1Del-Pan considers the ordinances of Corcuera and Cruzat much superior to those of Raón. (See his introduction, p. 20.) These ordinances (only 1–38) are synopsized very briefly by Montero y Vidal,Historia general, i, pp. 380–385.As here presented, the ordinances are translated partly in full and partly in synopsis, the latter indicated by brackets.↑2The leaders indicate that the text is illegible or lacking, becauseof the poor condition of the MS. (See Del-Pan, p. 117, note).↑3Crawfurd calls attention (Dict. Indian Islands, p. 345) to the resemblance between the Philippine barangay and “our Anglo-Saxon tithings and hundreds.”On the civic administration of Philippine communities, see appendix in Jagor’sReisen, pp. 298–302.↑4The Tagálog equivalent ofpolla, a chicken or young hen.↑5Filipinos who serve as domestic servants.↑6Noceda and Sanlucar’s TagálogVocabulariodefinescasonóas “a servant or companion who lives at home;” but it does not contain the wordbilitao. This apparently is compounded frombili, “to buy, or sell,” andtauoortao, “man.”↑7At this point the ordinances proper of Corcuera, revised by Cruzat, end. The revision was signed by Cruzat at Manila, October1, 1696; and he orders alcaldes, chief justices, corregidors, and war captains, to obey strictly all of the regulations contained in it, under penalty of the punishments and fines mentioned therein. A copy of the ordinances is to be sent to each official, and a certified copy in triplicate to the supreme Council of the Indies. The following ordinances (39–61) are in the form of decrees of the Manila government or of royal decrees, and contain many orders quite foreign to the mission of provincial chiefs, and, consequently, out of place in the ordinances. The last one is of the time of Raón (1766), who in 1768 revised the ordinances of Arandía. (See Del-Pan’s introduction, p. 22, and p. 153 of the ordinances of Corcuera and Cruzat.)↑8Noceda’s (also Santos’s) TagálogVocabulariogivescompra(Spanish, meaning “purchase”) as the equivalent of the native wordbandala, meaning a compulsory purchase by the government of rice or other products from the natives, who evidently adopted the Spanish word directly. (SeeVol. XLVII, p. 119.)↑9These ordinances are published also inAutos acordados(Manila, 1861), i, pp. 29–71; and in Rodriguez San Pedro’sColección legislativa, i, p. 245.↑10When the ordinances were printed in 1801, the superiors of three of the religious orders immediately petitioned for the revocation of ordinances 16, 18, and 46, because they contained ideas injurious to the ecclesiastical estate. (Del-Pan, in his introduction, p. 7.)↑11This decree was registered in the accountancy-mayor of the royal tribunal and Audiencia of accounts in Manila, September 16, 1801; in the accountancy of the royal treasury of Manila, September 18; and in the secretary’s office of the royal Audiencia, September 23. Since only a simple copy of the ordinances existed in the secretary’s office, the secretary asked the governor to order the castellan of Cavite to send an attested copy in case he possessed one. The governor issued such an order September 7, which was complied with on the twelfth, the receipt of which is noted by the secretary on November 5.↑12The ordinances of Governor Pedro Manuel de Arandía were formulated in 1758, but no copy of them is known to exist. The ordinances of Raón were formulated for the purpose of revising them, and had it not been for the castellan of Cavite, it is to befeared that no authorized copy of them would be in existence. (Del-Pan, in his introduction to the ordinances, p. 7.)↑13A considerable number of these requests for such exemption are discussed in Viana’sRespuestas; sometimes this privilege was granted, and sometimes it was refused.In March, 1765, the natives of Tayabas petitioned for exemption for that year from the annualbandalaof oil levied on them. Viana recommends (Respuestas, fol. III v) that this be granted, but that the amount due from Tayabas be levied on other provinces in proportion to theirproductionof oil.↑14Ordinance no. 51, it is to be noted, is only against brandy made from sugarcane; and the use of and traffic in other brandy was allowed and even stimulated. (Del-Pan, in his introduction, p. 17.)↑15This is the “Zamboanga donation,” made by the Indians for the maintenance of the fort there (see VOL. XLVII, pp. 119, 120). In 1765, the regular situado for Zamboanga was 15,975 pesos (Viana,Respuestas, fol. 111).↑16“By royal order of September 21, 1797, issued in virtue of anexpedientewhich, in the preceding year, gave full information in regard to the tenor of article 53 of the ‘Ordinances of good government,’ his Majesty decreed that ‘the privilege of the Indians to enjoy freely the use of the lands, waters, and pastures which they need for their tillage and stock-raising, ought to be understood to be limited to the lands (joining and close to their villages) which are or may be assigned to them, the rest of the land remaining subject to the rules that have been established for the sale and adjustment of the crown lands. And in order to avoid the abuses which are committed, under the pretext of the Indians’ privileges, in the leasing of the lands within the boundary of the villages, this will not be tolerated hereafter; but the lands assignedto the villages must be cultivated invariably by the Indians in their own villages.’ ” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 353, 354.)↑17In April, 1765, the royal engineer Gomez asked that the churches of San Anton, Dilao, San Lazaro, and the Parián be demolished, as dangerous to the safety of the city in case they should fall into the possession of enemies; also the houses of bamboo and nipa, “which have extended up to the esplanades of Puerta Real and the Parián.” Viana seconds this (Respuestas, fol. 119–121), and adds to the list the churches of Malate, La Hermita, San Miguel and others; he cites fromRecop. de Indiasthe law forbidding any edifice within three hundred paces of the walls. He also advocates the removal of the aforesaid houses, and the formation of new villages, with a careful and regular arrangement of streets and houses, the inhabitants being placed therein according to theiroccupations—each guild [gremio] being aligned to a certain street; this would also enable the authorities to drive out all miscreants, collect the tributes to better advantage, and preserve order and justice. On March 22, 1765, Viana recommended to the Audiencia (Respuestas, fol. 106v, 107) that the open country from Bagumbayan to La Hermita be cleared of everything thereon, no matter how light or combustible it might be, within the space of one month; and that the natives in the village of Santiago be transferred to La Hermita, or to any other of the neighboring communities, and dwelling-places be assigned to them from the communal lands of those villages, in recompense for the homes taken from them in Santiago.