163–185. [The viceroy, Marqués de Casa-Fuerte, wrote to one of the royal Council, Don Joseph Patiño (November 1, 1731), giving his opinion in regard to the regulation of the Philippine commerce. Estimating roughly the returns from the annual Manila galleon at 2,000,000 pesos when before the sum of 600,000 only was allowed, he regards the present permission as injurious to the commerce of España and to the commercial interests of Nueva España as well; for three vessels come from Philipinas to one trading-fleet from España, and, by carrying out of the country some six millions of pesos, they render the disposal of the merchandise brought on the fleets difficult, besides handing over the treasures of the Spanish domain to infidels. He advocates the reduction of the permission to such amount as will produce not more than 1,000,000 pesos of returns for Manila; and thinks that there is foundation for the remonstrances of the Spanish merchants, although they have exaggerated the amount of the money sent to Manila and the damage to their own trade therefrom. That damage arises almost entirely from the Chinese silks and ribbons sent to Acapulco, which at the fair in that year (1731) were sold for the estimated amount of a million pesos; he therefore recommends that Manila be strictly prohibited from shipping to Acapulco any silk, of any kind or quality whatsoever, except raw, twisted, and floss silk, hose, and white sayasayas; and that the value and amount of all the goods sent thither be judiciously regulated, so that prices may be kept within bounds. This result also depends considerably on the fact that in Mexico large quantities of cotton are raised, from which are made various fabrics; “and in the bishopric of La Puebla the elephant stuffs (which are a sort of Rouen cloth, but made from cotton, which serves for the shirts of very poor people, and for the linings of garments, like the thin hollands), which form a considerable part of the cargo of the ship from Philipinas, are so well imitated that they would and do check a rise in the prices of the cotton goods from China. In this City [of Mexico] all the raw silk which comes from Philipinas (a sufficient amount, so that the fleets [from España] do not bring it) is worked up, and in this industry many poor persons are employed, thus obtaining a suitable means of livelihood; and the fabrics which are made by them are consumed in this kingdom only.” With these restrictions and precautions, the viceroy would recommend that the regulations of 1726 continue. He would also remit the payment now made by the citizens of 20,000 pesos annually to the treasury; but this loss, and that in the customs duties from the lack of the Chinese silks, would be recompensed by the better sales which would thus be afforded to the Spanish silk goods. In January, 1732, the viceroy consulted his fiscal, who thought that the Manila trade should be restricted, say to a million pesos of investments, and prohibiting the Chinese silks; that this would benefit the Spanish traders, and would also secure the opening of Peru to trade with Nueva España. In the following month, the viceroy called together a junta of auditors and other experienced persons to discuss this subject; they favored Manila, and advised that no definite action be taken as yet. The viceroy, hearing that from Mexico and other cities more than 1,500,000 pesos in silver was being sent to Acapulco, presumably intended for Filipinas, felt the necessity of taking measures to prevent the despatch of too much merchandise from Manila in the future galleons, since the five years’ term allowed to that city would expire in 1733. He therefore referred to the junta the question whether he should write to Manila that the galleon of 1734 must come with a cargo in accordance with the former plan of 300,000 pesos’ investment and 600,000 for returns; and whether he should enforce the decree of 1720 by prohibiting that galleon from carrying any Chinese silks. The junta decided both these questions in the affirmative, advising the viceroy to notify Manila accordingly—these regulations to be made, provided that the king meanwhile did not give new orders. The viceroy therefore sent despatches to Don Fernando Valdés Tamón, the governor of Filipinas, and to the city of Manila, to that effect (March 20 and 25, 1732);[3] and on April 3 following sent a report of all these proceedings to Don Joseph Patiño. He recommends that Manila be allowed only 3,000 piezas in all, of which only 100 chests be permitted for the finer grades of cotton goods, entirely prohibiting the silk goods from China, except those mentioned in his letter of November 1 preceding; that besides the 3,000 piezas, the citizens be allowed to send wax and porcelain at their pleasure, as these are commodities of little value, and needed by Nueva España; that any smuggled silks be publicly burned, and very rigorous penalties imposed on transgressors; that more rigorous inspection of the lading be made at Manila, to prevent any contraband goods being sent, not only in the shipments of traders, but in the chests of passengers, officers, and others on the galleons; that suspected packages be opened at Acapulco; that the returns sent back to Manila be in no case allowed to exceed a million of pesos; and that the contribution of 20,000 pesos be remitted to the Manila shippers.]
