To the above-mentioned changes and indispensable acts of assistance granted by this royal Audiencia, is added that which was secured by the illustrious bishop-elect of Nueva Segovia, Doctor Don Francisco Pizarro de Orellana, who came before the royal Audiencia, saying that the archbishop had, in the credentials which he had given to the bishop, reserved for his own cognizance the case of Bachelor Diego de Espinosa Marañón—although this was a trial in the first instance, and the said bachelor was under the bishop’s parochial care and was cura of the benefice of Vigan, one of the parishes belonging to his bishopric. The said bishop requested a royal decree that the papers should be furnished to him by the said archbishop in the customary form, and that the said cases should be referred to him. In this affair they went so far as to issue the fourth royal decree; but the said archbishop did not obey one of them.[14]
The same resistance was encountered by four other royal decrees issued against the said archbishop, at the demand, and appeal from fuerza, interposed by Master Don Geronimo de Herrera y Figueroa, cantor of this holy cathedral church. He was a prisoner of the said archbishop in the college of Santo Tomás of this city, an indictment having been brought against him, charging him with being guilty of disrespect for the archiepiscopal dignity, and having at the session of the cabildo concurred in their demand for relief,[15] of which mention has been made—that the said archbishop should remove from his side Fray Raymundo Verart, and the rest that is stated above. The said Master Don Geronimo had alleged that the said archbishop was not competent to act as judge, of which exception he had notified the prelate; but the latter without settling this question—which, as pre-judicial,[16] ought to have been summarily decided—proceeded in the case. Even if he were a competent judge, he ought to proceed with the adjunct judges,[17] as ordained by the holy Council of Trent; but, [not] heeding these considerations, the said archbishop proceeded with fuerza and violence, which he wreaked on Don Geronimo’s person. This case was decidedly within the cognizance of this royal Audiencia, and to its organization and civil jurisdiction belongs the removal of the fuerza with which the prelate had oppressed Don Geronimo. Upon this ground they issued the said four decrees, to attain their object, in order that the said archbishop should send them the acts, so that it might be ascertained whether or not he had committed fuerza, or else should send these with his notary; but he refused to obey the decrees.
The royal Audiencia, striving, in whatever pertained to its side, to avoid inflicting the chastisement which his actions demanded, in order to see whether their tolerance would constrain him to lay aside his arbitrary proceedings, had suspended, with the clause “for the present,” the execution of the penalties of banishment which he was declared to have incurred.[18] This suspension had been attributed to negligence of the Audiencia—at which all the people were quite disconsolate; afterward it was known that the court had not acted without very deliberate resolution, which had been influenced no little by the zealous efforts of the governor; when all were hoping for a change in the sentiments of the archbishop, the courage of the auditors was still further strengthened. For the Order of the Society [of Jesus] presented an executory decree, issued by the royal and supreme Council of Indias, in regard to the precedence of the college of San Joseph over that of Santo Tomas, which is in charge of the Dominican religious—in which matter the Society has encountered much opposition from that order; they have even gone so far as to break out in threats, which the Society has seen carried out. But immediately the ecclesiastical attorney-general, with license from the archbishop (who had made legal complaint), demanded in the royal Audiencia aid and the proper documents against the decree,[19] in order that the commander of the capitana “Santa Rosa”—which had just put back through stress of weather, and had not yet reached the port—might be furnished with a warrant for the seizure of the bales [of merchandise] which, he said, were coming in the said ship on the account of the Society of Jesus. At the same time the reverend Father Francisco Salgado, provincial of the said order of the Society, came before the said royal Audiencia with a plea of appeal, on account of which the said archbishop instituted suit against that father’s order, opposing the numerous privileges and bulls of exemption which aid it. While these actions were pending, and before anything had been decided in them, the said father provincial made representations that, notwithstanding the said questions were still (as I have said) unsettled, he was informed that a notary of the said archbishop had gone to the said ship on various matters of business, thus showing lack of respect to this royal Audiencia. He urged that documents should be issued, in order that no further proceedings be taken in this matter, and that the commander of the ship should not permit [the seizure of goods] until the points at issue were settled. But, although these decrees were issued, they produced no result; for, as is evident from competent testimony, the agents of the archbishop went to the said ship, on the day following that on which the attorney-general had demanded aid, and, without presenting any warrant to the commander, had undertaken and proceeded to make seizures and deposits of bales.[20] This affair was not finally decided, because it was known outside of court that the archbishop had relinquished his claims therein.[21]
