CHAPTER VIII.ANNO DOM. 1721.The Administration of the Marquis de Torre Campo.Before the death of the marshal was known at Madrid, the information which had been received of his extortions and despotism had induced his Majesty to nominate as Governor Don Torribio Cosio, Marquis de Torre Campo, late Governor of Guatimala, who took possession of his government on the 6th day of August, 1721. Many charges were preferred against the former Governor, and many of his friends were looked upon as his accomplices. Some of them, however, denied the charge, and others asserted that theyacquiesced in his measures in order to save themselves from his violence, and to secure their property. Don Esteban Iñigo, among other charges, was accused of monopolizing the rice, which had been the occasion of a great famine in the islands; but he replied that he had been compelled to enter into this speculation by the Governor, and acceded to it as the only means of saving the rice, as well as the whole of his own property.When the marshal’s death was known in Madrid, a royal order was forwarded to the Governor to bring to justice those suspected of being his accomplices. The marquis, on this occasion, consulted the Franciscan Friar Totanes, his confessor, and the college of Jesuits, as to the conduct he should observe. After considerable discussion, it was resolved to suspend all further enquiries, and communicate to his Majesty the proceedings which had already taken place, and the advice which he hadtaken, thus putting an end, for the present, to these distressing enquiries. The archbishop at this time was removed from his chair, and translated to the bishopric of Mechoacan, as a punishment for his having coincided with the marshal’s measures, and for having, without due authority, assumed the baton of office after his death. He died on the 30th of May, 1724, a few days after having taken possession of his bishopric.The islands would have enjoyed peace and tranquillity under the new Governor, had not the Moors still continued their depredations on the provinces of the Bisayas, and which the marquis sent a squadron to repress, but this, like every preceding attempt, had failed of success.Don Juan Gainza, to whom was imputed the murder of the son of the Governor, embarked for Acapulco, accompanied by Don Diego Salazar, who was the companion of Lucea, the supposed assassin ofthe Marshal Bustamente. When the relatives of Don Fernando Bustamente heard of the arrival of these men at Acapulco, they petitioned the Viceroy for their imprisonment; and on this application an order was forwarded to the Governor of Acapulco to proceed against them. He accordingly took the depositions of the people in the ship, and as little could be proved against them by this means, he sent them prisoners to Mexico. Here a very circumstantial account of the deaths of the marshal and his son was produced against them, in which it was urged that these two were accomplices in the murder. This account was not deemed sufficient to authenticate further proceedings, although a son of the deceased Governor swore, that a similar statement of the transaction had been given in Manila, by the father-in-law of this same Don Diego Salazar, agreeing in every point with this of Don Alexandro Bustamente; the nephew of the deceased Governorswore to the truth of his having heard the same story; and likewise the marshal’s confident, Diego Muzarabe, confirmed it with the declaration, that although in Manila he had declared against his master, yet that it had been through fear of his own life, and that he was influenced by that consideration, when he stated simply, that the refugees in the church of St. Augustine had only approached the palace in a tumultuous manner, from which had resulted the fatal catastrophe. Luis Pardo Santizo Piñeiro’s declaration was nearly to the same effect; and although the truth of the majority of these depositions was strongly suspected, yet their oaths, in the mean time, were admitted as a matter of necessity against the supposed criminals.Don Juan Gainza requested that they might be sent back to Manila to take their trial, and the Viceroy finding the case full of difficulty, forwarded the whole of the documentsto his Majesty, putting Don Juan Gainza in confinement until the determination of the King should be known. This in due time arrived, and the Viceroy was instructed to remand the parties to Manila, to take their trials along with the others accused of the crime in question.The council of the Indies, who had taken the account of the examinations on the murders of the Governor and his son, agreed with the Royal Audience in remaining apparently satisfied with them; but a royal order having been forwarded to the Marquis de Torre Campo to sift the business to the bottom, and punish the offenders, this Governor, having no desire to enter further into such unavailing processes, consulted the Friar Totanes and the Jesuits, who had before given him their assistance. The friar on this occasion exaggerated the loss of property sustained by the inhabitants of Manila, and by the pious establishments: he represented the severepressure arising from the absolute scarcity of rice, on which account, it was said, many had died of hunger. He alleged that the marshal had been the cause of all this; that his violent proceedings had been the means of producing a strong sensation among all ranks, and converting the conduct of the citizens into a measure of self-defence, having no other alternative for alleviating the miseries they were exposed to than by deposing him from his office. To what tribunal, it was well urged by the friar, could they cite him to answer for his conduct? The Royal Audience was abolished; the archbishop and clergy in prison; and the government of the city had been committed to an ordinary alcalde, who was the Governor’s nephew, and two regidores, his creatures. There being, therefore, no tribunal to which he was amenable, they had determined on confining him, as the most eligible mode of terminating their miseries; and in thisjustifiable attempt to save their own lives and properties, his resistance produced a mortal wound. More ought, therefore, to be attributed to the marshal’s violent and imprudent conduct, than to the inhabitants of Manila.This language, which in fact amounted nearly to sedition, was represented to the King as the sentiments of all the clergy of the Philippines, but it was an attempt to asperse their reputation, as the Friar Totanes had no authority in this respect; and in fact most of the clergy, with the Jesuits, had no hesitation in