Chapter 9

1To the text of this document we add most of the annotations thereon made by Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera, as found in his publication of this document (Memoria de Anda y Salazar, Manila, 1899); these are especially interesting, as coming from the pen of a native Filipino who is a scholar, a liberal, and an enlightened patriot. These notes—either translated in full, or condensedinto a summary, citing his exact language whenever possible—are credited to him, stating the note-number and page where they are found.↑2From the date of the foundation of the College of Santo Tomás, there was strife between it and the Jesuit college of San José. In 1648, the Dominicans triumphed for the time being, and the Jesuits were forbidden by the royal Audiencia to grant degrees in their university. That decision was reversed in Spain by a royal decree of March 12, 1653. San José was closed when the Jesuits were expelled. (Pardo de Tavera, pp. 43, 44, note 1.)↑3In note 2 (pp. 44–47), Pardo de Tavera gives a sketch of the history of the “secular university” of Manila. The royal decree founding it (dated May 16, 1714) states as its purpose, “that persons born there may have the comfort of being enabled to fit themselves for obtaining the prebends;” accordingly, three chairs were established at Manila, for instruction in canon and civil law and Roman law. The first incumbents (appointed in 1715) were Julian de Velasco, Francisco Fernandez Thoribio, and Manuel de Osio y Ocampo. The institution was opened on June 9, 1718, and included also the chairs of medicine and mathematics, professors for these being appointed by the governor—who, finding that this enterprise was opposed by the religious orders, especially by the Dominicans and Jesuits, ordered that a building for its use should be erected near his palace; but lack of funds stopped this work in 1721. When the chairs became vacant in 1726, a competitive examination was held to fill them, at which only five men with the degree of bachelor of law were present. The lectures were but thinly attended, five or six students only being the usual audience; the royal decree suggested that these be reënforcedby students from San José and Santo Tomás, but these colleges discouraged such attendance, and it availed naught. In 1726, the Jesuit Murillo Velarde was appointed to the chair of canon law, and then the Jesuits offered San José college to the new professors (at first, the lectures in the royal foundation had been given in a private house, because the archbishop declined to let them be given in the archiepiscopal seminary); this aroused the jealousy of the Dominicans. Finally a compromise was made between them, by agreeing that in each of the two universities there should be a chair of canon law in charge of a religious, and one of civil law in charge of a layman. The king, learning of this controversy and the ineffectiveness of his foundation, decreed (July 26, 1730) that it should be closed, thus saving to the treasury the annual cost of 2,000 pesos. Pardo de Tavera remarks that the name of “university,” given to it in Manila, does not appear in the royal decree of 1714, which simply established the three chairs mentioned. See also the account of “the college seminary of San Phelipe,” inVOL. XLVof this series, pp. 187–207, and some allusions to it inVOL. XLIV, pp. 145, 178; Velasco and Toribio were imprisoned by Bustamante at one time (VOL. XLIV, pp. 152, 155, 159.)In reality, we must go back to the royal foundation in 1702, which was encroached on by Cardinal Tournon and the abbot Sidoti (1704–07); see San Antonio’s full account of this inVOL. XXVIII, pp. 117–122. Pardo de Tavera gives an outline of this account in his note 3 (pp. 48–50), and adds: “The power of the friars caused the organization of the seminary to be delayed until, toward the end of the past century, thanks to Señor Sancho de Santa Justa y Rufina, the seminary of San Carlos was created; it was installed in the former house of the expelled members of the Society of Jesus.”↑4“The religious orders in Filipinas have always been accused of opposing culture and the diffusion of human learning among the Filipinos, having assumed, according to their traditional policy, the role of monopolisers of public instruction, in order thus to present themselves as its defenders and partisans, proclaiming themselves the civilizers of the people, and the source and origin of their intellectual progress. In reality, having in their hands the public instruction they so conducted themselves that, as Don Simon says, they organized an instruction of mere ceremony, intended to maintain the Filipinos in a calculated ignorance, and keep them imbued with principles which tended to subject their conscience and reason to the absorptive power of the monastic supremacy.” (Pardo de Tavera, p. 50, note 4.)↑5It is to be remembered that Anda wrote this memorial at Madrid, where he was occupying a seat in the Council of Castilla.↑6“The idea of secularizing the university of Manila, suggested by Anda y Salazar, was contemplated a century later by Señor Moret, minister for the colonies [de Ultramar], and decreed by the regent of the kingdom on November 6, 1870. The college of San Juan de Letran was also secularized by the same decree; but in Filipinas orders of that sort were not executed. For the friars upset the whole matter, threatening the ruin of the colony if the decree were carried out, raising protests and petitions—in short, causing the bishops and the authorities to range themselves on their side, in order to present to the government at Madrid the question from the point of view which suited the interests of the Dominican order. The execution of the regent’s decree was suspended, writings were sent to Madrid in favor of the friars, and, as always, they gained their point, and continued to be owners and masters of the university and of the college of San Juan de Letran.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 6, pp. 50, 51.)↑7“The friars have always been considered as poor and needy by the government of España, and in that notion—without stopping to consider that their ownership of land was continually extending further in Filipinas, and that through various schemes they had created for themselves a secure income in the country—the Spanish monarchs by various provisions (most of them despatched at the instigation of the friars) have ordained that their needs be supplied with wine, oil, various contributions, and cash donations, under the most flimsy pretexts.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 7, p. 51.)↑8“At the pleasure of the king, on account of the lack of clerics at the beginning.”↑9“In effect, it can be said the friars trained clerics in order afterward to employ the latter in their own service; for under the name of coadjutors each cura kept in his convent one or two clerics, according to the necessities of the parish, who served him as if they were slaves, and who suffered every sort of humiliation and annoyance. It was not only in those times [of Anda] that the situation of the Filipino cleric was so melancholy and abject; but, in the midst of the increasing prosperity of the friars and their curates, with equal pace increased also the wretchedness of their coadjutors and the intolerable misery of their existence. In order to justify their conduct toward the Filipino clerics, the friars resorted to the pretext of their unfitness; but not only is this argument calumnious, but, even if it were accepted as sound, it does not justify the bad treatment which they give the cleric, and would demonstrate, besides, that the education which he receives from the friars is incomplete and defective.” (He cites Archbishop Santa Justa as rebuking the regulars for thus calumniating the clerics, saying, among other things, “Is it not notorious to every one of us here that the spiritual administration all devolves upon the coadjutor cleric, the father minister reserving to himself only the charge of collecting in his own house, without leaving it, the parochial dues. How can they deny this, when it is so public? If the clerics are incapable, how can the ministers in conscience allow and entrust to them the spiritual administration of their villages? If that be not so, how dare they discredit the clerics with the strange, not to say unjust, censure of their being unfit and incompetent?”) “In these later times, the friars, since they could no longer rail against the clerics in that fashion—for they do not, at least so much now, insist on their old accusation of unfitness, because the Filipino clerics have proved that they include men of as great learning and virtue as the friars, and even more—resorted to a political reason, making the Spanish government believe that the Filipino clerics were every one filibusters. This weapon was of good results for the cause of the friars, but fatal for the Filipino clergy, who found themselves horribly trampled upon in 1870, on occasion of the famous rebellionof the Cavite Arsenal; for three of their most distinguished and revered members, Fathers Burgos, Zamora, and Gomez, were executed under the calumnious accusation of being leaders of the rebellion, and a great number of other distinguished Filipino priests were sent to the military posts or into exile. Public opinion flung back upon the friars the terrible responsibility of sentences so iniquitous; but since then the new and safe weapon of ‘filibusterism’ has been used more and more against the Filipino clerics.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 8, pp. 52, 53.)↑10“The contribution of wine and oil had been granted (as is stated in ley 7, tit. iii, book i of theRecopilación de Indias) to certain poor monasteries, so that they could illuminate the blessed sacrament and celebrate the holy sacrifice of the mass. It was likewise ordained that such contribution should be furnished in the articles themselves, both oil and wine, and not in money or bullion. This contribution was to be given to the conventual religious and not to the ministers of doctrinas, that is, to the curas (ley 9). The escort of soldiers which was furnished to the missionaries was granted to them by a royal decree of July 23, 1744, the text of which I have not been able to find. According to Diaz Arenas (Memorias históricas), the royal decree of May 13, 1579, granted to each cura in a doctrina the sum of 50,000 maravedís, and half as much to the sacristans. Afterward, by a royal decree of October 31, 1596, the said stipend of missionary religious was fixed at $100 and 100 fanegas of palay. On March 4, 1696, August 14, 1700, January 19, 1704, and July 14, 1713, the king had ordered the viceroys of his colonial possessions to send him a report in regard to the religious who were really in need of the contribution of wine, wax, and oil, in order that he might cease giving aid to those who had no need of it, ‘or that the half or the third part might be deducted from their allowance, in proportion to the poverty of each one.’ This is seen in the royal decree of September 22, 1720, in which the king insists that this information should be sent to him; but he could not obtain it, in spite of repeated orders.” [Other attempts were made to secure such information, through the century, but without success.] (Pardo de Tavera, note 9, pp. 54–56.)↑11“The book of laws;” there is also an allusion to the generally adopted legal code or collection of laws, known asCorpus juris—literally, “body of law.” The main reference in Anda’s phrase is to theRecopilación de Indias, which provides for the collection of tithes in the Spanish colonies.↑12“It is an exceedingly bad example.”↑13Pardo de Tavera cites (note 11, pp. 56–58) a royal decree dated April 27, 1704, charging the governor (then Zabalburu) and Audiencia to restrain the friars from levying unjust exactions on the Indians. This decree was occasioned by the complaints on this score made (in 1702) by Archbishop Camacho; in it are enumerated the following acts of such injustice: “Besides the stipends which are paid to them from the royal treasury, they oblige every Indian in their districts to render them service in all their domestic necessities, and to furnish them with four fowls every day in each mission, and with fish, fuel, and everything else that the land (and even the water) produces. At the same time they collect from the Indians excessive fees, without observing the tariffs; for from an Indian whose property is worth four hundred pesos (which is the value usually of that belonging to the wealthier natives) they exact for a burial one hundred or two hundred, besides what they afterward receive for the funeral honors [i.e., ceremonies for the welfare of departed souls]; and twelve pesos for the offering for [wearing] the cope [del habito de la religión], or, if the natives are very poor, six or eight pesos, the religious making it necessary to the burial that he shall wear the cope; and when they lack means to pay for these, they serve the religious like slaves until they have earned what they need to pay these impositions. As for the marriages, the religious receive thirteen pesos for what they call the altar fee, and thirteen reals for the cross, and eight for the offering for the mass, and four for the veiling; even when they are very poor, the religious exact from them at least six or eight pesos as a requisite [for the marriage]. The Indians are, for a long time, living in illicit intercourse, because they have not the means to pay [these exactions]. In the baptisms they have introduced another tax after the offering; the rich Indian must pay up to twelve pesos for the silver cross, and the poor one pays, as such, for the wooden cross. Besides this, they also receive three reals every year from each Indian for the feast of the patron saint of the village, honors for the dead, and wax for the monument; and, added to this, one or two reals when they confess the Indians at the Lenten season—without giving any care or attention to their instruction, or to the greater service of the churches in their charge. They are deficient in almost all which belongs to their obligations as missionary curas, excepting the religious of the Order of Preachers and those of the Society, who treat the natives more kindly and instruct them better.” Cf. the “tariff of fees” drawn up by Camacho (VOL. XLII, pp. 56–64).↑14“The friars, in studying the Filipino languages, continually compared them with the Latin and the Castilian, to the grammar and genius of which they molded, whenever they could, those of the new language which they were learning. As a result, the grammars of the Filipino languages which they soon made created an artificial language, very different from that actually spoken by the islanders. Educated Filipinos distinguish perfectly this conventional language of the friars; and the latter in their turn make the charge, when they have noticed one of these observers, that the Indians when talking among themselves employ a different language from that which they use in conversations with the cura. The reverend father Fray Ramón Martinez Vigil (now bishop of Oviedo) has not failed to notice this difference; but in undertaking to explain it he falls into an error that is excusable if one considers his religious calling, which cannot admit that when there is a blunder the mistake is on the priest’s side. Speaking, then, as a priest, and doubly superior to the Indian by being a Spaniard besides, he confidently says: ‘All who have observed their familiar conversations (of the Indians) are agreed in affirming that they entirely lay aside the rules of grammar, in order to make their conversation more rapid and short—speaking among themselves a Tagálog quite different from what they use when they address the Spanish priest or any other European who understands their language.’ (Revista de Filipinas, t. ii, 1877, p. 35.) Every one who understands Tagálog has endured mortal torments thousands of times while hearing from the pulpit the sermons which a great number of religious utter in that conventional language. At present, however, the sermons that are preached are,as a rule, written in the old style, for the occasion, and then revised and corrected by coadjutors, or by citizens versed [in the native language], who shape and polish the discourse properly.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 12, pp. 58, 59.)↑15An interesting sketch of the controversy in Filipinas over the episcopal visitation of the regular curas is given by Pardo de Tavera in his note 13, pp. 59–68. The strife began even with the first bishop, Domingo de Salazar, and continued for some three centuries; for as late as 1865 the archbishop of Manila and two of his suffragan bishops joined in sending to the Spanish government complaints against the friars of substantially the same tenor as those made earlier by Salazar, Camacho, and Santa Justa. Papal and royal decrees were issued at intervals, insisting on theright of episcopal visitation; but in most cases these were practically nullified by the influence or opposition of the friars, and the inadequate supply of secular priests. The friars several times threatened to abandon their curacies (and actually did so, on some occasions); and they claimed exemption from visitation on various grounds—claiming a privilege granted to them by Pope Pius V (which, however, was afterward annulled by Clement XI), the right to obey only the superiors of their respective orders, and the lack of any obligation on them to serve the curacies, which they claimed to be only a work of supererogation.↑16“Apart from the religious fiestas and the surplice-fees, Filipinas pays to monasticism another tribute of incalculable amount for straps, rosaries, scapulars, girdles, and other objects rivaling one another in similarly miraculous qualities—which are issued for cash, and at a fixed price, which yields no less than a thousand per cent on the capital invested.” Instances of this are given; “a worn pair of trousers, which the students from whom it is asked give gratis, is transformed into hundreds of scapulars, and each scapular costs two and one-half reals fuertes, or perhaps thirty-one hundredths of a peso.” “Thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of hard dollars are paid as a tax by Filipinas on this account to the monastic coffers; and if Jesus Christ drove out the traders from the temple, in the country of miracles those persons are chastised who refuse to obtain the goods from the temple.” (Marcelo H. del Pilar, cited by Pardo de Tavera in note 14, pp. 68, 69.)↑17Pardo de Tavera here cites in full (note 16, pp. 69–76) a letter from Governor Corcuera to the king complaining of the conduct of the friars. (This letter appears inVOL. XXVIof our series, pp. 116–125.)↑18“Some have believed that Anda y Salazar, whom they consider resentful against the religious orders in Filipinas, accumulated against them, in this memorial, accusations which he alone maintained; but in the preceding notes we have demonstrated that the charges which that upright magistrate made against them were not unfounded, nor much less were they recent. In regard to the commerce to which, according to him, the religious devoted themselves, it was a certain fact, scandalous and of long standing—with the aggravating circumstance that they continued to trade in opposition to the commands of the sovereign.” A decree dated February 2, 1730 is here cited which shows this plainly, accusing both seculars and religious of trafficking openly and scandalously, and using their sacred character as a cloak for this and for extensive smuggling; and ordering the archbishop and bishops, and the provincials of the orders, to restrain and punish those of their subjects who thus offend, and the president and Audiencia to proceed against the ecclesiastical authorities if the latter fail to do their duty. (Pardo de Tavera, note 17, pp. 76–78.)↑19“The economic ideas of Señor Anda were as erroneous as were those among the generality of the Spaniards in that period. The commerce of exportation was for them a wrong and a heinous act, with which they reproached him who did it; nor would they admit that he who sells his products has a right to carry them where he can obtain the highest price.