In this royal Audiencia a suit was pending for a long time between Captain Don Pedro de Sarmiento y Leoz, as husband of Doña Michaela de Lisarralde[22]—daughter of Don Juan de Lisarralde, and great-granddaughter of Doña Maria de Roa, deceased, who had been executrix for the said Don Juan de Lisarralde, and guardian of the said Doña Michaela—against Father Geronimo de Ortega of the Society of Jesus (who had been executor[23] for Bachelor Nicolás Cordero, and is executor for the said Doña Maria de Roa), over the guardianship and inheritance which belonged to the said Doña Michaela, and the account which had been demanded for all the above affairs. The said father, in conformity with the acts which had been made known to him in this regard, presented the accounts in the royal Audiencia, after the appointment, acceptance, and oath-taking of auditors therefor. This suit, as stated, lasted a long time,[24] and in it came up revised acts of the said royal Audiencia ordering that all who were interested in the said executorships should prefer their claims in the said royal Audiencia. The affair being in this condition, the said captain Don Pedro Sarmiento—urged on by Licentiate Nicolàs de la Vega Caraballo,[25] an ally of the archbishop—demanded before the said archbishop that the said Father Ortega should be commanded, under penalty of censure, to furnish him the said accounts. This command was laid upon him by repeated acts; nevertheless, the said father refused [the ecclesiastical] jurisdiction, since he had [the case] in a competent tribunal, pending judgment, and the said accounts had been presented—in proof of which he presented sworn statements to the said archbishop. Nevertheless, the latter persisted in ordering the said father to give him the said accounts—even going so far as to denounce him as excommunicated. The ground for this action was, that in the ecclesiastical court demand had been made by the said Don Pedro for the surrender of the bequest[26] to the said Archdeacon Cordero. Father Ortega made appeal in the proper quarter from this censure, but the archbishop refused to allow the said appeal; from this arose the recourse to royal aid from the act of fuerza in having denied to the father the said appeal and attempted to compel him to what he had no right to do—the surrender of the said accounts, which had already been presented in the said royal Audiencia.[27] On that account, and because of the very nature of the case, it was wholly within the cognizance of the royal Audiencia, and concerned laymen. For this reason, the usual royal decree was issued, in order that the notary should come to make report. This being made known to the archbishop, he made a very prolix reply, taking the ground, in very disrespectful language, that the appeal was not legitimate, and that he was not obliged to send the documents; but saying that, upon the necessary declarations, and with the stipulation that the acts should not pass into the possession of any official of the Audiencia, but must remain in the hands of his own notary, he would give orders that the latter should go to make the report, whenever the Audiencia should command it, but he must refuse to absolve the said father. The Audiencia, in order to avoid new occasions for controversy with this prelate, overlooked his imposing upon it a condition, and one which was so unusual. Domingo Diaz[28] having made the report, and noted in the course of it two false assertions—which he discovered while inspecting the acts, having read them through—the said notary went away, carrying them with him, without waiting for the opinion and decision of the said royal Audiencia on them to be affirmed. That tribunal declared the said suit,[29] and the cognizance of it, as it concerned laymen, to be altogether secular—as were also questions of guardianship, inheritance, the charge of property, dowries, and other matters of that nature; and that, by virtue of this, all [episcopal] acts regarding these questions be suspended in this royal Audiencia. As for the pious legacies contained in the said testaments, the archbishop was declared to have committed fuerza in not granting to Father Ortega the appeal which he had interposed before the delegate of his Holiness; and the Audiencia resolved that, in consequence of all the above facts, the prelate should absolve the said father, and immediately remove his name from the list of excommunicated persons, and that a royal decree [to this effect] be issued in his behalf. When this was made known to the archbishop, he gave an extremely insolent and uncivil reply, opposing the authority of this royal Audiencia, the royal jurisdiction, the governor, and the auditors. He refused to send the acts [to the Audiencia], or to absolve the said father, and declared in plain terms that he would persist in this opposition, and that the Audiencia might therefore inflict whatever violence they chose on him and his dignity.