expressing their disapprobation of the conduct of the citizens of Manila, although they allowed that the extraordinary circumstances of the case, rendered them deserving of the royal indulgence.In this business all the accused remained unpunished except the archbishop, who had the least share in the disturbances.He, however, was punished severely; that worthy prelate, who in imitation of Christ, bore on his shoulders the sins of his people. Señor Torralba, whose cavillings added fuel to the flame of this tumult, was imprisoned in the fort of Santiago. The marquis tried him by a special commission, by the sentence of which he was fined an immense sum, deprived of his office, and condemned to perpetual banishment from Madrid and Manila, allowing him, however, to return to Spain, after he had paid the first one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. During the remaining period of his imprisonment, he was in a very bad state of health, and when liberated he was in such misery, that he was reduced to the necessity of begging, to avoid dying of hunger. After his death, he was interred as a common pauper in the church of San Juan de Dios. The severity of this lesson is sufficient to impresson us the necessity of a correct and upright conduct, and it is hoped it will not, in this respect, be thrown away.In the year 1718, his Majesty sent to Manila three professors; the Señor Velasco, professor of laws, with a salary of eight hundred dollars per annum, with the rank of Oidor; and at the end of seven years to be promoted to be Alcalde del Crimen at Mexico. The Señor Toribio was likewise to have the rank of honorary Oidor, and to have five hundred dollars per annum, as la Cathedra de Instituto, and at the end of seven years he was to be promoted to be Oidor of Guatimala. The professor of canon law was Doctor Osio, who received eight hundred dollars per annum, and was to be promoted to be prebendary of Mexico. Señor Velasco being soon after removed to the Royal Audience of Mexico, the Governor directed that there should be only two professors, because their stipends were chargeable onthe vacant bishoprics, and had been paid as an advance (by way of loan) from the treasury at Manila, by which about forty thousand dollars had been paid to them by way of salary, of rent of houses for their public lectures and other matters, and only nine thousand had been received inreimbursementfrom the Viceroy of Mexico, who had declined remitting more without a special order from court. Despatches were forwarded to his Majesty; and in the mean time the Governor placed the professors in the college of St. Philip, but the other professors opposing it, the archbishop removed them to that of the Jesuits, where, out of mere disrespect of Señor Osio, the Friar Murillo taught the canon law until the year 1730, when a royal mandate arrived, by which the professors were suspended, and indeed, very little benefit had accrued to the public from them.About this time the Emperor of China, who had permitted the exercise of theChristian religion in his dominions, died. His successor, however, proscribed it altogether, banishing the missionaries from the empire, and permitting the residence of a few Jesuits only, who were teachers of mathematics at Pekin. The Pope, desirous of propagating the knowledge of our faith throughout all Asia, sent two barefooted Carmelite friars in quality of ambassadors to the Chinese court. According to eastern custom, they introduced the object of their mission by presents to the Emperor; but the only advantage which resulted from it was, a permission for some missionaries to remain in China.Since this period, some of that valuable class have contrived, clandestinely, to reside in that country, and to this day continue to preach the gospel; yet their sufferings are frequent and very severe, being at times thrown into prison and banished the kingdom, where, however, in a short time they find means to return, by bribingthe mandarins with money, the grand engine which governs this vast empire. The prohibition above alluded to extended to the tributary kingdom of Tonquin, where the missionaries suffered still more, for in escaping from the hands of the Governors of the different provinces, they fell into those of the freebooters, who robbed and ill treated them.The King of Jolo sent a Chinese as ambassador to Manila to treat for peace; his excellency received him favourably, and Don Miguel Aragon was in consequence despatched to Jolo with ample powers to establish a permanent alliance with that prince. An alliance was entered into, but its duration was very short; the natives of Jolo, naturally fickle and turbulent, joining with those of Mindanao in the usual predatory excursions against our islands, in which they were guilty of the customary excesses.The inhabitants of Manila, on this occasion,subscribed a handsome sum to fit out a small squadron for the purpose of repressing these marauders. It proceeded against the Moors, and eventually compelled them to sue for peace, but not before they had done us very considerable injury.The galleon Santo Christo de Burgos, in her voyage to Acapulco, was stranded on the island of Ticao; upon which occasion, on the frivolous pretext of being prevented, by the offensive smell of the cargo, from opening the hatches, with a view to save the property, the ship was set fire to with the intention, there was reason to think, on the part of her commander and merchants, of attempting to embezzle, for their own use, some of the merchandize during the conflagration; but finding this impracticable, the ship and her valuable cargo were totally abandoned to the flames. This stratagem has been frequently resorted to by the merchants of the Philippines, and itwill often be successful, so long as it remains undecided how the loss ought to be borne in cases of that nature. The pious establishments are the assurers, according to the terms of the instruments or deeds, made between them and the respective adventurers, who borrow money of them for the purpose of embarking in this trade; but these instruments, expressing the lender’s risk to be total loss only, the borrowers, to prevent any thing from being saved, so as to leave room for litigation, as to whether the loss was total or partial, set fire to the vessel, to place it beyond all dispute. In such cases the loss of the ship, I conceive, should be borne generally; whatever is saved should be divided among the parties, according to the property they had on board, and which might easily be ascertained, by examining the manifest with the original deeds2.