↑18In 1838, the Spanish government considered seriously the formulation of some new ordinances of good government for the Philippines, the commission for the same being given to Señor Otin y Duazo, a member of the royal Audiencia. The motives for this are thus given in the memorial of the above, as follows: “The attention of your Excellency has been justly called to the confusion and irregularity with which the alcaldes-mayor proceed in their government of these provinces, for the want of a uniform and general statute to serve as a standard in the performance of their duties; since the ordinances promulgated in 1768 have become entirely extinct through the abuses and vicious practices introduced by greed, caprice, or the indolence of the subordinates entrusted with their observance, and through the reforms rendered necessary by lapse of time and experience.” It is not known that Otin y Duazo ever drew up any ordinances. Seven years later, another lawyer, Señor Umeres, drew up a new project for ordinances of good government, in 252 articles. These ordinances contain many good matters, but cannot properly be called ordinances ofgood government. They contain matter on the following: general instructions to the provincial chiefs, similar to that circulated in Spain by Francisco Javier de Burgos in 1634, entitledInstruccion á los Subdelegados de Fomento, containing general principles and a true plan of administration; a letter from the vice-patron to the diocesan prelates and to the superiors of the orders, concerning the relations of the parish priests with the administration; regulations of the native municipality, detailing the form of the elections and the duties of pedáneos, lieutenants, cabezas de barangay, and other purely local agents; regulations concerning the order and security in the villages, comprising restrictive clauses regarding gambling and vagrancy; regulations on the city policy; regulations concerning the polos, personal services, and other duties imposed by the local administration; and regulations concerning primary instruction, agriculture, stockraising, internal trade (treating of weights and measures, transportation, etc.). (See Del-Pan’s introduction, pp. 35–37.)↑
1Del-Pan considers the ordinances of Corcuera and Cruzat much superior to those of Raón. (See his introduction, p. 20.) These ordinances (only 1–38) are synopsized very briefly by Montero y Vidal,Historia general, i, pp. 380–385.As here presented, the ordinances are translated partly in full and partly in synopsis, the latter indicated by brackets.↑2The leaders indicate that the text is illegible or lacking, becauseof the poor condition of the MS. (See Del-Pan, p. 117, note).↑3Crawfurd calls attention (Dict. Indian Islands, p. 345) to the resemblance between the Philippine barangay and “our Anglo-Saxon tithings and hundreds.”On the civic administration of Philippine communities, see appendix in Jagor’sReisen, pp. 298–302.↑4The Tagálog equivalent ofpolla, a chicken or young hen.↑5Filipinos who serve as domestic servants.↑6Noceda and Sanlucar’s TagálogVocabulariodefinescasonóas “a servant or companion who lives at home;” but it does not contain the wordbilitao. This apparently is compounded frombili, “to buy, or sell,” andtauoortao, “man.”↑7At this point the ordinances proper of Corcuera, revised by Cruzat, end. The revision was signed by Cruzat at Manila, October1, 1696; and he orders alcaldes, chief justices, corregidors, and war captains, to obey strictly all of the regulations contained in it, under penalty of the punishments and fines mentioned therein. A copy of the ordinances is to be sent to each official, and a certified copy in triplicate to the supreme Council of the Indies. The following ordinances (39–61) are in the form of decrees of the Manila government or of royal decrees, and contain many orders quite foreign to the mission of provincial chiefs, and, consequently, out of place in the ordinances. The last one is of the time of Raón (1766), who in 1768 revised the ordinances of Arandía. (See Del-Pan’s introduction, p. 22, and p. 153 of the ordinances of Corcuera and Cruzat.)↑8Noceda’s (also Santos’s) TagálogVocabulariogivescompra(Spanish, meaning “purchase”) as the equivalent of the native wordbandala, meaning a compulsory purchase by the government of rice or other products from the natives, who evidently adopted the Spanish word directly. (SeeVol. XLVII, p. 119.)↑9These ordinances are published also inAutos acordados(Manila, 1861), i, pp. 29–71; and in Rodriguez San Pedro’sColección legislativa, i, p. 245.↑10When the ordinances were printed in 1801, the superiors of three of the religious orders immediately petitioned for the revocation of ordinances 16, 18, and 46, because they contained ideas injurious to the ecclesiastical estate. (Del-Pan, in his introduction, p. 7.)↑11This decree was registered in the accountancy-mayor of the royal tribunal and Audiencia of accounts in Manila, September 16, 1801; in the accountancy of the royal treasury of Manila, September 18; and in the secretary’s office of the royal Audiencia, September 23. Since only a simple copy of the ordinances existed in the secretary’s office, the secretary asked the governor to order the castellan of Cavite to send an attested copy in case he possessed one. The governor issued such an order September 7, which was complied with on the twelfth, the receipt of which is noted by the secretary on November 5.↑12The ordinances of Governor Pedro Manuel de Arandía were formulated in 1758, but no copy of them is known to exist. The ordinances of Raón were formulated for the purpose of revising them, and had it not been for the castellan of Cavite, it is to befeared that no authorized copy of them would be in existence. (Del-Pan, in his introduction to the ordinances, p. 7.)↑13A considerable number of these requests for such exemption are discussed in Viana’sRespuestas; sometimes this privilege was granted, and sometimes it was refused.In March, 1765, the natives of Tayabas petitioned for exemption for that year from the annualbandalaof oil levied on them. Viana recommends (Respuestas, fol. III v) that this be granted, but that the amount due from Tayabas be levied on other provinces in proportion to theirproductionof oil.