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 18, p. 78.)↑20“It is now the general opinion that the religious orders cannot prove their right of ownership of all the income-producing properties which they hold in both town and country. It cannot be doubted that under the regime of government established by the United States this important question of ownership will be cleared up.” The writer here relates the controversy of Auditor Sierra with the religious orders over this question in the time of Archbishop Camacho; finally the governor intervened with his authority, terminating the dispute by declaring that the new visitor, Auditor Ozaeta, would accept as valid the titles to property presented by the friars. (Pardo de Tavera, note 19, pp. 78–80.)↑21“It is true that the Chinese could not have received worse treatment; they have always been laden with accusations of all kinds. As for their being of no benefit to the country, this assertion is entirely contrary to the facts. The Chinese have committed abuses, it is true; but it is only right to acknowledge that they are industrious, patient, respectful, and sober; and that with such traits they must necessarily be useful to the country in which they are.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 20, p. 80.)The feeling against the Chinese in Manila after the English invasion was very bitter, as has been already noticed; it is reflected in Viana’s official opinions, as is evident in the following (Respuestas, fol. 127v): “It is a matter of public notoriety that nearly all the Sangleys of the Parián have been traitors to God and to the king, by having offered public sacrifices to their idols, aided the English enemies, and acted basely against the entire Spanish nation. Any representations made by the said Sangleys ought therefore to be regarded with suspicion, and more especially when they are not traders; for such persons cannot carry back to China the profits of the trade, but only the fears arising from their crime.” The Chinese in question had left the Parián in the late war, and gone to their own country; and now had returned to Manila, desiring to remain there on their former footing. Viana advises that a rigorous investigation of their previous status, actions, and character be made by the government, and any of them found to have acted treasonably toward the Spaniards be punished with the utmost severity; while those who had not been traitors, but had left the Parián on account of their trading or other like reasons, ought to be fined at least fifty pesos each for having done so without permission. Again (fol. 134v) he says of a certain widow (Gabriela Josepha by name), whose dwelling had been seized on account of her supposed disloyalty, that “as she is a Sangley mestiza, there is strong reason to suspect that she is the widow of some traitor.” After the English left Manila, the Sangleys there (in number 400 to 500) were compelled to labor on the ditch and other defenses of the city, as a punishment for their previous revolt. In April, 1765, they offered to the government 12,000 pesos, as “a free donation, in view of the exhausted condition of the royal treasury;”and 8,000 pesos more to the Audiencia, in order that they might be relieved from the aforesaid labor, which sum was surrendered by the auditors to the royal exchequer. Viana recommended (Respuestas, fol. 125v, 126) that these donations be accepted, and the Sangleys relieved from the ditch-digging for such time as the 8,000 pesos would last; he estimated that the work might be completed with this sum, since the government could order that from the provinces all the criminals in the jails, and the “vagabonds and mischievous persons who abound in the villages,” should be sent in to Manila to work on the ditch—thus subserving at once the ends of justice, economy, and military defense. Viana in this paper sarcastically refers to the part taken by the Chinese in aiding the English against the Spaniards during the late war, when, he says, thousands of Sangleys performed all sorts of labors for the English, besides contributing money to aid them; he therefore considers it but just that they should now labor in the royal service, since it is quite enough favor to them that their lives have been spared by the Spaniards.—Eds.↑22“In this, as in other points in the memorial, Anda is not the only one who points out the abuses committed by the missionaries.” (Here Le Gentil is cited; see ourVOL. XXVIII, pp. 210, 218, where he speaks of the absolute power of the religious.) “The friars explained their attitude against the Spaniards by saying that those who went to the provinces served only to instruct the Indians in vices; but it is certain that, granted the sort of life led by the curas, and their absolute independence, the presence of a Spaniard in the town must have been vexatious to them. Besides, the latter could not tolerate their abuses without protesting against them; and his attitude would have served as an example and stimulus for the Indians to escape from the insupportable domination and tyranny of the fathers.“At the end of this present century an intelligent and respectable Dominican friar says, in an official memorial, referring to the Spaniards of the provinces in Filipinas: ‘If they remain many years they live altogether like the Indians—dragging along a miserable and wretched life, a disgrace to the Spanish name inthese islands—and become utterly slothful and vicious, deserving I know not whether pity or execration. For, since they come from España without education or ability to undertake even a simple commission—and it is a wonder if in their own country they ever knew how to plow or make a pair of shoes—here they are of no use whatever. And, as here all the Spaniards bear the title of Don, and are addressed as Señor, they are prone to desire to appear as such, establishing themselves with a white suit [Americana], which costs them half a peso, and giving themselves airs as gentlemen, and persons of distinction. There are very few of them who make some little fortune—a situation which, however little it can be bettered, is never to be envied—and almost all of them lead a life that is melancholy and wretched enough, having become idlers, and scandalizing the Indians of the villages wherever they go, being a disgrace to the Spanish name in these islands.’ Such is the opinion regarding the Spaniards residing in the provinces, expressed by the reverend father Fray José María Ruiz, in hisMemoriaprepared for the Exposition of Filipinas at Madrid in 1887, pp. 284, 285. In a decree dated August 4, 1765, the king, angered by the conduct of the friars who oppose the residence of the Spaniards in the provinces, issues strict orders that no hindrance shall be placed in the way of such residence.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 21, pp. 80–82.)↑23On July 9, 1765, Viana demanded from the Audiencia (Respuestas, fol. 167v, 168) that the Sangley traders of the Parián and the alcaicería be expelled from the islands and their goods confiscated, as a punishment for their late treason, and also because they have been getting control of the retail trade of Manila, and thus injuring the Spanish shopkeepers. He alsorenews his proposal that the married Chinese of the Parián be sent to Santa Ynes, as a sort of penal colony to work in the mines and cultivate the ground adjoining.↑24“Father Fray Gaspar de San Agustin judged the Chinese with the same prejudice as he did the Indians; yet he was less hard and unjust than he was against the latter, about whom he wrote so much evil that afterward it was not possible to find any more failings or offenses to hurl against them.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 23, p. 83.)↑25In the text,yermo(“desert”), a conjectural reading by Pardo de Tavera.↑26“There were in Manila some Chinese Dominican friars, who had come from the missions which the Order of Preachers maintained in the neighboring empire.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 24, p. 83.)↑27See instructions for the new Audiencia,VOL. V, pp. 298–300.↑28In the year 1583 some revolts by the Indians occurred, caused by the bad treatment they received from the encomenderos; some of these fancied that the Indians of their encomiendas were to serve them as slaves, and spared neither the lives nor the property of the natives in making themselves rich. The government intended to make some reforms, but delayed so long that the natives, having no other means of protecting themselves, thought they must revolt against the encomenderos. In 1584 the new Audiencia arrived at Manila, presided over by Santiago de Vera; “the state of things in which he found the country, the injustices which were committed on every side, the violent means to which the oppressed found themselves obliged to resort for self-defense, impressed him deeply—above all, when in 1585 rebellion was declared by the Pampango and Tagal Indians. That prudent magistrate comprehended that the first thing which he must do in order to rule with justice was to understand the usages and customs of the country which he was commissioned to rule; and it was then that, knowing the remarkable abilities of the virtuous Fray Juan de Plasencia, Dr. Vera wrote to him, asking that he would inform him in regard to the social and political organizationof the Tagals. As for the abuses of the encomenderos, undoubtedly they were magnified and exaggerated by the friars, whose interest it was to disparage the former, in order that they themselves might be absolute masters of the country in place of the encomenderos.” Pardo de Tavera cites in full a letter from the king to Archbishop Salazar, dated March 27, 1583, in which the grievances of the Indians are enumerated. “We are informed that in that province [of Filipinas] the Indian natives are seen to be dying, on account of the bad treatment inflicted on them by their encomenderos; and that the number of the said Indians has been so diminished that in some places more than a third of them are dead. This is because the taxes are levied on them for the full amount, two-thirds more than what they are under obligation to pay, and they are treated worse than slaves, and as such many are sold by some encomenderos to others; and some are flogged to death; and there are women who die or break down under their heavy burdens. Others, and their children, are compelled to serve on their lands, and sleep in the fields; and there they bring forth and nurse infants, and they die, bitten by poisonous insects; and many hang themselves, and are left to die, without food; and others eat poisonous herbs. And there are mothers who kill their own children when they are born, saying that they do so to free them from the sufferings which they are enduring. And the said Indians have conceived a very bitter hatred to the name of Christian, and regard the Spaniards as deceivers, and pay no attention to what is taught to them; accordingly, whatever they do is through force. And these injuries are greater for the Indians who belong to our royal crown, as being under [official] administration.” The king, in view of all this, renews his instructions to the viceroys and governors to enforce the laws in behalf of the Indians, and urges the bishop and other ecclesiastics to use their influence for this same purpose. (Pardo de Tavera, note 25, pp. 83–86.) See also Salazar’s letter to the king (VOL. V, pp. 210–247).↑29“That the Chinese should be more successful than the Spaniard in Filipinas is easily explained. In Anda’s time, the Spaniard who went to the provinces to devote himself to trade was a poor man who had no official situation, and for that reason an unlucky fellow who could not depend on support and influence in a country where favor was the law; while the Chinaman, with his presents, trinkets, and bribes, secured everything.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 26, p. 86.)↑30“From the earliest days of the conquest of Filipinas, the monarchs displayed decided earnestness that the knowledge of the Castilian language should be diffused among their peoples; while the friars opposed to this a resistance as tenacious as it was hostile, not only to the interests of the civilization of these regions, but to the sovereignty of España.” (Here is cited a royal decree, dated August 4, 1765, as an example of many, strictly commanding that the natives be taught the Castilian language, and that no hindrance be placed in the way of the Spaniards freely traveling and trading in the provinces.) “A few years ago Señor Escosura, royal commissary—whose complaisance toward the friars, so well known,gives more force to the censures which he directs against them—said, in speaking of the education of the Filipinos: ‘That education, in the first place, if we except the city of Manila and its environs, is entirely reduced to instruction in the Christian doctrine, in Tagal or in the dialects of the respective provinces—and for the same reason, is in exclusive charge of the parish priests, either seculars or regulars (who are most in number and influence); and these pastors, to whom this country owes most important services, and whose usefulness and necessity I avow and proclaim, suffer, nevertheless, from some prejudice …. They assert that to teach the Indians Castilian would be to furnish them the means—which at present they lack, on account of the diversity of their dialects—to revolt against the Spanish authority; that from the moment when they can readily understand the laws and measures of the government they will discuss these and comment upon them, from the standpoint of their local interests, and therefore in opposition to those of the metropolis; that to give these natives an idea of their own rights is to inoculate them with the spirit of rebellion; and that, the foundation of race superiority, which now aggrandizes the Europeans, being thus destroyed, it would be impossible to govern these provinces without material force, as now.’ And, in order to promote the teaching of Castilian in the second half of the nineteenth century, Señor Escosura said that ‘it would be expedient to address urgent requests to the archbishops and bishops, impressing upon them the necessity of their obliging the parish priests to fulfil the commands that are given on this point in the laws of the Indias,’ because in three centuries of Spanish domination the laws and frequent decrees thereon had never been obeyed.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 28, pp. 87–90.)↑31In the decree cited in the preceding note occurs the following statement: “If the Indians had been taught the said [Castilian] language, the calamities and vexations would not have occurred which were experienced by the Spaniards, of both sexes, who in their flight after the loss of this fortress attempted to find asylum in the mountains and the villages nearest to them.”↑32Pardo de Tavera cites (note 29, pp. 90, 91) several statements by Rodriguez Ovalle (whose MS. account of the siege of Manila has been used by Marqués de Ayerbe in hisSitio y conquistade Manila) to show that a few of the religious tried to incite the Indians in the provinces to rise against the Spaniards, and some others became bandits; and that Rojo was jealous of Anda’s position and authority.↑33“Law 81, tit. xiv, book i of theRecopilación de Indias, issued in 1594, provides that ‘the religious may not be served by the Indians; but, in very necessary things, they may receive such service by paying them for it.’ The construction of the village churches has been accomplished by obliging the Indians to work gratis, to furnish the materials gratis, and to do everything gratis; the same procedure also served for building the convent or house of the cura.” See note 80,ante, p. 146; also the report made by Auditor Gueruela on his visit to Camarines in 1702, inVOL. XLII, pp. 304–308.↑34“The complaints against the sort of abuses which are mentioned in this section of Anda’sMemorialare precisely those which the Filipino people formulated; it was those abuses which drove the Filipinos to form the Katipunan, to rise in armed revolt, and to struggle against the Spanish government, in order to gain escape from friar dominion. Recent occurrences, and the publicity regarding the promoters of the Filipino insurrection, render it unnecessary for us to comment further on the words of Anda.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 31, pp. 91, 92.)↑35Sínodo: here a synonym ofestipendio(stipend), being the name of the stipend allowed to priests in America and the Philippines.↑36“I do not recognize the wordparilusclas,in the memorial; perhaps it is an error of the copyist. The fact is that the sick are conveyed in a hammock, a litter, or a sedan-chair to the door of the convent, where the cura comes down to confess them, give the viaticum, or apply the holy oils, as the case demands.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 32, p. 92.)↑37“That his name shall be blotted from the Book of Life”—a statement made in the sensational sermon of the Jesuit Puch in 1764 (see pp. 24–26,ante). Pardo de Tavera says (note 33, p. 92) that this occurred in Lima; he cites also a letter by Corcuera in 1636 (see ourVOL. XXVI, pp. 60–72) to show that the political use of the pulpit by the friars was a practice of long standing.↑38See account of the Santa Ynes mine in note 55,ante, p. 107.↑39See the first document of this volume, “Events in Filipinas,” for mention of this and other reforms made later by the Spanish government, which are recommended by Anda in this memorial.↑40“As fractional currency was always exceedingly scarce in Filipinas, recourse was had, in order to remove the difficulty, to the proceeding of cutting into bits the pesos and half-pesos. It was undoubtedly for this reason that to the coins thus made were applied the Tagal names ofkahati(kalahati, “the half”) for two reals,that is, the half of a half-peso; andsikapat(si-kaapat, “the fourth part”) for one real, or the quarter of a half-peso; and so on—and, for the same reason, this was called in Castilianmoneda cortada[“cut money”]. These fragments of coin bore a stamp which indicated their value, and which was placed on them in Manila; but, as the stamp did not indicate the exact size of the piece of coin, the various hands through which it passed diminished the amount of metal as much as they could, thus reducing it to its least possible size. Governor La Torre published an edict on April 25, 1764, in which, with the object of mitigating the bad results of this, since ‘not only the Sangleys, but the Indians and mestizos, are unwilling to accept the cut money, on account of its debasement,’ he made the decision (certainly acontraproducente[i.e., a measure producing effects contrary to what were intended]), to compel ‘all the cut money to pass current for its value according to the stamp on it.’This remedy was evidently profitable for those who debased the money, because it was compulsory to take the money by its stamp, its debasement being treated with indifference. The term ‘milled money’ was applied to coin of proper standard and manufacture, full and exact weight, with milled edges; the Chinese exported it, plainly because it alone could be accepted in the regions to which they carried it, but this did not occur with the cut money, which could only be accepted as bullion outside of Filipinas. Then, as now, was verified the natural phenomenon of the expulsion of good money from a country by that which is debased, because no one outside desires it, as it is not current by law.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 39, pp. 101, 102.)↑41“Whoever reads these last words of the auditor Anda will not fail to make the melancholy reflection that at the end of the nineteenth century when the Spanish domination in the Filipinas islands was definitely overthrown, the last governor-general could have written the same sad complaint, could have addressed to the [Spanish] nation the same catalogue of abuses and disorders, which, by perpetuating themselves and increasing, effected the result which exactly suited [such causes], the loss of Filipinas!” (Pardo de Tavera, note 40, p. 102.)↑42Pardo de Tavera states (p. 6) that Arriaga (misprinted Arriola) was the king’s secretary of state.↑