CHAPTER VIII.ANNO DOM. 1721.The Administration of the Marquis de Torre Campo.Before the death of the marshal was known at Madrid, the information which had been received of his extortions and despotism had induced his Majesty to nominate as Governor Don Torribio Cosio, Marquis de Torre Campo, late Governor of Guatimala, who took possession of his government on the 6th day of August, 1721. Many charges were preferred against the former Governor, and many of his friends were looked upon as his accomplices. Some of them, however, denied the charge, and others asserted that theyacquiesced in his measures in order to save themselves from his violence, and to secure their property. Don Esteban Iñigo, among other charges, was accused of monopolizing the rice, which had been the occasion of a great famine in the islands; but he replied that he had been compelled to enter into this speculation by the Governor, and acceded to it as the only means of saving the rice, as well as the whole of his own property.When the marshal’s death was known in Madrid, a royal order was forwarded to the Governor to bring to justice those suspected of being his accomplices. The marquis, on this occasion, consulted the Franciscan Friar Totanes, his confessor, and the college of Jesuits, as to the conduct he should observe. After considerable discussion, it was resolved to suspend all further enquiries, and communicate to his Majesty the proceedings which had already taken place, and the advice which he hadtaken, thus putting an end, for the present, to these distressing enquiries. The archbishop at this time was removed from his chair, and translated to the bishopric of Mechoacan, as a punishment for his having coincided with the marshal’s measures, and for having, without due authority, assumed the baton of office after his death. He died on the 30th of May, 1724, a few days after having taken possession of his bishopric.The islands would have enjoyed peace and tranquillity under the new Governor, had not the Moors still continued their depredations on the provinces of the Bisayas, and which the marquis sent a squadron to repress, but this, like every preceding attempt, had failed of success.Don Juan Gainza, to whom was imputed the murder of the son of the Governor, embarked for Acapulco, accompanied by Don Diego Salazar, who was the companion of Lucea, the supposed assassin ofthe Marshal Bustamente. When the relatives of Don Fernando Bustamente heard of the arrival of these men at Acapulco, they petitioned the Viceroy for their imprisonment; and on this application an order was forwarded to the Governor of Acapulco to proceed against them. He accordingly took the depositions of the people in the ship, and as little could be proved against them by this means, he sent them prisoners to Mexico. Here a very circumstantial account of the deaths of the marshal and his son was produced against them, in which it was urged that these two were accomplices in the murder. This account was not deemed sufficient to authenticate further proceedings, although a son of the deceased Governor swore, that a similar statement of the transaction had been given in Manila, by the father-in-law of this same Don Diego Salazar, agreeing in every point with this of Don Alexandro Bustamente; the nephew of the deceased Governorswore to the truth of his having heard the same story; and likewise the marshal’s confident, Diego Muzarabe, confirmed it with the declaration, that although in Manila he had declared against his master, yet that it had been through fear of his own life, and that he was influenced by that consideration, when he stated simply, that the refugees in the church of St. Augustine had only approached the palace in a tumultuous manner, from which had resulted the fatal catastrophe. Luis Pardo Santizo Piñeiro’s declaration was nearly to the same effect; and although the truth of the majority of these depositions was strongly suspected, yet their oaths, in the mean time, were admitted as a matter of necessity against the supposed criminals.Don Juan Gainza requested that they might be sent back to Manila to take their trial, and the Viceroy finding the case full of difficulty, forwarded the whole of the documentsto his Majesty, putting Don Juan Gainza in confinement until the determination of the King should be known. This in due time arrived, and the Viceroy was instructed to remand the parties to Manila, to take their trials along with the others accused of the crime in question.The council of the Indies, who had taken the account of the examinations on the murders of the Governor and his son, agreed with the Royal Audience in remaining apparently satisfied with them; but a royal order having been forwarded to the Marquis de Torre Campo to sift the business to the bottom, and punish the offenders, this Governor, having no desire to enter further into such unavailing processes, consulted the Friar Totanes and the Jesuits, who had before given him their assistance. The friar on this occasion exaggerated the loss of property sustained by the inhabitants of Manila, and by the pious establishments: he represented the severepressure arising from the absolute scarcity of rice, on which account, it was said, many had died of hunger. He alleged that the marshal had been the cause of all this; that his violent proceedings had been the means of producing a strong sensation among all ranks, and converting the conduct of the citizens into a measure of self-defence, having no other alternative for alleviating the miseries they were exposed to than by deposing him from his office. To what tribunal, it was well urged by the friar, could they cite him to answer for his conduct? The Royal Audience was abolished; the archbishop and clergy in prison; and the government of the city had been committed to an ordinary alcalde, who was the Governor’s nephew, and two regidores, his creatures. There being, therefore, no tribunal to which he was amenable, they had determined on confining him, as the most eligible mode of terminating their miseries; and in thisjustifiable attempt to save their own lives and properties, his resistance produced a mortal wound. More ought, therefore, to be attributed to the marshal’s violent and imprudent conduct, than to the inhabitants of Manila.This language, which in fact amounted nearly to sedition, was represented to the King as the sentiments of all the clergy of the Philippines, but it was an attempt to asperse their reputation, as the Friar Totanes had no authority in this respect; and in fact most of the clergy, with the Jesuits, had no hesitation in