↑14Ordinance no. 51, it is to be noted, is only against brandy made from sugarcane; and the use of and traffic in other brandy was allowed and even stimulated. (Del-Pan, in his introduction, p. 17.)↑15This is the “Zamboanga donation,” made by the Indians for the maintenance of the fort there (see VOL. XLVII, pp. 119, 120). In 1765, the regular situado for Zamboanga was 15,975 pesos (Viana,Respuestas, fol. 111).↑16“By royal order of September 21, 1797, issued in virtue of anexpedientewhich, in the preceding year, gave full information in regard to the tenor of article 53 of the ‘Ordinances of good government,’ his Majesty decreed that ‘the privilege of the Indians to enjoy freely the use of the lands, waters, and pastures which they need for their tillage and stock-raising, ought to be understood to be limited to the lands (joining and close to their villages) which are or may be assigned to them, the rest of the land remaining subject to the rules that have been established for the sale and adjustment of the crown lands. And in order to avoid the abuses which are committed, under the pretext of the Indians’ privileges, in the leasing of the lands within the boundary of the villages, this will not be tolerated hereafter; but the lands assignedto the villages must be cultivated invariably by the Indians in their own villages.’ ” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 353, 354.)↑17In April, 1765, the royal engineer Gomez asked that the churches of San Anton, Dilao, San Lazaro, and the Parián be demolished, as dangerous to the safety of the city in case they should fall into the possession of enemies; also the houses of bamboo and nipa, “which have extended up to the esplanades of Puerta Real and the Parián.” Viana seconds this (Respuestas, fol. 119–121), and adds to the list the churches of Malate, La Hermita, San Miguel and others; he cites fromRecop. de Indiasthe law forbidding any edifice within three hundred paces of the walls. He also advocates the removal of the aforesaid houses, and the formation of new villages, with a careful and regular arrangement of streets and houses, the inhabitants being placed therein according to theiroccupations—each guild [gremio] being aligned to a certain street; this would also enable the authorities to drive out all miscreants, collect the tributes to better advantage, and preserve order and justice. On March 22, 1765, Viana recommended to the Audiencia (Respuestas, fol. 106v, 107) that the open country from Bagumbayan to La Hermita be cleared of everything thereon, no matter how light or combustible it might be, within the space of one month; and that the natives in the village of Santiago be transferred to La Hermita, or to any other of the neighboring communities, and dwelling-places be assigned to them from the communal lands of those villages, in recompense for the homes taken from them in Santiago.↑18In 1838, the Spanish government considered seriously the formulation of some new ordinances of good government for the Philippines, the commission for the same being given to Señor Otin y Duazo, a member of the royal Audiencia. The motives for this are thus given in the memorial of the above, as follows: “The attention of your Excellency has been justly called to the confusion and irregularity with which the alcaldes-mayor proceed in their government of these provinces, for the want of a uniform and general statute to serve as a standard in the performance of their duties; since the ordinances promulgated in 1768 have become entirely extinct through the abuses and vicious practices introduced by greed, caprice, or the indolence of the subordinates entrusted with their observance, and through the reforms rendered necessary by lapse of time and experience.” It is not known that Otin y Duazo ever drew up any ordinances. Seven years later, another lawyer, Señor Umeres, drew up a new project for ordinances of good government, in 252 articles. These ordinances contain many good matters, but cannot properly be called ordinances ofgood government. They contain matter on the following: general instructions to the provincial chiefs, similar to that circulated in Spain by Francisco Javier de Burgos in 1634, entitledInstruccion á los Subdelegados de Fomento, containing general principles and a true plan of administration; a letter from the vice-patron to the diocesan prelates and to the superiors of the orders, concerning the relations of the parish priests with the administration; regulations of the native municipality, detailing the form of the elections and the duties of pedáneos, lieutenants, cabezas de barangay, and other purely local agents; regulations concerning the order and security in the villages, comprising restrictive clauses regarding gambling and vagrancy; regulations on the city policy; regulations concerning the polos, personal services, and other duties imposed by the local administration; and regulations concerning primary instruction, agriculture, stockraising, internal trade (treating of weights and measures, transportation, etc.). (See Del-Pan’s introduction, pp. 35–37.)↑
1Del-Pan considers the ordinances of Corcuera and Cruzat much superior to those of Raón. (See his introduction, p. 20.) These ordinances (only 1–38) are synopsized very briefly by Montero y Vidal,Historia general, i, pp. 380–385.As here presented, the ordinances are translated partly in full and partly in synopsis, the latter indicated by brackets.↑2The leaders indicate that the text is illegible or lacking, becauseof the poor condition of the MS. (See Del-Pan, p. 117, note).↑3Crawfurd calls attention (Dict. Indian Islands, p. 345) to the resemblance between the Philippine barangay and “our Anglo-Saxon tithings and hundreds.”On the civic administration of Philippine communities, see appendix in Jagor’sReisen, pp. 298–302.↑4The Tagálog equivalent ofpolla, a chicken or young hen.↑5Filipinos who serve as domestic servants.↑6Noceda and Sanlucar’s TagálogVocabulariodefinescasonóas “a servant or companion who lives at home;” but it does not contain the wordbilitao. This apparently is compounded frombili, “to buy, or sell,” andtauoortao, “man.”↑7At this point the ordinances proper of Corcuera, revised by Cruzat, end. The revision was signed by Cruzat at Manila, October1, 1696; and he orders alcaldes, chief justices, corregidors, and war captains, to obey strictly all of the regulations contained in it, under penalty of the punishments and fines mentioned therein. A copy of the ordinances is to be sent to each official, and a certified copy in triplicate to the supreme Council of the Indies. The following ordinances (39–61) are in the form of decrees of the Manila government or of royal decrees, and contain many orders quite foreign to the mission of provincial chiefs, and, consequently, out of place in the ordinances. The last one is of the time of Raón (1766), who in 1768 revised the ordinances of Arandía. (See Del-Pan’s introduction, p. 22, and p. 153 of the ordinances of Corcuera and Cruzat.)