186–188. [The viceroy’s letter was referred to the royal Council; the deputies from Filipinas—at that time, Lorenzo de Rugama y Palacio, and Miguel Fernandez Munilla—thereupon asked for all the documents belonging to the Council which bore upon this subject; the Council consented (March 26, 1733) to do so, with the reservation of certain documents, and the deputies then drew up a long memorial protesting against the proposed restrictions on their commerce.]
189–190. [This memorial may be “reduced to five points: In the first it is proved that, for the preservation of the islands, and the propagation of the Catholic faith in them and in the adjoining regions, their commerce with Nueva España is necessary. In the second, it is declared that for the above result it is necessary that the commerce be carried on and allowed with a capital corresponding to the returns of 1,200,000 pesos every year. In the third, it is made plain that returns to that amount are impossible, if the traffic in the silken fabrics and goods from China, and their transportation, are prohibited to the merchants of Manila. In the fourth, it is demonstrated that no value should be attached to the exaggerated statement that damages will ensue to the commerce of España if that of Manila be allowed to embark and convey silk fabrics to Acapulco. In the fifth, it is explained how desirable is the continuation of the last regulation of the commerce, granted to the islands in the year 1726; and the advantages which result from that ordinance, notwithstanding the representations made by the viceroy.” This memorial presents a brief résumé of the various royal orders and decrees and the principal events connected with the Manila-Acapulco commerce during its history, from 1587 to 1726; another, of the investigations made by the viceroy of Mexico regarding the galleon of 1731; and another, of the proceedings of the junta which he called together for discussion of the measures to be taken regarding the galleon of 1734. Then the above five points are considered seriatim, and at considerable length—mainly by restating and enforcing the arguments formerly employed, rather than by adducing new ones. In section i, the king is reminded that the islands serve as a safeguard and defense to Nueva España, and have kept the foreigners, infidels, and pagans of the East from getting a foothold therein by way of the Pacific coast; and it closes thus: “Thus, Sire, if this commerce ceases—the only foundation on which rests the maintenance of these islands—the Spaniards will abandon them; without their protection, the [religious] ministers will be persecuted to the utmost; the works of piety and charity in which the holy house of La Misericordia and the other foundations in Manila distribute enormous sums will cease; the religious orders will be reduced to uselessness; those villages will be desolated, by which your Majesty will lose many vassals; the foreigners and infidels adjoining those countries will make themselves masters of the islands; and (which is most cause for grief), when the fortunate advancement of our religion which has been secured there ceases, those who had embraced the faith will go to seek their living in the lands of the pagans, with evident risk of relapsing into the errors which they had detested. These dangers are worthy of the profound consideration of your Majesty, and cannot be averted if the commerce of Philipinas with Nueva España fails.” In section ii, the deputies protest against the returns of 1731 being made the standard for the regular value of this commerce, as the gains of that year’s Acapulco fair were phenomenally large. They declare that in order to maintain themselves they need not less than 1,200,000 pesos annually, especially as the number of citizens in Manila is now larger than in former years—in view of which, the amount for which they ask is very moderate, being even less in proportion than it was then. The following statements of population are interesting: in 1636–37, the number of Spaniards in Manila was 230; in 1702, there were 400; and in 1722, 882, a number which has since increased [this memorial being prepared in 1733]. What Manila asks will barely allow to each inhabitant, on the average, an investment of 800 pesos, which is hardly enough for a decent mode of living. What encouragement does this give to Spaniards to settle in such a country, and how can they thus better their fortunes? The opinions of various high officials (including viceroys of Mexico) are cited in support of this claim. Not only the Spaniards who are citizens of Manila are to be considered in this question, but the two millions of Christian natives who depend on the Spanish power, not to