The expulsion from the Spanish dominions
“The controversy between the Catholic nations and the court of Rome in regard to the limits of the right of jurisdiction of the State and of the spiritual authority of the Church goes back to an early date. The clergy, who in the Middle Ages possessed both moral and intellectual supremacy, held España in perpetual tutelage; and so greatly abused their power that the journals of the early Cortes record numerous petitions, constantly set aside, now in regard to ecclesiastical amortization, now about the creation of the religious orders; exemptions and privileges for the clergy, multiplication of benefices, and concessions to foreigners; excessive imposts claimed in Roma for favors and dispensations; and innumerable abuses introduced in the discipline of the Spanish church. Until the clamor of battle ceased and the national unity was realized, the sovereigns did not preoccupy themselves with recovering the prerogatives of the royal power, and the Catholic monarchs [i.e., Fernando and Isabel] were the first who undertook to maintain with care the so-called regalías[1] [i.e., prerogatives] of the crown.” [From that time many controversies arose between the courts of Madrid and Rome, and even their diplomatic intercourse ceased entirely at times. A concordat was formed in 1737,] “which, instead of settling the pending disputes, deferred them until January 11, 1753, at which time the royal right of patronage was decided in favor of the kings of España; and questions referring to pensions and other claims of the Roman curia were settled by the conveyance of 23,066,660 reals, which the Marqués de la Ensenada delivered in Roma before the concordat was signed. Carlos III, who as king of the two Sicilies had had a similar controversy with the court of Roma, and had in 1741 secured the solemnization of a concordat, found the principal disputes terminated in España; but he could not prevent time and circumstances from originating others, which were settled in due time.” [With this controversy between Church and State, the Jesuits were necessarily as well as of choice involved. “During two centuries, and under different aspects, two diverse principles came into open opposition: the principle of authority, essential in the Catholic Church, which was the banner of the Society of Jesus; and the principle of rebellion against the past, proclaimed by Protestantism, converted afterward into the encyclopedistic philosophy, and still later taking the form of a social, religious, and political disintegration. To the propaganda of false ideas which was causing so much corruption among the youth, the Society of Jesus opposed solid and Christian education, the defense of its doctrine, and the preaching and example of its members.” Carlos III had come from Italy with a dislike to the Jesuits, and with various opinions which were more radical than those then current in España; and the influence of French philosophy and political thought in that country (see note 4, ante, pp. 25–27) enabled him to secure advisers who were willing to second his ideas—although at first he made the mistake of appointing too many foreigners in his cabinet. The king and his ministers formed plans of reform for the country which have made Danvila call him “the first revolutionary monarch of España.” It became evident that these plans could not be made effectual unless the influence of the Jesuits against them could be neutralized. That order had been expelled from Portugal and all her dominions, by decree of January 12, 1759; and it was suppressed in France by Louis XV in November, 1764. Permission to settle in Spain and Naples was denied to the French exiles by Carlos III. In March, 1766, a popular uprising took place in Madrid, directed against one of Carlos III’s ministers (Leopold de Gregorio, Marqués de Squilace, a Sicilian by birth) who, besides the prejudice against him as a foreigner, had made himself unpopular by certain sumptuary regulations; it resulted in his banishment from Spain. Soon afterward, the king found it necessary to make changes in his ministry. The presidency of the Council of Castilla was conferred upon Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea, Conde de Aranda, an Aragonese noble; and five new places therein were created, making twelve in all. All these councilors were Spaniards, and five of them were archbishops and bishops.[2] “After the Madrid riot, everywhere resounded complaints against the court and its nobles, the priests and the friars, and especially against the Jesuits,” the last-named being accused by many of having incited the riot. “The appointment of Aranda was praised, as taking from an ecclesiastic the custody of the royal prerogatives.” The disturbance quieted, the royal Council took measures to ascertain, through a secret investigation, the causes of this uprising; and their conclusion is thus stated in a letter sent by order of the king to the government of Naples, June 23, 1767:] “The result of all [the evidence] was, that the Jesuits were either the principal or the only inciters [of the riot]; they stirred up the flames on every side, roused aversion in the minds of all classes of people, and detached them from their