Chapter 21

1The fiscal Arroyo declared that he had been imprisoned in order that he might not prosecute claims against the following persons in their approaching residencias: Governor Valdés Tamón, for the enormous sums which the royal treasury had lost during his government, which amounted to a million and a half pesos; the Marqués de las Salinas and the Marqués de Monte-Castro, confederates of the same SeñorValdés, for having appropriated from the royal treasury and from the public two and one-half million pesos; and Don Domingo de Otero Vermudez, [who had taken] more than two hundred thousand. (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 95.)↑2See enumeration of these funds in the historical sketch of the Misericordia, inVOL. XLVII.↑3It is thus stated by Concepción (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 280): “With the pretext that the fathers of the Society [of Jesus] had usurped from them cultivated lands, and the untilled lands on the hills, on which they kept enormous herds of horned cattle—for which reason, and because the Jesuits said that these were their own property, they would not allow the natives to supply themselves with wood, rattans, and bamboos, unless they paid fixed prices—the Indians committed shocking acts of hostility on the ranches of Lian and Nasugbu, killing and plundering the tenants of those lands, with many other ravages. Nor did they respect the houses of the [Jesuit] fathers, but attacked and plundered them, and partly burned them, as well as many other buildings independent of these.” All was plundering, rapine, destruction, and debauchery; the natives also rebelled against the exactions from them of tribute and personal services. “The contagion spread to the village of Taal, and more than sparks were discovered in other places, although efforts were made to conceal the fire.” The alcalde-mayor and the Jesuits tried at first to pacify the Indians, urging them to wait for the official visit of Auditor Calderon; but they could do nothing, the natives being rendered only more daring by this attempt. Troops were then sent from Manila against them; in the battle mentioned in our text several were wounded, among them the commanding officer, Sargento-mayor Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar; but he succeeded in routing the enemy. The chief of the insurgents, one Matienza, took refuge in a church, but was captured and disarmed therein. Reënforcements were sent from Manila, and the rebellion was soon quelled. The leaders of the rebellion were punished in various ways, according to their prominence or influence; some were shot, others sent into exile or to the galleys; and amnesty was granted to the insurgents who would lay down their arms and renew their acknowledgment of vassalage.To this may be added the following statements by Calderon himself: “By commission of this royal Audiencia, I went to a village outside the walls of this capital, to take measures for the completion of a small bridge, which was being hindered by some dispute, and to pay to Master Alarífe 250 pesos which had been offered to him for its construction. I proceeded to make inquiries regarding the lands and revenues belonging to the village; and I found that all the surrounding estates (on which the people were working) belonged to a certain [F., forFulano] ecclesiastic, the Indians and mestizos paying him rent not only for these, but for the land occupied by their cabins, at the rate of three pesos a year for the married man, and one and one-half pesos for the widow or the unmarried man. And as it seemed to me that the person who, according to what was evident to my own eyes, was collecting about 30 pesos of land-rent, independently of the estates and houses belonging to him, was the one who rightfully ought to bear the cost of the little bridge, I announced that this cost should be collected from the persons who were owing rents for the lands. Receipts therefor were to be given to them, and orders were issued to the royal judges before whom such cases come first, that they must, if the laymen who make these payments should be accused before them, give the latter credit for these receipts; nor in all this brief summary, and in the measures that I took, would I notice the ecclesiastic who called himself the owner of all.” “In regard to the representations of the convenience for the Indian who has built his hut in the grain-field, I believe that it is quite the contrary, and that it would be more expedient for him and for the commonwealth that he should not be allowed to build it there, or that he be obliged to change his dwelling, for those huts generally serve as refuge for persons bent on mischief; besides, as the Indian thus has no watchful neighbor to inform the religious minister of his doings, and no alcalde, he lives in too much freedom. But, granted that all this comes to an end, what right has the owner of the land to more than the rent from him who occupies it? And if with hispilapis, or pathway, and his house he occupies no more than 50 brazas—for which he has to pay the same as if he had rented acabalita, which is a thousand brazas—and if he must pay the same rent, then lease to him the cabalita, including therein the house and pilapis; and with this the Indian will have land for planting his young trees, and for making some planting of grain.”These items are cited from a pamphlet issued (Manila, 1739) by the auditor Pedro Calderón Henríquez, entitled:Discvrso ivridico, en qve se defiende la real iurisdiccion, y se hace demonstracion de la injusticia, que contiene el contrato de arrendamiento de solares en estas islas; in it he “laments the great amount that the Filipinos were paying to the ecclesiastical power.” This seems to have brought out a reply defending the ecclesiastics,Apología por la immvnidad ecclesiastica, y por la licitvd de terrazgos, o alqvileres de tierras segvn la forma, estilo de algvnas estancias de estas islas Philipinas(Manila, 1739); it is significant that this was published from the Jesuit printing-house, and the auditor’s pamphlet from the college of Santo Tomás. Regarding both these, see Vindel’sCatálogo bibl. filipina, nos. 1807, 1808; therein is cited the following paragraph from theApología:“48. In the cultivated estates or farms which the Society of Jesus possesses in these islands, the tenants pay nothing for the house-lot which they occupy, with the little garden which their houses are wont to have in addition; but they pay only for the other land which they cultivate. There is, moreover, an order from the superiors that no person shall be allowed on those farms unless he has the charge of some grain-field—and rightly so, since this is the purpose for which admission to the estates is granted to any one; although this does not prevent entire justice being shown to the old men, widows, and other people who are legitimately disabled, by allowing them to remain, as they do, in their houses without paying anything for these and without cultivating a field. Therefore, there is evident falsehood in what is said by a certain [N., used when name is not to be mentioned] author, at the beginning of no. 3, art. 2, in speaking of these estates of the Society—that is, that the tenants pay for the land which they cultivate and for the ground under the houses which they occupy. In Santa Cruz the same observance was in use at the beginning, and it still is followed among the tenants who work on the lands of Mayhaligue adjoining the said village of Santa Cruz, and have their houses in the grain-fields. But as in course of time the Sangley mestizos increased in numbers, and devoted themselves to other occupations—painters, gilders, and silver-smiths, etc., which trades they now exercise with dexterity—and many households were formed, up to the number of about three hundred and eighty, which they now reach, it became necessary to yield to their importunities; and for this college of San Ignacio at Manila to condemn the splendid orchards which it possessed there, and permit the said mestizos to establish therein their dwellings. And, as it is not right that the said college should suffer the heavy damage of losing the said orchards, which had cost it many thousands of pesos, …”↑4Concepción says (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, pp. 278–280) that some investigation of this report was made before Torre’s death, and seven of the wealthiest Chinese were arrested, “as being those most liable to suspicion in the proposed disturbance.” These men were kept in prison for six months, the investigations being continued by Arrechedera and indicating that the “plot” was but a malicious fabrication, intended to harass Torre and thus cause his death. Finally, the governor, in view of their long imprisonment and the failure to prove any charges against them, released the Chinese prisoners, “under precautions and securities.” One of the prisoners proved, by a note from the warden of the court prison, that the latter “had received the Chinaman as a prisoner, without being told from whom or by whose order.” The further precaution was taken of sending back to China, in the champans that went that year, “no small number of Chinese, of those who were known to be strollers and without employment.” Concepción states that Torre’s government was rendered odious largely by a certain man in Manila, “who, on account of his rank and wealth, ambitiously lorded it over the community, causing its government to be subject to his pleasure, and did all that he could to cast infamy on the governor.”↑5In these ships came the royal situado for the current year (1747), and 30,000 pesos on account of the arrearages due; moreover, the returns from the cargo of the previous year were unusually large, owing to successful sales at Acapulco. The vessels halted at the port of Sisiran, where the silver was disembarked, being sent overland to Manila; this was done through fear lest they might be attacked by enemies at the Embocadero. The galleon “Rosario” was sent with a cargo for Acapulco, but was driven back by contrary winds, because it was poorly constructed and difficult to manage. This placed the royal treasury again in great straits, because the situados were in arrears for six remittances; Arrechedera appealed to the citizens and the clergy, who responded liberally—especially the archbishop and his chapter; “the Society of Jesus alone furnished 11,000 pesos—the royal promise being pledged for payment; and the obras pías also contributed to the common cause with their reserve funds.” (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 36–38.)↑6His family name was Martinez de Arizala; at this time he was fifty-two years of age. He was a member of the Audiencia of Quito in Peru (now in Ecuador) for seventeen years, and had been entrusted with various important commissions by the king.↑7Probably on account of his being a Dominican, the Chinese in and near Manila being mostly in charge of that order in matters of religion.↑8A full account of this revolt and its cause and progress may be found in Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, xiv, pp. 79–107; and of its punishment by Lechuga, in xi, pp. 40–43. In writing the latter volume, he had not any adequate information regarding the causes of the rebellion; but later he obtained a detailed account of this from the Recollect fathers in Bohol who took charge of the natives after the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1768. According to them, the immediate occasion of the revolt was the arbitrary conduct of the Jesuit, Father Morales, who was, in 1744, in charge of the district of Inabangan. He sent out a native constable to arrest a renegade Indian, but the latter slew the constable, whose brother, Francisco Dagóhoy, obtained the corpse, and carried it into his village. Morales refused to bury it in consecrated ground, and it lay for three days unburied and rotting. Angered at this arbitrary and harsh treatment, especially as Morales had been the cause of the constable’s death, Dagóhoy swore vengeance on the Jesuit, and persuaded the natives of his district to join him therein; 3,000 of them followed him, abandoning their homes and fortifying an inaccessible retreat in the mountains. On their way they plundered a large and valuable estate in that vicinity, named San Xavier, belonging to the Jesuits, which was well stocked with cows, carabaos, horses, and other animals. Soon afterward, Dagóhoy bribed an Indian to kill the Jesuit minister of Hagna, Father Lamberti; and afterward Morales was also assassinated by natives. The insurgents were numerously recruited through various acts of injustice and tyranny by the Spaniards, and the rebellion was assuming dangerous proportions. Bishop Espeleta of Cebú endeavored to persuade the insurgents to return to their allegiance, and offered them secular priests instead of the Jesuits; but they took this for timidity on the part of the government, and became only more emboldened. Twenty years later, Recollect missionaries were sent to Bohol in place of the expelled Jesuits, and in the district of Baclayon was stationed Fray Pedro de Santa Barbara; he laid plans for reclaiming and reconciling the insurgents, and was partially successful; Dagóhoy and several other datos “returned to God and to the church” with their followers, several hundred being baptized and making then confessions. Nevertheless, they did not go much further, and although Bishop Espeleta endeavored in person to secure their Christian administration, “he could not secure from Dagóhoy any more than that he would build a church, in order to comply with his Christian obligations; but, as he was attracted by the lawless life which he had led during so many years, and by the gratification of being obeyed, the undertaking was delayed until the present time. Nothing was done save to erect the foundation posts, which had to serve for the present church.” This last volume of Concepción’s was published in 1792, and his later information was obtained probably in 1789, in which year he wrote this account. (Espeleta’s last remonstrance with Dagóhoy was made, as stated by our writer, “in the year sixty-two;” but the context would indicate that it occurred after the labors of the Recollects began, and therefore the date is more probably “seventy-two,” the wordsesentabeing printed forsetenta, by one of the typographical errors so frequent in Conception’s pages.) Fray Pedro de Santa Barbara was so delighted at his first success that he persuaded the civil authorities to withdraw the troops from most of the Bohol stations, and to publish a general amnesty (this was not later than 1770); but the result was, that the insurgent chiefs would not allow any of their followers to leave their strongholds under pain of death, and continued their habits of raids on their neighbors, plundering, and murder. Concepción expresses indignant surprise that this rebellion had been allowed to go long unpunished, with so great loss and injury to the peaceable part of the population.↑9These ambassadors were: for Mindanao, Father Francisco Isasi, rector of the Jesuit college at Zamboanga, and the sargento-mayor there, Don Thomas de Arrevillaga. For Joló, Isasi was also designated; but on his return from Tamontaca his health was so broken that in his place was appointed Father Sebastian Ignacio de Arcada, then in charge of the district of Siocon; he went thither accompanied by Arrevillaga, having been sent by Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar, then governor of Zamboanga. (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 75–106.)↑10The missionaries appointed to the Mindanao mission were the Jesuits Juan Moreno and Sebastian Arcada; but the latter was ill at the time, and died soon afterward; in his place was substituted Ignacio Malaga. See account of their mission in Concepción, xii, pp. 110–112, 138–141.Those who went to Joló were Juan Ang[e]les and Patricio de el Barrio; they left Zamboanga on June 3, 1748, in company with Alimudin. For account of their mission, see Concepción, xii, pp. 114–138; he cites a diary and letters written by Father Angeles, and the report of Commandant Pulgar. He blames the Jesuits (pp. 146, 147) for misrepresenting the Moro sultans to the governor, and Pulgar (as being under their influence) for an unnecessarily hostile attitude toward the Moros.↑11Concepción states (xii, p. 134) that Alimudin was so infatuated for one of his concubines that he neglected his duties of government; and that his brother Bantilan bribed a man to assassinate the sultan, giving him six slaves and a thousand pesos.↑12Ferrando speaks (Hist. PP. dominicos, iv, p. 535) of “this sedition, actual or feigned (but on this point history has not made its final utterance).”↑13Forrest says (Voyage, p. 334) of Alimudin’s visit to Samboangan: “He bought goods from Don Zacharias the governor, giving the Don his own price, made presents to the officers of the garrison, and lost his money to them, as if accidentally, by gaming with dice. Still resolved to ingratiate himself with the governor, the Sultan wanted to make him a present of forty male slaves, whom he had drest in rich liveries on the occasion. Many of them were natives of Papua or New Guinea. Zacharias refused the presents, suspecting the Sultan of some design. The Sultan then asked leave to go to Manila. He went thither, and said to the archbishop, ‘I will turn Christian, let the Spaniards take Sooloo, send the stubborn Datoos to Samboangan; make me king there, I then will oblige every one to embrace your religion.’ The Spaniards listened to him, and he returned to Samboangan with an armada.”↑14See letter of the Jesuit Masvesi regarding this visit of the Joloan ruler, inVOL. XLVII, pp. 243–250; also account of it (1750), ascribed to Arrechedera, in Retana’sArchivo, i, no. v.↑15Ferrando says (iv, pp. 538, 539) that Arrechedera sent the sultan to Binalatongan (in Pangasinan) for baptism; but that Alimudin was taken ill at Paniqui, on his journey, and it was therefore decided to baptize him there.↑16This catastrophe, one of the most ruinous of its kind ever known, occurred on October 28, 1746; Lima was wrecked by the earthquake, and Callao destroyed by a tidal wave—in Lima, over 1,100 persons perished, and in Callao 4,600. A detailed account of this event was published at Lima by order of the viceroy, Marqués de Villa Garcia, an English translation of which appeared in London (the second edition in 1748); and other accounts were published in Lima and Mexico.↑17See account of this controversy, the wretched condition in which the royal ships and galleys were found to be, and the loss of the “Pilar,” in Concepción’sHistoria, xii, pp. 183–211; cf. Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 291, note. The vessel known by the names of “Rosarito” and “Philipino,” which “had cost the royal treasury 60,666 pesos, had remained more than four years abandoned to the sun and rain, without any care;” and it was now valued at 18,000 pesos, a sum which, after more thorough examination of the rotting timbers, was reduced to 7,500. The Spanish government had ordered that six ships be at once constructed to proceed against the Moro pirates; and it was therefore necessary to hasten this work, without waiting for “red tape,” hence Nebra’s informal appointment. The “Pilar” was not a fragata, but a large ship; it sailed in June or July, 1750; its repairing and cleaning was so hastily done that the vessel began to leak before it left the Luzón coast. The commander, Ignacio Martinez de Faura, was notified of this, and that it was unsafe for the vessel to proceed into the open sea; he answered, “To Purgatory, or to Acapulco!” In the following October, pieces of wreckage were picked up on the eastern coasts of Luzón, which were identified as belonging to the “Pilar.”↑18“The secretary of the government, who, protected in that quarter by the person who ought to have condemned his acts, pushed forward his designs and finally effected his purpose” (Ferrando, iv, p. 548).↑19“This [Dominican] province had already (in 1745) reported to his Majesty that the beaterio of Santa Cathalina was maintained in the form of observance provided by the royal decrees of February 17, 1716 and September 10, 1732; that it contained the fifteen religious which it ought to have according to the arrangements of its founder; that they observed the three vows of religious, according to the enactment of St. Pius V, issued on 28 [sic] in 1566; and that, although there had never been the slightest question raised on this point, some uncertainties were beginning to present themselves regarding the nature of their vows, and even whether dispensation from these could be granted by the archbishop of Manila.” Accordingly, the Dominicans requested the royal decision on these matters; the king therefore decreed (June 20, 1747) that a committee formed of the governor, the archbishop, and the Dominican provincial, should carefully examine into the best method of carrying out the previous decrees. They did so, and, when their deliberations were laid before the royal fiscal, he demanded that the vows taken by these beatas be declared opposed to his Majesty’s will. Sister Cecilia, as soon as she was placed in Santa Potenciana, divested herself of the religious habit, claiming that her profession was null—a claim which was irregular, “because the five years had already passed which the laws and justice allow for proceedings of this sort.” When the papal delegate disallowed the appeal of the Dominicans from the archbishop’s attempted control of this case, they appealed to the Audiencia for protection from the fuerza exerted by the latter; but that court declined to interfere, saying that there was no fuerza committed. The archbishop then pronounced a definitive sentence in favor of Cecilia, and set her at liberty; she then married Figueroa, and they went to Nueva España. The Spanish government took no further notice of her case, save to refuse to the Dominicans permission to lay it before the Holy See. (Ferrando, iv, pp. 548–551)↑20This was Don Protasio Cavezas.↑21A minute account of this episode is found in Concepción’sHistoria, xii, pp. 212–230. The lady’s name was Cecilia Ita y Salazar. She had been educated in the beaterio from childhood, and had been a professed religious for sixteen years.↑22“The royal decree issued in 1762 in consequence of the notorious litigation of Mother Cecilia did not decide that the beaterio should be extinguished, but only that new religious should not be admitted until those then living, who numbered nearly thirty, should be reduced to fifteen religious of the choir, in conformity with the provisions of its foundation,” “and that the number of the fifteen beatas should be kept up, according to vacancies that might occur.” (Ferrando, v, p. 151).↑23“The seizure of these champans was afterward the cause of a clamorous lawsuit incited by various officers against the master-of-camp Abad, accusing him of having kept for himself the best part [of the goods seized]. It was also proved that he employed the vessels of the royal navy in his mercantile speculations; this evil was very general in that period, and to it must be attributed, in large part, the scanty results of most of the expeditions against the Mahometan Malays of southern Filipinas.” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 294.)Another Chinese champan was seized by the Spaniards, apparently not long afterward, near Malandi; it was laden with goods for trade in Mindanao, which included a number of guns and other weapons, with ammunition. These were confiscated by the Spaniards, an act which was greatly resented by Jampsa, the sultan of Tamontaca, who therefore abandoned the Spanish alliance and sided with the hostile Moros. (Concepción, xiii, pp. 1–5.)↑24This proceeding took place at midnight on August 3, and the number arrested was 217 persons: these included Alimudin’s four sons, his brother and sister, four of his daughters, five brothers-in-law, a son-in-law; a Mahometanjaddí(“the second rank in that sect, equivalent to a bishop”) and fivepanditas; also two prominent chiefs, one hundred and sixty of the sultan’s vassals, and thirty-two concubines and female servants. (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 298.) Cf. Concepción, xii, pp. 288, 289.↑25Alimudin and his household arrived as prisoners at Manila in September, 1751. Soon afterward the Manila government declared war, with fire and sword, against the Joloans and all those Moro peoples who aided them; permitting the enslavement of all who should be captured, whether men, women or children; and giving all their property and possessions to their captors, free from all royal dues or imposts. See copy of this proclamation in Montero y Vidal’sHist. de piratería, appendix, pp. 29–31. Concepción (xii, p. 344) regards this declaration of war as unjust; he adds that the Joloan captive princes, whose arrest was incited by ambition and greed, were so unfortunate as to lose their protector, Bishop Arrechedera, by death (November 12, 1751). In the same month died also Bishop Arevalo, of Nueva Caceres.↑26Here, as most often elsewhere, “captives” are synonymous with “slaves.” Montero y Vidal (Hist. de piratería, i, p. 299) protests against this permission to enslave the Moros, as being contrary to the provisions of the laws of the Indias, which forbid slavery in Philipinas.↑27Concepción says (xii, pp. 345–352) that the master-of-camp in command of the fleet (who was Antonio Ramón de Abad y Monterde) was undecided whether to attack Joló, but was persuaded to do so by the Jesuits, who told him that the very sight of the Spanish squadron would ensure the surrender of the Joloans. The attack was made at the beginning of June, 1752, and was unsuccessful; Abad was angry at the Jesuits, who had led him into this difficulty, and quarreled with them. They retorted by accusing him to the governor, of conduct (in modern phrase) “unworthy of an officer and a gentleman”—that is, of neglect of official duty, mismanagement of the campaign, unnecessary sacrifice of his men’s lives, and licentious behavior at Zamboanga. This was believed, until Abad was reported much more favorably by other officers of his fleet. See full account of his residencia (ut supra, xiii, pp. 36–85), in which he was acquitted from the charges made against him, but sentenced to pay the costs of the residencia.