This royal decree was accordingly issued, and the said acting bishop replied that his residence in the village of Vigan was by the order and command of the archbishop, and that he had no way in which to fulfil the decree; and he presented the warrant and order which he held for the said residence, and some informal certificates by a few religious. This royal Audiencia, considering the disturbances and troubles which might result from issuing the second royal decree, ordered that it be temporarily suspended; and that meanwhile the president, governor, and captain-general should discuss and confer with the archbishop as to measures for securing peace, and those most expedient for a good example to the community.
This verbal reply[4] which the said archbishop gave to the said governor gave occasion for the issue of a royal decree that the said archbishop should command the ecclesiastical ruler of Nueva Segovia to go to reside at the capital of his bishopric; but the latter would not obey, excusing himself with various pretexts. The said archbishop and his attorney-general [promotor fiscal] repeatedly urged that he be furnished with certified copies of the acts in virtue of which the royal decrees had been issued; and in the last petition, presented by the said attorney-general, he inserted the following clause:
“In order that his Majesty may apply the needed corrective, and remove the violence and oppression experienced by the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; for, if one of its ministers attempts to administer justice to a subordinate, the culprit finds shelter in the royal Audiencia—not only to free himself from ecclesiastical justice, but also that they may begin legal proceedings against, and even exile, his superior and judge, who rightly desires and strives to punish him. And all the above was made evident by the aforesaid acts; and it has come to our knowledge through trustworthy persons that, in the petitions which were presented for the issuance of the said decrees, the respect due to the archbishop and to his high office was forgotten; and that, in the investigations which were made for this purpose, inquiries were directed into the hidden faults of ecclesiastical persons, and attempt had been made to punish them with the first of the said decrees, without punishing the chief authors [of those evil acts], who were laymen. Moreover, decrees had been issued only against the ecclesiastical judge on account of their own hidden faults, or those of other persons, intimidating him therewith in order that he should not administer justice in future; and a satisfactory account ought to be given to the said archbishop of the reasons which had influenced this royal Audiencia to issue the decrees. After [the publication of] the royal and canonical decrees, the archbishop had a right to command the clerk of the court to give him the said copy; but for the sake of the quiet and comfort of this community, he had commanded him first to request the acts from this royal Audiencia, making the proper and necessary requisitions therefor, and asking that the said secretary of the Audiencia be ordered and commanded to give him the said copy.”
As it was evident that the motives which existed for the despatch of the first royal decree were still further justified by such writings, the second was issued, which the said archbishop obeyed no better; on the contrary he said, in the reply that he made to this second royal decree, that he entreated the royal Audiencia to give little hope for aid to the ecclesiastics.[5]
The royal Audiencia, influenced by the report made to it by the fiscal, and considering the disrespectful and indecorous character of the attorney-general’s communication, and that it was entirely directed against the reputation and equitable procedure of the supreme tribunal and its ministers, issued a royal decree that the archbishop should punish his attorney-general, and should be warned how much he had derogated from his own dignity by having allowed such lack of respect. To this the archbishop replied that the attorney-general did not deserve punishment, because the petition had been presented by his own order and mandate.
At this time the ecclesiastical cabildo presented themselves in recourse to the royal Audiencia, with a paper signed by their dean,[6] the dignitaries, the canons, and the other prebends, imploring the royal aid against the archbishop on account of the acts of fuerza and violence which were suffered by the cabildo, its members, and all the clergy.[7] They declared that the worst of these were due to the fact that the said archbishop had at his side a religious of the Order of St. Dominic, named Fray Raymundo Verart;[8] that the archbishop had retained him, ever since he came from Spain, under the title of counselor [asesor] and director; that he had gained such influence that he directed all the actions of the said archbishop; and that his decisions were so extraordinary that he kept all minds in a state of notable disquiet—to such a degree that he even refused recourse from the acts of fuerza, endeavoring to render the jurisdiction of the archbishop absolute, and to exclude his Majesty (as represented in the Audiencia) from his highest prerogative, that of aid to his oppressed ecclesiastical vassals. They represented that the archbishop acted as an advocate in the very suits in which he was judge; that he lived outside the city, in a hospital of Sangleys[9] which is in charge of the religious of St. Dominic, from which resulted injury and delay in the despatch of business; that he could think of nothing but his friars, and behaved as one of them—for on the day of election of provincial he had rendered obedience to the father who was elected, and in the procession he walked in the fifth rank—regarding himself as first of all a friar, although he was archbishop-elect; and that he treated the cabildo and its members ill, showing aversion to them.