↑8Noceda’s (also Santos’s) TagálogVocabulariogivescompra(Spanish, meaning “purchase”) as the equivalent of the native wordbandala, meaning a compulsory purchase by the government of rice or other products from the natives, who evidently adopted the Spanish word directly. (SeeVol. XLVII, p. 119.)↑9These ordinances are published also inAutos acordados(Manila, 1861), i, pp. 29–71; and in Rodriguez San Pedro’sColección legislativa, i, p. 245.↑10When the ordinances were printed in 1801, the superiors of three of the religious orders immediately petitioned for the revocation of ordinances 16, 18, and 46, because they contained ideas injurious to the ecclesiastical estate. (Del-Pan, in his introduction, p. 7.)↑11This decree was registered in the accountancy-mayor of the royal tribunal and Audiencia of accounts in Manila, September 16, 1801; in the accountancy of the royal treasury of Manila, September 18; and in the secretary’s office of the royal Audiencia, September 23. Since only a simple copy of the ordinances existed in the secretary’s office, the secretary asked the governor to order the castellan of Cavite to send an attested copy in case he possessed one. The governor issued such an order September 7, which was complied with on the twelfth, the receipt of which is noted by the secretary on November 5.↑12The ordinances of Governor Pedro Manuel de Arandía were formulated in 1758, but no copy of them is known to exist. The ordinances of Raón were formulated for the purpose of revising them, and had it not been for the castellan of Cavite, it is to befeared that no authorized copy of them would be in existence. (Del-Pan, in his introduction to the ordinances, p. 7.)↑13A considerable number of these requests for such exemption are discussed in Viana’sRespuestas; sometimes this privilege was granted, and sometimes it was refused.In March, 1765, the natives of Tayabas petitioned for exemption for that year from the annualbandalaof oil levied on them. Viana recommends (Respuestas, fol. III v) that this be granted, but that the amount due from Tayabas be levied on other provinces in proportion to theirproductionof oil.↑14Ordinance no. 51, it is to be noted, is only against brandy made from sugarcane; and the use of and traffic in other brandy was allowed and even stimulated. (Del-Pan, in his introduction, p. 17.)↑15This is the “Zamboanga donation,” made by the Indians for the maintenance of the fort there (see VOL. XLVII, pp. 119, 120). In 1765, the regular situado for Zamboanga was 15,975 pesos (Viana,Respuestas, fol. 111).↑16“By royal order of September 21, 1797, issued in virtue of anexpedientewhich, in the preceding year, gave full information in regard to the tenor of article 53 of the ‘Ordinances of good government,’ his Majesty decreed that ‘the privilege of the Indians to enjoy freely the use of the lands, waters, and pastures which they need for their tillage and stock-raising, ought to be understood to be limited to the lands (joining and close to their villages) which are or may be assigned to them, the rest of the land remaining subject to the rules that have been established for the sale and adjustment of the crown lands. And in order to avoid the abuses which are committed, under the pretext of the Indians’ privileges, in the leasing of the lands within the boundary of the villages, this will not be tolerated hereafter; but the lands assignedto the villages must be cultivated invariably by the Indians in their own villages.’ ” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 353, 354.)↑17In April, 1765, the royal engineer Gomez asked that the churches of San Anton, Dilao, San Lazaro, and the Parián be demolished, as dangerous to the safety of the city in case they should fall into the possession of enemies; also the houses of bamboo and nipa, “which have extended up to the esplanades of Puerta Real and the Parián.” Viana seconds this (Respuestas, fol. 119–121), and adds to the list the churches of Malate, La Hermita, San Miguel and others; he cites fromRecop. de Indiasthe law forbidding any edifice within three hundred paces of the walls. He also advocates the removal of the aforesaid houses, and the formation of new villages, with a careful and regular arrangement of streets and houses, the inhabitants being placed therein according to theiroccupations—each guild [gremio] being aligned to a certain street; this would also enable the authorities to drive out all miscreants, collect the tributes to better advantage, and preserve order and justice. On March 22, 1765, Viana recommended to the Audiencia (Respuestas, fol. 106v, 107) that the open country from Bagumbayan to La Hermita be cleared of everything thereon, no matter how light or combustible it might be, within the space of one month; and that the natives in the village of Santiago be transferred to La Hermita, or to any other of the neighboring communities, and dwelling-places be assigned to them from the communal lands of those villages, in recompense for the homes taken from them in Santiago.↑18In 1838, the Spanish government considered seriously the formulation of some new ordinances of good government for the Philippines, the commission for the same being given to Señor Otin y Duazo, a member of the royal Audiencia. The motives for this are thus given in the memorial of the above, as follows: “The attention of your Excellency has been justly called to the confusion and irregularity with which the alcaldes-mayor proceed in their government of these provinces, for the want of a uniform and general statute to serve as a standard in the performance of their duties; since the ordinances promulgated in 1768 have become entirely extinct through the abuses and vicious practices introduced by greed, caprice, or the indolence of the subordinates entrusted with their observance, and through the reforms rendered necessary by lapse of time and experience.” It is not known that Otin y Duazo ever drew up any ordinances. Seven years later, another lawyer, Señor Umeres, drew up a new project for ordinances of good government, in 252 articles. These ordinances contain many good matters, but cannot properly be called ordinances ofgood government. They contain matter on the following: general instructions to the provincial chiefs, similar to that circulated in Spain by Francisco Javier de Burgos in 1634, entitledInstruccion á los Subdelegados de Fomento, containing general principles and a true plan of administration; a letter from the vice-patron to the diocesan prelates and to the superiors of the orders, concerning the relations of the parish priests with the administration; regulations of the native municipality, detailing the form of the elections and the duties of pedáneos, lieutenants, cabezas de barangay, and other purely local agents; regulations concerning the order and security in the villages, comprising restrictive clauses regarding gambling and vagrancy; regulations on the city policy; regulations concerning the polos, personal services, and other duties imposed by the local administration; and regulations concerning primary instruction, agriculture, stockraising, internal trade (treating of weights and measures, transportation, etc.). (See Del-Pan’s introduction, pp. 35–37.)↑