expressing their disapprobation of the conduct of the citizens of Manila, although they allowed that the extraordinary circumstances of the case, rendered them deserving of the royal indulgence.In this business all the accused remained unpunished except the archbishop, who had the least share in the disturbances.He, however, was punished severely; that worthy prelate, who in imitation of Christ, bore on his shoulders the sins of his people. Señor Torralba, whose cavillings added fuel to the flame of this tumult, was imprisoned in the fort of Santiago. The marquis tried him by a special commission, by the sentence of which he was fined an immense sum, deprived of his office, and condemned to perpetual banishment from Madrid and Manila, allowing him, however, to return to Spain, after he had paid the first one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. During the remaining period of his imprisonment, he was in a very bad state of health, and when liberated he was in such misery, that he was reduced to the necessity of begging, to avoid dying of hunger. After his death, he was interred as a common pauper in the church of San Juan de Dios. The severity of this lesson is sufficient to impresson us the necessity of a correct and upright conduct, and it is hoped it will not, in this respect, be thrown away.In the year 1718, his Majesty sent to Manila three professors; the Señor Velasco, professor of laws, with a salary of eight hundred dollars per annum, with the rank of Oidor; and at the end of seven years to be promoted to be Alcalde del Crimen at Mexico. The Señor Toribio was likewise to have the rank of honorary Oidor, and to have five hundred dollars per annum, as la Cathedra de Instituto, and at the end of seven years he was to be promoted to be Oidor of Guatimala. The professor of canon law was Doctor Osio, who received eight hundred dollars per annum, and was to be promoted to be prebendary of Mexico. Señor Velasco being soon after removed to the Royal Audience of Mexico, the Governor directed that there should be only two professors, because their stipends were chargeable onthe vacant bishoprics, and had been paid as an advance (by way of loan) from the treasury at Manila, by which about forty thousand dollars had been paid to them by way of salary, of rent of houses for their public lectures and other matters, and only nine thousand had been received inreimbursementfrom the Viceroy of Mexico, who had declined remitting more without a special order from court. Despatches were forwarded to his Majesty; and in the mean time the Governor placed the professors in the college of St. Philip, but the other professors opposing it, the archbishop removed them to that of the Jesuits, where, out of mere disrespect of Señor Osio, the Friar Murillo taught the canon law until the year 1730, when a royal mandate arrived, by which the professors were suspended, and indeed, very little benefit had accrued to the public from them.About this time the Emperor of China, who had permitted the exercise of theChristian religion in his dominions, died. His successor, however, proscribed it altogether, banishing the missionaries from the empire, and permitting the residence of a few Jesuits only, who were teachers of mathematics at Pekin. The Pope, desirous of propagating the knowledge of our faith throughout all Asia, sent two barefooted Carmelite friars in quality of ambassadors to the Chinese court. According to eastern custom, they introduced the object of their mission by presents to the Emperor; but the only advantage which resulted from it was, a permission for some missionaries to remain in China.Since this period, some of that valuable class have contrived, clandestinely, to reside in that country, and to this day continue to preach the gospel; yet their sufferings are frequent and very severe, being at times thrown into prison and banished the kingdom, where, however, in a short time they find means to return, by bribingthe mandarins with money, the grand engine which governs this vast empire. The prohibition above alluded to extended to the tributary kingdom of Tonquin, where the missionaries suffered still more, for in escaping from the hands of the Governors of the different provinces, they fell into those of the freebooters, who robbed and ill treated them.The King of Jolo sent a Chinese as ambassador to Manila to treat for peace; his excellency received him favourably, and Don Miguel Aragon was in consequence despatched to Jolo with ample powers to establish a permanent alliance with that prince. An alliance was entered into, but its duration was very short; the natives of Jolo, naturally fickle and turbulent, joining with those of Mindanao in the usual predatory excursions against our islands, in which they were guilty of the customary excesses.The inhabitants of Manila, on this occasion,subscribed a handsome sum to fit out a small squadron for the purpose of repressing these marauders. It proceeded against the Moors, and eventually compelled them to sue for peace, but not before they had done us very considerable injury.The galleon Santo Christo de Burgos, in her voyage to Acapulco, was stranded on the island of Ticao; upon which occasion, on the frivolous pretext of being prevented, by the offensive smell of the cargo, from opening the hatches, with a view to save the property, the ship was set fire to with the intention, there was reason to think, on the part of her commander and merchants, of attempting to embezzle, for their own use, some of the merchandize during the conflagration; but finding this impracticable, the ship and her valuable cargo were totally abandoned to the flames. This stratagem has been frequently resorted to by the merchants of the Philippines, and itwill often be successful, so long as it remains undecided how the loss ought to be borne in cases of that nature. The pious establishments are the assurers, according to the terms of the instruments or deeds, made between them and the respective adventurers, who borrow money of them for the purpose of embarking in this trade; but these instruments, expressing the lender’s risk to be total loss only, the borrowers, to prevent any thing from being saved, so as to leave room for litigation, as to whether the loss was total or partial, set fire to the vessel, to place it beyond all dispute. In such cases the loss of the ship, I conceive, should be borne generally; whatever is saved should be divided among the parties, according to the property they had on board, and which might easily be ascertained, by examining the manifest with the original deeds2.