mention the 1,500 ecclesiastics who are occupied in maintaining the Catholic faith in the islands. In section iii, it is argued that the people of Filipinas must be allowed the trade in Chinese silks in order to secure any profit from their commerce. Manila claims that the restrictions imposed by the decree of 1720 were procured by the efforts of Cadiz, without the consent of the people of Filipinas, to whom those restrictions brought much distress; that the Acapulco trade was granted to them in the first place in order to attract Spaniards as colonists, in order that intercourse with them might be the means of entrance and extension for the Catholic faith among pagans and infidels; that España produces hardly enough silk goods for its own consumption, and imports much from foreign countries, so that there is no just reason for prohibiting this trade to Filipinas. “Since what the Sangleys chiefly trade in is the silken fabrics and ribbons, if the shipment of these goods to Nueva España is forbidden that is the same as prohibiting intercourse with the Sangleys, because the consumption of the said silks and ribbons is very small, or not any, in Philipinas.” The customs duties and alcavalas on the silk trade at Manila amount to some 40,000 pesos a year, which would be lost to the royal treasury by the failure of that trade; it will also have no means with which to buy the rice produced by the Indians. No profit can be made on the linens and other common fabrics prescribed in the decree of 1720, as they are of little esteem in Nueva España, and the demand for them is small, as also is their value, “since in one bale of these goods only the value of sixty or seventy pesos can be contained.” If at the Acapulco fair these goods, even when the amount shipped is uncertain, bring prices so low that there is but little profit over the duties, freight-charges, and other costs, it may be imagined how unprofitable this sort of investment will be when (if that decree be enforced) the buyers there regard the cargo as composed mainly of these goods, “and the venders are not able to practice the maxim of concealing the [amount of the] merchandise, in order to secure the highest price for it, its abundance, which lowers the price, not being known.” The sayasayas and hose, the only form of silk fabrics permitted to Manila, are productive of but little profit; and even that would be entirely lost if they were shipped in large enough quantities to complete the amount of investment allowed to Manila, for the prices in Nueva España would thus be greatly lowered. Even if this were not so, one voyage of the galleon would so fully provide the warehouses of Mexico that no more would be needed for the next three or four years, which would ruin Manila’s market for these goods. It is impossible that of these bulky goods any adequate quantity could be shipped within the number of piezas at present allotted to the citizens of Manila, which, indeed, is all that their one galleon can carry. Manila claims that the viceroy had no right to give the order regarding the galleon of 1734, and that both he and the junta rashly assumed that the prosperous Acapulco fair of 1731 was the standard by which to judge the results of that commerce—when in reality that was an accidental and unusual success; nor did the royal officials of Acapulco propose that the trade in Chinese silks should be prohibited to Manila, but only that the number of 4,000 piezas allowed it should be reduced. Section iv refutes the arguments brought forward by Andalusia against the trade in Chinese silks as injuring Spanish trade and manufactures, declaring them to be exaggerations and misrepresentations of the real facts. “It has very recently been made evident by that very commerce [of Cadiz] that the fabrics of España are not able to supply those provinces [of America], by the fact that in the company which, with the name of ‘Philipinas,’ has been established in the city of Cadiz, by royal decree of March 29, in this present year of 1733, among the articles and agreements which have been set down therein is one providing that in each ship of those which (without limitation) may be allowed to them for their traffic the silken fabrics from China may be freighted, to the extent of fifty toneladas, a little more or less; and, bringing those goods to these kingdoms [of España], they may sell them therein—not for consumption here, for this is prohibited; but that they may export those goods to foreign countries and to America, where they may be sold and consumed. From this it is evident, in spite of the complaints which the commerce of Cadiz has so often repeated on this point—while the merchants of Manila have never consented to this company, rather, always protesting and speaking against it, and when what may be offered to them is found by experience to be prejudicial to the preservation and maintenance of those islands—that the silk goods which are made in España are of so small amount that they cannot supply America, nor can those of China injure the consumption and satisfactory disposal of the Spanish goods.”