APPENDIX

APPENDIXRepresentation of Filipinas in Cortes. [Compiled from various sources.]List of the archbishops of Manila, 1581–1898. [Compiled from various sources.]Sources: These appendices are obtained from various sources, as indicated therein; they are compiled by James Alexander Robertson.REPRESENTATION OF FILIPINAS IN THE SPANISH CORTESPreliminary Note: The account of the first two Cortes is drawn largely from notes made by James A. LeRoy fromDiario de las sessiones de las Cortes generales y extraordinarias, and other sources, and kindly sent by him to the Editors. For the first Cortes see also Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 388–390, 392, 396–398, 400–409, 411–413,422–435, andGuia oficial de España, 1813, pp. 21, 22, where the Philippine deputies are named. For the second Cortes, see also Montero y Vidal,ut supra, ii, pp. 444–452, 457–462, 476–481. For the third Cortes, see Montero y Vidal,ut supra, ii, pp. 544, 545, 552–560, 563–573; andFilipinas y su representacion en Cortes(Madrid, February 8, 1836), which although published anonymously is by Camba.The Cortes of 1810–1813Three times in their history have the Philippines had representation in the Spanish national Cortes,1namely, for the years 1810–1813, 1820–1823, and 1834–1837. In the first two periods is emphasized the backwardness of the Philippines politically as compared with the Spanish-American colonies. In all three periods, one cannot point to any single great measure that was enacted solely at the initiative of the Philippine representatives (unless with the possible exception of the suppression of the Acapulco galleon), and indeed, not to a great many in which they took part.2With Fernando virtually a prisoner in France (where he remained for five years), the nationalists in Spain being without a ruler, since they refused to consider Joseph Bonaparte as king, organized a provisional government known as the central governing assembly (Junta central), with headquarters in the south. This Junta, taking the necessary steps for the reorganization of government, and the calling of a Cortes, proceeded, on June 25, 1809, to rehabilitate the old Consejo de España, and on January 29, 1810, to constitute the supreme Consejo de Regencia. The delegates to the first session of the Cortes, for which final orders were issued by decree of June 18, 1810, and in which, by a decree of January 22, 1829, allthe Spanish domain was to have equality of representation, assembled on the island of León during the month of August, 1810. On account of the distance of the American countries and the Philippines and the impossibility of regularly-appointed delegates reaching Spain in time for the opening of the session, substitutes were chosen from residents of those countries then in the Peninsula. Consequently, at the opening of the Cortes, September 24, 1810, the Philippines were represented by Pedro Pérez de Tagle, an officer in the corps of the Spanish Royal Guards, and Dr. José Manuel Couto, prebend of La Puebla. The election at Manila (held by order of the Regency, February 14, 1810), resulted in the choice of Ventura de los Reyes, a wealthy merchant of Manila, and on the whole an active representative, who, despite his seventy years, set out immediately for Cádiz. The two substitutes above mentioned took but little part in affairs.3Several general measures enacted by the Cortestouch the Philippines incidentally.4The first matter, however, specifically connected with the Philippines was the receipt by the Cortes (March 16, 1811) of the report of the governor of the Philippines (dated August 8, 1809) in regard to the French vessel “Mosca,” which had been captured by the parish priest of Batangas (Fray Melchor Fernandez), and the despatches carried on that vessel. The reading on April 26, 1812, of the proposed decree prescribing the manner of holding elections in the regular Cortes to be convened in 1813, aroused lengthy discussion.5On May 6, Reyes moved that a special form of election be granted for the Philippines because of their distance and the character of their inhabitants. The islands had neither the funds nor the men to send by which equality of representationwould be justified, and he requested that it only be declared that they must not send less than two. An amendment offered by the committee on the Constitution proposed that to the instructions regarding the elections in Ultramar be added a clause to meet Reyes’s wishes, but the matter was hotly contested by the American representatives who feared that such a clause might sometime lead to the cutting down of their own representation, and as a consequence the proposal of the committee was not voted on.6In January, 1813, after recommendation by the committee on Ultramar, it was resolved to grant the petition of the board (mesa) of the Misericordia of Manila (which had been hanging fire in the Cortes since September 25, 1812), asking for certain reforms, among them that the number of persons voting for the electors of the board itself be reduced.7On January 6, 1813, the proposed ordinances for the hospice for the poor at Manila (the establishment of which was provided for by royal order of December27, 1806), were declared unconstitutional by the committee on Ultramar,8and that committee’s report was adopted. A minute in the records of March 11, 1813, shows that the suppression of the brandy monopoly had been decreed by the governor of the Philippines and that it could be manufactured freely in the provinces of Tondo, Cavite, Bulacan, and Pampanga.By far the most important measure affecting the Philippines, however, was the suppression of the Acapulco galleon.9The discussion on the matter was lengthy and bitter, and arose over one of twelve propositions submitted by Reyes on February 11, 1813, to the effect that the determined suppression of the Acapulco galleon be published, and in its place those engaged in that commerce be allowed to fit up private vessels at their own cost to continue the trade with Nueva España, through the ports of Acapulco, San Blas, or any other, under the old terms of 500,000 pesos for the outgoing voyage and 1,000,000 for the return, and a lowering of the duties by one-half. The matter was debated in the presence of the secretaries of the Peninsula and Ultramar, and after fulldiscussion, in which many of the delegates took part, and in which the American delegates generally favored a liberal policy for the Philippines, the decree suppressing the galleon was finally issued on September 14, 1813.10The special session of the Cortes closed on the date of the decree above, and the regular session opened at Cádiz, either in the latter part of September or the first part of October. On October 4, the last meeting was held in Cádiz and opened again in the island of León because of yellow fever in the former place. On the eighth of that month, Reyes presented three plans for the benefit of the agriculture, industry, commerce, and navigation of the Philippines. On the twenty-ninth of October meetings at the island of León were suspended, and resumed again in Madrid, on January 15, 1814. Fernando VII, released by order of Napoleon, after the disastrous campaign conducted by Joseph in Spain, abolished the Cortes by his decree of May 4, 1814, and on the publication of this decree in Madrid, on the thirteenth many of the members of the Cortes were arrested, all the acts of the constitutional government were declared null and void, the Inquisition reëstablished, and absolutism was again proclaimed inSpain. On the publication of the decree in the Philippines, the Ilocans, deeming it only a ruse of the governor, revolted, sacked churches and convents, and destroyed public records. Their insurrection was directed chiefly against their ownprincipalesand their wives.11The Cortes of 1820–1823After vainly endeavoring to rule as an absolute monarch, Fernando VII was compelled to convoke the Cortes by his decree of March 6, 1820.12Onthe twenty-second the regular session of the Cortes for 1820–1821 was formally summoned, the colonies being allowed to be represented by substitutes pending the arrival of regularly-elected representatives. At the first preliminary meeting of June 26, the two Philippine substitutes,13Jose María Arnedo and Manuel Felix Camus y Herrera, presented their credentials. The Cortes were declared open on July 9. Matters of trade and commerce, involving the question of duties,14were of paramount interest, so far as the Philippines are concerned, although the matters of elections, revenues, and ecclesiastical affairs were debated at some length. From July 18 to October 19, were considered at intervals the privileges and monopolies of the Compañía de Filipinas, which were abolished by a decree of the latter date.15Severaldecrees and orders of November 9 (on which date the first session of the Cortes ended), affecting trade and looking toward the development of the colonies, were issued.16At the opening of the new session of the Cortes, the Philippine substitutes of the previous session held over.17An order18of March 22 decided thatthe vice-royalties, captaincies-general, etc., were not to be filled for stated periods, but incumbents were to hold them at the will of the king. Of great importance was the approval on June 30, of a petition presented by Arnedo on June 16 asking for direct mails between Spain and the Philippines under charge of the navy department. On that same date the report of the committee on Hacienda on the estimated budget for the Ministry of Ultramar for 1822 (over 330,000 reals more than that of 1821), aroused considerable discussion, especially among the American delegates.19A decree of June 29 provided for public schools and provincial universities, of which Manila was to have one. This decree provided for schools and courses much ahead of anything in the islands, but it remained a dead letter because of thespeedy suppression of the constitution.20This session of the Cortes closed on June 30.The preliminary meeting of a special session was held on September 22, 1821, at which the above two Philippine substitutes were approved.21Camus y Herrera was one of a committee chosen on the twenty-third, to inform the king that the Cortes was ready to open the session, which accordingly was opened next day. On November 4, the Philippine government and governor were arraigned by representative Lallave of Veracruz for electing only four instead of the twenty-five representatives to whom they were entitled. Discussion of this matter resulted in the Cortes directing the Minister of Ultramar (February 11, 1822), that the Philippines, notwithstanding claims of distance and poverty, were to elect their whole quota to Cortes. At the secret session of February 12, 1822, it was decided to allow Arnedo andCamus y Herrera (in view of a petition presented by them on the eighth, and because of their pressing need), to draw a sum sufficient to meet their needs and the debts that they had been obliged to contract in the performance of their duties, from the money sent by the provincial deputation of Manila (24,500 pesos) for the regularly-elected Philippine representatives of the next session. This special session closed February 14.The first preliminary meeting of the regular session was held February 15, at which Vicente Posada, a former magistrate of the Manila Audiencia, presented himself as a regularly-elected representative from the Philippines. He was not, however, allowed to take his seat in this session, which opened formally on March 7, and closed on July 30, as it was claimed that his resignation had not been confirmed and that he was consequently still a government employe.22During this session, a clause of a decree of June 28 ordered the encouragement of visits to Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines by naturalists for the purpose of study.At the first preliminary meeting of the special session, held October 1, 1822, Francisco Bringas y Taranco, ex-alcalde-mayor of Ilocos, the deputy electfor Nueva Segovia, Manuel Sáenz de Vizmanos, senior accountant of the Tribunal de Cuentas of the Philippines, and Posada, presented their credentials, which were approved on October 3, although Posada was again contested. At the preliminary meeting held on the fourth complaint was made that the Philippines had elected but four deputies instead of twenty-five.23The session which opened on October 7 closed on February 19, 1823, without any action having been taken by the Philippine representatives.The regular session opened on March 1, 1823, at Madrid, but the absolutists gaining control through the invasion of the French, nothing was done in this session, and the Cortes, which had been compelled to flee first to Sevilla and then to Cádiz, were finally dissolved by Fernando on October 1, who declared all their acts from March 7, 1820, to that time null and void. Posada was one of those condemned by Fernando after his entrance into Madrid, for his liberal tendencies. By decree of December 25, 1823, Fernando communicated to America and the Philippines the reëstablishment of absolutism, the suppression of the Constitution of 1812, and the abolition of all the organisms inaugurated during the constitutional régime.24The Cortes of 1834–1837The third Cortes of 1834–37 were called after the death of Fernando VII, which occurred September 29, 1833, when the liberals again demanded concessions and a constitutional government.25The ship “Santa Ana” sailing from Cádiz, August 28, 1834, reached Manila with official orders and the summons to the Cortes;26which having been called for July 24, 1834 (by decree of May 10), had already convened. The election for the Philippine representatives (March 1, 1835)27resulted in the choiceof Brigadier Andrés García Camba,28and Licentiate Juan Francisco Lecaros (or Lecaroz)29—the first a resident of Manila (formerly a resident in Nueva España), and the second the Madrid agent for the Manila Ayuntamiento. Camba sailed for Cádiz on the “Santa Ana” on March 21, and arrived in Spain August 20, 1835, after the end of the first session of the Cortes. That session imposed a special tax on certain classes of financial documents, which affected all the Spanish domains; and which was sanctioned by the regent, May, 1835, and communicated to the Philippines on June 2.The new session was set in a meeting of theConsejo de Ministros(September 28, 1835) for November 16, 1835. The first preliminary meeting was held on November 12, at which the Philippine representatives presented their credentials, being duly confirmed on the meeting of the fourteenth, although Camba was contested by one Manuel Cacho of Manila.The formal opening of the session occurred on the sixteenth, and on the twenty-fourth, Camba and Lecaros took the oath, the former being placed on the committee on Etiquette. On the occasion of the vote of confidence in the government, the Philippine representatives spoke on the rumors of the transfer of the Philippines to a foreign government, stating that such rumors had already been reported in foreign newspapers, as well as the power to whom the transfer was to be made and the sum to be paid. Such a sale they could not believe would be the reward of so many years of loyalty to the Spanish government. In the discussion of the election law for the Cortes, the government and the Cortes came to a deadlock, and the Cortes were dissolved by the government. Hence nothing was accomplished during this session.30A royal decree of the date when the Cortes weredissolved, ordered the new Cortes to assemble at Madrid, March 22, article 5 of the decree specifying that elections should be held in the provinces of Ultramar on receipt of the decree. Consequently, at this session, which lasted from March 22 until May 23, when it was again dissolved, the Philippines had no representation.A decree of May 24 ordered a new session for August 20, at which the Philippines were to have four representatives, the officials evidently not taking into account the distance of the Philippines from Spain, for it would be manifestly impossible for any representative to arrive from the Philippines for that session or even for the one of March, 1837. The election at Manila held in 1836 resulted in the reelection of Camba and Lecaros. On August 13, a royal decree (in consequence of the mutiny of La Granja) ordered the publication of the Constitution of 1812 until the Cortes clearly manifested their will or drew up a new constitution. Another decree of August 21 called the general Cortes for October 24, in accordance with the rules of the Constitution of 1812; and one of September 28 suppressed the Real Consejo de España é Indias. At the secret session of the Cortes on January 16, 1837, a proposition for special laws to govern Ultramar was made, being passed to the proper committee. On February 10 the committee having in charge the drafting of a new constitution, presented a plan for the provinces to be ruled by special laws, in accordance with which their delegates were not to sit in the Cortes. On March 9, 1837, the elections at Manila resulted in Camba and Luis Prudencio Alvarez y Tejero,31formerly of theManila Audiencia, and a resident of Manila for thirteen years, being elected. The latter arrived in Spain after the passing of the law excluding the Philippine representation from the Cortes. A royal order of May 31, 1837, presented the method to be observed in the provision of alcaldes-mayor for the Philippines. On June 18, the new constitution was promulgated in Madrid, article 2 of which decreed that Ultramar should be governed by special laws.32Since that time the Philippines have had no representation in Cortes.331The Cortes, as first known by the Spaniards, contained three divisions, the three estates; the ones called in the three periods above-mentioned had but one chamber; the present Cortes contains two houses, the senate and the congress or house of deputies or representatives. The senate consists of three divisions: senators in their own right (the heir presumptive, the grandees, archbishops, etc.; life senators appointed by the crown; and those elected by the people, half of whom are removable every five years. Members to the lower house are elected for five years by electors chosen by the people. No Cortes was held from 1713–1789, and from the latter year until 1810.↑2For a good account of this period in Spain, which was one of great confusion, see E. W. Latimer’sSpain in the nineteenth century(Chicago, 1898, 3d ed.) The machinations of Napoleon and the other events leading up to the establishment of the Cortes of 1810–1813 are well and concisely narrated. See also Hume,Modern Spain(New York, 1900).↑3The latter, indeed, was granted permission (January 4, 1811) to go to Veracruz for his health; and on July 22, 1811, permission was given to the former to go to the Philippines on private business, although he was later forbidden to leave until the return of his colleague, as his absence before that time would leave the Philippines without representation. The request was renewed on the arrival of Reyes (December 6, 1811), and on the latter’s assumption of his seat (December 9), Perez de Tagle was allowed to leave. On September 19, 1813, a discourse was pronounced at Manila by José de Vergara, “deputy-elect for the province of Manila to the general Cortes,” and published in that year at Sampaloc. The election of deputies in that year was regulated by a junta composed of Governor Gardoqui, Archbishop Juan de Zúñiga, Manuel Díaz Condé, and three others; one of their decisions exempted the very poor in the community from contributing to the fund raised for paying the traveling and other expenses of the deputies to the Cortes. (Vindel,Catálogo biblioteca filipina, nos. 1874, 1875.)↑4Such were the decree of October 5, 1810, confirming the essential unity and equality of all parts of the Spanish domain; the abolition of the quicksilver monopoly, January 26, 1811; the provisional creation of aConsejo de Estadoto consist of twenty members (six from Ultramar), on January 21, 1812, although the constitution (adopted March 18, 1812) called for one with forty members (twelve from Ultramar): the creation of theSecretaría del Despacho de la Gobernación de Ultramar(April 2, 1812), and the establishment of theTribunal Supremo de Justicia, and the suppression of theConsejos de Castilla, Indias, andHacienda(all of them provided for in the constitution); and the suppression of the Inquisition (February 22, 1813). The law of November 9, 1813, abolishing personal services for Indians and regulating public works, seems to have been intended only for America.↑5February 20, 1812, was the last meeting on the island of León, the Cortes assembling on the twenty-fourth at the church of San Felipe Neri, at Cádiz.↑6The method of election for the Cortes of 1813 (decree of May 23, 1812) provided for a preliminary election board for each colonial province consisting of the provincial head, the archbishop, bishop, or acting archbishop, the intendant (if there were one), the senior alcalde, the senior regidor, the syndic procurator-general, and two commoners (these last to be chosen by the others). One representative was to be chosen for each 60,000 people. (See the essential clauses of this decree in Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 406, 407.) On the same day was also decreed the creation of provincial deputations, of which one was specified for Manila. In this session of Cortes also, the reorganization of the audiencias was decreed, but the Philippine representative seems to have taken no part in the debate.↑7Trouble had arisen over the administration by the board of theobras piaswhich it was usual to loan out to those interested in the galleon trade.↑8These ordinances were unconstitutional because control of the hospice was vested in a board headed by the captain-general, while by the constitution such organizations were now to be controlled by the ayuntamientos and provincial deputations. The despatch regarding this matter was sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Ultramar, November 27, 1812.↑9On July 7, 1810, the governor of the Philippines proposed the suppression of the galleon, and requested permission for the inhabitants of the Philippines to ship goods in Spanish bottoms not in excess of 1,000,000 pesos. The suppression was resolved upon by the Cortes by article 3 of the decree of October 8, 1811, regarding commerce.↑10This decree (which is given by Montero y Vidal,Historia general, li, pp. 412, 413) states that the inhabitants of the Philippines may trade in Chinese and other Asiatic goods in private Spanish bottoms with the ports of Acapulco and San Blas in Nueva España, under the old terms of 500,000 pesos for the outgoing, and 1,000,000 pesos for the return voyage. If the port of Acapulco be closed, they may trade at Sonsonate. For four years the lower rates of duties granted by Cárlos IV by decree of October, 1806, are continued. Boletas, or tickets granting lading space, are to be furnished no longer.↑11In accordance with a royal order of June 17, commanding the representatives of the colonies to report the petitions pending, or which had not been moved, that had for their object the welfare of the colonies, Reyes petitioned the suppression of the Acapulco galleon; permission of 1,000,000 pesos for the outgoing, and 2,000,000 pesos for the return voyage; unlimited extension of the lower duties conceded October 4, 1806; one or two Peruvian ports open to the commerce of the islands; that natives of the islands be allowed to export goods in Spanish bottoms to any point of the Spanish monarchy free of export and import duties; trade on the northwest coast of America with Spaniards; and that the permission be conceded to bring back all unsold goods (in addition to the amount of imports allowed), on payment to the treasury of a 6 per cent duty. The answers to these requests were as follows: the Acapulco ship was suppressed by order of April 23, 1815; permission of export to the value of 750,000 pesos; the ports of Callao and Guayaquil thrown open to Philippine trade; traffic with the Spaniards on the northwest coast of America; permission to bring back unsold goods to the extent of one-third the amount of imports allowed, paying ten per cent duty for such excess; and free trade for Philippine products at any port of the monarchy in Spanish bottoms for ten years.↑12On the seventh he took the oath to observe the Constitution of 1812; and on the tenth, by a decree ordered the reëstablishment of the Secretaría del Despachó de la Gobernación[, the first acts of which were the promulgation of the Constitution of 1812,and the reëstablishment of all the organisms created by the Cortes of 1810–1813.↑13Apparently appointed by the Secretary of Ultramar. Their credentials were approved at the third preliminary meeting of July 5 or 6.↑14A general decree of October 5, 1820, ordered a uniform and general schedule of duties for the Peninsula and Ultramar; but this law was modified by another law of December 20, 1821, recognizing the impracticability of uniformity of duties for Spain and the colonies, and providing that the schedule be uniform except for the differences rendered necessary in the provinces of Ultramar.↑15The secretary of Hacienda considered the privileges of the company for the importation of cotton goods as unconstitutional and contrary to the prosperity of national manufactures. At the meeting of August 18, it developed that the company had transferred its monopoly to a foreign merchant of Cádiz. The company was allowed to present its argument, but the report of the committees on Commerce and Hacienda was adopted. Later the company presented a petition requesting the liquidation of the government’s indebtedness to it, the privilege of selling its stock of cotton goods, and various other concessions incident to the closing up of its affairs. This petition, sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Hacienda, was referred to the committee on Commerce on November 2. On the fifth, a petition was presented by the Philippine representatives and Gregorio Gonzales Azaolo, of Sevilla, asking that the prohibition of the importation of cotton goods should not affect the Philippines until the industry was developed or established in those islands. This petition having been referred to the committees on Commerce and Hacienda, their report on November 8 recommended the opening of the Oriental trade to all Spaniards trading in Spanish bottoms. This recommendation was embodied in article 3 of the decree of November 9, specifying the kinds of goods which Spanish ships trading by the Cape of Good Hope could introduce into Spain or Spanish America.↑16The decrees of theDiarios de las Cortesshow no decree of this date confirming a previous decree of March 7, 1820, granting exemption of duties for ten years on natural and industrial products of the Philippines, when imported in Spanish bottoms into the Peninsula, as declared by Montero y Vidal. The decree of December 21, 1820, providing for the abolition of the monopoly on tobacco and salt after March 1, 1821, and providing customs and consumption duties, seems not to have affected the Philippines.↑17In October, 1820, the preliminary board for the election of representatives was organized in Manila, but inasmuch as the elections were not held until after the Constitution had been sworn to in Manila in May, 1821 (and later in the provinces), no regularly-elected representatives were present at the second session.↑18Wrongly called a decree by Montero y Vidal. This order was addressed to the Secretary of War in answer to a question raised by the Council of War.↑19The special discussion arose over the item of 50,000 reals for missions and a note in the report reflecting on the native clergy in the Philippines. Some of the Americans, who were quite fully imbued with the free thought of the French philosophical school, declared for the suppression of the missionaries (meaning friars), inasmuch as they were useless and even harmful. The committee answered this by asserting that the missionaries in the Philippines were used by the government as civil and political agents, and that they did do much good work in their own legitimate line. The passage concerning the incapacity of the native clergy was meant to apply to the Philippines alone, but if desired it could be removed as it was not essential to the report. An American representative moved that the 50,000 reals be used in the establishment of normal schools in Ultramar. The Philippine representatives seem to have taken no part in the debate except that Camus y Herrera moved that the obnoxious clause concerning the Filipino clergy be stricken out. The report was accepted as read.↑20Each university was to have a public library, a drawing school, a chemical laboratory, cabinets of physics, natural history, and industrial products, another of models of machines, a botanical garden, and an experiment farm. The university to be established in Manila was to have theological and law courses for the doctorate. Manila was also to have a medical school, a school for veterinary medicine, a school of fine arts, and commercial and nautical schools. Professorships were to be filled by competition, and those for the Philippines were to be examined by persons designated by the Subdirection of Studies in Mexico. Girls were to be taught to read, write, and cipher; while the older female students were to be taught the work suitable to their sex. This matter of education for girls was left to the provincial deputations.↑21On the twenty-third there was a discussion as to the legality of the substitutes for the representatives of Ultramar being allowed to hold over; and it was finally declared that only those for the Philippines and Peru could sit during this session.↑22This exclusion was in accordance with a decision of the committee on Credentials handed in February 11, 1822, to the effect that government employes did not cease, to be such until their resignations were accepted by the government. Posada did not present his credentials at the meeting of February 15, declaring that they had been robbed with his baggage en route from Cádiz to Madrid. He did present them, however, at the next meeting of February 20. At the third and fourth preliminary meetings (February 22 and 24) the matter was debated, and he was excluded on the grounds of being still a government employe.↑23Foreman states wrongly (p. 362, ed. of 1906) that seventeen deputies were elected and sat during the Cortes of 1820–23, and he names eight of them. He may have confused the names of electors with those of representatives. The four elected (of whom only three are known) were perhaps elected for the districts of the archiepiscopal see and the three suffragan sees of the Philippines; although Montero y Vidal says that both Sáenz de Vizmanos and Posada were elected from Nueva Cáceres.↑24Although a provincial deputation had been organized in Manila in 1822, almost its only act was to petition (April 12, 1823) for more missionaries.↑25Fernando’s infant daughter, Isabel II, ascended the throne under the regency of her mother María Cristina. Through the efforts of the liberals, six important decrees were passed March 24, 1834: suppression of theConsejo de Estado, during the minority of the queen; suppression of theConsejos de Castillaandde Indias, in whose place was established aTribunal Superior de España é Indias; suppression of theConsejo Supremo de Guerra, and in its place the establishment of theTribunal Supremo de Guerra y Marina y de Extranjería; suppression of theConsejo Supremo de Hacienda, replacing it by aTribunal Supremo de Hacienda; an order to the Secretary of theDespacho de Gracia y Justiciato propose the new organization of theConsejo Real de las Ordenes; and the institution of aConsejo Real de España é Indiasto have general supervision of American and Philippine matters.↑26The first news of reform and the fact that the new Cortes were to be summoned was received unofficially at Manila by a United States ship sailing from Cádiz in June, 1834, and reaching Manila toward the end of the same year.↑27No provision was made in the third Cortes for substitute representation for Ultramar (except in the decree of August 21, 1836, calling a Cortes for October 24 under the rules of the Constitution of 1812), which is in point with the ignorance manifested throughout this period by the officials at Madrid with regard to the Philippines. This accounts for the islands having no representation for some of the sessions of the Cortes.↑28Andrés García Camba resided in Manila during 1825–35, and became so popular that he was elected a deputy to the Spanish Cortes; he was afterward (August, 1837–December, 1838) governor of the Philippines, and wrote a book (published at Cádiz, 1839) regarding his experiences while holding that office. Himself liberally inclined, he was constantly opposed by reactionary influences. Although his name does not appear in the pamphletFilipinas y su representación en Cortes, he is generally considered as its author; and he alludes to it in the memoir above mentioned. (Vindel,Cat. bib. filip., nos. 1881, 1886.)↑29Foreman says that Lecaros was a mestizo; and Montero y Vidal that he was a Filipino lawyer. The board of electors was mainly composed of peninsulars.↑30Camba proposed (Filipinas y su representación en Cortes, 1836) a special mode of election to Cortes for the Philippines, which was to be by the Manila Ayuntamiento, as that was the only political organization in the islands worth mentioning, and was in direct contact with affairs. The law to be adopted for Ultramar, Camba argued, must take into account the condition of the country and the inhabitants. During this session, the Philippine representatives presented two petitions to the Secretario, del Despacho de Hacienda, asking in one for a moderation of the excessive duties on the introduction of Spanish brandy into the Philippines, and in the other the sending of few pensioners and subaltern employes to the islands, as this was a prejudice to the native Philippine Spaniards. Lecaros presented a plan to Mendizábal, the provisional president of theConsejo de Ministros, for the suppression of the monopoly on tobacco in the Philippines, but Mendizábal took measures to make the monopoly more remunerative to the state. See Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii. pp. 554, 555, note.↑31He wroteMemoria sobre las Islas Filipinas(Valencia, 1842).↑32July 31, 1837, the new commercial treaty made September 22, 1836, between the governor of the Philippines and the sultan of Joló was referred to the committees on State and Commerce, was reported on favorably on October 4, and was accordingly approved on the twelfth of October. This treaty stipulated that every three-masted schooner porting at Joló with Chinese passengers from Manila was to pay 2,000 pesos fuertes, and lesser boats in proportion to their size. As the most important cargo ever sent to Joló from Manila never exceeded 2,500 pesos in value, it is hard to see the value of this treaty so greatly lauded in Madrid. No Joloan vessels went to Manila. In this matter the officials showed a woful ignorance of the Philippines, the minister of the navy stating that all vessels stopped at Joló on their way to the Philippines. This treaty, as well as the one made by the governor of Zamboanga with the chief of Maluso near Basilan, only made the Moros bolder in their piracy. See Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 557–560.↑33On May 25, 1869, an amendment was presented by Julián Pellón y Rodriguez in the Spanish Cortes demanding that parliamentary representation be granted to Filipinas. Among the signers to this amendment were Victor Balaguer and Francisco Javier Moya. (Vindel,Cat. bib. filip., no. 1883.)↑

