[56] See note to Recopilación, 1–19–4.
[57] Le Gentil, II, 172. Recopilación, 6–1–35.
[58] Audiencia to the King, July 20, 1585, A. I., 67–6–18. On June 26, 1586, the audiencia recommended the discontinuance of the Inquisition in the Philippines on the ground that it had been utilized “as a citadel for the shelter of those desirous of resisting the royal authority” (Audiencia to the King, A. I., 68–1–33). Archbishop Santibañez, on the other hand, was desirous of converting the inquisitorial authority into a tribunal to consist of two ecclesiastics and one oidor. He argued that the distance from Mexico made procedure cumbersome, and it was manifestly unjust that residents of the Philippines should be judged by a foreign court (referring to the tribunal in Mexico.—Santibañez to Philip II, June 24, 1598, Blair and Robertson, X, 151). These same sentiments were expressed sixty years later by Francisco Bello, procurator at Madrid for the religious orders. The Council of the Indies returned the petition which had been submitted by this last-named ecclesiastic, to the Viceroy of New Spain, and to the Audiencia and Archbishop of Manila, respectively, for their advice. The consensus of opinion was against the idea of creating a tribunal in Manila, partially on account of the expense. It was also shown that such a reform would have meant a loss of power to the viceroyalty of New Spain, and by the adoption of such a suggestion there would be created a powerful tribunal which would seriously inconvenience the authority and supremacy of the audiencia and the archbishop at Manila (Consulta of the Council of the Indies, March 15, 1659, A. I., 67–6–22).
[59] Cited already in various connections, particularly in Chapters II and X of this treatise.
[60] In the Philippines, archbishops were frequently able to combine the functions and offices of metropolitan prelate and commissary of the Inquisition. This gave greater pre-eminence to the archbishop and made the situation more difficult for the civil authorities. We have already noted an illustration of this in the case of Archbishop Pardo (1683–1689). Being also commissary of the Inquisition, he refused to grant absolution to ex-Governor Vargas, claiming that his authority as sole inquisitor was not sufficient to justify such action on his part without first receiving advice from the tribunal in Mexico.
[61] Lea, in his well-known work on The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies says that “while this branch of the Inquisition (referring to that in the Philippines) accomplished so little for the faith, it was eminently successful in the function of contributing to the disorder and confusion which so disastrously affected Spanish colonial administration” (p. 308). For a more detailed account of this episode see Cunningham, “The inquisition in the Philippines: the Salcedo affair,” in The Catholic historical review, III, 417–445.
[62] The leading church historians of the Philippines—Martínez de Zúñiga, Salazar, Fonseca and Concepción—were naturally unfavorable to Salcedo in their accounts of the events of his administration. All agree, however, that Salcedo was a man of energy and precision, who, at the beginning of his rule, gave promise of universal satisfaction. The correspondence of the civil officials who were contemporaneous with the governor, and the letters of Salcedo himself show that his chief concern was the enforcement of the laws and the elimination of the ecclesiastical and commercial graft with which the administration of the government of the Philippines was permeated on his arrival in the Islands (Letters of Coloma, Bónifaz, Montemayor, León, and the Municipal Cabildo, 1670–1, A. I., 67–6–3; see also note to Ventura del Arco Mss., in Blair and Robertson, XXXVII, 262).
Zúñiga, however, states that Salcedo’s commercial reforms were only intended for the benefit of himself and his friends, and that he reserved the chief articles of trade for himself, leaving only second-rate and spoiled goods for the merchants. This same historian states that the governor arranged for the early departure of the galleon on one occasion, with his goods on board, leaving those of the majority of the merchants unshipped (Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, I, 307–308). Fonseca charges him with avarice, maintaining that all classes of society in Manila were disgusted with the governor’s commercial transactions and were shocked at his exile of the archbishop. This historian relates that “the magistracy, the army, the merchants, arts and industries, ... all raised their voices against the badly directed government of Salcedo, determining to over-turn him; representative citizens of Manila petitioned the audiencia, asking that it deprive him of the government, ... and the royal acuerdo determined to do so, but at the last moment the judges disagreed over the question of whose signature should precede the others; this question remained in litigation, and blocked the action of the royal acuerdo” (Fonseca, Historia de la provincia de santissimo Rosario. Libro V, Capítulo VIII, quoted in Sobre una reseña histórica, 92). Concepción, the Augustinian historian, confirms the above, and gives a more clarifying reason for the failure of the audiencia to oust the governor—namely, that the latter was sharing his commercial profits with the magistrates, thereby purchasing their favors; the oidores were therefore reluctant to take action against the governor (Concepción, Historia general, VII, 137–138, 162–200).
[63] Salcedo was charged with plotting to sell the Islands to the Dutch and with surrounding himself with Flemings, one of whom was a Calvinist. It was alleged that he had already sent large sums of money to Macao, including a large part of the funds in the Manila treasury, and that he was preparing to depart in person. It was said moreover that he intended to return in command of a Dutch squadron and capture the colony for Holland. It is evident that there was no lack of charges against Salcedo (The original correspondence and consultas of the various tribunals which considered the charges against Salcedo may be noted in A. I., 67–6–3. See Blair and Robertson, XXXVII, 37–60, Lea, The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies, 299–318, and the ecclesiastical authorities mentioned in the preceding note).
Dr. Pardo de Tavera, in his account of the arrest of Governor Salcedo, says that “in 1668, Governor Salcedo had some difference with (the friars) ... and the archbishop and as a result, the latter decided to avenge themselves, plotting with the military officials, regidores and merchants to bring him before the Inquisition. They made a conspiracy and, one night while the governor slept, the conspirators, among whom were the provincial of the Franciscans, the guardián of the convent of that order in Manila, and various other ecclesiastics, entered his room, surprising him while he slept, and placed him in irons. He was thus taken to the convent of the Franciscans, but considering the latter insecure, they carried him to that of San Augustín, loading him with a heavy chain” (Pardo de Tavera, Reseña Histórica, 37). After a period of imprisonment in Manila, Salcedo was ordered to Mexico for trial by the tribunal of the Inquisition, as the local authority was without authority to take further action in the matter. Salcedo never reached his destination, however, as he died at sea. This was subsequently the fate of Paternina, the inquisitor who was responsible for his disgrace.