1Del-Pan considers the ordinances of Corcuera and Cruzat much superior to those of Raón. (See his introduction, p. 20.) These ordinances (only 1–38) are synopsized very briefly by Montero y Vidal,Historia general, i, pp. 380–385.As here presented, the ordinances are translated partly in full and partly in synopsis, the latter indicated by brackets.↑2The leaders indicate that the text is illegible or lacking, becauseof the poor condition of the MS. (See Del-Pan, p. 117, note).↑3Crawfurd calls attention (Dict. Indian Islands, p. 345) to the resemblance between the Philippine barangay and “our Anglo-Saxon tithings and hundreds.”On the civic administration of Philippine communities, see appendix in Jagor’sReisen, pp. 298–302.↑4The Tagálog equivalent ofpolla, a chicken or young hen.↑5Filipinos who serve as domestic servants.↑6Noceda and Sanlucar’s TagálogVocabulariodefinescasonóas “a servant or companion who lives at home;” but it does not contain the wordbilitao. This apparently is compounded frombili, “to buy, or sell,” andtauoortao, “man.”↑7At this point the ordinances proper of Corcuera, revised by Cruzat, end. The revision was signed by Cruzat at Manila, October1, 1696; and he orders alcaldes, chief justices, corregidors, and war captains, to obey strictly all of the regulations contained in it, under penalty of the punishments and fines mentioned therein. A copy of the ordinances is to be sent to each official, and a certified copy in triplicate to the supreme Council of the Indies. The following ordinances (39–61) are in the form of decrees of the Manila government or of royal decrees, and contain many orders quite foreign to the mission of provincial chiefs, and, consequently, out of place in the ordinances. The last one is of the time of Raón (1766), who in 1768 revised the ordinances of Arandía. (See Del-Pan’s introduction, p. 22, and p. 153 of the ordinances of Corcuera and Cruzat.)↑8Noceda’s (also Santos’s) TagálogVocabulariogivescompra(Spanish, meaning “purchase”) as the equivalent of the native wordbandala, meaning a compulsory purchase by the government of rice or other products from the natives, who evidently adopted the Spanish word directly. (SeeVol. XLVII, p. 119.)↑9These ordinances are published also inAutos acordados(Manila, 1861), i, pp. 29–71; and in Rodriguez San Pedro’sColección legislativa, i, p. 245.↑10When the ordinances were printed in 1801, the superiors of three of the religious orders immediately petitioned for the revocation of ordinances 16, 18, and 46, because they contained ideas injurious to the ecclesiastical estate. (Del-Pan, in his introduction, p. 7.)↑11This decree was registered in the accountancy-mayor of the royal tribunal and Audiencia of accounts in Manila, September 16, 1801; in the accountancy of the royal treasury of Manila, September 18; and in the secretary’s office of the royal Audiencia, September 23. Since only a simple copy of the ordinances existed in the secretary’s office, the secretary asked the governor to order the castellan of Cavite to send an attested copy in case he possessed one. The governor issued such an order September 7, which was complied with on the twelfth, the receipt of which is noted by the secretary on November 5.↑12The ordinances of Governor Pedro Manuel de Arandía were formulated in 1758, but no copy of them is known to exist. The ordinances of Raón were formulated for the purpose of revising them, and had it not been for the castellan of Cavite, it is to befeared that no authorized copy of them would be in existence. (Del-Pan, in his introduction to the ordinances, p. 7.)↑13A considerable number of these requests for such exemption are discussed in Viana’sRespuestas; sometimes this privilege was granted, and sometimes it was refused.In March, 1765, the natives of Tayabas petitioned for exemption for that year from the annualbandalaof oil levied on them. Viana recommends (Respuestas, fol. III v) that this be granted, but that the amount due from Tayabas be levied on other provinces in proportion to theirproductionof oil.↑14Ordinance no. 51, it is to be noted, is only against brandy made from sugarcane; and the use of and traffic in other brandy was allowed and even stimulated. (Del-Pan, in his introduction, p. 17.)↑15This is the “Zamboanga donation,” made by the Indians for the maintenance of the fort there (see VOL. XLVII, pp. 119, 120). In 1765, the regular situado for Zamboanga was 15,975 pesos (Viana,Respuestas, fol. 111).↑16“By royal order of September 21, 1797, issued in virtue of anexpedientewhich, in the preceding year, gave full information in regard to the tenor of article 53 of the ‘Ordinances of good government,’ his Majesty decreed that ‘the privilege of the Indians to enjoy freely the use of the lands, waters, and pastures which they need for their tillage and stock-raising, ought to be understood to be limited to the lands (joining and close to their villages) which are or may be assigned to them, the rest of the land remaining subject to the rules that have been established for the sale and adjustment of the crown lands. And in order to avoid the abuses which are committed, under the pretext of the Indians’ privileges, in the leasing of the lands within the boundary of the villages, this will not be tolerated hereafter; but the lands assignedto the villages must be cultivated invariably by the Indians in their own villages.’ ” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 353, 354.)