affection and subordination to the government. The Jesuits printed and scattered about papers and writings that were seditious, and opposed to the royal authority and to the sovereignty and its legitimate rights; they preached against Portugal and France in their sermons to the public, and in the parlors of the nunneries, insinuating themselves to confess and direct the nuns without authority and against the wills of the superiors of the convents; even in the cloisters of the religious women, the Jesuits instilled, by their lectures and conversations, pernicious ideas and unworthy suspicions against the religious belief of the king and his ministers; and both before and after the tumult they threatened calamities and tragedies. They complained of all the decrees that were issued, on account of the [government] offices and dignities not devolving on their partisans and the followers of their school; they murmured against all the measures of the government, because they had no part in these, as being opposed to their ideas and their advantage. Their perverse [ideas of] moral practice in España and the Indias, the laxity of their morals, their sordid commerce, their intrigues, their cunning schemes, and, finally, everything that has been written or published by those whom the Society fancies to be its rivals and enemies: all these have been verified, and found convincing, with facts and instances of the present time (and which cannot be denied), without the necessity of resorting to the many and enormous excesses of former times or of foreign countries.[3] Their hatred to the house of Bourbon, and their aversion to the ‘family compact,’[4] their partiality to the English, and their desire that the latter should subdue France; the greater satisfaction and confidence which they feel toward Protestant princes, preferring these to the Catholics; and other designs of theirs that are abominable, and contrary to the spirit of religion, of honor, and of humanity: these have been proved to us by many and irrefutable means, which their own acts and writings have furnished to us. Time and paper would fail me if I tried to specify to your Excellency the facts and proofs of the many charges which have accumulated against them.” [Finally—as a result partly of this investigation, and partly of the growing alarm and distrust felt against the Jesuits, especially as they were securing new privileges from the Holy See—Carlos III issued decrees dated at El Pardo, February 27, 1767, for the banishment of the Jesuits from Spain and the Indias. “The instructions for the measures to be taken by the persons commissioned to carry out the banishment of the Jesuits in España and the Indias, and to take possession of their goods and estates;[5] the information as to their colleges, residences, and missions in the Western Indias, the Filipinas islands, and the kingdoms of the Indias; and the circular letter of Conde de Aranda to the viceroys and governors of the Indias providing for what they might decide for themselves, without asking any questions: this bears the date of March 1.” On March 12 this decision was known in Rome; and four days later despatches from Aranda gave fuller details, and included a copy of a royal decree which charged him to “display to the other religious orders the confidence, satisfaction, and esteem which they merited for their fidelity and doctrine, their observance of the monastic life, their exemplary service of the Church, their creditable instruction, and their withdrawal from the affairs of government as being alien to and remote from the ascetic and monastic life.” On March 20, Aranda determined to appoint April 3 as the date on which this expulsion of the Jesuits should go into effect; and on the thirty-first Carlos III wrote a letter to Pope Clement XIII, stating that he found it necessary to expel the Jesuits from his dominions, and would send them to the States of the Church, to be under the direction of his Holiness as the father of the faithful. The Spanish ambassador at Rome, to whom this letter was sent for delivery to the pope, was also notified that all the expelled Jesuits would be pensioned, as long as they remained outside of the Spanish territories, at the following rate: to the ordained priests, 100 pesos annually; to the laymen, 90 pesos; and to all, a half-year’s salary in advance.[6] The pope was overcome with grief at this news, and in reply (April 16) remonstrated with the king against this measure, protesting that the Jesuit order was innocent of disloyal or evil acts, and urging the king to suspend the execution of the decrees against them. This of course had no effect, and the pope refused to receive the banished Jesuits into his territory, hoping thus to compel Carlos to take other steps; but the latter sent the exiles to Corsica instead. On January 23, 1776, Pius VI directed the nuncios in the Catholic countries to enforce the law of silence in regard to the extinction of the Jesuit order—a measure especially directed against the publication of libels and satires, which at that time abounded in the larger cities, and were often indecent and infamous. In that year, also, harmony was restored between the Holy See and the Catholic powers.]