APPENDIXRepresentation of Filipinas in Cortes. [Compiled from various sources.]List of the archbishops of Manila, 1581–1898. [Compiled from various sources.]Sources: These appendices are obtained from various sources, as indicated therein; they are compiled by James Alexander Robertson.

APPENDIXRepresentation of Filipinas in Cortes. [Compiled from various sources.]List of the archbishops of Manila, 1581–1898. [Compiled from various sources.]

Sources: These appendices are obtained from various sources, as indicated therein; they are compiled by James Alexander Robertson.

Sources: These appendices are obtained from various sources, as indicated therein; they are compiled by James Alexander Robertson.

REPRESENTATION OF FILIPINAS IN THE SPANISH CORTESPreliminary Note: The account of the first two Cortes is drawn largely from notes made by James A. LeRoy fromDiario de las sessiones de las Cortes generales y extraordinarias, and other sources, and kindly sent by him to the Editors. For the first Cortes see also Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 388–390, 392, 396–398, 400–409, 411–413,422–435, andGuia oficial de España, 1813, pp. 21, 22, where the Philippine deputies are named. For the second Cortes, see also Montero y Vidal,ut supra, ii, pp. 444–452, 457–462, 476–481. For the third Cortes, see Montero y Vidal,ut supra, ii, pp. 544, 545, 552–560, 563–573; andFilipinas y su representacion en Cortes(Madrid, February 8, 1836), which although published anonymously is by Camba.The Cortes of 1810–1813Three times in their history have the Philippines had representation in the Spanish national Cortes,1namely, for the years 1810–1813, 1820–1823, and 1834–1837. In the first two periods is emphasized the backwardness of the Philippines politically as compared with the Spanish-American colonies. In all three periods, one cannot point to any single great measure that was enacted solely at the initiative of the Philippine representatives (unless with the possible exception of the suppression of the Acapulco galleon), and indeed, not to a great many in which they took part.2With Fernando virtually a prisoner in France (where he remained for five years), the nationalists in Spain being without a ruler, since they refused to consider Joseph Bonaparte as king, organized a provisional government known as the central governing assembly (Junta central), with headquarters in the south. This Junta, taking the necessary steps for the reorganization of government, and the calling of a Cortes, proceeded, on June 25, 1809, to rehabilitate the old Consejo de España, and on January 29, 1810, to constitute the supreme Consejo de Regencia. The delegates to the first session of the Cortes, for which final orders were issued by decree of June 18, 1810, and in which, by a decree of January 22, 1829, allthe Spanish domain was to have equality of representation, assembled on the island of León during the month of August, 1810. On account of the distance of the American countries and the Philippines and the impossibility of regularly-appointed delegates reaching Spain in time for the opening of the session, substitutes were chosen from residents of those countries then in the Peninsula. Consequently, at the opening of the Cortes, September 24, 1810, the Philippines were represented by Pedro Pérez de Tagle, an officer in the corps of the Spanish Royal Guards, and Dr. José Manuel Couto, prebend of La Puebla. The election at Manila (held by order of the Regency, February 14, 1810), resulted in the choice of Ventura de los Reyes, a wealthy merchant of Manila, and on the whole an active representative, who, despite his seventy years, set out immediately for Cádiz. The two substitutes above mentioned took but little part in affairs.3Several general measures enacted by the Cortestouch the Philippines incidentally.4The first matter, however, specifically connected with the Philippines was the receipt by the Cortes (March 16, 1811) of the report of the governor of the Philippines (dated August 8, 1809) in regard to the French vessel “Mosca,” which had been captured by the parish priest of Batangas (Fray Melchor Fernandez), and the despatches carried on that vessel. The reading on April 26, 1812, of the proposed decree prescribing the manner of holding elections in the regular Cortes to be convened in 1813, aroused lengthy discussion.5On May 6, Reyes moved that a special form of election be granted for the Philippines because of their distance and the character of their inhabitants. The islands had neither the funds nor the men to send by which equality of representationwould be justified, and he requested that it only be declared that they must not send less than two. An amendment offered by the committee on the Constitution proposed that to the instructions regarding the elections in Ultramar be added a clause to meet Reyes’s wishes, but the matter was hotly contested by the American representatives who feared that such a clause might sometime lead to the cutting down of their own representation, and as a consequence the proposal of the committee was not voted on.6In January, 1813, after recommendation by the committee on Ultramar, it was resolved to grant the petition of the board (mesa) of the Misericordia of Manila (which had been hanging fire in the Cortes since September 25, 1812), asking for certain reforms, among them that the number of persons voting for the electors of the board itself be reduced.7On January 6, 1813, the proposed ordinances for the hospice for the poor at Manila (the establishment of which was provided for by royal order of December27, 1806), were declared unconstitutional by the committee on Ultramar,8and that committee’s report was adopted. A minute in the records of March 11, 1813, shows that the suppression of the brandy monopoly had been decreed by the governor of the Philippines and that it could be manufactured freely in the provinces of Tondo, Cavite, Bulacan, and Pampanga.By far the most important measure affecting the Philippines, however, was the suppression of the Acapulco galleon.9The discussion on the matter was lengthy and bitter, and arose over one of twelve propositions submitted by Reyes on February 11, 1813, to the effect that the determined suppression of the Acapulco galleon be published, and in its place those engaged in that commerce be allowed to fit up private vessels at their own cost to continue the trade with Nueva España, through the ports of Acapulco, San Blas, or any other, under the old terms of 500,000 pesos for the outgoing voyage and 1,000,000 for the return, and a lowering of the duties by one-half. The matter was debated in the presence of the secretaries of the Peninsula and Ultramar, and after fulldiscussion, in which many of the delegates took part, and in which the American delegates generally favored a liberal policy for the Philippines, the decree suppressing the galleon was finally issued on September 14, 1813.10The special session of the Cortes closed on the date of the decree above, and the regular session opened at Cádiz, either in the latter part of September or the first part of October. On October 4, the last meeting was held in Cádiz and opened again in the island of León because of yellow fever in the former place. On the eighth of that month, Reyes presented three plans for the benefit of the agriculture, industry, commerce, and navigation of the Philippines. On the twenty-ninth of October meetings at the island of León were suspended, and resumed again in Madrid, on January 15, 1814. Fernando VII, released by order of Napoleon, after the disastrous campaign conducted by Joseph in Spain, abolished the Cortes by his decree of May 4, 1814, and on the publication of this decree in Madrid, on the thirteenth many of the members of the Cortes were arrested, all the acts of the constitutional government were declared null and void, the Inquisition reëstablished, and absolutism was again proclaimed inSpain. On the publication of the decree in the Philippines, the Ilocans, deeming it only a ruse of the governor, revolted, sacked churches and convents, and destroyed public records. Their insurrection was directed chiefly against their ownprincipalesand their wives.11The Cortes of 1820–1823After vainly endeavoring to rule as an absolute monarch, Fernando VII was compelled to convoke the Cortes by his decree of March 6, 1820.12Onthe twenty-second the regular session of the Cortes for 1820–1821 was formally summoned, the colonies being allowed to be represented by substitutes pending the arrival of regularly-elected representatives. At the first preliminary meeting of June 26, the two Philippine substitutes,13Jose María Arnedo and Manuel Felix Camus y Herrera, presented their credentials. The Cortes were declared open on July 9. Matters of trade and commerce, involving the question of duties,14were of paramount interest, so far as the Philippines are concerned, although the matters of elections, revenues, and ecclesiastical affairs were debated at some length. From July 18 to October 19, were considered at intervals the privileges and monopolies of the Compañía de Filipinas, which were abolished by a decree of the latter date.15Severaldecrees and orders of November 9 (on which date the first session of the Cortes ended), affecting trade and looking toward the development of the colonies, were issued.16At the opening of the new session of the Cortes, the Philippine substitutes of the previous session held over.17An order18of March 22 decided thatthe vice-royalties, captaincies-general, etc., were not to be filled for stated periods, but incumbents were to hold them at the will of the king. Of great importance was the approval on June 30, of a petition presented by Arnedo on June 16 asking for direct mails between Spain and the Philippines under charge of the navy department. On that same date the report of the committee on Hacienda on the estimated budget for the Ministry of Ultramar for 1822 (over 330,000 reals more than that of 1821), aroused considerable discussion, especially among the American delegates.19A decree of June 29 provided for public schools and provincial universities, of which Manila was to have one. This decree provided for schools and courses much ahead of anything in the islands, but it remained a dead letter because of thespeedy suppression of the constitution.20This session of the Cortes closed on June 30.The preliminary meeting of a special session was held on September 22, 1821, at which the above two Philippine substitutes were approved.21Camus y Herrera was one of a committee chosen on the twenty-third, to inform the king that the Cortes was ready to open the session, which accordingly was opened next day. On November 4, the Philippine government and governor were arraigned by representative Lallave of Veracruz for electing only four instead of the twenty-five representatives to whom they were entitled. Discussion of this matter resulted in the Cortes directing the Minister of Ultramar (February 11, 1822), that the Philippines, notwithstanding claims of distance and poverty, were to elect their whole quota to Cortes. At the secret session of February 12, 1822, it was decided to allow Arnedo andCamus y Herrera (in view of a petition presented by them on the eighth, and because of their pressing need), to draw a sum sufficient to meet their needs and the debts that they had been obliged to contract in the performance of their duties, from the money sent by the provincial deputation of Manila (24,500 pesos) for the regularly-elected Philippine representatives of the next session. This special session closed February 14.The first preliminary meeting of the regular session was held February 15, at which Vicente Posada, a former magistrate of the Manila Audiencia, presented himself as a regularly-elected representative from the Philippines. He was not, however, allowed to take his seat in this session, which opened formally on March 7, and closed on July 30, as it was claimed that his resignation had not been confirmed and that he was consequently still a government employe.22During this session, a clause of a decree of June 28 ordered the encouragement of visits to Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines by naturalists for the purpose of study.At the first preliminary meeting of the special session, held October 1, 1822, Francisco Bringas y Taranco, ex-alcalde-mayor of Ilocos, the deputy electfor Nueva Segovia, Manuel Sáenz de Vizmanos, senior accountant of the Tribunal de Cuentas of the Philippines, and Posada, presented their credentials, which were approved on October 3, although Posada was again contested. At the preliminary meeting held on the fourth complaint was made that the Philippines had elected but four deputies instead of twenty-five.23The session which opened on October 7 closed on February 19, 1823, without any action having been taken by the Philippine representatives.The regular session opened on March 1, 1823, at Madrid, but the absolutists gaining control through the invasion of the French, nothing was done in this session, and the Cortes, which had been compelled to flee first to Sevilla and then to Cádiz, were finally dissolved by Fernando on October 1, who declared all their acts from March 7, 1820, to that time null and void. Posada was one of those condemned by Fernando after his entrance into Madrid, for his liberal tendencies. By decree of December 25, 1823, Fernando communicated to America and the Philippines the reëstablishment of absolutism, the suppression of the Constitution of 1812, and the abolition of all the organisms inaugurated during the constitutional régime.24The Cortes of 1834–1837The third Cortes of 1834–37 were called after the death of Fernando VII, which occurred September 29, 1833, when the liberals again demanded concessions and a constitutional government.25The ship “Santa Ana” sailing from Cádiz, August 28, 1834, reached Manila with official orders and the summons to the Cortes;26which having been called for July 24, 1834 (by decree of May 10), had already convened. The election for the Philippine representatives (March 1, 1835)27resulted in the choiceof Brigadier Andrés García Camba,28and Licentiate Juan Francisco Lecaros (or Lecaroz)29—the first a resident of Manila (formerly a resident in Nueva España), and the second the Madrid agent for the Manila Ayuntamiento. Camba sailed for Cádiz on the “Santa Ana” on March 21, and arrived in Spain August 20, 1835, after the end of the first session of the Cortes. That session imposed a special tax on certain classes of financial documents, which affected all the Spanish domains; and which was sanctioned by the regent, May, 1835, and communicated to the Philippines on June 2.The new session was set in a meeting of theConsejo de Ministros(September 28, 1835) for November 16, 1835. The first preliminary meeting was held on November 12, at which the Philippine representatives presented their credentials, being duly confirmed on the meeting of the fourteenth, although Camba was contested by one Manuel Cacho of Manila.The formal opening of the session occurred on the sixteenth, and on the twenty-fourth, Camba and Lecaros took the oath, the former being placed on the committee on Etiquette. On the occasion of the vote of confidence in the government, the Philippine representatives spoke on the rumors of the transfer of the Philippines to a foreign government, stating that such rumors had already been reported in foreign newspapers, as well as the power to whom the transfer was to be made and the sum to be paid. Such a sale they could not believe would be the reward of so many years of loyalty to the Spanish government. In the discussion of the election law for the Cortes, the government and the Cortes came to a deadlock, and the Cortes were dissolved by the government. Hence nothing was accomplished during this session.30A royal decree of the date when the Cortes weredissolved, ordered the new Cortes to assemble at Madrid, March 22, article 5 of the decree specifying that elections should be held in the provinces of Ultramar on receipt of the decree. Consequently, at this session, which lasted from March 22 until May 23, when it was again dissolved, the Philippines had no representation.A decree of May 24 ordered a new session for August 20, at which the Philippines were to have four representatives, the officials evidently not taking into account the distance of the Philippines from Spain, for it would be manifestly impossible for any representative to arrive from the Philippines for that session or even for the one of March, 1837. The election at Manila held in 1836 resulted in the reelection of Camba and Lecaros. On August 13, a royal decree (in consequence of the mutiny of La Granja) ordered the publication of the Constitution of 1812 until the Cortes clearly manifested their will or drew up a new constitution. Another decree of August 21 called the general Cortes for October 24, in accordance with the rules of the Constitution of 1812; and one of September 28 suppressed the Real Consejo de España é Indias. At the secret session of the Cortes on January 16, 1837, a proposition for special laws to govern Ultramar was made, being passed to the proper committee. On February 10 the committee having in charge the drafting of a new constitution, presented a plan for the provinces to be ruled by special laws, in accordance with which their delegates were not to sit in the Cortes. On March 9, 1837, the elections at Manila resulted in Camba and Luis Prudencio Alvarez y Tejero,31formerly of theManila Audiencia, and a resident of Manila for thirteen years, being elected. The latter arrived in Spain after the passing of the law excluding the Philippine representation from the Cortes. A royal order of May 31, 1837, presented the method to be observed in the provision of alcaldes-mayor for the Philippines. On June 18, the new constitution was promulgated in Madrid, article 2 of which decreed that Ultramar should be governed by special laws.32Since that time the Philippines have had no representation in Cortes.331The Cortes, as first known by the Spaniards, contained three divisions, the three estates; the ones called in the three periods above-mentioned had but one chamber; the present Cortes contains two houses, the senate and the congress or house of deputies or representatives. The senate consists of three divisions: senators in their own right (the heir presumptive, the grandees, archbishops, etc.; life senators appointed by the crown; and those elected by the people, half of whom are removable every five years. Members to the lower house are elected for five years by electors chosen by the people. No Cortes was held from 1713–1789, and from the latter year until 1810.↑2For a good account of this period in Spain, which was one of great confusion, see E. W. Latimer’sSpain in the nineteenth century(Chicago, 1898, 3d ed.) The machinations of Napoleon and the other events leading up to the establishment of the Cortes of 1810–1813 are well and concisely narrated. See also Hume,Modern Spain(New York, 1900).↑3The latter, indeed, was granted permission (January 4, 1811) to go to Veracruz for his health; and on July 22, 1811, permission was given to the former to go to the Philippines on private business, although he was later forbidden to leave until the return of his colleague, as his absence before that time would leave the Philippines without representation. The request was renewed on the arrival of Reyes (December 6, 1811), and on the latter’s assumption of his seat (December 9), Perez de Tagle was allowed to leave. On September 19, 1813, a discourse was pronounced at Manila by José de Vergara, “deputy-elect for the province of Manila to the general Cortes,” and published in that year at Sampaloc. The election of deputies in that year was regulated by a junta composed of Governor Gardoqui, Archbishop Juan de Zúñiga, Manuel Díaz Condé, and three others; one of their decisions exempted the very poor in the community from contributing to the fund raised for paying the traveling and other expenses of the deputies to the Cortes. (Vindel,Catálogo biblioteca filipina, nos. 1874, 1875.)↑4Such were the decree of October 5, 1810, confirming the essential unity and equality of all parts of the Spanish domain; the abolition of the quicksilver monopoly, January 26, 1811; the provisional creation of aConsejo de Estadoto consist of twenty members (six from Ultramar), on January 21, 1812, although the constitution (adopted March 18, 1812) called for one with forty members (twelve from Ultramar): the creation of theSecretaría del Despacho de la Gobernación de Ultramar(April 2, 1812), and the establishment of theTribunal Supremo de Justicia, and the suppression of theConsejos de Castilla, Indias, andHacienda(all of them provided for in the constitution); and the suppression of the Inquisition (February 22, 1813). The law of November 9, 1813, abolishing personal services for Indians and regulating public works, seems to have been intended only for America.↑5February 20, 1812, was the last meeting on the island of León, the Cortes assembling on the twenty-fourth at the church of San Felipe Neri, at Cádiz.↑6The method of election for the Cortes of 1813 (decree of May 23, 1812) provided for a preliminary election board for each colonial province consisting of the provincial head, the archbishop, bishop, or acting archbishop, the intendant (if there were one), the senior alcalde, the senior regidor, the syndic procurator-general, and two commoners (these last to be chosen by the others). One representative was to be chosen for each 60,000 people. (See the essential clauses of this decree in Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 406, 407.) On the same day was also decreed the creation of provincial deputations, of which one was specified for Manila. In this session of Cortes also, the reorganization of the audiencias was decreed, but the Philippine representative seems to have taken no part in the debate.↑7Trouble had arisen over the administration by the board of theobras piaswhich it was usual to loan out to those interested in the galleon trade.↑8These ordinances were unconstitutional because control of the hospice was vested in a board headed by the captain-general, while by the constitution such organizations were now to be controlled by the ayuntamientos and provincial deputations. The despatch regarding this matter was sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Ultramar, November 27, 1812.↑9On July 7, 1810, the governor of the Philippines proposed the suppression of the galleon, and requested permission for the inhabitants of the Philippines to ship goods in Spanish bottoms not in excess of 1,000,000 pesos. The suppression was resolved upon by the Cortes by article 3 of the decree of October 8, 1811, regarding commerce.↑10This decree (which is given by Montero y Vidal,Historia general, li, pp. 412, 413) states that the inhabitants of the Philippines may trade in Chinese and other Asiatic goods in private Spanish bottoms with the ports of Acapulco and San Blas in Nueva España, under the old terms of 500,000 pesos for the outgoing, and 1,000,000 pesos for the return voyage. If the port of Acapulco be closed, they may trade at Sonsonate. For four years the lower rates of duties granted by Cárlos IV by decree of October, 1806, are continued. Boletas, or tickets granting lading space, are to be furnished no longer.↑11In accordance with a royal order of June 17, commanding the representatives of the colonies to report the petitions pending, or which had not been moved, that had for their object the welfare of the colonies, Reyes petitioned the suppression of the Acapulco galleon; permission of 1,000,000 pesos for the outgoing, and 2,000,000 pesos for the return voyage; unlimited extension of the lower duties conceded October 4, 1806; one or two Peruvian ports open to the commerce of the islands; that natives of the islands be allowed to export goods in Spanish bottoms to any point of the Spanish monarchy free of export and import duties; trade on the northwest coast of America with Spaniards; and that the permission be conceded to bring back all unsold goods (in addition to the amount of imports allowed), on payment to the treasury of a 6 per cent duty. The answers to these requests were as follows: the Acapulco ship was suppressed by order of April 23, 1815; permission of export to the value of 750,000 pesos; the ports of Callao and Guayaquil thrown open to Philippine trade; traffic with the Spaniards on the northwest coast of America; permission to bring back unsold goods to the extent of one-third the amount of imports allowed, paying ten per cent duty for such excess; and free trade for Philippine products at any port of the monarchy in Spanish bottoms for ten years.↑12On the seventh he took the oath to observe the Constitution of 1812; and on the tenth, by a decree ordered the reëstablishment of the Secretaría del Despachó de la Gobernación[, the first acts of which were the promulgation of the Constitution of 1812,and the reëstablishment of all the organisms created by the Cortes of 1810–1813.↑13Apparently appointed by the Secretary of Ultramar. Their credentials were approved at the third preliminary meeting of July 5 or 6.↑14A general decree of October 5, 1820, ordered a uniform and general schedule of duties for the Peninsula and Ultramar; but this law was modified by another law of December 20, 1821, recognizing the impracticability of uniformity of duties for Spain and the colonies, and providing that the schedule be uniform except for the differences rendered necessary in the provinces of Ultramar.↑15The secretary of Hacienda considered the privileges of the company for the importation of cotton goods as unconstitutional and contrary to the prosperity of national manufactures. At the meeting of August 18, it developed that the company had transferred its monopoly to a foreign merchant of Cádiz. The company was allowed to present its argument, but the report of the committees on Commerce and Hacienda was adopted. Later the company presented a petition requesting the liquidation of the government’s indebtedness to it, the privilege of selling its stock of cotton goods, and various other concessions incident to the closing up of its affairs. This petition, sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Hacienda, was referred to the committee on Commerce on November 2. On the fifth, a petition was presented by the Philippine representatives and Gregorio Gonzales Azaolo, of Sevilla, asking that the prohibition of the importation of cotton goods should not affect the Philippines until the industry was developed or established in those islands. This petition having been referred to the committees on Commerce and Hacienda, their report on November 8 recommended the opening of the Oriental trade to all Spaniards trading in Spanish bottoms. This recommendation was embodied in article 3 of the decree of November 9, specifying the kinds of goods which Spanish ships trading by the Cape of Good Hope could introduce into Spain or Spanish America.↑16The decrees of theDiarios de las Cortesshow no decree of this date confirming a previous decree of March 7, 1820, granting exemption of duties for ten years on natural and industrial products of the Philippines, when imported in Spanish bottoms into the Peninsula, as declared by Montero y Vidal. The decree of December 21, 1820, providing for the abolition of the monopoly on tobacco and salt after March 1, 1821, and providing customs and consumption duties, seems not to have affected the Philippines.↑17In October, 1820, the preliminary board for the election of representatives was organized in Manila, but inasmuch as the elections were not held until after the Constitution had been sworn to in Manila in May, 1821 (and later in the provinces), no regularly-elected representatives were present at the second session.↑18Wrongly called a decree by Montero y Vidal. This order was addressed to the Secretary of War in answer to a question raised by the Council of War.↑19The special discussion arose over the item of 50,000 reals for missions and a note in the report reflecting on the native clergy in the Philippines. Some of the Americans, who were quite fully imbued with the free thought of the French philosophical school, declared for the suppression of the missionaries (meaning friars), inasmuch as they were useless and even harmful. The committee answered this by asserting that the missionaries in the Philippines were used by the government as civil and political agents, and that they did do much good work in their own legitimate line. The passage concerning the incapacity of the native clergy was meant to apply to the Philippines alone, but if desired it could be removed as it was not essential to the report. An American representative moved that the 50,000 reals be used in the establishment of normal schools in Ultramar. The Philippine representatives seem to have taken no part in the debate except that Camus y Herrera moved that the obnoxious clause concerning the Filipino clergy be stricken out. The report was accepted as read.↑20Each university was to have a public library, a drawing school, a chemical laboratory, cabinets of physics, natural history, and industrial products, another of models of machines, a botanical garden, and an experiment farm. The university to be established in Manila was to have theological and law courses for the doctorate. Manila was also to have a medical school, a school for veterinary medicine, a school of fine arts, and commercial and nautical schools. Professorships were to be filled by competition, and those for the Philippines were to be examined by persons designated by the Subdirection of Studies in Mexico. Girls were to be taught to read, write, and cipher; while the older female students were to be taught the work suitable to their sex. This matter of education for girls was left to the provincial deputations.↑21On the twenty-third there was a discussion as to the legality of the substitutes for the representatives of Ultramar being allowed to hold over; and it was finally declared that only those for the Philippines and Peru could sit during this session.↑22This exclusion was in accordance with a decision of the committee on Credentials handed in February 11, 1822, to the effect that government employes did not cease, to be such until their resignations were accepted by the government. Posada did not present his credentials at the meeting of February 15, declaring that they had been robbed with his baggage en route from Cádiz to Madrid. He did present them, however, at the next meeting of February 20. At the third and fourth preliminary meetings (February 22 and 24) the matter was debated, and he was excluded on the grounds of being still a government employe.↑23Foreman states wrongly (p. 362, ed. of 1906) that seventeen deputies were elected and sat during the Cortes of 1820–23, and he names eight of them. He may have confused the names of electors with those of representatives. The four elected (of whom only three are known) were perhaps elected for the districts of the archiepiscopal see and the three suffragan sees of the Philippines; although Montero y Vidal says that both Sáenz de Vizmanos and Posada were elected from Nueva Cáceres.↑24Although a provincial deputation had been organized in Manila in 1822, almost its only act was to petition (April 12, 1823) for more missionaries.↑25Fernando’s infant daughter, Isabel II, ascended the throne under the regency of her mother María Cristina. Through the efforts of the liberals, six important decrees were passed March 24, 1834: suppression of theConsejo de Estado, during the minority of the queen; suppression of theConsejos de Castillaandde Indias, in whose place was established aTribunal Superior de España é Indias; suppression of theConsejo Supremo de Guerra, and in its place the establishment of theTribunal Supremo de Guerra y Marina y de Extranjería; suppression of theConsejo Supremo de Hacienda, replacing it by aTribunal Supremo de Hacienda; an order to the Secretary of theDespacho de Gracia y Justiciato propose the new organization of theConsejo Real de las Ordenes; and the institution of aConsejo Real de España é Indiasto have general supervision of American and Philippine matters.↑26The first news of reform and the fact that the new Cortes were to be summoned was received unofficially at Manila by a United States ship sailing from Cádiz in June, 1834, and reaching Manila toward the end of the same year.↑27No provision was made in the third Cortes for substitute representation for Ultramar (except in the decree of August 21, 1836, calling a Cortes for October 24 under the rules of the Constitution of 1812), which is in point with the ignorance manifested throughout this period by the officials at Madrid with regard to the Philippines. This accounts for the islands having no representation for some of the sessions of the Cortes.↑28Andrés García Camba resided in Manila during 1825–35, and became so popular that he was elected a deputy to the Spanish Cortes; he was afterward (August, 1837–December, 1838) governor of the Philippines, and wrote a book (published at Cádiz, 1839) regarding his experiences while holding that office. Himself liberally inclined, he was constantly opposed by reactionary influences. Although his name does not appear in the pamphletFilipinas y su representación en Cortes, he is generally considered as its author; and he alludes to it in the memoir above mentioned. (Vindel,Cat. bib. filip., nos. 1881, 1886.)↑29Foreman says that Lecaros was a mestizo; and Montero y Vidal that he was a Filipino lawyer. The board of electors was mainly composed of peninsulars.↑30Camba proposed (Filipinas y su representación en Cortes, 1836) a special mode of election to Cortes for the Philippines, which was to be by the Manila Ayuntamiento, as that was the only political organization in the islands worth mentioning, and was in direct contact with affairs. The law to be adopted for Ultramar, Camba argued, must take into account the condition of the country and the inhabitants. During this session, the Philippine representatives presented two petitions to the Secretario, del Despacho de Hacienda, asking in one for a moderation of the excessive duties on the introduction of Spanish brandy into the Philippines, and in the other the sending of few pensioners and subaltern employes to the islands, as this was a prejudice to the native Philippine Spaniards. Lecaros presented a plan to Mendizábal, the provisional president of theConsejo de Ministros, for the suppression of the monopoly on tobacco in the Philippines, but Mendizábal took measures to make the monopoly more remunerative to the state. See Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii. pp. 554, 555, note.↑31He wroteMemoria sobre las Islas Filipinas(Valencia, 1842).↑32July 31, 1837, the new commercial treaty made September 22, 1836, between the governor of the Philippines and the sultan of Joló was referred to the committees on State and Commerce, was reported on favorably on October 4, and was accordingly approved on the twelfth of October. This treaty stipulated that every three-masted schooner porting at Joló with Chinese passengers from Manila was to pay 2,000 pesos fuertes, and lesser boats in proportion to their size. As the most important cargo ever sent to Joló from Manila never exceeded 2,500 pesos in value, it is hard to see the value of this treaty so greatly lauded in Madrid. No Joloan vessels went to Manila. In this matter the officials showed a woful ignorance of the Philippines, the minister of the navy stating that all vessels stopped at Joló on their way to the Philippines. This treaty, as well as the one made by the governor of Zamboanga with the chief of Maluso near Basilan, only made the Moros bolder in their piracy. See Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 557–560.↑33On May 25, 1869, an amendment was presented by Julián Pellón y Rodriguez in the Spanish Cortes demanding that parliamentary representation be granted to Filipinas. Among the signers to this amendment were Victor Balaguer and Francisco Javier Moya. (Vindel,Cat. bib. filip., no. 1883.)↑