1To the text of this document we add most of the annotations thereon made by Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera, as found in his publication of this document (Memoria de Anda y Salazar, Manila, 1899); these are especially interesting, as coming from the pen of a native Filipino who is a scholar, a liberal, and an enlightened patriot. These notes—either translated in full, or condensedinto a summary, citing his exact language whenever possible—are credited to him, stating the note-number and page where they are found.↑2From the date of the foundation of the College of Santo Tomás, there was strife between it and the Jesuit college of San José. In 1648, the Dominicans triumphed for the time being, and the Jesuits were forbidden by the royal Audiencia to grant degrees in their university. That decision was reversed in Spain by a royal decree of March 12, 1653. San José was closed when the Jesuits were expelled. (Pardo de Tavera, pp. 43, 44, note 1.)↑3In note 2 (pp. 44–47), Pardo de Tavera gives a sketch of the history of the “secular university” of Manila. The royal decree founding it (dated May 16, 1714) states as its purpose, “that persons born there may have the comfort of being enabled to fit themselves for obtaining the prebends;” accordingly, three chairs were established at Manila, for instruction in canon and civil law and Roman law. The first incumbents (appointed in 1715) were Julian de Velasco, Francisco Fernandez Thoribio, and Manuel de Osio y Ocampo. The institution was opened on June 9, 1718, and included also the chairs of medicine and mathematics, professors for these being appointed by the governor—who, finding that this enterprise was opposed by the religious orders, especially by the Dominicans and Jesuits, ordered that a building for its use should be erected near his palace; but lack of funds stopped this work in 1721. When the chairs became vacant in 1726, a competitive examination was held to fill them, at which only five men with the degree of bachelor of law were present. The lectures were but thinly attended, five or six students only being the usual audience; the royal decree suggested that these be reënforcedby students from San José and Santo Tomás, but these colleges discouraged such attendance, and it availed naught. In 1726, the Jesuit Murillo Velarde was appointed to the chair of canon law, and then the Jesuits offered San José college to the new professors (at first, the lectures in the royal foundation had been given in a private house, because the archbishop declined to let them be given in the archiepiscopal seminary); this aroused the jealousy of the Dominicans. Finally a compromise was made between them, by agreeing that in each of the two universities there should be a chair of canon law in charge of a religious, and one of civil law in charge of a layman. The king, learning of this controversy and the ineffectiveness of his foundation, decreed (July 26, 1730) that it should be closed, thus saving to the treasury the annual cost of 2,000 pesos. Pardo de Tavera remarks that the name of “university,” given to it in Manila, does not appear in the royal decree of 1714, which simply established the three chairs mentioned. See also the account of “the college seminary of San Phelipe,” inVOL. XLVof this series, pp. 187–207, and some allusions to it inVOL. XLIV, pp. 145, 178; Velasco and Toribio were imprisoned by Bustamante at one time (VOL. XLIV, pp. 152, 155, 159.)In reality, we must go back to the royal foundation in 1702, which was encroached on by Cardinal Tournon and the abbot Sidoti (1704–07); see San Antonio’s full account of this inVOL. XXVIII, pp. 117–122. Pardo de Tavera gives an outline of this account in his note 3 (pp. 48–50), and adds: “The power of the friars caused the organization of the seminary to be delayed until, toward the end of the past century, thanks to Señor Sancho de Santa Justa y Rufina, the seminary of San Carlos was created; it was installed in the former house of the expelled members of the Society of Jesus.”↑4“The religious orders in Filipinas have always been accused of opposing culture and the diffusion of human learning among the Filipinos, having assumed, according to their traditional policy, the role of monopolisers of public instruction, in order thus to present themselves as its defenders and partisans, proclaiming themselves the civilizers of the people, and the source and origin of their intellectual progress. In reality, having in their hands the public instruction they so conducted themselves that, as Don Simon says, they organized an instruction of mere ceremony, intended to maintain the Filipinos in a calculated ignorance, and keep them imbued with principles which tended to subject their conscience and reason to the absorptive power of the monastic supremacy.” (Pardo de Tavera, p. 50, note 4.)↑5It is to be remembered that Anda wrote this memorial at Madrid, where he was occupying a seat in the Council of Castilla.↑6“The idea of secularizing the university of Manila, suggested by Anda y Salazar, was contemplated a century later by Señor Moret, minister for the colonies [de Ultramar], and decreed by the regent of the kingdom on November 6, 1870. The college of San Juan de Letran was also secularized by the same decree; but in Filipinas orders of that sort were not executed. For the friars upset the whole matter, threatening the ruin of the colony if the decree were carried out, raising protests and petitions—in short, causing the bishops and the authorities to range themselves on their side, in order to present to the government at Madrid the question from the point of view which suited the interests of the Dominican order. The execution of the regent’s decree was suspended, writings were sent to Madrid in favor of the friars, and, as always, they gained their point, and continued to be owners and masters of the university and of the college of San Juan de Letran.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 6, pp. 50, 51.)↑7“The friars have always been considered as poor and needy by the government of España, and in that notion—without stopping to consider that their ownership of land was continually extending further in Filipinas, and that through various schemes they had created for themselves a secure income in the country—the Spanish monarchs by various provisions (most of them despatched at the instigation of the friars) have ordained that their needs be supplied with wine, oil, various contributions, and cash donations, under the most flimsy pretexts.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 7, p. 51.)↑8“At the pleasure of the king, on account of the lack of clerics at the beginning.”↑9“In effect, it can be said the friars trained clerics in order afterward to employ the latter in their own service; for under the name of coadjutors each cura kept in his convent one or two clerics, according to the necessities of the parish, who served him as if they were slaves, and who suffered every sort of humiliation and annoyance. It was not only in those times [of Anda] that the situation of the Filipino cleric was so melancholy and abject; but, in the midst of the increasing prosperity of the friars and their curates, with equal pace increased also the wretchedness of their coadjutors and the intolerable misery of their existence. In order to justify their conduct toward the Filipino clerics, the friars resorted to the pretext of their unfitness; but not only is this argument calumnious, but, even if it were accepted as sound, it does not justify the bad treatment which they give the cleric, and would demonstrate, besides, that the education which he receives from the friars is incomplete and defective.” (He cites Archbishop Santa Justa as rebuking the regulars for thus calumniating the clerics, saying, among other things, “Is it not notorious to every one of us here that the spiritual administration all devolves upon the coadjutor cleric, the father minister reserving to himself only the charge of collecting in his own house, without leaving it, the parochial dues. How can they deny this, when it is so public? If the clerics are incapable, how can the ministers in conscience allow and entrust to them the spiritual administration of their villages? If that be not so, how dare they discredit the clerics with the strange, not to say unjust, censure of their being unfit and incompetent?”) “In these later times, the friars, since they could no longer rail against the clerics in that fashion—for they do not, at least so much now, insist on their old accusation of unfitness, because the Filipino clerics have proved that they include men of as great learning and virtue as the friars, and even more—resorted to a political reason, making the Spanish government believe that the Filipino clerics were every one filibusters. This weapon was of good results for the cause of the friars, but fatal for the Filipino clergy, who found themselves horribly trampled upon in 1870, on occasion of the famous rebellionof the Cavite Arsenal; for three of their most distinguished and revered members, Fathers Burgos, Zamora, and Gomez, were executed under the calumnious accusation of being leaders of the rebellion, and a great number of other distinguished Filipino priests were sent to the military posts or into exile. Public opinion flung back upon the friars the terrible responsibility of sentences so iniquitous; but since then the new and safe weapon of ‘filibusterism’ has been used more and more against the Filipino clerics.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 8, pp. 52, 53.)↑10“The contribution of wine and oil had been granted (as is stated in ley 7, tit. iii, book i of theRecopilación de Indias) to certain poor monasteries, so that they could illuminate the blessed sacrament and celebrate the holy sacrifice of the mass. It was likewise ordained that such contribution should be furnished in the articles themselves, both oil and wine, and not in money or bullion. This contribution was to be given to the conventual religious and not to the ministers of doctrinas, that is, to the curas (ley 9). The escort of soldiers which was furnished to the missionaries was granted to them by a royal decree of July 23, 1744, the text of which I have not been able to find. According to Diaz Arenas (Memorias históricas), the royal decree of May 13, 1579, granted to each cura in a doctrina the sum of 50,000 maravedís, and half as much to the sacristans. Afterward, by a royal decree of October 31, 1596, the said stipend of missionary religious was fixed at $100 and 100 fanegas of palay. On March 4, 1696, August 14, 1700, January 19, 1704, and July 14, 1713, the king had ordered the viceroys of his colonial possessions to send him a report in regard to the religious who were really in need of the contribution of wine, wax, and oil, in order that he might cease giving aid to those who had no need of it, ‘or that the half or the third part might be deducted from their allowance, in proportion to the poverty of each one.’ This is seen in the royal decree of September 22, 1720, in which the king insists that this information should be sent to him; but he could not obtain it, in spite of repeated orders.” [Other attempts were made to secure such information, through the century, but without success.] (Pardo de Tavera, note 9, pp. 54–56.)↑11“The book of laws;” there is also an allusion to the generally adopted legal code or collection of laws, known asCorpus juris—literally, “body of law.” The main reference in Anda’s phrase is to theRecopilación de Indias, which provides for the collection of tithes in the Spanish colonies.↑12“It is an exceedingly bad example.”↑13Pardo de Tavera cites (note 11, pp. 56–58) a royal decree dated April 27, 1704, charging the governor (then Zabalburu) and Audiencia to restrain the friars from levying unjust exactions on the Indians. This decree was occasioned by the complaints on this score made (in 1702) by Archbishop Camacho; in it are enumerated the following acts of such injustice: “Besides the stipends which are paid to them from the royal treasury, they oblige every Indian in their districts to render them service in all their domestic necessities, and to furnish them with four fowls every day in each mission, and with fish, fuel, and everything else that the land (and even the water) produces. At the same time they collect from the Indians excessive fees, without observing the tariffs; for from an Indian whose property is worth four hundred pesos (which is the value usually of that belonging to the wealthier natives) they exact for a burial one hundred or two hundred, besides what they afterward receive for the funeral honors [i.e., ceremonies for the welfare of departed souls]; and twelve pesos for the offering for [wearing] the cope [del habito de la religión], or, if the natives are very poor, six or eight pesos, the religious making it necessary to the burial that he shall wear the cope; and when they lack means to pay for these, they serve the religious like slaves until they have earned what they need to pay these impositions. As for the marriages, the religious receive thirteen pesos for what they call the altar fee, and thirteen reals for the cross, and eight for the offering for the mass, and four for the veiling; even when they are very poor, the religious exact from them at least six or eight pesos as a requisite [for the marriage]. The Indians are, for a long time, living in illicit intercourse, because they have not the means to pay [these exactions]. In the baptisms they have introduced another tax after the offering; the rich Indian must pay up to twelve pesos for the silver cross, and the poor one pays, as such, for the wooden cross. Besides this, they also receive three reals every year from each Indian for the feast of the patron saint of the village, honors for the dead, and wax for the monument; and, added to this, one or two reals when they confess the Indians at the Lenten season—without giving any care or attention to their instruction, or to the greater service of the churches in their charge. They are deficient in almost all which belongs to their obligations as missionary curas, excepting the religious of the Order of Preachers and those of the Society, who treat the natives more kindly and instruct them better.” Cf. the “tariff of fees” drawn up by Camacho (VOL. XLII, pp. 56–64).↑14“The friars, in studying the Filipino languages, continually compared them with the Latin and the Castilian, to the grammar and genius of which they molded, whenever they could, those of the new language which they were learning. As a result, the grammars of the Filipino languages which they soon made created an artificial language, very different from that actually spoken by the islanders. Educated Filipinos distinguish perfectly this conventional language of the friars; and the latter in their turn make the charge, when they have noticed one of these observers, that the Indians when talking among themselves employ a different language from that which they use in conversations with the cura. The reverend father Fray Ramón Martinez Vigil (now bishop of Oviedo) has not failed to notice this difference; but in undertaking to explain it he falls into an error that is excusable if one considers his religious calling, which cannot admit that when there is a blunder the mistake is on the priest’s side. Speaking, then, as a priest, and doubly superior to the Indian by being a Spaniard besides, he confidently says: ‘All who have observed their familiar conversations (of the Indians) are agreed in affirming that they entirely lay aside the rules of grammar, in order to make their conversation more rapid and short—speaking among themselves a Tagálog quite different from what they use when they address the Spanish priest or any other European who understands their language.’ (Revista de Filipinas, t. ii, 1877, p. 35.) Every one who understands Tagálog has endured mortal torments thousands of times while hearing from the pulpit the sermons which a great number of religious utter in that conventional language. At present, however, the sermons that are preached are,as a rule, written in the old style, for the occasion, and then revised and corrected by coadjutors, or by citizens versed [in the native language], who shape and polish the discourse properly.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 12, pp. 58, 59.)↑15An interesting sketch of the controversy in Filipinas over the episcopal visitation of the regular curas is given by Pardo de Tavera in his note 13, pp. 59–68. The strife began even with the first bishop, Domingo de Salazar, and continued for some three centuries; for as late as 1865 the archbishop of Manila and two of his suffragan bishops joined in sending to the Spanish government complaints against the friars of substantially the same tenor as those made earlier by Salazar, Camacho, and Santa Justa. Papal and royal decrees were issued at intervals, insisting on theright of episcopal visitation; but in most cases these were practically nullified by the influence or opposition of the friars, and the inadequate supply of secular priests. The friars several times threatened to abandon their curacies (and actually did so, on some occasions); and they claimed exemption from visitation on various grounds—claiming a privilege granted to them by Pope Pius V (which, however, was afterward annulled by Clement XI), the right to obey only the superiors of their respective orders, and the lack of any obligation on them to serve the curacies, which they claimed to be only a work of supererogation.↑16“Apart from the religious fiestas and the surplice-fees, Filipinas pays to monasticism another tribute of incalculable amount for straps, rosaries, scapulars, girdles, and other objects rivaling one another in similarly miraculous qualities—which are issued for cash, and at a fixed price, which yields no less than a thousand per cent on the capital invested.” Instances of this are given; “a worn pair of trousers, which the students from whom it is asked give gratis, is transformed into hundreds of scapulars, and each scapular costs two and one-half reals fuertes, or perhaps thirty-one hundredths of a peso.” “Thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of hard dollars are paid as a tax by Filipinas on this account to the monastic coffers; and if Jesus Christ drove out the traders from the temple, in the country of miracles those persons are chastised who refuse to obtain the goods from the temple.” (Marcelo H. del Pilar, cited by Pardo de Tavera in note 14, pp. 68, 69.)↑17Pardo de Tavera here cites in full (note 16, pp. 69–76) a letter from Governor Corcuera to the king complaining of the conduct of the friars. (This letter appears inVOL. XXVIof our series, pp. 116–125.)↑18“Some have believed that Anda y Salazar, whom they consider resentful against the religious orders in Filipinas, accumulated against them, in this memorial, accusations which he alone maintained; but in the preceding notes we have demonstrated that the charges which that upright magistrate made against them were not unfounded, nor much less were they recent. In regard to the commerce to which, according to him, the religious devoted themselves, it was a certain fact, scandalous and of long standing—with the aggravating circumstance that they continued to trade in opposition to the commands of the sovereign.” A decree dated February 2, 1730 is here cited which shows this plainly, accusing both seculars and religious of trafficking openly and scandalously, and using their sacred character as a cloak for this and for extensive smuggling; and ordering the archbishop and bishops, and the provincials of the orders, to restrain and punish those of their subjects who thus offend, and the president and Audiencia to proceed against the ecclesiastical authorities if the latter fail to do their duty. (Pardo de Tavera, note 17, pp. 76–78.)↑19“The economic ideas of Señor Anda were as erroneous as were those among the generality of the Spaniards in that period. The commerce of exportation was for them a wrong and a heinous act, with which they reproached him who did it; nor would they admit that he who sells his products has a right to carry them where he can obtain the highest price.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 18, p. 78.)↑20“It is now the general opinion that the religious orders cannot prove their right of ownership of all the income-producing properties which they hold in both town and country. It cannot be doubted that under the regime of government established by the United States this important question of ownership will be cleared up.” The writer here relates the controversy of Auditor Sierra with the religious orders over this question in the time of Archbishop Camacho; finally the governor intervened with his authority, terminating the dispute by declaring that the new visitor, Auditor Ozaeta, would accept as valid the titles to property presented by the friars. (Pardo de Tavera, note 19, pp. 78–80.)↑21“It is true that the Chinese could not have received worse treatment; they have always been laden with accusations of all kinds. As for their being of no benefit to the country, this assertion is entirely contrary to the facts. The Chinese have committed abuses, it is true; but it is only right to acknowledge that they are industrious, patient, respectful, and sober; and that with such traits they must necessarily be useful to the country in which they are.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 20, p. 80.)The feeling against the Chinese in Manila after the English invasion was very bitter, as has been already noticed; it is reflected in Viana’s official opinions, as is evident in the following (Respuestas, fol. 127v): “It is a matter of public notoriety that nearly all the Sangleys of the Parián have been traitors to God and to the king, by having offered public sacrifices to their idols, aided the English enemies, and acted basely against the entire Spanish nation. Any representations made by the said Sangleys ought therefore to be regarded with suspicion, and more especially when they are not traders; for such persons cannot carry back to China the profits of the trade, but only the fears arising from their crime.” The Chinese in question had left the Parián in the late war, and gone to their own country; and now had returned to Manila, desiring to remain there on their former footing. Viana advises that a rigorous investigation of their previous status, actions, and character be made by the government, and any of them found to have acted treasonably toward the Spaniards be punished with the utmost severity; while those who had not been traitors, but had left the Parián on account of their trading or other like reasons, ought to be fined at least fifty pesos each for having done so without permission. Again (fol. 134v) he says of a certain widow (Gabriela Josepha by name), whose dwelling had been seized on account of her supposed disloyalty, that “as she is a Sangley mestiza, there is strong reason to suspect that she is the widow of some traitor.” After the English left Manila, the Sangleys there (in number 400 to 500) were compelled to labor on the ditch and other defenses of the city, as a punishment for their previous revolt. In April, 1765, they offered to the government 12,000 pesos, as “a free donation, in view of the exhausted condition of the royal treasury;”and 8,000 pesos more to the Audiencia, in order that they might be relieved from the aforesaid labor, which sum was surrendered by the auditors to the royal exchequer. Viana recommended (Respuestas, fol. 125v, 126) that these donations be accepted, and the Sangleys relieved from the ditch-digging for such time as the 8,000 pesos would last; he estimated that the work might be completed with this sum, since the government could order that from the provinces all the criminals in the jails, and the “vagabonds and mischievous persons who abound in the villages,” should be sent in to Manila to work on the ditch—thus subserving at once the ends of justice, economy, and military defense. Viana in this paper sarcastically refers to the part taken by the Chinese in aiding the English against the Spaniards during the late war, when, he says, thousands of Sangleys performed all sorts of labors for the English, besides contributing money to aid them; he therefore considers it but just that they should now labor in the royal service, since it is quite enough favor to them that their lives have been spared by the Spaniards.—Eds.↑22“In this, as in other points in the memorial, Anda is not the only one who points out the abuses committed by the missionaries.” (Here Le Gentil is cited; see ourVOL. XXVIII, pp. 210, 218, where he speaks of the absolute power of the religious.) “The friars explained their attitude against the Spaniards by saying that those who went to the provinces served only to instruct the Indians in vices; but it is certain that, granted the sort of life led by the curas, and their absolute independence, the presence of a Spaniard in the town must have been vexatious to them. Besides, the latter could not tolerate their abuses without protesting against them; and his attitude would have served as an example and stimulus for the Indians to escape from the insupportable domination and tyranny of the fathers.“At the end of this present century an intelligent and respectable Dominican friar says, in an official memorial, referring to the Spaniards of the provinces in Filipinas: ‘If they remain many years they live altogether like the Indians—dragging along a miserable and wretched life, a disgrace to the Spanish name inthese islands—and become utterly slothful and vicious, deserving I know not whether pity or execration. For, since they come from España without education or ability to undertake even a simple commission—and it is a wonder if in their own country they ever knew how to plow or make a pair of shoes—here they are of no use whatever. And, as here all the Spaniards bear the title of Don, and are addressed as Señor, they are prone to desire to appear as such, establishing themselves with a white suit [Americana], which costs them half a peso, and giving themselves airs as gentlemen, and persons of distinction. There are very few of them who make some little fortune—a situation which, however little it can be bettered, is never to be envied—and almost all of them lead a life that is melancholy and wretched enough, having become idlers, and scandalizing the Indians of the villages wherever they go, being a disgrace to the Spanish name in these islands.’ Such is the opinion regarding the Spaniards residing in the provinces, expressed by the reverend father Fray José María Ruiz, in hisMemoriaprepared for the Exposition of Filipinas at Madrid in 1887, pp. 284, 285. In a decree dated August 4, 1765, the king, angered by the conduct of the friars who oppose the residence of the Spaniards in the provinces, issues strict orders that no hindrance shall be placed in the way of such residence.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 21, pp. 80–82.)↑23On July 9, 1765, Viana demanded from the Audiencia (Respuestas, fol. 167v, 168) that the Sangley traders of the Parián and the alcaicería be expelled from the islands and their goods confiscated, as a punishment for their late treason, and also because they have been getting control of the retail trade of Manila, and thus injuring the Spanish shopkeepers. He alsorenews his proposal that the married Chinese of the Parián be sent to Santa Ynes, as a sort of penal colony to work in the mines and cultivate the ground adjoining.↑24“Father Fray Gaspar de San Agustin judged the Chinese with the same prejudice as he did the Indians; yet he was less hard and unjust than he was against the latter, about whom he wrote so much evil that afterward it was not possible to find any more failings or offenses to hurl against them.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 23, p. 83.)↑25In the text,yermo(“desert”), a conjectural reading by Pardo de Tavera.↑26“There were in Manila some Chinese Dominican friars, who had come from the missions which the Order of Preachers maintained in the neighboring empire.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 24, p. 83.)↑27See instructions for the new Audiencia,VOL. V, pp. 298–300.↑28In the year 1583 some revolts by the Indians occurred, caused by the bad treatment they received from the encomenderos; some of these fancied that the Indians of their encomiendas were to serve them as slaves, and spared neither the lives nor the property of the natives in making themselves rich. The government intended to make some reforms, but delayed so long that the natives, having no other means of protecting themselves, thought they must revolt against the encomenderos. In 1584 the new Audiencia arrived at Manila, presided over by Santiago de Vera; “the state of things in which he found the country, the injustices which were committed on every side, the violent means to which the oppressed found themselves obliged to resort for self-defense, impressed him deeply—above all, when in 1585 rebellion was declared by the Pampango and Tagal Indians. That prudent magistrate comprehended that the first thing which he must do in order to rule with justice was to understand the usages and customs of the country which he was commissioned to rule; and it was then that, knowing the remarkable abilities of the virtuous Fray Juan de Plasencia, Dr. Vera wrote to him, asking that he would inform him in regard to the social and political organizationof the Tagals. As for the abuses of the encomenderos, undoubtedly they were magnified and exaggerated by the friars, whose interest it was to disparage the former, in order that they themselves might be absolute masters of the country in place of the encomenderos.” Pardo de Tavera cites in full a letter from the king to Archbishop Salazar, dated March 27, 1583, in which the grievances of the Indians are enumerated. “We are informed that in that province [of Filipinas] the Indian natives are seen to be dying, on account of the bad treatment inflicted on them by their encomenderos; and that the number of the said Indians has been so diminished that in some places more than a third of them are dead. This is because the taxes are levied on them for the full amount, two-thirds more than what they are under obligation to pay, and they are treated worse than slaves, and as such many are sold by some encomenderos to others; and some are flogged to death; and there are women who die or break down under their heavy burdens. Others, and their children, are compelled to serve on their lands, and sleep in the fields; and there they bring forth and nurse infants, and they die, bitten by poisonous insects; and many hang themselves, and are left to die, without food; and others eat poisonous herbs. And there are mothers who kill their own children when they are born, saying that they do so to free them from the sufferings which they are enduring. And the said Indians have conceived a very bitter hatred to the name of Christian, and regard the Spaniards as deceivers, and pay no attention to what is taught to them; accordingly, whatever they do is through force. And these injuries are greater for the Indians who belong to our royal crown, as being under [official] administration.” The king, in view of all this, renews his instructions to the viceroys and governors to enforce the laws in behalf of the Indians, and urges the bishop and other ecclesiastics to use their influence for this same purpose. (Pardo de Tavera, note 25, pp. 83–86.) See also Salazar’s letter to the king (VOL. V, pp. 210–247).↑29“That the Chinese should be more successful than the Spaniard in Filipinas is easily explained. In Anda’s time, the Spaniard who went to the provinces to devote himself to trade was a poor man who had no official situation, and for that reason an unlucky fellow who could not depend on support and influence in a country where favor was the law; while the Chinaman, with his presents, trinkets, and bribes, secured everything.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 26, p. 86.)↑30“From the earliest days of the conquest of Filipinas, the monarchs displayed decided earnestness that the knowledge of the Castilian language should be diffused among their peoples; while the friars opposed to this a resistance as tenacious as it was hostile, not only to the interests of the civilization of these regions, but to the sovereignty of España.” (Here is cited a royal decree, dated August 4, 1765, as an example of many, strictly commanding that the natives be taught the Castilian language, and that no hindrance be placed in the way of the Spaniards freely traveling and trading in the provinces.) “A few years ago Señor Escosura, royal commissary—whose complaisance toward the friars, so well known,gives more force to the censures which he directs against them—said, in speaking of the education of the Filipinos: ‘That education, in the first place, if we except the city of Manila and its environs, is entirely reduced to instruction in the Christian doctrine, in Tagal or in the dialects of the respective provinces—and for the same reason, is in exclusive charge of the parish priests, either seculars or regulars (who are most in number and influence); and these pastors, to whom this country owes most important services, and whose usefulness and necessity I avow and proclaim, suffer, nevertheless, from some prejudice …. They assert that to teach the Indians Castilian would be to furnish them the means—which at present they lack, on account of the diversity of their dialects—to revolt against the Spanish authority; that from the moment when they can readily understand the laws and measures of the government they will discuss these and comment upon them, from the standpoint of their local interests, and therefore in opposition to those of the metropolis; that to give these natives an idea of their own rights is to inoculate them with the spirit of rebellion; and that, the foundation of race superiority, which now aggrandizes the Europeans, being thus destroyed, it would be impossible to govern these provinces without material force, as now.’ And, in order to promote the teaching of Castilian in the second half of the nineteenth century, Señor Escosura said that ‘it would be expedient to address urgent requests to the archbishops and bishops, impressing upon them the necessity of their obliging the parish priests to fulfil the commands that are given on this point in the laws of the Indias,’ because in three centuries of Spanish domination the laws and frequent decrees thereon had never been obeyed.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 28, pp. 87–90.)↑31In the decree cited in the preceding note occurs the following statement: “If the Indians had been taught the said [Castilian] language, the calamities and vexations would not have occurred which were experienced by the Spaniards, of both sexes, who in their flight after the loss of this fortress attempted to find asylum in the mountains and the villages nearest to them.”↑32Pardo de Tavera cites (note 29, pp. 90, 91) several statements by Rodriguez Ovalle (whose MS. account of the siege of Manila has been used by Marqués de Ayerbe in hisSitio y conquistade Manila) to show that a few of the religious tried to incite the Indians in the provinces to rise against the Spaniards, and some others became bandits; and that Rojo was jealous of Anda’s position and authority.↑33“Law 81, tit. xiv, book i of theRecopilación de Indias, issued in 1594, provides that ‘the religious may not be served by the Indians; but, in very necessary things, they may receive such service by paying them for it.’ The construction of the village churches has been accomplished by obliging the Indians to work gratis, to furnish the materials gratis, and to do everything gratis; the same procedure also served for building the convent or house of the cura.” See note 80,ante, p. 146; also the report made by Auditor Gueruela on his visit to Camarines in 1702, inVOL. XLII, pp. 304–308.↑34“The complaints against the sort of abuses which are mentioned in this section of Anda’sMemorialare precisely those which the Filipino people formulated; it was those abuses which drove the Filipinos to form the Katipunan, to rise in armed revolt, and to struggle against the Spanish government, in order to gain escape from friar dominion. Recent occurrences, and the publicity regarding the promoters of the Filipino insurrection, render it unnecessary for us to comment further on the words of Anda.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 31, pp. 91, 92.)↑35Sínodo: here a synonym ofestipendio(stipend), being the name of the stipend allowed to priests in America and the Philippines.↑36“I do not recognize the wordparilusclas,in the memorial; perhaps it is an error of the copyist. The fact is that the sick are conveyed in a hammock, a litter, or a sedan-chair to the door of the convent, where the cura comes down to confess them, give the viaticum, or apply the holy oils, as the case demands.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 32, p. 92.)↑37“That his name shall be blotted from the Book of Life”—a statement made in the sensational sermon of the Jesuit Puch in 1764 (see pp. 24–26,ante). Pardo de Tavera says (note 33, p. 92) that this occurred in Lima; he cites also a letter by Corcuera in 1636 (see ourVOL. XXVI, pp. 60–72) to show that the political use of the pulpit by the friars was a practice of long standing.↑38See account of the Santa Ynes mine in note 55,ante, p. 107.↑39See the first document of this volume, “Events in Filipinas,” for mention of this and other reforms made later by the Spanish government, which are recommended by Anda in this memorial.↑40“As fractional currency was always exceedingly scarce in Filipinas, recourse was had, in order to remove the difficulty, to the proceeding of cutting into bits the pesos and half-pesos. It was undoubtedly for this reason that to the coins thus made were applied the Tagal names ofkahati(kalahati, “the half”) for two reals,that is, the half of a half-peso; andsikapat(si-kaapat, “the fourth part”) for one real, or the quarter of a half-peso; and so on—and, for the same reason, this was called in Castilianmoneda cortada[“cut money”]. These fragments of coin bore a stamp which indicated their value, and which was placed on them in Manila; but, as the stamp did not indicate the exact size of the piece of coin, the various hands through which it passed diminished the amount of metal as much as they could, thus reducing it to its least possible size. Governor La Torre published an edict on April 25, 1764, in which, with the object of mitigating the bad results of this, since ‘not only the Sangleys, but the Indians and mestizos, are unwilling to accept the cut money, on account of its debasement,’ he made the decision (certainly acontraproducente[i.e., a measure producing effects contrary to what were intended]), to compel ‘all the cut money to pass current for its value according to the stamp on it.’This remedy was evidently profitable for those who debased the money, because it was compulsory to take the money by its stamp, its debasement being treated with indifference. The term ‘milled money’ was applied to coin of proper standard and manufacture, full and exact weight, with milled edges; the Chinese exported it, plainly because it alone could be accepted in the regions to which they carried it, but this did not occur with the cut money, which could only be accepted as bullion outside of Filipinas. Then, as now, was verified the natural phenomenon of the expulsion of good money from a country by that which is debased, because no one outside desires it, as it is not current by law.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 39, pp. 101, 102.)↑41“Whoever reads these last words of the auditor Anda will not fail to make the melancholy reflection that at the end of the nineteenth century when the Spanish domination in the Filipinas islands was definitely overthrown, the last governor-general could have written the same sad complaint, could have addressed to the [Spanish] nation the same catalogue of abuses and disorders, which, by perpetuating themselves and increasing, effected the result which exactly suited [such causes], the loss of Filipinas!” (Pardo de Tavera, note 40, p. 102.)↑42Pardo de Tavera states (p. 6) that Arriaga (misprinted Arriola) was the king’s secretary of state.↑

