or that this may have been a case, so frequent in the Spanish colonies, of compliance without obedience. Certain it is that the conditions of life and travel in the provinces were of such a character that an oidor would have found it more comfortable to remain in the capital and delegate the disagreeable duties of the espolio in a far-distant province to the resident alcalde mayor. Attention has already been called to various complaints made by governors and others against the disinclination of the magistrates to submit to the inconveniences of provincial inspections. Again, it is very probable that the time and attention of the magistrate whose duty it should have been to take this espolio were occupied with more important judicial duties.104
The citation or further multiplication of data relative to espolios would be monotonous and unprofitable. Sufficient has been said already to show the extensive participation of the audiencia in the administration and settlement of the estates of prelates and the assignment and care of vacant benefices. It may be noted, however, that the audiencia suffered little if any diminution of its authority over the espolio through the Ordinance of Intendants. That code deprived the oficiales reales and oidores of the duty, formerly incumbent on them, of taking espolios and conferred it upon the intendants and corregidor-intendants of provinces. However, it was still required that the papers relative to the proceedings should be submitted afterward to the audiencia for legalization and approval.105 Appeals and cases of litigation arising from them were to be settled in the audiencia. This decree made little difference in the procedure in the Philippines, as the corregidor-intendants were never instituted there, and the oidores continued in the settlement of these matters, subject to the designation of the superintendent, who, it will be remembered, was also governor and president of the audiencia. The tribunal passed, as always, on all acts of espolio and heard cases affecting them on appeal. In this manner the properties of the prelates were administered in a conservative and legal manner and the interests of the crown were safeguarded.
The audiencia exercised joint authority with the vicepatron over questions relating to the construction of churches and the conservation of ecclesiastical property. No monastery, convent, college, hospital, or other religious institution could be founded without the consent of the king, and this permission was obtained through the viceroy, governor, or audiencia upon the recommendation of the prelate of the diocese.106 The laws of the Indies conceded that matters which did not admit of delay could be settled by the president and audiencia.107 In fact, as early as August 15, 1620, Governor Fajardo acknowledged receipt of a letter from the king in which occurred the statement that “no church or convent, not even a chapel, ought to be, or can be, founded unless concurrent with your permission, and that of the Audiencia.”108 It was provided that all petitions of religious orders for permission to construct convents and monasteries should be referred to the council, with the recommendations of the audiencia, but in actual practice, when the advice of the audiencia was in the affirmative, the vicepatron gave the desired consent, reporting on his action to the Council of the Indies. Thus we see that the governor and audiencia in reality exercised complete authority in uncontested cases.
A large number of communications written to the audiencia by the royal authorities exist, illustrating the nature and extent of the influence of the audiencia in these matters. In 1604, the king learned that the Augustinians of Cavite had founded a convent with no other authority than that of the governor. This was contrary to the laws of the royal patronage and the audiencia was ordered to correct the abuse, and to see that the royal orders were obeyed in the future.109 On another occasion the audiencia was ordered to correct certain abuses of the Jesuits, who had dispossessed the natives of their lands and had built various structures thereon. The lands were ordered to be returned to their rightful owners and the buildings destroyed.110
The ambitions of the friars to construct monasteries, convents and hospitals, and otherwise to manifest their powers and add to their increasing strength had to be checked frequently. The audiencia was called upon to do this throughout the history of the Islands. Possibly the best illustration of the authority of the audiencia in these matters may be noted in the part which it played in restraining the Augustinians from the further extension of their influence during the period from 1763 to 1778. The entire matter was summarized in the consulta of the Council of the Indies dated December 10, 1777, and the cédula of April 6, 1778, with unfavorable results for the Augustinians.