[4] Manila claims that this new company will draw from the Spanish empire a much greater quantity of silver for the benefit of infidels than Manila can spend in buying the goods which have been sent thence to Acapulco; and that Cadiz has no room for complaints against the other commerce, since its own merchants are interested in this company—and all without the weighty motives which led to the concession of the Philippine commerce, the propagation of the Catholic faith, the preservation of the Spanish power in Eastern Asia, and the advancement of the Christian religion there. The establishment of this “Royal Company of Philipinas,” in which traders of Cadiz have shares, shows plainly that all their complaints against the injuries to Spanish commerce from the Manila silk-trade were “merely a pretext for their securing the slender profits which that trade yielded to the islands.” The trading-fleets and galleons which are sent out from Cadiz every two years are laden mainly with products made by foreign nations—English, Dutch, Genoese, Venetians, and others—and this traffic alienates from the Spanish crown each year more than eight millions of pesos; and even greater drain of money results from the traffic which those foreign nations carry on in the Indias.[5] Much more money is taken out of Nueva España by the Spanish trading-fleets, laden mainly with articles produced by foreigners and shipped thither by the merchants of Cadiz, than by the Manila galleon which carries thither goods bought from the Chinese. In the former case, the money is used to injure and harass the Spanish power; in the second, it goes to the Chinese, who are able neither to invade Spanish territory nor to aid the enemies of the crown. These foreign trading nations, moreover, carry to China and other countries of Eastern Asia more than four millions of pesos of Mexican and Peruvian coinage, which they spend there for the purchase of silks and other commodities, “in order to introduce these goods into the Indias, either illicitly or through the agency of the traders of Cadiz.” In the junta convened by the viceroy of Mexico in February, 1732, one of the leading arguments for continuing the increased permission to Manila was, “that the returns of silver produced by the fabrics of foreign manufacture which the aforesaid [traders of Cadiz] send in fleets and galleons to the Indias were in tens of millions, which from the ports of España pass to foreign dominions, and from these to the infidels of the Orient.” The aforesaid Company of Philipinas has obtained permission that in each ship sent out by its members (the number of vessels not being limited) they may convey, besides the goods, the amount of 500 pesos fuertes in silver money—more or less, according to the needs of their business—to be invested in Oriental goods, with freedom to change for gold any surplus that may be left of that capital.[6] This permission leads to the drain of much silver from the country, opens the door for great frauds, and is manifestly unfair to Manila if the latter is to be deprived of its China trade. As for the ruin of the silk industry in España, “the city of Sevilla itself openly confessed (in a memorial dated April 24, 1696) that the ruin of its looms and the deterioration of its commerce arose from the single cause of the manufactures which the French, English, and Dutch had, since the middle of the past century, introduced into their dominions, and from the lack of assiduous industry in the natives of these [kingdoms of España]; and that for this reason those peoples carried to their own countries our wools, in order to return them in the shape of cloths and other goods, which their industry was able to manufacture from those wools. The same thing occurs with the silks which (as we are experiencing) they are introducing into these kingdoms, [made] from the [raw] silk which they obtain here; and they sell in the Orient various stuffs and fabrics, with which usually the people of rank in these kingdoms are clothed; and such people in the Indias wear the goods which the merchants of España convey in fleets and galleons—as may be known by the books of the customs duties, in which appears all the above, and the increased amount of silken fabrics which the foreigners are introducing through the port of Cadiz, and others that open