↑28These hostilities broke out in 1752, and for several years scourged the unfortunate Visayans. Concepción records many of these attacks in considerable detail (Hist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 5–36); the missions of the Recollects, as also those of the Jesuits in Mindanao (except those under the shelter of the fort at Zamboanga) were the frontier outposts most exposed to the pirates, and it is these missions that Concepción chiefly mentions. The fort at Iligan, Mindanao, was besieged by two thousand Moros for two months; but a Spanish fleet was sent from Cebú, which obliged the enemy to raise the siege, after a great loss of men. This defense was conducted by the Jesuit in charge there, Father José Ducós, whose father had been an officer in the Spanish army; and this same priest rendered valiant service in other Moro raids in that region. Tagoloan and Yponan, in the province of Cagayan, Mindanao were besieged by the Moros; but the mountain Indians were called down to their aid by the Jesuit missionaries, and compelled the enemy to retreat. In Caraga, Surigao was attacked, and the Christian inhabitants, with their two Recollect missionaries, were compelled to take flight and seek refuge in the mountains; they were hunted there for weeks by the enemy—one of the priests being finally captured and taken to Lanao—all this time, enduring terrible hardships and suffering, which caused the other (Fray Roque de Santa Monica) to become hopelessly insane; he was afterward brought to Manila, but died there in a demented condition. “The district of Surigao, rich through its famous gold-mines, and now in most wretched condition,” was devastated and ruined. The enemy did the same in the island of Siargao, where the Recollect missionary, Fray Joseph de la Virgen de el Niño Perdido, was slain while endeavoring to lead his followers against the pirates. Nearly all the population—of Surigao, more than 2,000 souls; of Siargao, more than 1,600—were either slain or carried away captive. The district of Butuan was laid waste and some two hundred captives seized; the little military post at Linao, up the river, alone escaped, mainly through the difficulty of ascending the stream. The Moros attacked the island of Camiguin, which was so bravely defended by its natives that the pirates were repulsed—especially by “one of the villages, which consisted of people of Moro origin from the Lake of Malanao, from which they had withdrawn on account of domestic dissensions, and settled in this island. They are of excellent disposition, very good Christians, courageous, and have an irreconcilable hatred for those enemies.” Here they were led by their Recollect priest, Fray Marcelinc de el Espiritu Santo, “a robust native of La Mancha,” who with them fought so valiantly that the enemy could not make a landing. Romblon had so good a fort that it could repel the foe; Ticao was so poorly defended that the people, with their missionary, Fray Manuel de Santa Cathalina, could only take to flight—the priest being afterward captured, and finally ransomed for eight hundred pesos. In several places the missionaries were either slain or captured by the pirates; and these raids were extended, the boldness of the enemy increasing, even to the coasts of Luzón, in Batangas and Zambales. The government took what precautions it could, but these amounted to little save in the vicinity of Manila, Cebú, and Zamboanga; military and naval forces, and supplies of all sorts, were deficient, and there was much official apathy and corruption.↑29“This unfortunate attempt cost the treasury 36,976 pesos, and a galley that was seized by the Moros” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 301).↑30“In Manila the indignation against the disloyal Ali-Mudin knew no bounds. All clamored for the punishment of so ignoble a race, sorrowfully recalling the fact that the amount expended in courting him and in the expenses of his sojourn there was more than 20,000 pesos, without counting the 6,000 pesos and the military supplies sent to establish the Jesuits in Joló” (ut supra, p. 299). Later, the authorities at Manila hardly knew what to do with Alimudin; he would probably have been put to death, but it was feared that the Moros would retaliate by slaughtering their Christian captives, who numbered some 10,000. Fatima procured the return (in the summer of 1753) of fifty-one Christian captives, and negotiations were made for peace between Manila and Joló; and in June, 1754, Bantilan surrendered sixty-eight more captives, and a Spanish galley and champan. Faveau, who had carried on a brilliant campaign against the pirates with his little squadron, made a favorable report to the governor of the good intentions of both Bantilan and Alimudin; and stated that the return of the latter to Joló was desired by his subjects, and that Bantilan was willing to resign in his favor. Arandía sent most of the Joloan prisoners back to that island, retaining the sultan and his eldest son as hostages until the full accomplishment of the treaty; they remained there until the capture of the city by the English (1762), who afterward restored them to Joló (seeVOL. XLIX). Ferrando (iv, pp. 541–543) considers that Alimudin was unjustly suspected and ill-treated, and defends him from accusations of disloyalty to the Spaniards and to the Christian religion.↑31“The Sultanship in Sooloo is hereditary, but the government mixed. About fifteen Datoos, who may be called the nobility, make the greater part of the legislature. Their title is hereditary to the eldest son, and they sit in council with the Sultan. The Sultan has two votes in this assembly, and each Datoo has one. The heir-apparent (who, when I was there, was Datoo Alamoodine) if he sides with the Sultan, has two votes; but, if against him, only one. There are two representatives of the people, called Manteries, like the military tribunes of the Romans. The common people of Sooloo, called Tellimanhood, enjoy much real freedom, owing to the above representation; but the Tellimanhood, or vassals of the adjacent islands named Tappool, Seassee, Tawee-tawee, and others, being the estates of particular Datoos, are often used in a tyrannical manner by their chiefs. I have been told that their haughty lords visiting their estates, will sometimes with impunity demand and carry off young women, whom they happen to fancy, to swell the number of their Sandles (Concubines) at Sooloo.” (Forrest,Voyage, p. 326.)↑32For detailed accounts of the events here briefly mentioned, the Moro wars, the imprisonment of Alimudin, the ravages committed in the islands by those pirates, etc., to the end of Ovando’s government, see Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 230–419, and xiii, pp. 1–250. See also the account of the “Moro raids repulsed by Visayan natives,”ante; it is inserted mainly to represent more vividly, in the words of a probable eyewitness, a typical raid by Moro pirates on the peaceable Christian natives.↑33To this name should be added, “Santisteban, Echeveria, y Alvero” (Concepción, xiii, p. 250); he was a knight of the Order of Calatrava.↑34See Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 250–287, for details of these reforms.↑35See Concepción’s account of this eruption (xiii, pp. 345–350); it lasted from September to December, 1754 and was accompanied by severe earthquakes, one of which lasted half an hour.↑36Ignacio María de Alava, “Commander-in-chief of the naval forces in Asiatic waters,” was a personal friend of Zúñiga, to whom the latter dedicated hisHistoria. In a preliminary notice to hisEstadismo(p. 3 of Retana’s ed.) he says that Alava desired to become acquainted with the Philippines from various points of view, and invited the priest to accompany him therein. Alava arrived at Manila on December 25, 1796, and remained in the islands until January 7, 1803; he reorganized the naval forces and the arsenal at Cavite, with much energy and ability, but had various controversies with Governor Aguilar. Afterward he held important posts in the Spanish naval administration, and died on May 26, 1815. See Retana’s note concerning him (ut supra, ii, p. *562), and Montero y Vidal’sHist. de Philipinas, ii, pp. 345–359.↑37The exploits of this militant Jesuit are described by Concepción, inHist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 148–168, 178–188, 296–319.↑38The name given her in baptism was Rita Calderón; the marriage occurred on April 27, 1755. See Concepción, xiii, pp. 333, 334.↑39“The people of Magindano, and their neighbours, known commonly by the name of Oran Illanon, as living near the great Lano, are very piratically inclined. Neither can the Sultan of Magindano restrain his subjects from fitting out vessels, which go among the Philippines, to Mangaio, that is, cruise against the Spaniards: much less can be restrained the Illanos, being under a government more aristocratic; for, on the banks of the Lano, are no fewer than seventeen, stiled Rajahs, and sixteen who take the title of Sultan, besides those on the coast. When the Spanish envoy sailed from Magindano for Samboangan, Rajah Moodo sent a vessel, as has been said, to convoy him across the Illano bay. This is a proof the Spaniards are not on good terms with the Illanos. These, within ten years before 1775, have done much mischief to the Spaniards, among the islands called Babuyan, at the north extremity of the Philippines; and, at this time, they possess an island in the very heart of the Philippines, called Burias, where has been a colony of Illanos, for many years, men, women, and children. The Spaniards have often attempted to dislodge them; but in vain: the island, which is not very large, being environed with rocks and shoals to a considerable distance.” (Forrest,Voyage to New Guinea, pp. 301, 302.)↑40Fray Mateo González founded this mission to the Batanes. He made his profession in 1667, and came to Manila four years later, being then twenty-seven years old. He was sent to the Cagayán missions, and was stationed in the Babuyanes Islands during 1673–84 (save in 1677–80, at Lallo-c). In 1686 he made a visit to the Batanes, where he was well received; they contained over 3,000 souls. Leaving his companion there to study the language, he went to Manila to secure support for his new mission, to which he returned with Fray Juan Rois; but hardly two months passed before the unhealthful climate and many privations brought mortal illness on them. González died on July 25, 1688, and Rois on August 10, following. With this the Batanes mission came to an end until (in 1718) it was revived by Fray Juan Bel. (Reseña biográfica, ii, pp. 155–157.)↑41“Action was taken in a session of the royal treasury officials on the execution of the orders in a royal despatch which notified this government to establish on the mainland of Cagayan the people who were dwelling in the islands of the Babuyanes; for this purpose the sum of five thousand, three hundred and ninety-eight pesos was sent from the royal treasury of Mexico, definitely allotted to this transportation. The migration was agreed upon, the money was spent, but the only result was the transfer of some families, the greater part of them remaining in their own islands—where, as they were accustomed to that mode of life, they desired no further privileges than their own liberty, even though it be with necessary inconveniences, which they felt little or not at all, being free from the yoke since their youth.” (Concepción,Hist.de Philipinas, xi, p.304.)Cf. Salazar’s sketch of the history of these missions, in chapter xxiii ofHist. Sant. Rosario(in ourVOL. XLIII). See also, for both early and later events therein, Ferrando’sHist. PP. dominicos, iii, pp. 550–588, and iv, pp. 254–258, 330, 582–585.Concepción (ut supra) does not mention the date of the royal decree; but Ferrando states (iv, p. 423) that it was dated March 14, 1728, and that it granted for this purpose the sum of 3,398 pesos; the “3” may be a typographical error for “5,” the amount as given (but spelled out) by Concepción. Ferrando says that some three hundred families removed to the mainland, but that many more remained in their islands.↑42This is more fully described in the previous document, “Later Augustinian and Dominican missions.”↑43See Ferrando’sHist. PP. dominicos, iv, pp. 576–582.↑44Arandia made a census of the Christian Sangleys in the islands, and found that they numbered 3,413. He established the market here mentioned, that of San Fernando, at first intended to be simply a pavilion in which trade might be carried on; the heathen merchants to return immediately to their own country, without going inland from Manila or having any dealings with the natives. But, as it was soon apparent that the exigencies of weather and trade required larger and more permanent quarters, Arandía had a plan made for the necessary dwellings and storehouses, by a Recollect lay brother who was an excellent architect (whom the governor had appointed superintendent of royal works); and a contract for building it was made, at a cost of 48,000 pesos. Half of this amount was contributed by a citizen of Manila, Fernando de Mier y Noriega, the other half being supplied from the royal treasury; as a reward for this service, he was made warden of the new market, an office carrying a salary of fifty pesos a month, and passing to his children and descendants. (Concepción, xiii, pp. 357–360.) The king, however, restricted this privilege to Mier’s life.↑45See Concepción’s account of this enterprise (xiv, pp. 167–171). The amount of capital raised was 76,500 pesos, in shares of 500 each; with this, the company began to buy goods (ropas) to supply the public necessities, and sold these in their own shops, in each of which were two Spanish agents, no Sangley having anything to do with these shops. It was planned that the company, having bought goods at wholesale—they found that they could purchase thus at sixteen per cent less than they paid for the same goods at retail—should sell at only thirty per cent above the first cost; “of this [gain] eight per cent must be paid to his Majesty to make up to the royal treasury the deficiency arising from the loss of the licenses that the infidels had paid; ten per cent went to the shareholders; and the remaining twelve per cent was kept for the payment of salaries, and for a public fund for the promotion of the industries and products of the country.” Their capital was found insufficient to make their purchases; indeed, this lack had always been felt when the Sangleys conducted the trade, but their industry had supplied it; the directors therefore applied to the Misericordia and other administrators for the loan of the reserve funds held in theobras pías. The latter were at first disposed to aid the company, but later declined to do so, following the advice of certain theologians whom they consulted. The auditor Pedro Calderon Henriquez gave an opinion contrary to this, saying that theobras píashad gained great profits through the voluntary concession and tolerance of the citizens, who ought not to be the only ones to make sacrifices for the public good; and that “in these islands they had winked at the business transactions of the confraternities, which are not carried on in other regions, on account of the convenience which the merchants found in having money ready for investment in their commerce.” The governor therefore demanded from the Misericordia 100,000 pesos of their reserve funds, and from the Third Order (of St. Francis) 30,000; and with these funds the company was for the time floated. (Among the advantages expected from this enterprise were: lower prices than the Chinese asked for goods, the same price the year round, the retention of all profits within the country, and the certain support of the twenty-one families belonging to the company’s employ.) Another great hindrance was found in the general practice of using clipped money in this trade, which caused great losses. This and other difficulties caused the dissolution of the company within the year, and it was unable to do more than save the capital invested therein.↑46Ferrando says (iv, pp. 587–591) that Arandía cut off from the hospital of San Gabriel 800 pesos, out of the 2,000 which it received from the communal fund of the Sangleys, for whose benefit the hospital was founded; and this amount the Dominican province was obliged, through motives of humanity, to make good from its own treasury. Moreover, he insisted that the Augustinian provincial, Fray Juan Facundo Meseguer, should reveal to him the private reasons which he had for removing two of his friars from their charges in Indian villages. This was in reality an attack on all the religious bodies, who all resolved to make common cause on the governor, and forthwith sent to the king a remonstrance against the governor’s proceedings; this checked Arandía, who desisted from his demands against Meseguer.↑47Vindel’sCatálogo, tomo i (Madrid, 1896), p. 94, cites from Rezabal y Ugarte’sEscritores de los seis colegios universitarios(Madrid, 1805) mention of works left by Viana, existing in the archives of the Council of Indias, among them “Ordinances for the government of the Indian provinces of Filipinas.” This, with the hostility which his letters and other writings exhibit toward the religious orders, indicates the possibility that Viana had some responsibility for the instructions here mentioned by Zúñiga.↑48According to Concepción (xiii, pp. 360–366), the tax here referred to was a general one, called “the royal impost,” an ad valorem duty levied on all the products of the provinces, brought in the coasting trade to Manila; it was established, in view of the depleted condition of the royal treasury, for the maintenance of the royal fleets against the pirates and the defense of the internal commerce of the islands, and was exacted from all persons concerned, without exempting any one, whatever his rank or estate. The Dominicans were unwilling to pay this tax on certain commodities which they were sending to their convents in Cagayan, alleging that these were not commercial articles, and that they were exempt as a religious body. This was of no avail, and their vessel was seized; but, either through their representations at court or because Arandía had not first asked the royal permission for this measure, it was censured by the government and the duty removed.↑49See Concepción’s full account of this venture (xiv, pp. 208–275). It will be remembered that Bustamante had attempted in 1718 to open up commerce with Siam (VOL. XLIV, p. 152); but this was a failure, through the apathy of the Spaniards. In the year 1747 a Siamese ship came to Manila with merchandise, and another four years later; these were well received there, and allowed to sell their goods free from duties. On the second ship came a Jesuit, Father Juan Regis Aroche, as envoy from the king of Siam to establish friendly relations with the Manila government; he proposed to Ovando to send an expedition to Siam to build there a galleon, then needed at Manila for the Acapulco trade. As the royal treasury had not the funds for this, Ovando formed a stock company, with a hundred shares, each of 300 pesos; 30,000 pesos were thus raised (said by the Jesuit to be enough to build the ship)—“with the idea that afterward the king [of España] would vouchsafe to buy it, and the gains would be dividedpro rataamong the shareholders, whose profits would be considerable even if the ship were sold at the usual and reasonable price.” Accordingly Captain Joseph Pasarin was sent to Siam (March 18, 1752), and made arrangements for the construction of the ship, which was facilitated and aided by the king of that country; labor was there abundant and cheap, yet the cost of the ship was much more than had been planned, and not only was a second remittance made from Manila, but the king furnished nearly 13,000 pesos besides. Pasarin set out on his voyage to Manila with the new ship, but, when in sight of Bolinao, a fierce storm drove the Spaniards back, and finally compelled them to land in China. They went to Macao, refitted their damaged ship (for which a wealthy Portuguese lent them, without interest, 20,516 pesos), and set sail for Manila on April 28, 1755; storms again drove them from Bolinao, and they were compelled to put back to Macao, and to remain there five months until the north winds should subside; Simon Vicente de la Rosa again generously aided them with 5,000 pesos. Returning their voyage on December 12 of that year, unfavorable winds again attacked them, and they were obliged to make port in Batavia. (January 12, 1756). Here Pasarin fell sick, and on his recovery found that the shipbuilder whom the Dutch had detailed to repair the galleon had fled with certain goods which he plundered from it, and twenty-eight of his seamen had deserted; at last he secured a new crew, and reached Cavite on July 6, 1756. This galleon was named “Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe,” or “La Mexicana;” its keel was 120 English feet long, and its capacity was 1,032 toneladas; it was built entirely of teak; the entire cost of vessel, equipment, and construction was 53,370 pesos. The king of Spain disapproved the enterprise; and when the accounts of the company were settled, it was found that they were still indebted to the extent of 9,520 pesos. The galleon was sold at public auction for 10,000 pesos.↑50Concepción furnishes an interesting account (xiv, pp. 76–79) of the abolition by Arandía of the “rotten borough” of Cebú. During the term of Governor Arrechedera, he received a request from Juan Baraona Velazquez, governor and chief magistrate of Cebú province, that in view of the lack not only of regidors there but of citizens who could fill that office, the governor should confer it on certain persons named by him, among them two who were the only permanent (Spanish) settlers there. Nevertheless, affairs soon returned to their former condition: of the five persons thus appointed, one was long detained in Manila, and one died; another was deprived of office for harsh treatment of the headman of the Sangleys, and still another for failure to perform his duties. “Thus, only the regidor Espina was left, and in him much was deficient, if he were not actually incapable; for he could not read or write, and his judgment was not very sound.” Velazquez therefore proposed that these offices be extinguished, and some suitable person be appointed from Manila to assist him in ruling the province. Nothing came of this, and his successor, Joseph Romo, applied to Arandía for relief, saying that for two years no election of alcalde-in-ordinary had been held, and the office was exercised by the regidor Pedro Muñoz—the same who had ill-treated the Sangley—“of whom alone that municipality was composed;” that the latter had obtained his post onlyad interim, and now refused to surrender it to Romo. “In view of this report, Señor Arandía decided that these remnants of the city should be abolished, leaving it with only the name of city, and that it should be ruled by its chief magistrate, as alcalde-mayor of the province; and in this wretched condition was left the first city of this sphere, endowed with privileges by our Catholic kings, and worthy of other and greater consideration. Its lack of citizens transformed it into so dry a skeleton; and, although this measure was provisional, necessity has made it perpetual.” Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, i, p. 555) that since then Cebú had been governed by a gobernadorcillo, like any native village; and at the end of that same volume they give a table of the population of Cebú province in 1818, which shows that the ancient city of Santisimo Nombre de Jésus contained no pure Spaniards, its population of 2,070 souls being all native or Chinese except 233 Spanish mestizos. Its present population, according to the late U. S. census, is 31,079—of whom 793 are natives of China, 131 of America, and 168 of Europe.↑51He had witnessed personally at Acapulco the careless, disorderly, and even fraudulent manner in which this trade was carried on by the Mexican merchants, who contrived to secure the advantage in every way over those of Manila. He therefore imposed severe penalties on all who on either side should practice frauds. He also appointed four of the most distinguished of the citizens of Manila to register, apportion, and appraise the goods sent thence; but the only result was that these men took the best for themselves, and consulted their own profit; he therefore revoked their commissions and sharply rebuked them. Arandía also made many reforms in the management of the Acapulco ship, its supplies, and its men, both on the sea and in port. (Concepción, xiv, pp. 171–183.)↑52Le Gentil and Marquina are cited by Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 14) to show that Arandia died by poison or other violent means.↑53His full name was Manuel Antonio Rojo del Río y Vieyra.↑54At this point properly should come the documents which relate the invasion of the islands by the English, their capture of Manila, the consequent disturbances in the provinces, etc.; but the great length of this episode, and the desirability of bringing all this material together in one volume, induce us to place it all in VOL. XLIX, completing this present volume with the noted memorial by the royal fiscal Viana, written nearly a year after the evacuation of Manila by the English.↑

