“... We reckon with the pleasure of the Civil Governor Sr. Centeno (see note 2) to make a manifestation against the friars, who oppress us with their abuses, and oppose the progress of the country.”
“—Very good indeed I replied full of enthusiasm.
“But my enthusiasm disappeared entirely when Cortes told me with the greatest frankness, that they asked and were sure of attaining their wish, that the Archbishop should be deported, merely for having failed to assist at the religious functions dedicated to the King[1].
“I then doubted the ability[2] of the directors of the manifestation, and believed that they would be irremissibly crushed by the friars, who were very astute and powerful, as in fact it so happened.
“I retired leaving Ramos in that house.
“I immediately went to see his father and said to him: The manifestation has fallen flat. I have come to tell you that in my opinion, your son ought not to sign the instance of the manifestos. Let all those who like do so, but it would be a pity that your son who, in the time to come, may be able to render signal services to the country should now fall crushed by the friars. Now that Cortés says that he reckons with the authorities, your son’s signature is not very necessary.
“And neither Cortés nor Ramos signed it.”
[1] This was Alfonso XII. the anniversary of whose death fell of the 25th of November. Archbishop Payo had been suffering for a considerable time from dysentery. Apart from this, the bitterness of the official relations at that time between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities had completely incapacitated the venerable prelate from attending to his official duties. Consequently, acting upon the advice of his physician, the Archbishop left Manila for Navotas for a few days of complete rest. The departure of the Archbishop happened to almost coincide with the anniversary of the death of the King; but as the prelate was physically unable to attend to the pontifical ceremonies which were to be held on that day and to the other functions consequent upon such a solemn occasion, he was wisely advised to absent himself from the city.
Freemasonry ever on the watch, saw in this an opportunity to attack the Religious Orders, and taking advantage of it, demanded: “The insult committed by the archbishop being therefore very culpable, and having caused the greatest indignation to the government, to the nation, and in particular to those of this country, as devoted to their king; it is indispensable to expel him from this soil, imposing upon him the penalty of temporary banishment marked out by article 142 of the penal code.