REPRESENTATION OF FILIPINAS IN THE SPANISH CORTES

Preliminary Note: The account of the first two Cortes is drawn largely from notes made by James A. LeRoy fromDiario de las sessiones de las Cortes generales y extraordinarias, and other sources, and kindly sent by him to the Editors. For the first Cortes see also Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 388–390, 392, 396–398, 400–409, 411–413,422–435, andGuia oficial de España, 1813, pp. 21, 22, where the Philippine deputies are named. For the second Cortes, see also Montero y Vidal,ut supra, ii, pp. 444–452, 457–462, 476–481. For the third Cortes, see Montero y Vidal,ut supra, ii, pp. 544, 545, 552–560, 563–573; andFilipinas y su representacion en Cortes(Madrid, February 8, 1836), which although published anonymously is by Camba.The Cortes of 1810–1813Three times in their history have the Philippines had representation in the Spanish national Cortes,1namely, for the years 1810–1813, 1820–1823, and 1834–1837. In the first two periods is emphasized the backwardness of the Philippines politically as compared with the Spanish-American colonies. In all three periods, one cannot point to any single great measure that was enacted solely at the initiative of the Philippine representatives (unless with the possible exception of the suppression of the Acapulco galleon), and indeed, not to a great many in which they took part.2With Fernando virtually a prisoner in France (where he remained for five years), the nationalists in Spain being without a ruler, since they refused to consider Joseph Bonaparte as king, organized a provisional government known as the central governing assembly (Junta central), with headquarters in the south. This Junta, taking the necessary steps for the reorganization of government, and the calling of a Cortes, proceeded, on June 25, 1809, to rehabilitate the old Consejo de España, and on January 29, 1810, to constitute the supreme Consejo de Regencia. The delegates to the first session of the Cortes, for which final orders were issued by decree of June 18, 1810, and in which, by a decree of January 22, 1829, allthe Spanish domain was to have equality of representation, assembled on the island of León during the month of August, 1810. On account of the distance of the American countries and the Philippines and the impossibility of regularly-appointed delegates reaching Spain in time for the opening of the session, substitutes were chosen from residents of those countries then in the Peninsula. Consequently, at the opening of the Cortes, September 24, 1810, the Philippines were represented by Pedro Pérez de Tagle, an officer in the corps of the Spanish Royal Guards, and Dr. José Manuel Couto, prebend of La Puebla. The election at Manila (held by order of the Regency, February 14, 1810), resulted in the choice of Ventura de los Reyes, a wealthy merchant of Manila, and on the whole an active representative, who, despite his seventy years, set out immediately for Cádiz. The two substitutes above mentioned took but little part in affairs.3Several general measures enacted by the Cortestouch the Philippines incidentally.4The first matter, however, specifically connected with the Philippines was the receipt by the Cortes (March 16, 1811) of the report of the governor of the Philippines (dated August 8, 1809) in regard to the French vessel “Mosca,” which had been captured by the parish priest of Batangas (Fray Melchor Fernandez), and the despatches carried on that vessel. The reading on April 26, 1812, of the proposed decree prescribing the manner of holding elections in the regular Cortes to be convened in 1813, aroused lengthy discussion.5On May 6, Reyes moved that a special form of election be granted for the Philippines because of their distance and the character of their inhabitants. The islands had neither the funds nor the men to send by which equality of representationwould be justified, and he requested that it only be declared that they must not send less than two. An amendment offered by the committee on the Constitution proposed that to the instructions regarding the elections in Ultramar be added a clause to meet Reyes’s wishes, but the matter was hotly contested by the American representatives who feared that such a clause might sometime lead to the cutting down of their own representation, and as a consequence the proposal of the committee was not voted on.6In January, 1813, after recommendation by the committee on Ultramar, it was resolved to grant the petition of the board (mesa) of the Misericordia of Manila (which had been hanging fire in the Cortes since September 25, 1812), asking for certain reforms, among them that the number of persons voting for the electors of the board itself be reduced.7On January 6, 1813, the proposed ordinances for the hospice for the poor at Manila (the establishment of which was provided for by royal order of December27, 1806), were declared unconstitutional by the committee on Ultramar,8and that committee’s report was adopted. A minute in the records of March 11, 1813, shows that the suppression of the brandy monopoly had been decreed by the governor of the Philippines and that it could be manufactured freely in the provinces of Tondo, Cavite, Bulacan, and Pampanga.By far the most important measure affecting the Philippines, however, was the suppression of the Acapulco galleon.9The discussion on the matter was lengthy and bitter, and arose over one of twelve propositions submitted by Reyes on February 11, 1813, to the effect that the determined suppression of the Acapulco galleon be published, and in its place those engaged in that commerce be allowed to fit up private vessels at their own cost to continue the trade with Nueva España, through the ports of Acapulco, San Blas, or any other, under the old terms of 500,000 pesos for the outgoing voyage and 1,000,000 for the return, and a lowering of the duties by one-half. The matter was debated in the presence of the secretaries of the Peninsula and Ultramar, and after fulldiscussion, in which many of the delegates took part, and in which the American delegates generally favored a liberal policy for the Philippines, the decree suppressing the galleon was finally issued on September 14, 1813.10The special session of the Cortes closed on the date of the decree above, and the regular session opened at Cádiz, either in the latter part of September or the first part of October. On October 4, the last meeting was held in Cádiz and opened again in the island of León because of yellow fever in the former place. On the eighth of that month, Reyes presented three plans for the benefit of the agriculture, industry, commerce, and navigation of the Philippines. On the twenty-ninth of October meetings at the island of León were suspended, and resumed again in Madrid, on January 15, 1814. Fernando VII, released by order of Napoleon, after the disastrous campaign conducted by Joseph in Spain, abolished the Cortes by his decree of May 4, 1814, and on the publication of this decree in Madrid, on the thirteenth many of the members of the Cortes were arrested, all the acts of the constitutional government were declared null and void, the Inquisition reëstablished, and absolutism was again proclaimed inSpain. On the publication of the decree in the Philippines, the Ilocans, deeming it only a ruse of the governor, revolted, sacked churches and convents, and destroyed public records. Their insurrection was directed chiefly against their ownprincipalesand their wives.11The Cortes of 1820–1823After vainly endeavoring to rule as an absolute monarch, Fernando VII was compelled to convoke the Cortes by his decree of March 6, 1820.12Onthe twenty-second the regular session of the Cortes for 1820–1821 was formally summoned, the colonies being allowed to be represented by substitutes pending the arrival of regularly-elected representatives. At the first preliminary meeting of June 26, the two Philippine substitutes,13Jose María Arnedo and Manuel Felix Camus y Herrera, presented their credentials. The Cortes were declared open on July 9. Matters of trade and commerce, involving the question of duties,14were of paramount interest, so far as the Philippines are concerned, although the matters of elections, revenues, and ecclesiastical affairs were debated at some length. From July 18 to October 19, were considered at intervals the privileges and monopolies of the Compañía de Filipinas, which were abolished by a decree of the latter date.15Severaldecrees and orders of November 9 (on which date the first session of the Cortes ended), affecting trade and looking toward the development of the colonies, were issued.16At the opening of the new session of the Cortes, the Philippine substitutes of the previous session held over.17An order18of March 22 decided thatthe vice-royalties, captaincies-general, etc., were not to be filled for stated periods, but incumbents were to hold them at the will of the king. Of great importance was the approval on June 30, of a petition presented by Arnedo on June 16 asking for direct mails between Spain and the Philippines under charge of the navy department. On that same date the report of the committee on Hacienda on the estimated budget for the Ministry of Ultramar for 1822 (over 330,000 reals more than that of 1821), aroused considerable discussion, especially among the American delegates.19A decree of June 29 provided for public schools and provincial universities, of which Manila was to have one. This decree provided for schools and courses much ahead of anything in the islands, but it remained a dead letter because of thespeedy suppression of the constitution.20This session of the Cortes closed on June 30.The preliminary meeting of a special session was held on September 22, 1821, at which the above two Philippine substitutes were approved.21Camus y Herrera was one of a committee chosen on the twenty-third, to inform the king that the Cortes was ready to open the session, which accordingly was opened next day. On November 4, the Philippine government and governor were arraigned by representative Lallave of Veracruz for electing only four instead of the twenty-five representatives to whom they were entitled. Discussion of this matter resulted in the Cortes directing the Minister of Ultramar (February 11, 1822), that the Philippines, notwithstanding claims of distance and poverty, were to elect their whole quota to Cortes. At the secret session of February 12, 1822, it was decided to allow Arnedo andCamus y Herrera (in view of a petition presented by them on the eighth, and because of their pressing need), to draw a sum sufficient to meet their needs and the debts that they had been obliged to contract in the performance of their duties, from the money sent by the provincial deputation of Manila (24,500 pesos) for the regularly-elected Philippine representatives of the next session. This special session closed February 14.The first preliminary meeting of the regular session was held February 15, at which Vicente Posada, a former magistrate of the Manila Audiencia, presented himself as a regularly-elected representative from the Philippines. He was not, however, allowed to take his seat in this session, which opened formally on March 7, and closed on July 30, as it was claimed that his resignation had not been confirmed and that he was consequently still a government employe.22During this session, a clause of a decree of June 28 ordered the encouragement of visits to Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines by naturalists for the purpose of study.At the first preliminary meeting of the special session, held October 1, 1822, Francisco Bringas y Taranco, ex-alcalde-mayor of Ilocos, the deputy electfor Nueva Segovia, Manuel Sáenz de Vizmanos, senior accountant of the Tribunal de Cuentas of the Philippines, and Posada, presented their credentials, which were approved on October 3, although Posada was again contested. At the preliminary meeting held on the fourth complaint was made that the Philippines had elected but four deputies instead of twenty-five.23The session which opened on October 7 closed on February 19, 1823, without any action having been taken by the Philippine representatives.The regular session opened on March 1, 1823, at Madrid, but the absolutists gaining control through the invasion of the French, nothing was done in this session, and the Cortes, which had been compelled to flee first to Sevilla and then to Cádiz, were finally dissolved by Fernando on October 1, who declared all their acts from March 7, 1820, to that time null and void. Posada was one of those condemned by Fernando after his entrance into Madrid, for his liberal tendencies. By decree of December 25, 1823, Fernando communicated to America and the Philippines the reëstablishment of absolutism, the suppression of the Constitution of 1812, and the abolition of all the organisms inaugurated during the constitutional régime.24The Cortes of 1834–1837The third Cortes of 1834–37 were called after the death of Fernando VII, which occurred September 29, 1833, when the liberals again demanded concessions and a constitutional government.25The ship “Santa Ana” sailing from Cádiz, August 28, 1834, reached Manila with official orders and the summons to the Cortes;26which having been called for July 24, 1834 (by decree of May 10), had already convened. The election for the Philippine representatives (March 1, 1835)27resulted in the choiceof Brigadier Andrés García Camba,28and Licentiate Juan Francisco Lecaros (or Lecaroz)29—the first a resident of Manila (formerly a resident in Nueva España), and the second the Madrid agent for the Manila Ayuntamiento. Camba sailed for Cádiz on the “Santa Ana” on March 21, and arrived in Spain August 20, 1835, after the end of the first session of the Cortes. That session imposed a special tax on certain classes of financial documents, which affected all the Spanish domains; and which was sanctioned by the regent, May, 1835, and communicated to the Philippines on June 2.The new session was set in a meeting of theConsejo de Ministros(September 28, 1835) for November 16, 1835. The first preliminary meeting was held on November 12, at which the Philippine representatives presented their credentials, being duly confirmed on the meeting of the fourteenth, although Camba was contested by one Manuel Cacho of Manila.The formal opening of the session occurred on the sixteenth, and on the twenty-fourth, Camba and Lecaros took the oath, the former being placed on the committee on Etiquette. On the occasion of the vote of confidence in the government, the Philippine representatives spoke on the rumors of the transfer of the Philippines to a foreign government, stating that such rumors had already been reported in foreign newspapers, as well as the power to whom the transfer was to be made and the sum to be paid. Such a sale they could not believe would be the reward of so many years of loyalty to the Spanish government. In the discussion of the election law for the Cortes, the government and the Cortes came to a deadlock, and the Cortes were dissolved by the government. Hence nothing was accomplished during this session.30A royal decree of the date when the Cortes weredissolved, ordered the new Cortes to assemble at Madrid, March 22, article 5 of the decree specifying that elections should be held in the provinces of Ultramar on receipt of the decree. Consequently, at this session, which lasted from March 22 until May 23, when it was again dissolved, the Philippines had no representation.A decree of May 24 ordered a new session for August 20, at which the Philippines were to have four representatives, the officials evidently not taking into account the distance of the Philippines from Spain, for it would be manifestly impossible for any representative to arrive from the Philippines for that session or even for the one of March, 1837. The election at Manila held in 1836 resulted in the reelection of Camba and Lecaros. On August 13, a royal decree (in consequence of the mutiny of La Granja) ordered the publication of the Constitution of 1812 until the Cortes clearly manifested their will or drew up a new constitution. Another decree of August 21 called the general Cortes for October 24, in accordance with the rules of the Constitution of 1812; and one of September 28 suppressed the Real Consejo de España é Indias. At the secret session of the Cortes on January 16, 1837, a proposition for special laws to govern Ultramar was made, being passed to the proper committee. On February 10 the committee having in charge the drafting of a new constitution, presented a plan for the provinces to be ruled by special laws, in accordance with which their delegates were not to sit in the Cortes. On March 9, 1837, the elections at Manila resulted in Camba and Luis Prudencio Alvarez y Tejero,31formerly of theManila Audiencia, and a resident of Manila for thirteen years, being elected. The latter arrived in Spain after the passing of the law excluding the Philippine representation from the Cortes. A royal order of May 31, 1837, presented the method to be observed in the provision of alcaldes-mayor for the Philippines. On June 18, the new constitution was promulgated in Madrid, article 2 of which decreed that Ultramar should be governed by special laws.32Since that time the Philippines have had no representation in Cortes.33

Preliminary Note: The account of the first two Cortes is drawn largely from notes made by James A. LeRoy fromDiario de las sessiones de las Cortes generales y extraordinarias, and other sources, and kindly sent by him to the Editors. For the first Cortes see also Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 388–390, 392, 396–398, 400–409, 411–413,422–435, andGuia oficial de España, 1813, pp. 21, 22, where the Philippine deputies are named. For the second Cortes, see also Montero y Vidal,ut supra, ii, pp. 444–452, 457–462, 476–481. For the third Cortes, see Montero y Vidal,ut supra, ii, pp. 544, 545, 552–560, 563–573; andFilipinas y su representacion en Cortes(Madrid, February 8, 1836), which although published anonymously is by Camba.

The Cortes of 1810–1813Three times in their history have the Philippines had representation in the Spanish national Cortes,1namely, for the years 1810–1813, 1820–1823, and 1834–1837. In the first two periods is emphasized the backwardness of the Philippines politically as compared with the Spanish-American colonies. In all three periods, one cannot point to any single great measure that was enacted solely at the initiative of the Philippine representatives (unless with the possible exception of the suppression of the Acapulco galleon), and indeed, not to a great many in which they took part.2With Fernando virtually a prisoner in France (where he remained for five years), the nationalists in Spain being without a ruler, since they refused to consider Joseph Bonaparte as king, organized a provisional government known as the central governing assembly (Junta central), with headquarters in the south. This Junta, taking the necessary steps for the reorganization of government, and the calling of a Cortes, proceeded, on June 25, 1809, to rehabilitate the old Consejo de España, and on January 29, 1810, to constitute the supreme Consejo de Regencia. The delegates to the first session of the Cortes, for which final orders were issued by decree of June 18, 1810, and in which, by a decree of January 22, 1829, allthe Spanish domain was to have equality of representation, assembled on the island of León during the month of August, 1810. On account of the distance of the American countries and the Philippines and the impossibility of regularly-appointed delegates reaching Spain in time for the opening of the session, substitutes were chosen from residents of those countries then in the Peninsula. Consequently, at the opening of the Cortes, September 24, 1810, the Philippines were represented by Pedro Pérez de Tagle, an officer in the corps of the Spanish Royal Guards, and Dr. José Manuel Couto, prebend of La Puebla. The election at Manila (held by order of the Regency, February 14, 1810), resulted in the choice of Ventura de los Reyes, a wealthy merchant of Manila, and on the whole an active representative, who, despite his seventy years, set out immediately for Cádiz. The two substitutes above mentioned took but little part in affairs.3Several general measures enacted by the Cortestouch the Philippines incidentally.4The first matter, however, specifically connected with the Philippines was the receipt by the Cortes (March 16, 1811) of the report of the governor of the Philippines (dated August 8, 1809) in regard to the French vessel “Mosca,” which had been captured by the parish priest of Batangas (Fray Melchor Fernandez), and the despatches carried on that vessel. The reading on April 26, 1812, of the proposed decree prescribing the manner of holding elections in the regular Cortes to be convened in 1813, aroused lengthy discussion.5On May 6, Reyes moved that a special form of election be granted for the Philippines because of their distance and the character of their inhabitants. The islands had neither the funds nor the men to send by which equality of representationwould be justified, and he requested that it only be declared that they must not send less than two. An amendment offered by the committee on the Constitution proposed that to the instructions regarding the elections in Ultramar be added a clause to meet Reyes’s wishes, but the matter was hotly contested by the American representatives who feared that such a clause might sometime lead to the cutting down of their own representation, and as a consequence the proposal of the committee was not voted on.6In January, 1813, after recommendation by the committee on Ultramar, it was resolved to grant the petition of the board (mesa) of the Misericordia of Manila (which had been hanging fire in the Cortes since September 25, 1812), asking for certain reforms, among them that the number of persons voting for the electors of the board itself be reduced.7On January 6, 1813, the proposed ordinances for the hospice for the poor at Manila (the establishment of which was provided for by royal order of December27, 1806), were declared unconstitutional by the committee on Ultramar,8and that committee’s report was adopted. A minute in the records of March 11, 1813, shows that the suppression of the brandy monopoly had been decreed by the governor of the Philippines and that it could be manufactured freely in the provinces of Tondo, Cavite, Bulacan, and Pampanga.By far the most important measure affecting the Philippines, however, was the suppression of the Acapulco galleon.9The discussion on the matter was lengthy and bitter, and arose over one of twelve propositions submitted by Reyes on February 11, 1813, to the effect that the determined suppression of the Acapulco galleon be published, and in its place those engaged in that commerce be allowed to fit up private vessels at their own cost to continue the trade with Nueva España, through the ports of Acapulco, San Blas, or any other, under the old terms of 500,000 pesos for the outgoing voyage and 1,000,000 for the return, and a lowering of the duties by one-half. The matter was debated in the presence of the secretaries of the Peninsula and Ultramar, and after fulldiscussion, in which many of the delegates took part, and in which the American delegates generally favored a liberal policy for the Philippines, the decree suppressing the galleon was finally issued on September 14, 1813.10The special session of the Cortes closed on the date of the decree above, and the regular session opened at Cádiz, either in the latter part of September or the first part of October. On October 4, the last meeting was held in Cádiz and opened again in the island of León because of yellow fever in the former place. On the eighth of that month, Reyes presented three plans for the benefit of the agriculture, industry, commerce, and navigation of the Philippines. On the twenty-ninth of October meetings at the island of León were suspended, and resumed again in Madrid, on January 15, 1814. Fernando VII, released by order of Napoleon, after the disastrous campaign conducted by Joseph in Spain, abolished the Cortes by his decree of May 4, 1814, and on the publication of this decree in Madrid, on the thirteenth many of the members of the Cortes were arrested, all the acts of the constitutional government were declared null and void, the Inquisition reëstablished, and absolutism was again proclaimed inSpain. On the publication of the decree in the Philippines, the Ilocans, deeming it only a ruse of the governor, revolted, sacked churches and convents, and destroyed public records. Their insurrection was directed chiefly against their ownprincipalesand their wives.11