↑17In April, 1765, the royal engineer Gomez asked that the churches of San Anton, Dilao, San Lazaro, and the Parián be demolished, as dangerous to the safety of the city in case they should fall into the possession of enemies; also the houses of bamboo and nipa, “which have extended up to the esplanades of Puerta Real and the Parián.” Viana seconds this (Respuestas, fol. 119–121), and adds to the list the churches of Malate, La Hermita, San Miguel and others; he cites fromRecop. de Indiasthe law forbidding any edifice within three hundred paces of the walls. He also advocates the removal of the aforesaid houses, and the formation of new villages, with a careful and regular arrangement of streets and houses, the inhabitants being placed therein according to theiroccupations—each guild [gremio] being aligned to a certain street; this would also enable the authorities to drive out all miscreants, collect the tributes to better advantage, and preserve order and justice. On March 22, 1765, Viana recommended to the Audiencia (Respuestas, fol. 106v, 107) that the open country from Bagumbayan to La Hermita be cleared of everything thereon, no matter how light or combustible it might be, within the space of one month; and that the natives in the village of Santiago be transferred to La Hermita, or to any other of the neighboring communities, and dwelling-places be assigned to them from the communal lands of those villages, in recompense for the homes taken from them in Santiago.↑18In 1838, the Spanish government considered seriously the formulation of some new ordinances of good government for the Philippines, the commission for the same being given to Señor Otin y Duazo, a member of the royal Audiencia. The motives for this are thus given in the memorial of the above, as follows: “The attention of your Excellency has been justly called to the confusion and irregularity with which the alcaldes-mayor proceed in their government of these provinces, for the want of a uniform and general statute to serve as a standard in the performance of their duties; since the ordinances promulgated in 1768 have become entirely extinct through the abuses and vicious practices introduced by greed, caprice, or the indolence of the subordinates entrusted with their observance, and through the reforms rendered necessary by lapse of time and experience.” It is not known that Otin y Duazo ever drew up any ordinances. Seven years later, another lawyer, Señor Umeres, drew up a new project for ordinances of good government, in 252 articles. These ordinances contain many good matters, but cannot properly be called ordinances ofgood government. They contain matter on the following: general instructions to the provincial chiefs, similar to that circulated in Spain by Francisco Javier de Burgos in 1634, entitledInstruccion á los Subdelegados de Fomento, containing general principles and a true plan of administration; a letter from the vice-patron to the diocesan prelates and to the superiors of the orders, concerning the relations of the parish priests with the administration; regulations of the native municipality, detailing the form of the elections and the duties of pedáneos, lieutenants, cabezas de barangay, and other purely local agents; regulations concerning the order and security in the villages, comprising restrictive clauses regarding gambling and vagrancy; regulations on the city policy; regulations concerning the polos, personal services, and other duties imposed by the local administration; and regulations concerning primary instruction, agriculture, stockraising, internal trade (treating of weights and measures, transportation, etc.). (See Del-Pan’s introduction, pp. 35–37.)↑
1Del-Pan considers the ordinances of Corcuera and Cruzat much superior to those of Raón. (See his introduction, p. 20.) These ordinances (only 1–38) are synopsized very briefly by Montero y Vidal,Historia general, i, pp. 380–385.As here presented, the ordinances are translated partly in full and partly in synopsis, the latter indicated by brackets.↑2The leaders indicate that the text is illegible or lacking, becauseof the poor condition of the MS. (See Del-Pan, p. 117, note).↑3Crawfurd calls attention (Dict. Indian Islands, p. 345) to the resemblance between the Philippine barangay and “our Anglo-Saxon tithings and hundreds.”On the civic administration of Philippine communities, see appendix in Jagor’sReisen, pp. 298–302.↑4The Tagálog equivalent ofpolla, a chicken or young hen.↑5Filipinos who serve as domestic servants.↑6Noceda and Sanlucar’s TagálogVocabulariodefinescasonóas “a servant or companion who lives at home;” but it does not contain the wordbilitao. This apparently is compounded frombili, “to buy, or sell,” andtauoortao, “man.”↑7At this point the ordinances proper of Corcuera, revised by Cruzat, end. The revision was signed by Cruzat at Manila, October1, 1696; and he orders alcaldes, chief justices, corregidors, and war captains, to obey strictly all of the regulations contained in it, under penalty of the punishments and fines mentioned therein. A copy of the ordinances is to be sent to each official, and a certified copy in triplicate to the supreme Council of the Indies. The following ordinances (39–61) are in the form of decrees of the Manila government or of royal decrees, and contain many orders quite foreign to the mission of provincial chiefs, and, consequently, out of place in the ordinances. The last one is of the time of Raón (1766), who in 1768 revised the ordinances of Arandía. (See Del-Pan’s introduction, p. 22, and p. 153 of the ordinances of Corcuera and Cruzat.)↑8Noceda’s (also Santos’s) TagálogVocabulariogivescompra(Spanish, meaning “purchase”) as the equivalent of the native wordbandala, meaning a compulsory purchase by the government of rice or other products from the natives, who evidently adopted the Spanish word directly. (SeeVol. XLVII, p. 119.)↑9These ordinances are published also inAutos acordados(Manila, 1861), i, pp. 29–71; and in Rodriguez San Pedro’sColección legislativa, i, p. 245.↑10When the ordinances were printed in 1801, the superiors of three of the religious orders immediately petitioned for the revocation of ordinances 16, 18, and 46, because they contained ideas injurious to the ecclesiastical estate. (Del-Pan, in his introduction, p. 7.)↑11This decree was registered in the accountancy-mayor of the royal tribunal and Audiencia of accounts in Manila, September 16, 1801; in the accountancy of the royal treasury of Manila, September 18; and in the secretary’s office of the royal Audiencia, September 23. Since only a simple copy of the ordinances existed in the secretary’s office, the secretary asked the governor to order the castellan of Cavite to send an attested copy in case he possessed one. The governor issued such an order September 7, which was complied with on the twelfth, the receipt of which is noted by the secretary on November 5.