1To the text of this document we add most of the annotations thereon made by Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera, as found in his publication of this document (Memoria de Anda y Salazar, Manila, 1899); these are especially interesting, as coming from the pen of a native Filipino who is a scholar, a liberal, and an enlightened patriot. These notes—either translated in full, or condensedinto a summary, citing his exact language whenever possible—are credited to him, stating the note-number and page where they are found.↑2From the date of the foundation of the College of Santo Tomás, there was strife between it and the Jesuit college of San José. In 1648, the Dominicans triumphed for the time being, and the Jesuits were forbidden by the royal Audiencia to grant degrees in their university. That decision was reversed in Spain by a royal decree of March 12, 1653. San José was closed when the Jesuits were expelled. (Pardo de Tavera, pp. 43, 44, note 1.)↑3In note 2 (pp. 44–47), Pardo de Tavera gives a sketch of the history of the “secular university” of Manila. The royal decree founding it (dated May 16, 1714) states as its purpose, “that persons born there may have the comfort of being enabled to fit themselves for obtaining the prebends;” accordingly, three chairs were established at Manila, for instruction in canon and civil law and Roman law. The first incumbents (appointed in 1715) were Julian de Velasco, Francisco Fernandez Thoribio, and Manuel de Osio y Ocampo. The institution was opened on June 9, 1718, and included also the chairs of medicine and mathematics, professors for these being appointed by the governor—who, finding that this enterprise was opposed by the religious orders, especially by the Dominicans and Jesuits, ordered that a building for its use should be erected near his palace; but lack of funds stopped this work in 1721. When the chairs became vacant in 1726, a competitive examination was held to fill them, at which only five men with the degree of bachelor of law were present. The lectures were but thinly attended, five or six students only being the usual audience; the royal decree suggested that these be reënforcedby students from San José and Santo Tomás, but these colleges discouraged such attendance, and it availed naught. In 1726, the Jesuit Murillo Velarde was appointed to the chair of canon law, and then the Jesuits offered San José college to the new professors (at first, the lectures in the royal foundation had been given in a private house, because the archbishop declined to let them be given in the archiepiscopal seminary); this aroused the jealousy of the Dominicans. Finally a compromise was made between them, by agreeing that in each of the two universities there should be a chair of canon law in charge of a religious, and one of civil law in charge of a layman. The king, learning of this controversy and the ineffectiveness of his foundation, decreed (July 26, 1730) that it should be closed, thus saving to the treasury the annual cost of 2,000 pesos. Pardo de Tavera remarks that the name of “university,” given to it in Manila, does not appear in the royal decree of 1714, which simply established the three chairs mentioned. See also the account of “the college seminary of San Phelipe,” inVOL. XLVof this series, pp. 187–207, and some allusions to it inVOL. XLIV, pp. 145, 178; Velasco and Toribio were imprisoned by Bustamante at one time (VOL. XLIV, pp. 152, 155, 159.)In reality, we must go back to the royal foundation in 1702, which was encroached on by Cardinal Tournon and the abbot Sidoti (1704–07); see San Antonio’s full account of this inVOL. XXVIII, pp. 117–122. Pardo de Tavera gives an outline of this account in his note 3 (pp. 48–50), and adds: “The power of the friars caused the organization of the seminary to be delayed until, toward the end of the past century, thanks to Señor Sancho de Santa Justa y Rufina, the seminary of San Carlos was created; it was installed in the former house of the expelled members of the Society of Jesus.”↑4“The religious orders in Filipinas have always been accused of opposing culture and the diffusion of human learning among the Filipinos, having assumed, according to their traditional policy, the role of monopolisers of public instruction, in order thus to present themselves as its defenders and partisans, proclaiming themselves the civilizers of the people, and the source and origin of their intellectual progress. In reality, having in their hands the public instruction they so conducted themselves that, as Don Simon says, they organized an instruction of mere ceremony, intended to maintain the Filipinos in a calculated ignorance, and keep them imbued with principles which tended to subject their conscience and reason to the absorptive power of the monastic supremacy.” (Pardo de Tavera, p. 50, note 4.)↑5It is to be remembered that Anda wrote this memorial at Madrid, where he was occupying a seat in the Council of Castilla.↑6“The idea of secularizing the university of Manila, suggested by Anda y Salazar, was contemplated a century later by Señor Moret, minister for the colonies [de Ultramar], and decreed by the regent of the kingdom on November 6, 1870. The college of San Juan de Letran was also secularized by the same decree; but in Filipinas orders of that sort were not executed. For the friars upset the whole matter, threatening the ruin of the colony if the decree were carried out, raising protests and petitions—in short, causing the bishops and the authorities to range themselves on their side, in order to present to the government at Madrid the question from the point of view which suited the interests of the Dominican order. The execution of the regent’s decree was suspended, writings were sent to Madrid in favor of the friars, and, as always, they gained their point, and continued to be owners and masters of the university and of the college of San Juan de Letran.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 6, pp. 50, 51.)↑7“The friars have always been considered as poor and needy by the government of España, and in that notion—without stopping to consider that their ownership of land was continually extending further in Filipinas, and that through various schemes they had created for themselves a secure income in the country—the Spanish monarchs by various provisions (most of them despatched at the instigation of the friars) have ordained that their needs be supplied with wine, oil, various contributions, and cash donations, under the most flimsy pretexts.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 7, p. 51.)↑8“At the pleasure of the king, on account of the lack of clerics at the beginning.”↑9“In effect, it can be said the friars trained clerics in order afterward to employ the latter in their own service; for under the name of coadjutors each cura kept in his convent one or two clerics, according to the necessities of the parish, who served him as if they were slaves, and who suffered every sort of humiliation and annoyance. It was not only in those times [of Anda] that the situation of the Filipino cleric was so melancholy and abject; but, in the midst of the increasing prosperity of the friars and their curates, with equal pace increased also the wretchedness of their coadjutors and the intolerable misery of their existence. In order to justify their conduct toward the Filipino clerics, the friars resorted to the pretext of their unfitness; but not only is this argument calumnious, but, even if it were accepted as sound, it does not justify the bad treatment which they give the cleric, and would demonstrate, besides, that the education which he receives from the friars is incomplete and defective.” (He cites Archbishop Santa Justa as rebuking the regulars for thus calumniating the clerics, saying, among other things, “Is it not notorious to every one of us here that the spiritual administration all devolves upon the coadjutor cleric, the father minister reserving to himself only the charge of collecting in his own house, without leaving it, the parochial dues. How can they deny this, when it is so public? If the clerics are incapable, how can the ministers in conscience allow and entrust to them the spiritual administration of their villages? If that be not so, how dare they discredit the clerics with the strange, not to say unjust, censure of their being unfit and incompetent?”) “In these later times, the friars, since they could no longer rail against the clerics in that fashion—for they do not, at least so much now, insist on their old accusation of unfitness, because the Filipino clerics have proved that they include men of as great learning and virtue as the friars, and even more—resorted to a political reason, making the Spanish government believe that the Filipino clerics were every one filibusters. This weapon was of good results for the cause of the friars, but fatal for the Filipino clergy, who found themselves horribly trampled upon in 1870, on occasion of the famous rebellionof the Cavite Arsenal; for three of their most distinguished and revered members, Fathers Burgos, Zamora, and Gomez, were executed under the calumnious accusation of being leaders of the rebellion, and a great number of other distinguished Filipino priests were sent to the military posts or into exile. Public opinion flung back upon the friars the terrible responsibility of sentences so iniquitous; but since then the new and safe weapon of ‘filibusterism’ has been used more and more against the Filipino clerics.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 8, pp. 52, 53.)↑10“The contribution of wine and oil had been granted (as is stated in ley 7, tit. iii, book i of theRecopilación de Indias) to certain poor monasteries, so that they could illuminate the blessed sacrament and celebrate the holy sacrifice of the mass. It was likewise ordained that such contribution should be furnished in the articles themselves, both oil and wine, and not in money or bullion. This contribution was to be given to the conventual religious and not to the ministers of doctrinas, that is, to the curas (ley 9). The escort of soldiers which was furnished to the missionaries was granted to them by a royal decree of July 23, 1744, the text of which I have not been able to find. According to Diaz Arenas (Memorias históricas), the royal decree of May 13, 1579, granted to each cura in a doctrina the sum of 50,000 maravedís, and half as much to the sacristans. Afterward, by a royal decree of October 31, 1596, the said stipend of missionary religious was fixed at $100 and 100 fanegas of palay. On March 4, 1696, August 14, 1700, January 19, 1704, and July 14, 1713, the king had ordered the viceroys of his colonial possessions to send him a report in regard to the religious who were really in need of the contribution of wine, wax, and oil, in order that he might cease giving aid to those who had no need of it, ‘or that the half or the third part might be deducted from their allowance, in proportion to the poverty of each one.’ This is seen in the royal decree of September 22, 1720, in which the king insists that this information should be sent to him; but he could not obtain it, in spite of repeated orders.” [Other attempts were made to secure such information, through the century, but without success.] (Pardo de Tavera, note 9, pp. 54–56.)↑11“The book of laws;” there is also an allusion to the generally adopted legal code or collection of laws, known asCorpus juris—literally, “body of law.” The main reference in Anda’s phrase is to theRecopilación de Indias, which provides for the collection of tithes in the Spanish colonies.↑12“It is an exceedingly bad example.”↑13Pardo de Tavera cites (note 11, pp. 56–58) a royal decree dated April 27, 1704, charging the governor (then Zabalburu) and Audiencia to restrain the friars from levying unjust exactions on the Indians. This decree was occasioned by the complaints on this score made (in 1702) by Archbishop Camacho; in it are enumerated the following acts of such injustice: “Besides the stipends which are paid to them from the royal treasury, they oblige every Indian in their districts to render them service in all their domestic necessities, and to furnish them with four fowls every day in each mission, and with fish, fuel, and everything else that the land (and even the water) produces. At the same time they collect from the Indians excessive fees, without observing the tariffs; for from an Indian whose property is worth four hundred pesos (which is the value usually of that belonging to the wealthier natives) they exact for a burial one hundred or two hundred, besides what they afterward receive for the funeral honors [i.e., ceremonies for the welfare of departed souls]; and twelve pesos for the offering for [wearing] the cope [del habito de la religión], or, if the natives are very poor, six or eight pesos, the religious making it necessary to the burial that he shall wear the cope; and when they lack means to pay for these, they serve the religious like slaves until they have earned what they need to pay these impositions. As for the marriages, the religious receive thirteen pesos for what they call the altar fee, and thirteen reals for the cross, and eight for the offering for the mass, and four for the veiling; even when they are very poor, the religious exact from them at least six or eight pesos as a requisite [for the marriage]. The Indians are, for a long time, living in illicit intercourse, because they have not the means to pay [these exactions]. In the baptisms they have introduced another tax after the offering; the rich Indian must pay up to twelve pesos for the silver cross, and the poor one pays, as such, for the wooden cross. Besides this, they also receive three reals every year from each Indian for the feast of the patron saint of the village, honors for the dead, and wax for the monument; and, added to this, one or two reals when they confess the Indians at the Lenten season—without giving any care or attention to their instruction, or to the greater service of the churches in their charge. They are deficient in almost all which belongs to their obligations as missionary curas, excepting the religious of the Order of Preachers and those of the Society, who treat the natives more kindly and instruct them better.” Cf. the “tariff of fees” drawn up by Camacho (VOL. XLII, pp. 56–64).↑14“The friars, in studying the Filipino languages, continually compared them with the Latin and the Castilian, to the grammar and genius of which they molded, whenever they could, those of the new language which they were learning. As a result, the grammars of the Filipino languages which they soon made created an artificial language, very different from that actually spoken by the islanders. Educated Filipinos distinguish perfectly this conventional language of the friars; and the latter in their turn make the charge, when they have noticed one of these observers, that the Indians when talking among themselves employ a different language from that which they use in conversations with the cura. The reverend father Fray Ramón Martinez Vigil (now bishop of Oviedo) has not failed to notice this difference; but in undertaking to explain it he falls into an error that is excusable if one considers his religious calling, which cannot admit that when there is a blunder the mistake is on the priest’s side. Speaking, then, as a priest, and doubly superior to the Indian by being a Spaniard besides, he confidently says: ‘All who have observed their familiar conversations (of the Indians) are agreed in affirming that they entirely lay aside the rules of grammar, in order to make their conversation more rapid and short—speaking among themselves a Tagálog quite different from what they use when they address the Spanish priest or any other European who understands their language.’ (Revista de Filipinas, t. ii, 1877, p. 35.) Every one who understands Tagálog has endured mortal torments thousands of times while hearing from the pulpit the sermons which a great number of religious utter in that conventional language. At present, however, the sermons that are preached are,as a rule, written in the old style, for the occasion, and then revised and corrected by coadjutors, or by citizens versed [in the native language], who shape and polish the discourse properly.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 12, pp. 58, 59.)↑15An interesting sketch of the controversy in Filipinas over the episcopal visitation of the regular curas is given by Pardo de Tavera in his note 13, pp. 59–68. The strife began even with the first bishop, Domingo de Salazar, and continued for some three centuries; for as late as 1865 the archbishop of Manila and two of his suffragan bishops joined in sending to the Spanish government complaints against the friars of substantially the same tenor as those made earlier by Salazar, Camacho, and Santa Justa. Papal and royal decrees were issued at intervals, insisting on theright of episcopal visitation; but in most cases these were practically nullified by the influence or opposition of the friars, and the inadequate supply of secular priests. The friars several times threatened to abandon their curacies (and actually did so, on some occasions); and they claimed exemption from visitation on various grounds—claiming a privilege granted to them by Pope Pius V (which, however, was afterward annulled by Clement XI), the right to obey only the superiors of their respective orders, and the lack of any obligation on them to serve the curacies, which they claimed to be only a work of supererogation.↑16“Apart from the religious fiestas and the surplice-fees, Filipinas pays to monasticism another tribute of incalculable amount for straps, rosaries, scapulars, girdles, and other objects rivaling one another in similarly miraculous qualities—which are issued for cash, and at a fixed price, which yields no less than a thousand per cent on the capital invested.” Instances of this are given; “a worn pair of trousers, which the students from whom it is asked give gratis, is transformed into hundreds of scapulars, and each scapular costs two and one-half reals fuertes, or perhaps thirty-one hundredths of a peso.” “Thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of hard dollars are paid as a tax by Filipinas on this account to the monastic coffers; and if Jesus Christ drove out the traders from the temple, in the country of miracles those persons are chastised who refuse to obtain the goods from the temple.” (Marcelo H. del Pilar, cited by Pardo de Tavera in note 14, pp. 68, 69.)↑17Pardo de Tavera here cites in full (note 16, pp. 69–76) a letter from Governor Corcuera to the king complaining of the conduct of the friars. (This letter appears inVOL. XXVIof our series, pp. 116–125.)↑18“Some have believed that Anda y Salazar, whom they consider resentful against the religious orders in Filipinas, accumulated against them, in this memorial, accusations which he alone maintained; but in the preceding notes we have demonstrated that the charges which that upright magistrate made against them were not unfounded, nor much less were they recent. In regard to the commerce to which, according to him, the religious devoted themselves, it was a certain fact, scandalous and of long standing—with the aggravating circumstance that they continued to trade in opposition to the commands of the sovereign.” A decree dated February 2, 1730 is here cited which shows this plainly, accusing both seculars and religious of trafficking openly and scandalously, and using their sacred character as a cloak for this and for extensive smuggling; and ordering the archbishop and bishops, and the provincials of the orders, to restrain and punish those of their subjects who thus offend, and the president and Audiencia to proceed against the ecclesiastical authorities if the latter fail to do their duty. (Pardo de Tavera, note 17, pp. 76–78.)↑19“The economic ideas of Señor Anda were as erroneous as were those among the generality of the Spaniards in that period. The commerce of exportation was for them a wrong and a heinous act, with which they reproached him who did it; nor would they admit that he who sells his products has a right to carry them where he can obtain the highest price.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 18, p. 78.)↑20“It is now the general opinion that the religious orders cannot prove their right of ownership of all the income-producing properties which they hold in both town and country. It cannot be doubted that under the regime of government established by the United States this important question of ownership will be cleared up.” The writer here relates the controversy of Auditor Sierra with the religious orders over this question in the time of Archbishop Camacho; finally the governor intervened with his authority, terminating the dispute by declaring that the new visitor, Auditor Ozaeta, would accept as valid the titles to property presented by the friars. (Pardo de Tavera, note 19, pp. 78–80.)↑21“It is true that the Chinese could not have received worse treatment; they have always been laden with accusations of all kinds. As for their being of no benefit to the country, this assertion is entirely contrary to the facts. The Chinese have committed abuses, it is true; but it is only right to acknowledge that they are industrious, patient, respectful, and sober; and that with such traits they must necessarily be useful to the country in which they are.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 20, p. 80.)The feeling against the Chinese in Manila after the English invasion was very bitter, as has been already noticed; it is reflected in Viana’s official opinions, as is evident in the following (Respuestas, fol. 127v): “It is a matter of public notoriety that nearly all the Sangleys of the Parián have been traitors to God and to the king, by having offered public sacrifices to their idols, aided the English enemies, and acted basely against the entire Spanish nation. Any representations made by the said Sangleys ought therefore to be regarded with suspicion, and more especially when they are not traders; for such persons cannot carry back to China the profits of the trade, but only the fears arising from their crime.” The Chinese in question had left the Parián in the late war, and gone to their own country; and now had returned to Manila, desiring to remain there on their former footing. Viana advises that a rigorous investigation of their previous status, actions, and character be made by the government, and any of them found to have acted treasonably toward the Spaniards be punished with the utmost severity; while those who had not been traitors, but had left the Parián on account of their trading or other like reasons, ought to be fined at least fifty pesos each for having done so without permission. Again (fol. 134v) he says of a certain widow (Gabriela Josepha by name), whose dwelling had been seized on account of her supposed disloyalty, that “as she is a Sangley mestiza, there is strong reason to suspect that she is the widow of some traitor.” After the English left Manila, the Sangleys there (in number 400 to 500) were compelled to labor on the ditch and other defenses of the city, as a punishment for their previous revolt. In April, 1765, they offered to the government 12,000 pesos, as “a free donation, in view of the exhausted condition of the royal treasury;”and 8,000 pesos more to the Audiencia, in order that they might be relieved from the aforesaid labor, which sum was surrendered by the auditors to the royal exchequer. Viana recommended (Respuestas, fol. 125v, 126) that these donations be accepted, and the Sangleys relieved from the ditch-digging for such time as the 8,000 pesos would last; he estimated that the work might be completed with this sum, since the government could order that from the provinces all the criminals in the jails, and the “vagabonds and mischievous persons who abound in the villages,” should be sent in to Manila to work on the ditch—thus subserving at once the ends of justice, economy, and military defense. Viana in this paper sarcastically refers to the part taken by the Chinese in aiding the English against the Spaniards during the late war, when, he says, thousands of Sangleys performed all sorts of labors for the English, besides contributing money to aid them; he therefore considers it but just that they should now labor in the royal service, since it is quite enough favor to them that their lives have been spared by the Spaniards.—Eds.↑22“In this, as in other points in the memorial, Anda is not the only one who points out the abuses committed by the missionaries.” (Here Le Gentil is cited; see ourVOL. XXVIII, pp. 210, 218, where he speaks of the absolute power of the religious.) “The friars explained their attitude against the Spaniards by saying that those who went to the provinces served only to instruct the Indians in vices; but it is certain that, granted the sort of life led by the curas, and their absolute independence, the presence of a Spaniard in the town must have been vexatious to them. Besides, the latter could not tolerate their abuses without protesting against them; and his attitude would have served as an example and stimulus for the Indians to escape from the insupportable domination and tyranny of the fathers.“At the end of this present century an intelligent and respectable Dominican friar says, in an official memorial, referring to the Spaniards of the provinces in Filipinas: ‘If they remain many years they live altogether like the Indians—dragging along a miserable and wretched life, a disgrace to the Spanish name inthese islands—and become utterly slothful and vicious, deserving I know not whether pity or execration. For, since they come from España without education or ability to undertake even a simple commission—and it is a wonder if in their own country they ever knew how to plow or make a pair of shoes—here they are of no use whatever. And, as here all the Spaniards bear the title of Don, and are addressed as Señor, they are prone to desire to appear as such, establishing themselves with a white suit [Americana], which costs them half a peso, and giving themselves airs as gentlemen, and persons of distinction. There are very few of them who make some little fortune—a situation which, however little it can be bettered, is never to be envied—and almost all of them lead a life that is melancholy and wretched enough, having become idlers, and scandalizing the Indians of the villages wherever they go, being a disgrace to the Spanish name in these islands.’ Such is the opinion regarding the Spaniards residing in the provinces, expressed by the reverend father Fray José María Ruiz, in hisMemoriaprepared for the Exposition of Filipinas at Madrid in 1887, pp. 284, 285. In a decree dated August 4, 1765, the king, angered by the conduct of the friars who oppose the residence of the Spaniards in the provinces, issues strict orders that no hindrance shall be placed in the way of such residence.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 21, pp. 80–82.)↑23On July 9, 1765, Viana demanded from the Audiencia (Respuestas, fol. 167v, 168) that the Sangley traders of the Parián and the alcaicería be expelled from the islands and their goods confiscated, as a punishment for their late treason, and also because they have been getting control of the retail trade of Manila, and thus injuring the Spanish shopkeepers. He alsorenews his proposal that the married Chinese of the Parián be sent to Santa Ynes, as a sort of penal colony to work in the mines and cultivate the ground adjoining.↑24“Father Fray Gaspar de San Agustin judged the Chinese with the same prejudice as he did the Indians; yet he was less hard and unjust than he was against the latter, about whom he wrote so much evil that afterward it was not possible to find any more failings or offenses to hurl against them.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 23, p. 83.)↑25In the text,yermo(“desert”), a conjectural reading by Pardo de Tavera.↑26“There were in Manila some Chinese Dominican friars, who had come from the missions which the Order of Preachers maintained in the neighboring empire.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 24, p. 83.)↑27See instructions for the new Audiencia,VOL. V, pp. 298–300.↑28In the year 1583 some revolts by the Indians occurred, caused by the bad treatment they received from the encomenderos; some of these fancied that the Indians of their encomiendas were to serve them as slaves, and spared neither the lives nor the property of the natives in making themselves rich. The government intended to make some reforms, but delayed so long that the natives, having no other means of protecting themselves, thought they must revolt against the encomenderos. In 1584 the new Audiencia arrived at Manila, presided over by Santiago de Vera; “the state of things in which he found the country, the injustices which were committed on every side, the violent means to which the oppressed found themselves obliged to resort for self-defense, impressed him deeply—above all, when in 1585 rebellion was declared by the Pampango and Tagal Indians. That prudent magistrate comprehended that the first thing which he must do in order to rule with justice was to understand the usages and customs of the country which he was commissioned to rule; and it was then that, knowing the remarkable abilities of the virtuous Fray Juan de Plasencia, Dr. Vera wrote to him, asking that he would inform him in regard to the social and political organizationof the Tagals. As for the abuses of the encomenderos, undoubtedly they were magnified and exaggerated by the friars, whose interest it was to disparage the former, in order that they themselves might be absolute masters of the country in place of the encomenderos.” Pardo de Tavera cites in full a letter from the king to Archbishop Salazar, dated March 27, 1583, in which the grievances of the Indians are enumerated. “We are informed that in that province [of Filipinas] the Indian natives are seen to be dying, on account of the bad treatment inflicted on them by their encomenderos; and that the number of the said Indians has been so diminished that in some places more than a third of them are dead. This is because the taxes are levied on them for the full amount, two-thirds more than what they are under obligation to pay, and they are treated worse than slaves, and as such many are sold by some encomenderos to others; and some are flogged to death; and there are women who die or break down under their heavy burdens. Others, and their children, are compelled to serve on their lands, and sleep in the fields; and there they bring forth and nurse infants, and they die, bitten by poisonous insects; and many hang themselves, and are left to die, without food; and others eat poisonous herbs. And there are mothers who kill their own children when they are born, saying that they do so to free them from the sufferings which they are enduring. And the said Indians have conceived a very bitter hatred to the name of Christian, and regard the Spaniards as deceivers, and pay no attention to what is taught to them; accordingly, whatever they do is through force. And these injuries are greater for the Indians who belong to our royal crown, as being under [official] administration.” The king, in view of all this, renews his instructions to the viceroys and governors to enforce the laws in behalf of the Indians, and urges the bishop and other ecclesiastics to use their influence for this same purpose. (Pardo de Tavera, note 25, pp. 83–86.) See also Salazar’s letter to the king (VOL. V, pp. 210–247).↑29“That the Chinese should be more successful than the Spaniard in Filipinas is easily explained. In Anda’s time, the Spaniard who went to the provinces to devote himself to trade was a poor man who had no official situation, and for that reason an unlucky fellow who could not depend on support and influence in a country where favor was the law; while the Chinaman, with his presents, trinkets, and bribes, secured everything.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 26, p. 86.)↑30“From the earliest days of the conquest of Filipinas, the monarchs displayed decided earnestness that the knowledge of the Castilian language should be diffused among their peoples; while the friars opposed to this a resistance as tenacious as it was hostile, not only to the interests of the civilization of these regions, but to the sovereignty of España.” (Here is cited a royal decree, dated August 4, 1765, as an example of many, strictly commanding that the natives be taught the Castilian language, and that no hindrance be placed in the way of the Spaniards freely traveling and trading in the provinces.) “A few years ago Señor Escosura, royal commissary—whose complaisance toward the friars, so well known,gives more force to the censures which he directs against them—said, in speaking of the education of the Filipinos: ‘That education, in the first place, if we except the city of Manila and its environs, is entirely reduced to instruction in the Christian doctrine, in Tagal or in the dialects of the respective provinces—and for the same reason, is in exclusive charge of the parish priests, either seculars or regulars (who are most in number and influence); and these pastors, to whom this country owes most important services, and whose usefulness and necessity I avow and proclaim, suffer, nevertheless, from some prejudice …. They assert that to teach the Indians Castilian would be to furnish them the means—which at present they lack, on account of the diversity of their dialects—to revolt against the Spanish authority; that from the moment when they can readily understand the laws and measures of the government they will discuss these and comment upon them, from the standpoint of their local interests, and therefore in opposition to those of the metropolis; that to give these natives an idea of their own rights is to inoculate them with the spirit of rebellion; and that, the foundation of race superiority, which now aggrandizes the Europeans, being thus destroyed, it would be impossible to govern these provinces without material force, as now.’ And, in order to promote the teaching of Castilian in the second half of the nineteenth century, Señor Escosura said that ‘it would be expedient to address urgent requests to the archbishops and bishops, impressing upon them the necessity of their obliging the parish priests to fulfil the commands that are given on this point in the laws of the Indias,’ because in three centuries of Spanish domination the laws and frequent decrees thereon had never been obeyed.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 28, pp. 87–90.)↑31In the decree cited in the preceding note occurs the following statement: “If the Indians had been taught the said [Castilian] language, the calamities and vexations would not have occurred which were experienced by the Spaniards, of both sexes, who in their flight after the loss of this fortress attempted to find asylum in the mountains and the villages nearest to them.”↑32Pardo de Tavera cites (note 29, pp. 90, 91) several statements by Rodriguez Ovalle (whose MS. account of the siege of Manila has been used by Marqués de Ayerbe in hisSitio y conquistade Manila) to show that a few of the religious tried to incite the Indians in the provinces to rise against the Spaniards, and some others became bandits; and that Rojo was jealous of Anda’s position and authority.↑33“Law 81, tit. xiv, book i of theRecopilación de Indias, issued in 1594, provides that ‘the religious may not be served by the Indians; but, in very necessary things, they may receive such service by paying them for it.’ The construction of the village churches has been accomplished by obliging the Indians to work gratis, to furnish the materials gratis, and to do everything gratis; the same procedure also served for building the convent or house of the cura.” See note 80,ante, p. 146; also the report made by Auditor Gueruela on his visit to Camarines in 1702, inVOL. XLII, pp. 304–308.↑34“The complaints against the sort of abuses which are mentioned in this section of Anda’sMemorialare precisely those which the Filipino people formulated; it was those abuses which drove the Filipinos to form the Katipunan, to rise in armed revolt, and to struggle against the Spanish government, in order to gain escape from friar dominion. Recent occurrences, and the publicity regarding the promoters of the Filipino insurrection, render it unnecessary for us to comment further on the words of Anda.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 31, pp. 91, 92.)↑35Sínodo: here a synonym ofestipendio(stipend), being the name of the stipend allowed to priests in America and the Philippines.↑36“I do not recognize the wordparilusclas,in the memorial; perhaps it is an error of the copyist. The fact is that the sick are conveyed in a hammock, a litter, or a sedan-chair to the door of the convent, where the cura comes down to confess them, give the viaticum, or apply the holy oils, as the case demands.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 32, p. 92.)↑37“That his name shall be blotted from the Book of Life”—a statement made in the sensational sermon of the Jesuit Puch in 1764 (see pp. 24–26,ante). Pardo de Tavera says (note 33, p. 92) that this occurred in Lima; he cites also a letter by Corcuera in 1636 (see ourVOL. XXVI, pp. 60–72) to show that the political use of the pulpit by the friars was a practice of long standing.↑38See account of the Santa Ynes mine in note 55,ante, p. 107.↑39See the first document of this volume, “Events in Filipinas,” for mention of this and other reforms made later by the Spanish government, which are recommended by Anda in this memorial.↑40“As fractional currency was always exceedingly scarce in Filipinas, recourse was had, in order to remove the difficulty, to the proceeding of cutting into bits the pesos and half-pesos. It was undoubtedly for this reason that to the coins thus made were applied the Tagal names ofkahati(kalahati, “the half”) for two reals,that is, the half of a half-peso; andsikapat(si-kaapat, “the fourth part”) for one real, or the quarter of a half-peso; and so on—and, for the same reason, this was called in Castilianmoneda cortada[“cut money”]. These fragments of coin bore a stamp which indicated their value, and which was placed on them in Manila; but, as the stamp did not indicate the exact size of the piece of coin, the various hands through which it passed diminished the amount of metal as much as they could, thus reducing it to its least possible size. Governor La Torre published an edict on April 25, 1764, in which, with the object of mitigating the bad results of this, since ‘not only the Sangleys, but the Indians and mestizos, are unwilling to accept the cut money, on account of its debasement,’ he made the decision (certainly acontraproducente[i.e., a measure producing effects contrary to what were intended]), to compel ‘all the cut money to pass current for its value according to the stamp on it.’This remedy was evidently profitable for those who debased the money, because it was compulsory to take the money by its stamp, its debasement being treated with indifference. The term ‘milled money’ was applied to coin of proper standard and manufacture, full and exact weight, with milled edges; the Chinese exported it, plainly because it alone could be accepted in the regions to which they carried it, but this did not occur with the cut money, which could only be accepted as bullion outside of Filipinas. Then, as now, was verified the natural phenomenon of the expulsion of good money from a country by that which is debased, because no one outside desires it, as it is not current by law.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 39, pp. 101, 102.)↑41“Whoever reads these last words of the auditor Anda will not fail to make the melancholy reflection that at the end of the nineteenth century when the Spanish domination in the Filipinas islands was definitely overthrown, the last governor-general could have written the same sad complaint, could have addressed to the [Spanish] nation the same catalogue of abuses and disorders, which, by perpetuating themselves and increasing, effected the result which exactly suited [such causes], the loss of Filipinas!” (Pardo de Tavera, note 40, p. 102.)↑42Pardo de Tavera states (p. 6) that Arriaga (misprinted Arriola) was the king’s secretary of state.↑