1The fiscal Arroyo declared that he had been imprisoned in order that he might not prosecute claims against the following persons in their approaching residencias: Governor Valdés Tamón, for the enormous sums which the royal treasury had lost during his government, which amounted to a million and a half pesos; the Marqués de las Salinas and the Marqués de Monte-Castro, confederates of the same SeñorValdés, for having appropriated from the royal treasury and from the public two and one-half million pesos; and Don Domingo de Otero Vermudez, [who had taken] more than two hundred thousand. (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 95.)↑2See enumeration of these funds in the historical sketch of the Misericordia, inVOL. XLVII.↑3It is thus stated by Concepción (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 280): “With the pretext that the fathers of the Society [of Jesus] had usurped from them cultivated lands, and the untilled lands on the hills, on which they kept enormous herds of horned cattle—for which reason, and because the Jesuits said that these were their own property, they would not allow the natives to supply themselves with wood, rattans, and bamboos, unless they paid fixed prices—the Indians committed shocking acts of hostility on the ranches of Lian and Nasugbu, killing and plundering the tenants of those lands, with many other ravages. Nor did they respect the houses of the [Jesuit] fathers, but attacked and plundered them, and partly burned them, as well as many other buildings independent of these.” All was plundering, rapine, destruction, and debauchery; the natives also rebelled against the exactions from them of tribute and personal services. “The contagion spread to the village of Taal, and more than sparks were discovered in other places, although efforts were made to conceal the fire.” The alcalde-mayor and the Jesuits tried at first to pacify the Indians, urging them to wait for the official visit of Auditor Calderon; but they could do nothing, the natives being rendered only more daring by this attempt. Troops were then sent from Manila against them; in the battle mentioned in our text several were wounded, among them the commanding officer, Sargento-mayor Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar; but he succeeded in routing the enemy. The chief of the insurgents, one Matienza, took refuge in a church, but was captured and disarmed therein. Reënforcements were sent from Manila, and the rebellion was soon quelled. The leaders of the rebellion were punished in various ways, according to their prominence or influence; some were shot, others sent into exile or to the galleys; and amnesty was granted to the insurgents who would lay down their arms and renew their acknowledgment of vassalage.To this may be added the following statements by Calderon himself: “By commission of this royal Audiencia, I went to a village outside the walls of this capital, to take measures for the completion of a small bridge, which was being hindered by some dispute, and to pay to Master Alarífe 250 pesos which had been offered to him for its construction. I proceeded to make inquiries regarding the lands and revenues belonging to the village; and I found that all the surrounding estates (on which the people were working) belonged to a certain [F., forFulano] ecclesiastic, the Indians and mestizos paying him rent not only for these, but for the land occupied by their cabins, at the rate of three pesos a year for the married man, and one and one-half pesos for the widow or the unmarried man. And as it seemed to me that the person who, according to what was evident to my own eyes, was collecting about 30 pesos of land-rent, independently of the estates and houses belonging to him, was the one who rightfully ought to bear the cost of the little bridge, I announced that this cost should be collected from the persons who were owing rents for the lands. Receipts therefor were to be given to them, and orders were issued to the royal judges before whom such cases come first, that they must, if the laymen who make these payments should be accused before them, give the latter credit for these receipts; nor in all this brief summary, and in the measures that I took, would I notice the ecclesiastic who called himself the owner of all.” “In regard to the representations of the convenience for the Indian who has built his hut in the grain-field, I believe that it is quite the contrary, and that it would be more expedient for him and for the commonwealth that he should not be allowed to build it there, or that he be obliged to change his dwelling, for those huts generally serve as refuge for persons bent on mischief; besides, as the Indian thus has no watchful neighbor to inform the religious minister of his doings, and no alcalde, he lives in too much freedom. But, granted that all this comes to an end, what right has the owner of the land to more than the rent from him who occupies it? And if with hispilapis, or pathway, and his house he occupies no more than 50 brazas—for which he has to pay the same as if he had rented acabalita, which is a thousand brazas—and if he must pay the same rent, then lease to him the cabalita, including therein the house and pilapis; and with this the Indian will have land for planting his young trees, and for making some planting of grain.”These items are cited from a pamphlet issued (Manila, 1739) by the auditor Pedro Calderón Henríquez, entitled:Discvrso ivridico, en qve se defiende la real iurisdiccion, y se hace demonstracion de la injusticia, que contiene el contrato de arrendamiento de solares en estas islas; in it he “laments the great amount that the Filipinos were paying to the ecclesiastical power.” This seems to have brought out a reply defending the ecclesiastics,Apología por la immvnidad ecclesiastica, y por la licitvd de terrazgos, o alqvileres de tierras segvn la forma, estilo de algvnas estancias de estas islas Philipinas(Manila, 1739); it is significant that this was published from the Jesuit printing-house, and the auditor’s pamphlet from the college of Santo Tomás. Regarding both these, see Vindel’sCatálogo bibl. filipina, nos. 1807, 1808; therein is cited the following paragraph from theApología:“48. In the cultivated estates or farms which the Society of Jesus possesses in these islands, the tenants pay nothing for the house-lot which they occupy, with the little garden which their houses are wont to have in addition; but they pay only for the other land which they cultivate. There is, moreover, an order from the superiors that no person shall be allowed on those farms unless he has the charge of some grain-field—and rightly so, since this is the purpose for which admission to the estates is granted to any one; although this does not prevent entire justice being shown to the old men, widows, and other people who are legitimately disabled, by allowing them to remain, as they do, in their houses without paying anything for these and without cultivating a field. Therefore, there is evident falsehood in what is said by a certain [N., used when name is not to be mentioned] author, at the beginning of no. 3, art. 2, in speaking of these estates of the Society—that is, that the tenants pay for the land which they cultivate and for the ground under the houses which they occupy. In Santa Cruz the same observance was in use at the beginning, and it still is followed among the tenants who work on the lands of Mayhaligue adjoining the said village of Santa Cruz, and have their houses in the grain-fields. But as in course of time the Sangley mestizos increased in numbers, and devoted themselves to other occupations—painters, gilders, and silver-smiths, etc., which trades they now exercise with dexterity—and many households were formed, up to the number of about three hundred and eighty, which they now reach, it became necessary to yield to their importunities; and for this college of San Ignacio at Manila to condemn the splendid orchards which it possessed there, and permit the said mestizos to establish therein their dwellings. And, as it is not right that the said college should suffer the heavy damage of losing the said orchards, which had cost it many thousands of pesos, …”↑4Concepción says (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, pp. 278–280) that some investigation of this report was made before Torre’s death, and seven of the wealthiest Chinese were arrested, “as being those most liable to suspicion in the proposed disturbance.” These men were kept in prison for six months, the investigations being continued by Arrechedera and indicating that the “plot” was but a malicious fabrication, intended to harass Torre and thus cause his death. Finally, the governor, in view of their long imprisonment and the failure to prove any charges against them, released the Chinese prisoners, “under precautions and securities.” One of the prisoners proved, by a note from the warden of the court prison, that the latter “had received the Chinaman as a prisoner, without being told from whom or by whose order.” The further precaution was taken of sending back to China, in the champans that went that year, “no small number of Chinese, of those who were known to be strollers and without employment.” Concepción states that Torre’s government was rendered odious largely by a certain man in Manila, “who, on account of his rank and wealth, ambitiously lorded it over the community, causing its government to be subject to his pleasure, and did all that he could to cast infamy on the governor.”↑5In these ships came the royal situado for the current year (1747), and 30,000 pesos on account of the arrearages due; moreover, the returns from the cargo of the previous year were unusually large, owing to successful sales at Acapulco. The vessels halted at the port of Sisiran, where the silver was disembarked, being sent overland to Manila; this was done through fear lest they might be attacked by enemies at the Embocadero. The galleon “Rosario” was sent with a cargo for Acapulco, but was driven back by contrary winds, because it was poorly constructed and difficult to manage. This placed the royal treasury again in great straits, because the situados were in arrears for six remittances; Arrechedera appealed to the citizens and the clergy, who responded liberally—especially the archbishop and his chapter; “the Society of Jesus alone furnished 11,000 pesos—the royal promise being pledged for payment; and the obras pías also contributed to the common cause with their reserve funds.” (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 36–38.)↑6His family name was Martinez de Arizala; at this time he was fifty-two years of age. He was a member of the Audiencia of Quito in Peru (now in Ecuador) for seventeen years, and had been entrusted with various important commissions by the king.↑7Probably on account of his being a Dominican, the Chinese in and near Manila being mostly in charge of that order in matters of religion.↑8A full account of this revolt and its cause and progress may be found in Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, xiv, pp. 79–107; and of its punishment by Lechuga, in xi, pp. 40–43. In writing the latter volume, he had not any adequate information regarding the causes of the rebellion; but later he obtained a detailed account of this from the Recollect fathers in Bohol who took charge of the natives after the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1768. According to them, the immediate occasion of the revolt was the arbitrary conduct of the Jesuit, Father Morales, who was, in 1744, in charge of the district of Inabangan. He sent out a native constable to arrest a renegade Indian, but the latter slew the constable, whose brother, Francisco Dagóhoy, obtained the corpse, and carried it into his village. Morales refused to bury it in consecrated ground, and it lay for three days unburied and rotting. Angered at this arbitrary and harsh treatment, especially as Morales had been the cause of the constable’s death, Dagóhoy swore vengeance on the Jesuit, and persuaded the natives of his district to join him therein; 3,000 of them followed him, abandoning their homes and fortifying an inaccessible retreat in the mountains. On their way they plundered a large and valuable estate in that vicinity, named San Xavier, belonging to the Jesuits, which was well stocked with cows, carabaos, horses, and other animals. Soon afterward, Dagóhoy bribed an Indian to kill the Jesuit minister of Hagna, Father Lamberti; and afterward Morales was also assassinated by natives. The insurgents were numerously recruited through various acts of injustice and tyranny by the Spaniards, and the rebellion was assuming dangerous proportions. Bishop Espeleta of Cebú endeavored to persuade the insurgents to return to their allegiance, and offered them secular priests instead of the Jesuits; but they took this for timidity on the part of the government, and became only more emboldened. Twenty years later, Recollect missionaries were sent to Bohol in place of the expelled Jesuits, and in the district of Baclayon was stationed Fray Pedro de Santa Barbara; he laid plans for reclaiming and reconciling the insurgents, and was partially successful; Dagóhoy and several other datos “returned to God and to the church” with their followers, several hundred being baptized and making then confessions. Nevertheless, they did not go much further, and although Bishop Espeleta endeavored in person to secure their Christian administration, “he could not secure from Dagóhoy any more than that he would build a church, in order to comply with his Christian obligations; but, as he was attracted by the lawless life which he had led during so many years, and by the gratification of being obeyed, the undertaking was delayed until the present time. Nothing was done save to erect the foundation posts, which had to serve for the present church.” This last volume of Concepción’s was published in 1792, and his later information was obtained probably in 1789, in which year he wrote this account. (Espeleta’s last remonstrance with Dagóhoy was made, as stated by our writer, “in the year sixty-two;” but the context would indicate that it occurred after the labors of the Recollects began, and therefore the date is more probably “seventy-two,” the wordsesentabeing printed forsetenta, by one of the typographical errors so frequent in Conception’s pages.) Fray Pedro de Santa Barbara was so delighted at his first success that he persuaded the civil authorities to withdraw the troops from most of the Bohol stations, and to publish a general amnesty (this was not later than 1770); but the result was, that the insurgent chiefs would not allow any of their followers to leave their strongholds under pain of death, and continued their habits of raids on their neighbors, plundering, and murder. Concepción expresses indignant surprise that this rebellion had been allowed to go long unpunished, with so great loss and injury to the peaceable part of the population.↑9These ambassadors were: for Mindanao, Father Francisco Isasi, rector of the Jesuit college at Zamboanga, and the sargento-mayor there, Don Thomas de Arrevillaga. For Joló, Isasi was also designated; but on his return from Tamontaca his health was so broken that in his place was appointed Father Sebastian Ignacio de Arcada, then in charge of the district of Siocon; he went thither accompanied by Arrevillaga, having been sent by Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar, then governor of Zamboanga. (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 75–106.)↑10The missionaries appointed to the Mindanao mission were the Jesuits Juan Moreno and Sebastian Arcada; but the latter was ill at the time, and died soon afterward; in his place was substituted Ignacio Malaga. See account of their mission in Concepción, xii, pp. 110–112, 138–141.Those who went to Joló were Juan Ang[e]les and Patricio de el Barrio; they left Zamboanga on June 3, 1748, in company with Alimudin. For account of their mission, see Concepción, xii, pp. 114–138; he cites a diary and letters written by Father Angeles, and the report of Commandant Pulgar. He blames the Jesuits (pp. 146, 147) for misrepresenting the Moro sultans to the governor, and Pulgar (as being under their influence) for an unnecessarily hostile attitude toward the Moros.↑11Concepción states (xii, p. 134) that Alimudin was so infatuated for one of his concubines that he neglected his duties of government; and that his brother Bantilan bribed a man to assassinate the sultan, giving him six slaves and a thousand pesos.↑12Ferrando speaks (Hist. PP. dominicos, iv, p. 535) of “this sedition, actual or feigned (but on this point history has not made its final utterance).”↑13Forrest says (Voyage, p. 334) of Alimudin’s visit to Samboangan: “He bought goods from Don Zacharias the governor, giving the Don his own price, made presents to the officers of the garrison, and lost his money to them, as if accidentally, by gaming with dice. Still resolved to ingratiate himself with the governor, the Sultan wanted to make him a present of forty male slaves, whom he had drest in rich liveries on the occasion. Many of them were natives of Papua or New Guinea. Zacharias refused the presents, suspecting the Sultan of some design. The Sultan then asked leave to go to Manila. He went thither, and said to the archbishop, ‘I will turn Christian, let the Spaniards take Sooloo, send the stubborn Datoos to Samboangan; make me king there, I then will oblige every one to embrace your religion.’ The Spaniards listened to him, and he returned to Samboangan with an armada.”↑14See letter of the Jesuit Masvesi regarding this visit of the Joloan ruler, inVOL. XLVII, pp. 243–250; also account of it (1750), ascribed to Arrechedera, in Retana’sArchivo, i, no. v.↑15Ferrando says (iv, pp. 538, 539) that Arrechedera sent the sultan to Binalatongan (in Pangasinan) for baptism; but that Alimudin was taken ill at Paniqui, on his journey, and it was therefore decided to baptize him there.↑16This catastrophe, one of the most ruinous of its kind ever known, occurred on October 28, 1746; Lima was wrecked by the earthquake, and Callao destroyed by a tidal wave—in Lima, over 1,100 persons perished, and in Callao 4,600. A detailed account of this event was published at Lima by order of the viceroy, Marqués de Villa Garcia, an English translation of which appeared in London (the second edition in 1748); and other accounts were published in Lima and Mexico.↑17See account of this controversy, the wretched condition in which the royal ships and galleys were found to be, and the loss of the “Pilar,” in Concepción’sHistoria, xii, pp. 183–211; cf. Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 291, note. The vessel known by the names of “Rosarito” and “Philipino,” which “had cost the royal treasury 60,666 pesos, had remained more than four years abandoned to the sun and rain, without any care;” and it was now valued at 18,000 pesos, a sum which, after more thorough examination of the rotting timbers, was reduced to 7,500. The Spanish government had ordered that six ships be at once constructed to proceed against the Moro pirates; and it was therefore necessary to hasten this work, without waiting for “red tape,” hence Nebra’s informal appointment. The “Pilar” was not a fragata, but a large ship; it sailed in June or July, 1750; its repairing and cleaning was so hastily done that the vessel began to leak before it left the Luzón coast. The commander, Ignacio Martinez de Faura, was notified of this, and that it was unsafe for the vessel to proceed into the open sea; he answered, “To Purgatory, or to Acapulco!” In the following October, pieces of wreckage were picked up on the eastern coasts of Luzón, which were identified as belonging to the “Pilar.”↑18“The secretary of the government, who, protected in that quarter by the person who ought to have condemned his acts, pushed forward his designs and finally effected his purpose” (Ferrando, iv, p. 548).↑19“This [Dominican] province had already (in 1745) reported to his Majesty that the beaterio of Santa Cathalina was maintained in the form of observance provided by the royal decrees of February 17, 1716 and September 10, 1732; that it contained the fifteen religious which it ought to have according to the arrangements of its founder; that they observed the three vows of religious, according to the enactment of St. Pius V, issued on 28 [sic] in 1566; and that, although there had never been the slightest question raised on this point, some uncertainties were beginning to present themselves regarding the nature of their vows, and even whether dispensation from these could be granted by the archbishop of Manila.” Accordingly, the Dominicans requested the royal decision on these matters; the king therefore decreed (June 20, 1747) that a committee formed of the governor, the archbishop, and the Dominican provincial, should carefully examine into the best method of carrying out the previous decrees. They did so, and, when their deliberations were laid before the royal fiscal, he demanded that the vows taken by these beatas be declared opposed to his Majesty’s will. Sister Cecilia, as soon as she was placed in Santa Potenciana, divested herself of the religious habit, claiming that her profession was null—a claim which was irregular, “because the five years had already passed which the laws and justice allow for proceedings of this sort.” When the papal delegate disallowed the appeal of the Dominicans from the archbishop’s attempted control of this case, they appealed to the Audiencia for protection from the fuerza exerted by the latter; but that court declined to interfere, saying that there was no fuerza committed. The archbishop then pronounced a definitive sentence in favor of Cecilia, and set her at liberty; she then married Figueroa, and they went to Nueva España. The Spanish government took no further notice of her case, save to refuse to the Dominicans permission to lay it before the Holy See. (Ferrando, iv, pp. 548–551)↑20This was Don Protasio Cavezas.↑21A minute account of this episode is found in Concepción’sHistoria, xii, pp. 212–230. The lady’s name was Cecilia Ita y Salazar. She had been educated in the beaterio from childhood, and had been a professed religious for sixteen years.↑22“The royal decree issued in 1762 in consequence of the notorious litigation of Mother Cecilia did not decide that the beaterio should be extinguished, but only that new religious should not be admitted until those then living, who numbered nearly thirty, should be reduced to fifteen religious of the choir, in conformity with the provisions of its foundation,” “and that the number of the fifteen beatas should be kept up, according to vacancies that might occur.” (Ferrando, v, p. 151).↑23“The seizure of these champans was afterward the cause of a clamorous lawsuit incited by various officers against the master-of-camp Abad, accusing him of having kept for himself the best part [of the goods seized]. It was also proved that he employed the vessels of the royal navy in his mercantile speculations; this evil was very general in that period, and to it must be attributed, in large part, the scanty results of most of the expeditions against the Mahometan Malays of southern Filipinas.” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 294.)Another Chinese champan was seized by the Spaniards, apparently not long afterward, near Malandi; it was laden with goods for trade in Mindanao, which included a number of guns and other weapons, with ammunition. These were confiscated by the Spaniards, an act which was greatly resented by Jampsa, the sultan of Tamontaca, who therefore abandoned the Spanish alliance and sided with the hostile Moros. (Concepción, xiii, pp. 1–5.)↑24This proceeding took place at midnight on August 3, and the number arrested was 217 persons: these included Alimudin’s four sons, his brother and sister, four of his daughters, five brothers-in-law, a son-in-law; a Mahometanjaddí(“the second rank in that sect, equivalent to a bishop”) and fivepanditas; also two prominent chiefs, one hundred and sixty of the sultan’s vassals, and thirty-two concubines and female servants. (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 298.) Cf. Concepción, xii, pp. 288, 289.↑25Alimudin and his household arrived as prisoners at Manila in September, 1751. Soon afterward the Manila government declared war, with fire and sword, against the Joloans and all those Moro peoples who aided them; permitting the enslavement of all who should be captured, whether men, women or children; and giving all their property and possessions to their captors, free from all royal dues or imposts. See copy of this proclamation in Montero y Vidal’sHist. de piratería, appendix, pp. 29–31. Concepción (xii, p. 344) regards this declaration of war as unjust; he adds that the Joloan captive princes, whose arrest was incited by ambition and greed, were so unfortunate as to lose their protector, Bishop Arrechedera, by death (November 12, 1751). In the same month died also Bishop Arevalo, of Nueva Caceres.↑26Here, as most often elsewhere, “captives” are synonymous with “slaves.” Montero y Vidal (Hist. de piratería, i, p. 299) protests against this permission to enslave the Moros, as being contrary to the provisions of the laws of the Indias, which forbid slavery in Philipinas.↑27Concepción says (xii, pp. 345–352) that the master-of-camp in command of the fleet (who was Antonio Ramón de Abad y Monterde) was undecided whether to attack Joló, but was persuaded to do so by the Jesuits, who told him that the very sight of the Spanish squadron would ensure the surrender of the Joloans. The attack was made at the beginning of June, 1752, and was unsuccessful; Abad was angry at the Jesuits, who had led him into this difficulty, and quarreled with them. They retorted by accusing him to the governor, of conduct (in modern phrase) “unworthy of an officer and a gentleman”—that is, of neglect of official duty, mismanagement of the campaign, unnecessary sacrifice of his men’s lives, and licentious behavior at Zamboanga. This was believed, until Abad was reported much more favorably by other officers of his fleet. See full account of his residencia (ut supra, xiii, pp. 36–85), in which he was acquitted from the charges made against him, but sentenced to pay the costs of the residencia.↑28These hostilities broke out in 1752, and for several years scourged the unfortunate Visayans. Concepción records many of these attacks in considerable detail (Hist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 5–36); the missions of the Recollects, as also those of the Jesuits in Mindanao (except those under the shelter of the fort at Zamboanga) were the frontier outposts most exposed to the pirates, and it is these missions that Concepción chiefly mentions. The fort at Iligan, Mindanao, was besieged by two thousand Moros for two months; but a Spanish fleet was sent from Cebú, which obliged the enemy to raise the siege, after a great loss of men. This defense was conducted by the Jesuit in charge there, Father José Ducós, whose father had been an officer in the Spanish army; and this same priest rendered valiant service in other Moro raids in that region. Tagoloan and Yponan, in the province of Cagayan, Mindanao were besieged by the Moros; but the mountain Indians were called down to their aid by the Jesuit missionaries, and compelled the enemy to retreat. In Caraga, Surigao was attacked, and the Christian inhabitants, with their two Recollect missionaries, were compelled to take flight and seek refuge in the mountains; they were hunted there for weeks by the enemy—one of the priests being finally captured and taken to Lanao—all this time, enduring terrible hardships and suffering, which caused the other (Fray Roque de Santa Monica) to become hopelessly insane; he was afterward brought to Manila, but died there in a demented condition. “The district of Surigao, rich through its famous gold-mines, and now in most wretched condition,” was devastated and ruined. The enemy did the same in the island of Siargao, where the Recollect missionary, Fray Joseph de la Virgen de el Niño Perdido, was slain while endeavoring to lead his followers against the pirates. Nearly all the population—of Surigao, more than 2,000 souls; of Siargao, more than 1,600—were either slain or carried away captive. The district of Butuan was laid waste and some two hundred captives seized; the little military post at Linao, up the river, alone escaped, mainly through the difficulty of ascending the stream. The Moros attacked the island of Camiguin, which was so bravely defended by its natives that the pirates were repulsed—especially by “one of the villages, which consisted of people of Moro origin from the Lake of Malanao, from which they had withdrawn on account of domestic dissensions, and settled in this island. They are of excellent disposition, very good Christians, courageous, and have an irreconcilable hatred for those enemies.” Here they were led by their Recollect priest, Fray Marcelinc de el Espiritu Santo, “a robust native of La Mancha,” who with them fought so valiantly that the enemy could not make a landing. Romblon had so good a fort that it could repel the foe; Ticao was so poorly defended that the people, with their missionary, Fray Manuel de Santa Cathalina, could only take to flight—the priest being afterward captured, and finally ransomed for eight hundred pesos. In several places the missionaries were either slain or captured by the pirates; and these raids were extended, the boldness of the enemy increasing, even to the coasts of Luzón, in Batangas and Zambales. The government took what precautions it could, but these amounted to little save in the vicinity of Manila, Cebú, and Zamboanga; military and naval forces, and supplies of all sorts, were deficient, and there was much official apathy and corruption.↑29“This unfortunate attempt cost the treasury 36,976 pesos, and a galley that was seized by the Moros” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 301).↑30“In Manila the indignation against the disloyal Ali-Mudin knew no bounds. All clamored for the punishment of so ignoble a race, sorrowfully recalling the fact that the amount expended in courting him and in the expenses of his sojourn there was more than 20,000 pesos, without counting the 6,000 pesos and the military supplies sent to establish the Jesuits in Joló” (ut supra, p. 299). Later, the authorities at Manila hardly knew what to do with Alimudin; he would probably have been put to death, but it was feared that the Moros would retaliate by slaughtering their Christian captives, who numbered some 10,000. Fatima procured the return (in the summer of 1753) of fifty-one Christian captives, and negotiations were made for peace between Manila and Joló; and in June, 1754, Bantilan surrendered sixty-eight more captives, and a Spanish galley and champan. Faveau, who had carried on a brilliant campaign against the pirates with his little squadron, made a favorable report to the governor of the good intentions of both Bantilan and Alimudin; and stated that the return of the latter to Joló was desired by his subjects, and that Bantilan was willing to resign in his favor. Arandía sent most of the Joloan prisoners back to that island, retaining the sultan and his eldest son as hostages until the full accomplishment of the treaty; they remained there until the capture of the city by the English (1762), who afterward restored them to Joló (seeVOL. XLIX). Ferrando (iv, pp. 541–543) considers that Alimudin was unjustly suspected and ill-treated, and defends him from accusations of disloyalty to the Spaniards and to the Christian religion.↑31“The Sultanship in Sooloo is hereditary, but the government mixed. About fifteen Datoos, who may be called the nobility, make the greater part of the legislature. Their title is hereditary to the eldest son, and they sit in council with the Sultan. The Sultan has two votes in this assembly, and each Datoo has one. The heir-apparent (who, when I was there, was Datoo Alamoodine) if he sides with the Sultan, has two votes; but, if against him, only one. There are two representatives of the people, called Manteries, like the military tribunes of the Romans. The common people of Sooloo, called Tellimanhood, enjoy much real freedom, owing to the above representation; but the Tellimanhood, or vassals of the adjacent islands named Tappool, Seassee, Tawee-tawee, and others, being the estates of particular Datoos, are often used in a tyrannical manner by their chiefs. I have been told that their haughty lords visiting their estates, will sometimes with impunity demand and carry off young women, whom they happen to fancy, to swell the number of their Sandles (Concubines) at Sooloo.” (Forrest,Voyage, p. 326.)↑32For detailed accounts of the events here briefly mentioned, the Moro wars, the imprisonment of Alimudin, the ravages committed in the islands by those pirates, etc., to the end of Ovando’s government, see Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 230–419, and xiii, pp. 1–250. See also the account of the “Moro raids repulsed by Visayan natives,”ante; it is inserted mainly to represent more vividly, in the words of a probable eyewitness, a typical raid by Moro pirates on the peaceable Christian natives.↑33To this name should be added, “Santisteban, Echeveria, y Alvero” (Concepción, xiii, p. 250); he was a knight of the Order of Calatrava.↑34See Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 250–287, for details of these reforms.↑35See Concepción’s account of this eruption (xiii, pp. 345–350); it lasted from September to December, 1754 and was accompanied by severe earthquakes, one of which lasted half an hour.↑36Ignacio María de Alava, “Commander-in-chief of the naval forces in Asiatic waters,” was a personal friend of Zúñiga, to whom the latter dedicated hisHistoria. In a preliminary notice to hisEstadismo(p. 3 of Retana’s ed.) he says that Alava desired to become acquainted with the Philippines from various points of view, and invited the priest to accompany him therein. Alava arrived at Manila on December 25, 1796, and remained in the islands until January 7, 1803; he reorganized the naval forces and the arsenal at Cavite, with much energy and ability, but had various controversies with Governor Aguilar. Afterward he held important posts in the Spanish naval administration, and died on May 26, 1815. See Retana’s note concerning him (ut supra, ii, p. *562), and Montero y Vidal’sHist. de Philipinas, ii, pp. 345–359.↑37The exploits of this militant Jesuit are described by Concepción, inHist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 148–168, 178–188, 296–319.↑38The name given her in baptism was Rita Calderón; the marriage occurred on April 27, 1755. See Concepción, xiii, pp. 333, 334.↑39“The people of Magindano, and their neighbours, known commonly by the name of Oran Illanon, as living near the great Lano, are very piratically inclined. Neither can the Sultan of Magindano restrain his subjects from fitting out vessels, which go among the Philippines, to Mangaio, that is, cruise against the Spaniards: much less can be restrained the Illanos, being under a government more aristocratic; for, on the banks of the Lano, are no fewer than seventeen, stiled Rajahs, and sixteen who take the title of Sultan, besides those on the coast. When the Spanish envoy sailed from Magindano for Samboangan, Rajah Moodo sent a vessel, as has been said, to convoy him across the Illano bay. This is a proof the Spaniards are not on good terms with the Illanos. These, within ten years before 1775, have done much mischief to the Spaniards, among the islands called Babuyan, at the north extremity of the Philippines; and, at this time, they possess an island in the very heart of the Philippines, called Burias, where has been a colony of Illanos, for many years, men, women, and children. The Spaniards have often attempted to dislodge them; but in vain: the island, which is not very large, being environed with rocks and shoals to a considerable distance.” (Forrest,Voyage to New Guinea, pp. 301, 302.)↑40Fray Mateo González founded this mission to the Batanes. He made his profession in 1667, and came to Manila four years later, being then twenty-seven years old. He was sent to the Cagayán missions, and was stationed in the Babuyanes Islands during 1673–84 (save in 1677–80, at Lallo-c). In 1686 he made a visit to the Batanes, where he was well received; they contained over 3,000 souls. Leaving his companion there to study the language, he went to Manila to secure support for his new mission, to which he returned with Fray Juan Rois; but hardly two months passed before the unhealthful climate and many privations brought mortal illness on them. González died on July 25, 1688, and Rois on August 10, following. With this the Batanes mission came to an end until (in 1718) it was revived by Fray Juan Bel. (Reseña biográfica, ii, pp. 155–157.)↑41“Action was taken in a session of the royal treasury officials on the execution of the orders in a royal despatch which notified this government to establish on the mainland of Cagayan the people who were dwelling in the islands of the Babuyanes; for this purpose the sum of five thousand, three hundred and ninety-eight pesos was sent from the royal treasury of Mexico, definitely allotted to this transportation. The migration was agreed upon, the money was spent, but the only result was the transfer of some families, the greater part of them remaining in their own islands—where, as they were accustomed to that mode of life, they desired no further privileges than their own liberty, even though it be with necessary inconveniences, which they felt little or not at all, being free from the yoke since their youth.” (Concepción,Hist.de Philipinas, xi, p.304.)Cf. Salazar’s sketch of the history of these missions, in chapter xxiii ofHist. Sant. Rosario(in ourVOL. XLIII). See also, for both early and later events therein, Ferrando’sHist. PP. dominicos, iii, pp. 550–588, and iv, pp. 254–258, 330, 582–585.Concepción (ut supra) does not mention the date of the royal decree; but Ferrando states (iv, p. 423) that it was dated March 14, 1728, and that it granted for this purpose the sum of 3,398 pesos; the “3” may be a typographical error for “5,” the amount as given (but spelled out) by Concepción. Ferrando says that some three hundred families removed to the mainland, but that many more remained in their islands.↑42This is more fully described in the previous document, “Later Augustinian and Dominican missions.”↑43See Ferrando’sHist. PP. dominicos, iv, pp. 576–582.↑44Arandia made a census of the Christian Sangleys in the islands, and found that they numbered 3,413. He established the market here mentioned, that of San Fernando, at first intended to be simply a pavilion in which trade might be carried on; the heathen merchants to return immediately to their own country, without going inland from Manila or having any dealings with the natives. But, as it was soon apparent that the exigencies of weather and trade required larger and more permanent quarters, Arandía had a plan made for the necessary dwellings and storehouses, by a Recollect lay brother who was an excellent architect (whom the governor had appointed superintendent of royal works); and a contract for building it was made, at a cost of 48,000 pesos. Half of this amount was contributed by a citizen of Manila, Fernando de Mier y Noriega, the other half being supplied from the royal treasury; as a reward for this service, he was made warden of the new market, an office carrying a salary of fifty pesos a month, and passing to his children and descendants. (Concepción, xiii, pp. 357–360.) The king, however, restricted this privilege to Mier’s life.↑45See Concepción’s account of this enterprise (xiv, pp. 167–171). The amount of capital raised was 76,500 pesos, in shares of 500 each; with this, the company began to buy goods (ropas) to supply the public necessities, and sold these in their own shops, in each of which were two Spanish agents, no Sangley having anything to do with these shops. It was planned that the company, having bought goods at wholesale—they found that they could purchase thus at sixteen per cent less than they paid for the same goods at retail—should sell at only thirty per cent above the first cost; “of this [gain] eight per cent must be paid to his Majesty to make up to the royal treasury the deficiency arising from the loss of the licenses that the infidels had paid; ten per cent went to the shareholders; and the remaining twelve per cent was kept for the payment of salaries, and for a public fund for the promotion of the industries and products of the country.” Their capital was found insufficient to make their purchases; indeed, this lack had always been felt when the Sangleys conducted the trade, but their industry had supplied it; the directors therefore applied to the Misericordia and other administrators for the loan of the reserve funds held in theobras pías. The latter were at first disposed to aid the company, but later declined to do so, following the advice of certain theologians whom they consulted. The auditor Pedro Calderon Henriquez gave an opinion contrary to this, saying that theobras píashad gained great profits through the voluntary concession and tolerance of the citizens, who ought not to be the only ones to make sacrifices for the public good; and that “in these islands they had winked at the business transactions of the confraternities, which are not carried on in other regions, on account of the convenience which the merchants found in having money ready for investment in their commerce.” The governor therefore demanded from the Misericordia 100,000 pesos of their reserve funds, and from the Third Order (of St. Francis) 30,000; and with these funds the company was for the time floated. (Among the advantages expected from this enterprise were: lower prices than the Chinese asked for goods, the same price the year round, the retention of all profits within the country, and the certain support of the twenty-one families belonging to the company’s employ.) Another great hindrance was found in the general practice of using clipped money in this trade, which caused great losses. This and other difficulties caused the dissolution of the company within the year, and it was unable to do more than save the capital invested therein.↑46Ferrando says (iv, pp. 587–591) that Arandía cut off from the hospital of San Gabriel 800 pesos, out of the 2,000 which it received from the communal fund of the Sangleys, for whose benefit the hospital was founded; and this amount the Dominican province was obliged, through motives of humanity, to make good from its own treasury. Moreover, he insisted that the Augustinian provincial, Fray Juan Facundo Meseguer, should reveal to him the private reasons which he had for removing two of his friars from their charges in Indian villages. This was in reality an attack on all the religious bodies, who all resolved to make common cause on the governor, and forthwith sent to the king a remonstrance against the governor’s proceedings; this checked Arandía, who desisted from his demands against Meseguer.↑47Vindel’sCatálogo, tomo i (Madrid, 1896), p. 94, cites from Rezabal y Ugarte’sEscritores de los seis colegios universitarios(Madrid, 1805) mention of works left by Viana, existing in the archives of the Council of Indias, among them “Ordinances for the government of the Indian provinces of Filipinas.” This, with the hostility which his letters and other writings exhibit toward the religious orders, indicates the possibility that Viana had some responsibility for the instructions here mentioned by Zúñiga.↑48According to Concepción (xiii, pp. 360–366), the tax here referred to was a general one, called “the royal impost,” an ad valorem duty levied on all the products of the provinces, brought in the coasting trade to Manila; it was established, in view of the depleted condition of the royal treasury, for the maintenance of the royal fleets against the pirates and the defense of the internal commerce of the islands, and was exacted from all persons concerned, without exempting any one, whatever his rank or estate. The Dominicans were unwilling to pay this tax on certain commodities which they were sending to their convents in Cagayan, alleging that these were not commercial articles, and that they were exempt as a religious body. This was of no avail, and their vessel was seized; but, either through their representations at court or because Arandía had not first asked the royal permission for this measure, it was censured by the government and the duty removed.↑49See Concepción’s full account of this venture (xiv, pp. 208–275). It will be remembered that Bustamante had attempted in 1718 to open up commerce with Siam (VOL. XLIV, p. 152); but this was a failure, through the apathy of the Spaniards. In the year 1747 a Siamese ship came to Manila with merchandise, and another four years later; these were well received there, and allowed to sell their goods free from duties. On the second ship came a Jesuit, Father Juan Regis Aroche, as envoy from the king of Siam to establish friendly relations with the Manila government; he proposed to Ovando to send an expedition to Siam to build there a galleon, then needed at Manila for the Acapulco trade. As the royal treasury had not the funds for this, Ovando formed a stock company, with a hundred shares, each of 300 pesos; 30,000 pesos were thus raised (said by the Jesuit to be enough to build the ship)—“with the idea that afterward the king [of España] would vouchsafe to buy it, and the gains would be dividedpro rataamong the shareholders, whose profits would be considerable even if the ship were sold at the usual and reasonable price.” Accordingly Captain Joseph Pasarin was sent to Siam (March 18, 1752), and made arrangements for the construction of the ship, which was facilitated and aided by the king of that country; labor was there abundant and cheap, yet the cost of the ship was much more than had been planned, and not only was a second remittance made from Manila, but the king furnished nearly 13,000 pesos besides. Pasarin set out on his voyage to Manila with the new ship, but, when in sight of Bolinao, a fierce storm drove the Spaniards back, and finally compelled them to land in China. They went to Macao, refitted their damaged ship (for which a wealthy Portuguese lent them, without interest, 20,516 pesos), and set sail for Manila on April 28, 1755; storms again drove them from Bolinao, and they were compelled to put back to Macao, and to remain there five months until the north winds should subside; Simon Vicente de la Rosa again generously aided them with 5,000 pesos. Returning their voyage on December 12 of that year, unfavorable winds again attacked them, and they were obliged to make port in Batavia. (January 12, 1756). Here Pasarin fell sick, and on his recovery found that the shipbuilder whom the Dutch had detailed to repair the galleon had fled with certain goods which he plundered from it, and twenty-eight of his seamen had deserted; at last he secured a new crew, and reached Cavite on July 6, 1756. This galleon was named “Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe,” or “La Mexicana;” its keel was 120 English feet long, and its capacity was 1,032 toneladas; it was built entirely of teak; the entire cost of vessel, equipment, and construction was 53,370 pesos. The king of Spain disapproved the enterprise; and when the accounts of the company were settled, it was found that they were still indebted to the extent of 9,520 pesos. The galleon was sold at public auction for 10,000 pesos.↑50Concepción furnishes an interesting account (xiv, pp. 76–79) of the abolition by Arandía of the “rotten borough” of Cebú. During the term of Governor Arrechedera, he received a request from Juan Baraona Velazquez, governor and chief magistrate of Cebú province, that in view of the lack not only of regidors there but of citizens who could fill that office, the governor should confer it on certain persons named by him, among them two who were the only permanent (Spanish) settlers there. Nevertheless, affairs soon returned to their former condition: of the five persons thus appointed, one was long detained in Manila, and one died; another was deprived of office for harsh treatment of the headman of the Sangleys, and still another for failure to perform his duties. “Thus, only the regidor Espina was left, and in him much was deficient, if he were not actually incapable; for he could not read or write, and his judgment was not very sound.” Velazquez therefore proposed that these offices be extinguished, and some suitable person be appointed from Manila to assist him in ruling the province. Nothing came of this, and his successor, Joseph Romo, applied to Arandía for relief, saying that for two years no election of alcalde-in-ordinary had been held, and the office was exercised by the regidor Pedro Muñoz—the same who had ill-treated the Sangley—“of whom alone that municipality was composed;” that the latter had obtained his post onlyad interim, and now refused to surrender it to Romo. “In view of this report, Señor Arandía decided that these remnants of the city should be abolished, leaving it with only the name of city, and that it should be ruled by its chief magistrate, as alcalde-mayor of the province; and in this wretched condition was left the first city of this sphere, endowed with privileges by our Catholic kings, and worthy of other and greater consideration. Its lack of citizens transformed it into so dry a skeleton; and, although this measure was provisional, necessity has made it perpetual.” Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, i, p. 555) that since then Cebú had been governed by a gobernadorcillo, like any native village; and at the end of that same volume they give a table of the population of Cebú province in 1818, which shows that the ancient city of Santisimo Nombre de Jésus contained no pure Spaniards, its population of 2,070 souls being all native or Chinese except 233 Spanish mestizos. Its present population, according to the late U. S. census, is 31,079—of whom 793 are natives of China, 131 of America, and 168 of Europe.↑51He had witnessed personally at Acapulco the careless, disorderly, and even fraudulent manner in which this trade was carried on by the Mexican merchants, who contrived to secure the advantage in every way over those of Manila. He therefore imposed severe penalties on all who on either side should practice frauds. He also appointed four of the most distinguished of the citizens of Manila to register, apportion, and appraise the goods sent thence; but the only result was that these men took the best for themselves, and consulted their own profit; he therefore revoked their commissions and sharply rebuked them. Arandía also made many reforms in the management of the Acapulco ship, its supplies, and its men, both on the sea and in port. (Concepción, xiv, pp. 171–183.)↑52Le Gentil and Marquina are cited by Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 14) to show that Arandia died by poison or other violent means.↑53His full name was Manuel Antonio Rojo del Río y Vieyra.↑54At this point properly should come the documents which relate the invasion of the islands by the English, their capture of Manila, the consequent disturbances in the provinces, etc.; but the great length of this episode, and the desirability of bringing all this material together in one volume, induce us to place it all in VOL. XLIX, completing this present volume with the noted memorial by the royal fiscal Viana, written nearly a year after the evacuation of Manila by the English.↑