On November 17, 1770, the provincial of this order applied for permission to construct a convent in Cavite and solicited an appropriation of four thousand pesos for this purpose. It was suggested that the money should be supplied either by the income from vacant benefices or from the profits of the sale of betel to the natives. The provincial laid special claim to royal aid on the extraordinary justification that the convent of his order at Imús, Cavite, had been bombarded and destroyed by the British in 1763. On August 16, 1772, the Council of the Indies referred the matter to the Audiencia of Manila and the tribunal, after an exhaustive investigation of the subject, recommended non-compliance with the provincial’s request. In its report, the audiencia reviewed the former attempts of this order to extend its power and influence. On December 2, 1765, it had tried to obtain permission to construct a convent at Nagtaján, which the audiencia and Fiscal Viana frustrated. The Augustinians tried again on February 20, 1766, asking for permission to build at Bagumbayan. This plan the audiencia was also able to defeat. On August 16, 1772, this same order, impatient at the delay of the Council in answering its petition of November 17, 1770, and still persistent, solicited permission from the governor alone, not alluding to the fact that a petition of this sort was at that time pending before the Council of the Indies. This request was considered in the acuerdo with unfavorable consequences for the Augustinians.
The report of the audiencia was forwarded to the court and was there reviewed by Francisco Leandro de Viana, formerly fiscal of the Audiencia of Manila and at that time a member of the Council. Viana recommended that not only should the desired permission be refused but a rigid investigation of the legitimacy of titles to properties held by the Augustinians should be made. He regarded as especially reprehensible the deliberate effort on the part of the provincial to obtain this permission from the governor in view of the unfavorable attitude of the Council of the Indies and of the laws ordering that licenses for the construction of convents should be given only by the Council of the Indies, after consultation with the prelate of the ecclesiastical district and with the audiencia, governor, or viceroy.111 In this way, due very largely to the influence of the audiencia, the efforts of this order to extend its authority were checkmated. This may be considered as a typical case of the intervention of the audiencia in behalf of the royal patronage.
It will be noted in another connection that the audiencia was called upon, from 1680 to 1720, partly as a tribunal of justice and partly as an agent of the royal patron, to investigate the titles of the lands of the friars, and, by this proceeding, the tribunal deprived the orders of much of the property which they had usurped.112 It may also be noted that an oidor regularly inspected the royal hospital at Manila,113 and when prelates and curates were transferred from one district or parish to another, property left by them was inventoried and taken under the direction of the audiencia.114 These measures were designed to insure the security and conservation of royal property.
In summary, it may be said that the audiencia possessed joint authority with, but not equal to the vicepatron in the regulation and supervision of religious affairs. As a tribunal, and as an agent of the civil government, the audiencia supported and assisted the vicepatron. At times, indeed, it acted in his stead. We have seen that the audiencia labored in the interests of the royal authority when it passed on the acts of provincial synods and councils, and it inspected bulls and briefs before they were allowed to become operative in the colony. It sought always to bring about a peaceful settlement of disputes between prelates, curates, and religious orders. Acting in the interests of the civil government, the oidores made inspections in the provinces, noting the work of the friars and parish priests in their particular fields, giving special attention to the treatment afforded to the Indians by their ecclesiastical protectors. The tribunal acted as the patron of the royal colleges and universities. It regulated the administration of ecclesiastical finances, devoting especial attention to tithes, obras pías and espolios. And finally, as we have just noted, it was endowed with considerable authority in determining the advisability of authorizing the construction of churches, monasteries, and convents, or of permitting the orders to extend their influence in various parts of the colony. The intervention of the audiencia in these matters was recognized by the court at Madrid and by the ecclesiastics of the Philippines.
Notes
1 Concepción, Historia general, III, 336, et seq. This is discussed in Chapter II of this volume. Original materials exist in A. I., 68–1–32.
2 The royal patronage in the Indies was based on the bulls of Alexander VI, dated May 4, 1493, and November 16, 1501, and on that of Julius II, dated July 28, 1508. By the first two bulls the temporal and spiritual jurisdiction of the Indies was conceded to the monarchs of Spain and by the last one the universal patronato was given. Aside from the responsibilities of government, this concession involved the duty of christianizing the natives and the right of collecting tithes from them. By virtue of these papal bulls the Spanish rulers were granted the right of nominating prelates for the Indies, the assignment of benefices and provinces to the different orders, the confirmation of minor ecclesiastical appointments, and, in fact, general supervision and control over the regular and secular clergy in the colonies (Recopilación, 1–6–1 to 7). By these acts the pope was relieved of all direct responsibility for the spiritual government of Spain’s over-sea dominions, his authority being limited to the approval of prelates nominated by the Spanish king and to other ecclesiastical duties of a nominal character.