CHAPTER VIII.ANNO DOM. 1721.The Administration of the Marquis de Torre Campo.
The Administration of the Marquis de Torre Campo.
The Administration of the Marquis de Torre Campo.
Before the death of the marshal was known at Madrid, the information which had been received of his extortions and despotism had induced his Majesty to nominate as Governor Don Torribio Cosio, Marquis de Torre Campo, late Governor of Guatimala, who took possession of his government on the 6th day of August, 1721. Many charges were preferred against the former Governor, and many of his friends were looked upon as his accomplices. Some of them, however, denied the charge, and others asserted that theyacquiesced in his measures in order to save themselves from his violence, and to secure their property. Don Esteban Iñigo, among other charges, was accused of monopolizing the rice, which had been the occasion of a great famine in the islands; but he replied that he had been compelled to enter into this speculation by the Governor, and acceded to it as the only means of saving the rice, as well as the whole of his own property.When the marshal’s death was known in Madrid, a royal order was forwarded to the Governor to bring to justice those suspected of being his accomplices. The marquis, on this occasion, consulted the Franciscan Friar Totanes, his confessor, and the college of Jesuits, as to the conduct he should observe. After considerable discussion, it was resolved to suspend all further enquiries, and communicate to his Majesty the proceedings which had already taken place, and the advice which he hadtaken, thus putting an end, for the present, to these distressing enquiries. The archbishop at this time was removed from his chair, and translated to the bishopric of Mechoacan, as a punishment for his having coincided with the marshal’s measures, and for having, without due authority, assumed the baton of office after his death. He died on the 30th of May, 1724, a few days after having taken possession of his bishopric.The islands would have enjoyed peace and tranquillity under the new Governor, had not the Moors still continued their depredations on the provinces of the Bisayas, and which the marquis sent a squadron to repress, but this, like every preceding attempt, had failed of success.Don Juan Gainza, to whom was imputed the murder of the son of the Governor, embarked for Acapulco, accompanied by Don Diego Salazar, who was the companion of Lucea, the supposed assassin ofthe Marshal Bustamente. When the relatives of Don Fernando Bustamente heard of the arrival of these men at Acapulco, they petitioned the Viceroy for their imprisonment; and on this application an order was forwarded to the Governor of Acapulco to proceed against them. He accordingly took the depositions of the people in the ship, and as little could be proved against them by this means, he sent them prisoners to Mexico. Here a very circumstantial account of the deaths of the marshal and his son was produced against them, in which it was urged that these two were accomplices in the murder. This account was not deemed sufficient to authenticate further proceedings, although a son of the deceased Governor swore, that a similar statement of the transaction had been given in Manila, by the father-in-law of this same Don Diego Salazar, agreeing in every point with this of Don Alexandro Bustamente; the nephew of the deceased Governorswore to the truth of his having heard the same story; and likewise the marshal’s confident, Diego Muzarabe, confirmed it with the declaration, that although in Manila he had declared against his master, yet that it had been through fear of his own life, and that he was influenced by that consideration, when he stated simply, that the refugees in the church of St. Augustine had only approached the palace in a tumultuous manner, from which had resulted the fatal catastrophe. Luis Pardo Santizo Piñeiro’s declaration was nearly to the same effect; and although the truth of the majority of these depositions was strongly suspected, yet their oaths, in the mean time, were admitted as a matter of necessity against the supposed criminals.Don Juan Gainza requested that they might be sent back to Manila to take their trial, and the Viceroy finding the case full of difficulty, forwarded the whole of the documentsto his Majesty, putting Don Juan Gainza in confinement until the determination of the King should be known. This in due time arrived, and the Viceroy was instructed to remand the parties to Manila, to take their trials along with the others accused of the crime in question.The council of the Indies, who had taken the account of the examinations on the murders of the Governor and his son, agreed with the Royal Audience in remaining apparently satisfied with them; but a royal order having been forwarded to the Marquis de Torre Campo to sift the business to the bottom, and punish the offenders, this Governor, having no desire to enter further into such unavailing processes, consulted the Friar Totanes and the Jesuits, who had before given him their assistance. The friar on this occasion exaggerated the loss of property sustained by the inhabitants of Manila, and by the pious establishments: he represented the severepressure arising from the absolute scarcity of rice, on which account, it was said, many had died of hunger. He alleged that the marshal had been the cause of all this; that his violent proceedings had been the means of producing a strong sensation among all ranks, and converting the conduct of the citizens into a measure of self-defence, having no other alternative for alleviating the miseries they were exposed to than by deposing him from his office. To what tribunal, it was well urged by the friar, could they cite him to answer for his conduct? The Royal Audience was abolished; the archbishop and clergy in prison; and the government of the city had been committed to an ordinary alcalde, who was the Governor’s nephew, and two regidores, his creatures. There being, therefore, no tribunal to which he was amenable, they had determined on confining him, as the most eligible mode of terminating their miseries; and in thisjustifiable attempt to save their own lives and properties, his resistance produced a mortal wound. More ought, therefore, to be attributed to the marshal’s violent and imprudent conduct, than to the inhabitants of Manila.This language, which in fact amounted nearly to sedition, was represented to the King as the sentiments of all the clergy of the Philippines, but it was an attempt to asperse their reputation, as the Friar Totanes had no authority in this respect; and in fact most of