1The fiscal Arroyo declared that he had been imprisoned in order that he might not prosecute claims against the following persons in their approaching residencias: Governor Valdés Tamón, for the enormous sums which the royal treasury had lost during his government, which amounted to a million and a half pesos; the Marqués de las Salinas and the Marqués de Monte-Castro, confederates of the same SeñorValdés, for having appropriated from the royal treasury and from the public two and one-half million pesos; and Don Domingo de Otero Vermudez, [who had taken] more than two hundred thousand. (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 95.)↑2See enumeration of these funds in the historical sketch of the Misericordia, inVOL. XLVII.↑3It is thus stated by Concepción (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 280): “With the pretext that the fathers of the Society [of Jesus] had usurped from them cultivated lands, and the untilled lands on the hills, on which they kept enormous herds of horned cattle—for which reason, and because the Jesuits said that these were their own property, they would not allow the natives to supply themselves with wood, rattans, and bamboos, unless they paid fixed prices—the Indians committed shocking acts of hostility on the ranches of Lian and Nasugbu, killing and plundering the tenants of those lands, with many other ravages. Nor did they respect the houses of the [Jesuit] fathers, but attacked and plundered them, and partly burned them, as well as many other buildings independent of these.” All was plundering, rapine, destruction, and debauchery; the natives also rebelled against the exactions from them of tribute and personal services. “The contagion spread to the village of Taal, and more than sparks were discovered in other places, although efforts were made to conceal the fire.” The alcalde-mayor and the Jesuits tried at first to pacify the Indians, urging them to wait for the official visit of Auditor Calderon; but they could do nothing, the natives being rendered only more daring by this attempt. Troops were then sent from Manila against them; in the battle mentioned in our text several were wounded, among them the commanding officer, Sargento-mayor Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar; but he succeeded in routing the enemy. The chief of the insurgents, one Matienza, took refuge in a church, but was captured and disarmed therein. Reënforcements were sent from Manila, and the rebellion was soon quelled. The leaders of the rebellion were punished in various ways, according to their prominence or influence; some were shot, others sent into exile or to the galleys; and amnesty was granted to the insurgents who would lay down their arms and renew their acknowledgment of vassalage.To this may be added the following statements by Calderon himself: “By commission of this royal Audiencia, I went to a village outside the walls of this capital, to take measures for the completion of a small bridge, which was being hindered by some dispute, and to pay to Master Alarífe 250 pesos which had been offered to him for its construction. I proceeded to make inquiries regarding the lands and revenues belonging to the village; and I found that all the surrounding estates (on which the people were working) belonged to a certain [F., forFulano] ecclesiastic, the Indians and mestizos paying him rent not only for these, but for the land occupied by their cabins, at the rate of three pesos a year for the married man, and one and one-half pesos for the widow or the unmarried man. And as it seemed to me that the person who, according to what was evident to my own eyes, was collecting about 30 pesos of land-rent, independently of the estates and houses belonging to him, was the one who rightfully ought to bear the cost of the little bridge, I announced that this cost should be collected from the persons who were owing rents for the lands. Receipts therefor were to be given to them, and orders were issued to the royal judges before whom such cases come first, that they must, if the laymen who make these payments should be accused before them, give the latter credit for these receipts; nor in all this brief summary, and in the measures that I took, would I notice the ecclesiastic who called himself the owner of all.” “In regard to the representations of the convenience for the Indian who has built his hut in the grain-field, I believe that it is quite the contrary, and that it would be more expedient for him and for the commonwealth that he should not be allowed to build it there, or that he be obliged to change his dwelling, for those huts generally serve as refuge for persons bent on mischief; besides, as the Indian thus has no watchful neighbor to inform the religious minister of his doings, and no alcalde, he lives in too much freedom. But, granted that all this comes to an end, what right has the owner of the land to more than the rent from him who occupies it? And if with hispilapis, or pathway, and his house he occupies no more than 50 brazas—for which he has to pay the same as if he had rented acabalita, which is a thousand brazas—and if he must pay the same rent, then lease to him the cabalita, including therein the house and pilapis; and with this the Indian will have land for planting his young trees, and for making some planting of grain.”These items are cited from a pamphlet issued (Manila, 1739) by the auditor Pedro Calderón Henríquez, entitled:Discvrso ivridico, en qve se defiende la real iurisdiccion, y se hace demonstracion de la injusticia, que contiene el contrato de arrendamiento de solares en estas islas; in it he “laments the great amount that the Filipinos were paying to the ecclesiastical power.” This seems to have brought out a reply defending the ecclesiastics,Apología por la immvnidad ecclesiastica, y por la licitvd de terrazgos, o alqvileres de tierras segvn la forma, estilo de algvnas estancias de estas islas Philipinas(Manila, 1739); it is significant that this was published from the Jesuit printing-house, and the auditor’s pamphlet from the college of Santo Tomás. Regarding both these, see Vindel’sCatálogo bibl. filipina, nos. 1807, 1808; therein is cited the following paragraph from theApología:“48. In the cultivated estates or farms which the Society of Jesus possesses in these islands, the tenants pay nothing for the house-lot which they occupy, with the little garden which their houses are wont to have in addition; but they pay only for the other land which they cultivate. There is, moreover, an order from the superiors that no person shall be allowed on those farms unless he has the charge of some grain-field—and rightly so, since this is the purpose for which admission to the estates is granted to any one; although this does not prevent entire justice being shown to the old men, widows, and other people who are legitimately disabled, by allowing them to remain, as they do, in their houses without paying anything for these and without cultivating a field. Therefore, there is evident falsehood in what is said by a certain [N., used when name is not to be mentioned] author, at the beginning of no. 3, art. 2, in speaking of these estates of the Society—that is, that the tenants pay for the land which they cultivate and for the ground under the houses which they occupy. In Santa Cruz the same observance was in use at the beginning, and it still is followed among the tenants who work on the lands of Mayhaligue adjoining the said village of Santa Cruz, and have their houses in the grain-fields. But as in course of time the Sangley mestizos increased in numbers, and devoted themselves to other occupations—painters, gilders, and silver-smiths, etc., which trades they now exercise with dexterity—and many households were formed, up to the number of about three hundred and eighty, which they now reach, it became necessary to yield to their importunities; and for this college of San Ignacio at Manila to condemn the splendid orchards which it possessed there, and permit the said mestizos to establish therein their dwellings. And, as it is not right that the said college should suffer the heavy damage of losing the said orchards, which had cost it many thousands of pesos, …”↑4Concepción says (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, pp. 278–280) that some investigation of this report was made before Torre’s death, and seven of the wealthiest Chinese were arrested, “as being those most liable to suspicion in the proposed disturbance.” These men were kept in prison for six months, the investigations being continued by Arrechedera and indicating that the “plot” was but a malicious fabrication, intended to harass Torre and thus cause his death. Finally, the governor, in view of their long imprisonment and the failure to prove any charges against them, released the Chinese prisoners, “under precautions and securities.” One of the prisoners proved, by a note from the warden of the court prison, that the latter “had received the Chinaman as a prisoner, without being told from whom or by whose order.” The further precaution was taken of sending back to China, in the champans that went that year, “no small number of Chinese, of those who were known to be strollers and without employment.” Concepción states that Torre’s government was rendered odious largely by a certain man in Manila, “who, on account of his rank and wealth, ambitiously lorded it over the community, causing its government to be subject to his pleasure, and did all that he could to cast infamy on the governor.”↑5In these ships came the royal situado for the current year (1747), and 30,000 pesos on account of the arrearages due; moreover, the returns from the cargo of the previous year were unusually large, owing to successful sales at Acapulco. The vessels halted at the port of Sisiran, where the silver was disembarked, being sent overland to Manila; this was done through fear lest they might be attacked by enemies at the Embocadero. The galleon “Rosario” was sent with a cargo for Acapulco, but was driven back by contrary winds, because it was poorly constructed and difficult to manage. This placed the royal treasury again in great straits, because the situados were in arrears for six remittances; Arrechedera appealed to the citizens and the clergy, who responded liberally—especially the archbishop and his chapter; “the Society of Jesus alone furnished 11,000 pesos—the royal promise being pledged for payment; and the obras pías also contributed to the common cause with their reserve funds.” (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 36–38.)↑6His family name was Martinez de Arizala; at this time he was fifty-two years of age. He was a member of the Audiencia of Quito in Peru (now in Ecuador) for seventeen years, and had been entrusted with various important commissions by the king.↑7Probably on account of his being a Dominican, the Chinese in and near Manila being mostly in charge of that order in matters of religion.↑8A full account of this revolt and its cause and progress may be found in Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, xiv, pp. 79–107; and of its punishment by Lechuga, in xi, pp. 40–43. In writing the latter volume, he had not any adequate information regarding the causes of the rebellion; but later he obtained a detailed account of this from the Recollect fathers in Bohol who took charge of the natives after the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1768. According to them, the immediate occasion of the revolt was the arbitrary conduct of the Jesuit, Father Morales, who was, in 1744, in charge of the district of Inabangan. He sent out a native constable to arrest a renegade Indian, but the latter slew the constable, whose brother, Francisco Dagóhoy, obtained the corpse, and carried it into his village. Morales refused to bury it in consecrated ground, and it lay for three days unburied and rotting. Angered at this arbitrary and harsh treatment, especially as Morales had been the cause of the constable’s death, Dagóhoy swore vengeance on the Jesuit, and persuaded the natives of his district to join him therein; 3,000 of them followed him, abandoning their homes and fortifying an inaccessible retreat in the mountains. On their way they plundered a large and valuable estate in that vicinity, named San Xavier, belonging to the Jesuits, which was well stocked with cows, carabaos, horses, and other animals. Soon afterward, Dagóhoy bribed an Indian to kill the Jesuit minister of Hagna, Father Lamberti; and afterward Morales was also assassinated by natives. The insurgents were numerously recruited through various acts of injustice and tyranny by the Spaniards, and the rebellion was assuming dangerous proportions. Bishop Espeleta of Cebú endeavored to persuade the insurgents to return to their allegiance, and offered them secular priests instead of the Jesuits; but they took this for timidity on the part of the government, and became only more emboldened. Twenty years later, Recollect missionaries were sent to Bohol in place of the expelled Jesuits, and in the district of Baclayon was stationed Fray Pedro de Santa Barbara; he laid plans for reclaiming and reconciling the insurgents, and was partially successful; Dagóhoy and several other datos “returned to God and to the church” with their followers, several hundred being baptized and making then confessions. Nevertheless, they did not go much further, and although Bishop Espeleta endeavored in person to secure their Christian administration, “he could not secure from Dagóhoy any more than that he would build a church, in order to comply with his Christian obligations; but, as he was attracted by the lawless life which he had led during so many years, and by the gratification of being obeyed, the undertaking was delayed until the present time. Nothing was done save to erect the foundation posts, which had to serve for the present church.” This last volume of Concepción’s was published in 1792, and his later information was obtained probably in 1789, in which year he wrote this account. (Espeleta’s last remonstrance with Dagóhoy was made, as stated by our writer, “in the year sixty-two;” but the context would indicate that it occurred after the labors of the Recollects began, and therefore the date is more probably “seventy-two,” the wordsesentabeing printed forsetenta, by one of the typographical errors so frequent in Conception’s pages.) Fray Pedro de Santa Barbara was so delighted at his first success that he persuaded the civil authorities to withdraw the troops from most of the Bohol stations, and to publish a general amnesty (this was not later than 1770); but the result was, that the insurgent chiefs would not allow any of their followers to leave their strongholds under pain of death, and continued their habits of raids on their neighbors, plundering, and murder. Concepción expresses indignant surprise that this rebellion had been allowed to go long unpunished, with so great loss and injury to the peaceable part of the population.↑9These ambassadors were: for Mindanao, Father Francisco Isasi, rector of the Jesuit college at Zamboanga, and the sargento-mayor there, Don Thomas de Arrevillaga. For Joló, Isasi was also designated; but on his return from Tamontaca his health was so broken that in his place was appointed Father Sebastian Ignacio de Arcada, then in charge of the district of Siocon; he went thither accompanied by Arrevillaga, having been sent by Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar, then governor of Zamboanga. (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 75–106.)↑10The missionaries appointed to the Mindanao mission were the Jesuits Juan Moreno and Sebastian Arcada; but the latter was ill at the time, and died soon afterward; in his place was substituted Ignacio Malaga. See account of their mission in Concepción, xii, pp. 110–112, 138–141.Those who went to Joló were Juan Ang[e]les and Patricio de el Barrio; they left Zamboanga on June 3, 1748, in company with Alimudin. For account of their mission, see Concepción, xii, pp. 114–138; he cites a diary and letters written by Father Angeles, and the report of Commandant Pulgar. He blames the Jesuits (pp. 146, 147) for misrepresenting the Moro sultans to the governor, and Pulgar (as being under their influence) for an unnecessarily hostile attitude toward the Moros.↑11Concepción states (xii, p. 134) that Alimudin was so infatuated for one of his concubines that he neglected his duties of government; and that his brother Bantilan bribed a man to assassinate the sultan, giving him six slaves and a thousand pesos.↑12Ferrando speaks (Hist. PP. dominicos, iv, p. 535) of “this sedition, actual or feigned (but on this point history has not made its final utterance).”↑13Forrest says (Voyage, p. 334) of Alimudin’s visit to Samboangan: “He bought goods from Don Zacharias the governor, giving the Don his own price, made presents to the officers of the garrison, and lost his money to them, as if accidentally, by gaming with dice. Still resolved to ingratiate himself with the governor, the Sultan wanted to make him a present of forty male slaves, whom he had drest in rich liveries on the occasion. Many of them were natives of Papua or New Guinea. Zacharias refused the presents, suspecting the Sultan of some design. The Sultan then asked leave to go to Manila. He went thither, and said to the archbishop, ‘I will turn Christian, let the Spaniards take Sooloo, send the stubborn Datoos to Samboangan; make me king there, I then will oblige every one to embrace your religion.’ The Spaniards listened to him, and he returned to Samboangan with an armada.”↑14See letter of the Jesuit Masvesi regarding this visit of the Joloan ruler, inVOL. XLVII, pp. 243–250; also account of it (1750), ascribed to Arrechedera, in Retana’sArchivo, i, no. v.↑15Ferrando says (iv, pp. 538, 539) that Arrechedera sent the sultan to Binalatongan (in Pangasinan) for baptism; but that Alimudin was taken ill at Paniqui, on his journey, and it was therefore decided to baptize him there.↑16This catastrophe, one of the most ruinous of its kind ever known, occurred on October 28, 1746; Lima was wrecked by the earthquake, and Callao destroyed by a tidal wave—in Lima, over 1,100 persons perished, and in Callao 4,600. A detailed account of this event was published at Lima by order of the viceroy, Marqués de Villa Garcia, an English translation of which appeared in London (the second edition in 1748); and other accounts were published in Lima and Mexico.↑17See account of this controversy, the wretched condition in which the royal ships and galleys were found to be, and the loss of the “Pilar,” in Concepción’sHistoria, xii, pp. 183–211; cf. Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 291, note. The vessel known by the names of “Rosarito” and “Philipino,” which “had cost the royal treasury 60,666 pesos, had remained more than four years abandoned to the sun and rain, without any care;” and it was now valued at 18,000 pesos, a sum which, after more thorough examination of the rotting timbers, was reduced to 7,500. The Spanish government had ordered that six ships be at once constructed to proceed against the Moro pirates; and it was therefore necessary to hasten this work, without waiting for “red tape,” hence Nebra’s informal appointment. The “Pilar” was not a fragata, but a large ship; it sailed in June or July, 1750; its repairing and cleaning was so hastily done that the vessel began to leak before it left the Luzón coast. The commander, Ignacio Martinez de Faura, was notified of this, and that it was unsafe for the vessel to proceed into the open sea; he answered, “To Purgatory, or to Acapulco!” In the following October, pieces of wreckage were picked up on the eastern coasts of Luzón, which were identified as belonging to the “Pilar.”↑18“The secretary of the government, who, protected in that quarter by the person who ought to have condemned his acts, pushed forward his designs and finally effected his purpose” (Ferrando, iv, p. 548).↑19“This [Dominican] province had already (in 1745) reported to his Majesty that the beaterio of Santa Cathalina was maintained in the form of observance provided by the royal decrees of February 17, 1716 and September 10, 1732; that it contained the fifteen religious which it ought to have according to the arrangements of its founder; that they observed the three vows of religious, according to the enactment of St. Pius V, issued on 28 [sic] in 1566; and that, although there had never been the slightest question raised on this point, some uncertainties were beginning to present themselves regarding the nature of their vows, and even whether dispensation from these could be granted by the archbishop of Manila.” Accordingly, the Dominicans requested the royal decision on these matters; the king therefore decreed (June 20, 1747) that a committee formed of the governor, the archbishop, and the Dominican provincial, should carefully examine into the best method of carrying out the previous decrees. They did so, and, when their deliberations were laid before the royal fiscal, he demanded that the vows taken by these beatas be declared opposed to his Majesty’s will. Sister Cecilia, as soon as she was placed in Santa Potenciana, divested herself of the religious habit, claiming that her profession was null—a claim which was irregular, “because the five years had already passed which the laws and justice allow for proceedings of this sort.” When the papal delegate disallowed the appeal of the Dominicans from the archbishop’s attempted control of this case, they appealed to the Audiencia for protection from the fuerza exerted by the latter; but that court declined to interfere, saying that there was no fuerza committed. The archbishop then pronounced a definitive sentence in favor of Cecilia, and set her at liberty; she then married Figueroa, and they went to Nueva España. The Spanish government took no further notice of her case, save to refuse to the Dominicans permission to lay it before the Holy See. (Ferrando, iv, pp. 548–551)↑20This was Don Protasio Cavezas.↑21A minute account of this episode is found in Concepción’sHistoria, xii, pp. 212–230. The lady’s name was Cecilia Ita y Salazar. She had been educated in the beaterio from childhood, and had been a professed religious for sixteen years.↑22“The royal decree issued in 1762 in consequence of the notorious litigation of Mother Cecilia did not decide that the beaterio should be extinguished, but only that new religious should not be admitted until those then living, who numbered nearly thirty, should be reduced to fifteen religious of the choir, in conformity with the provisions of its foundation,” “and that the number of the fifteen beatas should be kept up, according to vacancies that might occur.” (Ferrando, v, p. 151).↑23“The seizure of these champans was afterward the cause of a clamorous lawsuit incited by various officers against the master-of-camp Abad, accusing him of having kept for himself the best part [of the goods seized]. It was also proved that he employed the vessels of the royal navy in his mercantile speculations; this evil was very general in that period, and to it must be attributed, in large part, the scanty results of most of the expeditions against the Mahometan Malays of southern Filipinas.” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 294.)Another Chinese champan was seized by the Spaniards, apparently not long afterward, near Malandi; it was laden with goods for trade in Mindanao, which included a number of guns and other weapons, with ammunition. These were confiscated by the Spaniards, an act which was greatly resented by Jampsa, the sultan of Tamontaca, who therefore abandoned the Spanish alliance and sided with the hostile Moros. (Concepción, xiii, pp. 1–5.)↑24This proceeding took place at midnight on August 3, and the number arrested was 217 persons: these included Alimudin’s four sons, his brother and sister, four of his daughters, five brothers-in-law, a son-in-law; a Mahometanjaddí(“the second rank in that sect, equivalent to a bishop”) and fivepanditas; also two prominent chiefs, one hundred and sixty of the sultan’s vassals, and thirty-two concubines and female servants. (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 298.) Cf. Concepción, xii, pp. 288, 289.↑25Alimudin and his household arrived as prisoners at Manila in September, 1751. Soon afterward the Manila government declared war, with fire and sword, against the Joloans and all those Moro peoples who aided them; permitting the enslavement of all who should be captured, whether men, women or children; and giving all their property and possessions to their captors, free from all royal dues or imposts. See copy of this proclamation in Montero y Vidal’sHist. de piratería, appendix, pp. 29–31. Concepción (xii, p. 344) regards this declaration of war as unjust; he adds that the Joloan captive princes, whose arrest was incited by ambition and greed, were so unfortunate as to lose their protector, Bishop Arrechedera, by death (November 12, 1751). In the same month died also Bishop Arevalo, of Nueva Caceres.↑26Here, as most often elsewhere, “captives” are synonymous with “slaves.” Montero y Vidal (Hist. de piratería, i, p. 299) protests against this permission to enslave the Moros, as being contrary to the provisions of the laws of the Indias, which forbid slavery in Philipinas.↑27Concepción says (xii, pp. 345–352) that the master-of-camp in command of the fleet (who was Antonio Ramón de Abad y Monterde) was undecided whether to attack Joló, but was persuaded to do so by the Jesuits, who told him that the very sight of the Spanish squadron would ensure the surrender of the Joloans. The attack was made at the beginning of June, 1752, and was unsuccessful; Abad was angry at the Jesuits, who had led him into this difficulty, and quarreled with them. They retorted by accusing him to the governor, of conduct (in modern phrase) “unworthy of an officer and a gentleman”—that is, of neglect of official duty, mismanagement of the campaign, unnecessary sacrifice of his men’s lives, and licentious behavior at Zamboanga. This was believed, until Abad was reported much more favorably by other officers of his fleet. See full account of his residencia (ut supra, xiii, pp. 36–85), in which he was acquitted from the charges made against him, but sentenced to pay the costs of the residencia.↑28These hostilities broke out in 1752, and for several years scourged the unfortunate Visayans. Concepción records many of these attacks in considerable detail (Hist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 5–36); the missions of the Recollects, as also those of the Jesuits in Mindanao (except those under the shelter of the fort at Zamboanga) were the frontier outposts most exposed to the pirates, and it is these missions that Concepción chiefly mentions. The fort at Iligan, Mindanao, was besieged by two thousand Moros for two months; but a Spanish fleet was sent from Cebú, which obliged the enemy to raise the siege, after a great loss of men. This defense was conducted by the Jesuit in charge there, Father José Ducós, whose father had been an officer in the Spanish army; and this same priest rendered valiant service in other Moro raids in that region. Tagoloan and Yponan, in the province of Cagayan, Mindanao were besieged by the Moros; but the mountain Indians were called down to their aid by the Jesuit missionaries, and compelled the enemy to retreat. In Caraga, Surigao was attacked, and the Christian inhabitants, with their two Recollect missionaries, were compelled to take flight and seek refuge in the mountains; they were hunted there for weeks by the enemy—one of the priests being finally captured and taken to Lanao—all this time, enduring terrible hardships and suffering, which caused the other (Fray Roque de Santa Monica) to become hopelessly insane; he was afterward brought to Manila, but died there in a demented condition. “The district of Surigao, rich through its famous gold-mines, and now in most wretched condition,” was devastated and ruined. The enemy did the same in the island of Siargao, where the Recollect missionary, Fray Joseph de la Virgen de el Niño Perdido, was slain while endeavoring to lead his followers against the pirates. Nearly all the population—of Surigao, more than 2,000 souls; of Siargao, more than 1,600—were either slain or carried away captive. The district of Butuan was laid waste and some two hundred captives seized; the little military post at Linao, up the river, alone escaped, mainly through the difficulty of ascending the stream. The Moros attacked the island of Camiguin, which was so bravely defended by its natives that the pirates were repulsed—especially by “one of the villages, which consisted of people of Moro origin from the Lake of Malanao, from which they had withdrawn on account of domestic dissensions, and settled in this island. They are of excellent disposition, very good Christians, courageous, and have an irreconcilable hatred for those enemies.” Here they were led by their Recollect priest, Fray Marcelinc de el Espiritu Santo, “a robust native of La Mancha,” who with them fought so valiantly that the enemy could not make a landing. Romblon had so good a fort that it could repel the foe; Ticao was so poorly defended that the people, with their missionary, Fray Manuel de Santa Cathalina, could only take to flight—the priest being afterward captured, and finally ransomed for eight hundred pesos. In several places the missionaries were either slain or captured by the pirates; and these raids were extended, the boldness of the enemy increasing, even to the coasts of Luzón, in Batangas and Zambales. The government took what precautions it could, but these amounted to little save in the vicinity of Manila, Cebú, and Zamboanga; military and naval forces, and supplies of all sorts, were deficient, and there was much official apathy and corruption.↑29“This unfortunate attempt cost the treasury 36,976 pesos, and a galley that was seized by the Moros” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 301).↑30“In Manila the indignation against the disloyal Ali-Mudin knew no bounds. All clamored for the punishment of so ignoble a race, sorrowfully recalling the fact that the amount expended in courting him and in the expenses of his sojourn there was more than 20,000 pesos, without counting the 6,000 pesos and the military supplies sent to establish the Jesuits in Joló” (ut supra, p. 299). Later, the authorities at Manila hardly knew what to do with Alimudin; he would probably have been put to death, but it was feared that the Moros would retaliate by slaughtering their Christian captives, who numbered some 10,000. Fatima procured the return (in the summer of 1753) of fifty-one Christian captives, and negotiations were made for peace between Manila and Joló; and in June, 1754, Bantilan surrendered sixty-eight more captives, and a Spanish galley and champan. Faveau, who had carried on a brilliant campaign against the pirates with his little squadron, made a favorable report to the governor of the good intentions of both Bantilan and Alimudin; and stated that the return of the latter to Joló was desired by his subjects, and that Bantilan was willing to resign in his favor. Arandía sent most of the Joloan prisoners back to that island, retaining the sultan and his eldest son as hostages until the full accomplishment of the treaty; they remained there until the capture of the city by the English (1762), who afterward restored them to Joló (seeVOL. XLIX). Ferrando (iv, pp. 541–543) considers that Alimudin was unjustly suspected and ill-treated, and defends him from accusations of disloyalty to the Spaniards and to the Christian religion.↑31“The Sultanship in Sooloo is hereditary, but the government mixed. About fifteen Datoos, who may be called the nobility, make the greater part of the legislature. Their title is hereditary to the eldest son, and they sit in council with the Sultan. The Sultan has two votes in this assembly, and each Datoo has one. The heir-apparent (who, when I was there, was Datoo Alamoodine) if he sides with the Sultan, has two votes; but, if against him, only one. There are two representatives of the people, called Manteries, like the military tribunes of the Romans. The common people of Sooloo, called Tellimanhood, enjoy much real freedom, owing to the above representation; but the Tellimanhood, or vassals of the adjacent islands named Tappool, Seassee, Tawee-tawee, and others, being the estates of particular Datoos, are often used in a tyrannical manner by their chiefs. I have been told that their haughty lords visiting their estates, will sometimes with impunity demand and carry off young women, whom they happen to fancy, to swell the number of their Sandles (Concubines) at Sooloo.” (Forrest,Voyage, p. 326.)↑32For detailed accounts of the events here briefly mentioned, the Moro wars, the imprisonment of Alimudin, the ravages committed in the islands by those pirates, etc., to the end of Ovando’s government, see Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 230–419, and xiii, pp. 1–250. See also the account of the “Moro raids repulsed by Visayan natives,”ante; it is inserted mainly to represent more vividly, in the words of a probable eyewitness, a typical raid by Moro pirates on the peaceable Christian natives.↑33To this name should be added, “Santisteban, Echeveria, y Alvero” (Concepción, xiii, p. 250); he was a knight of the Order of Calatrava.↑34See Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 250–287, for details of these reforms.↑35See Concepción’s account of this eruption (xiii, pp. 345–350); it lasted from September to December, 1754 and was accompanied by severe earthquakes, one of which lasted half an hour.↑36Ignacio María de Alava, “Commander-in-chief of the naval forces in Asiatic waters,” was a personal friend of Zúñiga, to whom the latter dedicated hisHistoria. In a preliminary notice to hisEstadismo(p. 3 of Retana’s ed.) he says that Alava desired to become acquainted with the Philippines from various points of view, and invited the priest to accompany him therein. Alava arrived at Manila on December 25, 1796, and remained in the islands until January 7, 1803; he reorganized the naval forces and the arsenal at Cavite, with much energy and ability, but had various controversies with Governor Aguilar. Afterward he held important posts in the Spanish naval administration, and died on May 26, 1815. See Retana’s note concerning him (ut supra, ii, p. *562), and Montero y Vidal’sHist. de Philipinas, ii, pp. 345–359.↑37The exploits of this militant Jesuit are described by Concepción, inHist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 148–168, 178–188, 296–319.↑38The name given her in baptism was Rita Calderón; the marriage occurred on April 27, 1755. See Concepción, xiii, pp. 333, 334.↑39“The people of Magindano, and their neighbours, known commonly by the name of Oran Illanon, as living near the great Lano, are very piratically inclined. Neither can the Sultan of Magindano restrain his subjects from fitting out vessels, which go among the Philippines, to Mangaio, that is, cruise against the Spaniards: much less can be restrained the Illanos, being under a government more aristocratic; for, on the banks of the Lano, are no fewer than seventeen, stiled Rajahs, and sixteen who take the title of Sultan, besides those on the coast. When the Spanish envoy sailed from Magindano for Samboangan, Rajah Moodo sent a vessel, as has been said, to convoy him across the Illano bay. This is a proof the Spaniards are not on good terms with the Illanos. These, within ten years before 1775, have done much mischief to the Spaniards, among the islands called Babuyan, at the north extremity of the Philippines; and, at this time, they possess an island in the very heart of the Philippines, called Burias, where has been a colony of Illanos, for many years, men, women, and children. The Spaniards have often attempted to dislodge them; but in vain: the island, which is not very large, being environed with rocks and shoals to a considerable distance.” (Forrest,Voyage to New Guinea, pp. 301, 302.)↑40Fray Mateo González founded this mission to the Batanes. He made his profession in 1667, and came to Manila four years later, being then twenty-seven years old. He was sent to the Cagayán missions, and was stationed in the Babuyanes Islands during 1673–84 (save in 1677–80, at Lallo-c). In 1686 he made a visit to the Batanes, where he was well received; they contained over 3,000 souls. Leaving his companion there to study the language, he went to Manila to secure support for his new mission, to which he returned with Fray Juan Rois; but hardly two months passed before the unhealthful climate and many privations brought mortal illness on them. González died on July 25, 1688, and Rois on August 10, following. With this the Batanes mission came to an end until (in 1718) it was revived by Fray Juan Bel. (Reseña biográfica, ii, pp. 155–157.)↑41“Action was taken in a session of the royal treasury officials on the execution of the orders in a royal despatch which notified this government to establish on the mainland of Cagayan the people who were dwelling in the islands of the Babuyanes; for this purpose the sum of five thousand, three hundred and ninety-eight pesos was sent from the royal treasury of Mexico, definitely allotted to this transportation. The migration was agreed upon, the money was spent, but the only result was the transfer of some families, the greater part of them remaining in their own islands—where, as they were accustomed to that mode of life, they desired no further privileges than their own liberty, even though it be with necessary inconveniences, which they felt little or not at all, being free from the yoke since their youth.” (Concepción,Hist.de Philipinas, xi, p.304.)Cf. Salazar’s sketch of the history of these missions, in chapter xxiii ofHist. Sant. Rosario(in ourVOL. XLIII). See also, for both early and later events therein, Ferrando’sHist. PP. dominicos, iii, pp. 550–588, and iv, pp. 254–258, 330, 582–585.Concepción (ut supra) does not mention the date of the royal decree; but Ferrando states (iv, p. 423) that it was dated March 14, 1728, and that it granted for this purpose the sum of 3,398 pesos; the “3” may be a typographical error for “5,” the amount as given (but spelled out) by Concepción. Ferrando says that some three hundred families removed to the mainland, but that many more remained in their islands.↑42This is more fully described in the previous document, “Later Augustinian and Dominican missions.”↑43See Ferrando’sHist. PP. dominicos, iv, pp. 576–582.↑44Arandia made a census of the Christian Sangleys in the islands, and found that they numbered 3,413. He established the market here mentioned, that of San Fernando, at first intended to be simply a pavilion in which trade might be carried on; the heathen merchants to return immediately to their own country, without going inland from Manila or having any dealings with the natives. But, as it was soon apparent that the exigencies of weather and trade required larger and more permanent quarters, Arandía had a plan made for the necessary dwellings and storehouses, by a Recollect lay brother who was an excellent architect (whom the governor had appointed superintendent of royal works); and a contract for building it was made, at a cost of 48,000 pesos. Half of this amount was contributed by a citizen of Manila, Fernando de Mier y Noriega, the other half being supplied from the royal treasury; as a reward for this service, he was made warden of the new market, an office carrying a salary of fifty pesos a month, and passing to his children and descendants. (Concepción, xiii, pp. 357–360.) The king, however, restricted this privilege to Mier’s life.↑45See Concepción’s account of this enterprise (xiv, pp. 167–171). The amount of capital raised was 76,500 pesos, in shares of 500 each; with this, the company began to buy goods (ropas) to supply the public necessities, and sold these in their own shops, in each of which were two Spanish agents, no Sangley having anything to do with these shops. It was planned that the company, having bought goods at wholesale—they found that they could purchase thus at sixteen per cent less than they paid for the same goods at retail—should sell at only thirty per cent above the first cost; “of this [gain] eight per cent must be paid to his Majesty to make up to the royal treasury the deficiency arising from the loss of the licenses that the infidels had paid; ten per cent went to the shareholders; and the remaining twelve per cent was kept for the payment of salaries, and for a public fund for the promotion of the industries and products of the country.” Their capital was found insufficient to make their purchases; indeed, this lack had always been felt when the Sangleys conducted the trade, but their industry had supplied it; the directors therefore applied to the Misericordia and other administrators for the loan of the reserve funds held in theobras pías. The latter were at first disposed to aid the company, but later declined to do so, following the advice of certain theologians whom they consulted. The auditor Pedro Calderon Henriquez gave an opinion contrary to this, saying that theobras píashad gained great profits through the voluntary concession and tolerance of the citizens, who ought not to be the only ones to make sacrifices for the public good; and that “in these islands they had winked at the business transactions of the confraternities, which are not carried on in other regions, on account of the convenience which the merchants found in having money ready for investment in their commerce.” The governor therefore demanded from the Misericordia 100,000 pesos of their reserve funds, and from the Third Order (of St. Francis) 30,000; and with these funds the company was for the time floated. (Among the advantages expected from this enterprise were: lower prices than the Chinese asked for goods, the same price the year round, the retention of all profits within the country, and the certain support of the twenty-one families belonging to the company’s employ.) Another great hindrance was found in the general practice of using clipped money in this trade, which caused great losses. This and other difficulties caused the dissolution of the company within the year, and it was unable to do more than save the capital invested therein.↑46Ferrando says (iv, pp. 587–591) that Arandía cut off from the hospital of San Gabriel 800 pesos, out of the 2,000 which it received from the communal fund of the Sangleys, for whose benefit the hospital was founded; and this amount the Dominican province was obliged, through motives of humanity, to make good from its own treasury. Moreover, he insisted that the Augustinian provincial, Fray Juan Facundo Meseguer, should reveal to him the private reasons which he had for removing two of his friars from their charges in Indian villages. This was in reality an attack on all the religious bodies, who all resolved to make common cause on the governor, and forthwith sent to the king a remonstrance against the governor’s proceedings; this checked Arandía, who desisted from his demands against Meseguer.↑47Vindel’sCatálogo, tomo i (Madrid, 1896), p. 94, cites from Rezabal y Ugarte’sEscritores de los seis colegios universitarios(Madrid, 1805) mention of works left by Viana, existing in the archives of the Council of Indias, among them “Ordinances for the government of the Indian provinces of Filipinas.” This, with the hostility which his letters and other writings exhibit toward the religious orders, indicates the possibility that Viana had some responsibility for the instructions here mentioned by Zúñiga.↑48According to Concepción (xiii, pp. 360–366), the tax here referred to was a general one, called “the royal impost,” an ad valorem duty levied on all the products of the provinces, brought in the coasting trade to Manila; it was established, in view of the depleted condition of the royal treasury, for the maintenance of the royal fleets against the pirates and the defense of the internal commerce of the islands, and was exacted from all persons concerned, without exempting any one, whatever his rank or estate. The Dominicans were unwilling to pay this tax on certain commodities which they were sending to their convents in Cagayan, alleging that these were not commercial articles, and that they were exempt as a religious body. This was of no avail, and their vessel was seized; but, either through their representations at court or because Arandía had not first asked the royal permission for this measure, it was censured by the government and the duty removed.↑49See Concepción’s full account of this venture (xiv, pp. 208–275). It will be remembered that Bustamante had attempted in 1718 to open up commerce with Siam (VOL. XLIV, p. 152); but this was a failure, through the apathy of the Spaniards. In the year 1747 a Siamese ship came to Manila with merchandise, and another four years later; these were well received there, and allowed to sell their goods free from duties. On the second ship came a Jesuit, Father Juan Regis Aroche, as envoy from the king of Siam to establish friendly relations with the Manila government; he proposed to Ovando to send an expedition to Siam to build there a galleon, then needed at Manila for the Acapulco trade. As the royal treasury had not the funds for this, Ovando formed a stock company, with a hundred shares, each of 300 pesos; 30,000 pesos were thus raised (said by the Jesuit to be enough to build the ship)—“with the idea that afterward the king [of España] would vouchsafe to buy it, and the gains would be dividedpro rataamong the shareholders, whose profits would be considerable even if the ship were sold at the usual and reasonable price.” Accordingly Captain Joseph Pasarin was sent to Siam (March 18, 1752), and made arrangements for the construction of the ship, which was facilitated and aided by the king of that country; labor was there abundant and cheap, yet the cost of the ship was much more than had been planned, and not only was a second remittance made from Manila, but the king furnished nearly 13,000 pesos besides. Pasarin set out on his voyage to Manila with the new ship, but, when in sight of Bolinao, a fierce storm drove the Spaniards back, and finally compelled them to land in China. They went to Macao, refitted their damaged ship (for which a wealthy Portuguese lent them, without interest, 20,516 pesos), and set sail for Manila on April 28, 1755; storms again drove them from Bolinao, and they were compelled to put back to Macao, and to remain there five months until the north winds should subside; Simon Vicente de la Rosa again generously aided them with 5,000 pesos. Returning their voyage on December 12 of that year, unfavorable winds again attacked them, and they were obliged to make port in Batavia. (January 12, 1756). Here Pasarin fell sick, and on his recovery found that the shipbuilder whom the Dutch had detailed to repair the galleon had fled with certain goods which he plundered from it, and twenty-eight of his seamen had deserted; at last he secured a new crew, and reached Cavite on July 6, 1756. This galleon was named “Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe,” or “La Mexicana;” its keel was 120 English feet long, and its capacity was 1,032 toneladas; it was built entirely of teak; the entire cost of vessel, equipment, and construction was 53,370 pesos. The king of Spain disapproved the enterprise; and when the accounts of the company were settled, it was found that they were still indebted to the extent of 9,520 pesos. The galleon was sold at public auction for 10,000 pesos.↑50Concepción furnishes an interesting account (xiv, pp. 76–79) of the abolition by Arandía of the “rotten borough” of Cebú. During the term of Governor Arrechedera, he received a request from Juan Baraona Velazquez, governor and chief magistrate of Cebú province, that in view of the lack not only of regidors there but of citizens who could fill that office, the governor should confer it on certain persons named by him, among them two who were the only permanent (Spanish) settlers there. Nevertheless, affairs soon returned to their former condition: of the five persons thus appointed, one was long detained in Manila, and one died; another was deprived of office for harsh treatment of the headman of the Sangleys, and still another for failure to perform his duties. “Thus, only the regidor Espina was left, and in him much was deficient, if he were not actually incapable; for he could not read or write, and his judgment was not very sound.” Velazquez therefore proposed that these offices be extinguished, and some suitable person be appointed from Manila to assist him in ruling the province. Nothing came of this, and his successor, Joseph Romo, applied to Arandía for relief, saying that for two years no election of alcalde-in-ordinary had been held, and the office was exercised by the regidor Pedro Muñoz—the same who had ill-treated the Sangley—“of whom alone that municipality was composed;” that the latter had obtained his post onlyad interim, and now refused to surrender it to Romo. “In view of this report, Señor Arandía decided that these remnants of the city should be abolished, leaving it with only the name of city, and that it should be ruled by its chief magistrate, as alcalde-mayor of the province; and in this wretched condition was left the first city of this sphere, endowed with privileges by our Catholic kings, and worthy of other and greater consideration. Its lack of citizens transformed it into so dry a skeleton; and, although this measure was provisional, necessity has made it perpetual.” Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, i, p. 555) that since then Cebú had been governed by a gobernadorcillo, like any native village; and at the end of that same volume they give a table of the population of Cebú province in 1818, which shows that the ancient city of Santisimo Nombre de Jésus contained no pure Spaniards, its population of 2,070 souls being all native or Chinese except 233 Spanish mestizos. Its present population, according to the late U. S. census, is 31,079—of whom 793 are natives of China, 131 of America, and 168 of Europe.↑51He had witnessed personally at Acapulco the careless, disorderly, and even fraudulent manner in which this trade was carried on by the Mexican merchants, who contrived to secure the advantage in every way over those of Manila. He therefore imposed severe penalties on all who on either side should practice frauds. He also appointed four of the most distinguished of the citizens of Manila to register, apportion, and appraise the goods sent thence; but the only result was that these men took the best for themselves, and consulted their own profit; he therefore revoked their commissions and sharply rebuked them. Arandía also made many reforms in the management of the Acapulco ship, its supplies, and its men, both on the sea and in port. (Concepción, xiv, pp. 171–183.)↑52Le Gentil and Marquina are cited by Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 14) to show that Arandia died by poison or other violent means.↑53His full name was Manuel Antonio Rojo del Río y Vieyra.↑54At this point properly should come the documents which relate the invasion of the islands by the English, their capture of Manila, the consequent disturbances in the provinces, etc.; but the great length of this episode, and the desirability of bringing all this material together in one volume, induce us to place it all in VOL. XLIX, completing this present volume with the noted memorial by the royal fiscal Viana, written nearly a year after the evacuation of Manila by the English.↑