The Cortes of 1810–1813

Three times in their history have the Philippines had representation in the Spanish national Cortes,1namely, for the years 1810–1813, 1820–1823, and 1834–1837. In the first two periods is emphasized the backwardness of the Philippines politically as compared with the Spanish-American colonies. In all three periods, one cannot point to any single great measure that was enacted solely at the initiative of the Philippine representatives (unless with the possible exception of the suppression of the Acapulco galleon), and indeed, not to a great many in which they took part.2With Fernando virtually a prisoner in France (where he remained for five years), the nationalists in Spain being without a ruler, since they refused to consider Joseph Bonaparte as king, organized a provisional government known as the central governing assembly (Junta central), with headquarters in the south. This Junta, taking the necessary steps for the reorganization of government, and the calling of a Cortes, proceeded, on June 25, 1809, to rehabilitate the old Consejo de España, and on January 29, 1810, to constitute the supreme Consejo de Regencia. The delegates to the first session of the Cortes, for which final orders were issued by decree of June 18, 1810, and in which, by a decree of January 22, 1829, allthe Spanish domain was to have equality of representation, assembled on the island of León during the month of August, 1810. On account of the distance of the American countries and the Philippines and the impossibility of regularly-appointed delegates reaching Spain in time for the opening of the session, substitutes were chosen from residents of those countries then in the Peninsula. Consequently, at the opening of the Cortes, September 24, 1810, the Philippines were represented by Pedro Pérez de Tagle, an officer in the corps of the Spanish Royal Guards, and Dr. José Manuel Couto, prebend of La Puebla. The election at Manila (held by order of the Regency, February 14, 1810), resulted in the choice of Ventura de los Reyes, a wealthy merchant of Manila, and on the whole an active representative, who, despite his seventy years, set out immediately for Cádiz. The two substitutes above mentioned took but little part in affairs.3Several general measures enacted by the Cortestouch the Philippines incidentally.4The first matter, however, specifically connected with the Philippines was the receipt by the Cortes (March 16, 1811) of the report of the governor of the Philippines (dated August 8, 1809) in regard to the French vessel “Mosca,” which had been captured by the parish priest of Batangas (Fray Melchor Fernandez), and the despatches carried on that vessel. The reading on April 26, 1812, of the proposed decree prescribing the manner of holding elections in the regular Cortes to be convened in 1813, aroused lengthy discussion.5On May 6, Reyes moved that a special form of election be granted for the Philippines because of their distance and the character of their inhabitants. The islands had neither the funds nor the men to send by which equality of representationwould be justified, and he requested that it only be declared that they must not send less than two. An amendment offered by the committee on the Constitution proposed that to the instructions regarding the elections in Ultramar be added a clause to meet Reyes’s wishes, but the matter was hotly contested by the American representatives who feared that such a clause might sometime lead to the cutting down of their own representation, and as a consequence the proposal of the committee was not voted on.6In January, 1813, after recommendation by the committee on Ultramar, it was resolved to grant the petition of the board (mesa) of the Misericordia of Manila (which had been hanging fire in the Cortes since September 25, 1812), asking for certain reforms, among them that the number of persons voting for the electors of the board itself be reduced.7On January 6, 1813, the proposed ordinances for the hospice for the poor at Manila (the establishment of which was provided for by royal order of December27, 1806), were declared unconstitutional by the committee on Ultramar,8and that committee’s report was adopted. A minute in the records of March 11, 1813, shows that the suppression of the brandy monopoly had been decreed by the governor of the Philippines and that it could be manufactured freely in the provinces of Tondo, Cavite, Bulacan, and Pampanga.By far the most important measure affecting the Philippines, however, was the suppression of the Acapulco galleon.9The discussion on the matter was lengthy and bitter, and arose over one of twelve propositions submitted by Reyes on February 11, 1813, to the effect that the determined suppression of the Acapulco galleon be published, and in its place those engaged in that commerce be allowed to fit up private vessels at their own cost to continue the trade with Nueva España, through the ports of Acapulco, San Blas, or any other, under the old terms of 500,000 pesos for the outgoing voyage and 1,000,000 for the return, and a lowering of the duties by one-half. The matter was debated in the presence of the secretaries of the Peninsula and Ultramar, and after fulldiscussion, in which many of the delegates took part, and in which the American delegates generally favored a liberal policy for the Philippines, the decree suppressing the galleon was finally issued on September 14, 1813.10The special session of the Cortes closed on the date of the decree above, and the regular session opened at Cádiz, either in the latter part of September or the first part of October. On October 4, the last meeting was held in Cádiz and opened again in the island of León because of yellow fever in the former place. On the eighth of that month, Reyes presented three plans for the benefit of the agriculture, industry, commerce, and navigation of the Philippines. On the twenty-ninth of October meetings at the island of León were suspended, and resumed again in Madrid, on January 15, 1814. Fernando VII, released by order of Napoleon, after the disastrous campaign conducted by Joseph in Spain, abolished the Cortes by his decree of May 4, 1814, and on the publication of this decree in Madrid, on the thirteenth many of the members of the Cortes were arrested, all the acts of the constitutional government were declared null and void, the Inquisition reëstablished, and absolutism was again proclaimed inSpain. On the publication of the decree in the Philippines, the Ilocans, deeming it only a ruse of the governor, revolted, sacked churches and convents, and destroyed public records. Their insurrection was directed chiefly against their ownprincipalesand their wives.11

Three times in their history have the Philippines had representation in the Spanish national Cortes,1namely, for the years 1810–1813, 1820–1823, and 1834–1837. In the first two periods is emphasized the backwardness of the Philippines politically as compared with the Spanish-American colonies. In all three periods, one cannot point to any single great measure that was enacted solely at the initiative of the Philippine representatives (unless with the possible exception of the suppression of the Acapulco galleon), and indeed, not to a great many in which they took part.2

With Fernando virtually a prisoner in France (where he remained for five years), the nationalists in Spain being without a ruler, since they refused to consider Joseph Bonaparte as king, organized a provisional government known as the central governing assembly (Junta central), with headquarters in the south. This Junta, taking the necessary steps for the reorganization of government, and the calling of a Cortes, proceeded, on June 25, 1809, to rehabilitate the old Consejo de España, and on January 29, 1810, to constitute the supreme Consejo de Regencia. The delegates to the first session of the Cortes, for which final orders were issued by decree of June 18, 1810, and in which, by a decree of January 22, 1829, allthe Spanish domain was to have equality of representation, assembled on the island of León during the month of August, 1810. On account of the distance of the American countries and the Philippines and the impossibility of regularly-appointed delegates reaching Spain in time for the opening of the session, substitutes were chosen from residents of those countries then in the Peninsula. Consequently, at the opening of the Cortes, September 24, 1810, the Philippines were represented by Pedro Pérez de Tagle, an officer in the corps of the Spanish Royal Guards, and Dr. José Manuel Couto, prebend of La Puebla. The election at Manila (held by order of the Regency, February 14, 1810), resulted in the choice of Ventura de los Reyes, a wealthy merchant of Manila, and on the whole an active representative, who, despite his seventy years, set out immediately for Cádiz. The two substitutes above mentioned took but little part in affairs.3

Several general measures enacted by the Cortestouch the Philippines incidentally.4The first matter, however, specifically connected with the Philippines was the receipt by the Cortes (March 16, 1811) of the report of the governor of the Philippines (dated August 8, 1809) in regard to the French vessel “Mosca,” which had been captured by the parish priest of Batangas (Fray Melchor Fernandez), and the despatches carried on that vessel. The reading on April 26, 1812, of the proposed decree prescribing the manner of holding elections in the regular Cortes to be convened in 1813, aroused lengthy discussion.5On May 6, Reyes moved that a special form of election be granted for the Philippines because of their distance and the character of their inhabitants. The islands had neither the funds nor the men to send by which equality of representationwould be justified, and he requested that it only be declared that they must not send less than two. An amendment offered by the committee on the Constitution proposed that to the instructions regarding the elections in Ultramar be added a clause to meet Reyes’s wishes, but the matter was hotly contested by the American representatives who feared that such a clause might sometime lead to the cutting down of their own representation, and as a consequence the proposal of the committee was not voted on.6

In January, 1813, after recommendation by the committee on Ultramar, it was resolved to grant the petition of the board (mesa) of the Misericordia of Manila (which had been hanging fire in the Cortes since September 25, 1812), asking for certain reforms, among them that the number of persons voting for the electors of the board itself be reduced.7On January 6, 1813, the proposed ordinances for the hospice for the poor at Manila (the establishment of which was provided for by royal order of December27, 1806), were declared unconstitutional by the committee on Ultramar,8and that committee’s report was adopted. A minute in the records of March 11, 1813, shows that the suppression of the brandy monopoly had been decreed by the governor of the Philippines and that it could be manufactured freely in the provinces of Tondo, Cavite, Bulacan, and Pampanga.

By far the most important measure affecting the Philippines, however, was the suppression of the Acapulco galleon.9The discussion on the matter was lengthy and bitter, and arose over one of twelve propositions submitted by Reyes on February 11, 1813, to the effect that the determined suppression of the Acapulco galleon be published, and in its place those engaged in that commerce be allowed to fit up private vessels at their own cost to continue the trade with Nueva España, through the ports of Acapulco, San Blas, or any other, under the old terms of 500,000 pesos for the outgoing voyage and 1,000,000 for the return, and a lowering of the duties by one-half. The matter was debated in the presence of the secretaries of the Peninsula and Ultramar, and after fulldiscussion, in which many of the delegates took part, and in which the American delegates generally favored a liberal policy for the Philippines, the decree suppressing the galleon was finally issued on September 14, 1813.10

The special session of the Cortes closed on the date of the decree above, and the regular session opened at Cádiz, either in the latter part of September or the first part of October. On October 4, the last meeting was held in Cádiz and opened again in the island of León because of yellow fever in the former place. On the eighth of that month, Reyes presented three plans for the benefit of the agriculture, industry, commerce, and navigation of the Philippines. On the twenty-ninth of October meetings at the island of León were suspended, and resumed again in Madrid, on January 15, 1814. Fernando VII, released by order of Napoleon, after the disastrous campaign conducted by Joseph in Spain, abolished the Cortes by his decree of May 4, 1814, and on the publication of this decree in Madrid, on the thirteenth many of the members of the Cortes were arrested, all the acts of the constitutional government were declared null and void, the Inquisition reëstablished, and absolutism was again proclaimed inSpain. On the publication of the decree in the Philippines, the Ilocans, deeming it only a ruse of the governor, revolted, sacked churches and convents, and destroyed public records. Their insurrection was directed chiefly against their ownprincipalesand their wives.11

The Cortes of 1820–1823After vainly endeavoring to rule as an absolute monarch, Fernando VII was compelled to convoke the Cortes by his decree of March 6, 1820.12Onthe twenty-second the regular session of the Cortes for 1820–1821 was formally summoned, the colonies being allowed to be represented by substitutes pending the arrival of regularly-elected representatives. At the first preliminary meeting of June 26, the two Philippine substitutes,13Jose María Arnedo and Manuel Felix Camus y Herrera, presented their credentials. The Cortes were declared open on July 9. Matters of trade and commerce, involving the question of duties,14were of paramount interest, so far as the Philippines are concerned, although the matters of elections, revenues, and ecclesiastical affairs were debated at some length. From July 18 to October 19, were considered at intervals the privileges and monopolies of the Compañía de Filipinas, which were abolished by a decree of the latter date.15Severaldecrees and orders of November 9 (on which date the first session of the Cortes ended), affecting trade and looking toward the development of the colonies, were issued.16At the opening of the new session of the Cortes, the Philippine substitutes of the previous session held over.17An order18of March 22 decided thatthe vice-royalties, captaincies-general, etc., were not to be filled for stated periods, but incumbents were to hold them at the will of the king. Of great importance was the approval on June 30, of a petition presented by Arnedo on June 16 asking for direct mails between Spain and the Philippines under charge of the navy department. On that same date the report of the committee on Hacienda on the estimated budget for the Ministry of Ultramar for 1822 (over 330,000 reals more than that of 1821), aroused considerable discussion, especially among the American delegates.19A decree of June 29 provided for public schools and provincial universities, of which Manila was to have one. This decree provided for schools and courses much ahead of anything in the islands, but it remained a dead letter because of thespeedy suppression of the constitution.20This session of the Cortes closed on June 30.The preliminary meeting of a special session was held on September 22, 1821, at which the above two Philippine substitutes were approved.21Camus y Herrera was one of a committee chosen on the twenty-third, to inform the king that the Cortes was ready to open the session, which accordingly was opened next day. On November 4, the Philippine government and governor were arraigned by representative Lallave of Veracruz for electing only four instead of the twenty-five representatives to whom they were entitled. Discussion of this matter resulted in the Cortes directing the Minister of Ultramar (February 11, 1822), that the Philippines, notwithstanding claims of distance and poverty, were to elect their whole quota to Cortes. At the secret session of February 12, 1822, it was decided to allow Arnedo andCamus y Herrera (in view of a petition presented by them on the eighth, and because of their pressing need), to draw a sum sufficient to meet their needs and the debts that they had been obliged to contract in the performance of their duties, from the money sent by the provincial deputation of Manila (24,500 pesos) for the regularly-elected Philippine representatives of the next session. This special session closed February 14.The first preliminary meeting of the regular session was held February 15, at which Vicente Posada, a former magistrate of the Manila Audiencia, presented himself as a regularly-elected representative from the Philippines. He was not, however, allowed to take his seat in this session, which opened formally on March 7, and closed on July 30, as it was claimed that his resignation had not been confirmed and that he was consequently still a government employe.22During this session, a clause of a decree of June 28 ordered the encouragement of visits to Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines by naturalists for the purpose of study.At the first preliminary meeting of the special session, held October 1, 1822, Francisco Bringas y Taranco, ex-alcalde-mayor of Ilocos, the deputy electfor Nueva Segovia, Manuel Sáenz de Vizmanos, senior accountant of the Tribunal de Cuentas of the Philippines, and Posada, presented their credentials, which were approved on October 3, although Posada was again contested. At the preliminary meeting held on the fourth complaint was made that the Philippines had elected but four deputies instead of twenty-five.23The session which opened on October 7 closed on February 19, 1823, without any action having been taken by the Philippine representatives.The regular session opened on March 1, 1823, at Madrid, but the absolutists gaining control through the invasion of the French, nothing was done in this session, and the Cortes, which had been compelled to flee first to Sevilla and then to Cádiz, were finally dissolved by Fernando on October 1, who declared all their acts from March 7, 1820, to that time null and void. Posada was one of those condemned by Fernando after his entrance into Madrid, for his liberal tendencies. By decree of December 25, 1823, Fernando communicated to America and the Philippines the reëstablishment of absolutism, the suppression of the Constitution of 1812, and the abolition of all the organisms inaugurated during the constitutional régime.24

The Cortes of 1820–1823

After vainly endeavoring to rule as an absolute monarch, Fernando VII was compelled to convoke the Cortes by his decree of March 6, 1820.12Onthe twenty-second the regular session of the Cortes for 1820–1821 was formally summoned, the colonies being allowed to be represented by substitutes pending the arrival of regularly-elected representatives. At the first preliminary meeting of June 26, the two Philippine substitutes,13Jose María Arnedo and Manuel Felix Camus y Herrera, presented their credentials. The Cortes were declared open on July 9. Matters of trade and commerce, involving the question of duties,14were of paramount interest, so far as the Philippines are concerned, although the matters of elections, revenues, and ecclesiastical affairs were debated at some length. From July 18 to October 19, were considered at intervals the privileges and monopolies of the Compañía de Filipinas, which were abolished by a decree of the latter date.15Severaldecrees and orders of November 9 (on which date the first session of the Cortes ended), affecting trade and looking toward the development of the colonies, were issued.16At the opening of the new session of the Cortes, the Philippine substitutes of the previous session held over.17An order18of March 22 decided thatthe vice-royalties, captaincies-general, etc., were not to be filled for stated periods, but incumbents were to hold them at the will of the king. Of great importance was the approval on June 30, of a petition presented by Arnedo on June 16 asking for direct mails between Spain and the Philippines under charge of the navy department. On that same date the report of the committee on Hacienda on the estimated budget for the Ministry of Ultramar for 1822 (over 330,000 reals more than that of 1821), aroused considerable discussion, especially among the American delegates.19A decree of June 29 provided for public schools and provincial universities, of which Manila was to have one. This decree provided for schools and courses much ahead of anything in the islands, but it remained a dead letter because of thespeedy suppression of the constitution.20This session of the Cortes closed on June 30.The preliminary meeting of a special session was held on September 22, 1821, at which the above two Philippine substitutes were approved.21Camus y Herrera was one of a committee chosen on the twenty-third, to inform the king that the Cortes was ready to open the session, which accordingly was opened next day. On November 4, the Philippine government and governor were arraigned by representative Lallave of Veracruz for electing only four instead of the twenty-five representatives to whom they were entitled. Discussion of this matter resulted in the Cortes directing the Minister of Ultramar (February 11, 1822), that the Philippines, notwithstanding claims of distance and poverty, were to elect their whole quota to Cortes. At the secret session of February 12, 1822, it was decided to allow Arnedo andCamus y Herrera (in view of a petition presented by them on the eighth, and because of their pressing need), to draw a sum sufficient to meet their needs and the debts that they had been obliged to contract in the performance of their duties, from the money sent by the provincial deputation of Manila (24,500 pesos) for the regularly-elected Philippine representatives of the next session. This special session closed February 14.The first preliminary meeting of the regular session was held February 15, at which Vicente Posada, a former magistrate of the Manila Audiencia, presented himself as a regularly-elected representative from the Philippines. He was not, however, allowed to take his seat in this session, which opened formally on March 7, and closed on July 30, as it was claimed that his resignation had not been confirmed and that he was consequently still a government employe.22During this session, a clause of a decree of June 28 ordered the encouragement of visits to Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines by naturalists for the purpose of study.At the first preliminary meeting of the special session, held October 1, 1822, Francisco Bringas y Taranco, ex-alcalde-mayor of Ilocos, the deputy electfor Nueva Segovia, Manuel Sáenz de Vizmanos, senior accountant of the Tribunal de Cuentas of the Philippines, and Posada, presented their credentials, which were approved on October 3, although Posada was again contested. At the preliminary meeting held on the fourth complaint was made that the Philippines had elected but four deputies instead of twenty-five.23The session which opened on October 7 closed on February 19, 1823, without any action having been taken by the Philippine representatives.The regular session opened on March 1, 1823, at Madrid, but the absolutists gaining control through the invasion of the French, nothing was done in this session, and the Cortes, which had been compelled to flee first to Sevilla and then to Cádiz, were finally dissolved by Fernando on October 1, who declared all their acts from March 7, 1820, to that time null and void. Posada was one of those condemned by Fernando after his entrance into Madrid, for his liberal tendencies. By decree of December 25, 1823, Fernando communicated to America and the Philippines the reëstablishment of absolutism, the suppression of the Constitution of 1812, and the abolition of all the organisms inaugurated during the constitutional régime.24

After vainly endeavoring to rule as an absolute monarch, Fernando VII was compelled to convoke the Cortes by his decree of March 6, 1820.12Onthe twenty-second the regular session of the Cortes for 1820–1821 was formally summoned, the colonies being allowed to be represented by substitutes pending the arrival of regularly-elected representatives. At the first preliminary meeting of June 26, the two Philippine substitutes,13Jose María Arnedo and Manuel Felix Camus y Herrera, presented their credentials. The Cortes were declared open on July 9. Matters of trade and commerce, involving the question of duties,14were of paramount interest, so far as the Philippines are concerned, although the matters of elections, revenues, and ecclesiastical affairs were debated at some length. From July 18 to October 19, were considered at intervals the privileges and monopolies of the Compañía de Filipinas, which were abolished by a decree of the latter date.15Severaldecrees and orders of November 9 (on which date the first session of the Cortes ended), affecting trade and looking toward the development of the colonies, were issued.16

At the opening of the new session of the Cortes, the Philippine substitutes of the previous session held over.17An order18of March 22 decided thatthe vice-royalties, captaincies-general, etc., were not to be filled for stated periods, but incumbents were to hold them at the will of the king. Of great importance was the approval on June 30, of a petition presented by Arnedo on June 16 asking for direct mails between Spain and the Philippines under charge of the navy department. On that same date the report of the committee on Hacienda on the estimated budget for the Ministry of Ultramar for 1822 (over 330,000 reals more than that of 1821), aroused considerable discussion, especially among the American delegates.19A decree of June 29 provided for public schools and provincial universities, of which Manila was to have one. This decree provided for schools and courses much ahead of anything in the islands, but it remained a dead letter because of thespeedy suppression of the constitution.20This session of the Cortes closed on June 30.