the clergy, with the Jesuits, had no hesitation in expressing their disapprobation of the conduct of the citizens of Manila, although they allowed that the extraordinary circumstances of the case, rendered them deserving of the royal indulgence.In this business all the accused remained unpunished except the archbishop, who had the least share in the disturbances.He, however, was punished severely; that worthy prelate, who in imitation of Christ, bore on his shoulders the sins of his people. Señor Torralba, whose cavillings added fuel to the flame of this tumult, was imprisoned in the fort of Santiago. The marquis tried him by a special commission, by the sentence of which he was fined an immense sum, deprived of his office, and condemned to perpetual banishment from Madrid and Manila, allowing him, however, to return to Spain, after he had paid the first one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. During the remaining period of his imprisonment, he was in a very bad state of health, and when liberated he was in such misery, that he was reduced to the necessity of begging, to avoid dying of hunger. After his death, he was interred as a common pauper in the church of San Juan de Dios. The severity of this lesson is sufficient to impresson us the necessity of a correct and upright conduct, and it is hoped it will not, in this respect, be thrown away.In the year 1718, his Majesty sent to Manila three professors; the Señor Velasco, professor of laws, with a salary of eight hundred dollars per annum, with the rank of Oidor; and at the end of seven years to be promoted to be Alcalde del Crimen at Mexico. The Señor Toribio was likewise to have the rank of honorary Oidor, and to have five hundred dollars per annum, as la Cathedra de Instituto, and at the end of seven years he was to be promoted to be Oidor of Guatimala. The professor of canon law was Doctor Osio, who received eight hundred dollars per annum, and was to be promoted to be prebendary of Mexico. Señor Velasco being soon after removed to the Royal Audience of Mexico, the Governor directed that there should be only two professors, because their stipends were chargeable onthe vacant bishoprics, and had been paid as an advance (by way of loan) from the treasury at Manila, by which about forty thousand dollars had been paid to them by way of salary, of rent of houses for their public lectures and other matters, and only nine thousand had been received inreimbursementfrom the Viceroy of Mexico, who had declined remitting more without a special order from court. Despatches were forwarded to his Majesty; and in the mean time the Governor placed the professors in the college of St. Philip, but the other professors opposing it, the archbishop removed them to that of the Jesuits, where, out of mere disrespect of Señor Osio, the Friar Murillo taught the canon law until the year 1730, when a royal mandate arrived, by which the professors were suspended, and indeed, very little benefit had accrued to the public from them.About this time the Emperor of China, who had permitted the exercise of theChristian religion in his dominions, died. His successor, however, proscribed it altogether, banishing the missionaries from the empire, and permitting the residence of a few Jesuits only, who were teachers of mathematics at Pekin. The Pope, desirous of propagating the knowledge of our faith throughout all Asia, sent two barefooted Carmelite friars in quality of ambassadors to the Chinese court. According to eastern custom, they introduced the object of their mission by presents to the Emperor; but the only advantage which resulted from it was, a permission for some missionaries to remain in China.Since this period, some of that valuable class have contrived, clandestinely, to reside in that country, and to this day continue to preach the gospel; yet their sufferings are frequent and very severe, being at times thrown into prison and banished the kingdom, where, however, in a short time they find means to return, by bribingthe mandarins with money, the grand engine which governs this vast empire. The prohibition above alluded to extended to the tributary kingdom of Tonquin, where the missionaries suffered still more, for in escaping from the hands of the Governors of the different provinces, they fell into those of the freebooters, who robbed and ill treated them.The King of Jolo sent a Chinese as ambassador to Manila to treat for peace; his excellency received him favourably, and Don Miguel Aragon was in consequence despatched to Jolo with ample powers to establish a permanent alliance with that prince. An alliance was entered into, but its duration was very short; the natives of Jolo, naturally fickle and turbulent, joining with those of Mindanao in the usual predatory excursions against our islands, in which they were guilty of the customary excesses.The inhabitants of Manila, on this occasion,subscribed a handsome sum to fit out a small squadron for the purpose of repressing these marauders. It proceeded against the Moors, and eventually compelled them to sue for peace, but not before they had done us very considerable injury.The galleon Santo Christo de Burgos, in her voyage to Acapulco, was stranded on the island of Ticao; upon which occasion, on the frivolous pretext of being prevented, by the offensive smell of the cargo, from opening the hatches, with a view to save the property, the ship was set fire to with the intention, there was reason to think, on the part of her commander and merchants, of attempting to embezzle, for their own use, some of the merchandize during the conflagration; but finding this impracticable, the ship and her valuable cargo were totally abandoned to the flames. This stratagem has been frequently resorted to by the merchants of the Philippines, and itwill often be successful, so long as it remains undecided how the loss ought to be borne in cases of that nature. The pious establishments are the assurers, according to the terms of the instruments or deeds, made between them and the respective adventurers, who borrow money of them for the purpose of embarking in this trade; but these instruments, expressing the lender’s risk to be total loss only, the borrowers, to prevent any thing from being saved, so as to leave room for litigation, as to whether the loss was total or partial, set fire to the vessel, to place it beyond all dispute. In such cases the loss of the ship, I conceive, should be borne generally; whatever is saved should be divided among the parties, according to the property they had on board, and which might easily be ascertained, by examining the manifest with the original deeds2.