[The above general account of the causes leading to the expulsion of the Jesuits from the Spanish domains is obtained from various places in the account furnished by Danvila y Collado in his Reinado de Carlos III, t. ii, iii, to which the reader is referred as being probably the most full, accurate, and scholarly account now available of this important historical episode. He uses a great variety of material, obtained largely from the original documents in the Spanish archives, which he cites directly (and often in full), with careful references to his sources; and, although his sympathies are with the Jesuit order, which he thinks was unjustly maligned, he is evidently too thorough a scholar to suppress or distort the facts in the case. The following outline of his work in regard to this subject will give the reader an idea of his thoroughness therein, and of the places where one may find special information on various aspects of the subject. Tomo ii: Chapter v, “Controversies with Roma,” relates those which occurred under Carlos III over the royal prerogatives, the measures for canonizing the venerable Palafox,[7] ecclesiastical amortization, the banishment of the inquisitor-general by the king, the expulsion of the Jesuits, and other burning questions of that time. Chapter vi treats, with much fulness of detail, of the Madrid uprising of 1766, with its causes and effects. Chapters vii-ix form a history of the Jesuit order from its first establishment to 1766. Tomo iii: Chapter i, “Causes of the expulsion;” chapter ii, “The Execution of the expulsion;” chapter iii, “The monitory decree of Parma,” a brief issued by Clement XIII on January 30, 1768, which attempted to assert the temporal power of the pope;[8] chapter iv, “Origin of the extinction of the Society of Jesus,” showing how the plan for this measure was initiated by France, and how the other powers rapidly fell into line for her support; chapter v, “The election of Clement XIV,” relating the important part played therein by the question of suppressing the Jesuit order, and the political scheming by the various powers interested; chapters vi-viii, “Extinction of the Society of Jesus;” chapter ix, “Consequences of the extinction;” chapter x, “Rehabilitation of the Society of Jesus,” which ends with the brief of Leo XIII (July 13, 1886) abrogating that by which Clement XIV put an end (July 21, 1773) to the Jesuit order.]
[In the appendix to tomo iii are various important documents, presented in full, as follows: Official report to Carlos III of the proceedings on April 30, 1767, of the Council committee [Consejo extraordinario] which advised the expulsion of the Jesuits, in regard to the pope’s remonstrance against that measure. Another letter of remonstrance from the pope, May 6, 1767; and the king’s brief and resolute reply thereto, June 2 of same year. Letter written (June 23) by one of the Spanish ministers, Manuel de Roda, stating “the reasons which his Majesty has had for decreeing the expulsion.” Another report of the Council committee, dated November 30, 1767, long and interesting, on the proposal made to Spain by Portugal for concerted action by the powers to secure the extinction of the Society. A report from the full session of the Council, dated March 21, 1767, recommending the extinction of the order; the signatures include those of the archbishops and bishops.[9] “Brief statement of the infractions of law committed by the Jesuits, which was sent to Roma for delivery to the pope;”[10] it was drawn up, in 1769, by José Moñino, Conde de Floridablanca, another of the Spanish ministers.]