The preliminary meeting of a special session was held on September 22, 1821, at which the above two Philippine substitutes were approved.21Camus y Herrera was one of a committee chosen on the twenty-third, to inform the king that the Cortes was ready to open the session, which accordingly was opened next day. On November 4, the Philippine government and governor were arraigned by representative Lallave of Veracruz for electing only four instead of the twenty-five representatives to whom they were entitled. Discussion of this matter resulted in the Cortes directing the Minister of Ultramar (February 11, 1822), that the Philippines, notwithstanding claims of distance and poverty, were to elect their whole quota to Cortes. At the secret session of February 12, 1822, it was decided to allow Arnedo andCamus y Herrera (in view of a petition presented by them on the eighth, and because of their pressing need), to draw a sum sufficient to meet their needs and the debts that they had been obliged to contract in the performance of their duties, from the money sent by the provincial deputation of Manila (24,500 pesos) for the regularly-elected Philippine representatives of the next session. This special session closed February 14.

The first preliminary meeting of the regular session was held February 15, at which Vicente Posada, a former magistrate of the Manila Audiencia, presented himself as a regularly-elected representative from the Philippines. He was not, however, allowed to take his seat in this session, which opened formally on March 7, and closed on July 30, as it was claimed that his resignation had not been confirmed and that he was consequently still a government employe.22During this session, a clause of a decree of June 28 ordered the encouragement of visits to Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines by naturalists for the purpose of study.

At the first preliminary meeting of the special session, held October 1, 1822, Francisco Bringas y Taranco, ex-alcalde-mayor of Ilocos, the deputy electfor Nueva Segovia, Manuel Sáenz de Vizmanos, senior accountant of the Tribunal de Cuentas of the Philippines, and Posada, presented their credentials, which were approved on October 3, although Posada was again contested. At the preliminary meeting held on the fourth complaint was made that the Philippines had elected but four deputies instead of twenty-five.23The session which opened on October 7 closed on February 19, 1823, without any action having been taken by the Philippine representatives.

The regular session opened on March 1, 1823, at Madrid, but the absolutists gaining control through the invasion of the French, nothing was done in this session, and the Cortes, which had been compelled to flee first to Sevilla and then to Cádiz, were finally dissolved by Fernando on October 1, who declared all their acts from March 7, 1820, to that time null and void. Posada was one of those condemned by Fernando after his entrance into Madrid, for his liberal tendencies. By decree of December 25, 1823, Fernando communicated to America and the Philippines the reëstablishment of absolutism, the suppression of the Constitution of 1812, and the abolition of all the organisms inaugurated during the constitutional régime.24

The Cortes of 1834–1837The third Cortes of 1834–37 were called after the death of Fernando VII, which occurred September 29, 1833, when the liberals again demanded concessions and a constitutional government.25The ship “Santa Ana” sailing from Cádiz, August 28, 1834, reached Manila with official orders and the summons to the Cortes;26which having been called for July 24, 1834 (by decree of May 10), had already convened. The election for the Philippine representatives (March 1, 1835)27resulted in the choiceof Brigadier Andrés García Camba,28and Licentiate Juan Francisco Lecaros (or Lecaroz)29—the first a resident of Manila (formerly a resident in Nueva España), and the second the Madrid agent for the Manila Ayuntamiento. Camba sailed for Cádiz on the “Santa Ana” on March 21, and arrived in Spain August 20, 1835, after the end of the first session of the Cortes. That session imposed a special tax on certain classes of financial documents, which affected all the Spanish domains; and which was sanctioned by the regent, May, 1835, and communicated to the Philippines on June 2.The new session was set in a meeting of theConsejo de Ministros(September 28, 1835) for November 16, 1835. The first preliminary meeting was held on November 12, at which the Philippine representatives presented their credentials, being duly confirmed on the meeting of the fourteenth, although Camba was contested by one Manuel Cacho of Manila.The formal opening of the session occurred on the sixteenth, and on the twenty-fourth, Camba and Lecaros took the oath, the former being placed on the committee on Etiquette. On the occasion of the vote of confidence in the government, the Philippine representatives spoke on the rumors of the transfer of the Philippines to a foreign government, stating that such rumors had already been reported in foreign newspapers, as well as the power to whom the transfer was to be made and the sum to be paid. Such a sale they could not believe would be the reward of so many years of loyalty to the Spanish government. In the discussion of the election law for the Cortes, the government and the Cortes came to a deadlock, and the Cortes were dissolved by the government. Hence nothing was accomplished during this session.30A royal decree of the date when the Cortes weredissolved, ordered the new Cortes to assemble at Madrid, March 22, article 5 of the decree specifying that elections should be held in the provinces of Ultramar on receipt of the decree. Consequently, at this session, which lasted from March 22 until May 23, when it was again dissolved, the Philippines had no representation.A decree of May 24 ordered a new session for August 20, at which the Philippines were to have four representatives, the officials evidently not taking into account the distance of the Philippines from Spain, for it would be manifestly impossible for any representative to arrive from the Philippines for that session or even for the one of March, 1837. The election at Manila held in 1836 resulted in the reelection of Camba and Lecaros. On August 13, a royal decree (in consequence of the mutiny of La Granja) ordered the publication of the Constitution of 1812 until the Cortes clearly manifested their will or drew up a new constitution. Another decree of August 21 called the general Cortes for October 24, in accordance with the rules of the Constitution of 1812; and one of September 28 suppressed the Real Consejo de España é Indias. At the secret session of the Cortes on January 16, 1837, a proposition for special laws to govern Ultramar was made, being passed to the proper committee. On February 10 the committee having in charge the drafting of a new constitution, presented a plan for the provinces to be ruled by special laws, in accordance with which their delegates were not to sit in the Cortes. On March 9, 1837, the elections at Manila resulted in Camba and Luis Prudencio Alvarez y Tejero,31formerly of theManila Audiencia, and a resident of Manila for thirteen years, being elected. The latter arrived in Spain after the passing of the law excluding the Philippine representation from the Cortes. A royal order of May 31, 1837, presented the method to be observed in the provision of alcaldes-mayor for the Philippines. On June 18, the new constitution was promulgated in Madrid, article 2 of which decreed that Ultramar should be governed by special laws.32Since that time the Philippines have had no representation in Cortes.33

The Cortes of 1834–1837

The third Cortes of 1834–37 were called after the death of Fernando VII, which occurred September 29, 1833, when the liberals again demanded concessions and a constitutional government.25The ship “Santa Ana” sailing from Cádiz, August 28, 1834, reached Manila with official orders and the summons to the Cortes;26which having been called for July 24, 1834 (by decree of May 10), had already convened. The election for the Philippine representatives (March 1, 1835)27resulted in the choiceof Brigadier Andrés García Camba,28and Licentiate Juan Francisco Lecaros (or Lecaroz)29—the first a resident of Manila (formerly a resident in Nueva España), and the second the Madrid agent for the Manila Ayuntamiento. Camba sailed for Cádiz on the “Santa Ana” on March 21, and arrived in Spain August 20, 1835, after the end of the first session of the Cortes. That session imposed a special tax on certain classes of financial documents, which affected all the Spanish domains; and which was sanctioned by the regent, May, 1835, and communicated to the Philippines on June 2.The new session was set in a meeting of theConsejo de Ministros(September 28, 1835) for November 16, 1835. The first preliminary meeting was held on November 12, at which the Philippine representatives presented their credentials, being duly confirmed on the meeting of the fourteenth, although Camba was contested by one Manuel Cacho of Manila.The formal opening of the session occurred on the sixteenth, and on the twenty-fourth, Camba and Lecaros took the oath, the former being placed on the committee on Etiquette. On the occasion of the vote of confidence in the government, the Philippine representatives spoke on the rumors of the transfer of the Philippines to a foreign government, stating that such rumors had already been reported in foreign newspapers, as well as the power to whom the transfer was to be made and the sum to be paid. Such a sale they could not believe would be the reward of so many years of loyalty to the Spanish government. In the discussion of the election law for the Cortes, the government and the Cortes came to a deadlock, and the Cortes were dissolved by the government. Hence nothing was accomplished during this session.30A royal decree of the date when the Cortes weredissolved, ordered the new Cortes to assemble at Madrid, March 22, article 5 of the decree specifying that elections should be held in the provinces of Ultramar on receipt of the decree. Consequently, at this session, which lasted from March 22 until May 23, when it was again dissolved, the Philippines had no representation.A decree of May 24 ordered a new session for August 20, at which the Philippines were to have four representatives, the officials evidently not taking into account the distance of the Philippines from Spain, for it would be manifestly impossible for any representative to arrive from the Philippines for that session or even for the one of March, 1837. The election at Manila held in 1836 resulted in the reelection of Camba and Lecaros. On August 13, a royal decree (in consequence of the mutiny of La Granja) ordered the publication of the Constitution of 1812 until the Cortes clearly manifested their will or drew up a new constitution. Another decree of August 21 called the general Cortes for October 24, in accordance with the rules of the Constitution of 1812; and one of September 28 suppressed the Real Consejo de España é Indias. At the secret session of the Cortes on January 16, 1837, a proposition for special laws to govern Ultramar was made, being passed to the proper committee. On February 10 the committee having in charge the drafting of a new constitution, presented a plan for the provinces to be ruled by special laws, in accordance with which their delegates were not to sit in the Cortes. On March 9, 1837, the elections at Manila resulted in Camba and Luis Prudencio Alvarez y Tejero,31formerly of theManila Audiencia, and a resident of Manila for thirteen years, being elected. The latter arrived in Spain after the passing of the law excluding the Philippine representation from the Cortes. A royal order of May 31, 1837, presented the method to be observed in the provision of alcaldes-mayor for the Philippines. On June 18, the new constitution was promulgated in Madrid, article 2 of which decreed that Ultramar should be governed by special laws.32Since that time the Philippines have had no representation in Cortes.33

The third Cortes of 1834–37 were called after the death of Fernando VII, which occurred September 29, 1833, when the liberals again demanded concessions and a constitutional government.25The ship “Santa Ana” sailing from Cádiz, August 28, 1834, reached Manila with official orders and the summons to the Cortes;26which having been called for July 24, 1834 (by decree of May 10), had already convened. The election for the Philippine representatives (March 1, 1835)27resulted in the choiceof Brigadier Andrés García Camba,28and Licentiate Juan Francisco Lecaros (or Lecaroz)29—the first a resident of Manila (formerly a resident in Nueva España), and the second the Madrid agent for the Manila Ayuntamiento. Camba sailed for Cádiz on the “Santa Ana” on March 21, and arrived in Spain August 20, 1835, after the end of the first session of the Cortes. That session imposed a special tax on certain classes of financial documents, which affected all the Spanish domains; and which was sanctioned by the regent, May, 1835, and communicated to the Philippines on June 2.

The new session was set in a meeting of theConsejo de Ministros(September 28, 1835) for November 16, 1835. The first preliminary meeting was held on November 12, at which the Philippine representatives presented their credentials, being duly confirmed on the meeting of the fourteenth, although Camba was contested by one Manuel Cacho of Manila.The formal opening of the session occurred on the sixteenth, and on the twenty-fourth, Camba and Lecaros took the oath, the former being placed on the committee on Etiquette. On the occasion of the vote of confidence in the government, the Philippine representatives spoke on the rumors of the transfer of the Philippines to a foreign government, stating that such rumors had already been reported in foreign newspapers, as well as the power to whom the transfer was to be made and the sum to be paid. Such a sale they could not believe would be the reward of so many years of loyalty to the Spanish government. In the discussion of the election law for the Cortes, the government and the Cortes came to a deadlock, and the Cortes were dissolved by the government. Hence nothing was accomplished during this session.30

A royal decree of the date when the Cortes weredissolved, ordered the new Cortes to assemble at Madrid, March 22, article 5 of the decree specifying that elections should be held in the provinces of Ultramar on receipt of the decree. Consequently, at this session, which lasted from March 22 until May 23, when it was again dissolved, the Philippines had no representation.

A decree of May 24 ordered a new session for August 20, at which the Philippines were to have four representatives, the officials evidently not taking into account the distance of the Philippines from Spain, for it would be manifestly impossible for any representative to arrive from the Philippines for that session or even for the one of March, 1837. The election at Manila held in 1836 resulted in the reelection of Camba and Lecaros. On August 13, a royal decree (in consequence of the mutiny of La Granja) ordered the publication of the Constitution of 1812 until the Cortes clearly manifested their will or drew up a new constitution. Another decree of August 21 called the general Cortes for October 24, in accordance with the rules of the Constitution of 1812; and one of September 28 suppressed the Real Consejo de España é Indias. At the secret session of the Cortes on January 16, 1837, a proposition for special laws to govern Ultramar was made, being passed to the proper committee. On February 10 the committee having in charge the drafting of a new constitution, presented a plan for the provinces to be ruled by special laws, in accordance with which their delegates were not to sit in the Cortes. On March 9, 1837, the elections at Manila resulted in Camba and Luis Prudencio Alvarez y Tejero,31formerly of theManila Audiencia, and a resident of Manila for thirteen years, being elected. The latter arrived in Spain after the passing of the law excluding the Philippine representation from the Cortes. A royal order of May 31, 1837, presented the method to be observed in the provision of alcaldes-mayor for the Philippines. On June 18, the new constitution was promulgated in Madrid, article 2 of which decreed that Ultramar should be governed by special laws.32Since that time the Philippines have had no representation in Cortes.33