1The fiscal Arroyo declared that he had been imprisoned in order that he might not prosecute claims against the following persons in their approaching residencias: Governor Valdés Tamón, for the enormous sums which the royal treasury had lost during his government, which amounted to a million and a half pesos; the Marqués de las Salinas and the Marqués de Monte-Castro, confederates of the same SeñorValdés, for having appropriated from the royal treasury and from the public two and one-half million pesos; and Don Domingo de Otero Vermudez, [who had taken] more than two hundred thousand. (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 95.)↑2See enumeration of these funds in the historical sketch of the Misericordia, inVOL. XLVII.↑3It is thus stated by Concepción (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 280): “With the pretext that the fathers of the Society [of Jesus] had usurped from them cultivated lands, and the untilled lands on the hills, on which they kept enormous herds of horned cattle—for which reason, and because the Jesuits said that these were their own property, they would not allow the natives to supply themselves with wood, rattans, and bamboos, unless they paid fixed prices—the Indians committed shocking acts of hostility on the ranches of Lian and Nasugbu, killing and plundering the tenants of those lands, with many other ravages. Nor did they respect the houses of the [Jesuit] fathers, but attacked and plundered them, and partly burned them, as well as many other buildings independent of these.” All was plundering, rapine, destruction, and debauchery; the natives also rebelled against the exactions from them of tribute and personal services. “The contagion spread to the village of Taal, and more than sparks were discovered in other places, although efforts were made to conceal the fire.” The alcalde-mayor and the Jesuits tried at first to pacify the Indians, urging them to wait for the official visit of Auditor Calderon; but they could do nothing, the natives being rendered only more daring by this attempt. Troops were then sent from Manila against them; in the battle mentioned in our text several were wounded, among them the commanding officer, Sargento-mayor Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar; but he succeeded in routing the enemy. The chief of the insurgents, one Matienza, took refuge in a church, but was captured and disarmed therein. Reënforcements were sent from Manila, and the rebellion was soon quelled. The leaders of the rebellion were punished in various ways, according to their prominence or influence; some were shot, others sent into exile or to the galleys; and amnesty was granted to the insurgents who would lay down their arms and renew their acknowledgment of vassalage.To this may be added the following statements by Calderon himself: “By commission of this royal Audiencia, I went to a village outside the walls of this capital, to take measures for the completion of a small bridge, which was being hindered by some dispute, and to pay to Master Alarífe 250 pesos which had been offered to him for its construction. I proceeded to make inquiries regarding the lands and revenues belonging to the village; and I found that all the surrounding estates (on which the people were working) belonged to a certain [F., forFulano] ecclesiastic, the Indians and mestizos paying him rent not only for these, but for the land occupied by their cabins, at the rate of three pesos a year for the married man, and one and one-half pesos for the widow or the unmarried man. And as it seemed to me that the person who, according to what was evident to my own eyes, was collecting about 30 pesos of land-rent, independently of the estates and houses belonging to him, was the one who rightfully ought to bear the cost of the little bridge, I announced that this cost should be collected from the persons who were owing rents for the lands. Receipts therefor were to be given to them, and orders were issued to the royal judges before whom such cases come first, that they must, if the laymen who make these payments should be accused before them, give the latter credit for these receipts; nor in all this brief summary, and in the measures that I took, would I notice the ecclesiastic who called himself the owner of all.” “In regard to the representations of the convenience for the Indian who has built his hut in the grain-field, I believe that it is quite the contrary, and that it would be more expedient for him and for the commonwealth that he should not be allowed to build it there, or that he be obliged to change his dwelling, for those huts generally serve as refuge for persons bent on mischief; besides, as the Indian thus has no watchful neighbor to inform the religious minister of his doings, and no alcalde, he lives in too much freedom. But, granted that all this comes to an end, what right has the owner of the land to more than the rent from him who occupies it? And if with hispilapis, or pathway, and his house he occupies no more than 50 brazas—for which he has to pay the same as if he had rented acabalita, which is a thousand brazas—and if he must pay the same rent, then lease to him the cabalita, including therein the house and pilapis; and with this the Indian will have land for planting his young trees, and for making some planting of grain.”These items are cited from a pamphlet issued (Manila, 1739) by the auditor Pedro Calderón Henríquez, entitled:Discvrso ivridico, en qve se defiende la real iurisdiccion, y se hace demonstracion de la injusticia, que contiene el contrato de arrendamiento de solares en estas islas; in it he “laments the great amount that the Filipinos were paying to the ecclesiastical power.” This seems to have brought out a reply defending the ecclesiastics,Apología por la immvnidad ecclesiastica, y por la licitvd de terrazgos, o alqvileres de tierras segvn la forma, estilo de algvnas estancias de estas islas Philipinas(Manila, 1739); it is significant that this was published from the Jesuit printing-house, and the auditor’s pamphlet from the college of Santo Tomás. Regarding both these, see Vindel’sCatálogo bibl. filipina, nos. 1807, 1808; therein is cited the following paragraph from theApología:“48. In the cultivated estates or farms which the Society of Jesus possesses in these islands, the tenants pay nothing for the house-lot which they occupy, with the little garden which their houses are wont to have in addition; but they pay only for the other land which they cultivate. There is, moreover, an order from the superiors that no person shall be allowed on those farms unless he has the charge of some grain-field—and rightly so, since this is the purpose for which admission to the estates is granted to any one; although this does not prevent entire justice being shown to the old men, widows, and other people who are legitimately disabled, by allowing them to remain, as they do, in their houses without paying anything for these and without cultivating a field. Therefore, there is evident falsehood in what is said by a certain [N., used when name is not to be mentioned] author, at the beginning of no. 3, art. 2, in speaking of these estates of the Society—that is, that the tenants pay for the land which they cultivate and for the ground under the houses which they occupy. In Santa Cruz the same observance was in use at the beginning, and it still is followed among the tenants who work on the lands of Mayhaligue adjoining the said village of Santa Cruz, and have their houses in the grain-fields. But as in course of time the Sangley mestizos increased in numbers, and devoted themselves to other occupations—painters, gilders, and silver-smiths, etc., which trades they now exercise with dexterity—and many households were formed, up to the number of about three hundred and eighty, which they now reach, it became necessary to yield to their importunities; and for this college of San Ignacio at Manila to condemn the splendid orchards which it possessed there, and permit the said mestizos to establish therein their dwellings. And, as it is not right that the said college should suffer the heavy damage of losing the said orchards, which had cost it many thousands of pesos, …”↑4Concepción says (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, pp. 278–280) that some investigation of this report was made before Torre’s death, and seven of the wealthiest Chinese were arrested, “as being those most liable to suspicion in the proposed disturbance.” These men were kept in prison for six months, the investigations being continued by Arrechedera and indicating that the “plot” was but a malicious fabrication, intended to harass Torre and thus cause his death. Finally, the governor, in view of their long imprisonment and the failure to prove any charges against them, released the Chinese prisoners, “under precautions and securities.” One of the prisoners proved, by a note from the warden of the court prison, that the latter “had received the Chinaman as a prisoner, without being told from whom or by whose order.” The further precaution was taken of sending back to China, in the champans that went that year, “no small number of Chinese, of those who were known to be strollers and without employment.” Concepción states that Torre’s government was rendered odious largely by a certain man in Manila, “who, on account of his rank and wealth, ambitiously lorded it over the community, causing its government to be subject to his pleasure, and did all that he could to cast infamy on the governor.”↑5In these ships came the royal situado for the current year (1747), and 30,000 pesos on account of the arrearages due; moreover, the returns from the cargo of the previous year were unusually large, owing to successful sales at Acapulco. The vessels halted at the port of Sisiran, where the silver was disembarked, being sent overland to Manila; this was done through fear lest they might be attacked by enemies at the Embocadero. The galleon “Rosario” was sent with a cargo for Acapulco, but was driven back by contrary winds, because it was poorly constructed and difficult to manage. This placed the royal treasury again in great straits, because the situados were in arrears for six remittances; Arrechedera appealed to the citizens and the clergy, who responded liberally—especially the archbishop and his chapter; “the Society of Jesus alone furnished 11,000 pesos—the royal promise being pledged for payment; and the obras pías also contributed to the common cause with their reserve funds.” (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 36–38.)↑6His family name was Martinez de Arizala; at this time he was fifty-two years of age. He was a member of the Audiencia of Quito in Peru (now in Ecuador) for seventeen years, and had been entrusted with various important commissions by the king.↑7Probably on account of his being a Dominican, the Chinese in and near Manila being mostly in charge of that order in matters of religion.↑8A full account of this revolt and its cause and progress may be found in Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, xiv, pp. 79–107; and of its punishment by Lechuga, in xi, pp. 40–43. In writing the latter volume, he had not any adequate information regarding the causes of the rebellion; but later he obtained a detailed account of this from the Recollect fathers in Bohol who took charge of the natives after the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1768. According to them, the immediate occasion of the revolt was the arbitrary conduct of the Jesuit, Father Morales, who was, in 1744, in charge of the district of Inabangan. He sent out a native constable to arrest a renegade Indian, but the latter slew the constable, whose brother, Francisco Dagóhoy, obtained the corpse, and carried it into his village. Morales refused to bury it in consecrated ground, and it lay for three days unburied and rotting. Angered at this arbitrary and harsh treatment, especially as Morales had been the cause of the constable’s death, Dagóhoy swore vengeance on the Jesuit, and persuaded the natives of his district to join him therein; 3,000 of them followed him, abandoning their homes and fortifying an inaccessible retreat in the mountains. On their way they plundered a large and valuable estate in that vicinity, named San Xavier, belonging to the Jesuits, which was well stocked with cows, carabaos, horses, and other animals. Soon afterward, Dagóhoy bribed an Indian to kill the Jesuit minister of Hagna, Father Lamberti; and afterward Morales was also assassinated by natives. The insurgents were numerously recruited through various acts of injustice and tyranny by the Spaniards, and the rebellion was assuming dangerous proportions. Bishop Espeleta of Cebú endeavored to persuade the insurgents to return to their allegiance, and offered them secular priests instead of the Jesuits; but they took this for timidity on the part of the government, and became only more emboldened. Twenty years later, Recollect missionaries were sent to Bohol in place of the expelled Jesuits, and in the district of Baclayon was stationed Fray Pedro de Santa Barbara; he laid plans for reclaiming and reconciling the insurgents, and was partially successful; Dagóhoy and several other datos “returned to God and to the church” with their followers, several hundred being baptized and making then confessions. Nevertheless, they did not go much further, and although Bishop Espeleta endeavored in person to secure their Christian administration, “he could not secure from Dagóhoy any more than that he would build a church, in order to comply with his Christian obligations; but, as he was attracted by the lawless life which he had led during so many years, and by the gratification of being obeyed, the undertaking was delayed until the present time. Nothing was done save to erect the foundation posts, which had to serve for the present church.” This last volume of Concepción’s was published in 1792, and his later information was obtained probably in 1789, in which year he wrote this account. (Espeleta’s last remonstrance with Dagóhoy was made, as stated by our writer, “in the year sixty-two;” but the context would indicate that it occurred after the labors of the Recollects began, and therefore the date is more probably “seventy-two,” the wordsesentabeing printed forsetenta, by one of the typographical errors so frequent in Conception’s pages.) Fray Pedro de Santa Barbara was so delighted at his first success that he persuaded the civil authorities to withdraw the troops from most of the Bohol stations, and to publish a general amnesty (this was not later than 1770); but the result was, that the insurgent chiefs would not allow any of their followers to leave their strongholds under pain of death, and continued their habits of raids on their neighbors, plundering, and murder. Concepción expresses indignant surprise that this rebellion had been allowed to go long unpunished, with so great loss and injury to the peaceable part of the population.↑9These ambassadors were: for Mindanao, Father Francisco Isasi, rector of the Jesuit college at Zamboanga, and the sargento-mayor there, Don Thomas de Arrevillaga. For Joló, Isasi was also designated; but on his return from Tamontaca his health was so broken that in his place was appointed Father Sebastian Ignacio de Arcada, then in charge of the district of Siocon; he went thither accompanied by Arrevillaga, having been sent by Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar, then governor of Zamboanga. (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 75–106.)↑10The missionaries appointed to the Mindanao mission were the Jesuits Juan Moreno and Sebastian Arcada; but the latter was ill at the time, and died soon afterward; in his place was substituted Ignacio Malaga. See account of their mission in Concepción, xii, pp. 110–112, 138–141.Those who went to Joló were Juan Ang[e]les and Patricio de el Barrio; they left Zamboanga on June 3, 1748, in company with Alimudin. For account of their mission, see Concepción, xii, pp. 114–138; he cites a diary and letters written by Father Angeles, and the report of Commandant Pulgar. He blames the Jesuits (pp. 146, 147) for misrepresenting the Moro sultans to the governor, and Pulgar (as being under their influence) for an unnecessarily hostile attitude toward the Moros.↑11Concepción states (xii, p. 134) that Alimudin was so infatuated for one of his concubines that he neglected his duties of government; and that his brother Bantilan bribed a man to assassinate the sultan, giving him six slaves and a thousand pesos.↑12Ferrando speaks (Hist. PP. dominicos, iv, p. 535) of “this sedition, actual or feigned (but on this point history has not made its final utterance).”↑13Forrest says (Voyage, p. 334) of Alimudin’s visit to Samboangan: “He bought goods from Don Zacharias the governor, giving the Don his own price, made presents to the officers of the garrison, and lost his money to them, as if accidentally, by gaming with dice. Still resolved to ingratiate himself with the governor, the Sultan wanted to make him a present of forty male slaves, whom he had drest in rich liveries on the occasion. Many of them were natives of Papua or New Guinea. Zacharias refused the presents, suspecting the Sultan of some design. The Sultan then asked leave to go to Manila. He went thither, and said to the archbishop, ‘I will turn Christian, let the Spaniards take Sooloo, send the stubborn Datoos to Samboangan; make me king there, I then will oblige every one to embrace your religion.’ The Spaniards listened to him, and he returned to Samboangan with an armada.”↑14See letter of the Jesuit Masvesi regarding this visit of the Joloan ruler, inVOL. XLVII, pp. 243–250; also account of it (1750), ascribed to Arrechedera, in Retana’sArchivo, i, no. v.↑15Ferrando says (iv, pp. 538, 539) that Arrechedera sent the sultan to Binalatongan (in Pangasinan) for baptism; but that Alimudin was taken ill at Paniqui, on his journey, and it was therefore decided to baptize him there.↑16This catastrophe, one of the most ruinous of its kind ever known, occurred on October 28, 1746; Lima was wrecked by the earthquake, and Callao destroyed by a tidal wave—in Lima, over 1,100 persons perished, and in Callao 4,600. A detailed account of this event was published at Lima by order of the viceroy, Marqués de Villa Garcia, an English translation of which appeared in London (the second edition in 1748); and other accounts were published in Lima and Mexico.↑17See account of this controversy, the wretched condition in which the royal ships and galleys were found to be, and the loss of the “Pilar,” in Concepción’sHistoria, xii, pp. 183–211; cf. Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 291, note. The vessel known by the names of “Rosarito” and “Philipino,” which “had cost the royal treasury 60,666 pesos, had remained more than four years abandoned to the sun and rain, without any care;” and it was now valued at 18,000 pesos, a sum which, after more thorough examination of the rotting timbers, was reduced to 7,500. The Spanish government had ordered that six ships be at once constructed to proceed against the Moro pirates; and it was therefore necessary to hasten this work, without waiting for “red tape,” hence Nebra’s informal appointment. The “Pilar” was not a fragata, but a large ship; it sailed in June or July, 1750; its repairing and cleaning was so hastily done that the vessel began to leak before it left the Luzón coast. The commander, Ignacio Martinez de Faura, was notified of this, and that it was unsafe for the vessel to proceed into the open sea; he answered, “To Purgatory, or to Acapulco!” In the following October, pieces of wreckage were picked up on the eastern coasts of Luzón, which were identified as belonging to the “Pilar.”↑18“The secretary of the government, who, protected in that quarter by the person who ought to have condemned his acts, pushed forward his designs and finally effected his purpose” (Ferrando, iv, p. 548).↑19“This [Dominican] province had already (in 1745) reported to his Majesty that the beaterio of Santa Cathalina was maintained in the form of observance provided by the royal decrees of February 17, 1716 and September 10, 1732; that it contained the fifteen religious which it ought to have according to the arrangements of its founder; that they observed the three vows of religious, according to the enactment of St. Pius V, issued on 28 [sic] in 1566; and that, although there had never been the slightest question raised on this point, some uncertainties were beginning to present themselves regarding the nature of their vows, and even whether dispensation from these could be granted by the archbishop of Manila.” Accordingly, the Dominicans requested the royal decision on these matters; the king therefore decreed (June 20, 1747) that a committee formed of the governor, the archbishop, and the Dominican provincial, should carefully examine into the best method of carrying out the previous decrees. They did so, and, when their deliberations were laid before the royal fiscal, he demanded that the vows taken by these beatas be declared opposed to his Majesty’s will. Sister Cecilia, as soon as she was placed in Santa Potenciana, divested herself of the religious habit, claiming that her profession was null—a claim which was irregular, “because the five years had already passed which the laws and justice allow for proceedings of this sort.” When the papal delegate disallowed the appeal of the Dominicans from the archbishop’s attempted control of this case, they appealed to the Audiencia for protection from the fuerza exerted by the latter; but that court declined to interfere, saying that there was no fuerza committed. The archbishop then pronounced a definitive sentence in favor of Cecilia, and set her at liberty; she then married Figueroa, and they went to Nueva España. The Spanish government took no further notice of her case, save to refuse to the Dominicans permission to lay it before the Holy See. (Ferrando, iv, pp. 548–551)↑20This was Don Protasio Cavezas.↑21A minute account of this episode is found in Concepción’sHistoria, xii, pp. 212–230. The lady’s name was Cecilia Ita y Salazar. She had been educated in the beaterio from childhood, and had been a professed religious for sixteen years.↑22“The royal decree issued in 1762 in consequence of the notorious litigation of Mother Cecilia did not decide that the beaterio should be extinguished, but only that new religious should not be admitted until those then living, who numbered nearly thirty, should be reduced to fifteen religious of the choir, in conformity with the provisions of its foundation,” “and that the number of the fifteen beatas should be kept up, according to vacancies that might occur.” (Ferrando, v, p. 151).↑23“The seizure of these champans was afterward the cause of a clamorous lawsuit incited by various officers against the master-of-camp Abad, accusing him of having kept for himself the best part [of the goods seized]. It was also proved that he employed the vessels of the royal navy in his mercantile speculations; this evil was very general in that period, and to it must be attributed, in large part, the scanty results of most of the expeditions against the Mahometan Malays of southern Filipinas.” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 294.)Another Chinese champan was seized by the Spaniards, apparently not long afterward, near Malandi; it was laden with goods for trade in Mindanao, which included a number of guns and other weapons, with ammunition. These were confiscated by the Spaniards, an act which was greatly resented by Jampsa, the sultan of Tamontaca, who therefore abandoned the Spanish alliance and sided with the hostile Moros. (Concepción, xiii, pp. 1–5.)↑24This proceeding took place at midnight on August 3, and the number arrested was 217 persons: these included Alimudin’s four sons, his brother and sister, four of his daughters, five brothers-in-law, a son-in-law; a Mahometanjaddí(“the second rank in that sect, equivalent to a bishop”) and fivepanditas; also two prominent chiefs, one hundred and sixty of the sultan’s vassals, and thirty-two concubines and female servants. (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 298.) Cf. Concepción, xii, pp. 288, 289.↑25Alimudin and his household arrived as prisoners at Manila in September, 1751. Soon afterward the Manila government declared war, with fire and sword, against the Joloans and all those Moro peoples who aided them; permitting the enslavement of all who should be captured, whether men, women or children; and giving all their property and possessions to their captors, free from all royal dues or imposts. See copy of this proclamation in Montero y Vidal’sHist. de piratería, appendix, pp. 29–31. Concepción (xii, p. 344) regards this declaration of war as unjust; he adds that the Joloan captive princes, whose arrest was incited by ambition and greed, were so unfortunate as to lose their protector, Bishop Arrechedera, by death (November 12, 1751). In the same month died also Bishop Arevalo, of Nueva Caceres.↑26Here, as most often elsewhere, “captives” are synonymous with “slaves.” Montero y Vidal (Hist. de piratería, i, p. 299) protests against this permission to enslave the Moros, as being contrary to the provisions of the laws of the Indias, which forbid slavery in Philipinas.↑27Concepción says (xii, pp. 345–352) that the master-of-camp in command of the fleet (who was Antonio Ramón de Abad y Monterde) was undecided whether to attack Joló, but was persuaded to do so by the Jesuits, who told him that the very sight of the Spanish squadron would ensure the surrender of the Joloans. The attack was made at the beginning of June, 1752, and was unsuccessful; Abad was angry at the Jesuits, who had led him into this difficulty, and quarreled with them. They retorted by accusing him to the governor, of conduct (in modern phrase) “unworthy of an officer and a gentleman”—that is, of neglect of official duty, mismanagement of the campaign, unnecessary sacrifice of his men’s lives, and licentious behavior at Zamboanga. This was believed, until Abad was reported much more favorably by other officers of his fleet. See full account of his residencia (ut supra, xiii, pp. 36–85), in which he was acquitted from the charges made against him, but sentenced to pay the costs of the residencia.↑28These hostilities broke out in 1752, and for several years scourged the unfortunate Visayans. Concepción records many of these attacks in considerable detail (Hist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 5–36); the missions of the Recollects, as also those of the Jesuits in Mindanao (except those under the shelter of the fort at Zamboanga) were the frontier outposts most exposed to the pirates, and it is these missions that Concepción chiefly mentions. The fort at Iligan, Mindanao, was besieged by two thousand Moros for two months; but a Spanish fleet was sent from Cebú, which obliged the enemy to raise the siege, after a great loss of men. This defense was conducted by the Jesuit in charge there, Father José Ducós, whose father had been an officer in the Spanish army; and this same priest rendered valiant service in other Moro raids in that region. Tagoloan and Yponan, in the province of Cagayan, Mindanao were besieged by the Moros; but the mountain Indians were called down to their aid by the Jesuit missionaries, and compelled the enemy to retreat. In Caraga, Surigao was attacked, and the Christian inhabitants, with their two Recollect missionaries, were compelled to take flight and seek refuge in the mountains; they were hunted there for weeks by the enemy—one of the priests being finally captured and taken to Lanao—all this time, enduring terrible hardships and suffering, which caused the other (Fray Roque de Santa Monica) to become hopelessly insane; he was afterward brought to Manila, but died there in a demented condition. “The district of Surigao, rich through its famous gold-mines, and now in most wretched condition,” was devastated and ruined. The enemy did the same in the island of Siargao, where the Recollect missionary, Fray Joseph de la Virgen de el Niño Perdido, was slain while endeavoring to lead his followers against the pirates. Nearly all the population—of Surigao, more than 2,000 souls; of Siargao, more than 1,600—were either slain or carried away captive. The district of Butuan was laid waste and some two hundred captives seized; the little military post at Linao, up the river, alone escaped, mainly through the difficulty of ascending the stream. The Moros attacked the island of Camiguin, which was so bravely defended by its natives that the pirates were repulsed—especially by “one of the villages, which consisted of people of Moro origin from the Lake of Malanao, from which they had withdrawn on account of domestic dissensions, and settled in this island. They are of excellent disposition, very good Christians, courageous, and have an irreconcilable hatred for those enemies.” Here they were led by their Recollect priest, Fray Marcelinc de el Espiritu Santo, “a robust native of La Mancha,” who with them fought so valiantly that the enemy could not make a landing. Romblon had so good a fort that it could repel the foe; Ticao was so poorly defended that the people, with their missionary, Fray Manuel de Santa Cathalina, could only take to flight—the priest being afterward captured, and finally ransomed for eight hundred pesos. In several places the missionaries were either slain or captured by the pirates; and these raids were extended, the boldness of the enemy increasing, even to the coasts of Luzón, in Batangas and Zambales. The government took what precautions it could, but these amounted to little save in the vicinity of Manila, Cebú, and Zamboanga; military and naval forces, and supplies of all sorts, were deficient, and there was much official apathy and corruption.↑29“This unfortunate attempt cost the treasury 36,976 pesos, and a galley that was seized by the Moros” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 301).↑30“In Manila the indignation against the disloyal Ali-Mudin knew no bounds. All clamored for the punishment of so ignoble a race, sorrowfully recalling the fact that the amount expended in courting him and in the expenses of his sojourn there was more than 20,000 pesos, without counting the 6,000 pesos and the military supplies sent to establish the Jesuits in Joló” (ut supra, p. 299). Later, the authorities at Manila hardly knew what to do with Alimudin; he would probably have been put to death, but it was feared that the Moros would retaliate by slaughtering their Christian captives, who numbered some 10,000. Fatima procured the return (in the summer of 1753) of fifty-one Christian captives, and negotiations were made for peace between Manila and Joló; and in June, 1754, Bantilan surrendered sixty-eight more captives, and a Spanish galley and champan. Faveau, who had carried on a brilliant campaign against the pirates with his little squadron, made a favorable report to the governor of the good intentions of both Bantilan and Alimudin; and stated that the return of the latter to Joló was desired by his subjects, and that Bantilan was willing to resign in his favor. Arandía sent most of the Joloan prisoners back to that island, retaining the sultan and his eldest son as hostages until the full accomplishment of the treaty; they remained there until the capture of the city by the English (1762), who afterward restored them to Joló (seeVOL. XLIX). Ferrando (iv, pp. 541–543) considers that Alimudin was unjustly suspected and ill-treated, and defends him from accusations of disloyalty to the Spaniards and to the Christian religion.↑31“The Sultanship in Sooloo is hereditary, but the government mixed. About fifteen Datoos, who may be called the nobility, make the greater part of the legislature. Their title is hereditary to the eldest son, and they sit in council with the Sultan. The Sultan has two votes in this assembly, and each Datoo has one. The heir-apparent (who, when I was there, was Datoo Alamoodine) if he sides with the Sultan, has two votes; but, if against him, only one. There are two representatives of the people, called Manteries, like the military tribunes of the Romans. The common people of Sooloo, called Tellimanhood, enjoy much real freedom, owing to the above representation; but the Tellimanhood, or vassals of the adjacent islands named Tappool, Seassee, Tawee-tawee, and others, being the estates of particular Datoos, are often used in a tyrannical manner by their chiefs. I have been told that their haughty lords visiting their estates, will sometimes with impunity demand and carry off young women, whom they happen to fancy, to swell the number of their Sandles (Concubines) at Sooloo.” (Forrest,Voyage, p. 326.)↑32For detailed accounts of the events here briefly mentioned, the Moro wars, the imprisonment of Alimudin, the ravages committed in the islands by those pirates, etc., to the end of Ovando’s government, see Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 230–419, and xiii, pp. 1–250. See also the account of the “Moro raids repulsed by Visayan natives,”ante; it is inserted mainly to represent more vividly, in the words of a probable eyewitness, a typical raid by Moro pirates on the peaceable Christian natives.↑33To this name should be added, “Santisteban, Echeveria, y Alvero” (Concepción, xiii, p. 250); he was a knight of the Order of Calatrava.↑34See Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 250–287, for details of these reforms.↑35See Concepción’s account of this eruption (xiii, pp. 345–350); it lasted from September to December, 1754 and was accompanied by severe earthquakes, one of which lasted half an hour.↑36Ignacio María de Alava, “Commander-in-chief of the naval forces in Asiatic waters,” was a personal friend of Zúñiga, to whom the latter dedicated hisHistoria. In a preliminary notice to hisEstadismo(p. 3 of Retana’s ed.) he says that Alava desired to become acquainted with the Philippines from various points of view, and invited the priest to accompany him therein. Alava arrived at Manila on December 25, 1796, and remained in the islands until January 7, 1803; he reorganized the naval forces and the arsenal at Cavite, with much energy and ability, but had various controversies with Governor Aguilar. Afterward he held important posts in the Spanish naval administration, and died on May 26, 1815. See Retana’s note concerning him (ut supra, ii, p. *562), and Montero y Vidal’sHist. de Philipinas, ii, pp. 345–359.↑37The exploits of this militant Jesuit are described by Concepción, inHist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 148–168, 178–188, 296–319.↑38The name given her in baptism was Rita Calderón; the marriage occurred on April 27, 1755. See Concepción, xiii, pp. 333, 334.↑39“The people of Magindano, and their neighbours, known commonly by the name of Oran Illanon, as living near the great Lano, are very piratically inclined. Neither can the Sultan of Magindano restrain his subjects from fitting out vessels, which go among the Philippines, to Mangaio, that is, cruise against the Spaniards: much less can be restrained the Illanos, being under a government more aristocratic; for, on the banks of the Lano, are no fewer than seventeen, stiled Rajahs, and sixteen who take the title of Sultan, besides those on the coast. When the Spanish envoy sailed from Magindano for Samboangan, Rajah Moodo sent a vessel, as has been said, to convoy him across the Illano bay. This is a proof the Spaniards are not on good terms with the Illanos. These, within ten years before 1775, have done much mischief to the Spaniards, among the islands called Babuyan, at the north extremity of the Philippines; and, at this time, they possess an island in the very heart of the Philippines, called Burias, where has been a colony of Illanos, for many years, men, women, and children. The Spaniards have often attempted to dislodge them; but in vain: the island, which is not very large, being environed with rocks and shoals to a considerable distance.” (Forrest,Voyage to New Guinea, pp. 301, 302.)↑40Fray Mateo González founded this mission to the Batanes. He made his profession in 1667, and came to Manila four years later, being then twenty-seven years old. He was sent to the Cagayán missions, and was stationed in the Babuyanes Islands during 1673–84 (save in 1677–80, at Lallo-c). In 1686 he made a visit to the Batanes, where he was well received; they contained over 3,000 souls. Leaving his companion there to study the language, he went to Manila to secure support for his new mission, to which he returned with Fray Juan Rois; but hardly two months passed before the unhealthful climate and many privations brought mortal illness on them. González died on July 25, 1688, and Rois on August 10, following. With this the Batanes mission came to an end until (in 1718) it was revived by Fray Juan Bel. (Reseña biográfica, ii, pp. 155–157.)↑41“Action was taken in a session of the royal treasury officials on the execution of the orders in a royal despatch which notified this government to establish on the mainland of Cagayan the people who were dwelling in the islands of the Babuyanes; for this purpose the sum of five thousand, three hundred and ninety-eight pesos was sent from the royal treasury of Mexico, definitely allotted to this transportation. The migration was agreed upon, the money was spent, but the only result was the transfer of some families, the greater part of them remaining in their own islands—where, as they were accustomed to that mode of life, they desired no further privileges than their own liberty, even though it be with necessary inconveniences, which they felt little or not at all, being free from the yoke since their youth.” (Concepción,Hist.de Philipinas, xi, p.304.)Cf. Salazar’s sketch of the history of these missions, in chapter xxiii ofHist. Sant. Rosario(in ourVOL. XLIII). See also, for both early and later events therein, Ferrando’sHist. PP. dominicos, iii, pp. 550–588, and iv, pp. 254–258, 330, 582–585.Concepción (ut supra) does not mention the date of the royal decree; but Ferrando states (iv, p. 423) that it was dated March 14, 1728, and that it granted for this purpose the sum of 3,398 pesos; the “3” may be a typographical error for “5,” the amount as given (but spelled out) by Concepción. Ferrando says that some three hundred families removed to the mainland, but that many more remained in their islands.↑42This is more fully described in the previous document, “Later Augustinian and Dominican missions.”↑43See Ferrando’sHist. PP. dominicos, iv, pp. 576–582.↑44Arandia made a census of the Christian Sangleys in the islands, and found that they numbered 3,413. He established the market here mentioned, that of San Fernando, at first intended to be simply a pavilion in which trade might be carried on; the heathen merchants to return immediately to their own country, without going inland from Manila or having any dealings with the natives. But, as it was soon apparent that the exigencies of weather and trade required larger and more permanent quarters, Arandía had a plan made for the necessary dwellings and storehouses, by a Recollect lay brother who was an excellent architect (whom the governor had appointed superintendent of royal works); and a contract for building it was made, at a cost of 48,000 pesos. Half of this amount was contributed by a citizen of Manila, Fernando de Mier y Noriega, the other half being supplied from the royal treasury; as a reward for this service, he was made warden of the new market, an office carrying a salary of fifty pesos a month, and passing to his children and descendants. (Concepción, xiii, pp. 357–360.) The king, however, restricted this privilege to Mier’s life.↑45See Concepción’s account of this enterprise (xiv, pp. 167–171). The amount of capital raised was 76,500 pesos, in shares of 500 each; with this, the company began to buy goods (ropas) to supply the public necessities, and sold these in their own shops, in each of which were two Spanish agents, no Sangley having anything to do with these shops. It was planned that the company, having bought goods at wholesale—they found that they could purchase thus at sixteen per cent less than they paid for the same goods at retail—should sell at only thirty per cent above the first cost; “of this [gain] eight per cent must be paid to his Majesty to make up to the royal treasury the deficiency arising from the loss of the licenses that the infidels had paid; ten per cent went to the shareholders; and the remaining twelve per cent was kept for the payment of salaries, and for a public fund for the promotion of the industries and products of the country.” Their capital was found insufficient to make their purchases; indeed, this lack had always been felt when the Sangleys conducted the trade, but their industry had supplied it; the directors therefore applied to the Misericordia and other administrators for the loan of the reserve funds held in theobras pías. The latter were at first disposed to aid the company, but later declined to do so, following the advice of certain theologians whom they consulted. The auditor Pedro Calderon Henriquez gave an opinion contrary to this, saying that theobras píashad gained great profits through the voluntary concession and tolerance of the citizens, who ought not to be the only ones to make sacrifices for the public good; and that “in these islands they had winked at the business transactions of the confraternities, which are not carried on in other regions, on account of the convenience which the merchants found in having money ready for investment in their commerce.” The governor therefore demanded from the Misericordia 100,000 pesos of their reserve funds, and from the Third Order (of St. Francis) 30,000; and with these funds the company was for the time floated. (Among the advantages expected from this enterprise were: lower prices than the Chinese asked for goods, the same price the year round, the retention of all profits within the country, and the certain support of the twenty-one families belonging to the company’s employ.) Another great hindrance was found in the general practice of using clipped money in this trade, which caused great losses. This and other difficulties caused the dissolution of the company within the year, and it was unable to do more than save the capital invested therein.↑46Ferrando says (iv, pp. 587–591) that Arandía cut off from the hospital of San Gabriel 800 pesos, out of the 2,000 which it received from the communal fund of the Sangleys, for whose benefit the hospital was founded; and this amount the Dominican province was obliged, through motives of humanity, to make good from its own treasury. Moreover, he insisted that the Augustinian provincial, Fray Juan Facundo Meseguer, should reveal to him the private reasons which he had for removing two of his friars from their charges in Indian villages. This was in reality an attack on all the religious bodies, who all resolved to make common cause on the governor, and forthwith sent to the king a remonstrance against the governor’s proceedings; this checked Arandía, who desisted from his demands against Meseguer.↑47Vindel’sCatálogo, tomo i (Madrid, 1896), p. 94, cites from Rezabal y Ugarte’sEscritores de los seis colegios universitarios(Madrid, 1805) mention of works left by Viana, existing in the archives of the Council of Indias, among them “Ordinances for the government of the Indian provinces of Filipinas.” This, with the hostility which his letters and other writings exhibit toward the religious orders, indicates the possibility that Viana had some responsibility for the instructions here mentioned by Zúñiga.↑48According to Concepción (xiii, pp. 360–366), the tax here referred to was a general one, called “the royal impost,” an ad valorem duty levied on all the products of the provinces, brought in the coasting trade to Manila; it was established, in view of the depleted condition of the royal treasury, for the maintenance of the royal fleets against the pirates and the defense of the internal commerce of the islands, and was exacted from all persons concerned, without exempting any one, whatever his rank or estate. The Dominicans were unwilling to pay this tax on certain commodities which they were sending to their convents in Cagayan, alleging that these were not commercial articles, and that they were exempt as a religious body. This was of no avail, and their vessel was seized; but, either through their representations at court or because Arandía had not first asked the royal permission for this measure, it was censured by the government and the duty removed.↑49See Concepción’s full account of this venture (xiv, pp. 208–275). It will be remembered that Bustamante had attempted in 1718 to open up commerce with Siam (VOL. XLIV, p. 152); but this was a failure, through the apathy of the Spaniards. In the year 1747 a Siamese ship came to Manila with merchandise, and another four years later; these were well received there, and allowed to sell their goods free from duties. On the second ship came a Jesuit, Father Juan Regis Aroche, as envoy from the king of Siam to establish friendly relations with the Manila government; he proposed to Ovando to send an expedition to Siam to build there a galleon, then needed at Manila for the Acapulco trade. As the royal treasury had not the funds for this, Ovando formed a stock company, with a hundred shares, each of 300 pesos; 30,000 pesos were thus raised (said by the Jesuit to be enough to build the ship)—“with the idea that afterward the king [of España] would vouchsafe to buy it, and the gains would be dividedpro rataamong the shareholders, whose profits would be considerable even if the ship were sold at the usual and reasonable price.” Accordingly Captain Joseph Pasarin was sent to Siam (March 18, 1752), and made arrangements for the construction of the ship, which was facilitated and aided by the king of that country; labor was there abundant and cheap, yet the cost of the ship was much more than had been planned, and not only was a second remittance made from Manila, but the king furnished nearly 13,000 pesos besides. Pasarin set out on his voyage to Manila with the new ship, but, when in sight of Bolinao, a fierce storm drove the Spaniards back, and finally compelled them to land in China. They went to Macao, refitted their damaged ship (for which a wealthy Portuguese lent them, without interest, 20,516 pesos), and set sail for Manila on April 28, 1755; storms again drove them from Bolinao, and they were compelled to put back to Macao, and to remain there five months until the north winds should subside; Simon Vicente de la Rosa again generously aided them with 5,000 pesos. Returning their voyage on December 12 of that year, unfavorable winds again attacked them, and they were obliged to make port in Batavia. (January 12, 1756). Here Pasarin fell sick, and on his recovery found that the shipbuilder whom the Dutch had detailed to repair the galleon had fled with certain goods which he plundered from it, and twenty-eight of his seamen had deserted; at last he secured a new crew, and reached Cavite on July 6, 1756. This galleon was named “Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe,” or “La Mexicana;” its keel was 120 English feet long, and its capacity was 1,032 toneladas; it was built entirely of teak; the entire cost of vessel, equipment, and construction was 53,370 pesos. The king of Spain disapproved the enterprise; and when the accounts of the company were settled, it was found that they were still indebted to the extent of 9,520 pesos. The galleon was sold at public auction for 10,000 pesos.↑50Concepción furnishes an interesting account (xiv, pp. 76–79) of the abolition by Arandía of the “rotten borough” of Cebú. During the term of Governor Arrechedera, he received a request from Juan Baraona Velazquez, governor and chief magistrate of Cebú province, that in view of the lack not only of regidors there but of citizens who could fill that office, the governor should confer it on certain persons named by him, among them two who were the only permanent (Spanish) settlers there. Nevertheless, affairs soon returned to their former condition: of the five persons thus appointed, one was long detained in Manila, and one died; another was deprived of office for harsh treatment of the headman of the Sangleys, and still another for failure to perform his duties. “Thus, only the regidor Espina was left, and in him much was deficient, if he were not actually incapable; for he could not read or write, and his judgment was not very sound.” Velazquez therefore proposed that these offices be extinguished, and some suitable person be appointed from Manila to assist him in ruling the province. Nothing came of this, and his successor, Joseph Romo, applied to Arandía for relief, saying that for two years no election of alcalde-in-ordinary had been held, and the office was exercised by the regidor Pedro Muñoz—the same who had ill-treated the Sangley—“of whom alone that municipality was composed;” that the latter had obtained his post onlyad interim, and now refused to surrender it to Romo. “In view of this report, Señor Arandía decided that these remnants of the city should be abolished, leaving it with only the name of city, and that it should be ruled by its chief magistrate, as alcalde-mayor of the province; and in this wretched condition was left the first city of this sphere, endowed with privileges by our Catholic kings, and worthy of other and greater consideration. Its lack of citizens transformed it into so dry a skeleton; and, although this measure was provisional, necessity has made it perpetual.” Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, i, p. 555) that since then Cebú had been governed by a gobernadorcillo, like any native village; and at the end of that same volume they give a table of the population of Cebú province in 1818, which shows that the ancient city of Santisimo Nombre de Jésus contained no pure Spaniards, its population of 2,070 souls being all native or Chinese except 233 Spanish mestizos. Its present population, according to the late U. S. census, is 31,079—of whom 793 are natives of China, 131 of America, and 168 of Europe.↑51He had witnessed personally at Acapulco the careless, disorderly, and even fraudulent manner in which this trade was carried on by the Mexican merchants, who contrived to secure the advantage in every way over those of Manila. He therefore imposed severe penalties on all who on either side should practice frauds. He also appointed four of the most distinguished of the citizens of Manila to register, apportion, and appraise the goods sent thence; but the only result was that these men took the best for themselves, and consulted their own profit; he therefore revoked their commissions and sharply rebuked them. Arandía also made many reforms in the management of the Acapulco ship, its supplies, and its men, both on the sea and in port. (Concepción, xiv, pp. 171–183.)↑52Le Gentil and Marquina are cited by Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 14) to show that Arandia died by poison or other violent means.↑53His full name was Manuel Antonio Rojo del Río y Vieyra.↑54At this point properly should come the documents which relate the invasion of the islands by the English, their capture of Manila, the consequent disturbances in the provinces, etc.; but the great length of this episode, and the desirability of bringing all this material together in one volume, induce us to place it all in VOL. XLIX, completing this present volume with the noted memorial by the royal fiscal Viana, written nearly a year after the evacuation of Manila by the English.↑