Another instance: Sargento-mayor Don Juan Gallardo—who was chief magistrate, castellan, and commander of the seamen and sailors, in the port of Cavite (the most important port in these islands, and its command one of the highest military posts)—had a prisoner, an artillerist named Lorenço Magno.[30] The said archbishop sent him a letter of requisition, demanding that Don Juan hand over to him the said prisoner and the suit that had been brought against him; or that he should declare under oath whether or not that suit was in his hands. In this letter of requisition the archbishop did not state the cause for which his illustrious Lordship said he had accused the aforesaid [prisoner, which was] bigamy. The said castellan, moreover, noticed in it certain imperative expressions and the archbishop addressed him as vos [i.e., “you”],[31] in the manner which is customary in the royal decrees. The said castellan sent the prisoner to the archbishop, who issued another letter of requisition, in the same form as the preceding, at the petition of Francisca Ignacia, wife of the said Lorenço Magno—against whom, it was declared, he was carrying on a suit for divorce—demanding that immediately, without any delay, under penalty of excommunication and a fine of five hundred pesos, the said castellan should within three hours deliver to the notary a certified statement of the suit which he had instituted against the said Lorenço Magno. The castellan came before the royal Audiencia with his deposition regarding these two letters of requisition, demanding that the said archbishop be requested and charged to observe, in the communications that he might send to the judicial officers of his Majesty, the forms ordained by law, treating the magistrates with the courtesy due to their position. These acts having been considered in the Audiencia, a royal decree was despatched requiring that the said archbishop must, in the requisitions which he might send to the royal magistrates, treat them with due politeness, conforming to the forms of law and usage—not using imperative terms, or the word vos. When the archbishop was notified of this royal decree, he gave an answer full of uncivil, improper, and disrespectful expressions against the royal jurisdiction, the governor, and the auditors. The latter had issued an act that Doctor Don Joseph Zervantes and Master Nicolas de la Vega Caravallo should not meddle with the profession of advocate, into which they had thrust themselves—from which resulted consequences pernicious to the public welfare, since they had not taken the courses of study in the school of law. When notified of the act, they replied that the archbishop had already ordered them not to plead in secular tribunals, and the said Caravallo added that he was the only one who could issue such commands. On the following day the archbishop issued an act in opposition to that of the Audiencia, commanding that no petitions should be accepted in his court that were not signed by the said Doctor Zervantes and Master Caravallo. The fiscal, when all the replies had been shown to him, demanded that, without giving opportunity for any further acts of disobedience or disrespect, they should execute upon the person of the reverend archbishop the penalties which he had been declared to have incurred—banishment, and the loss of his secular revenue [temporalidades]; and that, for this purpose, the clause “for the present,” contained in the act of October 1 in the past year of 82, be revoked and erased, and the act put into execution on May 1 of the said year [i.e., 1683]. These acts having been considered by the royal Audiencia with the attention and mature deliberation which so grave a matter demanded, it was decided that sentence of banishment should be executed on the archbishop, and that he should be sent to the village of Lingayen, in the province of Pangasinan, a village of Christian Indians in charge of the Dominican religious. This charge was committed to Doctor Don Christòval Grimaldo de Herrera and Sargento-mayor Juan de Veristain, alcalde-in-ordinary, who fulfilled it with the utmost discretion, quietness, and moderation;[32] and the archbishop was embarked in a barcoluengo, in which the forethought of the governor had provided all his kitchen equipment, with everything else that was necessary for his support and the needs of the voyage.[33]
The royal Audiencia had proceeded very cautiously, for, foreseeing the tumults or disturbances that are wont to arise on such occasions, and endeavoring to avoid whatever could serve as an incentive thereto, they recognized that the ringing of the bells in making any demonstrations might act as such incentive; and they asked the governor to command that guards be posted in the bell-tower of the church, and in the house of Master Juan Gonçalez de Guzman, the provisor, so that the latter could not order any demonstration to be made while the sentence of banishment was being executed. On the same day when this was done, the royal Audiencia sent a decree to the cabildo, ordering that they should conduct themselves in all respects amicably with the royal Audiencia and the other royal officials, not allowing any acts of violence to be inflicted on the vassals of his Majesty, or hindering them from appealing to the Audiencia in cases of fuerza. The cabildo were also warned not to accept any documents of appointment from the ruler of the archbishopric, or allow him to exercise jurisdiction, until the person appointed should present himself before the royal court, where he must take the customary oath. To this decree the cabildo rendered obedience; and, the very illustrious master Don Fray Ximenez Barrientos, bishop of Troya and assistant bishop of these islands, having presented himself before the cabildo with the appointment of ruler [of the archdiocese]—which the archbishop had conferred upon him on the twenty-seventh of March, when the said archbishop was already declared an exile—he was referred by the cabildo to the Audiencia. Being present there, his appointment was, in consequence of the demand made by the fiscal that license should not be granted to him, suspended in that court, for weighty reasons there presented, and it was referred to the Council, in order that his Majesty might decide according to his pleasure; and [it was declared that] in the interim the cabildo should govern the archdiocese.