The patronato real in Spain furnished a precedent for that of her colonial empire. Although the royal patronage in Spain and in the colonies were closely associated, the beginning of this relationship may be found in the early years of Spanish history, when concessions were granted by the king to nobles, cities, and similarly, to churchmen, in exchange for fealty of some sort. For example, the vast tracts of land in Spain were received by the church as a gift from the state, wherefore the state reserved the right to declare who should hold these lands and enjoy these privileges and also the power to dictate the conditions under which they were to be held. The right of appointment by the crown to vacant benefices and to all the higher church offices were applications of this principle. (See Cunningham, “The institutional background of Latin American history,” in the Hispanic American historical review, Vol, I, pp. 24–39.)
The concession of 1501 by Alexander VI was only one of a number of privileges of the sort accorded by the popes to the Spanish crown. The emperor, Charles V, obtained from Pope Hadrian VI the perpetual right to nominate prelates and abbots to vacant benefices. In 1543 the Spanish government further demanded and received the concession that all posts within the church in Spain and her colonies should be held by Spaniards. In 1538 the right of the church to issue bulls and briefs affecting the colonies was limited. In 1574 Philip II declared that the right of patronage belonged privately to the king. As a result of this, says Professor Altamira, “the Spanish clergy considered itself more closely bound to the king than to the pope,... more dependent on the court than on the curia,... more eager for the privileges of the crown than for the rights of the church,... the bishops were obliged to obey the monarch more than the archbishop.” (Altamira y Crevea, História, III, 418–19.)
The laws of the royal patronage centralized the supervision and control of the clergy of the Philippines in the person of the governor of the Islands. The latter was vicepatron and representative of the king in ecclesiastical matters. He was the responsible head of church affairs in the Islands so far as these matters concerned the government. He was legally authorized and required to receive and assign prelates, to confirm minor appointments by the prelates to parishes and curacies, to make removals from the same when necessary, to make temporary assignments of provinces to the regulars and to support the prelates in the exercise of episcopal visitation. His consent was necessary to the suppression, division, or union of districts, curacies and parishes, and no priest could leave the Islands without his consent. The king was patron, but the exercise of his authority in the colonies was delegated to the respective viceroys and governors. See entire title of Recopilación, 1–6; for general observations on the royal patronage see Gómez Zamora, Regio patronato: Parrás, El gobierno de los regulares de la América, I, 2–16; Mendieta, Historia eclesiástica, 20–21, 186–196; Hernáez, Colección de bulas, 12–28.
3 This is a translation of ruego y encargo, which form civil officials were required to employ on all occasions in addressing ecclesiastical officials. The king himself observed this rule and his act was supposed to form a precedent for general use within the Spanish colonial empire.
4 Recopilación, 1–6–47.
5 Ibid., 2–1–10. Laws 11 and 12 of the same title did not in any way diminish the authority of the royal audiencia. Law 11, dated May 16, 1571, antedating the one above quoted, declared that although cédulas on governmental subjects were occasionally addressed to the “president and oidores,” the viceroys and presidents might have private jurisdiction over these matters. Law 12, dated April 6, 1638, recognized the fact that ministers of justice were frequently addressed on (governmental) subjects, which, it declared, should not be construed to prejudice the viceroy’s pre-eminence in these matters.
6 Concepción, as cited in note 1 of this chapter. Salazar’s arguments are outlined in Chapter II of this treatise.
7 Archbishop Pardo’s well known opposition to the exercise of governmental control on the basis of the royal patronage and his resistance to the pretensions of ultimate superiority over the church which the temporal government claimed and assumed are referred to in another part of this treatise. In a letter written by the archbishop relative to the ecclesiastical controversy bearing his name, Pardo made the assertion that no person was more zealous to encourage or conform to the royal authority than he, for he realized the necessity of complete temporal jurisdiction over all things secular. He stated that he had always encouraged the ecclesiastics to comply with the just demands of the civil government, “for it is just,” he wrote to the king, “to observe the temporal things over which Your Majesty has providence, since the secular power must be obeyed,... yet I cannot offend the royal person by allowing him or his servants to transgress the rules or authority of God without interposing my influence against it, even at the risk of being disgraced;... while I am allied to the civil authority in things secular, I am the superior in spiritual matters.” He continued: “God has placed side by side the ecclesiastical and temporal authorities and the latter were intended to be subject to the former, and therefore, the temporal ministers ought to cede to the spiritual, according to the rules of the Holy Catholic Church. It is manifestly unjust, therefore, that a governor, maestre de campo, or other royal official should command or summon to justice a prelate who is charged with the welfare of the souls of the people of his commonwealth” (Pardo to King, September 7, 1686, A. I., 68–1–44).