1The Cortes, as first known by the Spaniards, contained three divisions, the three estates; the ones called in the three periods above-mentioned had but one chamber; the present Cortes contains two houses, the senate and the congress or house of deputies or representatives. The senate consists of three divisions: senators in their own right (the heir presumptive, the grandees, archbishops, etc.; life senators appointed by the crown; and those elected by the people, half of whom are removable every five years. Members to the lower house are elected for five years by electors chosen by the people. No Cortes was held from 1713–1789, and from the latter year until 1810.↑2For a good account of this period in Spain, which was one of great confusion, see E. W. Latimer’sSpain in the nineteenth century(Chicago, 1898, 3d ed.) The machinations of Napoleon and the other events leading up to the establishment of the Cortes of 1810–1813 are well and concisely narrated. See also Hume,Modern Spain(New York, 1900).↑3The latter, indeed, was granted permission (January 4, 1811) to go to Veracruz for his health; and on July 22, 1811, permission was given to the former to go to the Philippines on private business, although he was later forbidden to leave until the return of his colleague, as his absence before that time would leave the Philippines without representation. The request was renewed on the arrival of Reyes (December 6, 1811), and on the latter’s assumption of his seat (December 9), Perez de Tagle was allowed to leave. On September 19, 1813, a discourse was pronounced at Manila by José de Vergara, “deputy-elect for the province of Manila to the general Cortes,” and published in that year at Sampaloc. The election of deputies in that year was regulated by a junta composed of Governor Gardoqui, Archbishop Juan de Zúñiga, Manuel Díaz Condé, and three others; one of their decisions exempted the very poor in the community from contributing to the fund raised for paying the traveling and other expenses of the deputies to the Cortes. (Vindel,Catálogo biblioteca filipina, nos. 1874, 1875.)↑4Such were the decree of October 5, 1810, confirming the essential unity and equality of all parts of the Spanish domain; the abolition of the quicksilver monopoly, January 26, 1811; the provisional creation of aConsejo de Estadoto consist of twenty members (six from Ultramar), on January 21, 1812, although the constitution (adopted March 18, 1812) called for one with forty members (twelve from Ultramar): the creation of theSecretaría del Despacho de la Gobernación de Ultramar(April 2, 1812), and the establishment of theTribunal Supremo de Justicia, and the suppression of theConsejos de Castilla, Indias, andHacienda(all of them provided for in the constitution); and the suppression of the Inquisition (February 22, 1813). The law of November 9, 1813, abolishing personal services for Indians and regulating public works, seems to have been intended only for America.↑5February 20, 1812, was the last meeting on the island of León, the Cortes assembling on the twenty-fourth at the church of San Felipe Neri, at Cádiz.↑6The method of election for the Cortes of 1813 (decree of May 23, 1812) provided for a preliminary election board for each colonial province consisting of the provincial head, the archbishop, bishop, or acting archbishop, the intendant (if there were one), the senior alcalde, the senior regidor, the syndic procurator-general, and two commoners (these last to be chosen by the others). One representative was to be chosen for each 60,000 people. (See the essential clauses of this decree in Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 406, 407.) On the same day was also decreed the creation of provincial deputations, of which one was specified for Manila. In this session of Cortes also, the reorganization of the audiencias was decreed, but the Philippine representative seems to have taken no part in the debate.↑7Trouble had arisen over the administration by the board of theobras piaswhich it was usual to loan out to those interested in the galleon trade.↑8These ordinances were unconstitutional because control of the hospice was vested in a board headed by the captain-general, while by the constitution such organizations were now to be controlled by the ayuntamientos and provincial deputations. The despatch regarding this matter was sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Ultramar, November 27, 1812.↑9On July 7, 1810, the governor of the Philippines proposed the suppression of the galleon, and requested permission for the inhabitants of the Philippines to ship goods in Spanish bottoms not in excess of 1,000,000 pesos. The suppression was resolved upon by the Cortes by article 3 of the decree of October 8, 1811, regarding commerce.↑10This decree (which is given by Montero y Vidal,Historia general, li, pp. 412, 413) states that the inhabitants of the Philippines may trade in Chinese and other Asiatic goods in private Spanish bottoms with the ports of Acapulco and San Blas in Nueva España, under the old terms of 500,000 pesos for the outgoing, and 1,000,000 pesos for the return voyage. If the port of Acapulco be closed, they may trade at Sonsonate. For four years the lower rates of duties granted by Cárlos IV by decree of October, 1806, are continued. Boletas, or tickets granting lading space, are to be furnished no longer.↑11In accordance with a royal order of June 17, commanding the representatives of the colonies to report the petitions pending, or which had not been moved, that had for their object the welfare of the colonies, Reyes petitioned the suppression of the Acapulco galleon; permission of 1,000,000 pesos for the outgoing, and 2,000,000 pesos for the return voyage; unlimited extension of the lower duties conceded October 4, 1806; one or two Peruvian ports open to the commerce of the islands; that natives of the islands be allowed to export goods in Spanish bottoms to any point of the Spanish monarchy free of export and import duties; trade on the northwest coast of America with Spaniards; and that the permission be conceded to bring back all unsold goods (in addition to the amount of imports allowed), on payment to the treasury of a 6 per cent duty. The answers to these requests were as follows: the Acapulco ship was suppressed by order of April 23, 1815; permission of export to the value of 750,000 pesos; the ports of Callao and Guayaquil thrown open to Philippine trade; traffic with the Spaniards on the northwest coast of America; permission to bring back unsold goods to the extent of one-third the amount of imports allowed, paying ten per cent duty for such excess; and free trade for Philippine products at any port of the monarchy in Spanish bottoms for ten years.↑12On the seventh he took the oath to observe the Constitution of 1812; and on the tenth, by a decree ordered the reëstablishment of the Secretaría del Despachó de la Gobernación[, the first acts of which were the promulgation of the Constitution of 1812,and the reëstablishment of all the organisms created by the Cortes of 1810–1813.↑13Apparently appointed by the Secretary of Ultramar. Their credentials were approved at the third preliminary meeting of July 5 or 6.↑14A general decree of October 5, 1820, ordered a uniform and general schedule of duties for the Peninsula and Ultramar; but this law was modified by another law of December 20, 1821, recognizing the impracticability of uniformity of duties for Spain and the colonies, and providing that the schedule be uniform except for the differences rendered necessary in the provinces of Ultramar.↑15The secretary of Hacienda considered the privileges of the company for the importation of cotton goods as unconstitutional and contrary to the prosperity of national manufactures. At the meeting of August 18, it developed that the company had transferred its monopoly to a foreign merchant of Cádiz. The company was allowed to present its argument, but the report of the committees on Commerce and Hacienda was adopted. Later the company presented a petition requesting the liquidation of the government’s indebtedness to it, the privilege of selling its stock of cotton goods, and various other concessions incident to the closing up of its affairs. This petition, sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Hacienda, was referred to the committee on Commerce on November 2. On the fifth, a petition was presented by the Philippine representatives and Gregorio Gonzales Azaolo, of Sevilla, asking that the prohibition of the importation of cotton goods should not affect the Philippines until the industry was developed or established in those islands. This petition having been referred to the committees on Commerce and Hacienda, their report on November 8 recommended the opening of the Oriental trade to all Spaniards trading in Spanish bottoms. This recommendation was embodied in article 3 of the decree of November 9, specifying the kinds of goods which Spanish ships trading by the Cape of Good Hope could introduce into Spain or Spanish America.↑16The decrees of theDiarios de las Cortesshow no decree of this date confirming a previous decree of March 7, 1820, granting exemption of duties for ten years on natural and industrial products of the Philippines, when imported in Spanish bottoms into the Peninsula, as declared by Montero y Vidal. The decree of December 21, 1820, providing for the abolition of the monopoly on tobacco and salt after March 1, 1821, and providing customs and consumption duties, seems not to have affected the Philippines.↑17In October, 1820, the preliminary board for the election of representatives was organized in Manila, but inasmuch as the elections were not held until after the Constitution had been sworn to in Manila in May, 1821 (and later in the provinces), no regularly-elected representatives were present at the second session.↑18Wrongly called a decree by Montero y Vidal. This order was addressed to the Secretary of War in answer to a question raised by the Council of War.↑19The special discussion arose over the item of 50,000 reals for missions and a note in the report reflecting on the native clergy in the Philippines. Some of the Americans, who were quite fully imbued with the free thought of the French philosophical school, declared for the suppression of the missionaries (meaning friars), inasmuch as they were useless and even harmful. The committee answered this by asserting that the missionaries in the Philippines were used by the government as civil and political agents, and that they did do much good work in their own legitimate line. The passage concerning the incapacity of the native clergy was meant to apply to the Philippines alone, but if desired it could be removed as it was not essential to the report. An American representative moved that the 50,000 reals be used in the establishment of normal schools in Ultramar. The Philippine representatives seem to have taken no part in the debate except that Camus y Herrera moved that the obnoxious clause concerning the Filipino clergy be stricken out. The report was accepted as read.↑20Each university was to have a public library, a drawing school, a chemical laboratory, cabinets of physics, natural history, and industrial products, another of models of machines, a botanical garden, and an experiment farm. The university to be established in Manila was to have theological and law courses for the doctorate. Manila was also to have a medical school, a school for veterinary medicine, a school of fine arts, and commercial and nautical schools. Professorships were to be filled by competition, and those for the Philippines were to be examined by persons designated by the Subdirection of Studies in Mexico. Girls were to be taught to read, write, and cipher; while the older female students were to be taught the work suitable to their sex. This matter of education for girls was left to the provincial deputations.↑21On the twenty-third there was a discussion as to the legality of the substitutes for the representatives of Ultramar being allowed to hold over; and it was finally declared that only those for the Philippines and Peru could sit during this session.↑22This exclusion was in accordance with a decision of the committee on Credentials handed in February 11, 1822, to the effect that government employes did not cease, to be such until their resignations were accepted by the government. Posada did not present his credentials at the meeting of February 15, declaring that they had been robbed with his baggage en route from Cádiz to Madrid. He did present them, however, at the next meeting of February 20. At the third and fourth preliminary meetings (February 22 and 24) the matter was debated, and he was excluded on the grounds of being still a government employe.↑23Foreman states wrongly (p. 362, ed. of 1906) that seventeen deputies were elected and sat during the Cortes of 1820–23, and he names eight of them. He may have confused the names of electors with those of representatives. The four elected (of whom only three are known) were perhaps elected for the districts of the archiepiscopal see and the three suffragan sees of the Philippines; although Montero y Vidal says that both Sáenz de Vizmanos and Posada were elected from Nueva Cáceres.↑24Although a provincial deputation had been organized in Manila in 1822, almost its only act was to petition (April 12, 1823) for more missionaries.↑25Fernando’s infant daughter, Isabel II, ascended the throne under the regency of her mother María Cristina. Through the efforts of the liberals, six important decrees were passed March 24, 1834: suppression of theConsejo de Estado, during the minority of the queen; suppression of theConsejos de Castillaandde Indias, in whose place was established aTribunal Superior de España é Indias; suppression of theConsejo Supremo de Guerra, and in its place the establishment of theTribunal Supremo de Guerra y Marina y de Extranjería; suppression of theConsejo Supremo de Hacienda, replacing it by aTribunal Supremo de Hacienda; an order to the Secretary of theDespacho de Gracia y Justiciato propose the new organization of theConsejo Real de las Ordenes; and the institution of aConsejo Real de España é Indiasto have general supervision of American and Philippine matters.↑26The first news of reform and the fact that the new Cortes were to be summoned was received unofficially at Manila by a United States ship sailing from Cádiz in June, 1834, and reaching Manila toward the end of the same year.↑27No provision was made in the third Cortes for substitute representation for Ultramar (except in the decree of August 21, 1836, calling a Cortes for October 24 under the rules of the Constitution of 1812), which is in point with the ignorance manifested throughout this period by the officials at Madrid with regard to the Philippines. This accounts for the islands having no representation for some of the sessions of the Cortes.↑28Andrés García Camba resided in Manila during 1825–35, and became so popular that he was elected a deputy to the Spanish Cortes; he was afterward (August, 1837–December, 1838) governor of the Philippines, and wrote a book (published at Cádiz, 1839) regarding his experiences while holding that office. Himself liberally inclined, he was constantly opposed by reactionary influences. Although his name does not appear in the pamphletFilipinas y su representación en Cortes, he is generally considered as its author; and he alludes to it in the memoir above mentioned. (Vindel,Cat. bib. filip., nos. 1881, 1886.)↑29Foreman says that Lecaros was a mestizo; and Montero y Vidal that he was a Filipino lawyer. The board of electors was mainly composed of peninsulars.↑30Camba proposed (Filipinas y su representación en Cortes, 1836) a special mode of election to Cortes for the Philippines, which was to be by the Manila Ayuntamiento, as that was the only political organization in the islands worth mentioning, and was in direct contact with affairs. The law to be adopted for Ultramar, Camba argued, must take into account the condition of the country and the inhabitants. During this session, the Philippine representatives presented two petitions to the Secretario, del Despacho de Hacienda, asking in one for a moderation of the excessive duties on the introduction of Spanish brandy into the Philippines, and in the other the sending of few pensioners and subaltern employes to the islands, as this was a prejudice to the native Philippine Spaniards. Lecaros presented a plan to Mendizábal, the provisional president of theConsejo de Ministros, for the suppression of the monopoly on tobacco in the Philippines, but Mendizábal took measures to make the monopoly more remunerative to the state. See Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii. pp. 554, 555, note.↑31He wroteMemoria sobre las Islas Filipinas(Valencia, 1842).↑32July 31, 1837, the new commercial treaty made September 22, 1836, between the governor of the Philippines and the sultan of Joló was referred to the committees on State and Commerce, was reported on favorably on October 4, and was accordingly approved on the twelfth of October. This treaty stipulated that every three-masted schooner porting at Joló with Chinese passengers from Manila was to pay 2,000 pesos fuertes, and lesser boats in proportion to their size. As the most important cargo ever sent to Joló from Manila never exceeded 2,500 pesos in value, it is hard to see the value of this treaty so greatly lauded in Madrid. No Joloan vessels went to Manila. In this matter the officials showed a woful ignorance of the Philippines, the minister of the navy stating that all vessels stopped at Joló on their way to the Philippines. This treaty, as well as the one made by the governor of Zamboanga with the chief of Maluso near Basilan, only made the Moros bolder in their piracy. See Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 557–560.↑33On May 25, 1869, an amendment was presented by Julián Pellón y Rodriguez in the Spanish Cortes demanding that parliamentary representation be granted to Filipinas. Among the signers to this amendment were Victor Balaguer and Francisco Javier Moya. (Vindel,Cat. bib. filip., no. 1883.)↑