[In Crétineau-Joly’s Histoire de la Compagnie de Jésus, volume v is devoted to the expulsion of the Jesuits successively from Portugal, France, Spain, and other countries, and the results of that measure. In regard to Spain, see pp. 236–254. We present here the leading points of interest therein. According to Crétineau-Joly, Carlos III was “a prince who was religious and able, upright and enlightened, but impetuous and obstinate; he had most of the qualities which promote the welfare of peoples. His character entirely accorded with that of his subjects; like them, he pushed to the utmost degree family spirit and the honor of his name. At Naples, as well as at Madrid, Carlos III always showed himself devoted to the Society of Jesus.” In the uprising at Madrid in March, 1766, the popular irritation made the situation exceedingly dangerous, “when the Jesuits, all-powerful over the minds of the people, flung themselves into the mêlée and succeeded in appeasing the tumult. The people of Madrid gave way to the entreaties and threats of the fathers; but, in dispersing they undertook to show their affection for the latter; and from all sides the cry of ‘Long live the Jesuits!’ resounded in the pacified city. Carlos III, humiliated at having taken flight [to Aranjuez], and perhaps still more humiliated at owing the tranquillity of his capital to some priests, returned to the city. He was received with joy; but he had around him men who, affiliated with Choiseul and the party of [French] philosophy, felt it necessary to mingle poison with the facts. The Marquis de Squillaci was replaced in the ministry by the Count d’Aranda, and, after a long time, the Spanish diplomat made common cause with the Encyclopedists.” “The Duke of Alva, a former minister of Fernando VI, shared his ideas, and became the apostle of innovations, and the exciter of hatred against the Jesuits.[11] Portugal and France had just expelled them; Alva and Aranda dared not remain behind. The pretext of the revolt at Madrid for the cloaks and broad hats[12] had produced the effect which was to be expected; it inspired the king with suspicions of the Jesuits. The prince could not explain to himself the fact that there, where the majesty of the sovereign had been defied, the moral authority of the Jesuits had so easily overcome the popular fury. The people had massacred his Walloon guards, and accepted the intervention of the fathers of the [Jesuit] Institute. This mystery, to which the contact of the disciples of St. Ignatius with all classes of people so easily supplied the key, was exaggerated and distorted for the ear of Carlos III. The king was favorable to the Society of Jesus, but [his ministers] succeeded in rendering him indifferent to it; then one day, a net woven long before wrapped the Society in its meshes.” “Those who favor the destruction of the Order of Jesus, and the partisans of that same order, while they agree entirely as to the result, differ essentially in regard to the causes. The former claim that the ‘hat insurrection’ opened the king’s eyes, and made him suspect that this society of priests aspired to dethrone their protector, or at least to make themselves masters of the Spanish colonies. The others affirm that Aranda was only the stone-setter [metteur en œuvre] of a plot organized in Paris. This plot, they say, had for its foundation the pride of a son who was unwilling to have to blush for his mother.”[13] Several Protestant writers are cited to show that the king’s decision to expel the Jesuits was caused mainly by his resentment at the Madrid uprising (which he was made to believe was incited by the Jesuits), and at the statements made in a pretended letter by Ricci, the Jesuit general—a letter which the French minister, Duke de Choiseul, was accused of fabricating—to the effect “that he had succeeded in collecting documents which proved incontestably that Carlos III was the child of adultery; this absurd invention made such an impression upon the king that he allowed the order for the expulsion of the Jesuits to be wrested from him.” “This fact is confirmed by other contemporaneous testimony, and by the documents of the Society of Jesus.” “The order is not touched anywhere [in the proceedings of the Council]; the discipline or the morals of the Jesuits are never incriminated.” “The suppositions which cause the decision of the Council extraordinary are not proved; they are not even expressed.” “All that the government of Fernando VII afterward admitted was, that ‘the Society of Jesus was expelled forever, in virtue of a measure wrested by most crafty and unrighteous underhand dealings from his magnanimous and pious grandfather Carlos III.’ ” “The pragmatic sanction is as reserved as the sentence of the Council extraordinary; it throws no light on the nature of the crimes imputed to the Jesuits.” “The mandate of the king was pitiless; the authorities, both military and civil, conformed with it, without understanding it. There were at that time unspeakable sufferings, bitter regrets, and cruel outrages to humanity. It was directed against six thousand Jesuits scattered in Spain and the New World; they were carried away by force, insulted, confined, and crowded on the decks of vessels. They were devoted to apostasy or to misery; they were surprised in their houses, despoiled of their property, their books, and their correspondence; they were torn from their colleges or their missions. Young or old, well or sick, all were obliged to submit to an ostracism of which no one had the secret. They departed for an unknown exile; under threats and insults, not one let a complaint escape him. In their most private papers there was never found a line which could make them suspected of any plot.”]
The expulsion from Filipinas
[An account of this is presented by Montero y Vidal in his Hist. de Filipinas, tomo ii; he relates the causes of this measure, and the execution of it in España and the colonies in general (pp. 141–179), and the expulsion from Filipinas (pp. 181–228), which latter account is here given:]