A violent, though ineffective resistance was maintained by the church when Governor Simón de Anda y Salazar sought to abolish certain practices observed in the chanting of mass. Anda based his action on his authority as vicepatron. In his stand he was supported by the archbishop and by two suffragan bishops. However, Bishop de Luna, of Camarines, who was also papal delegate, violently opposed “sending [a copy of] this scandalous mandate to the royal Audiencia—a body consisting of three magistrates, to whom an appeal may lie against the governor” (Letter of a Franciscan Friar, December 13, 1771, Blair and Robertson, L, 318–319.) That a soldier should be the final arbiter in a question belonging so pre-eminently to the ecclesiastical sphere, seemed to this bishop to be entirely subversive of the interests of religion and he turned to the audiencia for protection and support. The governor sent a squad of soldiers to arrest the prelate, and the latter was forced to leave the Islands.
In 1770, Governor Anda was vehemently opposed by the ecclesiastical authorities of the colony in his efforts, as the churchmen described it, “to interfere in the governmental and judicial rights and pre-eminences of the church.” This was during the struggle over the question of episcopal visitation; in this matter the governor supported the archbishop. The former had gone so far as to declare that the friars had neither the right nor the authority to administer the sacraments. The replies of Fray Sebastián de Asunción, a Recollect, and of Antonio de San Próspero, of the Augustinians, attacked the whole foundation of the royal patronage, claiming that the church should be given entire control in ecclesiastical matters. According to their views the attention of the governor should be confined to administrative affairs (Expediente de los provinciales de Filipinas, 15 de Julio, 1772, A. I., 107–7–6). As these friars were the provincials of their orders, their opinions are of value in reflecting the ideas of the religious in the Islands on the subject of episcopal visitation. These opinions were contrary to the accepted practices and to the ideas of men of higher standing in Spain’s colonial empire.
Archbishop Pardo’s well-known opposition to the exercise of governmental control on the basis of the royal patronage gave him pre-eminence in these same matters.
8 Gómez Zamora, Regio patronato, 330 et seq.
9 Ibid., 330–354.
10 Ibid., 378.
11 Recopilación, 1–8–2, 3, 6. A dispute concerning the jurisdiction of the audiencia over the findings of synods arose in 1773 and again in 1776, when the Bishop of Nueva Segovia protested against the ruling of the audiencia that all the deliberations of a provincial synod which had been held in that bishopric should be submitted for its approval. The bishop appealed to the Council of the Indies and that body approved the action of the audiencia (King to the Audiencia, October 19, 1776, A. I., 105–2–9).
12 Recopilación, 1–9–2, 7, 10.
13 Recopilación, 1–13–23.
14 Ibid., 1–14–1, 20, 42; 3–14–3.
15 Ibid., 1–14–34, 38.
16 Ibid., 44, 67.
17 This law was nullified by the cédula of August 1, 1795, which forbade the intervention of the vicepatron and audiencia in these matters. See Recopilación, 1–6, note 17, also 1–14–37.
18 Ibid., 68.
19 Ibid., 71, 75.
20 Cédula of June 1, 1574, Blair and Robertson, XXI, 27–31.
21 Cédula of November 14, 1603, Blair and Robertson, XXI, 50–52, note.
22 Royal order of April 6, 1609, A. I., 105–2–1.
23 Recopilación, 1–14; 1–7–54.
24 Ibid., 1–7–1, 36.
25 Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 357–358. Illustrative of this same authority on the part of the audiencia and the Council of the Indies was the consulta of the latter tribunal, enacted January 22, 1781. The Audiencia of Manila had called the attention of the home government to the fact that the nomination of Fray Manuel de Obelar, a Dominican, to the post of apostolic vicar of the province of Fukien, China, had been irregular because it had lacked the formality of presentation by the Spanish monarch. Other nominations, namely, those of 1753 and 1759, were cited as examples wherein this formality had not been lacking. The Council of the Indies recommended to the King that the nomination should be accepted and that an ayuda de costa should be voted, but that His Holiness should be notified through the Spanish ambassador in Rome that in the future the requirements of the royal patronage should be observed, and that no appointments in China, Spain, or in the Spanish colonies should be made without the consent of the Spanish monarch (A. I., 105–3–2).