on the Mediterranean Sea.” Cadiz is reminded that its commerce penetrates into Peru, Buenos Ayres, Honduras, and other regions which are forbidden to Manila; that it has no more successful fairs in Peru than in Nueva España (indeed, obtaining even larger profits in the latter country); notwithstanding the alleged ruinous competition of Manila; and that the contraband trade carried on in the Western Indias by the foreign industrial nations causes far more damage to Cadiz than does the small amount of trade allowed to Manila. Cadiz has made no complaint against the shipment by Manila of stuffs from India and spices, doubtless because the prohibition of these would injure the trade of the English[7] and the Dutch, from whom Manila buys those goods, and whom Cadiz favors and tries to enrich at the expense of the Philippine vassals of the crown, regardless of the injurious effects of such procedure on the propagation of the faith and the welfare of the former heathen who have been converted to it in the East. Manila asserts that the necessity of buying Chinese goods for the maintenance of the islands, and the increasing competition of the European nations in Eastern markets, have so raised the prices of those goods that Manila no longer can obtain the large profits which they formerly brought in Nueva España, but must now sell them at a very moderate advance over their cost (including of course therein transportation, duties, etc.). The prompt despatch of the Manila galleon from Acapulco has been caused mainly by the necessity of its sailing at certain times to secure favorable winds and weather; but this haste has been an injury to the Manila shippers, “for it hinders them from selling their goods at a higher value, so they often dispose of them, for this reason, at the prices that the Mexicans are willing to pay for them, and at other times leave them for sale on commission [en encomienda], with the danger of losing them, and with the evident arrearage which is caused to the shippers by the lack of the money [which should have been received] from their sale, for use in their investments in the following galleon.” The memorial concludes with section v, in which Manila urges, in view of all the foregoing, that the permission of 1726 be continued to the islands, and consequently, that the recent orders of the viceroy of Nueva España regarding the lading of the next galleon be revoked. These orders were at least premature, as the shipments from Manila under the new permission did not begin until 1730, so that the galleon of 1734 was entitled to a cargo of the sort allowed therein; moreover, the viceroy acted against the advice of the junta which he had convened to discuss this question. Manila claims that in 1732 the galleon did not carry back to the islands even what they needed for their maintenance, the returns from its cargo (although that contained the 4,000 piezas of permission) amounting to only 1,100,000 pesos; and in the present year of 1733 the returns will be hardly one-half of what the shippers received, on the average, in the years preceding the new permission—the Acapulco fair being a poor one this year, on account of the large cargoes brought by the fleet from Cadiz, and the large amount of fabrics brought by “the English ship.” Manila needs 1,200,000 pesos annually, at the least; and in order to secure that amount needs the extension of trade permitted in 1726. The returns of 1731, as has been proved, cannot be taken as the measure of its value, especially when allowance is made for the possibility of storms, shipwreck, or other disaster to the galleon. Manila also asks that if the returns should fall below 1,200,000 pesos, its annual contribution of 20,000 pesos to the royal treasury be dispensed with. The king is reminded of the great services which the people of Filipinas have always rendered to the crown, in opposing the encroachments of the Dutch and others against the Spanish power in the East, in defending the natives of the islands against the Moro pirates, in contributions for building royal ships and for meeting other pressing needs of the royal treasury, and always freely offering their lives and their property for the defense or aid of the crown—to say nothing of their devotion to the observance and extension of the Catholic faith, their support of missionaries, and their zeal in converting the heathen. Manila asks for the extension in perpetuity of the permission of 1726, with various minor concessions; if this be not granted, then it is asked for another five years, with the proviso that no change be made at the instance of Andalusia only, or without opportunity being given to Manila to express its wishes and set forth its needs.]