Before the death of the marshal was known at Madrid, the information which had been received of his extortions and despotism had induced his Majesty to nominate as Governor Don Torribio Cosio, Marquis de Torre Campo, late Governor of Guatimala, who took possession of his government on the 6th day of August, 1721. Many charges were preferred against the former Governor, and many of his friends were looked upon as his accomplices. Some of them, however, denied the charge, and others asserted that theyacquiesced in his measures in order to save themselves from his violence, and to secure their property. Don Esteban Iñigo, among other charges, was accused of monopolizing the rice, which had been the occasion of a great famine in the islands; but he replied that he had been compelled to enter into this speculation by the Governor, and acceded to it as the only means of saving the rice, as well as the whole of his own property.
When the marshal’s death was known in Madrid, a royal order was forwarded to the Governor to bring to justice those suspected of being his accomplices. The marquis, on this occasion, consulted the Franciscan Friar Totanes, his confessor, and the college of Jesuits, as to the conduct he should observe. After considerable discussion, it was resolved to suspend all further enquiries, and communicate to his Majesty the proceedings which had already taken place, and the advice which he hadtaken, thus putting an end, for the present, to these distressing enquiries. The archbishop at this time was removed from his chair, and translated to the bishopric of Mechoacan, as a punishment for his having coincided with the marshal’s measures, and for having, without due authority, assumed the baton of office after his death. He died on the 30th of May, 1724, a few days after having taken possession of his bishopric.
The islands would have enjoyed peace and tranquillity under the new Governor, had not the Moors still continued their depredations on the provinces of the Bisayas, and which the marquis sent a squadron to repress, but this, like every preceding attempt, had failed of success.
Don Juan Gainza, to whom was imputed the murder of the son of the Governor, embarked for Acapulco, accompanied by Don Diego Salazar, who was the companion of Lucea, the supposed assassin ofthe Marshal Bustamente. When the relatives of Don Fernando Bustamente heard of the arrival of these men at Acapulco, they petitioned the Viceroy for their imprisonment; and on this application an order was forwarded to the Governor of Acapulco to proceed against them. He accordingly took the depositions of the people in the ship, and as little could be proved against them by this means, he sent them prisoners to Mexico. Here a very circumstantial account of the deaths of the marshal and his son was produced against them, in which it was urged that these two were accomplices in the murder. This account was not deemed sufficient to authenticate further proceedings, although a son of the deceased Governor swore, that a similar statement of the transaction had been given in Manila, by the father-in-law of this same Don Diego Salazar, agreeing in every point with this of Don Alexandro Bustamente; the nephew of the deceased Governorswore to the truth of his having heard the same story; and likewise the marshal’s confident, Diego Muzarabe, confirmed it with the declaration, that although in Manila he had declared against his master, yet that it had been through fear of his own life, and that he was influenced by that consideration, when he stated simply, that the refugees in the church of St. Augustine had only approached the palace in a tumultuous manner, from which had resulted the fatal catastrophe. Luis Pardo Santizo Piñeiro’s declaration was nearly to the same effect; and although the truth of the majority of these depositions was strongly suspected, yet their oaths, in the mean time, were admitted as a matter of necessity against the supposed criminals.
Don Juan Gainza requested that they might be sent back to Manila to take their trial, and the Viceroy finding the case full of difficulty, forwarded the whole of the documentsto his Majesty, putting Don Juan Gainza in confinement until the determination of the King should be known. This in due time arrived, and the Viceroy was instructed to remand the parties to Manila, to take their trials along with the others accused of the crime in question.
The council of the Indies, who had taken the account of the examinations on the murders of the Governor and his son, agreed with the Royal Audience in remaining apparently satisfied with them; but a royal order having been forwarded to the Marquis de Torre Campo to sift the business to the bottom, and punish the offenders, this Governor, having no desire to enter further into such unavailing processes, consulted the Friar Totanes and the Jesuits, who had before given him their assistance. The friar on this occasion exaggerated the loss of property sustained by the inhabitants of Manila, and by the pious establishments: he represented the severepressure arising from the absolute scarcity of rice, on which account, it was said, many had died of hunger. He alleged that the marshal had been the cause of all this; that his violent proceedings had been the means of producing a strong sensation among all ranks, and converting the conduct of the citizens into a measure of self-defence, having no other alternative for alleviating the miseries they were exposed to than by deposing him from his office. To what tribunal, it was well urged by the friar, could they cite him to answer for his conduct? The Royal Audience was abolished; the archbishop and clergy in prison; and the government of the city had been committed to an ordinary alcalde, who was the Governor’s nephew, and two regidores, his creatures. There being, therefore, no tribunal to which he was amenable, they had determined on confining him, as the most eligible mode of terminating their miseries; and in thisjustifiable attempt to save their own lives and properties, his resistance produced a mortal wound. More ought, therefore, to be attributed to the marshal’s violent and imprudent conduct, than to the inhabitants of Manila.
This language, which in fact amounted nearly to sedition, was represented to the King as the sentiments of all the clergy of the Philippines, but it was an attempt to asperse their reputation, as the Friar Totanes had no authority in this respect; and in fact most of the clergy, with the Jesuits, had no hesitation in expressing their disapprobation of the conduct of the citizens of Manila, although they allowed that the extraordinary circumstances of the case, rendered them deserving of the royal indulgence.