26 Recopilación, 1–6–31 and 1–14–12, treat of the admission of foreign prelates and visitors to ecclesiastical posts within the Spanish colonial empire. The latter law stipulates, in addition, that all bulls must be confirmed by the Council of the Indies before their introduction into the Indies.
27 Tourón proceeded to China, where he continued his inspection. He revoked many of the privileges of the Spanish friars there and forced their retirement to Manila (consulta of the Council of the Indies on the report of the proceedings of Cardinal Tourón in China, February 24, 1710, A. I., 68–2–8). That his proceedings were recognized by the Spanish government is shown by the consulta of April 21, 1708, whereby 4000 pesos were voted to defray the expenses of Tourón in the Philippines and China. This money was added to the Philippine subsidy in Mexico (ibid.).
28 Arce to Philip III, July 30, 1619, Blair and Robertson, XVIII, 238–239.
29 Díaz, Conquistas, II, 267, et seq.; Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, I, 259.
30 Tavora to Philip IV, July 8, 1632, Blair and Robertson, XXIV, 224–228.
31 Corcuera to Philip IV, June 30, 1636, Blair and Robertson, XXVII, 21.
32 The cédula of December 15, 1797, authorized the installation of the Bishop of Nueva Segovia as archbishop in the vacant see of Manila, on the death of the incumbent, in accordance with the requirements of the royal patronage. On September 8, 1800, the Bishop of Cebú was designated as archbishop in the same manner. The installations were made by the vicepatron on the strength of these cédulas, with the understanding that the latter were to be followed by the proper papal bulls, executed in due form. Cédulas of December 15, 1797, and of September 9, 1800, A. I., 105–2–18.
33 The vicepatron had a right to do this in conjunction with the prelate until August 1, 1795, when authority was bestowed upon the latter without the interference of the civil government. Recopilación, 1–6–38, note 17.
34 Cédula of August 1, 1795, and of September 16, 1803, A. I., 105–2–10; Recopilación, 1–6, note 17.
35 Recopilación, 1–14–71 to 75; the entire title (14) of this book deals with the general subject of the religious orders. The method of procedure in such cases may be illustrated by the efforts of the government to correct the abuses of Fray Alonso Zamudio, an Augustinian, who was in charge of a parish, and who therefore was subject to episcopal visitation. He was charged with immoral and vicious conduct. The provincial of his order made an investigation and reported that the evidence brought against him would warrant his prosecution. He recommended the removal of the friar, which, he stated, he could not himself bring about because Zamudio was acting as a parish priest. The provisor of the archbishopric recommended the banishment of Zamudio, which act was carried out by the governor in acuerdo with the audiencia. A ruego y encargo was dispatched by the tribunal, soliciting the surrender of the friar. He was accordingly handed over to the civil authorities and was incarcerated in Fort Santiago until the sentence could be executed (Información del juez-provisor, y testimonio de los abusos del fraile Alonso Zamudio, May 21, 1650, A. I., 67–6–9).
36 Recopilación, 1–14–71, 72. An illustration of the operation of this sort of banishment may be noted in the case of three Augustinian friars whose deportation was requested by their provincial. The request was ignored by Governor Anda, whereupon the provincial wrote directly to the court; consequently on April 13, 1777, the king ordered the audiencia to see that these three friars were returned to Spain; Anda was advised to give more attention in the future to matters pertaining to the royal patronage (King to the Audiencia, April 13, 1777, A. I., 105–2–9).
37 This has been discussed in Chapter III of this treatise.
38 Recopilación, 1–14–67.
39 Concepción, Historia general, IX, 190; Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 400–401.
40 “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.
41 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).