1To the text of this document we add most of the annotations thereon made by Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera, as found in his publication of this document (Memoria de Anda y Salazar, Manila, 1899); these are especially interesting, as coming from the pen of a native Filipino who is a scholar, a liberal, and an enlightened patriot. These notes—either translated in full, or condensedinto a summary, citing his exact language whenever possible—are credited to him, stating the note-number and page where they are found.↑2From the date of the foundation of the College of Santo Tomás, there was strife between it and the Jesuit college of San José. In 1648, the Dominicans triumphed for the time being, and the Jesuits were forbidden by the royal Audiencia to grant degrees in their university. That decision was reversed in Spain by a royal decree of March 12, 1653. San José was closed when the Jesuits were expelled. (Pardo de Tavera, pp. 43, 44, note 1.)↑3In note 2 (pp. 44–47), Pardo de Tavera gives a sketch of the history of the “secular university” of Manila. The royal decree founding it (dated May 16, 1714) states as its purpose, “that persons born there may have the comfort of being enabled to fit themselves for obtaining the prebends;” accordingly, three chairs were established at Manila, for instruction in canon and civil law and Roman law. The first incumbents (appointed in 1715) were Julian de Velasco, Francisco Fernandez Thoribio, and Manuel de Osio y Ocampo. The institution was opened on June 9, 1718, and included also the chairs of medicine and mathematics, professors for these being appointed by the governor—who, finding that this enterprise was opposed by the religious orders, especially by the Dominicans and Jesuits, ordered that a building for its use should be erected near his palace; but lack of funds stopped this work in 1721. When the chairs became vacant in 1726, a competitive examination was held to fill them, at which only five men with the degree of bachelor of law were present. The lectures were but thinly attended, five or six students only being the usual audience; the royal decree suggested that these be reënforcedby students from San José and Santo Tomás, but these colleges discouraged such attendance, and it availed naught. In 1726, the Jesuit Murillo Velarde was appointed to the chair of canon law, and then the Jesuits offered San José college to the new professors (at first, the lectures in the royal foundation had been given in a private house, because the archbishop declined to let them be given in the archiepiscopal seminary); this aroused the jealousy of the Dominicans. Finally a compromise was made between them, by agreeing that in each of the two universities there should be a chair of canon law in charge of a religious, and one of civil law in charge of a layman. The king, learning of this controversy and the ineffectiveness of his foundation, decreed (July 26, 1730) that it should be closed, thus saving to the treasury the annual cost of 2,000 pesos. Pardo de Tavera remarks that the name of “university,” given to it in Manila, does not appear in the royal decree of 1714, which simply established the three chairs mentioned. See also the account of “the college seminary of San Phelipe,” inVOL. XLVof this series, pp. 187–207, and some allusions to it inVOL. XLIV, pp. 145, 178; Velasco and Toribio were imprisoned by Bustamante at one time (VOL. XLIV, pp. 152, 155, 159.)In reality, we must go back to the royal foundation in 1702, which was encroached on by Cardinal Tournon and the abbot Sidoti (1704–07); see San Antonio’s full account of this inVOL. XXVIII, pp. 117–122. Pardo de Tavera gives an outline of this account in his note 3 (pp. 48–50), and adds: “The power of the friars caused the organization of the seminary to be delayed until, toward the end of the past century, thanks to Señor Sancho de Santa Justa y Rufina, the seminary of San Carlos was created; it was installed in the former house of the expelled members of the Society of Jesus.”↑4“The religious orders in Filipinas have always been accused of opposing culture and the diffusion of human learning among the Filipinos, having assumed, according to their traditional policy, the role of monopolisers of public instruction, in order thus to present themselves as its defenders and partisans, proclaiming themselves the civilizers of the people, and the source and origin of their intellectual progress. In reality, having in their hands the public instruction they so conducted themselves that, as Don Simon says, they organized an instruction of mere ceremony, intended to maintain the Filipinos in a calculated ignorance, and keep them imbued with principles which tended to subject their conscience and reason to the absorptive power of the monastic supremacy.” (Pardo de Tavera, p. 50, note 4.)↑5It is to be remembered that Anda wrote this memorial at Madrid, where he was occupying a seat in the Council of Castilla.↑6“The idea of secularizing the university of Manila, suggested by Anda y Salazar, was contemplated a century later by Señor Moret, minister for the colonies [de Ultramar], and decreed by the regent of the kingdom on November 6, 1870. The college of San Juan de Letran was also secularized by the same decree; but in Filipinas orders of that sort were not executed. For the friars upset the whole matter, threatening the ruin of the colony if the decree were carried out, raising protests and petitions—in short, causing the bishops and the authorities to range themselves on their side, in order to present to the government at Madrid the question from the point of view which suited the interests of the Dominican order. The execution of the regent’s decree was suspended, writings were sent to Madrid in favor of the friars, and, as always, they gained their point, and continued to be owners and masters of the university and of the college of San Juan de Letran.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 6, pp. 50, 51.)↑7“The friars have always been considered as poor and needy by the government of España, and in that notion—without stopping to consider that their ownership of land was continually extending further in Filipinas, and that through various schemes they had created for themselves a secure income in the country—the Spanish monarchs by various provisions (most of them despatched at the instigation of the friars) have ordained that their needs be supplied with wine, oil, various contributions, and cash donations, under the most flimsy pretexts.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 7, p. 51.)↑8“At the pleasure of the king, on account of the lack of clerics at the beginning.”↑9“In effect, it can be said the friars trained clerics in order afterward to employ the latter in their own service; for under the name of coadjutors each cura kept in his convent one or two clerics, according to the necessities of the parish, who served him as if they were slaves, and who suffered every sort of humiliation and annoyance. It was not only in those times [of Anda] that the situation of the Filipino cleric was so melancholy and abject; but, in the midst of the increasing prosperity of the friars and their curates, with equal pace increased also the wretchedness of their coadjutors and the intolerable misery of their existence. In order to justify their conduct toward the Filipino clerics, the friars resorted to the pretext of their unfitness; but not only is this argument calumnious, but, even if it were accepted as sound, it does not justify the bad treatment which they give the cleric, and would demonstrate, besides, that the education which he receives from the friars is incomplete and defective.” (He cites Archbishop Santa Justa as rebuking the regulars for thus calumniating the clerics, saying, among other things, “Is it not notorious to every one of us here that the spiritual administration all devolves upon the coadjutor cleric, the father minister reserving to himself only the charge of collecting in his own house, without leaving it, the parochial dues. How can they deny this, when it is so public? If the clerics are incapable, how can the ministers in conscience allow and entrust to them the spiritual administration of their villages? If that be not so, how dare they discredit the clerics with the strange, not to say unjust, censure of their being unfit and incompetent?”) “In these later times, the friars, since they could no longer rail against the clerics in that fashion—for they do not, at least so much now, insist on their old accusation of unfitness, because the Filipino clerics have proved that they include men of as great learning and virtue as the friars, and even more—resorted to a political reason, making the Spanish government believe that the Filipino clerics were every one filibusters. This weapon was of good results for the cause of the friars, but fatal for the Filipino clergy, who found themselves horribly trampled upon in 1870, on occasion of the famous rebellionof the Cavite Arsenal; for three of their most distinguished and revered members, Fathers Burgos, Zamora, and Gomez, were executed under the calumnious accusation of being leaders of the rebellion, and a great number of other distinguished Filipino priests were sent to the military posts or into exile. Public opinion flung back upon the friars the terrible responsibility of sentences so iniquitous; but since then the new and safe weapon of ‘filibusterism’ has been used more and more against the Filipino clerics.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 8, pp. 52, 53.)↑10“The contribution of wine and oil had been granted (as is stated in ley 7, tit. iii, book i of theRecopilación de Indias) to certain poor monasteries, so that they could illuminate the blessed sacrament and celebrate the holy sacrifice of the mass. It was likewise ordained that such contribution should be furnished in the articles themselves, both oil and wine, and not in money or bullion. This contribution was to be given to the conventual religious and not to the ministers of doctrinas, that is, to the curas (ley 9). The escort of soldiers which was furnished to the missionaries was granted to them by a royal decree of July 23, 1744, the text of which I have not been able to find. According to Diaz Arenas (Memorias históricas), the royal decree of May 13, 1579, granted to each cura in a doctrina the sum of 50,000 maravedís, and half as much to the sacristans. Afterward, by a royal decree of October 31, 1596, the said stipend of missionary religious was fixed at $100 and 100 fanegas of palay. On March 4, 1696, August 14, 1700, January 19, 1704, and July 14, 1713, the king had ordered the viceroys of his colonial possessions to send him a report in regard to the religious who were really in need of the contribution of wine, wax, and oil, in order that he might cease giving aid to those who had no need of it, ‘or that the half or the third part might be deducted from their allowance, in proportion to the poverty of each one.’ This is seen in the royal decree of September 22, 1720, in which the king insists that this information should be sent to him; but he could not obtain it, in spite of repeated orders.” [Other attempts were made to secure such information, through the century, but without success.] (Pardo de Tavera, note 9, pp. 54–56.)↑11“The book of laws;” there is also an allusion to the generally adopted legal code or collection of laws, known asCorpus juris—literally, “body of law.” The main reference in Anda’s phrase is to theRecopilación de Indias, which provides for the collection of tithes in the Spanish colonies.↑12“It is an exceedingly bad example.”↑13Pardo de Tavera cites (note 11, pp. 56–58) a royal decree dated April 27, 1704, charging the governor (then Zabalburu) and Audiencia to restrain the friars from levying unjust exactions on the Indians. This decree was occasioned by the complaints on this score made (in 1702) by Archbishop Camacho; in it are enumerated the following acts of such injustice: “Besides the stipends which are paid to them from the royal treasury, they oblige every Indian in their districts to render them service in all their domestic necessities, and to furnish them with four fowls every day in each mission, and with fish, fuel, and everything else that the land (and even the water) produces. At the same time they collect from the Indians excessive fees, without observing the tariffs; for from an Indian whose property is worth four hundred pesos (which is the value usually of that belonging to the wealthier natives) they exact for a burial one hundred or two hundred, besides what they afterward receive for the funeral honors [i.e., ceremonies for the welfare of departed souls]; and twelve pesos for the offering for [wearing] the cope [del habito de la religión], or, if the natives are very poor, six or eight pesos, the religious making it necessary to the burial that he shall wear the cope; and when they lack means to pay for these, they serve the religious like slaves until they have earned what they need to pay these impositions. As for the marriages, the religious receive thirteen pesos for what they call the altar fee, and thirteen reals for the cross, and eight for the offering for the mass, and four for the veiling; even when they are very poor, the religious exact from them at least six or eight pesos as a requisite [for the marriage]. The Indians are, for a long time, living in illicit intercourse, because they have not the means to pay [these exactions]. In the baptisms they have introduced another tax after the offering; the rich Indian must pay up to twelve pesos for the silver cross, and the poor one pays, as such, for the wooden cross. Besides this, they also receive three reals every year from each Indian for the feast of the patron saint of the village, honors for the dead, and wax for the monument; and, added to this, one or two reals when they confess the Indians at the Lenten season—without giving any care or attention to their instruction, or to the greater service of the churches in their charge. They are deficient in almost all which belongs to their obligations as missionary curas, excepting the religious of the Order of Preachers and those of the Society, who treat the natives more kindly and instruct them better.” Cf. the “tariff of fees” drawn up by Camacho (VOL. XLII, pp. 56–64).↑14“The friars, in studying the Filipino languages, continually compared them with the Latin and the Castilian, to the grammar and genius of which they molded, whenever they could, those of the new language which they were learning. As a result, the grammars of the Filipino languages which they soon made created an artificial language, very different from that actually spoken by the islanders. Educated Filipinos distinguish perfectly this conventional language of the friars; and the latter in their turn make the charge, when they have noticed one of these observers, that the Indians when talking among themselves employ a different language from that which they use in conversations with the cura. The reverend father Fray Ramón Martinez Vigil (now bishop of Oviedo) has not failed to notice this difference; but in undertaking to explain it he falls into an error that is excusable if one considers his religious calling, which cannot admit that when there is a blunder the mistake is on the priest’s side. Speaking, then, as a priest, and doubly superior to the Indian by being a Spaniard besides, he confidently says: ‘All who have observed their familiar conversations (of the Indians) are agreed in affirming that they entirely lay aside the rules of grammar, in order to make their conversation more rapid and short—speaking among themselves a Tagálog quite different from what they use when they address the Spanish priest or any other European who understands their language.’ (Revista de Filipinas, t. ii, 1877, p. 35.) Every one who understands Tagálog has endured mortal torments thousands of times while hearing from the pulpit the sermons which a great number of religious utter in that conventional language. At present, however, the sermons that are preached are,as a rule, written in the old style, for the occasion, and then revised and corrected by coadjutors, or by citizens versed [in the native language], who shape and polish the discourse properly.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 12, pp. 58, 59.)↑15An interesting sketch of the controversy in Filipinas over the episcopal visitation of the regular curas is given by Pardo de Tavera in his note 13, pp. 59–68. The strife began even with the first bishop, Domingo de Salazar, and continued for some three centuries; for as late as 1865 the archbishop of Manila and two of his suffragan bishops joined in sending to the Spanish government complaints against the friars of substantially the same tenor as those made earlier by Salazar, Camacho, and Santa Justa. Papal and royal decrees were issued at intervals, insisting on theright of episcopal visitation; but in most cases these were practically nullified by the influence or opposition of the friars, and the inadequate supply of secular priests. The friars several times threatened to abandon their curacies (and actually did so, on some occasions); and they claimed exemption from visitation on various grounds—claiming a privilege granted to them by Pope Pius V (which, however, was afterward annulled by Clement XI), the right to obey only the superiors of their respective orders, and the lack of any obligation on them to serve the curacies, which they claimed to be only a work of supererogation.↑16“Apart from the religious fiestas and the surplice-fees, Filipinas pays to monasticism another tribute of incalculable amount for straps, rosaries, scapulars, girdles, and other objects rivaling one another in similarly miraculous qualities—which are issued for cash, and at a fixed price, which yields no less than a thousand per cent on the capital invested.” Instances of this are given; “a worn pair of trousers, which the students from whom it is asked give gratis, is transformed into hundreds of scapulars, and each scapular costs two and one-half reals fuertes, or perhaps thirty-one hundredths of a peso.” “Thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of hard dollars are paid as a tax by Filipinas on this account to the monastic coffers; and if Jesus Christ drove out the traders from the temple, in the country of miracles those persons are chastised who refuse to obtain the goods from the temple.” (Marcelo H. del Pilar, cited by Pardo de Tavera in note 14, pp. 68, 69.)↑17Pardo de Tavera here cites in full (note 16, pp. 69–76) a letter from Governor Corcuera to the king complaining of the conduct of the friars. (This letter appears inVOL. XXVIof our series, pp. 116–125.)↑18“Some have believed that Anda y Salazar, whom they consider resentful against the religious orders in Filipinas, accumulated against them, in this memorial, accusations which he alone maintained; but in the preceding notes we have demonstrated that the charges which that upright magistrate made against them were not unfounded, nor much less were they recent. In regard to the commerce to which, according to him, the religious devoted themselves, it was a certain fact, scandalous and of long standing—with the aggravating circumstance that they continued to trade in opposition to the commands of the sovereign.” A decree dated February 2, 1730 is here cited which shows this plainly, accusing both seculars and religious of trafficking openly and scandalously, and using their sacred character as a cloak for this and for extensive smuggling; and ordering the archbishop and bishops, and the provincials of the orders, to restrain and punish those of their subjects who thus offend, and the president and Audiencia to proceed against the ecclesiastical authorities if the latter fail to do their duty. (Pardo de Tavera, note 17, pp. 76–78.)↑19“The economic ideas of Señor Anda were as erroneous as were those among the generality of the Spaniards in that period. The commerce of exportation was for them a wrong and a heinous act, with which they reproached him who did it; nor would they admit that he who sells his products has a right to carry them where he can obtain the highest price.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 18, p. 78.)↑20“It is now the general opinion that the religious orders cannot prove their right of ownership of all the income-producing properties which they hold in both town and country. It cannot be doubted that under the regime of government established by the United States this important question of ownership will be cleared up.” The writer here relates the controversy of Auditor Sierra with the religious orders over this question in the time of Archbishop Camacho; finally the governor intervened with his authority, terminating the dispute by declaring that the new visitor, Auditor Ozaeta, would accept as valid the titles to property presented by the friars. (Pardo de Tavera, note 19, pp. 78–80.)↑21“It is true that the Chinese could not have received worse treatment; they have always been laden with accusations of all kinds. As for their being of no benefit to the country, this assertion is entirely contrary to the facts. The Chinese have committed abuses, it is true; but it is only right to acknowledge that they are industrious, patient, respectful, and sober; and that with such traits they must necessarily be useful to the country in which they are.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 20, p. 80.)The feeling against the Chinese in Manila after the English invasion was very bitter, as has been already noticed; it is reflected in Viana’s official opinions, as is evident in the following (Respuestas, fol. 127v): “It is a matter of public notoriety that nearly all the Sangleys of the Parián have been traitors to God and to the king, by having offered public sacrifices to their idols, aided the English enemies, and acted basely against the entire Spanish nation. Any representations made by the said Sangleys ought therefore to be regarded with suspicion, and more especially when they are not traders; for such persons cannot carry back to China the profits of the trade, but only the fears arising from their crime.” The Chinese in question had left the Parián in the late war, and gone to their own country; and now had returned to Manila, desiring to remain there on their former footing. Viana advises that a rigorous investigation of their previous status, actions, and character be made by the government, and any of them found to have acted treasonably toward the Spaniards be punished with the utmost severity; while those who had not been traitors, but had left the Parián on account of their trading or other like reasons, ought to be fined at least fifty pesos each for having done so without permission. Again (fol. 134v) he says of a certain widow (Gabriela Josepha by name), whose dwelling had been seized on account of her supposed disloyalty, that “as she is a Sangley mestiza, there is strong reason to suspect that she is the widow of some traitor.” After the English left Manila, the Sangleys there (in number 400 to 500) were compelled to labor on the ditch and other defenses of the city, as a punishment for their previous revolt. In April, 1765, they offered to the government 12,000 pesos, as “a free donation, in view of the exhausted condition of the royal treasury;”and 8,000 pesos more to the Audiencia, in order that they might be relieved from the aforesaid labor, which sum was surrendered by the auditors to the royal exchequer. Viana recommended (Respuestas, fol. 125v, 126) that these donations be accepted, and the Sangleys relieved from the ditch-digging for such time as the 8,000 pesos would last; he estimated that the work might be completed with this sum, since the government could order that from the provinces all the criminals in the jails, and the “vagabonds and mischievous persons who abound in the villages,” should be sent in to Manila to work on the ditch—thus subserving at once the ends of justice, economy, and military defense. Viana in this paper sarcastically refers to the part taken by the Chinese in aiding the English against the Spaniards during the late war, when, he says, thousands of Sangleys performed all sorts of labors for the English, besides contributing money to aid them; he therefore considers it but just that they should now labor in the royal service, since it is quite enough favor to them that their lives have been spared by the Spaniards.—Eds.↑22“In this, as in other points in the memorial, Anda is not the only one who points out the abuses committed by the missionaries.” (Here Le Gentil is cited; see ourVOL. XXVIII, pp. 210, 218, where he speaks of the absolute power of the religious.) “The friars explained their attitude against the Spaniards by saying that those who went to the provinces served only to instruct the Indians in vices; but it is certain that, granted the sort of life led by the curas, and their absolute independence, the presence of a Spaniard in the town must have been vexatious to them. Besides, the latter could not tolerate their abuses without protesting against them; and his attitude would have served as an example and stimulus for the Indians to escape from the insupportable domination and tyranny of the fathers.“At the end of this present century an intelligent and respectable Dominican friar says, in an official memorial, referring to the Spaniards of the provinces in Filipinas: ‘If they remain many years they live altogether like the Indians—dragging along a miserable and wretched life, a disgrace to the Spanish name inthese islands—and become utterly slothful and vicious, deserving I know not whether pity or execration. For, since they come from España without education or ability to undertake even a simple commission—and it is a wonder if in their own country they ever knew how to plow or make a pair of shoes—here they are of no use whatever. And, as here all the Spaniards bear the title of Don, and are addressed as Señor, they are prone to desire to appear as such, establishing themselves with a white suit [Americana], which costs them half a peso, and giving themselves airs as gentlemen, and persons of distinction. There are very few of them who make some little fortune—a situation which, however little it can be bettered, is never to be envied—and almost all of them lead a life that is melancholy and wretched enough, having become idlers, and scandalizing the Indians of the villages wherever they go, being a disgrace to the Spanish name in these islands.’ Such is the opinion regarding the Spaniards residing in the provinces, expressed by the reverend father Fray José María Ruiz, in hisMemoriaprepared for the Exposition of Filipinas at Madrid in 1887, pp. 284, 285. In a decree dated August 4, 1765, the king, angered by the conduct of the friars who oppose the residence of the Spaniards in the provinces, issues strict orders that no hindrance shall be placed in the way of such residence.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 21, pp. 80–82.)↑23On July 9, 1765, Viana demanded from the Audiencia (Respuestas, fol. 167v, 168) that the Sangley traders of the Parián and the alcaicería be expelled from the islands and their goods confiscated, as a punishment for their late treason, and also because they have been getting control of the retail trade of Manila, and thus injuring the Spanish shopkeepers. He alsorenews his proposal that the married Chinese of the Parián be sent to Santa Ynes, as a sort of penal colony to work in the mines and cultivate the ground adjoining.↑24“Father Fray Gaspar de San Agustin judged the Chinese with the same prejudice as he did the Indians; yet he was less hard and unjust than he was against the latter, about whom he wrote so much evil that afterward it was not possible to find any more failings or offenses to hurl against them.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 23, p. 83.)↑25In the text,yermo(“desert”), a conjectural reading by Pardo de Tavera.↑26“There were in Manila some Chinese Dominican friars, who had come from the missions which the Order of Preachers maintained in the neighboring empire.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 24, p. 83.)↑27See instructions for the new Audiencia,VOL. V, pp. 298–300.↑28In the year 1583 some revolts by the Indians occurred, caused by the bad treatment they received from the encomenderos; some of these fancied that the Indians of their encomiendas were to serve them as slaves, and spared neither the lives nor the property of the natives in making themselves rich. The government intended to make some reforms, but delayed so long that the natives, having no other means of protecting themselves, thought they must revolt against the encomenderos. In 1584 the new Audiencia arrived at Manila, presided over by Santiago de Vera; “the state of things in which he found the country, the injustices which were committed on every side, the violent means to which the oppressed found themselves obliged to resort for self-defense, impressed him deeply—above all, when in 1585 rebellion was declared by the Pampango and Tagal Indians. That prudent magistrate comprehended that the first thing which he must do in order to rule with justice was to understand the usages and customs of the country which he was commissioned to rule; and it was then that, knowing the remarkable abilities of the virtuous Fray Juan de Plasencia, Dr. Vera wrote to him, asking that he would inform him in regard to the social and political organizationof the Tagals. As for the abuses of the encomenderos, undoubtedly they were magnified and exaggerated by the friars, whose interest it was to disparage the former, in order that they themselves might be absolute masters of the country in place of the encomenderos.” Pardo de Tavera cites in full a letter from the king to Archbishop Salazar, dated March 27, 1583, in which the grievances of the Indians are enumerated. “We are informed that in that province [of Filipinas] the Indian natives are seen to be dying, on account of the bad treatment inflicted on them by their encomenderos; and that the number of the said Indians has been so diminished that in some places more than a third of them are dead. This is because the taxes are levied on them for the full amount, two-thirds more than what they are under obligation to pay, and they are treated worse than slaves, and as such many are sold by some encomenderos to others; and some are flogged to death; and there are women who die or break down under their heavy burdens. Others, and their children, are compelled to serve on their lands, and sleep in the fields; and there they bring forth and nurse infants, and they die, bitten by poisonous insects; and many hang themselves, and are left to die, without food; and others eat poisonous herbs. And there are mothers who kill their own children when they are born, saying that they do so to free them from the sufferings which they are enduring. And the said Indians have conceived a very bitter hatred to the name of Christian, and regard the Spaniards as deceivers, and pay no attention to what is taught to them; accordingly, whatever they do is through force. And these injuries are greater for the Indians who belong to our royal crown, as being under [official] administration.” The king, in view of all this, renews his instructions to the viceroys and governors to enforce the laws in behalf of the Indians, and urges the bishop and other ecclesiastics to use their influence for this same purpose. (Pardo de Tavera, note 25, pp. 83–86.) See also Salazar’s letter to the king (VOL. V, pp. 210–247).↑29“That the Chinese should be more successful than the Spaniard in Filipinas is easily explained. In Anda’s time, the Spaniard who went to the provinces to devote himself to trade was a poor man who had no official situation, and for that reason an unlucky fellow who could not depend on support and influence in a country where favor was the law; while the Chinaman, with his presents, trinkets, and bribes, secured everything.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 26, p. 86.)↑30“From the earliest days of the conquest of Filipinas, the monarchs displayed decided earnestness that the knowledge of the Castilian language should be diffused among their peoples; while the friars opposed to this a resistance as tenacious as it was hostile, not only to the interests of the civilization of these regions, but to the sovereignty of España.” (Here is cited a royal decree, dated August 4, 1765, as an example of many, strictly commanding that the natives be taught the Castilian language, and that no hindrance be placed in the way of the Spaniards freely traveling and trading in the provinces.) “A few years ago Señor Escosura, royal commissary—whose complaisance toward the friars, so well known,gives more force to the censures which he directs against them—said, in speaking of the education of the Filipinos: ‘That education, in the first place, if we except the city of Manila and its environs, is entirely reduced to instruction in the Christian doctrine, in Tagal or in the dialects of the respective provinces—and for the same reason, is in exclusive charge of the parish priests, either seculars or regulars (who are most in number and influence); and these pastors, to whom this country owes most important services, and whose usefulness and necessity I avow and proclaim, suffer, nevertheless, from some prejudice …. They assert that to teach the Indians Castilian would be to furnish them the means—which at present they lack, on account of the diversity of their dialects—to revolt against the Spanish authority; that from the moment when they can readily understand the laws and measures of the government they will discuss these and comment upon them, from the standpoint of their local interests, and therefore in opposition to those of the metropolis; that to give these natives an idea of their own rights is to inoculate them with the spirit of rebellion; and that, the foundation of race superiority, which now aggrandizes the Europeans, being thus destroyed, it would be impossible to govern these provinces without material force, as now.’ And, in order to promote the teaching of Castilian in the second half of the nineteenth century, Señor Escosura said that ‘it would be expedient to address urgent requests to the archbishops and bishops, impressing upon them the necessity of their obliging the parish priests to fulfil the commands that are given on this point in the laws of the Indias,’ because in three centuries of Spanish domination the laws and frequent decrees thereon had never been obeyed.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 28, pp. 87–90.)↑31In the decree cited in the preceding note occurs the following statement: “If the Indians had been taught the said [Castilian] language, the calamities and vexations would not have occurred which were experienced by the Spaniards, of both sexes, who in their flight after the loss of this fortress attempted to find asylum in the mountains and the villages nearest to them.”↑32Pardo de Tavera cites (note 29, pp. 90, 91) several statements by Rodriguez Ovalle (whose MS. account of the siege of Manila has been used by Marqués de Ayerbe in hisSitio y conquistade Manila) to show that a few of the religious tried to incite the Indians in the provinces to rise against the Spaniards, and some others became bandits; and that Rojo was jealous of Anda’s position and authority.↑33“Law 81, tit. xiv, book i of theRecopilación de Indias, issued in 1594, provides that ‘the religious may not be served by the Indians; but, in very necessary things, they may receive such service by paying them for it.’ The construction of the village churches has been accomplished by obliging the Indians to work gratis, to furnish the materials gratis, and to do everything gratis; the same procedure also served for building the convent or house of the cura.” See note 80,ante, p. 146; also the report made by Auditor Gueruela on his visit to Camarines in 1702, inVOL. XLII, pp. 304–308.↑34“The complaints against the sort of abuses which are mentioned in this section of Anda’sMemorialare precisely those which the Filipino people formulated; it was those abuses which drove the Filipinos to form the Katipunan, to rise in armed revolt, and to struggle against the Spanish government, in order to gain escape from friar dominion. Recent occurrences, and the publicity regarding the promoters of the Filipino insurrection, render it unnecessary for us to comment further on the words of Anda.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 31, pp. 91, 92.)↑35Sínodo: here a synonym ofestipendio(stipend), being the name of the stipend allowed to priests in America and the Philippines.↑36“I do not recognize the wordparilusclas,in the memorial; perhaps it is an error of the copyist. The fact is that the sick are conveyed in a hammock, a litter, or a sedan-chair to the door of the convent, where the cura comes down to confess them, give the viaticum, or apply the holy oils, as the case demands.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 32, p. 92.)↑37“That his name shall be blotted from the Book of Life”—a statement made in the sensational sermon of the Jesuit Puch in 1764 (see pp. 24–26,ante). Pardo de Tavera says (note 33, p. 92) that this occurred in Lima; he cites also a letter by Corcuera in 1636 (see ourVOL. XXVI, pp. 60–72) to show that the political use of the pulpit by the friars was a practice of long standing.↑38See account of the Santa Ynes mine in note 55,ante, p. 107.↑39See the first document of this volume, “Events in Filipinas,” for mention of this and other reforms made later by the Spanish government, which are recommended by Anda in this memorial.↑40“As fractional currency was always exceedingly scarce in Filipinas, recourse was had, in order to remove the difficulty, to the proceeding of cutting into bits the pesos and half-pesos. It was undoubtedly for this reason that to the coins thus made were applied the Tagal names ofkahati(kalahati, “the half”) for two reals,that is, the half of a half-peso; andsikapat(si-kaapat, “the fourth part”) for one real, or the quarter of a half-peso; and so on—and, for the same reason, this was called in Castilianmoneda cortada[“cut money”]. These fragments of coin bore a stamp which indicated their value, and which was placed on them in Manila; but, as the stamp did not indicate the exact size of the piece of coin, the various hands through which it passed diminished the amount of metal as much as they could, thus reducing it to its least possible size. Governor La Torre published an edict on April 25, 1764, in which, with the object of mitigating the bad results of this, since ‘not only the Sangleys, but the Indians and mestizos, are unwilling to accept the cut money, on account of its debasement,’ he made the decision (certainly acontraproducente[i.e., a measure producing effects contrary to what were intended]), to compel ‘all the cut money to pass current for its value according to the stamp on it.’This remedy was evidently profitable for those who debased the money, because it was compulsory to take the money by its stamp, its debasement being treated with indifference. The term ‘milled money’ was applied to coin of proper standard and manufacture, full and exact weight, with milled edges; the Chinese exported it, plainly because it alone could be accepted in the regions to which they carried it, but this did not occur with the cut money, which could only be accepted as bullion outside of Filipinas. Then, as now, was verified the natural phenomenon of the expulsion of good money from a country by that which is debased, because no one outside desires it, as it is not current by law.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 39, pp. 101, 102.)↑41“Whoever reads these last words of the auditor Anda will not fail to make the melancholy reflection that at the end of the nineteenth century when the Spanish domination in the Filipinas islands was definitely overthrown, the last governor-general could have written the same sad complaint, could have addressed to the [Spanish] nation the same catalogue of abuses and disorders, which, by perpetuating themselves and increasing, effected the result which exactly suited [such causes], the loss of Filipinas!” (Pardo de Tavera, note 40, p. 102.)↑42Pardo de Tavera states (p. 6) that Arriaga (misprinted Arriola) was the king’s secretary of state.↑