1The fiscal Arroyo declared that he had been imprisoned in order that he might not prosecute claims against the following persons in their approaching residencias: Governor Valdés Tamón, for the enormous sums which the royal treasury had lost during his government, which amounted to a million and a half pesos; the Marqués de las Salinas and the Marqués de Monte-Castro, confederates of the same SeñorValdés, for having appropriated from the royal treasury and from the public two and one-half million pesos; and Don Domingo de Otero Vermudez, [who had taken] more than two hundred thousand. (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 95.)↑2See enumeration of these funds in the historical sketch of the Misericordia, inVOL. XLVII.↑3It is thus stated by Concepción (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 280): “With the pretext that the fathers of the Society [of Jesus] had usurped from them cultivated lands, and the untilled lands on the hills, on which they kept enormous herds of horned cattle—for which reason, and because the Jesuits said that these were their own property, they would not allow the natives to supply themselves with wood, rattans, and bamboos, unless they paid fixed prices—the Indians committed shocking acts of hostility on the ranches of Lian and Nasugbu, killing and plundering the tenants of those lands, with many other ravages. Nor did they respect the houses of the [Jesuit] fathers, but attacked and plundered them, and partly burned them, as well as many other buildings independent of these.” All was plundering, rapine, destruction, and debauchery; the natives also rebelled against the exactions from them of tribute and personal services. “The contagion spread to the village of Taal, and more than sparks were discovered in other places, although efforts were made to conceal the fire.” The alcalde-mayor and the Jesuits tried at first to pacify the Indians, urging them to wait for the official visit of Auditor Calderon; but they could do nothing, the natives being rendered only more daring by this attempt. Troops were then sent from Manila against them; in the battle mentioned in our text several were wounded, among them the commanding officer, Sargento-mayor Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar; but he succeeded in routing the enemy. The chief of the insurgents, one Matienza, took refuge in a church, but was captured and disarmed therein. Reënforcements were sent from Manila, and the rebellion was soon quelled. The leaders of the rebellion were punished in various ways, according to their prominence or influence; some were shot, others sent into exile or to the galleys; and amnesty was granted to the insurgents who would lay down their arms and renew their acknowledgment of vassalage.To this may be added the following statements by Calderon himself: “By commission of this royal Audiencia, I went to a village outside the walls of this capital, to take measures for the completion of a small bridge, which was being hindered by some dispute, and to pay to Master Alarífe 250 pesos which had been offered to him for its construction. I proceeded to make inquiries regarding the lands and revenues belonging to the village; and I found that all the surrounding estates (on which the people were working) belonged to a certain [F., forFulano] ecclesiastic, the Indians and mestizos paying him rent not only for these, but for the land occupied by their cabins, at the rate of three pesos a year for the married man, and one and one-half pesos for the widow or the unmarried man. And as it seemed to me that the person who, according to what was evident to my own eyes, was collecting about 30 pesos of land-rent, independently of the estates and houses belonging to him, was the one who rightfully ought to bear the cost of the little bridge, I announced that this cost should be collected from the persons who were owing rents for the lands. Receipts therefor were to be given to them, and orders were issued to the royal judges before whom such cases come first, that they must, if the laymen who make these payments should be accused before them, give the latter credit for these receipts; nor in all this brief summary, and in the measures that I took, would I notice the ecclesiastic who called himself the owner of all.” “In regard to the representations of the convenience for the Indian who has built his hut in the grain-field, I believe that it is quite the contrary, and that it would be more expedient for him and for the commonwealth that he should not be allowed to build it there, or that he be obliged to change his dwelling, for those huts generally serve as refuge for persons bent on mischief; besides, as the Indian thus has no watchful neighbor to inform the religious minister of his doings, and no alcalde, he lives in too much freedom. But, granted that all this comes to an end, what right has the owner of the land to more than the rent from him who occupies it? And if with hispilapis, or pathway, and his house he occupies no more than 50 brazas—for which he has to pay the same as if he had rented acabalita, which is a thousand brazas—and if he must pay the same rent, then lease to him the cabalita, including therein the house and pilapis; and with this the Indian will have land for planting his young trees, and for making some planting of grain.”These items are cited from a pamphlet issued (Manila, 1739) by the auditor Pedro Calderón Henríquez, entitled:Discvrso ivridico, en qve se defiende la real iurisdiccion, y se hace demonstracion de la injusticia, que contiene el contrato de arrendamiento de solares en estas islas; in it he “laments the great amount that the Filipinos were paying to the ecclesiastical power.” This seems to have brought out a reply defending the ecclesiastics,Apología por la immvnidad ecclesiastica, y por la licitvd de terrazgos, o alqvileres de tierras segvn la forma, estilo de algvnas estancias de estas islas Philipinas(Manila, 1739); it is significant that this was published from the Jesuit printing-house, and the auditor’s pamphlet from the college of Santo Tomás. Regarding both these, see Vindel’sCatálogo bibl. filipina, nos. 1807, 1808; therein is cited the following paragraph from theApología:“48. In the cultivated estates or farms which the Society of Jesus possesses in these islands, the tenants pay nothing for the house-lot which they occupy, with the little garden which their houses are wont to have in addition; but they pay only for the other land which they cultivate. There is, moreover, an order from the superiors that no person shall be allowed on those farms unless he has the charge of some grain-field—and rightly so, since this is the purpose for which admission to the estates is granted to any one; although this does not prevent entire justice being shown to the old men, widows, and other people who are legitimately disabled, by allowing them to remain, as they do, in their houses without paying anything for these and without cultivating a field. Therefore, there is evident falsehood in what is said by a certain [N., used when name is not to be mentioned] author, at the beginning of no. 3, art. 2, in speaking of these estates of the Society—that is, that the tenants pay for the land which they cultivate and for the ground under the houses which they occupy. In Santa Cruz the same observance was in use at the beginning, and it still is followed among the tenants who work on the lands of Mayhaligue adjoining the said village of Santa Cruz, and have their houses in the grain-fields. But as in course of time the Sangley mestizos increased in numbers, and devoted themselves to other occupations—painters, gilders, and silver-smiths, etc., which trades they now exercise with dexterity—and many households were formed, up to the number of about three hundred and eighty, which they now reach, it became necessary to yield to their importunities; and for this college of San Ignacio at Manila to condemn the splendid orchards which it possessed there, and permit the said mestizos to establish therein their dwellings. And, as it is not right that the said college should suffer the heavy damage of losing the said orchards, which had cost it many thousands of pesos, …”↑4Concepción says (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, pp. 278–280) that some investigation of this report was made before Torre’s death, and seven of the wealthiest Chinese were arrested, “as being those most liable to suspicion in the proposed disturbance.” These men were kept in prison for six months, the investigations being continued by Arrechedera and indicating that the “plot” was but a malicious fabrication, intended to harass Torre and thus cause his death. Finally, the governor, in view of their long imprisonment and the failure to prove any charges against them, released the Chinese prisoners, “under precautions and securities.” One of the prisoners proved, by a note from the warden of the court prison, that the latter “had received the Chinaman as a prisoner, without being told from whom or by whose order.” The further precaution was taken of sending back to China, in the champans that went that year, “no small number of Chinese, of those who were known to be strollers and without employment.” Concepción states that Torre’s government was rendered odious largely by a certain man in Manila, “who, on account of his rank and wealth, ambitiously lorded it over the community, causing its government to be subject to his pleasure, and did all that he could to cast infamy on the governor.”↑5In these ships came the royal situado for the current year (1747), and 30,000 pesos on account of the arrearages due; moreover, the returns from the cargo of the previous year were unusually large, owing to successful sales at Acapulco. The vessels halted at the port of Sisiran, where the silver was disembarked, being sent overland to Manila; this was done through fear lest they might be attacked by enemies at the Embocadero. The galleon “Rosario” was sent with a cargo for Acapulco, but was driven back by contrary winds, because it was poorly constructed and difficult to manage. This placed the royal treasury again in great straits, because the situados were in arrears for six remittances; Arrechedera appealed to the citizens and the clergy, who responded liberally—especially the archbishop and his chapter; “the Society of Jesus alone furnished 11,000 pesos—the royal promise being pledged for payment; and the obras pías also contributed to the common cause with their reserve funds.” (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 36–38.)↑6His family name was Martinez de Arizala; at this time he was fifty-two years of age. He was a member of the Audiencia of Quito in Peru (now in Ecuador) for seventeen years, and had been entrusted with various important commissions by the king.↑7Probably on account of his being a Dominican, the Chinese in and near Manila being mostly in charge of that order in matters of religion.↑8A full account of this revolt and its cause and progress may be found in Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, xiv, pp. 79–107; and of its punishment by Lechuga, in xi, pp. 40–43. In writing the latter volume, he had not any adequate information regarding the causes of the rebellion; but later he obtained a detailed account of this from the Recollect fathers in Bohol who took charge of the natives after the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1768. According to them, the immediate occasion of the revolt was the arbitrary conduct of the Jesuit, Father Morales, who was, in 1744, in charge of the district of Inabangan. He sent out a native constable to arrest a renegade Indian, but the latter slew the constable, whose brother, Francisco Dagóhoy, obtained the corpse, and carried it into his village. Morales refused to bury it in consecrated ground, and it lay for three days unburied and rotting. Angered at this arbitrary and harsh treatment, especially as Morales had been the cause of the constable’s death, Dagóhoy swore vengeance on the Jesuit, and persuaded the natives of his district to join him therein; 3,000 of them followed him, abandoning their homes and fortifying an inaccessible retreat in the mountains. On their way they plundered a large and valuable estate in that vicinity, named San Xavier, belonging to the Jesuits, which was well stocked with cows, carabaos, horses, and other animals. Soon afterward, Dagóhoy bribed an Indian to kill the Jesuit minister of Hagna, Father Lamberti; and afterward Morales was also assassinated by natives. The insurgents were numerously recruited through various acts of injustice and tyranny by the Spaniards, and the rebellion was assuming dangerous proportions. Bishop Espeleta of Cebú endeavored to persuade the insurgents to return to their allegiance, and offered them secular priests instead of the Jesuits; but they took this for timidity on the part of the government, and became only more emboldened. Twenty years later, Recollect missionaries were sent to Bohol in place of the expelled Jesuits, and in the district of Baclayon was stationed Fray Pedro de Santa Barbara; he laid plans for reclaiming and reconciling the insurgents, and was partially successful; Dagóhoy and several other datos “returned to God and to the church” with their followers, several hundred being baptized and making then confessions. Nevertheless, they did not go much further, and although Bishop Espeleta endeavored in person to secure their Christian administration, “he could not secure from Dagóhoy any more than that he would build a church, in order to comply with his Christian obligations; but, as he was attracted by the lawless life which he had led during so many years, and by the gratification of being obeyed, the undertaking was delayed until the present time. Nothing was done save to erect the foundation posts, which had to serve for the present church.” This last volume of Concepción’s was published in 1792, and his later information was obtained probably in 1789, in which year he wrote this account. (Espeleta’s last remonstrance with Dagóhoy was made, as stated by our writer, “in the year sixty-two;” but the context would indicate that it occurred after the labors of the Recollects began, and therefore the date is more probably “seventy-two,” the wordsesentabeing printed forsetenta, by one of the typographical errors so frequent in Conception’s pages.) Fray Pedro de Santa Barbara was so delighted at his first success that he persuaded the civil authorities to withdraw the troops from most of the Bohol stations, and to publish a general amnesty (this was not later than 1770); but the result was, that the insurgent chiefs would not allow any of their followers to leave their strongholds under pain of death, and continued their habits of raids on their neighbors, plundering, and murder. Concepción expresses indignant surprise that this rebellion had been allowed to go long unpunished, with so great loss and injury to the peaceable part of the population.↑9These ambassadors were: for Mindanao, Father Francisco Isasi, rector of the Jesuit college at Zamboanga, and the sargento-mayor there, Don Thomas de Arrevillaga. For Joló, Isasi was also designated; but on his return from Tamontaca his health was so broken that in his place was appointed Father Sebastian Ignacio de Arcada, then in charge of the district of Siocon; he went thither accompanied by Arrevillaga, having been sent by Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar, then governor of Zamboanga. (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 75–106.)↑10The missionaries appointed to the Mindanao mission were the Jesuits Juan Moreno and Sebastian Arcada; but the latter was ill at the time, and died soon afterward; in his place was substituted Ignacio Malaga. See account of their mission in Concepción, xii, pp. 110–112, 138–141.Those who went to Joló were Juan Ang[e]les and Patricio de el Barrio; they left Zamboanga on June 3, 1748, in company with Alimudin. For account of their mission, see Concepción, xii, pp. 114–138; he cites a diary and letters written by Father Angeles, and the report of Commandant Pulgar. He blames the Jesuits (pp. 146, 147) for misrepresenting the Moro sultans to the governor, and Pulgar (as being under their influence) for an unnecessarily hostile attitude toward the Moros.↑11Concepción states (xii, p. 134) that Alimudin was so infatuated for one of his concubines that he neglected his duties of government; and that his brother Bantilan bribed a man to assassinate the sultan, giving him six slaves and a thousand pesos.↑12Ferrando speaks (Hist. PP. dominicos, iv, p. 535) of “this sedition, actual or feigned (but on this point history has not made its final utterance).”↑13Forrest says (Voyage, p. 334) of Alimudin’s visit to Samboangan: “He bought goods from Don Zacharias the governor, giving the Don his own price, made presents to the officers of the garrison, and lost his money to them, as if accidentally, by gaming with dice. Still resolved to ingratiate himself with the governor, the Sultan wanted to make him a present of forty male slaves, whom he had drest in rich liveries on the occasion. Many of them were natives of Papua or New Guinea. Zacharias refused the presents, suspecting the Sultan of some design. The Sultan then asked leave to go to Manila. He went thither, and said to the archbishop, ‘I will turn Christian, let the Spaniards take Sooloo, send the stubborn Datoos to Samboangan; make me king there, I then will oblige every one to embrace your religion.’ The Spaniards listened to him, and he returned to Samboangan with an armada.”↑14See letter of the Jesuit Masvesi regarding this visit of the Joloan ruler, inVOL. XLVII, pp. 243–250; also account of it (1750), ascribed to Arrechedera, in Retana’sArchivo, i, no. v.↑15Ferrando says (iv, pp. 538, 539) that Arrechedera sent the sultan to Binalatongan (in Pangasinan) for baptism; but that Alimudin was taken ill at Paniqui, on his journey, and it was therefore decided to baptize him there.↑16This catastrophe, one of the most ruinous of its kind ever known, occurred on October 28, 1746; Lima was wrecked by the earthquake, and Callao destroyed by a tidal wave—in Lima, over 1,100 persons perished, and in Callao 4,600. A detailed account of this event was published at Lima by order of the viceroy, Marqués de Villa Garcia, an English translation of which appeared in London (the second edition in 1748); and other accounts were published in Lima and Mexico.↑17See account of this controversy, the wretched condition in which the royal ships and galleys were found to be, and the loss of the “Pilar,” in Concepción’sHistoria, xii, pp. 183–211; cf. Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 291, note. The vessel known by the names of “Rosarito” and “Philipino,” which “had cost the royal treasury 60,666 pesos, had remained more than four years abandoned to the sun and rain, without any care;” and it was now valued at 18,000 pesos, a sum which, after more thorough examination of the rotting timbers, was reduced to 7,500. The Spanish government had ordered that six ships be at once constructed to proceed against the Moro pirates; and it was therefore necessary to hasten this work, without waiting for “red tape,” hence Nebra’s informal appointment. The “Pilar” was not a fragata, but a large ship; it sailed in June or July, 1750; its repairing and cleaning was so hastily done that the vessel began to leak before it left the Luzón coast. The commander, Ignacio Martinez de Faura, was notified of this, and that it was unsafe for the vessel to proceed into the open sea; he answered, “To Purgatory, or to Acapulco!” In the following October, pieces of wreckage were picked up on the eastern coasts of Luzón, which were identified as belonging to the “Pilar.”↑18“The secretary of the government, who, protected in that quarter by the person who ought to have condemned his acts, pushed forward his designs and finally effected his purpose” (Ferrando, iv, p. 548).↑19“This [Dominican] province had already (in 1745) reported to his Majesty that the beaterio of Santa Cathalina was maintained in the form of observance provided by the royal decrees of February 17, 1716 and September 10, 1732; that it contained the fifteen religious which it ought to have according to the arrangements of its founder; that they observed the three vows of religious, according to the enactment of St. Pius V, issued on 28 [sic] in 1566; and that, although there had never been the slightest question raised on this point, some uncertainties were beginning to present themselves regarding the nature of their vows, and even whether dispensation from these could be granted by the archbishop of Manila.” Accordingly, the Dominicans requested the royal decision on these matters; the king therefore decreed (June 20, 1747) that a committee formed of the governor, the archbishop, and the Dominican provincial, should carefully examine into the best method of carrying out the previous decrees. They did so, and, when their deliberations were laid before the royal fiscal, he demanded that the vows taken by these beatas be declared opposed to his Majesty’s will. Sister Cecilia, as soon as she was placed in Santa Potenciana, divested herself of the religious habit, claiming that her profession was null—a claim which was irregular, “because the five years had already passed which the laws and justice allow for proceedings of this sort.” When the papal delegate disallowed the appeal of the Dominicans from the archbishop’s attempted control of this case, they appealed to the Audiencia for protection from the fuerza exerted by the latter; but that court declined to interfere, saying that there was no fuerza committed. The archbishop then pronounced a definitive sentence in favor of Cecilia, and set her at liberty; she then married Figueroa, and they went to Nueva España. The Spanish government took no further notice of her case, save to refuse to the Dominicans permission to lay it before the Holy See. (Ferrando, iv, pp. 548–551)↑20This was Don Protasio Cavezas.↑21A minute account of this episode is found in Concepción’sHistoria, xii, pp. 212–230. The lady’s name was Cecilia Ita y Salazar. She had been educated in the beaterio from childhood, and had been a professed religious for sixteen years.↑22“The royal decree issued in 1762 in consequence of the notorious litigation of Mother Cecilia did not decide that the beaterio should be extinguished, but only that new religious should not be admitted until those then living, who numbered nearly thirty, should be reduced to fifteen religious of the choir, in conformity with the provisions of its foundation,” “and that the number of the fifteen beatas should be kept up, according to vacancies that might occur.” (Ferrando, v, p. 151).↑23“The seizure of these champans was afterward the cause of a clamorous lawsuit incited by various officers against the master-of-camp Abad, accusing him of having kept for himself the best part [of the goods seized]. It was also proved that he employed the vessels of the royal navy in his mercantile speculations; this evil was very general in that period, and to it must be attributed, in large part, the scanty results of most of the expeditions against the Mahometan Malays of southern Filipinas.” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 294.)Another Chinese champan was seized by the Spaniards, apparently not long afterward, near Malandi; it was laden with goods for trade in Mindanao, which included a number of guns and other weapons, with ammunition. These were confiscated by the Spaniards, an act which was greatly resented by Jampsa, the sultan of Tamontaca, who therefore abandoned the Spanish alliance and sided with the hostile Moros. (Concepción, xiii, pp. 1–5.)↑24This proceeding took place at midnight on August 3, and the number arrested was 217 persons: these included Alimudin’s four sons, his brother and sister, four of his daughters, five brothers-in-law, a son-in-law; a Mahometanjaddí(“the second rank in that sect, equivalent to a bishop”) and fivepanditas; also two prominent chiefs, one hundred and sixty of the sultan’s vassals, and thirty-two concubines and female servants. (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 298.) Cf. Concepción, xii, pp. 288, 289.↑25Alimudin and his household arrived as prisoners at Manila in September, 1751. Soon afterward the Manila government declared war, with fire and sword, against the Joloans and all those Moro peoples who aided them; permitting the enslavement of all who should be captured, whether men, women or children; and giving all their property and possessions to their captors, free from all royal dues or imposts. See copy of this proclamation in Montero y Vidal’sHist. de piratería, appendix, pp. 29–31. Concepción (xii, p. 344) regards this declaration of war as unjust; he adds that the Joloan captive princes, whose arrest was incited by ambition and greed, were so unfortunate as to lose their protector, Bishop Arrechedera, by death (November 12, 1751). In the same month died also Bishop Arevalo, of Nueva Caceres.↑26Here, as most often elsewhere, “captives” are synonymous with “slaves.” Montero y Vidal (Hist. de piratería, i, p. 299) protests against this permission to enslave the Moros, as being contrary to the provisions of the laws of the Indias, which forbid slavery in Philipinas.↑27Concepción says (xii, pp. 345–352) that the master-of-camp in command of the fleet (who was Antonio Ramón de Abad y Monterde) was undecided whether to attack Joló, but was persuaded to do so by the Jesuits, who told him that the very sight of the Spanish squadron would ensure the surrender of the Joloans. The attack was made at the beginning of June, 1752, and was unsuccessful; Abad was angry at the Jesuits, who had led him into this difficulty, and quarreled with them. They retorted by accusing him to the governor, of conduct (in modern phrase) “unworthy of an officer and a gentleman”—that is, of neglect of official duty, mismanagement of the campaign, unnecessary sacrifice of his men’s lives, and licentious behavior at Zamboanga. This was believed, until Abad was reported much more favorably by other officers of his fleet. See full account of his residencia (ut supra, xiii, pp. 36–85), in which he was acquitted from the charges made against him, but sentenced to pay the costs of the residencia.↑28These hostilities broke out in 1752, and for several years scourged the unfortunate Visayans. Concepción records many of these attacks in considerable detail (Hist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 5–36); the missions of the Recollects, as also those of the Jesuits in Mindanao (except those under the shelter of the fort at Zamboanga) were the frontier outposts most exposed to the pirates, and it is these missions that Concepción chiefly mentions. The fort at Iligan, Mindanao, was besieged by two thousand Moros for two months; but a Spanish fleet was sent from Cebú, which obliged the enemy to raise the siege, after a great loss of men. This defense was conducted by the Jesuit in charge there, Father José Ducós, whose father had been an officer in the Spanish army; and this same priest rendered valiant service in other Moro raids in that region. Tagoloan and Yponan, in the province of Cagayan, Mindanao were besieged by the Moros; but the mountain Indians were called down to their aid by the Jesuit missionaries, and compelled the enemy to retreat. In Caraga, Surigao was attacked, and the Christian inhabitants, with their two Recollect missionaries, were compelled to take flight and seek refuge in the mountains; they were hunted there for weeks by the enemy—one of the priests being finally captured and taken to Lanao—all this time, enduring terrible hardships and suffering, which caused the other (Fray Roque de Santa Monica) to become hopelessly insane; he was afterward brought to Manila, but died there in a demented condition. “The district of Surigao, rich through its famous gold-mines, and now in most wretched condition,” was devastated and ruined. The enemy did the same in the island of Siargao, where the Recollect missionary, Fray Joseph de la Virgen de el Niño Perdido, was slain while endeavoring to lead his followers against the pirates. Nearly all the population—of Surigao, more than 2,000 souls; of Siargao, more than 1,600—were either slain or carried away captive. The district of Butuan was laid waste and some two hundred captives seized; the little military post at Linao, up the river, alone escaped, mainly through the difficulty of ascending the stream. The Moros attacked the island of Camiguin, which was so bravely defended by its natives that the pirates were repulsed—especially by “one of the villages, which consisted of people of Moro origin from the Lake of Malanao, from which they had withdrawn on account of domestic dissensions, and settled in this island. They are of excellent disposition, very good Christians, courageous, and have an irreconcilable hatred for those enemies.” Here they were led by their Recollect priest, Fray Marcelinc de el Espiritu Santo, “a robust native of La Mancha,” who with them fought so valiantly that the enemy could not make a landing. Romblon had so good a fort that it could repel the foe; Ticao was so poorly defended that the people, with their missionary, Fray Manuel de Santa Cathalina, could only take to flight—the priest being afterward captured, and finally ransomed for eight hundred pesos. In several places the missionaries were either slain or captured by the pirates; and these raids were extended, the boldness of the enemy increasing, even to the coasts of Luzón, in Batangas and Zambales. The government took what precautions it could, but these amounted to little save in the vicinity of Manila, Cebú, and Zamboanga; military and naval forces, and supplies of all sorts, were deficient, and there was much official apathy and corruption.↑29“This unfortunate attempt cost the treasury 36,976 pesos, and a galley that was seized by the Moros” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 301).↑30“In Manila the indignation against the disloyal Ali-Mudin knew no bounds. All clamored for the punishment of so ignoble a race, sorrowfully recalling the fact that the amount expended in courting him and in the expenses of his sojourn there was more than 20,000 pesos, without counting the 6,000 pesos and the military supplies sent to establish the Jesuits in Joló” (ut supra, p. 299). Later, the authorities at Manila hardly knew what to do with Alimudin; he would probably have been put to death, but it was feared that the Moros would retaliate by slaughtering their Christian captives, who numbered some 10,000. Fatima procured the return (in the summer of 1753) of fifty-one Christian captives, and negotiations were made for peace between Manila and Joló; and in June, 1754, Bantilan surrendered sixty-eight more captives, and a Spanish galley and champan. Faveau, who had carried on a brilliant campaign against the pirates with his little squadron, made a favorable report to the governor of the good intentions of both Bantilan and Alimudin; and stated that the return of the latter to Joló was desired by his subjects, and that Bantilan was willing to resign in his favor. Arandía sent most of the Joloan prisoners back to that island, retaining the sultan and his eldest son as hostages until the full accomplishment of the treaty; they remained there until the capture of the city by the English (1762), who afterward restored them to Joló (seeVOL. XLIX). Ferrando (iv, pp. 541–543) considers that Alimudin was unjustly suspected and ill-treated, and defends him from accusations of disloyalty to the Spaniards and to the Christian religion.↑31“The Sultanship in Sooloo is hereditary, but the government mixed. About fifteen Datoos, who may be called the nobility, make the greater part of the legislature. Their title is hereditary to the eldest son, and they sit in council with the Sultan. The Sultan has two votes in this assembly, and each Datoo has one. The heir-apparent (who, when I was there, was Datoo Alamoodine) if he sides with the Sultan, has two votes; but, if against him, only one. There are two representatives of the people, called Manteries, like the military tribunes of the Romans. The common people of Sooloo, called Tellimanhood, enjoy much real freedom, owing to the above representation; but the Tellimanhood, or vassals of the adjacent islands named Tappool, Seassee, Tawee-tawee, and others, being the estates of particular Datoos, are often used in a tyrannical manner by their chiefs. I have been told that their haughty lords visiting their estates, will sometimes with impunity demand and carry off young women, whom they happen to fancy, to swell the number of their Sandles (Concubines) at Sooloo.” (Forrest,Voyage, p. 326.)↑32For detailed accounts of the events here briefly mentioned, the Moro wars, the imprisonment of Alimudin, the ravages committed in the islands by those pirates, etc., to the end of Ovando’s government, see Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 230–419, and xiii, pp. 1–250. See also the account of the “Moro raids repulsed by Visayan natives,”ante; it is inserted mainly to represent more vividly, in the words of a probable eyewitness, a typical raid by Moro pirates on the peaceable Christian natives.↑33To this name should be added, “Santisteban, Echeveria, y Alvero” (Concepción, xiii, p. 250); he was a knight of the Order of Calatrava.↑34See Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 250–287, for details of these reforms.↑35See Concepción’s account of this eruption (xiii, pp. 345–350); it lasted from September to December, 1754 and was accompanied by severe earthquakes, one of which lasted half an hour.↑36Ignacio María de Alava, “Commander-in-chief of the naval forces in Asiatic waters,” was a personal friend of Zúñiga, to whom the latter dedicated hisHistoria. In a preliminary notice to hisEstadismo(p. 3 of Retana’s ed.) he says that Alava desired to become acquainted with the Philippines from various points of view, and invited the priest to accompany him therein. Alava arrived at Manila on December 25, 1796, and remained in the islands until January 7, 1803; he reorganized the naval forces and the arsenal at Cavite, with much energy and ability, but had various controversies with Governor Aguilar. Afterward he held important posts in the Spanish naval administration, and died on May 26, 1815. See Retana’s note concerning him (ut supra, ii, p. *562), and Montero y Vidal’sHist. de Philipinas, ii, pp. 345–359.↑37The exploits of this militant Jesuit are described by Concepción, inHist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 148–168, 178–188, 296–319.↑38The name given her in baptism was Rita Calderón; the marriage occurred on April 27, 1755. See Concepción, xiii, pp. 333, 334.↑39“The people of Magindano, and their neighbours, known commonly by the name of Oran Illanon, as living near the great Lano, are very piratically inclined. Neither can the Sultan of Magindano restrain his subjects from fitting out vessels, which go among the Philippines, to Mangaio, that is, cruise against the Spaniards: much less can be restrained the Illanos, being under a government more aristocratic; for, on the banks of the Lano, are no fewer than seventeen, stiled Rajahs, and sixteen who take the title of Sultan, besides those on the coast. When the Spanish envoy sailed from Magindano for Samboangan, Rajah Moodo sent a vessel, as has been said, to convoy him across the Illano bay. This is a proof the Spaniards are not on good terms with the Illanos. These, within ten years before 1775, have done much mischief to the Spaniards, among the islands called Babuyan, at the north extremity of the Philippines; and, at this time, they possess an island in the very heart of the Philippines, called Burias, where has been a colony of Illanos, for many years, men, women, and children. The Spaniards have often attempted to dislodge them; but in vain: the island, which is not very large, being environed with rocks and shoals to a considerable distance.” (Forrest,Voyage to New Guinea, pp. 301, 302.)↑40Fray Mateo González founded this mission to the Batanes. He made his profession in 1667, and came to Manila four years later, being then twenty-seven years old. He was sent to the Cagayán missions, and was stationed in the Babuyanes Islands during 1673–84 (save in 1677–80, at Lallo-c). In 1686 he made a visit to the Batanes, where he was well received; they contained over 3,000 souls. Leaving his companion there to study the language, he went to Manila to secure support for his new mission, to which he returned with Fray Juan Rois; but hardly two months passed before the unhealthful climate and many privations brought mortal illness on them. González died on July 25, 1688, and Rois on August 10, following. With this the Batanes mission came to an end until (in 1718) it was revived by Fray Juan Bel. (Reseña biográfica, ii, pp. 155–157.)↑41“Action was taken in a session of the royal treasury officials on the execution of the orders in a royal despatch which notified this government to establish on the mainland of Cagayan the people who were dwelling in the islands of the Babuyanes; for this purpose the sum of five thousand, three hundred and ninety-eight pesos was sent from the royal treasury of Mexico, definitely allotted to this transportation. The migration was agreed upon, the money was spent, but the only result was the transfer of some families, the greater part of them remaining in their own islands—where, as they were accustomed to that mode of life, they desired no further privileges than their own liberty, even though it be with necessary inconveniences, which they felt little or not at all, being free from the yoke since their youth.” (Concepción,Hist.de Philipinas, xi, p.304.)Cf. Salazar’s sketch of the history of these missions, in chapter xxiii ofHist. Sant. Rosario(in ourVOL. XLIII). See also, for both early and later events therein, Ferrando’sHist. PP. dominicos, iii, pp. 550–588, and iv, pp. 254–258, 330, 582–585.Concepción (ut supra) does not mention the date of the royal decree; but Ferrando states (iv, p. 423) that it was dated March 14, 1728, and that it granted for this purpose the sum of 3,398 pesos; the “3” may be a typographical error for “5,” the amount as given (but spelled out) by Concepción. Ferrando says that some three hundred families removed to the mainland, but that many more remained in their islands.↑42This is more fully described in the previous document, “Later Augustinian and Dominican missions.”↑43See Ferrando’sHist. PP. dominicos, iv, pp. 576–582.↑44Arandia made a census of the Christian Sangleys in the islands, and found that they numbered 3,413. He established the market here mentioned, that of San Fernando, at first intended to be simply a pavilion in which trade might be carried on; the heathen merchants to return immediately to their own country, without going inland from Manila or having any dealings with the natives. But, as it was soon apparent that the exigencies of weather and trade required larger and more permanent quarters, Arandía had a plan made for the necessary dwellings and storehouses, by a Recollect lay brother who was an excellent architect (whom the governor had appointed superintendent of royal works); and a contract for building it was made, at a cost of 48,000 pesos. Half of this amount was contributed by a citizen of Manila, Fernando de Mier y Noriega, the other half being supplied from the royal treasury; as a reward for this service, he was made warden of the new market, an office carrying a salary of fifty pesos a month, and passing to his children and descendants. (Concepción, xiii, pp. 357–360.) The king, however, restricted this privilege to Mier’s life.↑45See Concepción’s account of this enterprise (xiv, pp. 167–171). The amount of capital raised was 76,500 pesos, in shares of 500 each; with this, the company began to buy goods (ropas) to supply the public necessities, and sold these in their own shops, in each of which were two Spanish agents, no Sangley having anything to do with these shops. It was planned that the company, having bought goods at wholesale—they found that they could purchase thus at sixteen per cent less than they paid for the same goods at retail—should sell at only thirty per cent above the first cost; “of this [gain] eight per cent must be paid to his Majesty to make up to the royal treasury the deficiency arising from the loss of the licenses that the infidels had paid; ten per cent went to the shareholders; and the remaining twelve per cent was kept for the payment of salaries, and for a public fund for the promotion of the industries and products of the country.” Their capital was found insufficient to make their purchases; indeed, this lack had always been felt when the Sangleys conducted the trade, but their industry had supplied it; the directors therefore applied to the Misericordia and other administrators for the loan of the reserve funds held in theobras pías. The latter were at first disposed to aid the company, but later declined to do so, following the advice of certain theologians whom they consulted. The auditor Pedro Calderon Henriquez gave an opinion contrary to this, saying that theobras píashad gained great profits through the voluntary concession and tolerance of the citizens, who ought not to be the only ones to make sacrifices for the public good; and that “in these islands they had winked at the business transactions of the confraternities, which are not carried on in other regions, on account of the convenience which the merchants found in having money ready for investment in their commerce.” The governor therefore demanded from the Misericordia 100,000 pesos of their reserve funds, and from the Third Order (of St. Francis) 30,000; and with these funds the company was for the time floated. (Among the advantages expected from this enterprise were: lower prices than the Chinese asked for goods, the same price the year round, the retention of all profits within the country, and the certain support of the twenty-one families belonging to the company’s employ.) Another great hindrance was found in the general practice of using clipped money in this trade, which caused great losses. This and other difficulties caused the dissolution of the company within the year, and it was unable to do more than save the capital invested therein.↑46Ferrando says (iv, pp. 587–591) that Arandía cut off from the hospital of San Gabriel 800 pesos, out of the 2,000 which it received from the communal fund of the Sangleys, for whose benefit the hospital was founded; and this amount the Dominican province was obliged, through motives of humanity, to make good from its own treasury. Moreover, he insisted that the Augustinian provincial, Fray Juan Facundo Meseguer, should reveal to him the private reasons which he had for removing two of his friars from their charges in Indian villages. This was in reality an attack on all the religious bodies, who all resolved to make common cause on the governor, and forthwith sent to the king a remonstrance against the governor’s proceedings; this checked Arandía, who desisted from his demands against Meseguer.↑47Vindel’sCatálogo, tomo i (Madrid, 1896), p. 94, cites from Rezabal y Ugarte’sEscritores de los seis colegios universitarios(Madrid, 1805) mention of works left by Viana, existing in the archives of the Council of Indias, among them “Ordinances for the government of the Indian provinces of Filipinas.” This, with the hostility which his letters and other writings exhibit toward the religious orders, indicates the possibility that Viana had some responsibility for the instructions here mentioned by Zúñiga.↑48According to Concepción (xiii, pp. 360–366), the tax here referred to was a general one, called “the royal impost,” an ad valorem duty levied on all the products of the provinces, brought in the coasting trade to Manila; it was established, in view of the depleted condition of the royal treasury, for the maintenance of the royal fleets against the pirates and the defense of the internal commerce of the islands, and was exacted from all persons concerned, without exempting any one, whatever his rank or estate. The Dominicans were unwilling to pay this tax on certain commodities which they were sending to their convents in Cagayan, alleging that these were not commercial articles, and that they were exempt as a religious body. This was of no avail, and their vessel was seized; but, either through their representations at court or because Arandía had not first asked the royal permission for this measure, it was censured by the government and the duty removed.↑49See Concepción’s full account of this venture (xiv, pp. 208–275). It will be remembered that Bustamante had attempted in 1718 to open up commerce with Siam (VOL. XLIV, p. 152); but this was a failure, through the apathy of the Spaniards. In the year 1747 a Siamese ship came to Manila with merchandise, and another four years later; these were well received there, and allowed to sell their goods free from duties. On the second ship came a Jesuit, Father Juan Regis Aroche, as envoy from the king of Siam to establish friendly relations with the Manila government; he proposed to Ovando to send an expedition to Siam to build there a galleon, then needed at Manila for the Acapulco trade. As the royal treasury had not the funds for this, Ovando formed a stock company, with a hundred shares, each of 300 pesos; 30,000 pesos were thus raised (said by the Jesuit to be enough to build the ship)—“with the idea that afterward the king [of España] would vouchsafe to buy it, and the gains would be dividedpro rataamong the shareholders, whose profits would be considerable even if the ship were sold at the usual and reasonable price.” Accordingly Captain Joseph Pasarin was sent to Siam (March 18, 1752), and made arrangements for the construction of the ship, which was facilitated and aided by the king of that country; labor was there abundant and cheap, yet the cost of the ship was much more than had been planned, and not only was a second remittance made from Manila, but the king furnished nearly 13,000 pesos besides. Pasarin set out on his voyage to Manila with the new ship, but, when in sight of Bolinao, a fierce storm drove the Spaniards back, and finally compelled them to land in China. They went to Macao, refitted their damaged ship (for which a wealthy Portuguese lent them, without interest, 20,516 pesos), and set sail for Manila on April 28, 1755; storms again drove them from Bolinao, and they were compelled to put back to Macao, and to remain there five months until the north winds should subside; Simon Vicente de la Rosa again generously aided them with 5,000 pesos. Returning their voyage on December 12 of that year, unfavorable winds again attacked them, and they were obliged to make port in Batavia. (January 12, 1756). Here Pasarin fell sick, and on his recovery found that the shipbuilder whom the Dutch had detailed to repair the galleon had fled with certain goods which he plundered from it, and twenty-eight of his seamen had deserted; at last he secured a new crew, and reached Cavite on July 6, 1756. This galleon was named “Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe,” or “La Mexicana;” its keel was 120 English feet long, and its capacity was 1,032 toneladas; it was built entirely of teak; the entire cost of vessel, equipment, and construction was 53,370 pesos. The king of Spain disapproved the enterprise; and when the accounts of the company were settled, it was found that they were still indebted to the extent of 9,520 pesos. The galleon was sold at public auction for 10,000 pesos.↑50Concepción furnishes an interesting account (xiv, pp. 76–79) of the abolition by Arandía of the “rotten borough” of Cebú. During the term of Governor Arrechedera, he received a request from Juan Baraona Velazquez, governor and chief magistrate of Cebú province, that in view of the lack not only of regidors there but of citizens who could fill that office, the governor should confer it on certain persons named by him, among them two who were the only permanent (Spanish) settlers there. Nevertheless, affairs soon returned to their former condition: of the five persons thus appointed, one was long detained in Manila, and one died; another was deprived of office for harsh treatment of the headman of the Sangleys, and still another for failure to perform his duties. “Thus, only the regidor Espina was left, and in him much was deficient, if he were not actually incapable; for he could not read or write, and his judgment was not very sound.” Velazquez therefore proposed that these offices be extinguished, and some suitable person be appointed from Manila to assist him in ruling the province. Nothing came of this, and his successor, Joseph Romo, applied to Arandía for relief, saying that for two years no election of alcalde-in-ordinary had been held, and the office was exercised by the regidor Pedro Muñoz—the same who had ill-treated the Sangley—“of whom alone that municipality was composed;” that the latter had obtained his post onlyad interim, and now refused to surrender it to Romo. “In view of this report, Señor Arandía decided that these remnants of the city should be abolished, leaving it with only the name of city, and that it should be ruled by its chief magistrate, as alcalde-mayor of the province; and in this wretched condition was left the first city of this sphere, endowed with privileges by our Catholic kings, and worthy of other and greater consideration. Its lack of citizens transformed it into so dry a skeleton; and, although this measure was provisional, necessity has made it perpetual.” Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, i, p. 555) that since then Cebú had been governed by a gobernadorcillo, like any native village; and at the end of that same volume they give a table of the population of Cebú province in 1818, which shows that the ancient city of Santisimo Nombre de Jésus contained no pure Spaniards, its population of 2,070 souls being all native or Chinese except 233 Spanish mestizos. Its present population, according to the late U. S. census, is 31,079—of whom 793 are natives of China, 131 of America, and 168 of Europe.↑51He had witnessed personally at Acapulco the careless, disorderly, and even fraudulent manner in which this trade was carried on by the Mexican merchants, who contrived to secure the advantage in every way over those of Manila. He therefore imposed severe penalties on all who on either side should practice frauds. He also appointed four of the most distinguished of the citizens of Manila to register, apportion, and appraise the goods sent thence; but the only result was that these men took the best for themselves, and consulted their own profit; he therefore revoked their commissions and sharply rebuked them. Arandía also made many reforms in the management of the Acapulco ship, its supplies, and its men, both on the sea and in port. (Concepción, xiv, pp. 171–183.)↑52Le Gentil and Marquina are cited by Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 14) to show that Arandia died by poison or other violent means.↑53His full name was Manuel Antonio Rojo del Río y Vieyra.↑54At this point properly should come the documents which relate the invasion of the islands by the English, their capture of Manila, the consequent disturbances in the provinces, etc.; but the great length of this episode, and the desirability of bringing all this material together in one volume, induce us to place it all in VOL. XLIX, completing this present volume with the noted memorial by the royal fiscal Viana, written nearly a year after the evacuation of Manila by the English.↑