42 Nuns of St. Clare to King, Blair and Robertson, XXVI, 24.
43 Recopilación, 2–31–1, 8; 6–10–8, 9.
44 Le Gentil, in Blair and Robertson, XXVIII, 218.
45 Recopilación, 3–14–28.
46 Guerela to the Council, June 20, 1702, A. I., 68–4–12.
47 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.
48 Royal decree of February 14, 1713, A. I., 68–4–18.
49 Recopilación, 1–14–42 to 46; 1–7–21 to 31; 1–6–49; 2–15–146 and 147.
50 Royal decree of December 31, 1622, Blair and Robertson, XX, 253.
51 Recopilación, 2–18–18.
52 King to the Audiencia, April 6, 1778, A. I., 105–2–9.
53 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.
54 Recopilación, 2–23–13, 12, 15.
55 King to the Audiencia, July 1, 1598, A. I., 105–2–1.
56 King to the Audiencia, December 7, 1610, Blair and Robertson, XVII, 151–152.
57 King to the Audiencia, August 17, 1628, A. I., 105–2–1.
58 Recopilación, 1–14–1.
59 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.
60 Recopilación, 1–14–2, 3, 4.
61 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.)
62 Recopilación, 3–14–4.
63 Ibid., 1–22–7.
64 Ibid., 19.
65 Ibid., 1–22–53.
66 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.
67 Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 283–294; Pastel-Colín, Labor evangélica, III, 414–418.
68 Cédula of June 30, 1778, A. I., 105–2–9.
69 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).
70 Blair and Robertson, XXXVIII, 78–80.
71 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.
72 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.
73 Recopilación, 1–16–11, 3.
74 Ibid., 13.
75 Ibid., 24; also Real Ordenanza de Intendentes de Nueva España, Art., 193.
76 Royal order of September 25, 1768, A. I., 107–5–23; see also Royal decree of July 9, 1785, A. I., 106–2–15.
77 Testimonios accompanying auto of December 11, 1775, A. I., 105–2–9.
78 King to the Audiencia, July 12, 1778, A. I., 105–2–9.
79 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.
80 Montero y Vidal, Historia general, III, 179; also King to the Audiencia, October 6, 1792, A. I., 105–2–10.
81 Aguilar to Soler, July 31, 1799, A. I., 107–5–23.
82 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).
83 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.
84 Cédula of January 22, 1803, A. I. 107–5–29.
85 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.
86 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.
87 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).
88 Cédula of November 8, 1747, with testimonios of previous correspondence, A. I., 106–5–8.
89 Informe del Contador de Cuentas del Consejo de Indias, 31 de Enero de 1755, A. I., 106–5–8.
90 Cédula of April 19, 1755, A. I., 106–5–8.
91 Arandía to the King, July 24, 1757, A. I., 106–5–8.
92 Cédula of February 21, 1759, A. I., 106–5–8.
93 King to the Audiencia, April 25, 1778, A. I., 105–2–9.
94 Cédula of August 2, 1787, A. I., 105–2–10.
95 Aguilar to the King, July 20, 1804, A. I., 107–5–29.
96 The capital of the society was at that time estimated at 151,625 pesos.
97 King to the Audiencia and Consulado, June 7, 1775, A. I., 105–2–9.
98 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.
99 Recopilación, 1–7–38, 39.
100 Ibid., 37, 40.
101 Cédula of June 24, 1712, A. I., 68–4–17; Recopilación, 1–7, note 8.
102 Auto de Espolio of Bishop Gorospe, May 28, 1715, A. I., 68–4–18.
103 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.
104 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.)
105 Real Ordenanza de Intendentes de Nueva España, Artículos 227, 228, 229.
106 Recopilación, 1–3–1; 1–4–25.
107 Ibid., 1–2–14.
108 Fajardo to the King, August 15, 1620, Blair and Robertson, XIX, 163.
109 King to the Audiencia, June (?) 1604, A. I., 105–2–1.
110 King to the Audiencia, October 30, 1634, A. I., 105–2–1.
111 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.
112 See Cunningham, “Origin of the friar lands question in the Philippines,” in The American political science review, X (August, 1916) pp. 465–480.
113 Recopilación, 1–4–20.
114 Ibid., 1–2–20.