The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898, Volume 44, 1700-1736 / Explorations by early navigators, descriptions of the islands and their peoples, their history and records of the Catholic missions, as related in contemporaneous books and manuscripts, showing the political, economic, commercial and religious conditions of those islands from their earliest relations with European nations to the close of the nineteenth century.

by Unknown

PERIOD VI

Of what occurred from the year 1718, in which the commerce of silken fabrics was prohibited, up to the year 1722, in which the merchants of Philipinas protested.

55. The Marqués de Valero, then viceroy of Mexico, in a letter of March 12, 1719—accompanied by a duplicate of another letter dated June 20, 1718, in which he acknowledged the receipt of the despatches in the private correspondence, dated January 8 of that same year, which prohibited all silks in the ship from Philipinas—considered the inconveniences which would result from that commerce being reduced to linen goods, porcelain, wax, pepper, cinnamon, and cloves, excluding stuffs, and raw silk and [silken] fabrics. For, he said, if this prohibition should be put in practice, the result would be the decay of religion, and the risk that it would be neglected, and its extension would be endangered and even exposed to ruin although this matter had cost his Majesty so much solicitude in promoting and assisting the missions for preaching the faith. [He declared] that the Spanish families who were there would abandon the settlements, for they could not maintain themselves in those islands without the trade in the aforesaid commodities, since that in the merchandise allowed to them had no profit, on account of its low price and the little demand for it. That the natives of Nueva España were also included in the prohibition, since their usual material for clothing was the stuffs from China, on account of the moderate prices of these, and because they could not use the cloth from España, since it was more expensive—unless, if they are deprived of the former, it will follow that they consume the latter; for if their need and poverty would permit it they would use the Spanish cloth, since all value it more on account of its greater durability and better quality. That the arrival of the trading-fleets was welcomed by the rich merchants, but that most of the people in the kingdom were much more eager to see the ship from China; and, if its arrival were delayed, one did not fail to notice many expressions of regret. That the royal treasury was notoriously injured; for, with the duties which the silk merchandise yielded, the situado was forwarded to Philipinas and the Marianas Islands, and in default of those duties it would be necessary to make the remittance from the funds in the treasury of Mexico. That would cause arrears in paying the fixed charges which the treasury had to carry, and could hardly meet with all its income, and the royal treasury would also be injured by the loss of the ten per cent which was paid by the silver sent in return for merchandise; and, besides, the few commodities which were carried would not yield enough to cover the cost of the navigation.

56. The fiscal—to whom it was ordered to send these representations, that he might examine them and compare them with the Expediente—made his reply on January 10, in the year 1720, reaffirming the motives which had prevailed, since the discovery and conquest of those islands, in permitting to them the commerce with Nueva España, so far as it was necessary to their preservation. [He also stated] the infractions of law which had changed the amount permitted—250,000 pesos of principal, and 500,000 for the returns (which “Period i” mentions)—and what was ordained by the royal decree of August 12, 1702, for the regulation of the management and continuance of this commerce; and declarations made by his Majesty in regard to unsettled points which arose, in the meeting of the Council in 1712, from which despatches were sent on December 12, of that year (which are mentioned in “Period iii”); and the fact that the abuses with which the merchants of Peru had carried on commerce with Nueva España had made it necessary that in the year 1631 that trade should be entirely prohibited. He was of the following opinion: that the permission to trade ought to be continued to the citizens of Philipinas, for the damages to the commerce of España would be avoided if that of Philipinas did not exceed the 300,000 pesos which were allowed to it.

57. That if this commerce should perish, trade and intercourse in those distant provinces would cease; and if they were cut off from communication with Nueva España they would remain exposed to seeking for commerce with the adjoining nations, and in imminent danger of trading away at the same time their own rights and customs, and of going to perdition—the Catholic faith being extinguished entirely or in part, the propagation and maintenance of which was and always had been the chief care of his Majesty.

58. That although in the royal decrees of January 8, 1718, there was reserved to the islands the trade in sugar, porcelain, linens (called “elephants”),[11] and spices, these commodities were not adequate for maintaining a continued commerce, nor for producing the revenues which those islands needed.

59. That the government should not disregard the consideration brought forward by Señor Valero, of the damage which ensued to the poor vassals of Nueva España from depriving them of the privilege of supplying themselves at less cost with the fabrics from Philipinas; for if they cannot obtain these, and the poor are unable to meet the expenses of the Spanish merchandise on account of its high price, they would be exposed to the wretchedness of destitution. In conclusion, he said that advice should be given to his Majesty that the remonstrance of Señor Marqués de Valero was just; and that deference should be paid to it, by suspending the operation of the above-mentioned decrees and warning all the officials in those regions that they must conform without any variation to the orders given in the decree of the year 1702—with various provisions which he proposed, one of which was the total prohibition of the commerce in case the conditions of that decree were violated.

60. Having considered this reply of the fiscal, it was agreed by an act dated February 1, 1720, to advise his Majesty in accordance with all the preceding recommendations; and the Council was of opinion that it should reiterate the enforcement of [the commands in] the despatches of August 12, 1702, and December 13, 1712, with a strict stipulation that the ship could not be allowed to sail if the value of the 300,000 pesos of the permission were invested in silks only.

61. While this opinion was in the royal hands, an order from his Majesty came down to the Council dated September 5, 1720, in which—influenced by a memorial which had been presented by Don Manuel Lopez Pintado in the name of the consulate and commerce of Cadiz; and by a letter from Marqués de Valero just then received, dated March 8, in the same year—his Majesty commanded that the Council should inform him of their opinions in regard to the prohibition of stuffs and silks from China in the Philipinas ship, after first listening to the memorial from the commerce of Cadiz.