1The fiscal Arroyo declared that he had been imprisoned in order that he might not prosecute claims against the following persons in their approaching residencias: Governor Valdés Tamón, for the enormous sums which the royal treasury had lost during his government, which amounted to a million and a half pesos; the Marqués de las Salinas and the Marqués de Monte-Castro, confederates of the same SeñorValdés, for having appropriated from the royal treasury and from the public two and one-half million pesos; and Don Domingo de Otero Vermudez, [who had taken] more than two hundred thousand. (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 95.)↑

2See enumeration of these funds in the historical sketch of the Misericordia, inVOL. XLVII.↑

3It is thus stated by Concepción (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 280): “With the pretext that the fathers of the Society [of Jesus] had usurped from them cultivated lands, and the untilled lands on the hills, on which they kept enormous herds of horned cattle—for which reason, and because the Jesuits said that these were their own property, they would not allow the natives to supply themselves with wood, rattans, and bamboos, unless they paid fixed prices—the Indians committed shocking acts of hostility on the ranches of Lian and Nasugbu, killing and plundering the tenants of those lands, with many other ravages. Nor did they respect the houses of the [Jesuit] fathers, but attacked and plundered them, and partly burned them, as well as many other buildings independent of these.” All was plundering, rapine, destruction, and debauchery; the natives also rebelled against the exactions from them of tribute and personal services. “The contagion spread to the village of Taal, and more than sparks were discovered in other places, although efforts were made to conceal the fire.” The alcalde-mayor and the Jesuits tried at first to pacify the Indians, urging them to wait for the official visit of Auditor Calderon; but they could do nothing, the natives being rendered only more daring by this attempt. Troops were then sent from Manila against them; in the battle mentioned in our text several were wounded, among them the commanding officer, Sargento-mayor Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar; but he succeeded in routing the enemy. The chief of the insurgents, one Matienza, took refuge in a church, but was captured and disarmed therein. Reënforcements were sent from Manila, and the rebellion was soon quelled. The leaders of the rebellion were punished in various ways, according to their prominence or influence; some were shot, others sent into exile or to the galleys; and amnesty was granted to the insurgents who would lay down their arms and renew their acknowledgment of vassalage.

To this may be added the following statements by Calderon himself: “By commission of this royal Audiencia, I went to a village outside the walls of this capital, to take measures for the completion of a small bridge, which was being hindered by some dispute, and to pay to Master Alarífe 250 pesos which had been offered to him for its construction. I proceeded to make inquiries regarding the lands and revenues belonging to the village; and I found that all the surrounding estates (on which the people were working) belonged to a certain [F., forFulano] ecclesiastic, the Indians and mestizos paying him rent not only for these, but for the land occupied by their cabins, at the rate of three pesos a year for the married man, and one and one-half pesos for the widow or the unmarried man. And as it seemed to me that the person who, according to what was evident to my own eyes, was collecting about 30 pesos of land-rent, independently of the estates and houses belonging to him, was the one who rightfully ought to bear the cost of the little bridge, I announced that this cost should be collected from the persons who were owing rents for the lands. Receipts therefor were to be given to them, and orders were issued to the royal judges before whom such cases come first, that they must, if the laymen who make these payments should be accused before them, give the latter credit for these receipts; nor in all this brief summary, and in the measures that I took, would I notice the ecclesiastic who called himself the owner of all.” “In regard to the representations of the convenience for the Indian who has built his hut in the grain-field, I believe that it is quite the contrary, and that it would be more expedient for him and for the commonwealth that he should not be allowed to build it there, or that he be obliged to change his dwelling, for those huts generally serve as refuge for persons bent on mischief; besides, as the Indian thus has no watchful neighbor to inform the religious minister of his doings, and no alcalde, he lives in too much freedom. But, granted that all this comes to an end, what right has the owner of the land to more than the rent from him who occupies it? And if with hispilapis, or pathway, and his house he occupies no more than 50 brazas—for which he has to pay the same as if he had rented acabalita, which is a thousand brazas—and if he must pay the same rent, then lease to him the cabalita, including therein the house and pilapis; and with this the Indian will have land for planting his young trees, and for making some planting of grain.”