In this business all the accused remained unpunished except the archbishop, who had the least share in the disturbances.He, however, was punished severely; that worthy prelate, who in imitation of Christ, bore on his shoulders the sins of his people. Señor Torralba, whose cavillings added fuel to the flame of this tumult, was imprisoned in the fort of Santiago. The marquis tried him by a special commission, by the sentence of which he was fined an immense sum, deprived of his office, and condemned to perpetual banishment from Madrid and Manila, allowing him, however, to return to Spain, after he had paid the first one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. During the remaining period of his imprisonment, he was in a very bad state of health, and when liberated he was in such misery, that he was reduced to the necessity of begging, to avoid dying of hunger. After his death, he was interred as a common pauper in the church of San Juan de Dios. The severity of this lesson is sufficient to impresson us the necessity of a correct and upright conduct, and it is hoped it will not, in this respect, be thrown away.
In the year 1718, his Majesty sent to Manila three professors; the Señor Velasco, professor of laws, with a salary of eight hundred dollars per annum, with the rank of Oidor; and at the end of seven years to be promoted to be Alcalde del Crimen at Mexico. The Señor Toribio was likewise to have the rank of honorary Oidor, and to have five hundred dollars per annum, as la Cathedra de Instituto, and at the end of seven years he was to be promoted to be Oidor of Guatimala. The professor of canon law was Doctor Osio, who received eight hundred dollars per annum, and was to be promoted to be prebendary of Mexico. Señor Velasco being soon after removed to the Royal Audience of Mexico, the Governor directed that there should be only two professors, because their stipends were chargeable onthe vacant bishoprics, and had been paid as an advance (by way of loan) from the treasury at Manila, by which about forty thousand dollars had been paid to them by way of salary, of rent of houses for their public lectures and other matters, and only nine thousand had been received inreimbursementfrom the Viceroy of Mexico, who had declined remitting more without a special order from court. Despatches were forwarded to his Majesty; and in the mean time the Governor placed the professors in the college of St. Philip, but the other professors opposing it, the archbishop removed them to that of the Jesuits, where, out of mere disrespect of Señor Osio, the Friar Murillo taught the canon law until the year 1730, when a royal mandate arrived, by which the professors were suspended, and indeed, very little benefit had accrued to the public from them.
About this time the Emperor of China, who had permitted the exercise of theChristian religion in his dominions, died. His successor, however, proscribed it altogether, banishing the missionaries from the empire, and permitting the residence of a few Jesuits only, who were teachers of mathematics at Pekin. The Pope, desirous of propagating the knowledge of our faith throughout all Asia, sent two barefooted Carmelite friars in quality of ambassadors to the Chinese court. According to eastern custom, they introduced the object of their mission by presents to the Emperor; but the only advantage which resulted from it was, a permission for some missionaries to remain in China.
Since this period, some of that valuable class have contrived, clandestinely, to reside in that country, and to this day continue to preach the gospel; yet their sufferings are frequent and very severe, being at times thrown into prison and banished the kingdom, where, however, in a short time they find means to return, by bribingthe mandarins with money, the grand engine which governs this vast empire. The prohibition above alluded to extended to the tributary kingdom of Tonquin, where the missionaries suffered still more, for in escaping from the hands of the Governors of the different provinces, they fell into those of the freebooters, who robbed and ill treated them.
The King of Jolo sent a Chinese as ambassador to Manila to treat for peace; his excellency received him favourably, and Don Miguel Aragon was in consequence despatched to Jolo with ample powers to establish a permanent alliance with that prince. An alliance was entered into, but its duration was very short; the natives of Jolo, naturally fickle and turbulent, joining with those of Mindanao in the usual predatory excursions against our islands, in which they were guilty of the customary excesses.
The inhabitants of Manila, on this occasion,subscribed a handsome sum to fit out a small squadron for the purpose of repressing these marauders. It proceeded against the Moors, and eventually compelled them to sue for peace, but not before they had done us very considerable injury.
The galleon Santo Christo de Burgos, in her voyage to Acapulco, was stranded on the island of Ticao; upon which occasion, on the frivolous pretext of being prevented, by the offensive smell of the cargo, from opening the hatches, with a view to save the property, the ship was set fire to with the intention, there was reason to think, on the part of her commander and merchants, of attempting to embezzle, for their own use, some of the merchandize during the conflagration; but finding this impracticable, the ship and her valuable cargo were totally abandoned to the flames. This stratagem has been frequently resorted to by the merchants of the Philippines, and itwill often be successful, so long as it remains undecided how the loss ought to be borne in cases of that nature. The pious establishments are the assurers, according to the terms of the instruments or deeds, made between them and the respective adventurers, who borrow money of them for the purpose of embarking in this trade; but these instruments, expressing the lender’s risk to be total loss only, the borrowers, to prevent any thing from being saved, so as to leave room for litigation, as to whether the loss was total or partial, set fire to the vessel, to place it beyond all dispute. In such cases the loss of the ship, I conceive, should be borne generally; whatever is saved should be divided among the parties, according to the property they had on board, and which might easily be ascertained, by examining the manifest with the original deeds2.