1To the text of this document we add most of the annotations thereon made by Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera, as found in his publication of this document (Memoria de Anda y Salazar, Manila, 1899); these are especially interesting, as coming from the pen of a native Filipino who is a scholar, a liberal, and an enlightened patriot. These notes—either translated in full, or condensedinto a summary, citing his exact language whenever possible—are credited to him, stating the note-number and page where they are found.↑2From the date of the foundation of the College of Santo Tomás, there was strife between it and the Jesuit college of San José. In 1648, the Dominicans triumphed for the time being, and the Jesuits were forbidden by the royal Audiencia to grant degrees in their university. That decision was reversed in Spain by a royal decree of March 12, 1653. San José was closed when the Jesuits were expelled. (Pardo de Tavera, pp. 43, 44, note 1.)↑3In note 2 (pp. 44–47), Pardo de Tavera gives a sketch of the history of the “secular university” of Manila. The royal decree founding it (dated May 16, 1714) states as its purpose, “that persons born there may have the comfort of being enabled to fit themselves for obtaining the prebends;” accordingly, three chairs were established at Manila, for instruction in canon and civil law and Roman law. The first incumbents (appointed in 1715) were Julian de Velasco, Francisco Fernandez Thoribio, and Manuel de Osio y Ocampo. The institution was opened on June 9, 1718, and included also the chairs of medicine and mathematics, professors for these being appointed by the governor—who, finding that this enterprise was opposed by the religious orders, especially by the Dominicans and Jesuits, ordered that a building for its use should be erected near his palace; but lack of funds stopped this work in 1721. When the chairs became vacant in 1726, a competitive examination was held to fill them, at which only five men with the degree of bachelor of law were present. The lectures were but thinly attended, five or six students only being the usual audience; the royal decree suggested that these be reënforcedby students from San José and Santo Tomás, but these colleges discouraged such attendance, and it availed naught. In 1726, the Jesuit Murillo Velarde was appointed to the chair of canon law, and then the Jesuits offered San José college to the new professors (at first, the lectures in the royal foundation had been given in a private house, because the archbishop declined to let them be given in the archiepiscopal seminary); this aroused the jealousy of the Dominicans. Finally a compromise was made between them, by agreeing that in each of the two universities there should be a chair of canon law in charge of a religious, and one of civil law in charge of a layman. The king, learning of this controversy and the ineffectiveness of his foundation, decreed (July 26, 1730) that it should be closed, thus saving to the treasury the annual cost of 2,000 pesos. Pardo de Tavera remarks that the name of “university,” given to it in Manila, does not appear in the royal decree of 1714, which simply established the three chairs mentioned. See also the account of “the college seminary of San Phelipe,” inVOL. XLVof this series, pp. 187–207, and some allusions to it inVOL. XLIV, pp. 145, 178; Velasco and Toribio were imprisoned by Bustamante at one time (VOL. XLIV, pp. 152, 155, 159.)In reality, we must go back to the royal foundation in 1702, which was encroached on by Cardinal Tournon and the abbot Sidoti (1704–07); see San Antonio’s full account of this inVOL. XXVIII, pp. 117–122. Pardo de Tavera gives an outline of this account in his note 3 (pp. 48–50), and adds: “The power of the friars caused the organization of the seminary to be delayed until, toward the end of the past century, thanks to Señor Sancho de Santa Justa y Rufina, the seminary of San Carlos was created; it was installed in the former house of the expelled members of the Society of Jesus.”↑4“The religious orders in Filipinas have always been accused of opposing culture and the diffusion of human learning among the Filipinos, having assumed, according to their traditional policy, the role of monopolisers of public instruction, in order thus to present themselves as its defenders and partisans, proclaiming themselves the civilizers of the people, and the source and origin of their intellectual progress. In reality, having in their hands the public instruction they so conducted themselves that, as Don Simon says, they organized an instruction of mere ceremony, intended to maintain the Filipinos in a calculated ignorance, and keep them imbued with principles which tended to subject their conscience and reason to the absorptive power of the monastic supremacy.” (Pardo de Tavera, p. 50, note 4.)↑5It is to be remembered that Anda wrote this memorial at Madrid, where he was occupying a seat in the Council of Castilla.↑6“The idea of secularizing the university of Manila, suggested by Anda y Salazar, was contemplated a century later by Señor Moret, minister for the colonies [de Ultramar], and decreed by the regent of the kingdom on November 6, 1870. The college of San Juan de Letran was also secularized by the same decree; but in Filipinas orders of that sort were not executed. For the friars upset the whole matter, threatening the ruin of the colony if the decree were carried out, raising protests and petitions—in short, causing the bishops and the authorities to range themselves on their side, in order to present to the government at Madrid the question from the point of view which suited the interests of the Dominican order. The execution of the regent’s decree was suspended, writings were sent to Madrid in favor of the friars, and, as always, they gained their point, and continued to be owners and masters of the university and of the college of San Juan de Letran.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 6, pp. 50, 51.)↑7“The friars have always been considered as poor and needy by the government of España, and in that notion—without stopping to consider that their ownership of land was continually extending further in Filipinas, and that through various schemes they had created for themselves a secure income in the country—the Spanish monarchs by various provisions (most of them despatched at the instigation of the friars) have ordained that their needs be supplied with wine, oil, various contributions, and cash donations, under the most flimsy pretexts.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 7, p. 51.)↑8“At the pleasure of the king, on account of the lack of clerics at the beginning.”↑9“In effect, it can be said the friars trained clerics in order afterward to employ the latter in their own service; for under the name of coadjutors each cura kept in his convent one or two clerics, according to the necessities of the parish, who served him as if they were slaves, and who suffered every sort of humiliation and annoyance. It was not only in those times [of Anda] that the situation of the Filipino cleric was so melancholy and abject; but, in the midst of the increasing prosperity of the friars and their curates, with equal pace increased also the wretchedness of their coadjutors and the intolerable misery of their existence. In order to justify their conduct toward the Filipino clerics, the friars resorted to the pretext of their unfitness; but not only is this argument calumnious, but, even if it were accepted as sound, it does not justify the bad treatment which they give the cleric, and would demonstrate, besides, that the education which he receives from the friars is incomplete and defective.” (He cites Archbishop Santa Justa as rebuking the regulars for thus calumniating the clerics, saying, among other things, “Is it not notorious to every one of us here that the spiritual administration all devolves upon the coadjutor cleric, the father minister reserving to himself only the charge of collecting in his own house, without leaving it, the parochial dues. How can they deny this, when it is so public? If the clerics are incapable, how can the ministers in conscience allow and entrust to them the spiritual administration of their villages? If that be not so, how dare they discredit the clerics with the strange, not to say unjust, censure of their being unfit and incompetent?”) “In these later times, the friars, since they could no longer rail against the clerics in that fashion—for they do not, at least so much now, insist on their old accusation of unfitness, because the Filipino clerics have proved that they include men of as great learning and virtue as the friars, and even more—resorted to a political reason, making the Spanish government believe that the Filipino clerics were every one filibusters. This weapon was of good results for the cause of the friars, but fatal for the Filipino clergy, who found themselves horribly trampled upon in 1870, on occasion of the famous rebellionof the Cavite Arsenal; for three of their most distinguished and revered members, Fathers Burgos, Zamora, and Gomez, were executed under the calumnious accusation of being leaders of the rebellion, and a great number of other distinguished Filipino priests were sent to the military posts or into exile. Public opinion flung back upon the friars the terrible responsibility of sentences so iniquitous; but since then the new and safe weapon of ‘filibusterism’ has been used more and more against the Filipino clerics.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 8, pp. 52, 53.)↑10“The contribution of wine and oil had been granted (as is stated in ley 7, tit. iii, book i of theRecopilación de Indias) to certain poor monasteries, so that they could illuminate the blessed sacrament and celebrate the holy sacrifice of the mass. It was likewise ordained that such contribution should be furnished in the articles themselves, both oil and wine, and not in money or bullion. This contribution was to be given to the conventual religious and not to the ministers of doctrinas, that is, to the curas (ley 9). The escort of soldiers which was furnished to the missionaries was granted to them by a royal decree of July 23, 1744, the text of which I have not been able to find. According to Diaz Arenas (Memorias históricas), the royal decree of May 13, 1579, granted to each cura in a doctrina the sum of 50,000 maravedís, and half as much to the sacristans. Afterward, by a royal decree of October 31, 1596, the said stipend of missionary religious was fixed at $100 and 100 fanegas of palay. On March 4, 1696, August 14, 1700, January 19, 1704, and July 14, 1713, the king had ordered the viceroys of his colonial possessions to send him a report in regard to the religious who were really in need of the contribution of wine, wax, and oil, in order that he might cease giving aid to those who had no need of it, ‘or that the half or the third part might be deducted from their allowance, in proportion to the poverty of each one.’ This is seen in the royal decree of September 22, 1720, in which the king insists that this information should be sent to him; but he could not obtain it, in spite of repeated orders.” [Other attempts were made to secure such information, through the century, but without success.] (Pardo de Tavera, note 9, pp. 54–56.)↑11“The book of laws;” there is also an allusion to the generally adopted legal code or collection of laws, known asCorpus juris—literally, “body of law.” The main reference in Anda’s phrase is to theRecopilación de Indias, which provides for the collection of tithes in the Spanish colonies.↑12“It is an exceedingly bad example.”↑13Pardo de Tavera cites (note 11, pp. 56–58) a royal decree dated April 27, 1704, charging the governor (then Zabalburu) and Audiencia to restrain the friars from levying unjust exactions on the Indians. This decree was occasioned by the complaints on this score made (in 1702) by Archbishop Camacho; in it are enumerated the following acts of such injustice: “Besides the stipends which are paid to them from the royal treasury, they oblige every Indian in their districts to render them service in all their domestic necessities, and to furnish them with four fowls every day in each mission, and with fish, fuel, and everything else that the land (and even the water) produces. At the same time they collect from the Indians excessive fees, without observing the tariffs; for from an Indian whose property is worth four hundred pesos (which is the value usually of that belonging to the wealthier natives) they exact for a burial one hundred or two hundred, besides what they afterward receive for the funeral honors [i.e., ceremonies for the welfare of departed souls]; and twelve pesos for the offering for [wearing] the cope [del habito de la religión], or, if the natives are very poor, six or eight pesos, the religious making it necessary to the burial that he shall wear the cope; and when they lack means to pay for these, they serve the religious like slaves until they have earned what they need to pay these impositions. As for the marriages, the religious receive thirteen pesos for what they call the altar fee, and thirteen reals for the cross, and eight for the offering for the mass, and four for the veiling; even when they are very poor, the religious exact from them at least six or eight pesos as a requisite [for the marriage]. The Indians are, for a long time, living in illicit intercourse, because they have not the means to pay [these exactions]. In the baptisms they have introduced another tax after the offering; the rich Indian must pay up to twelve pesos for the silver cross, and the poor one pays, as such, for the wooden cross. Besides this, they also receive three reals every year from each Indian for the feast of the patron saint of the village, honors for the dead, and wax for the monument; and, added to this, one or two reals when they confess the Indians at the Lenten season—without giving any care or attention to their instruction, or to the greater service of the churches in their charge. They are deficient in almost all which belongs to their obligations as missionary curas, excepting the religious of the Order of Preachers and those of the Society, who treat the natives more kindly and instruct them better.” Cf. the “tariff of fees” drawn up by Camacho (VOL. XLII, pp. 56–64).↑14“The friars, in studying the Filipino languages, continually compared them with the Latin and the Castilian, to the grammar and genius of which they molded, whenever they could, those of the new language which they were learning. As a result, the grammars of the Filipino languages which they soon made created an artificial language, very different from that actually spoken by the islanders. Educated Filipinos distinguish perfectly this conventional language of the friars; and the latter in their turn make the charge, when they have noticed one of these observers, that the Indians when talking among themselves employ a different language from that which they use in conversations with the cura. The reverend father Fray Ramón Martinez Vigil (now bishop of Oviedo) has not failed to notice this difference; but in undertaking to explain it he falls into an error that is excusable if one considers his religious calling, which cannot admit that when there is a blunder the mistake is on the priest’s side. Speaking, then, as a priest, and doubly superior to the Indian by being a Spaniard besides, he confidently says: ‘All who have observed their familiar conversations (of the Indians) are agreed in affirming that they entirely lay aside the rules of grammar, in order to make their conversation more rapid and short—speaking among themselves a Tagálog quite different from what they use when they address the Spanish priest or any other European who understands their language.’ (Revista de Filipinas, t. ii, 1877, p. 35.) Every one who understands Tagálog has endured mortal torments thousands of times while hearing from the pulpit the sermons which a great number of religious utter in that conventional language. At present, however, the sermons that are preached are,as a rule, written in the old style, for the occasion, and then revised and corrected by coadjutors, or by citizens versed [in the native language], who shape and polish the discourse properly.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 12, pp. 58, 59.)↑15An interesting sketch of the controversy in Filipinas over the episcopal visitation of the regular curas is given by Pardo de Tavera in his note 13, pp. 59–68. The strife began even with the first bishop, Domingo de Salazar, and continued for some three centuries; for as late as 1865 the archbishop of Manila and two of his suffragan bishops joined in sending to the Spanish government complaints against the friars of substantially the same tenor as those made earlier by Salazar, Camacho, and Santa Justa. Papal and royal decrees were issued at intervals, insisting on theright of episcopal visitation; but in most cases these were practically nullified by the influence or opposition of the friars, and the inadequate supply of secular priests. The friars several times threatened to abandon their curacies (and actually did so, on some occasions); and they claimed exemption from visitation on various grounds—claiming a privilege granted to them by Pope Pius V (which, however, was afterward annulled by Clement XI), the right to obey only the superiors of their respective orders, and the lack of any obligation on them to serve the curacies, which they claimed to be only a work of supererogation.↑16“Apart from the religious fiestas and the surplice-fees, Filipinas pays to monasticism another tribute of incalculable amount for straps, rosaries, scapulars, girdles, and other objects rivaling one another in similarly miraculous qualities—which are issued for cash, and at a fixed price, which yields no less than a thousand per cent on the capital invested.” Instances of this are given; “a worn pair of trousers, which the students from whom it is asked give gratis, is transformed into hundreds of scapulars, and each scapular costs two and one-half reals fuertes, or perhaps thirty-one hundredths of a peso.” “Thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of hard dollars are paid as a tax by Filipinas on this account to the monastic coffers; and if Jesus Christ drove out the traders from the temple, in the country of miracles those persons are chastised who refuse to obtain the goods from the temple.” (Marcelo H. del Pilar, cited by Pardo de Tavera in note 14, pp. 68, 69.)↑17Pardo de Tavera here cites in full (note 16, pp. 69–76) a letter from Governor Corcuera to the king complaining of the conduct of the friars. (This letter appears inVOL. XXVIof our series, pp. 116–125.)↑18“Some have believed that Anda y Salazar, whom they consider resentful against the religious orders in Filipinas, accumulated against them, in this memorial, accusations which he alone maintained; but in the preceding notes we have demonstrated that the charges which that upright magistrate made against them were not unfounded, nor much less were they recent. In regard to the commerce to which, according to him, the religious devoted themselves, it was a certain fact, scandalous and of long standing—with the aggravating circumstance that they continued to trade in opposition to the commands of the sovereign.” A decree dated February 2, 1730 is here cited which shows this plainly, accusing both seculars and religious of trafficking openly and scandalously, and using their sacred character as a cloak for this and for extensive smuggling; and ordering the archbishop and bishops, and the provincials of the orders, to restrain and punish those of their subjects who thus offend, and the president and Audiencia to proceed against the ecclesiastical authorities if the latter fail to do their duty. (Pardo de Tavera, note 17, pp. 76–78.)↑19“The economic ideas of Señor Anda were as erroneous as were those among the generality of the Spaniards in that period. The commerce of exportation was for them a wrong and a heinous act, with which they reproached him who did it; nor would they admit that he who sells his products has a right to carry them where he can obtain the highest price.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 18, p. 78.)↑20“It is now the general opinion that the religious orders cannot prove their right of ownership of all the income-producing properties which they hold in both town and country. It cannot be doubted that under the regime of government established by the United States this important question of ownership will be cleared up.” The writer here relates the controversy of Auditor Sierra with the religious orders over this question in the time of Archbishop Camacho; finally the governor intervened with his authority, terminating the dispute by declaring that the new visitor, Auditor Ozaeta, would accept as valid the titles to property presented by the friars. (Pardo de Tavera, note 19, pp. 78–80.)↑21“It is true that the Chinese could not have received worse treatment; they have always been laden with accusations of all kinds. As for their being of no benefit to the country, this assertion is entirely contrary to the facts. The Chinese have committed abuses, it is true; but it is only right to acknowledge that they are industrious, patient, respectful, and sober; and that with such traits they must necessarily be useful to the country in which they are.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 20, p. 80.)The feeling against the Chinese in Manila after the English invasion was very bitter, as has been already noticed; it is reflected in Viana’s official opinions, as is evident in the following (Respuestas, fol. 127v): “It is a matter of public notoriety that nearly all the Sangleys of the Parián have been traitors to God and to the king, by having offered public sacrifices to their idols, aided the English enemies, and acted basely against the entire Spanish nation. Any representations made by the said Sangleys ought therefore to be regarded with suspicion, and more especially when they are not traders; for such persons cannot carry back to China the profits of the trade, but only the fears arising from their crime.” The Chinese in question had left the Parián in the late war, and gone to their own country; and now had returned to Manila, desiring to remain there on their former footing. Viana advises that a rigorous investigation of their previous status, actions, and character be made by the government, and any of them found to have acted treasonably toward the Spaniards be punished with the utmost severity; while those who had not been traitors, but had left the Parián on account of their trading or other like reasons, ought to be fined at least fifty pesos each for having done so without permission. Again (fol. 134v) he says of a certain widow (Gabriela Josepha by name), whose dwelling had been seized on account of her supposed disloyalty, that “as she is a Sangley mestiza, there is strong reason to suspect that she is the widow of some traitor.” After the English left Manila, the Sangleys there (in number 400 to 500) were compelled to labor on the ditch and other defenses of the city, as a punishment for their previous revolt. In April, 1765, they offered to the government 12,000 pesos, as “a free donation, in view of the exhausted condition of the royal treasury;”and 8,000 pesos more to the Audiencia, in order that they might be relieved from the aforesaid labor, which sum was surrendered by the auditors to the royal exchequer. Viana recommended (Respuestas, fol. 125v, 126) that these donations be accepted, and the Sangleys relieved from the ditch-digging for such time as the 8,000 pesos would last; he estimated that the work might be completed with this sum, since the government could order that from the provinces all the criminals in the jails, and the “vagabonds and mischievous persons who abound in the villages,” should be sent in to Manila to work on the ditch—thus subserving at once the ends of justice, economy, and military defense. Viana in this paper sarcastically refers to the part taken by the Chinese in aiding the English against the Spaniards during the late war, when, he says, thousands of Sangleys performed all sorts of labors for the English, besides contributing money to aid them; he therefore considers it but just that they should now labor in the royal service, since it is quite enough favor to them that their lives have been spared by the Spaniards.—Eds.↑22“In this, as in other points in the memorial, Anda is not the only one who points out the abuses committed by the missionaries.” (Here Le Gentil is cited; see ourVOL. XXVIII, pp. 210, 218, where he speaks of the absolute power of the religious.) “The friars explained their attitude against the Spaniards by saying that those who went to the provinces served only to instruct the Indians in vices; but it is certain that, granted the sort of life led by the curas, and their absolute independence, the presence of a Spaniard in the town must have been vexatious to them. Besides, the latter could not tolerate their abuses without protesting against them; and his attitude would have served as an example and stimulus for the Indians to escape from the insupportable domination and tyranny of the fathers.“At the end of this present century an intelligent and respectable Dominican friar says, in an official memorial, referring to the Spaniards of the provinces in Filipinas: ‘If they remain many years they live altogether like the Indians—dragging along a miserable and wretched life, a disgrace to the Spanish name inthese islands—and become utterly slothful and vicious, deserving I know not whether pity or execration. For, since they come from España without education or ability to undertake even a simple commission—and it is a wonder if in their own country they ever knew how to plow or make a pair of shoes—here they are of no use whatever. And, as here all the Spaniards bear the title of Don, and are addressed as Señor, they are prone to desire to appear as such, establishing themselves with a white suit [Americana], which costs them half a peso, and giving themselves airs as gentlemen, and persons of distinction. There are very few of them who make some little fortune—a situation which, however little it can be bettered, is never to be envied—and almost all of them lead a life that is melancholy and wretched enough, having become idlers, and scandalizing the Indians of the villages wherever they go, being a disgrace to the Spanish name in these islands.’ Such is the opinion regarding the Spaniards residing in the provinces, expressed by the reverend father Fray José María Ruiz, in hisMemoriaprepared for the Exposition of Filipinas at Madrid in 1887, pp. 284, 285. In a decree dated August 4, 1765, the king, angered by the conduct of the friars who oppose the residence of the Spaniards in the provinces, issues strict orders that no hindrance shall be placed in the way of such residence.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 21, pp. 80–82.)↑23On July 9, 1765, Viana demanded from the Audiencia (Respuestas, fol. 167v, 168) that the Sangley traders of the Parián and the alcaicería be expelled from the islands and their goods confiscated, as a punishment for their late treason, and also because they have been getting control of the retail trade of Manila, and thus injuring the Spanish shopkeepers. He alsorenews his proposal that the married Chinese of the Parián be sent to Santa Ynes, as a sort of penal colony to work in the mines and cultivate the ground adjoining.↑24“Father Fray Gaspar de San Agustin judged the Chinese with the same prejudice as he did the Indians; yet he was less hard and unjust than he was against the latter, about whom he wrote so much evil that afterward it was not possible to find any more failings or offenses to hurl against them.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 23, p. 83.)↑25In the text,yermo(“desert”), a conjectural reading by Pardo de Tavera.↑26“There were in Manila some Chinese Dominican friars, who had come from the missions which the Order of Preachers maintained in the neighboring empire.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 24, p. 83.)↑27See instructions for the new Audiencia,VOL. V, pp. 298–300.↑28In the year 1583 some revolts by the Indians occurred, caused by the bad treatment they received from the encomenderos; some of these fancied that the Indians of their encomiendas were to serve them as slaves, and spared neither the lives nor the property of the natives in making themselves rich. The government intended to make some reforms, but delayed so long that the natives, having no other means of protecting themselves, thought they must revolt against the encomenderos. In 1584 the new Audiencia arrived at Manila, presided over by Santiago de Vera; “the state of things in which he found the country, the injustices which were committed on every side, the violent means to which the oppressed found themselves obliged to resort for self-defense, impressed him deeply—above all, when in 1585 rebellion was declared by the Pampango and Tagal Indians. That prudent magistrate comprehended that the first thing which he must do in order to rule with justice was to understand the usages and customs of the country which he was commissioned to rule; and it was then that, knowing the remarkable abilities of the virtuous Fray Juan de Plasencia, Dr. Vera wrote to him, asking that he would inform him in regard to the social and political organizationof the Tagals. As for the abuses of the encomenderos, undoubtedly they were magnified and exaggerated by the friars, whose interest it was to disparage the former, in order that they themselves might be absolute masters of the country in place of the encomenderos.” Pardo de Tavera cites in full a letter from the king to Archbishop Salazar, dated March 27, 1583, in which the grievances of the Indians are enumerated. “We are informed that in that province [of Filipinas] the Indian natives are seen to be dying, on account of the bad treatment inflicted on them by their encomenderos; and that the number of the said Indians has been so diminished that in some places more than a third of them are dead. This is because the taxes are levied on them for the full amount, two-thirds more than what they are under obligation to pay, and they are treated worse than slaves, and as such many are sold by some encomenderos to others; and some are flogged to death; and there are women who die or break down under their heavy burdens. Others, and their children, are compelled to serve on their lands, and sleep in the fields; and there they bring forth and nurse infants, and they die, bitten by poisonous insects; and many hang themselves, and are left to die, without food; and others eat poisonous herbs. And there are mothers who kill their own children when they are born, saying that they do so to free them from the sufferings which they are enduring. And the said Indians have conceived a very bitter hatred to the name of Christian, and regard the Spaniards as deceivers, and pay no attention to what is taught to them; accordingly, whatever they do is through force. And these injuries are greater for the Indians who belong to our royal crown, as being under [official] administration.” The king, in view of all this, renews his instructions to the viceroys and governors to enforce the laws in behalf of the Indians, and urges the bishop and other ecclesiastics to use their influence for this same purpose. (Pardo de Tavera, note 25, pp. 83–86.) See also Salazar’s letter to the king (VOL. V, pp. 210–247).↑29“That the Chinese should be more successful than the Spaniard in Filipinas is easily explained. In Anda’s time, the Spaniard who went to the provinces to devote himself to trade was a poor man who had no official situation, and for that reason an unlucky fellow who could not depend on support and influence in a country where favor was the law; while the Chinaman, with his presents, trinkets, and bribes, secured everything.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 26, p. 86.)↑30“From the earliest days of the conquest of Filipinas, the monarchs displayed decided earnestness that the knowledge of the Castilian language should be diffused among their peoples; while the friars opposed to this a resistance as tenacious as it was hostile, not only to the interests of the civilization of these regions, but to the sovereignty of España.” (Here is cited a royal decree, dated August 4, 1765, as an example of many, strictly commanding that the natives be taught the Castilian language, and that no hindrance be placed in the way of the Spaniards freely traveling and trading in the provinces.) “A few years ago Señor Escosura, royal commissary—whose complaisance toward the friars, so well known,gives more force to the censures which he directs against them—said, in speaking of the education of the Filipinos: ‘That education, in the first place, if we except the city of Manila and its environs, is entirely reduced to instruction in the Christian doctrine, in Tagal or in the dialects of the respective provinces—and for the same reason, is in exclusive charge of the parish priests, either seculars or regulars (who are most in number and influence); and these pastors, to whom this country owes most important services, and whose usefulness and necessity I avow and proclaim, suffer, nevertheless, from some prejudice …. They assert that to teach the Indians Castilian would be to furnish them the means—which at present they lack, on account of the diversity of their dialects—to revolt against the Spanish authority; that from the moment when they can readily understand the laws and measures of the government they will discuss these and comment upon them, from the standpoint of their local interests, and therefore in opposition to those of the metropolis; that to give these natives an idea of their own rights is to inoculate them with the spirit of rebellion; and that, the foundation of race superiority, which now aggrandizes the Europeans, being thus destroyed, it would be impossible to govern these provinces without material force, as now.’ And, in order to promote the teaching of Castilian in the second half of the nineteenth century, Señor Escosura said that ‘it would be expedient to address urgent requests to the archbishops and bishops, impressing upon them the necessity of their obliging the parish priests to fulfil the commands that are given on this point in the laws of the Indias,’ because in three centuries of Spanish domination the laws and frequent decrees thereon had never been obeyed.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 28, pp. 87–90.)↑31In the decree cited in the preceding note occurs the following statement: “If the Indians had been taught the said [Castilian] language, the calamities and vexations would not have occurred which were experienced by the Spaniards, of both sexes, who in their flight after the loss of this fortress attempted to find asylum in the mountains and the villages nearest to them.”↑32Pardo de Tavera cites (note 29, pp. 90, 91) several statements by Rodriguez Ovalle (whose MS. account of the siege of Manila has been used by Marqués de Ayerbe in hisSitio y conquistade Manila) to show that a few of the religious tried to incite the Indians in the provinces to rise against the Spaniards, and some others became bandits; and that Rojo was jealous of Anda’s position and authority.↑33“Law 81, tit. xiv, book i of theRecopilación de Indias, issued in 1594, provides that ‘the religious may not be served by the Indians; but, in very necessary things, they may receive such service by paying them for it.’ The construction of the village churches has been accomplished by obliging the Indians to work gratis, to furnish the materials gratis, and to do everything gratis; the same procedure also served for building the convent or house of the cura.” See note 80,ante, p. 146; also the report made by Auditor Gueruela on his visit to Camarines in 1702, inVOL. XLII, pp. 304–308.↑34“The complaints against the sort of abuses which are mentioned in this section of Anda’sMemorialare precisely those which the Filipino people formulated; it was those abuses which drove the Filipinos to form the Katipunan, to rise in armed revolt, and to struggle against the Spanish government, in order to gain escape from friar dominion. Recent occurrences, and the publicity regarding the promoters of the Filipino insurrection, render it unnecessary for us to comment further on the words of Anda.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 31, pp. 91, 92.)↑35Sínodo: here a synonym ofestipendio(stipend), being the name of the stipend allowed to priests in America and the Philippines.↑36“I do not recognize the wordparilusclas,in the memorial; perhaps it is an error of the copyist. The fact is that the sick are conveyed in a hammock, a litter, or a sedan-chair to the door of the convent, where the cura comes down to confess them, give the viaticum, or apply the holy oils, as the case demands.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 32, p. 92.)↑37“That his name shall be blotted from the Book of Life”—a statement made in the sensational sermon of the Jesuit Puch in 1764 (see pp. 24–26,ante). Pardo de Tavera says (note 33, p. 92) that this occurred in Lima; he cites also a letter by Corcuera in 1636 (see ourVOL. XXVI, pp. 60–72) to show that the political use of the pulpit by the friars was a practice of long standing.↑38See account of the Santa Ynes mine in note 55,ante, p. 107.↑39See the first document of this volume, “Events in Filipinas,” for mention of this and other reforms made later by the Spanish government, which are recommended by Anda in this memorial.↑40“As fractional currency was always exceedingly scarce in Filipinas, recourse was had, in order to remove the difficulty, to the proceeding of cutting into bits the pesos and half-pesos. It was undoubtedly for this reason that to the coins thus made were applied the Tagal names ofkahati(kalahati, “the half”) for two reals,that is, the half of a half-peso; andsikapat(si-kaapat, “the fourth part”) for one real, or the quarter of a half-peso; and so on—and, for the same reason, this was called in Castilianmoneda cortada[“cut money”]. These fragments of coin bore a stamp which indicated their value, and which was placed on them in Manila; but, as the stamp did not indicate the exact size of the piece of coin, the various hands through which it passed diminished the amount of metal as much as they could, thus reducing it to its least possible size. Governor La Torre published an edict on April 25, 1764, in which, with the object of mitigating the bad results of this, since ‘not only the Sangleys, but the Indians and mestizos, are unwilling to accept the cut money, on account of its debasement,’ he made the decision (certainly acontraproducente[i.e., a measure producing effects contrary to what were intended]), to compel ‘all the cut money to pass current for its value according to the stamp on it.’This remedy was evidently profitable for those who debased the money, because it was compulsory to take the money by its stamp, its debasement being treated with indifference. The term ‘milled money’ was applied to coin of proper standard and manufacture, full and exact weight, with milled edges; the Chinese exported it, plainly because it alone could be accepted in the regions to which they carried it, but this did not occur with the cut money, which could only be accepted as bullion outside of Filipinas. Then, as now, was verified the natural phenomenon of the expulsion of good money from a country by that which is debased, because no one outside desires it, as it is not current by law.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 39, pp. 101, 102.)↑41“Whoever reads these last words of the auditor Anda will not fail to make the melancholy reflection that at the end of the nineteenth century when the Spanish domination in the Filipinas islands was definitely overthrown, the last governor-general could have written the same sad complaint, could have addressed to the [Spanish] nation the same catalogue of abuses and disorders, which, by perpetuating themselves and increasing, effected the result which exactly suited [such causes], the loss of Filipinas!” (Pardo de Tavera, note 40, p. 102.)↑42Pardo de Tavera states (p. 6) that Arriaga (misprinted Arriola) was the king’s secretary of state.↑

