[63] There is no question of the harmful effects of the intervention of the church in the government on this occasion. For a general survey of this subject throughout the history of the Philippines, see the author’s article entitled “The ecclesiastical influence in the Philippines” (1565–1850) in The American journal of theology, XXII, 161–186, and Robertson, “Catholicism in the Philippine Islands,” in The Catholic historical review, III, 375–391.
[64] See Chapter VIII, note 16. On June 30, 1716, Torralba forwarded an elaborate memorial to the king, showing that the finances were in an excellent state, a net gain of 38,554 pesos having accrued to the treasury since the beginning of the audiencia’s rule. On the day that this report was filed there existed in the treasury, according to Torralba’s figures, a favorable balance of 294,000 pesos. This report contains the following interesting data: Income from the subsidy, 250,000 pesos; betel monopoly, 13,167 pesos; tributes, 109,152 pesos; royal auctions, 20,377 pesos; medias anatas, 16,373 pesos; almojarifazgo, 20,377 pesos; wine monopoly, 14,000 pesos (Report of Torralba on Financial Affairs, June 30, 1716, A. I., 68–4–18). In a letter dated July 8, 1716, Torralba reported his compliance with the cédula of October 10, 1713, by means of which the king had appealed for a “free gift or contribution on the part of the inhabitants of the Islands to assist in putting down a Catalonian conspiracy.” Torralba stated that the audiencia had seen to the fulfillment of this command and had collected the sum of 7,042 pesos (Torralba to King, July 8, 1716, A. I., 68–4–18).
[65] Concepción, Historia general, IX, 44, et seq. Pavón, it will be remembered, had been removed for advising Governor Zabalburú to receive the French papal delegate, Tourón. In 1718 all of Torralba’s acts against Tourón and Villa were nullified by the Council of the Indies, and those officials were restored to office, while Torralba was condemned to perpetual exile (A. I., 68–2–8).
[66] Torralba to the King, July 15, 1715, A. I., 68–4–18; another report of Torralba on the same subject, dated September 1, 1717, exists in A. I., 68–2–8.
[67] Royal Fiscal to the Council, August 21, 1719, A. I., 68–4–18.
[68] Torralba to the King, June 15, 1716 [with approval of Council indicated on margin], A. I., 68–4–18; Recopilación, 6–8, 6–9, 6–10.
[69] Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, II, 37–40.
[70] Zúñiga, who was favorable to the rule of the churchmen, writes: “There never appeared less confusion at an insurrection than on the present occasion, every individual seeming satisfied with his lot in being relieved from unjust oppression and violence. The archbishop, who had assumed the reins of government, was the only person whose mind was not at ease; but in a short time he was restored to tranquillity by the arrival of a royal order, enjoining him to suspend the Governor from his office, and imprison him; replace the Royal Audience on the same footing as before; set at liberty Señor Velasco (an oidor who had been imprisoned by Torralba), and assume the reins of government himself, which was exactly what had been effected by the late disturbance.”—Martínez de Zúñiga, op. cit., II, 39–40.
[71] Royal order of September 8, 1720, A. I., 106–4–16. Testimonio of cédula of November 23, 1774, A. I., 105–2–9. Two years later, the home government showed its disapprobation of the rigorous acts of Cuesta by demoting him from his place as Archbishop of the Philippines to the minor post of Bishop of Mechoacán in New Spain (Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 432). The assumption of the government by Cuesta invited the suspicion that he had been a party to the murder of the governor. Seven archbishops had already ruled on various occasions in New Spain (Bolton, Guide, 469–470). It is surprising that such an attempt to solve this problem was not made earlier in the history of the Philippines.
[72] Martínez de Zúñiga, op. cit., II, 84–95; Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 480–495.