↑12The ordinances of Governor Pedro Manuel de Arandía were formulated in 1758, but no copy of them is known to exist. The ordinances of Raón were formulated for the purpose of revising them, and had it not been for the castellan of Cavite, it is to befeared that no authorized copy of them would be in existence. (Del-Pan, in his introduction to the ordinances, p. 7.)↑13A considerable number of these requests for such exemption are discussed in Viana’sRespuestas; sometimes this privilege was granted, and sometimes it was refused.In March, 1765, the natives of Tayabas petitioned for exemption for that year from the annualbandalaof oil levied on them. Viana recommends (Respuestas, fol. III v) that this be granted, but that the amount due from Tayabas be levied on other provinces in proportion to theirproductionof oil.↑14Ordinance no. 51, it is to be noted, is only against brandy made from sugarcane; and the use of and traffic in other brandy was allowed and even stimulated. (Del-Pan, in his introduction, p. 17.)↑15This is the “Zamboanga donation,” made by the Indians for the maintenance of the fort there (see VOL. XLVII, pp. 119, 120). In 1765, the regular situado for Zamboanga was 15,975 pesos (Viana,Respuestas, fol. 111).↑16“By royal order of September 21, 1797, issued in virtue of anexpedientewhich, in the preceding year, gave full information in regard to the tenor of article 53 of the ‘Ordinances of good government,’ his Majesty decreed that ‘the privilege of the Indians to enjoy freely the use of the lands, waters, and pastures which they need for their tillage and stock-raising, ought to be understood to be limited to the lands (joining and close to their villages) which are or may be assigned to them, the rest of the land remaining subject to the rules that have been established for the sale and adjustment of the crown lands. And in order to avoid the abuses which are committed, under the pretext of the Indians’ privileges, in the leasing of the lands within the boundary of the villages, this will not be tolerated hereafter; but the lands assignedto the villages must be cultivated invariably by the Indians in their own villages.’ ” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 353, 354.)↑17In April, 1765, the royal engineer Gomez asked that the churches of San Anton, Dilao, San Lazaro, and the Parián be demolished, as dangerous to the safety of the city in case they should fall into the possession of enemies; also the houses of bamboo and nipa, “which have extended up to the esplanades of Puerta Real and the Parián.” Viana seconds this (Respuestas, fol. 119–121), and adds to the list the churches of Malate, La Hermita, San Miguel and others; he cites fromRecop. de Indiasthe law forbidding any edifice within three hundred paces of the walls. He also advocates the removal of the aforesaid houses, and the formation of new villages, with a careful and regular arrangement of streets and houses, the inhabitants being placed therein according to theiroccupations—each guild [gremio] being aligned to a certain street; this would also enable the authorities to drive out all miscreants, collect the tributes to better advantage, and preserve order and justice. On March 22, 1765, Viana recommended to the Audiencia (Respuestas, fol. 106v, 107) that the open country from Bagumbayan to La Hermita be cleared of everything thereon, no matter how light or combustible it might be, within the space of one month; and that the natives in the village of Santiago be transferred to La Hermita, or to any other of the neighboring communities, and dwelling-places be assigned to them from the communal lands of those villages, in recompense for the homes taken from them in Santiago.↑18In 1838, the Spanish government considered seriously the formulation of some new ordinances of good government for the Philippines, the commission for the same being given to Señor Otin y Duazo, a member of the royal Audiencia. The motives for this are thus given in the memorial of the above, as follows: “The attention of your Excellency has been justly called to the confusion and irregularity with which the alcaldes-mayor proceed in their government of these provinces, for the want of a uniform and general statute to serve as a standard in the performance of their duties; since the ordinances promulgated in 1768 have become entirely extinct through the abuses and vicious practices introduced by greed, caprice, or the indolence of the subordinates entrusted with their observance, and through the reforms rendered necessary by lapse of time and experience.” It is not known that Otin y Duazo ever drew up any ordinances. Seven years later, another lawyer, Señor Umeres, drew up a new project for ordinances of good government, in 252 articles. These ordinances contain many good matters, but cannot properly be called ordinances ofgood government. They contain matter on the following: general instructions to the provincial chiefs, similar to that circulated in Spain by Francisco Javier de Burgos in 1634, entitledInstruccion á los Subdelegados de Fomento, containing general principles and a true plan of administration; a letter from the vice-patron to the diocesan prelates and to the superiors of the orders, concerning the relations of the parish priests with the administration; regulations of the native municipality, detailing the form of the elections and the duties of pedáneos, lieutenants, cabezas de barangay, and other purely local agents; regulations concerning the order and security in the villages, comprising restrictive clauses regarding gambling and vagrancy; regulations on the city policy; regulations concerning the polos, personal services, and other duties imposed by the local administration; and regulations concerning primary instruction, agriculture, stockraising, internal trade (treating of weights and measures, transportation, etc.). (See Del-Pan’s introduction, pp. 35–37.)↑
1Del-Pan considers the ordinances of Corcuera and Cruzat much superior to those of Raón. (See his introduction, p. 20.) These ordinances (only 1–38) are synopsized very briefly by Montero y Vidal,Historia general, i, pp. 380–385.
As here presented, the ordinances are translated partly in full and partly in synopsis, the latter indicated by brackets.↑
2The leaders indicate that the text is illegible or lacking, becauseof the poor condition of the MS. (See Del-Pan, p. 117, note).↑
3Crawfurd calls attention (Dict. Indian Islands, p. 345) to the resemblance between the Philippine barangay and “our Anglo-Saxon tithings and hundreds.”