1To the text of this document we add most of the annotations thereon made by Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera, as found in his publication of this document (Memoria de Anda y Salazar, Manila, 1899); these are especially interesting, as coming from the pen of a native Filipino who is a scholar, a liberal, and an enlightened patriot. These notes—either translated in full, or condensedinto a summary, citing his exact language whenever possible—are credited to him, stating the note-number and page where they are found.↑

2From the date of the foundation of the College of Santo Tomás, there was strife between it and the Jesuit college of San José. In 1648, the Dominicans triumphed for the time being, and the Jesuits were forbidden by the royal Audiencia to grant degrees in their university. That decision was reversed in Spain by a royal decree of March 12, 1653. San José was closed when the Jesuits were expelled. (Pardo de Tavera, pp. 43, 44, note 1.)↑

3In note 2 (pp. 44–47), Pardo de Tavera gives a sketch of the history of the “secular university” of Manila. The royal decree founding it (dated May 16, 1714) states as its purpose, “that persons born there may have the comfort of being enabled to fit themselves for obtaining the prebends;” accordingly, three chairs were established at Manila, for instruction in canon and civil law and Roman law. The first incumbents (appointed in 1715) were Julian de Velasco, Francisco Fernandez Thoribio, and Manuel de Osio y Ocampo. The institution was opened on June 9, 1718, and included also the chairs of medicine and mathematics, professors for these being appointed by the governor—who, finding that this enterprise was opposed by the religious orders, especially by the Dominicans and Jesuits, ordered that a building for its use should be erected near his palace; but lack of funds stopped this work in 1721. When the chairs became vacant in 1726, a competitive examination was held to fill them, at which only five men with the degree of bachelor of law were present. The lectures were but thinly attended, five or six students only being the usual audience; the royal decree suggested that these be reënforcedby students from San José and Santo Tomás, but these colleges discouraged such attendance, and it availed naught. In 1726, the Jesuit Murillo Velarde was appointed to the chair of canon law, and then the Jesuits offered San José college to the new professors (at first, the lectures in the royal foundation had been given in a private house, because the archbishop declined to let them be given in the archiepiscopal seminary); this aroused the jealousy of the Dominicans. Finally a compromise was made between them, by agreeing that in each of the two universities there should be a chair of canon law in charge of a religious, and one of civil law in charge of a layman. The king, learning of this controversy and the ineffectiveness of his foundation, decreed (July 26, 1730) that it should be closed, thus saving to the treasury the annual cost of 2,000 pesos. Pardo de Tavera remarks that the name of “university,” given to it in Manila, does not appear in the royal decree of 1714, which simply established the three chairs mentioned. See also the account of “the college seminary of San Phelipe,” inVOL. XLVof this series, pp. 187–207, and some allusions to it inVOL. XLIV, pp. 145, 178; Velasco and Toribio were imprisoned by Bustamante at one time (VOL. XLIV, pp. 152, 155, 159.)

In reality, we must go back to the royal foundation in 1702, which was encroached on by Cardinal Tournon and the abbot Sidoti (1704–07); see San Antonio’s full account of this inVOL. XXVIII, pp. 117–122. Pardo de Tavera gives an outline of this account in his note 3 (pp. 48–50), and adds: “The power of the friars caused the organization of the seminary to be delayed until, toward the end of the past century, thanks to Señor Sancho de Santa Justa y Rufina, the seminary of San Carlos was created; it was installed in the former house of the expelled members of the Society of Jesus.”↑

4“The religious orders in Filipinas have always been accused of opposing culture and the diffusion of human learning among the Filipinos, having assumed, according to their traditional policy, the role of monopolisers of public instruction, in order thus to present themselves as its defenders and partisans, proclaiming themselves the civilizers of the people, and the source and origin of their intellectual progress. In reality, having in their hands the public instruction they so conducted themselves that, as Don Simon says, they organized an instruction of mere ceremony, intended to maintain the Filipinos in a calculated ignorance, and keep them imbued with principles which tended to subject their conscience and reason to the absorptive power of the monastic supremacy.” (Pardo de Tavera, p. 50, note 4.)↑

5It is to be remembered that Anda wrote this memorial at Madrid, where he was occupying a seat in the Council of Castilla.↑

6“The idea of secularizing the university of Manila, suggested by Anda y Salazar, was contemplated a century later by Señor Moret, minister for the colonies [de Ultramar], and decreed by the regent of the kingdom on November 6, 1870. The college of San Juan de Letran was also secularized by the same decree; but in Filipinas orders of that sort were not executed. For the friars upset the whole matter, threatening the ruin of the colony if the decree were carried out, raising protests and petitions—in short, causing the bishops and the authorities to range themselves on their side, in order to present to the government at Madrid the question from the point of view which suited the interests of the Dominican order. The execution of the regent’s decree was suspended, writings were sent to Madrid in favor of the friars, and, as always, they gained their point, and continued to be owners and masters of the university and of the college of San Juan de Letran.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 6, pp. 50, 51.)↑

7“The friars have always been considered as poor and needy by the government of España, and in that notion—without stopping to consider that their ownership of land was continually extending further in Filipinas, and that through various schemes they had created for themselves a secure income in the country—the Spanish monarchs by various provisions (most of them despatched at the instigation of the friars) have ordained that their needs be supplied with wine, oil, various contributions, and cash donations, under the most flimsy pretexts.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 7, p. 51.)↑

8“At the pleasure of the king, on account of the lack of clerics at the beginning.”↑

9“In effect, it can be said the friars trained clerics in order afterward to employ the latter in their own service; for under the name of coadjutors each cura kept in his convent one or two clerics, according to the necessities of the parish, who served him as if they were slaves, and who suffered every sort of humiliation and annoyance. It was not only in those times [of Anda] that the situation of the Filipino cleric was so melancholy and abject; but, in the midst of the increasing prosperity of the friars and their curates, with equal pace increased also the wretchedness of their coadjutors and the intolerable misery of their existence. In order to justify their conduct toward the Filipino clerics, the friars resorted to the pretext of their unfitness; but not only is this argument calumnious, but, even if it were accepted as sound, it does not justify the bad treatment which they give the cleric, and would demonstrate, besides, that the education which he receives from the friars is incomplete and defective.” (He cites Archbishop Santa Justa as rebuking the regulars for thus calumniating the clerics, saying, among other things, “Is it not notorious to every one of us here that the spiritual administration all devolves upon the coadjutor cleric, the father minister reserving to himself only the charge of collecting in his own house, without leaving it, the parochial dues. How can they deny this, when it is so public? If the clerics are incapable, how can the ministers in conscience allow and entrust to them the spiritual administration of their villages? If that be not so, how dare they discredit the clerics with the strange, not to say unjust, censure of their being unfit and incompetent?”) “In these later times, the friars, since they could no longer rail against the clerics in that fashion—for they do not, at least so much now, insist on their old accusation of unfitness, because the Filipino clerics have proved that they include men of as great learning and virtue as the friars, and even more—resorted to a political reason, making the Spanish government believe that the Filipino clerics were every one filibusters. This weapon was of good results for the cause of the friars, but fatal for the Filipino clergy, who found themselves horribly trampled upon in 1870, on occasion of the famous rebellionof the Cavite Arsenal; for three of their most distinguished and revered members, Fathers Burgos, Zamora, and Gomez, were executed under the calumnious accusation of being leaders of the rebellion, and a great number of other distinguished Filipino priests were sent to the military posts or into exile. Public opinion flung back upon the friars the terrible responsibility of sentences so iniquitous; but since then the new and safe weapon of ‘filibusterism’ has been used more and more against the Filipino clerics.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 8, pp. 52, 53.)↑