With this petition for relief the dean and cabildo presented a mass of records in proof of their argument, asking that decrees be issued: one for the archbishop, that he should remove from his side the said Fray Raymundo;[10] and another for the father provincial of St. Dominic, that he should send the said religious to the remote parts of the missions in charge of his order, agreeably to the purpose and vocation for which he had come to these islands at the cost of the royal exchequer.
In this matter both first and second decrees were issued for the said archbishop and the father provincial of St. Dominic, neither of whom was willing to render obedience, the archbishop returning some very uncivil answers.[11] Finally, the latter took exception to Doctor Don Diego Calderon, assigning as the cause of this proceeding his remarks about the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; he also challenged Don Diego Antonio de Viga [the fiscal] for the mode of expression which he had used in his writings. By this expedient the proceedings of the Audiencia were suspended, for lack of judges—for at that time it contained only the two gentlemen, Don Francisco de Montemayor and Don Diego Calderon—until Doctors Don Christoval de Grimaldo and Don Pedro Sebastian de Bolivar y Mena, the recently-arrived [auditors],[12] could examine the question of the said challenge. At the petition of Doctor Don Estevan Lorenzo de la Fuente y Alanis, who also had just arrived, they declared that there was no cause for it; and without doubt it would result thus, since the challenge was not sworn to, or presented, in accordance with the regulations of the royal laws. They likewise commanded that the said archbishop be requested and charged to maintain in all things friendly relations with the [royal] ministers, not only in writing to them but in speech. When he was notified of this royal decree, he gave a very sharp answer, and concluded by saying that his own behavior would be governed in accordance with the actions of the ministers, as he thus tells them in all his replies.
This royal Audiencia, considering his insolent replies and disobedience to the royal decrees, and the scandals thus caused, and that the whole arose from the influence of Father Raymundo Verart, determined, for the more thorough justification and proof of the whole matter; that an investigation should be made by the auditor Don Pedro de Bolivar, with regard to the injuries and other pernicious consequences which were being caused to the public welfare, and which gave occasion to the complaint of the ecclesiastical cabildo about the assistance rendered to the archbishop by the said father Fray Raymundo Verart—[all the more] as his illustrious Lordship had, before the said father came to these islands, conducted himself in entire harmony and most friendly intercourse with the royal Audiencia, the ecclesiastical cabildo, and the other courts. The affair being in this condition, the said father provincial, Fray Baltasar de Santa Cruz, was summoned before the royal [court in] session, where they related to him the pernicious consequences to the public welfare which were accruing from the said assistance [of Father Verart], and were steadily increasing on account of his acts of disobedience. The said provincial was admonished to the fulfilment and execution of what was charged upon him in the said two royal decrees, making him responsible for all the difficulties that might result; but he resisted them at every point, repeating his [former] replies. This bold attitude caused the Audiencia, on even more justifiable grounds, to despatch a third decree, which the said father provincial, Fray Baltasar de Santa Cruz, persisted in disobeying.
In the midst of these proceedings, another decree against the said archbishop was claimed and demanded by Bachelor Diego de Espinosa Marañón, saying that his Lordship had denied the just appeal that he had made from an act which entailed [on him] an irreparable hardship; and a royal decree was issued for him that the said archbishop must grant the said appeal; or, even if he were not obliged to grant it, his acts must be sent [to the Audiencia], in order to know whether he committed fuerza in denying the appeal.[13] The said archbishop did not obey this decree; before this, he had not, at the outset, consented to let a receptor of this royal Audiencia enter to make known to him one of its acts; and the matter was not followed up (although in this recourse they went so far as to despatch the second decree), for Bachelor Diego de Espinosa Marañón desisted from it, at the instance of certain persons.