[9] Several of Pardo’s decrees were dated “from our palace of San Gabriel” (the name of the hospital).
[10] A petition to this effect from the cabildo to the archbishop, dated April 10, 1681, is reproduced in Reseña biográfica, ii, pp. 196–198, followed by Pardo’s “pastoral letter” in reply. The editor claims that Juan Gonzalez (afterward provisor of the see) signed the petition under compulsion.
[11] Diaz states (p. 755) that the archbishop replied that he would send Verart to Spain as his attorney, which would be sufficient to remove him from Manila; he informed the Audiencia that Verart had not only rendered him great service, but had reformed many abuses in the ecclesiastical courts. The Dominican provincial said that the Audiencia must show cause for Verart’s removal, or he could do nothing; for Verart had been assigned to the post of associate to the archbishop.
[12] These men came in 1681. The last named, Fuente y Alanis, came as fiscal of the Audiencia.
[13] Diaz states (pp. 752, 753) that Marañón came to Manila (but without permission to do so), a few days after Arqueros, to complain of the latter to the archbishop. The latter demanded an account of Arqueros’s proceedings in the case; Arqueros presented documents which proved, by the complaints of many Indians, that Marañón deserved punishment. The archbishop therefore sustained Arqueros, and ordered Marañón’s arrest.
[14] According to Diaz (p. 756), Pardo answered that he had reserved Marañón’s case as being the metropolitan, and because the cura’s offenses had been committed in the territory of the archbishopric; moreover, that the parties in this case had accepted his jurisdiction. Finally, “to avoid controversies he offered to surrender to the bishop-elect the person of Licentiate Diego Espinosa Marañón—which the bishop did not accept; but afterward, without telling the archbishop, he sent Marañón to his curacy of Vigan, removing him from his prison-bounds of the city [of Manila].”
[15] Diaz says (p. 757) that Pardo informed the Audiencia that he had not punished Herrera for these reasons, but because the latter, in his quarrel with Archbishop López, had treated that prelate with insolence and even posted him as excommunicate (Diaz, p. 705); and when afterward he had been treated with great kindness by Pardo, he had conspired with the cabildo against him.
[16] i.e., Requiring a previous judicial decision before the final sentence (Velázquez’s Dictionary, Appleton’s ed., 1901).
[17] Adjuntos: “a body of judges commissioned or appointed jointly to try a cause” (Velázquez). Pardo claimed that the cabildo of Manila was not an exempted one (i.e., from submission to the ordinary), and therefore its members did not enjoy the privilege of the adjunct judges (Diaz, p. 757).
[18] “And these two suits, of the bishop and the cantor, were the ones which influenced the auditors to [decide upon] his banishment, which was decreed on the first of October [1682].” (Murillo Velarde, Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 342 b.)