191–192. [This memorial was sent by the Council to the fiscal; his reply was handed in on November 10, 1733. He thinks that the islands need indispensably the traffic to Nueva España, including the Chinese silks, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the viceroy of that country; and that the prohibition made by the latter ought to be raised. Moreover, he finds that the royal treasury is the gainer by the new arrangement: the duties up to 1702 amounted to 74,000 pesos, and from that time to 1729, to 100,000 pesos; but in 1730 (the first year in which goods were shipped under the permission of 1726) the duties, including the 20,000 pesos of contribution, were 202,754 pesos, and in the following year 229,552 pesos. He would not make a positive regulation regarding the Manila-Acapulco trade until the five-years’ term is completed; but he makes the following recommendations: that the commerce be free in all kinds of goods, not excluding the Chinese silks and ribbons, but that the lading of the galleon be restricted to 3,600 piezas, of which 400 may be in those silk goods and others which do not allow the use of the press; and that the duties on all packages be the same as those specified in the decree of 1726, and that Manila be freed from the contribution of 20,000 pesos. He also recommends that Manila be allowed to send wax in cakes of eighteen (instead of twelve) arrobas net; and that his proposed arrangement be put in force for five years, in order to test its practicability—or, if the king so prefer, that the decree of 1726 be extended for another term of five years.]
193–197. [In this place is presented the informatory report of the royal accountant at Mexico to the viceroy in 1730, because it is frequently cited in this controversy; but it is concerned mainly with the size of the packages on the Manila galleon.[8] It appears that these were measured by the vara de Ribera,[9] instead of the Castilian vara, the former being “longer than the Castilian, by four dedos and part of another;” but allowance was afterward made for this difference. Ardila, the accountant, also recommended to the viceroy the enlargement of Manila’s permission to 1,200,000 pesos of returns, and the reopening of the commerce between Nueva España and Peru. The royal Council discussed the fiscal’s reply and other documents, and advised the king (December 19, 1733) to order the viceroy to recall his obnoxious orders relative to the galleons of 1734 and succeeding years, and to regulate the cargoes by the decrees in force from 1712 to 1720—“excluding absolutely the regulation of the permission by piezas, and commanding that this be made in future strictly by invoices and sworn declarations.” The ministers did not agree on the question of the amount of returns to be permitted to Manila, five being of opinion that no change should be made in the allowance of 300,000 pesos of investment and 600,000 of returns, and the five others advocating an increase to 500,000 and 1,000,000 pesos respectively. (The names of the first five are: Don Manuel de Sylva, the Marqués de Almodobar, Don Antonio de Sopeña, Don Fernando Verdes Montenegro, and Don Francisco Antonio de Aguirre; of the last five, Don Diego de Zuñiga, the Marqués de Montemayor, Don Matheo Ibañez de Mendoza, Don Antonio Alvarez de Abreu, and Don Joseph de Valdiviesso. Abreu was the compiler of the Extracto.) The reasons for each of these opinions are given in detail.]
198–200. [When this opinion was ready to be sent to the king, letters arrived from the governor and Audiencia of Filipinas, remonstrating against the orders of the viceroy regarding the galleon of 1734. At the same time, the Manila deputies at Madrid presented another memorial to the Council, which accordingly held a new conference over this matter. On December 23 (after having consulted the fiscal), they reported to the king their opinion, which they said had not been changed by the aforesaid despatches. The king approved of their advice in regard to recalling the viceroy’s orders, and in regard to the controverted point of the amount which should be allowed to Manila, he approved the opinion of Zuñiga and his associates, that of the increase to 500,000 and 1,000,000 pesos. The letters from the governor and Audiencia ask that the cargoes be estimated by piezas, and propose 300 or 400 chests of Chinese silk goods, instead of the 500 formerly asked; the memorial of the deputies urges that the sales for the first three of the five years had averaged only 1,350,000 pesos, and the succeeding ones could not exceed 1,200,000 pesos, which latter sum was necessary for the preservation of the islands.]