On the civic administration of Philippine communities, see appendix in Jagor’sReisen, pp. 298–302.↑
4The Tagálog equivalent ofpolla, a chicken or young hen.↑
5Filipinos who serve as domestic servants.↑
6Noceda and Sanlucar’s TagálogVocabulariodefinescasonóas “a servant or companion who lives at home;” but it does not contain the wordbilitao. This apparently is compounded frombili, “to buy, or sell,” andtauoortao, “man.”↑
7At this point the ordinances proper of Corcuera, revised by Cruzat, end. The revision was signed by Cruzat at Manila, October1, 1696; and he orders alcaldes, chief justices, corregidors, and war captains, to obey strictly all of the regulations contained in it, under penalty of the punishments and fines mentioned therein. A copy of the ordinances is to be sent to each official, and a certified copy in triplicate to the supreme Council of the Indies. The following ordinances (39–61) are in the form of decrees of the Manila government or of royal decrees, and contain many orders quite foreign to the mission of provincial chiefs, and, consequently, out of place in the ordinances. The last one is of the time of Raón (1766), who in 1768 revised the ordinances of Arandía. (See Del-Pan’s introduction, p. 22, and p. 153 of the ordinances of Corcuera and Cruzat.)↑
8Noceda’s (also Santos’s) TagálogVocabulariogivescompra(Spanish, meaning “purchase”) as the equivalent of the native wordbandala, meaning a compulsory purchase by the government of rice or other products from the natives, who evidently adopted the Spanish word directly. (SeeVol. XLVII, p. 119.)↑
9These ordinances are published also inAutos acordados(Manila, 1861), i, pp. 29–71; and in Rodriguez San Pedro’sColección legislativa, i, p. 245.↑
10When the ordinances were printed in 1801, the superiors of three of the religious orders immediately petitioned for the revocation of ordinances 16, 18, and 46, because they contained ideas injurious to the ecclesiastical estate. (Del-Pan, in his introduction, p. 7.)↑
11This decree was registered in the accountancy-mayor of the royal tribunal and Audiencia of accounts in Manila, September 16, 1801; in the accountancy of the royal treasury of Manila, September 18; and in the secretary’s office of the royal Audiencia, September 23. Since only a simple copy of the ordinances existed in the secretary’s office, the secretary asked the governor to order the castellan of Cavite to send an attested copy in case he possessed one. The governor issued such an order September 7, which was complied with on the twelfth, the receipt of which is noted by the secretary on November 5.↑
12The ordinances of Governor Pedro Manuel de Arandía were formulated in 1758, but no copy of them is known to exist. The ordinances of Raón were formulated for the purpose of revising them, and had it not been for the castellan of Cavite, it is to befeared that no authorized copy of them would be in existence. (Del-Pan, in his introduction to the ordinances, p. 7.)↑
13A considerable number of these requests for such exemption are discussed in Viana’sRespuestas; sometimes this privilege was granted, and sometimes it was refused.
In March, 1765, the natives of Tayabas petitioned for exemption for that year from the annualbandalaof oil levied on them. Viana recommends (Respuestas, fol. III v) that this be granted, but that the amount due from Tayabas be levied on other provinces in proportion to theirproductionof oil.↑
14Ordinance no. 51, it is to be noted, is only against brandy made from sugarcane; and the use of and traffic in other brandy was allowed and even stimulated. (Del-Pan, in his introduction, p. 17.)↑
15This is the “Zamboanga donation,” made by the Indians for the maintenance of the fort there (see VOL. XLVII, pp. 119, 120). In 1765, the regular situado for Zamboanga was 15,975 pesos (Viana,Respuestas, fol. 111).↑
16“By royal order of September 21, 1797, issued in virtue of anexpedientewhich, in the preceding year, gave full information in regard to the tenor of article 53 of the ‘Ordinances of good government,’ his Majesty decreed that ‘the privilege of the Indians to enjoy freely the use of the lands, waters, and pastures which they need for their tillage and stock-raising, ought to be understood to be limited to the lands (joining and close to their villages) which are or may be assigned to them, the rest of the land remaining subject to the rules that have been established for the sale and adjustment of the crown lands. And in order to avoid the abuses which are committed, under the pretext of the Indians’ privileges, in the leasing of the lands within the boundary of the villages, this will not be tolerated hereafter; but the lands assignedto the villages must be cultivated invariably by the Indians in their own villages.’ ” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 353, 354.)↑
17In April, 1765, the royal engineer Gomez asked that the churches of San Anton, Dilao, San Lazaro, and the Parián be demolished, as dangerous to the safety of the city in case they should fall into the possession of enemies; also the houses of bamboo and nipa, “which have extended up to the esplanades of Puerta Real and the Parián.” Viana seconds this (Respuestas, fol. 119–121), and adds to the list the churches of Malate, La Hermita, San Miguel and others; he cites fromRecop. de Indiasthe law forbidding any edifice within three hundred paces of the walls. He also advocates the removal of the aforesaid houses, and the formation of new villages, with a careful and regular arrangement of streets and houses, the inhabitants being placed therein according to theiroccupations—each guild [gremio] being aligned to a certain street; this would also enable the authorities to drive out all miscreants, collect the tributes to better advantage, and preserve order and justice. On March 22, 1765, Viana recommended to the Audiencia (Respuestas, fol. 106v, 107) that the open country from Bagumbayan to La Hermita be cleared of everything thereon, no matter how light or combustible it might be, within the space of one month; and that the natives in the village of Santiago be transferred to La Hermita, or to any other of the neighboring communities, and dwelling-places be assigned to them from the communal lands of those villages, in recompense for the homes taken from them in Santiago.↑
18In 1838, the Spanish government considered seriously the formulation of some new ordinances of good government for the Philippines, the commission for the same being given to Señor Otin y Duazo, a member of the royal Audiencia. The motives for this are thus given in the memorial of the above, as follows: “The attention of your Excellency has been justly called to the confusion and irregularity with which the alcaldes-mayor proceed in their government of these provinces, for the want of a uniform and general statute to serve as a standard in the performance of their duties; since the ordinances promulgated in 1768 have become entirely extinct through the abuses and vicious practices introduced by greed, caprice, or the indolence of the subordinates entrusted with their observance, and through the reforms rendered necessary by lapse of time and experience.” It is not known that Otin y Duazo ever drew up any ordinances. Seven years later, another lawyer, Señor Umeres, drew up a new project for ordinances of good government, in 252 articles. These ordinances contain many good matters, but cannot properly be called ordinances ofgood government. They contain matter on the following: general instructions to the provincial chiefs, similar to that circulated in Spain by Francisco Javier de Burgos in 1634, entitledInstruccion á los Subdelegados de Fomento, containing general principles and a true plan of administration; a letter from the vice-patron to the diocesan prelates and to the superiors of the orders, concerning the relations of the parish priests with the administration; regulations of the native municipality, detailing the form of the elections and the duties of pedáneos, lieutenants, cabezas de barangay, and other purely local agents; regulations concerning the order and security in the villages, comprising restrictive clauses regarding gambling and vagrancy; regulations on the city policy; regulations concerning the polos, personal services, and other duties imposed by the local administration; and regulations concerning primary instruction, agriculture, stockraising, internal trade (treating of weights and measures, transportation, etc.). (See Del-Pan’s introduction, pp. 35–37.)↑