[19] There is an apparent omission here, as the decree previously cited referred to the priority of San José college over that of Santo Tomás; the reference here would seem to indicate another decree, in regard to privileges and exemptions allowed to the Jesuits in regard to trading.
[20] Salazar states (Hist. Sant. Rosario, p. 235) that this action was taken because “certain persons were greatly devoted to trading, in contravention of the pontifical decrees, and especially of the recent constitution of Clement IX—the said enactment giving the ordinary full authority to proceed against the transgressors, seize their goods and property, and apply these to hospitals and other pious purposes.” Accordingly, Archbishop Pardo instituted a secret investigation, conducted by his notary, who threatened major excommunication (by a decree affixed to the ship’s mast) for any person who refused to tell what he might know about the aforesaid trading. Abundant proof was found, and the goods were seized. It is said that there were one hundred and fifty bales belonging to the Jesuits.
[21] Probably in view of the arguments adduced by Concepción (Hist. de Philipinas, viii, pp. 41–43), showing that the decree of Clement IX forbade trade to all ecclesiastics, but did not authorize the ordinary to inflict penalties therefor on the members of the religious orders, that being reserved to their own superiors—the ordinary, in such cases, being empowered only to apply the confiscated goods for pious purposes.
[22] Murillo Velarde and Concepción give this name as Pizarraldi; and Diaz makes it Lizarraldi.
[23] In the Dominican chapter-session of 1673, it was enacted that no religious of that order should become executor of a deceased person’s estate, or undertake the charge of his last will. This was to prevent risk of accusations against the friars, so general was the dishonest administration of executorships in Manila—so much so that it occasioned no surprise in the minds of the people, although all complained of the grievances thus caused. “There are few fortunes which have not some executorship as the foundation.” See Salazar’s Hist. Sant. Rosario (Manila, 1742), p. 43.
[24] It had begun in 1672, in the time of Archbishop López, under whom judgment was rendered in favor of Sarmiento; but López’s death in 1674 prevented the execution of the sentence. Various delays ensued, and Cordero died, being succeeded by Ortega as executor. (Salazar, Hist. Sant. Rosario, p. 236.)
[25] Also written Carballo, Carvallo, and Caballero.
[26] Spanish dote, usually meaning “dowry;” but as the ecclesiastic Cordero was the legatee of Doña Maria de Roa (Montero y Vidal, i, p. 368), the word evidently means the bequest to him, perhaps for the pious purposes mentioned later in this document.
[27] See Concepción’s account of this affair (Hist. de Philipinas, viii, pp. 45–50), in considerable detail; he states that he presents it thus in order to vindicate the course of the Audiencia, and that Pardo in some of his acts exceeded his jurisdiction.
[28] Diaz was a priest, and secretary of the archbishopric.