[34] And here it occurs to me to remark, parenthetically, that, although the secrets and the justifiable motives of the Audiencia are inscrutable, we may regard it as probable that their principal reason for this action was their knowledge of the fact that this bishop, a few days after arriving in this city, had preached in the convent of Santo Domingo, on the day of the naval battle,[35] and the entire tendency of his sermon was to disparage the royal jurisdiction and rebuke those who would appeal to it. He said that this entire city was a university of vices, although of that he could have had no experience; and it was he who had exerted most influence on the actions of the archbishop, over and over again strengthening him in acts of disobedience [to the secular government]. The cabildo, since the Audiencia had not accepted the said bishop as ecclesiastical ruler, declared that the see was vacant by interpretation [of that act]; and the bishop of Troya replied that they could not have sent him better news, as he did not desire to take charge of other men’s flocks. Thereupon he immediately went back to the convent of San Juan del Monte, outside the walls of this city;[36] and on the following day a Dominican religious set out to stir up the other religious orders (except the Society), that after sunset prayers they should ring the bells for an interdict. This was done by [the convent of] Santo Domingo.[37] [He also told them] that Master Juan Gonzalez de Guzmàn, provisor of the said archbishop, would post as excommunicated the dean, Master Don Miguel Ortiz de Cobarrubias, whom the cabildo had appointed ecclesiastical ruler. At this, the dean asked the governor for the aid of some infantry, to go to the convent of Santo Domingo, to which the said master had retreated, to remove him thence. This was granted; but, on going to the said convent, they encountered much opposition to their entrance, on the part of the religious. The dean was so insolently treated by them that he was obliged, in order to prevent greater troubles, to return and inform the governor and the royal Audiencia, then in session. That court issued a royal decree to notify the superiors of the religious orders that in publishing an interdict[38] they must follow the metropolitan church [matriz]; and thus was prevented a great scandal, disturbance, and popular commotion in this city—in which, since the said sentence of banishment was carried out, the utmost peace has been experienced, nor has there occurred the slightest disturbance.
I must not omit, since it is a part of this account, the following information: On Epiphany [dia de Reyes; in 1682] while the royal Audiencia were present in the holy cathedral church, a sermon was preached there by father Fray Francisco de Villalva, a Dominican religious, whose language was insolent in the highest degree. He spoke openly and expressly against the governor, the auditors, and the ecclesiastical cabildo (which he pointed out as the source of disturbances in the community), saying to the archbishop: “Let not your illustrious Lordship concern himself with the secular revenues; look to God [for maintenance].” He tried to disparage the royal jurisdiction, and rebuked appeals to the Audiencia—saying so much that he gave cause for that tribunal to send by its chaplain a message to the archbishop, asking him to order the preacher to cease. His illustrious Lordship replied that the preacher was doing his duty, and the latter, in the face of these demonstrations, went on with the sermon even to the end. Afterward, by order of the court, the auditor Don Pedro de Bolivar put the said father on a ship, to be taken to the province of Cadbalogan—in which he must remain until the opportunity should arrive, by the departure of a ship [from Manila], for him to embark for Madrid, whither the acts were to be sent. This was carried out, and, although the ship was driven back to port, he is now going on board the capitana.[39] May God conduct these affairs for our good, and preserve your Grace[40] for many years. Manila, June 15, 1683.
Juan Sanchez
A curious relation of events in the city of Manila since the arrival of the ships in the year 1684.
On the ninth of July the bells were rung for the [arrival of the] ship “Santa Rosa,” with certain news that it was opposite Baco, and had brought the new governor, Admiral Don Gabriel de Curucelaegui y Arriola—who, on account of the fury of the storms, would not be able to make his entrance into this city until August 24. [On that occasion] he was received with loud applause, triumphal arches, and laudatory speeches. On that day occurred some memorable events. At five o’clock in the morning there was a severe earthquake, although it caused but little damage to the city. In the afternoon, while his Lordship, before entering through the Puerta Real, was taking the customary oath in order that the keys might be delivered to him, the horse of his Majesty’s fiscal became unruly, and attacked those who were near him with kicks and bites. He who came out worst from this was the secretary whom his Lordship brought over; he was injured in one leg by some kicks, from the effects of which he suffered for several days.[41] When the governor had entered the city, and when he was about two pike-lengths from the gate, the balcony above it, which was full of people, fell; some were killed, others crippled or maimed, and others bruised. Among them were friars and lay-brothers, negroes and whites. With these events, the common people began to indulge in much gossip.