[15] The secretary of Hacienda considered the privileges of the company for the importation of cotton goods as unconstitutional and contrary to the prosperity of national manufactures. At the meeting of August 18, it developed that the company had transferred its monopoly to a foreign merchant of Cádiz. The company was allowed to present its argument, but the report of the committees on Commerce and Hacienda was adopted. Later the company presented a petition requesting the liquidation of the government’s indebtedness to it, the privilege of selling its stock of cotton goods, and various other concessions incident to the closing up of its affairs. This petition, sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Hacienda, was referred to the committee on Commerce on November 2. On the fifth, a petition was presented by the Philippine representatives and Gregorio Gonzales Azaolo, of Sevilla, asking that the prohibition of the importation of cotton goods should not affect the Philippines until the industry was developed or established in those islands. This petition having been referred to the committees on Commerce and Hacienda, their report on November 8 recommended the opening of the Oriental trade to all Spaniards trading in Spanish bottoms. This recommendation was embodied in article 3 of the decree of November 9, specifying the kinds of goods which Spanish ships trading by the Cape of Good Hope could introduce into Spain or Spanish America. [↑]
[16] The decrees of the Diarios de las Cortes show no decree of this date confirming a previous decree of March 7, 1820, granting exemption of duties for ten years on natural and industrial products of the Philippines, when imported in Spanish bottoms into the Peninsula, as declared by Montero y Vidal. The decree of December 21, 1820, providing for the abolition of the monopoly on tobacco and salt after March 1, 1821, and providing customs and consumption duties, seems not to have affected the Philippines. [↑]
[17] In October, 1820, the preliminary board for the election of representatives was organized in Manila, but inasmuch as the elections were not held until after the Constitution had been sworn to in Manila in May, 1821 (and later in the provinces), no regularly-elected representatives were present at the second session. [↑]
[18] Wrongly called a decree by Montero y Vidal. This order was addressed to the Secretary of War in answer to a question raised by the Council of War. [↑]
[19] The special discussion arose over the item of 50,000 reals for missions and a note in the report reflecting on the native clergy in the Philippines. Some of the Americans, who were quite fully imbued with the free thought of the French philosophical school, declared for the suppression of the missionaries (meaning friars), inasmuch as they were useless and even harmful. The committee answered this by asserting that the missionaries in the Philippines were used by the government as civil and political agents, and that they did do much good work in their own legitimate line. The passage concerning the incapacity of the native clergy was meant to apply to the Philippines alone, but if desired it could be removed as it was not essential to the report. An American representative moved that the 50,000 reals be used in the establishment of normal schools in Ultramar. The Philippine representatives seem to have taken no part in the debate except that Camus y Herrera moved that the obnoxious clause concerning the Filipino clergy be stricken out. The report was accepted as read. [↑]
[20] Each university was to have a public library, a drawing school, a chemical laboratory, cabinets of physics, natural history, and industrial products, another of models of machines, a botanical garden, and an experiment farm. The university to be established in Manila was to have theological and law courses for the doctorate. Manila was also to have a medical school, a school for veterinary medicine, a school of fine arts, and commercial and nautical schools. Professorships were to be filled by competition, and those for the Philippines were to be examined by persons designated by the Subdirection of Studies in Mexico. Girls were to be taught to read, write, and cipher; while the older female students were to be taught the work suitable to their sex. This matter of education for girls was left to the provincial deputations. [↑]
[21] On the twenty-third there was a discussion as to the legality of the substitutes for the representatives of Ultramar being allowed to hold over; and it was finally declared that only those for the Philippines and Peru could sit during this session. [↑]
[22] This exclusion was in accordance with a decision of the committee on Credentials handed in February 11, 1822, to the effect that government employes did not cease, to be such until their resignations were accepted by the government. Posada did not present his credentials at the meeting of February 15, declaring that they had been robbed with his baggage en route from Cádiz to Madrid. He did present them, however, at the next meeting of February 20. At the third and fourth preliminary meetings (February 22 and 24) the matter was debated, and he was excluded on the grounds of being still a government employe. [↑]
[23] Foreman states wrongly (p. 362, ed. of 1906) that seventeen deputies were elected and sat during the Cortes of 1820–23, and he names eight of them. He may have confused the names of electors with those of representatives. The four elected (of whom only three are known) were perhaps elected for the districts of the archiepiscopal see and the three suffragan sees of the Philippines; although Montero y Vidal says that both Sáenz de Vizmanos and Posada were elected from Nueva Cáceres. [↑]
[24] Although a provincial deputation had been organized in Manila in 1822, almost its only act was to petition (April 12, 1823) for more missionaries. [↑]