1The Cortes, as first known by the Spaniards, contained three divisions, the three estates; the ones called in the three periods above-mentioned had but one chamber; the present Cortes contains two houses, the senate and the congress or house of deputies or representatives. The senate consists of three divisions: senators in their own right (the heir presumptive, the grandees, archbishops, etc.; life senators appointed by the crown; and those elected by the people, half of whom are removable every five years. Members to the lower house are elected for five years by electors chosen by the people. No Cortes was held from 1713–1789, and from the latter year until 1810.↑2For a good account of this period in Spain, which was one of great confusion, see E. W. Latimer’sSpain in the nineteenth century(Chicago, 1898, 3d ed.) The machinations of Napoleon and the other events leading up to the establishment of the Cortes of 1810–1813 are well and concisely narrated. See also Hume,Modern Spain(New York, 1900).↑3The latter, indeed, was granted permission (January 4, 1811) to go to Veracruz for his health; and on July 22, 1811, permission was given to the former to go to the Philippines on private business, although he was later forbidden to leave until the return of his colleague, as his absence before that time would leave the Philippines without representation. The request was renewed on the arrival of Reyes (December 6, 1811), and on the latter’s assumption of his seat (December 9), Perez de Tagle was allowed to leave. On September 19, 1813, a discourse was pronounced at Manila by José de Vergara, “deputy-elect for the province of Manila to the general Cortes,” and published in that year at Sampaloc. The election of deputies in that year was regulated by a junta composed of Governor Gardoqui, Archbishop Juan de Zúñiga, Manuel Díaz Condé, and three others; one of their decisions exempted the very poor in the community from contributing to the fund raised for paying the traveling and other expenses of the deputies to the Cortes. (Vindel,Catálogo biblioteca filipina, nos. 1874, 1875.)↑4Such were the decree of October 5, 1810, confirming the essential unity and equality of all parts of the Spanish domain; the abolition of the quicksilver monopoly, January 26, 1811; the provisional creation of aConsejo de Estadoto consist of twenty members (six from Ultramar), on January 21, 1812, although the constitution (adopted March 18, 1812) called for one with forty members (twelve from Ultramar): the creation of theSecretaría del Despacho de la Gobernación de Ultramar(April 2, 1812), and the establishment of theTribunal Supremo de Justicia, and the suppression of theConsejos de Castilla, Indias, andHacienda(all of them provided for in the constitution); and the suppression of the Inquisition (February 22, 1813). The law of November 9, 1813, abolishing personal services for Indians and regulating public works, seems to have been intended only for America.↑5February 20, 1812, was the last meeting on the island of León, the Cortes assembling on the twenty-fourth at the church of San Felipe Neri, at Cádiz.↑6The method of election for the Cortes of 1813 (decree of May 23, 1812) provided for a preliminary election board for each colonial province consisting of the provincial head, the archbishop, bishop, or acting archbishop, the intendant (if there were one), the senior alcalde, the senior regidor, the syndic procurator-general, and two commoners (these last to be chosen by the others). One representative was to be chosen for each 60,000 people. (See the essential clauses of this decree in Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 406, 407.) On the same day was also decreed the creation of provincial deputations, of which one was specified for Manila. In this session of Cortes also, the reorganization of the audiencias was decreed, but the Philippine representative seems to have taken no part in the debate.↑7Trouble had arisen over the administration by the board of theobras piaswhich it was usual to loan out to those interested in the galleon trade.↑8These ordinances were unconstitutional because control of the hospice was vested in a board headed by the captain-general, while by the constitution such organizations were now to be controlled by the ayuntamientos and provincial deputations. The despatch regarding this matter was sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Ultramar, November 27, 1812.↑9On July 7, 1810, the governor of the Philippines proposed the suppression of the galleon, and requested permission for the inhabitants of the Philippines to ship goods in Spanish bottoms not in excess of 1,000,000 pesos. The suppression was resolved upon by the Cortes by article 3 of the decree of October 8, 1811, regarding commerce.↑10This decree (which is given by Montero y Vidal,Historia general, li, pp. 412, 413) states that the inhabitants of the Philippines may trade in Chinese and other Asiatic goods in private Spanish bottoms with the ports of Acapulco and San Blas in Nueva España, under the old terms of 500,000 pesos for the outgoing, and 1,000,000 pesos for the return voyage. If the port of Acapulco be closed, they may trade at Sonsonate. For four years the lower rates of duties granted by Cárlos IV by decree of October, 1806, are continued. Boletas, or tickets granting lading space, are to be furnished no longer.↑11In accordance with a royal order of June 17, commanding the representatives of the colonies to report the petitions pending, or which had not been moved, that had for their object the welfare of the colonies, Reyes petitioned the suppression of the Acapulco galleon; permission of 1,000,000 pesos for the outgoing, and 2,000,000 pesos for the return voyage; unlimited extension of the lower duties conceded October 4, 1806; one or two Peruvian ports open to the commerce of the islands; that natives of the islands be allowed to export goods in Spanish bottoms to any point of the Spanish monarchy free of export and import duties; trade on the northwest coast of America with Spaniards; and that the permission be conceded to bring back all unsold goods (in addition to the amount of imports allowed), on payment to the treasury of a 6 per cent duty. The answers to these requests were as follows: the Acapulco ship was suppressed by order of April 23, 1815; permission of export to the value of 750,000 pesos; the ports of Callao and Guayaquil thrown open to Philippine trade; traffic with the Spaniards on the northwest coast of America; permission to bring back unsold goods to the extent of one-third the amount of imports allowed, paying ten per cent duty for such excess; and free trade for Philippine products at any port of the monarchy in Spanish bottoms for ten years.↑12On the seventh he took the oath to observe the Constitution of 1812; and on the tenth, by a decree ordered the reëstablishment of the Secretaría del Despachó de la Gobernación[, the first acts of which were the promulgation of the Constitution of 1812,and the reëstablishment of all the organisms created by the Cortes of 1810–1813.↑13Apparently appointed by the Secretary of Ultramar. Their credentials were approved at the third preliminary meeting of July 5 or 6.↑14A general decree of October 5, 1820, ordered a uniform and general schedule of duties for the Peninsula and Ultramar; but this law was modified by another law of December 20, 1821, recognizing the impracticability of uniformity of duties for Spain and the colonies, and providing that the schedule be uniform except for the differences rendered necessary in the provinces of Ultramar.↑15The secretary of Hacienda considered the privileges of the company for the importation of cotton goods as unconstitutional and contrary to the prosperity of national manufactures. At the meeting of August 18, it developed that the company had transferred its monopoly to a foreign merchant of Cádiz. The company was allowed to present its argument, but the report of the committees on Commerce and Hacienda was adopted. Later the company presented a petition requesting the liquidation of the government’s indebtedness to it, the privilege of selling its stock of cotton goods, and various other concessions incident to the closing up of its affairs. This petition, sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Hacienda, was referred to the committee on Commerce on November 2. On the fifth, a petition was presented by the Philippine representatives and Gregorio Gonzales Azaolo, of Sevilla, asking that the prohibition of the importation of cotton goods should not affect the Philippines until the industry was developed or established in those islands. This petition having been referred to the committees on Commerce and Hacienda, their report on November 8 recommended the opening of the Oriental trade to all Spaniards trading in Spanish bottoms. This recommendation was embodied in article 3 of the decree of November 9, specifying the kinds of goods which Spanish ships trading by the Cape of Good Hope could introduce into Spain or Spanish America.↑16The decrees of theDiarios de las Cortesshow no decree of this date confirming a previous decree of March 7, 1820, granting exemption of duties for ten years on natural and industrial products of the Philippines, when imported in Spanish bottoms into the Peninsula, as declared by Montero y Vidal. The decree of December 21, 1820, providing for the abolition of the monopoly on tobacco and salt after March 1, 1821, and providing customs and consumption duties, seems not to have affected the Philippines.↑17In October, 1820, the preliminary board for the election of representatives was organized in Manila, but inasmuch as the elections were not held until after the Constitution had been sworn to in Manila in May, 1821 (and later in the provinces), no regularly-elected representatives were present at the second session.↑18Wrongly called a decree by Montero y Vidal. This order was addressed to the Secretary of War in answer to a question raised by the Council of War.↑19The special discussion arose over the item of 50,000 reals for missions and a note in the report reflecting on the native clergy in the Philippines. Some of the Americans, who were quite fully imbued with the free thought of the French philosophical school, declared for the suppression of the missionaries (meaning friars), inasmuch as they were useless and even harmful. The committee answered this by asserting that the missionaries in the Philippines were used by the government as civil and political agents, and that they did do much good work in their own legitimate line. The passage concerning the incapacity of the native clergy was meant to apply to the Philippines alone, but if desired it could be removed as it was not essential to the report. An American representative moved that the 50,000 reals be used in the establishment of normal schools in Ultramar. The Philippine representatives seem to have taken no part in the debate except that Camus y Herrera moved that the obnoxious clause concerning the Filipino clergy be stricken out. The report was accepted as read.↑20Each university was to have a public library, a drawing school, a chemical laboratory, cabinets of physics, natural history, and industrial products, another of models of machines, a botanical garden, and an experiment farm. The university to be established in Manila was to have theological and law courses for the doctorate. Manila was also to have a medical school, a school for veterinary medicine, a school of fine arts, and commercial and nautical schools. Professorships were to be filled by competition, and those for the Philippines were to be examined by persons designated by the Subdirection of Studies in Mexico. Girls were to be taught to read, write, and cipher; while the older female students were to be taught the work suitable to their sex. This matter of education for girls was left to the provincial deputations.↑21On the twenty-third there was a discussion as to the legality of the substitutes for the representatives of Ultramar being allowed to hold over; and it was finally declared that only those for the Philippines and Peru could sit during this session.↑22This exclusion was in accordance with a decision of the committee on Credentials handed in February 11, 1822, to the effect that government employes did not cease, to be such until their resignations were accepted by the government. Posada did not present his credentials at the meeting of February 15, declaring that they had been robbed with his baggage en route from Cádiz to Madrid. He did present them, however, at the next meeting of February 20. At the third and fourth preliminary meetings (February 22 and 24) the matter was debated, and he was excluded on the grounds of being still a government employe.↑23Foreman states wrongly (p. 362, ed. of 1906) that seventeen deputies were elected and sat during the Cortes of 1820–23, and he names eight of them. He may have confused the names of electors with those of representatives. The four elected (of whom only three are known) were perhaps elected for the districts of the archiepiscopal see and the three suffragan sees of the Philippines; although Montero y Vidal says that both Sáenz de Vizmanos and Posada were elected from Nueva Cáceres.↑24Although a provincial deputation had been organized in Manila in 1822, almost its only act was to petition (April 12, 1823) for more missionaries.↑25Fernando’s infant daughter, Isabel II, ascended the throne under the regency of her mother María Cristina. Through the efforts of the liberals, six important decrees were passed March 24, 1834: suppression of theConsejo de Estado, during the minority of the queen; suppression of theConsejos de Castillaandde Indias, in whose place was established aTribunal Superior de España é Indias; suppression of theConsejo Supremo de Guerra, and in its place the establishment of theTribunal Supremo de Guerra y Marina y de Extranjería; suppression of theConsejo Supremo de Hacienda, replacing it by aTribunal Supremo de Hacienda; an order to the Secretary of theDespacho de Gracia y Justiciato propose the new organization of theConsejo Real de las Ordenes; and the institution of aConsejo Real de España é Indiasto have general supervision of American and Philippine matters.↑26The first news of reform and the fact that the new Cortes were to be summoned was received unofficially at Manila by a United States ship sailing from Cádiz in June, 1834, and reaching Manila toward the end of the same year.↑27No provision was made in the third Cortes for substitute representation for Ultramar (except in the decree of August 21, 1836, calling a Cortes for October 24 under the rules of the Constitution of 1812), which is in point with the ignorance manifested throughout this period by the officials at Madrid with regard to the Philippines. This accounts for the islands having no representation for some of the sessions of the Cortes.↑28Andrés García Camba resided in Manila during 1825–35, and became so popular that he was elected a deputy to the Spanish Cortes; he was afterward (August, 1837–December, 1838) governor of the Philippines, and wrote a book (published at Cádiz, 1839) regarding his experiences while holding that office. Himself liberally inclined, he was constantly opposed by reactionary influences. Although his name does not appear in the pamphletFilipinas y su representación en Cortes, he is generally considered as its author; and he alludes to it in the memoir above mentioned. (Vindel,Cat. bib. filip., nos. 1881, 1886.)↑29Foreman says that Lecaros was a mestizo; and Montero y Vidal that he was a Filipino lawyer. The board of electors was mainly composed of peninsulars.↑30Camba proposed (Filipinas y su representación en Cortes, 1836) a special mode of election to Cortes for the Philippines, which was to be by the Manila Ayuntamiento, as that was the only political organization in the islands worth mentioning, and was in direct contact with affairs. The law to be adopted for Ultramar, Camba argued, must take into account the condition of the country and the inhabitants. During this session, the Philippine representatives presented two petitions to the Secretario, del Despacho de Hacienda, asking in one for a moderation of the excessive duties on the introduction of Spanish brandy into the Philippines, and in the other the sending of few pensioners and subaltern employes to the islands, as this was a prejudice to the native Philippine Spaniards. Lecaros presented a plan to Mendizábal, the provisional president of theConsejo de Ministros, for the suppression of the monopoly on tobacco in the Philippines, but Mendizábal took measures to make the monopoly more remunerative to the state. See Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii. pp. 554, 555, note.↑31He wroteMemoria sobre las Islas Filipinas(Valencia, 1842).↑32July 31, 1837, the new commercial treaty made September 22, 1836, between the governor of the Philippines and the sultan of Joló was referred to the committees on State and Commerce, was reported on favorably on October 4, and was accordingly approved on the twelfth of October. This treaty stipulated that every three-masted schooner porting at Joló with Chinese passengers from Manila was to pay 2,000 pesos fuertes, and lesser boats in proportion to their size. As the most important cargo ever sent to Joló from Manila never exceeded 2,500 pesos in value, it is hard to see the value of this treaty so greatly lauded in Madrid. No Joloan vessels went to Manila. In this matter the officials showed a woful ignorance of the Philippines, the minister of the navy stating that all vessels stopped at Joló on their way to the Philippines. This treaty, as well as the one made by the governor of Zamboanga with the chief of Maluso near Basilan, only made the Moros bolder in their piracy. See Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 557–560.↑33On May 25, 1869, an amendment was presented by Julián Pellón y Rodriguez in the Spanish Cortes demanding that parliamentary representation be granted to Filipinas. Among the signers to this amendment were Victor Balaguer and Francisco Javier Moya. (Vindel,Cat. bib. filip., no. 1883.)↑