201–212. [On February 23, 1734, the Manila deputies presented a new memorial, under eight heads, making various minor requests in regard to the new regulation for the commerce, some of which were granted, and some refused. On April 8, a royal decree was issued making such regulation;[10] after briefly reviewing the various proceedings and documents which had appeared since the decree of 1726, command is given that the viceroy’s orders be revoked, and the commerce continued in accordance with the decrees of 1702, 1712, and 1724—prohibiting the valuation on the basis of piezas, and prescribing that this be accomplished by invoices and sworn declarations; and increasing the amount of the trade permitted to Manila to 500,000 pesos of investment and 1,000,000 of returns. As for duties, they shall be paid as commanded in the decree of 1702 (which fixed 100,000 pesos as the amount to be paid at Acapulco for the round trip of the galleon), pro rata therewith on the increase from 300,000 to 500,000 pesos; but this shall be paid as required duties, and not under the name of indult. No alcavala shall be paid on sales at Acapulco, but it shall be paid on goods which shall first be sent to other provinces of Nueva España. The duties are estimated on the basis of about 17 per cent of the returns on the cargo, and as the king pays “the cost of the building, careening, and repairing of the ships, the pay of the crews and officers, and the provisions, supplies, and ammunition needed for each voyage, without receiving more than 44 ducados for each tonelada of the lading allotted, not only will there remain no profit to my royal exchequer, but it will be necessary that it supply a considerable amount in order to maintain and preserve this traffic and commerce to the natives of Philipinas, which is all the bounty that my royal munificence can exercise;” but if the Manila shippers do not wish to accept this adjustment of the duties, they can (as before) pay the exact amount of the duties on each consignment of goods, without any dispensation or remission. No one to whom space has been assigned may transfer it to others, save in the case of poor persons and widows. Any excess of returns over the 1,000,000 pesos shall be divided among the shippers pro rata on their allotments of space and valuations of goods at Manila, and they may carry it back in products and commodities of Nueva España, but not in money; if the returns fall short of the above sum, the deficiency shall not be made up, the royal officials being strictly forbidden to allow any infraction of this rule. Citizens of Nueva España are prohibited under heavy penalties from participating in this trade as shippers, of either goods or money. The measures used in regulating the size of packages shall be those which the Manila shippers have been accustomed to use, allowance having been made for the difference between these and the Castilian standards, as decreed in 1702 and 1733. The committee of distribution at Manila shall be composed of the following persons: the governor of the islands; the senior auditor of the Audiencia, or, as his substitute, the auditor next longest in service; the royal fiscal; the archbishop of Manila, or, as his substitute, the dean of the cathedral; one of the alcaldes-in-ordinary, and one of the regidors, of the city of Manila; and one of the eight arbitrators [compromissarios] who compose the commercial body[11] there—provided that the regidor and the arbitrator be chosen in turn, so that this duty shall fall, successively, on all the members of those respective bodies. Despatches to this effect were sent to the officials of Mexico, Acapulco and Filipinas. (The compiler of the Extracto thinks it worth while to call attention to the opinion of the royal fiscal of Mexico, given upon reading this decree, that it was “a just one, and generally advantageous to both commerces.”)]
[At this point (fol. 214 verso–264) is inserted the Memorial informatorio presented to the Council of the Indias in 1637 by Juan Grau y Monfalcón, procurator-general for the Philippine Islands at the court of Madrid; we have already published this document, in our VOL. XXVII, pp. 53–212. Abreu says that he places it here (as “an appendix to Period ii”) simply because he did not find it until after the fortieth sheet of the Extracto had been printed; and he speaks of it as “treating of the subjects of that undiscovered memorial” of 136 numbers which was cited in “Period ii” of the Extracto (see our VOL. XXX, p. 25)—“plainly showing that whatever discussion of this matter has occurred in these late years, and what will be said in the future, in regard to the commerce of that region is new talk, but not talk of a new thing [es decir con novedad, pero no decir cosa nueva].” For “Periods i and ii” of the Extracto, which, with Monfalcón’s memorial, should be read as a preliminary to the present summary of that work, see our VOL. XXX, pp. 23–109. Cf. the earlier memorial by Monfalcón (1635) in VOL. XXV, pp. 48–73.]