10“The contribution of wine and oil had been granted (as is stated in ley 7, tit. iii, book i of theRecopilación de Indias) to certain poor monasteries, so that they could illuminate the blessed sacrament and celebrate the holy sacrifice of the mass. It was likewise ordained that such contribution should be furnished in the articles themselves, both oil and wine, and not in money or bullion. This contribution was to be given to the conventual religious and not to the ministers of doctrinas, that is, to the curas (ley 9). The escort of soldiers which was furnished to the missionaries was granted to them by a royal decree of July 23, 1744, the text of which I have not been able to find. According to Diaz Arenas (Memorias históricas), the royal decree of May 13, 1579, granted to each cura in a doctrina the sum of 50,000 maravedís, and half as much to the sacristans. Afterward, by a royal decree of October 31, 1596, the said stipend of missionary religious was fixed at $100 and 100 fanegas of palay. On March 4, 1696, August 14, 1700, January 19, 1704, and July 14, 1713, the king had ordered the viceroys of his colonial possessions to send him a report in regard to the religious who were really in need of the contribution of wine, wax, and oil, in order that he might cease giving aid to those who had no need of it, ‘or that the half or the third part might be deducted from their allowance, in proportion to the poverty of each one.’ This is seen in the royal decree of September 22, 1720, in which the king insists that this information should be sent to him; but he could not obtain it, in spite of repeated orders.” [Other attempts were made to secure such information, through the century, but without success.] (Pardo de Tavera, note 9, pp. 54–56.)↑

11“The book of laws;” there is also an allusion to the generally adopted legal code or collection of laws, known asCorpus juris—literally, “body of law.” The main reference in Anda’s phrase is to theRecopilación de Indias, which provides for the collection of tithes in the Spanish colonies.↑

12“It is an exceedingly bad example.”↑

13Pardo de Tavera cites (note 11, pp. 56–58) a royal decree dated April 27, 1704, charging the governor (then Zabalburu) and Audiencia to restrain the friars from levying unjust exactions on the Indians. This decree was occasioned by the complaints on this score made (in 1702) by Archbishop Camacho; in it are enumerated the following acts of such injustice: “Besides the stipends which are paid to them from the royal treasury, they oblige every Indian in their districts to render them service in all their domestic necessities, and to furnish them with four fowls every day in each mission, and with fish, fuel, and everything else that the land (and even the water) produces. At the same time they collect from the Indians excessive fees, without observing the tariffs; for from an Indian whose property is worth four hundred pesos (which is the value usually of that belonging to the wealthier natives) they exact for a burial one hundred or two hundred, besides what they afterward receive for the funeral honors [i.e., ceremonies for the welfare of departed souls]; and twelve pesos for the offering for [wearing] the cope [del habito de la religión], or, if the natives are very poor, six or eight pesos, the religious making it necessary to the burial that he shall wear the cope; and when they lack means to pay for these, they serve the religious like slaves until they have earned what they need to pay these impositions. As for the marriages, the religious receive thirteen pesos for what they call the altar fee, and thirteen reals for the cross, and eight for the offering for the mass, and four for the veiling; even when they are very poor, the religious exact from them at least six or eight pesos as a requisite [for the marriage]. The Indians are, for a long time, living in illicit intercourse, because they have not the means to pay [these exactions]. In the baptisms they have introduced another tax after the offering; the rich Indian must pay up to twelve pesos for the silver cross, and the poor one pays, as such, for the wooden cross. Besides this, they also receive three reals every year from each Indian for the feast of the patron saint of the village, honors for the dead, and wax for the monument; and, added to this, one or two reals when they confess the Indians at the Lenten season—without giving any care or attention to their instruction, or to the greater service of the churches in their charge. They are deficient in almost all which belongs to their obligations as missionary curas, excepting the religious of the Order of Preachers and those of the Society, who treat the natives more kindly and instruct them better.” Cf. the “tariff of fees” drawn up by Camacho (VOL. XLII, pp. 56–64).↑

14“The friars, in studying the Filipino languages, continually compared them with the Latin and the Castilian, to the grammar and genius of which they molded, whenever they could, those of the new language which they were learning. As a result, the grammars of the Filipino languages which they soon made created an artificial language, very different from that actually spoken by the islanders. Educated Filipinos distinguish perfectly this conventional language of the friars; and the latter in their turn make the charge, when they have noticed one of these observers, that the Indians when talking among themselves employ a different language from that which they use in conversations with the cura. The reverend father Fray Ramón Martinez Vigil (now bishop of Oviedo) has not failed to notice this difference; but in undertaking to explain it he falls into an error that is excusable if one considers his religious calling, which cannot admit that when there is a blunder the mistake is on the priest’s side. Speaking, then, as a priest, and doubly superior to the Indian by being a Spaniard besides, he confidently says: ‘All who have observed their familiar conversations (of the Indians) are agreed in affirming that they entirely lay aside the rules of grammar, in order to make their conversation more rapid and short—speaking among themselves a Tagálog quite different from what they use when they address the Spanish priest or any other European who understands their language.’ (Revista de Filipinas, t. ii, 1877, p. 35.) Every one who understands Tagálog has endured mortal torments thousands of times while hearing from the pulpit the sermons which a great number of religious utter in that conventional language. At present, however, the sermons that are preached are,as a rule, written in the old style, for the occasion, and then revised and corrected by coadjutors, or by citizens versed [in the native language], who shape and polish the discourse properly.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 12, pp. 58, 59.)↑

15An interesting sketch of the controversy in Filipinas over the episcopal visitation of the regular curas is given by Pardo de Tavera in his note 13, pp. 59–68. The strife began even with the first bishop, Domingo de Salazar, and continued for some three centuries; for as late as 1865 the archbishop of Manila and two of his suffragan bishops joined in sending to the Spanish government complaints against the friars of substantially the same tenor as those made earlier by Salazar, Camacho, and Santa Justa. Papal and royal decrees were issued at intervals, insisting on theright of episcopal visitation; but in most cases these were practically nullified by the influence or opposition of the friars, and the inadequate supply of secular priests. The friars several times threatened to abandon their curacies (and actually did so, on some occasions); and they claimed exemption from visitation on various grounds—claiming a privilege granted to them by Pope Pius V (which, however, was afterward annulled by Clement XI), the right to obey only the superiors of their respective orders, and the lack of any obligation on them to serve the curacies, which they claimed to be only a work of supererogation.↑

16“Apart from the religious fiestas and the surplice-fees, Filipinas pays to monasticism another tribute of incalculable amount for straps, rosaries, scapulars, girdles, and other objects rivaling one another in similarly miraculous qualities—which are issued for cash, and at a fixed price, which yields no less than a thousand per cent on the capital invested.” Instances of this are given; “a worn pair of trousers, which the students from whom it is asked give gratis, is transformed into hundreds of scapulars, and each scapular costs two and one-half reals fuertes, or perhaps thirty-one hundredths of a peso.” “Thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of hard dollars are paid as a tax by Filipinas on this account to the monastic coffers; and if Jesus Christ drove out the traders from the temple, in the country of miracles those persons are chastised who refuse to obtain the goods from the temple.” (Marcelo H. del Pilar, cited by Pardo de Tavera in note 14, pp. 68, 69.)↑

17Pardo de Tavera here cites in full (note 16, pp. 69–76) a letter from Governor Corcuera to the king complaining of the conduct of the friars. (This letter appears inVOL. XXVIof our series, pp. 116–125.)↑

18“Some have believed that Anda y Salazar, whom they consider resentful against the religious orders in Filipinas, accumulated against them, in this memorial, accusations which he alone maintained; but in the preceding notes we have demonstrated that the charges which that upright magistrate made against them were not unfounded, nor much less were they recent. In regard to the commerce to which, according to him, the religious devoted themselves, it was a certain fact, scandalous and of long standing—with the aggravating circumstance that they continued to trade in opposition to the commands of the sovereign.” A decree dated February 2, 1730 is here cited which shows this plainly, accusing both seculars and religious of trafficking openly and scandalously, and using their sacred character as a cloak for this and for extensive smuggling; and ordering the archbishop and bishops, and the provincials of the orders, to restrain and punish those of their subjects who thus offend, and the president and Audiencia to proceed against the ecclesiastical authorities if the latter fail to do their duty. (Pardo de Tavera, note 17, pp. 76–78.)↑

19“The economic ideas of Señor Anda were as erroneous as were those among the generality of the Spaniards in that period. The commerce of exportation was for them a wrong and a heinous act, with which they reproached him who did it; nor would they admit that he who sells his products has a right to carry them where he can obtain the highest price.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 18, p. 78.)↑

20“It is now the general opinion that the religious orders cannot prove their right of ownership of all the income-producing properties which they hold in both town and country. It cannot be doubted that under the regime of government established by the United States this important question of ownership will be cleared up.” The writer here relates the controversy of Auditor Sierra with the religious orders over this question in the time of Archbishop Camacho; finally the governor intervened with his authority, terminating the dispute by declaring that the new visitor, Auditor Ozaeta, would accept as valid the titles to property presented by the friars. (Pardo de Tavera, note 19, pp. 78–80.)↑

21“It is true that the Chinese could not have received worse treatment; they have always been laden with accusations of all kinds. As for their being of no benefit to the country, this assertion is entirely contrary to the facts. The Chinese have committed abuses, it is true; but it is only right to acknowledge that they are industrious, patient, respectful, and sober; and that with such traits they must necessarily be useful to the country in which they are.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 20, p. 80.)

The feeling against the Chinese in Manila after the English invasion was very bitter, as has been already noticed; it is reflected in Viana’s official opinions, as is evident in the following (Respuestas, fol. 127v): “It is a matter of public notoriety that nearly all the Sangleys of the Parián have been traitors to God and to the king, by having offered public sacrifices to their idols, aided the English enemies, and acted basely against the entire Spanish nation. Any representations made by the said Sangleys ought therefore to be regarded with suspicion, and more especially when they are not traders; for such persons cannot carry back to China the profits of the trade, but only the fears arising from their crime.” The Chinese in question had left the Parián in the late war, and gone to their own country; and now had returned to Manila, desiring to remain there on their former footing. Viana advises that a rigorous investigation of their previous status, actions, and character be made by the government, and any of them found to have acted treasonably toward the Spaniards be punished with the utmost severity; while those who had not been traitors, but had left the Parián on account of their trading or other like reasons, ought to be fined at least fifty pesos each for having done so without permission. Again (fol. 134v) he says of a certain widow (Gabriela Josepha by name), whose dwelling had been seized on account of her supposed disloyalty, that “as she is a Sangley mestiza, there is strong reason to suspect that she is the widow of some traitor.” After the English left Manila, the Sangleys there (in number 400 to 500) were compelled to labor on the ditch and other defenses of the city, as a punishment for their previous revolt. In April, 1765, they offered to the government 12,000 pesos, as “a free donation, in view of the exhausted condition of the royal treasury;”and 8,000 pesos more to the Audiencia, in order that they might be relieved from the aforesaid labor, which sum was surrendered by the auditors to the royal exchequer. Viana recommended (Respuestas, fol. 125v, 126) that these donations be accepted, and the Sangleys relieved from the ditch-digging for such time as the 8,000 pesos would last; he estimated that the work might be completed with this sum, since the government could order that from the provinces all the criminals in the jails, and the “vagabonds and mischievous persons who abound in the villages,” should be sent in to Manila to work on the ditch—thus subserving at once the ends of justice, economy, and military defense. Viana in this paper sarcastically refers to the part taken by the Chinese in aiding the English against the Spaniards during the late war, when, he says, thousands of Sangleys performed all sorts of labors for the English, besides contributing money to aid them; he therefore considers it but just that they should now labor in the royal service, since it is quite enough favor to them that their lives have been spared by the Spaniards.—Eds.↑

22“In this, as in other points in the memorial, Anda is not the only one who points out the abuses committed by the missionaries.” (Here Le Gentil is cited; see ourVOL. XXVIII, pp. 210, 218, where he speaks of the absolute power of the religious.) “The friars explained their attitude against the Spaniards by saying that those who went to the provinces served only to instruct the Indians in vices; but it is certain that, granted the sort of life led by the curas, and their absolute independence, the presence of a Spaniard in the town must have been vexatious to them. Besides, the latter could not tolerate their abuses without protesting against them; and his attitude would have served as an example and stimulus for the Indians to escape from the insupportable domination and tyranny of the fathers.

“At the end of this present century an intelligent and respectable Dominican friar says, in an official memorial, referring to the Spaniards of the provinces in Filipinas: ‘If they remain many years they live altogether like the Indians—dragging along a miserable and wretched life, a disgrace to the Spanish name inthese islands—and become utterly slothful and vicious, deserving I know not whether pity or execration. For, since they come from España without education or ability to undertake even a simple commission—and it is a wonder if in their own country they ever knew how to plow or make a pair of shoes—here they are of no use whatever. And, as here all the Spaniards bear the title of Don, and are addressed as Señor, they are prone to desire to appear as such, establishing themselves with a white suit [Americana], which costs them half a peso, and giving themselves airs as gentlemen, and persons of distinction. There are very few of them who make some little fortune—a situation which, however little it can be bettered, is never to be envied—and almost all of them lead a life that is melancholy and wretched enough, having become idlers, and scandalizing the Indians of the villages wherever they go, being a disgrace to the Spanish name in these islands.’ Such is the opinion regarding the Spaniards residing in the provinces, expressed by the reverend father Fray José María Ruiz, in hisMemoriaprepared for the Exposition of Filipinas at Madrid in 1887, pp. 284, 285. In a decree dated August 4, 1765, the king, angered by the conduct of the friars who oppose the residence of the Spaniards in the provinces, issues strict orders that no hindrance shall be placed in the way of such residence.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 21, pp. 80–82.)↑

23On July 9, 1765, Viana demanded from the Audiencia (Respuestas, fol. 167v, 168) that the Sangley traders of the Parián and the alcaicería be expelled from the islands and their goods confiscated, as a punishment for their late treason, and also because they have been getting control of the retail trade of Manila, and thus injuring the Spanish shopkeepers. He alsorenews his proposal that the married Chinese of the Parián be sent to Santa Ynes, as a sort of penal colony to work in the mines and cultivate the ground adjoining.↑

24“Father Fray Gaspar de San Agustin judged the Chinese with the same prejudice as he did the Indians; yet he was less hard and unjust than he was against the latter, about whom he wrote so much evil that afterward it was not possible to find any more failings or offenses to hurl against them.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 23, p. 83.)↑

25In the text,yermo(“desert”), a conjectural reading by Pardo de Tavera.↑

26“There were in Manila some Chinese Dominican friars, who had come from the missions which the Order of Preachers maintained in the neighboring empire.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 24, p. 83.)↑

27See instructions for the new Audiencia,VOL. V, pp. 298–300.↑

28In the year 1583 some revolts by the Indians occurred, caused by the bad treatment they received from the encomenderos; some of these fancied that the Indians of their encomiendas were to serve them as slaves, and spared neither the lives nor the property of the natives in making themselves rich. The government intended to make some reforms, but delayed so long that the natives, having no other means of protecting themselves, thought they must revolt against the encomenderos. In 1584 the new Audiencia arrived at Manila, presided over by Santiago de Vera; “the state of things in which he found the country, the injustices which were committed on every side, the violent means to which the oppressed found themselves obliged to resort for self-defense, impressed him deeply—above all, when in 1585 rebellion was declared by the Pampango and Tagal Indians. That prudent magistrate comprehended that the first thing which he must do in order to rule with justice was to understand the usages and customs of the country which he was commissioned to rule; and it was then that, knowing the remarkable abilities of the virtuous Fray Juan de Plasencia, Dr. Vera wrote to him, asking that he would inform him in regard to the social and political organizationof the Tagals. As for the abuses of the encomenderos, undoubtedly they were magnified and exaggerated by the friars, whose interest it was to disparage the former, in order that they themselves might be absolute masters of the country in place of the encomenderos.” Pardo de Tavera cites in full a letter from the king to Archbishop Salazar, dated March 27, 1583, in which the grievances of the Indians are enumerated. “We are informed that in that province [of Filipinas] the Indian natives are seen to be dying, on account of the bad treatment inflicted on them by their encomenderos; and that the number of the said Indians has been so diminished that in some places more than a third of them are dead. This is because the taxes are levied on them for the full amount, two-thirds more than what they are under obligation to pay, and they are treated worse than slaves, and as such many are sold by some encomenderos to others; and some are flogged to death; and there are women who die or break down under their heavy burdens. Others, and their children, are compelled to serve on their lands, and sleep in the fields; and there they bring forth and nurse infants, and they die, bitten by poisonous insects; and many hang themselves, and are left to die, without food; and others eat poisonous herbs. And there are mothers who kill their own children when they are born, saying that they do so to free them from the sufferings which they are enduring. And the said Indians have conceived a very bitter hatred to the name of Christian, and regard the Spaniards as deceivers, and pay no attention to what is taught to them; accordingly, whatever they do is through force. And these injuries are greater for the Indians who belong to our royal crown, as being under [official] administration.” The king, in view of all this, renews his instructions to the viceroys and governors to enforce the laws in behalf of the Indians, and urges the bishop and other ecclesiastics to use their influence for this same purpose. (Pardo de Tavera, note 25, pp. 83–86.) See also Salazar’s letter to the king (VOL. V, pp. 210–247).↑

29“That the Chinese should be more successful than the Spaniard in Filipinas is easily explained. In Anda’s time, the Spaniard who went to the provinces to devote himself to trade was a poor man who had no official situation, and for that reason an unlucky fellow who could not depend on support and influence in a country where favor was the law; while the Chinaman, with his presents, trinkets, and bribes, secured everything.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 26, p. 86.)↑

30“From the earliest days of the conquest of Filipinas, the monarchs displayed decided earnestness that the knowledge of the Castilian language should be diffused among their peoples; while the friars opposed to this a resistance as tenacious as it was hostile, not only to the interests of the civilization of these regions, but to the sovereignty of España.” (Here is cited a royal decree, dated August 4, 1765, as an example of many, strictly commanding that the natives be taught the Castilian language, and that no hindrance be placed in the way of the Spaniards freely traveling and trading in the provinces.) “A few years ago Señor Escosura, royal commissary—whose complaisance toward the friars, so well known,gives more force to the censures which he directs against them—said, in speaking of the education of the Filipinos: ‘That education, in the first place, if we except the city of Manila and its environs, is entirely reduced to instruction in the Christian doctrine, in Tagal or in the dialects of the respective provinces—and for the same reason, is in exclusive charge of the parish priests, either seculars or regulars (who are most in number and influence); and these pastors, to whom this country owes most important services, and whose usefulness and necessity I avow and proclaim, suffer, nevertheless, from some prejudice …. They assert that to teach the Indians Castilian would be to furnish them the means—which at present they lack, on account of the diversity of their dialects—to revolt against the Spanish authority; that from the moment when they can readily understand the laws and measures of the government they will discuss these and comment upon them, from the standpoint of their local interests, and therefore in opposition to those of the metropolis; that to give these natives an idea of their own rights is to inoculate them with the spirit of rebellion; and that, the foundation of race superiority, which now aggrandizes the Europeans, being thus destroyed, it would be impossible to govern these provinces without material force, as now.’ And, in order to promote the teaching of Castilian in the second half of the nineteenth century, Señor Escosura said that ‘it would be expedient to address urgent requests to the archbishops and bishops, impressing upon them the necessity of their obliging the parish priests to fulfil the commands that are given on this point in the laws of the Indias,’ because in three centuries of Spanish domination the laws and frequent decrees thereon had never been obeyed.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 28, pp. 87–90.)↑

31In the decree cited in the preceding note occurs the following statement: “If the Indians had been taught the said [Castilian] language, the calamities and vexations would not have occurred which were experienced by the Spaniards, of both sexes, who in their flight after the loss of this fortress attempted to find asylum in the mountains and the villages nearest to them.”↑

32Pardo de Tavera cites (note 29, pp. 90, 91) several statements by Rodriguez Ovalle (whose MS. account of the siege of Manila has been used by Marqués de Ayerbe in hisSitio y conquistade Manila) to show that a few of the religious tried to incite the Indians in the provinces to rise against the Spaniards, and some others became bandits; and that Rojo was jealous of Anda’s position and authority.↑

33“Law 81, tit. xiv, book i of theRecopilación de Indias, issued in 1594, provides that ‘the religious may not be served by the Indians; but, in very necessary things, they may receive such service by paying them for it.’ The construction of the village churches has been accomplished by obliging the Indians to work gratis, to furnish the materials gratis, and to do everything gratis; the same procedure also served for building the convent or house of the cura.” See note 80,ante, p. 146; also the report made by Auditor Gueruela on his visit to Camarines in 1702, inVOL. XLII, pp. 304–308.↑

34“The complaints against the sort of abuses which are mentioned in this section of Anda’sMemorialare precisely those which the Filipino people formulated; it was those abuses which drove the Filipinos to form the Katipunan, to rise in armed revolt, and to struggle against the Spanish government, in order to gain escape from friar dominion. Recent occurrences, and the publicity regarding the promoters of the Filipino insurrection, render it unnecessary for us to comment further on the words of Anda.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 31, pp. 91, 92.)↑

35Sínodo: here a synonym ofestipendio(stipend), being the name of the stipend allowed to priests in America and the Philippines.↑

36“I do not recognize the wordparilusclas,in the memorial; perhaps it is an error of the copyist. The fact is that the sick are conveyed in a hammock, a litter, or a sedan-chair to the door of the convent, where the cura comes down to confess them, give the viaticum, or apply the holy oils, as the case demands.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 32, p. 92.)↑

37“That his name shall be blotted from the Book of Life”—a statement made in the sensational sermon of the Jesuit Puch in 1764 (see pp. 24–26,ante). Pardo de Tavera says (note 33, p. 92) that this occurred in Lima; he cites also a letter by Corcuera in 1636 (see ourVOL. XXVI, pp. 60–72) to show that the political use of the pulpit by the friars was a practice of long standing.↑

38See account of the Santa Ynes mine in note 55,ante, p. 107.↑

39See the first document of this volume, “Events in Filipinas,” for mention of this and other reforms made later by the Spanish government, which are recommended by Anda in this memorial.↑

40“As fractional currency was always exceedingly scarce in Filipinas, recourse was had, in order to remove the difficulty, to the proceeding of cutting into bits the pesos and half-pesos. It was undoubtedly for this reason that to the coins thus made were applied the Tagal names ofkahati(kalahati, “the half”) for two reals,that is, the half of a half-peso; andsikapat(si-kaapat, “the fourth part”) for one real, or the quarter of a half-peso; and so on—and, for the same reason, this was called in Castilianmoneda cortada[“cut money”]. These fragments of coin bore a stamp which indicated their value, and which was placed on them in Manila; but, as the stamp did not indicate the exact size of the piece of coin, the various hands through which it passed diminished the amount of metal as much as they could, thus reducing it to its least possible size. Governor La Torre published an edict on April 25, 1764, in which, with the object of mitigating the bad results of this, since ‘not only the Sangleys, but the Indians and mestizos, are unwilling to accept the cut money, on account of its debasement,’ he made the decision (certainly acontraproducente[i.e., a measure producing effects contrary to what were intended]), to compel ‘all the cut money to pass current for its value according to the stamp on it.’This remedy was evidently profitable for those who debased the money, because it was compulsory to take the money by its stamp, its debasement being treated with indifference. The term ‘milled money’ was applied to coin of proper standard and manufacture, full and exact weight, with milled edges; the Chinese exported it, plainly because it alone could be accepted in the regions to which they carried it, but this did not occur with the cut money, which could only be accepted as bullion outside of Filipinas. Then, as now, was verified the natural phenomenon of the expulsion of good money from a country by that which is debased, because no one outside desires it, as it is not current by law.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 39, pp. 101, 102.)↑

41“Whoever reads these last words of the auditor Anda will not fail to make the melancholy reflection that at the end of the nineteenth century when the Spanish domination in the Filipinas islands was definitely overthrown, the last governor-general could have written the same sad complaint, could have addressed to the [Spanish] nation the same catalogue of abuses and disorders, which, by perpetuating themselves and increasing, effected the result which exactly suited [such causes], the loss of Filipinas!” (Pardo de Tavera, note 40, p. 102.)↑

42Pardo de Tavera states (p. 6) that Arriaga (misprinted Arriola) was the king’s secretary of state.↑

Back to IndexNext