1The Cortes, as first known by the Spaniards, contained three divisions, the three estates; the ones called in the three periods above-mentioned had but one chamber; the present Cortes contains two houses, the senate and the congress or house of deputies or representatives. The senate consists of three divisions: senators in their own right (the heir presumptive, the grandees, archbishops, etc.; life senators appointed by the crown; and those elected by the people, half of whom are removable every five years. Members to the lower house are elected for five years by electors chosen by the people. No Cortes was held from 1713–1789, and from the latter year until 1810.↑

2For a good account of this period in Spain, which was one of great confusion, see E. W. Latimer’sSpain in the nineteenth century(Chicago, 1898, 3d ed.) The machinations of Napoleon and the other events leading up to the establishment of the Cortes of 1810–1813 are well and concisely narrated. See also Hume,Modern Spain(New York, 1900).↑

3The latter, indeed, was granted permission (January 4, 1811) to go to Veracruz for his health; and on July 22, 1811, permission was given to the former to go to the Philippines on private business, although he was later forbidden to leave until the return of his colleague, as his absence before that time would leave the Philippines without representation. The request was renewed on the arrival of Reyes (December 6, 1811), and on the latter’s assumption of his seat (December 9), Perez de Tagle was allowed to leave. On September 19, 1813, a discourse was pronounced at Manila by José de Vergara, “deputy-elect for the province of Manila to the general Cortes,” and published in that year at Sampaloc. The election of deputies in that year was regulated by a junta composed of Governor Gardoqui, Archbishop Juan de Zúñiga, Manuel Díaz Condé, and three others; one of their decisions exempted the very poor in the community from contributing to the fund raised for paying the traveling and other expenses of the deputies to the Cortes. (Vindel,Catálogo biblioteca filipina, nos. 1874, 1875.)↑

4Such were the decree of October 5, 1810, confirming the essential unity and equality of all parts of the Spanish domain; the abolition of the quicksilver monopoly, January 26, 1811; the provisional creation of aConsejo de Estadoto consist of twenty members (six from Ultramar), on January 21, 1812, although the constitution (adopted March 18, 1812) called for one with forty members (twelve from Ultramar): the creation of theSecretaría del Despacho de la Gobernación de Ultramar(April 2, 1812), and the establishment of theTribunal Supremo de Justicia, and the suppression of theConsejos de Castilla, Indias, andHacienda(all of them provided for in the constitution); and the suppression of the Inquisition (February 22, 1813). The law of November 9, 1813, abolishing personal services for Indians and regulating public works, seems to have been intended only for America.↑

5February 20, 1812, was the last meeting on the island of León, the Cortes assembling on the twenty-fourth at the church of San Felipe Neri, at Cádiz.↑

6The method of election for the Cortes of 1813 (decree of May 23, 1812) provided for a preliminary election board for each colonial province consisting of the provincial head, the archbishop, bishop, or acting archbishop, the intendant (if there were one), the senior alcalde, the senior regidor, the syndic procurator-general, and two commoners (these last to be chosen by the others). One representative was to be chosen for each 60,000 people. (See the essential clauses of this decree in Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 406, 407.) On the same day was also decreed the creation of provincial deputations, of which one was specified for Manila. In this session of Cortes also, the reorganization of the audiencias was decreed, but the Philippine representative seems to have taken no part in the debate.↑

7Trouble had arisen over the administration by the board of theobras piaswhich it was usual to loan out to those interested in the galleon trade.↑

8These ordinances were unconstitutional because control of the hospice was vested in a board headed by the captain-general, while by the constitution such organizations were now to be controlled by the ayuntamientos and provincial deputations. The despatch regarding this matter was sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Ultramar, November 27, 1812.↑

9On July 7, 1810, the governor of the Philippines proposed the suppression of the galleon, and requested permission for the inhabitants of the Philippines to ship goods in Spanish bottoms not in excess of 1,000,000 pesos. The suppression was resolved upon by the Cortes by article 3 of the decree of October 8, 1811, regarding commerce.↑

10This decree (which is given by Montero y Vidal,Historia general, li, pp. 412, 413) states that the inhabitants of the Philippines may trade in Chinese and other Asiatic goods in private Spanish bottoms with the ports of Acapulco and San Blas in Nueva España, under the old terms of 500,000 pesos for the outgoing, and 1,000,000 pesos for the return voyage. If the port of Acapulco be closed, they may trade at Sonsonate. For four years the lower rates of duties granted by Cárlos IV by decree of October, 1806, are continued. Boletas, or tickets granting lading space, are to be furnished no longer.↑

11In accordance with a royal order of June 17, commanding the representatives of the colonies to report the petitions pending, or which had not been moved, that had for their object the welfare of the colonies, Reyes petitioned the suppression of the Acapulco galleon; permission of 1,000,000 pesos for the outgoing, and 2,000,000 pesos for the return voyage; unlimited extension of the lower duties conceded October 4, 1806; one or two Peruvian ports open to the commerce of the islands; that natives of the islands be allowed to export goods in Spanish bottoms to any point of the Spanish monarchy free of export and import duties; trade on the northwest coast of America with Spaniards; and that the permission be conceded to bring back all unsold goods (in addition to the amount of imports allowed), on payment to the treasury of a 6 per cent duty. The answers to these requests were as follows: the Acapulco ship was suppressed by order of April 23, 1815; permission of export to the value of 750,000 pesos; the ports of Callao and Guayaquil thrown open to Philippine trade; traffic with the Spaniards on the northwest coast of America; permission to bring back unsold goods to the extent of one-third the amount of imports allowed, paying ten per cent duty for such excess; and free trade for Philippine products at any port of the monarchy in Spanish bottoms for ten years.↑

12On the seventh he took the oath to observe the Constitution of 1812; and on the tenth, by a decree ordered the reëstablishment of the Secretaría del Despachó de la Gobernación[, the first acts of which were the promulgation of the Constitution of 1812,and the reëstablishment of all the organisms created by the Cortes of 1810–1813.↑

13Apparently appointed by the Secretary of Ultramar. Their credentials were approved at the third preliminary meeting of July 5 or 6.↑

14A general decree of October 5, 1820, ordered a uniform and general schedule of duties for the Peninsula and Ultramar; but this law was modified by another law of December 20, 1821, recognizing the impracticability of uniformity of duties for Spain and the colonies, and providing that the schedule be uniform except for the differences rendered necessary in the provinces of Ultramar.↑

15The secretary of Hacienda considered the privileges of the company for the importation of cotton goods as unconstitutional and contrary to the prosperity of national manufactures. At the meeting of August 18, it developed that the company had transferred its monopoly to a foreign merchant of Cádiz. The company was allowed to present its argument, but the report of the committees on Commerce and Hacienda was adopted. Later the company presented a petition requesting the liquidation of the government’s indebtedness to it, the privilege of selling its stock of cotton goods, and various other concessions incident to the closing up of its affairs. This petition, sent to the Cortes by the secretary of Hacienda, was referred to the committee on Commerce on November 2. On the fifth, a petition was presented by the Philippine representatives and Gregorio Gonzales Azaolo, of Sevilla, asking that the prohibition of the importation of cotton goods should not affect the Philippines until the industry was developed or established in those islands. This petition having been referred to the committees on Commerce and Hacienda, their report on November 8 recommended the opening of the Oriental trade to all Spaniards trading in Spanish bottoms. This recommendation was embodied in article 3 of the decree of November 9, specifying the kinds of goods which Spanish ships trading by the Cape of Good Hope could introduce into Spain or Spanish America.↑

16The decrees of theDiarios de las Cortesshow no decree of this date confirming a previous decree of March 7, 1820, granting exemption of duties for ten years on natural and industrial products of the Philippines, when imported in Spanish bottoms into the Peninsula, as declared by Montero y Vidal. The decree of December 21, 1820, providing for the abolition of the monopoly on tobacco and salt after March 1, 1821, and providing customs and consumption duties, seems not to have affected the Philippines.↑

17In October, 1820, the preliminary board for the election of representatives was organized in Manila, but inasmuch as the elections were not held until after the Constitution had been sworn to in Manila in May, 1821 (and later in the provinces), no regularly-elected representatives were present at the second session.↑

18Wrongly called a decree by Montero y Vidal. This order was addressed to the Secretary of War in answer to a question raised by the Council of War.↑

19The special discussion arose over the item of 50,000 reals for missions and a note in the report reflecting on the native clergy in the Philippines. Some of the Americans, who were quite fully imbued with the free thought of the French philosophical school, declared for the suppression of the missionaries (meaning friars), inasmuch as they were useless and even harmful. The committee answered this by asserting that the missionaries in the Philippines were used by the government as civil and political agents, and that they did do much good work in their own legitimate line. The passage concerning the incapacity of the native clergy was meant to apply to the Philippines alone, but if desired it could be removed as it was not essential to the report. An American representative moved that the 50,000 reals be used in the establishment of normal schools in Ultramar. The Philippine representatives seem to have taken no part in the debate except that Camus y Herrera moved that the obnoxious clause concerning the Filipino clergy be stricken out. The report was accepted as read.↑

20Each university was to have a public library, a drawing school, a chemical laboratory, cabinets of physics, natural history, and industrial products, another of models of machines, a botanical garden, and an experiment farm. The university to be established in Manila was to have theological and law courses for the doctorate. Manila was also to have a medical school, a school for veterinary medicine, a school of fine arts, and commercial and nautical schools. Professorships were to be filled by competition, and those for the Philippines were to be examined by persons designated by the Subdirection of Studies in Mexico. Girls were to be taught to read, write, and cipher; while the older female students were to be taught the work suitable to their sex. This matter of education for girls was left to the provincial deputations.↑

21On the twenty-third there was a discussion as to the legality of the substitutes for the representatives of Ultramar being allowed to hold over; and it was finally declared that only those for the Philippines and Peru could sit during this session.↑

22This exclusion was in accordance with a decision of the committee on Credentials handed in February 11, 1822, to the effect that government employes did not cease, to be such until their resignations were accepted by the government. Posada did not present his credentials at the meeting of February 15, declaring that they had been robbed with his baggage en route from Cádiz to Madrid. He did present them, however, at the next meeting of February 20. At the third and fourth preliminary meetings (February 22 and 24) the matter was debated, and he was excluded on the grounds of being still a government employe.↑

23Foreman states wrongly (p. 362, ed. of 1906) that seventeen deputies were elected and sat during the Cortes of 1820–23, and he names eight of them. He may have confused the names of electors with those of representatives. The four elected (of whom only three are known) were perhaps elected for the districts of the archiepiscopal see and the three suffragan sees of the Philippines; although Montero y Vidal says that both Sáenz de Vizmanos and Posada were elected from Nueva Cáceres.↑

24Although a provincial deputation had been organized in Manila in 1822, almost its only act was to petition (April 12, 1823) for more missionaries.↑

25Fernando’s infant daughter, Isabel II, ascended the throne under the regency of her mother María Cristina. Through the efforts of the liberals, six important decrees were passed March 24, 1834: suppression of theConsejo de Estado, during the minority of the queen; suppression of theConsejos de Castillaandde Indias, in whose place was established aTribunal Superior de España é Indias; suppression of theConsejo Supremo de Guerra, and in its place the establishment of theTribunal Supremo de Guerra y Marina y de Extranjería; suppression of theConsejo Supremo de Hacienda, replacing it by aTribunal Supremo de Hacienda; an order to the Secretary of theDespacho de Gracia y Justiciato propose the new organization of theConsejo Real de las Ordenes; and the institution of aConsejo Real de España é Indiasto have general supervision of American and Philippine matters.↑

26The first news of reform and the fact that the new Cortes were to be summoned was received unofficially at Manila by a United States ship sailing from Cádiz in June, 1834, and reaching Manila toward the end of the same year.↑

27No provision was made in the third Cortes for substitute representation for Ultramar (except in the decree of August 21, 1836, calling a Cortes for October 24 under the rules of the Constitution of 1812), which is in point with the ignorance manifested throughout this period by the officials at Madrid with regard to the Philippines. This accounts for the islands having no representation for some of the sessions of the Cortes.↑

28Andrés García Camba resided in Manila during 1825–35, and became so popular that he was elected a deputy to the Spanish Cortes; he was afterward (August, 1837–December, 1838) governor of the Philippines, and wrote a book (published at Cádiz, 1839) regarding his experiences while holding that office. Himself liberally inclined, he was constantly opposed by reactionary influences. Although his name does not appear in the pamphletFilipinas y su representación en Cortes, he is generally considered as its author; and he alludes to it in the memoir above mentioned. (Vindel,Cat. bib. filip., nos. 1881, 1886.)↑

29Foreman says that Lecaros was a mestizo; and Montero y Vidal that he was a Filipino lawyer. The board of electors was mainly composed of peninsulars.↑

30Camba proposed (Filipinas y su representación en Cortes, 1836) a special mode of election to Cortes for the Philippines, which was to be by the Manila Ayuntamiento, as that was the only political organization in the islands worth mentioning, and was in direct contact with affairs. The law to be adopted for Ultramar, Camba argued, must take into account the condition of the country and the inhabitants. During this session, the Philippine representatives presented two petitions to the Secretario, del Despacho de Hacienda, asking in one for a moderation of the excessive duties on the introduction of Spanish brandy into the Philippines, and in the other the sending of few pensioners and subaltern employes to the islands, as this was a prejudice to the native Philippine Spaniards. Lecaros presented a plan to Mendizábal, the provisional president of theConsejo de Ministros, for the suppression of the monopoly on tobacco in the Philippines, but Mendizábal took measures to make the monopoly more remunerative to the state. See Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii. pp. 554, 555, note.↑

31He wroteMemoria sobre las Islas Filipinas(Valencia, 1842).↑

32July 31, 1837, the new commercial treaty made September 22, 1836, between the governor of the Philippines and the sultan of Joló was referred to the committees on State and Commerce, was reported on favorably on October 4, and was accordingly approved on the twelfth of October. This treaty stipulated that every three-masted schooner porting at Joló with Chinese passengers from Manila was to pay 2,000 pesos fuertes, and lesser boats in proportion to their size. As the most important cargo ever sent to Joló from Manila never exceeded 2,500 pesos in value, it is hard to see the value of this treaty so greatly lauded in Madrid. No Joloan vessels went to Manila. In this matter the officials showed a woful ignorance of the Philippines, the minister of the navy stating that all vessels stopped at Joló on their way to the Philippines. This treaty, as well as the one made by the governor of Zamboanga with the chief of Maluso near Basilan, only made the Moros bolder in their piracy. See Montero y Vidal,Historia general, ii, pp. 557–560.↑

33On May 25, 1869, an amendment was presented by Julián Pellón y Rodriguez in the Spanish Cortes demanding that parliamentary representation be granted to Filipinas. Among the signers to this amendment were Victor Balaguer and Francisco Javier Moya. (Vindel,Cat. bib. filip., no. 1883.)↑

Back to IndexNext