These items are cited from a pamphlet issued (Manila, 1739) by the auditor Pedro Calderón Henríquez, entitled:Discvrso ivridico, en qve se defiende la real iurisdiccion, y se hace demonstracion de la injusticia, que contiene el contrato de arrendamiento de solares en estas islas; in it he “laments the great amount that the Filipinos were paying to the ecclesiastical power.” This seems to have brought out a reply defending the ecclesiastics,Apología por la immvnidad ecclesiastica, y por la licitvd de terrazgos, o alqvileres de tierras segvn la forma, estilo de algvnas estancias de estas islas Philipinas(Manila, 1739); it is significant that this was published from the Jesuit printing-house, and the auditor’s pamphlet from the college of Santo Tomás. Regarding both these, see Vindel’sCatálogo bibl. filipina, nos. 1807, 1808; therein is cited the following paragraph from theApología:

“48. In the cultivated estates or farms which the Society of Jesus possesses in these islands, the tenants pay nothing for the house-lot which they occupy, with the little garden which their houses are wont to have in addition; but they pay only for the other land which they cultivate. There is, moreover, an order from the superiors that no person shall be allowed on those farms unless he has the charge of some grain-field—and rightly so, since this is the purpose for which admission to the estates is granted to any one; although this does not prevent entire justice being shown to the old men, widows, and other people who are legitimately disabled, by allowing them to remain, as they do, in their houses without paying anything for these and without cultivating a field. Therefore, there is evident falsehood in what is said by a certain [N., used when name is not to be mentioned] author, at the beginning of no. 3, art. 2, in speaking of these estates of the Society—that is, that the tenants pay for the land which they cultivate and for the ground under the houses which they occupy. In Santa Cruz the same observance was in use at the beginning, and it still is followed among the tenants who work on the lands of Mayhaligue adjoining the said village of Santa Cruz, and have their houses in the grain-fields. But as in course of time the Sangley mestizos increased in numbers, and devoted themselves to other occupations—painters, gilders, and silver-smiths, etc., which trades they now exercise with dexterity—and many households were formed, up to the number of about three hundred and eighty, which they now reach, it became necessary to yield to their importunities; and for this college of San Ignacio at Manila to condemn the splendid orchards which it possessed there, and permit the said mestizos to establish therein their dwellings. And, as it is not right that the said college should suffer the heavy damage of losing the said orchards, which had cost it many thousands of pesos, …”↑

4Concepción says (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, pp. 278–280) that some investigation of this report was made before Torre’s death, and seven of the wealthiest Chinese were arrested, “as being those most liable to suspicion in the proposed disturbance.” These men were kept in prison for six months, the investigations being continued by Arrechedera and indicating that the “plot” was but a malicious fabrication, intended to harass Torre and thus cause his death. Finally, the governor, in view of their long imprisonment and the failure to prove any charges against them, released the Chinese prisoners, “under precautions and securities.” One of the prisoners proved, by a note from the warden of the court prison, that the latter “had received the Chinaman as a prisoner, without being told from whom or by whose order.” The further precaution was taken of sending back to China, in the champans that went that year, “no small number of Chinese, of those who were known to be strollers and without employment.” Concepción states that Torre’s government was rendered odious largely by a certain man in Manila, “who, on account of his rank and wealth, ambitiously lorded it over the community, causing its government to be subject to his pleasure, and did all that he could to cast infamy on the governor.”↑

5In these ships came the royal situado for the current year (1747), and 30,000 pesos on account of the arrearages due; moreover, the returns from the cargo of the previous year were unusually large, owing to successful sales at Acapulco. The vessels halted at the port of Sisiran, where the silver was disembarked, being sent overland to Manila; this was done through fear lest they might be attacked by enemies at the Embocadero. The galleon “Rosario” was sent with a cargo for Acapulco, but was driven back by contrary winds, because it was poorly constructed and difficult to manage. This placed the royal treasury again in great straits, because the situados were in arrears for six remittances; Arrechedera appealed to the citizens and the clergy, who responded liberally—especially the archbishop and his chapter; “the Society of Jesus alone furnished 11,000 pesos—the royal promise being pledged for payment; and the obras pías also contributed to the common cause with their reserve funds.” (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 36–38.)↑

6His family name was Martinez de Arizala; at this time he was fifty-two years of age. He was a member of the Audiencia of Quito in Peru (now in Ecuador) for seventeen years, and had been entrusted with various important commissions by the king.↑

7Probably on account of his being a Dominican, the Chinese in and near Manila being mostly in charge of that order in matters of religion.↑

8A full account of this revolt and its cause and progress may be found in Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, xiv, pp. 79–107; and of its punishment by Lechuga, in xi, pp. 40–43. In writing the latter volume, he had not any adequate information regarding the causes of the rebellion; but later he obtained a detailed account of this from the Recollect fathers in Bohol who took charge of the natives after the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1768. According to them, the immediate occasion of the revolt was the arbitrary conduct of the Jesuit, Father Morales, who was, in 1744, in charge of the district of Inabangan. He sent out a native constable to arrest a renegade Indian, but the latter slew the constable, whose brother, Francisco Dagóhoy, obtained the corpse, and carried it into his village. Morales refused to bury it in consecrated ground, and it lay for three days unburied and rotting. Angered at this arbitrary and harsh treatment, especially as Morales had been the cause of the constable’s death, Dagóhoy swore vengeance on the Jesuit, and persuaded the natives of his district to join him therein; 3,000 of them followed him, abandoning their homes and fortifying an inaccessible retreat in the mountains. On their way they plundered a large and valuable estate in that vicinity, named San Xavier, belonging to the Jesuits, which was well stocked with cows, carabaos, horses, and other animals. Soon afterward, Dagóhoy bribed an Indian to kill the Jesuit minister of Hagna, Father Lamberti; and afterward Morales was also assassinated by natives. The insurgents were numerously recruited through various acts of injustice and tyranny by the Spaniards, and the rebellion was assuming dangerous proportions. Bishop Espeleta of Cebú endeavored to persuade the insurgents to return to their allegiance, and offered them secular priests instead of the Jesuits; but they took this for timidity on the part of the government, and became only more emboldened. Twenty years later, Recollect missionaries were sent to Bohol in place of the expelled Jesuits, and in the district of Baclayon was stationed Fray Pedro de Santa Barbara; he laid plans for reclaiming and reconciling the insurgents, and was partially successful; Dagóhoy and several other datos “returned to God and to the church” with their followers, several hundred being baptized and making then confessions. Nevertheless, they did not go much further, and although Bishop Espeleta endeavored in person to secure their Christian administration, “he could not secure from Dagóhoy any more than that he would build a church, in order to comply with his Christian obligations; but, as he was attracted by the lawless life which he had led during so many years, and by the gratification of being obeyed, the undertaking was delayed until the present time. Nothing was done save to erect the foundation posts, which had to serve for the present church.” This last volume of Concepción’s was published in 1792, and his later information was obtained probably in 1789, in which year he wrote this account. (Espeleta’s last remonstrance with Dagóhoy was made, as stated by our writer, “in the year sixty-two;” but the context would indicate that it occurred after the labors of the Recollects began, and therefore the date is more probably “seventy-two,” the wordsesentabeing printed forsetenta, by one of the typographical errors so frequent in Conception’s pages.) Fray Pedro de Santa Barbara was so delighted at his first success that he persuaded the civil authorities to withdraw the troops from most of the Bohol stations, and to publish a general amnesty (this was not later than 1770); but the result was, that the insurgent chiefs would not allow any of their followers to leave their strongholds under pain of death, and continued their habits of raids on their neighbors, plundering, and murder. Concepción expresses indignant surprise that this rebellion had been allowed to go long unpunished, with so great loss and injury to the peaceable part of the population.↑

9These ambassadors were: for Mindanao, Father Francisco Isasi, rector of the Jesuit college at Zamboanga, and the sargento-mayor there, Don Thomas de Arrevillaga. For Joló, Isasi was also designated; but on his return from Tamontaca his health was so broken that in his place was appointed Father Sebastian Ignacio de Arcada, then in charge of the district of Siocon; he went thither accompanied by Arrevillaga, having been sent by Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar, then governor of Zamboanga. (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 75–106.)↑

10The missionaries appointed to the Mindanao mission were the Jesuits Juan Moreno and Sebastian Arcada; but the latter was ill at the time, and died soon afterward; in his place was substituted Ignacio Malaga. See account of their mission in Concepción, xii, pp. 110–112, 138–141.

Those who went to Joló were Juan Ang[e]les and Patricio de el Barrio; they left Zamboanga on June 3, 1748, in company with Alimudin. For account of their mission, see Concepción, xii, pp. 114–138; he cites a diary and letters written by Father Angeles, and the report of Commandant Pulgar. He blames the Jesuits (pp. 146, 147) for misrepresenting the Moro sultans to the governor, and Pulgar (as being under their influence) for an unnecessarily hostile attitude toward the Moros.↑

11Concepción states (xii, p. 134) that Alimudin was so infatuated for one of his concubines that he neglected his duties of government; and that his brother Bantilan bribed a man to assassinate the sultan, giving him six slaves and a thousand pesos.↑

12Ferrando speaks (Hist. PP. dominicos, iv, p. 535) of “this sedition, actual or feigned (but on this point history has not made its final utterance).”↑

13Forrest says (Voyage, p. 334) of Alimudin’s visit to Samboangan: “He bought goods from Don Zacharias the governor, giving the Don his own price, made presents to the officers of the garrison, and lost his money to them, as if accidentally, by gaming with dice. Still resolved to ingratiate himself with the governor, the Sultan wanted to make him a present of forty male slaves, whom he had drest in rich liveries on the occasion. Many of them were natives of Papua or New Guinea. Zacharias refused the presents, suspecting the Sultan of some design. The Sultan then asked leave to go to Manila. He went thither, and said to the archbishop, ‘I will turn Christian, let the Spaniards take Sooloo, send the stubborn Datoos to Samboangan; make me king there, I then will oblige every one to embrace your religion.’ The Spaniards listened to him, and he returned to Samboangan with an armada.”↑

14See letter of the Jesuit Masvesi regarding this visit of the Joloan ruler, inVOL. XLVII, pp. 243–250; also account of it (1750), ascribed to Arrechedera, in Retana’sArchivo, i, no. v.↑

15Ferrando says (iv, pp. 538, 539) that Arrechedera sent the sultan to Binalatongan (in Pangasinan) for baptism; but that Alimudin was taken ill at Paniqui, on his journey, and it was therefore decided to baptize him there.↑

16This catastrophe, one of the most ruinous of its kind ever known, occurred on October 28, 1746; Lima was wrecked by the earthquake, and Callao destroyed by a tidal wave—in Lima, over 1,100 persons perished, and in Callao 4,600. A detailed account of this event was published at Lima by order of the viceroy, Marqués de Villa Garcia, an English translation of which appeared in London (the second edition in 1748); and other accounts were published in Lima and Mexico.↑

17See account of this controversy, the wretched condition in which the royal ships and galleys were found to be, and the loss of the “Pilar,” in Concepción’sHistoria, xii, pp. 183–211; cf. Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 291, note. The vessel known by the names of “Rosarito” and “Philipino,” which “had cost the royal treasury 60,666 pesos, had remained more than four years abandoned to the sun and rain, without any care;” and it was now valued at 18,000 pesos, a sum which, after more thorough examination of the rotting timbers, was reduced to 7,500. The Spanish government had ordered that six ships be at once constructed to proceed against the Moro pirates; and it was therefore necessary to hasten this work, without waiting for “red tape,” hence Nebra’s informal appointment. The “Pilar” was not a fragata, but a large ship; it sailed in June or July, 1750; its repairing and cleaning was so hastily done that the vessel began to leak before it left the Luzón coast. The commander, Ignacio Martinez de Faura, was notified of this, and that it was unsafe for the vessel to proceed into the open sea; he answered, “To Purgatory, or to Acapulco!” In the following October, pieces of wreckage were picked up on the eastern coasts of Luzón, which were identified as belonging to the “Pilar.”↑

18“The secretary of the government, who, protected in that quarter by the person who ought to have condemned his acts, pushed forward his designs and finally effected his purpose” (Ferrando, iv, p. 548).↑

19“This [Dominican] province had already (in 1745) reported to his Majesty that the beaterio of Santa Cathalina was maintained in the form of observance provided by the royal decrees of February 17, 1716 and September 10, 1732; that it contained the fifteen religious which it ought to have according to the arrangements of its founder; that they observed the three vows of religious, according to the enactment of St. Pius V, issued on 28 [sic] in 1566; and that, although there had never been the slightest question raised on this point, some uncertainties were beginning to present themselves regarding the nature of their vows, and even whether dispensation from these could be granted by the archbishop of Manila.” Accordingly, the Dominicans requested the royal decision on these matters; the king therefore decreed (June 20, 1747) that a committee formed of the governor, the archbishop, and the Dominican provincial, should carefully examine into the best method of carrying out the previous decrees. They did so, and, when their deliberations were laid before the royal fiscal, he demanded that the vows taken by these beatas be declared opposed to his Majesty’s will. Sister Cecilia, as soon as she was placed in Santa Potenciana, divested herself of the religious habit, claiming that her profession was null—a claim which was irregular, “because the five years had already passed which the laws and justice allow for proceedings of this sort.” When the papal delegate disallowed the appeal of the Dominicans from the archbishop’s attempted control of this case, they appealed to the Audiencia for protection from the fuerza exerted by the latter; but that court declined to interfere, saying that there was no fuerza committed. The archbishop then pronounced a definitive sentence in favor of Cecilia, and set her at liberty; she then married Figueroa, and they went to Nueva España. The Spanish government took no further notice of her case, save to refuse to the Dominicans permission to lay it before the Holy See. (Ferrando, iv, pp. 548–551)↑

20This was Don Protasio Cavezas.↑

21A minute account of this episode is found in Concepción’sHistoria, xii, pp. 212–230. The lady’s name was Cecilia Ita y Salazar. She had been educated in the beaterio from childhood, and had been a professed religious for sixteen years.↑

22“The royal decree issued in 1762 in consequence of the notorious litigation of Mother Cecilia did not decide that the beaterio should be extinguished, but only that new religious should not be admitted until those then living, who numbered nearly thirty, should be reduced to fifteen religious of the choir, in conformity with the provisions of its foundation,” “and that the number of the fifteen beatas should be kept up, according to vacancies that might occur.” (Ferrando, v, p. 151).↑

23“The seizure of these champans was afterward the cause of a clamorous lawsuit incited by various officers against the master-of-camp Abad, accusing him of having kept for himself the best part [of the goods seized]. It was also proved that he employed the vessels of the royal navy in his mercantile speculations; this evil was very general in that period, and to it must be attributed, in large part, the scanty results of most of the expeditions against the Mahometan Malays of southern Filipinas.” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 294.)

Another Chinese champan was seized by the Spaniards, apparently not long afterward, near Malandi; it was laden with goods for trade in Mindanao, which included a number of guns and other weapons, with ammunition. These were confiscated by the Spaniards, an act which was greatly resented by Jampsa, the sultan of Tamontaca, who therefore abandoned the Spanish alliance and sided with the hostile Moros. (Concepción, xiii, pp. 1–5.)↑

24This proceeding took place at midnight on August 3, and the number arrested was 217 persons: these included Alimudin’s four sons, his brother and sister, four of his daughters, five brothers-in-law, a son-in-law; a Mahometanjaddí(“the second rank in that sect, equivalent to a bishop”) and fivepanditas; also two prominent chiefs, one hundred and sixty of the sultan’s vassals, and thirty-two concubines and female servants. (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 298.) Cf. Concepción, xii, pp. 288, 289.↑

25Alimudin and his household arrived as prisoners at Manila in September, 1751. Soon afterward the Manila government declared war, with fire and sword, against the Joloans and all those Moro peoples who aided them; permitting the enslavement of all who should be captured, whether men, women or children; and giving all their property and possessions to their captors, free from all royal dues or imposts. See copy of this proclamation in Montero y Vidal’sHist. de piratería, appendix, pp. 29–31. Concepción (xii, p. 344) regards this declaration of war as unjust; he adds that the Joloan captive princes, whose arrest was incited by ambition and greed, were so unfortunate as to lose their protector, Bishop Arrechedera, by death (November 12, 1751). In the same month died also Bishop Arevalo, of Nueva Caceres.↑

26Here, as most often elsewhere, “captives” are synonymous with “slaves.” Montero y Vidal (Hist. de piratería, i, p. 299) protests against this permission to enslave the Moros, as being contrary to the provisions of the laws of the Indias, which forbid slavery in Philipinas.↑

27Concepción says (xii, pp. 345–352) that the master-of-camp in command of the fleet (who was Antonio Ramón de Abad y Monterde) was undecided whether to attack Joló, but was persuaded to do so by the Jesuits, who told him that the very sight of the Spanish squadron would ensure the surrender of the Joloans. The attack was made at the beginning of June, 1752, and was unsuccessful; Abad was angry at the Jesuits, who had led him into this difficulty, and quarreled with them. They retorted by accusing him to the governor, of conduct (in modern phrase) “unworthy of an officer and a gentleman”—that is, of neglect of official duty, mismanagement of the campaign, unnecessary sacrifice of his men’s lives, and licentious behavior at Zamboanga. This was believed, until Abad was reported much more favorably by other officers of his fleet. See full account of his residencia (ut supra, xiii, pp. 36–85), in which he was acquitted from the charges made against him, but sentenced to pay the costs of the residencia.↑

28These hostilities broke out in 1752, and for several years scourged the unfortunate Visayans. Concepción records many of these attacks in considerable detail (Hist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 5–36); the missions of the Recollects, as also those of the Jesuits in Mindanao (except those under the shelter of the fort at Zamboanga) were the frontier outposts most exposed to the pirates, and it is these missions that Concepción chiefly mentions. The fort at Iligan, Mindanao, was besieged by two thousand Moros for two months; but a Spanish fleet was sent from Cebú, which obliged the enemy to raise the siege, after a great loss of men. This defense was conducted by the Jesuit in charge there, Father José Ducós, whose father had been an officer in the Spanish army; and this same priest rendered valiant service in other Moro raids in that region. Tagoloan and Yponan, in the province of Cagayan, Mindanao were besieged by the Moros; but the mountain Indians were called down to their aid by the Jesuit missionaries, and compelled the enemy to retreat. In Caraga, Surigao was attacked, and the Christian inhabitants, with their two Recollect missionaries, were compelled to take flight and seek refuge in the mountains; they were hunted there for weeks by the enemy—one of the priests being finally captured and taken to Lanao—all this time, enduring terrible hardships and suffering, which caused the other (Fray Roque de Santa Monica) to become hopelessly insane; he was afterward brought to Manila, but died there in a demented condition. “The district of Surigao, rich through its famous gold-mines, and now in most wretched condition,” was devastated and ruined. The enemy did the same in the island of Siargao, where the Recollect missionary, Fray Joseph de la Virgen de el Niño Perdido, was slain while endeavoring to lead his followers against the pirates. Nearly all the population—of Surigao, more than 2,000 souls; of Siargao, more than 1,600—were either slain or carried away captive. The district of Butuan was laid waste and some two hundred captives seized; the little military post at Linao, up the river, alone escaped, mainly through the difficulty of ascending the stream. The Moros attacked the island of Camiguin, which was so bravely defended by its natives that the pirates were repulsed—especially by “one of the villages, which consisted of people of Moro origin from the Lake of Malanao, from which they had withdrawn on account of domestic dissensions, and settled in this island. They are of excellent disposition, very good Christians, courageous, and have an irreconcilable hatred for those enemies.” Here they were led by their Recollect priest, Fray Marcelinc de el Espiritu Santo, “a robust native of La Mancha,” who with them fought so valiantly that the enemy could not make a landing. Romblon had so good a fort that it could repel the foe; Ticao was so poorly defended that the people, with their missionary, Fray Manuel de Santa Cathalina, could only take to flight—the priest being afterward captured, and finally ransomed for eight hundred pesos. In several places the missionaries were either slain or captured by the pirates; and these raids were extended, the boldness of the enemy increasing, even to the coasts of Luzón, in Batangas and Zambales. The government took what precautions it could, but these amounted to little save in the vicinity of Manila, Cebú, and Zamboanga; military and naval forces, and supplies of all sorts, were deficient, and there was much official apathy and corruption.↑

29“This unfortunate attempt cost the treasury 36,976 pesos, and a galley that was seized by the Moros” (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de piratería, i, p. 301).↑

30“In Manila the indignation against the disloyal Ali-Mudin knew no bounds. All clamored for the punishment of so ignoble a race, sorrowfully recalling the fact that the amount expended in courting him and in the expenses of his sojourn there was more than 20,000 pesos, without counting the 6,000 pesos and the military supplies sent to establish the Jesuits in Joló” (ut supra, p. 299). Later, the authorities at Manila hardly knew what to do with Alimudin; he would probably have been put to death, but it was feared that the Moros would retaliate by slaughtering their Christian captives, who numbered some 10,000. Fatima procured the return (in the summer of 1753) of fifty-one Christian captives, and negotiations were made for peace between Manila and Joló; and in June, 1754, Bantilan surrendered sixty-eight more captives, and a Spanish galley and champan. Faveau, who had carried on a brilliant campaign against the pirates with his little squadron, made a favorable report to the governor of the good intentions of both Bantilan and Alimudin; and stated that the return of the latter to Joló was desired by his subjects, and that Bantilan was willing to resign in his favor. Arandía sent most of the Joloan prisoners back to that island, retaining the sultan and his eldest son as hostages until the full accomplishment of the treaty; they remained there until the capture of the city by the English (1762), who afterward restored them to Joló (seeVOL. XLIX). Ferrando (iv, pp. 541–543) considers that Alimudin was unjustly suspected and ill-treated, and defends him from accusations of disloyalty to the Spaniards and to the Christian religion.↑

31“The Sultanship in Sooloo is hereditary, but the government mixed. About fifteen Datoos, who may be called the nobility, make the greater part of the legislature. Their title is hereditary to the eldest son, and they sit in council with the Sultan. The Sultan has two votes in this assembly, and each Datoo has one. The heir-apparent (who, when I was there, was Datoo Alamoodine) if he sides with the Sultan, has two votes; but, if against him, only one. There are two representatives of the people, called Manteries, like the military tribunes of the Romans. The common people of Sooloo, called Tellimanhood, enjoy much real freedom, owing to the above representation; but the Tellimanhood, or vassals of the adjacent islands named Tappool, Seassee, Tawee-tawee, and others, being the estates of particular Datoos, are often used in a tyrannical manner by their chiefs. I have been told that their haughty lords visiting their estates, will sometimes with impunity demand and carry off young women, whom they happen to fancy, to swell the number of their Sandles (Concubines) at Sooloo.” (Forrest,Voyage, p. 326.)↑

32For detailed accounts of the events here briefly mentioned, the Moro wars, the imprisonment of Alimudin, the ravages committed in the islands by those pirates, etc., to the end of Ovando’s government, see Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, xii, pp. 230–419, and xiii, pp. 1–250. See also the account of the “Moro raids repulsed by Visayan natives,”ante; it is inserted mainly to represent more vividly, in the words of a probable eyewitness, a typical raid by Moro pirates on the peaceable Christian natives.↑

33To this name should be added, “Santisteban, Echeveria, y Alvero” (Concepción, xiii, p. 250); he was a knight of the Order of Calatrava.↑

34See Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 250–287, for details of these reforms.↑

35See Concepción’s account of this eruption (xiii, pp. 345–350); it lasted from September to December, 1754 and was accompanied by severe earthquakes, one of which lasted half an hour.↑

36Ignacio María de Alava, “Commander-in-chief of the naval forces in Asiatic waters,” was a personal friend of Zúñiga, to whom the latter dedicated hisHistoria. In a preliminary notice to hisEstadismo(p. 3 of Retana’s ed.) he says that Alava desired to become acquainted with the Philippines from various points of view, and invited the priest to accompany him therein. Alava arrived at Manila on December 25, 1796, and remained in the islands until January 7, 1803; he reorganized the naval forces and the arsenal at Cavite, with much energy and ability, but had various controversies with Governor Aguilar. Afterward he held important posts in the Spanish naval administration, and died on May 26, 1815. See Retana’s note concerning him (ut supra, ii, p. *562), and Montero y Vidal’sHist. de Philipinas, ii, pp. 345–359.↑

37The exploits of this militant Jesuit are described by Concepción, inHist. de Philipinas, xiii, pp. 148–168, 178–188, 296–319.↑

38The name given her in baptism was Rita Calderón; the marriage occurred on April 27, 1755. See Concepción, xiii, pp. 333, 334.↑

39“The people of Magindano, and their neighbours, known commonly by the name of Oran Illanon, as living near the great Lano, are very piratically inclined. Neither can the Sultan of Magindano restrain his subjects from fitting out vessels, which go among the Philippines, to Mangaio, that is, cruise against the Spaniards: much less can be restrained the Illanos, being under a government more aristocratic; for, on the banks of the Lano, are no fewer than seventeen, stiled Rajahs, and sixteen who take the title of Sultan, besides those on the coast. When the Spanish envoy sailed from Magindano for Samboangan, Rajah Moodo sent a vessel, as has been said, to convoy him across the Illano bay. This is a proof the Spaniards are not on good terms with the Illanos. These, within ten years before 1775, have done much mischief to the Spaniards, among the islands called Babuyan, at the north extremity of the Philippines; and, at this time, they possess an island in the very heart of the Philippines, called Burias, where has been a colony of Illanos, for many years, men, women, and children. The Spaniards have often attempted to dislodge them; but in vain: the island, which is not very large, being environed with rocks and shoals to a considerable distance.” (Forrest,Voyage to New Guinea, pp. 301, 302.)↑

40Fray Mateo González founded this mission to the Batanes. He made his profession in 1667, and came to Manila four years later, being then twenty-seven years old. He was sent to the Cagayán missions, and was stationed in the Babuyanes Islands during 1673–84 (save in 1677–80, at Lallo-c). In 1686 he made a visit to the Batanes, where he was well received; they contained over 3,000 souls. Leaving his companion there to study the language, he went to Manila to secure support for his new mission, to which he returned with Fray Juan Rois; but hardly two months passed before the unhealthful climate and many privations brought mortal illness on them. González died on July 25, 1688, and Rois on August 10, following. With this the Batanes mission came to an end until (in 1718) it was revived by Fray Juan Bel. (Reseña biográfica, ii, pp. 155–157.)↑

41“Action was taken in a session of the royal treasury officials on the execution of the orders in a royal despatch which notified this government to establish on the mainland of Cagayan the people who were dwelling in the islands of the Babuyanes; for this purpose the sum of five thousand, three hundred and ninety-eight pesos was sent from the royal treasury of Mexico, definitely allotted to this transportation. The migration was agreed upon, the money was spent, but the only result was the transfer of some families, the greater part of them remaining in their own islands—where, as they were accustomed to that mode of life, they desired no further privileges than their own liberty, even though it be with necessary inconveniences, which they felt little or not at all, being free from the yoke since their youth.” (Concepción,Hist.de Philipinas, xi, p.304.)

Cf. Salazar’s sketch of the history of these missions, in chapter xxiii ofHist. Sant. Rosario(in ourVOL. XLIII). See also, for both early and later events therein, Ferrando’sHist. PP. dominicos, iii, pp. 550–588, and iv, pp. 254–258, 330, 582–585.

Concepción (ut supra) does not mention the date of the royal decree; but Ferrando states (iv, p. 423) that it was dated March 14, 1728, and that it granted for this purpose the sum of 3,398 pesos; the “3” may be a typographical error for “5,” the amount as given (but spelled out) by Concepción. Ferrando says that some three hundred families removed to the mainland, but that many more remained in their islands.↑

42This is more fully described in the previous document, “Later Augustinian and Dominican missions.”↑

43See Ferrando’sHist. PP. dominicos, iv, pp. 576–582.↑

44Arandia made a census of the Christian Sangleys in the islands, and found that they numbered 3,413. He established the market here mentioned, that of San Fernando, at first intended to be simply a pavilion in which trade might be carried on; the heathen merchants to return immediately to their own country, without going inland from Manila or having any dealings with the natives. But, as it was soon apparent that the exigencies of weather and trade required larger and more permanent quarters, Arandía had a plan made for the necessary dwellings and storehouses, by a Recollect lay brother who was an excellent architect (whom the governor had appointed superintendent of royal works); and a contract for building it was made, at a cost of 48,000 pesos. Half of this amount was contributed by a citizen of Manila, Fernando de Mier y Noriega, the other half being supplied from the royal treasury; as a reward for this service, he was made warden of the new market, an office carrying a salary of fifty pesos a month, and passing to his children and descendants. (Concepción, xiii, pp. 357–360.) The king, however, restricted this privilege to Mier’s life.↑

45See Concepción’s account of this enterprise (xiv, pp. 167–171). The amount of capital raised was 76,500 pesos, in shares of 500 each; with this, the company began to buy goods (ropas) to supply the public necessities, and sold these in their own shops, in each of which were two Spanish agents, no Sangley having anything to do with these shops. It was planned that the company, having bought goods at wholesale—they found that they could purchase thus at sixteen per cent less than they paid for the same goods at retail—should sell at only thirty per cent above the first cost; “of this [gain] eight per cent must be paid to his Majesty to make up to the royal treasury the deficiency arising from the loss of the licenses that the infidels had paid; ten per cent went to the shareholders; and the remaining twelve per cent was kept for the payment of salaries, and for a public fund for the promotion of the industries and products of the country.” Their capital was found insufficient to make their purchases; indeed, this lack had always been felt when the Sangleys conducted the trade, but their industry had supplied it; the directors therefore applied to the Misericordia and other administrators for the loan of the reserve funds held in theobras pías. The latter were at first disposed to aid the company, but later declined to do so, following the advice of certain theologians whom they consulted. The auditor Pedro Calderon Henriquez gave an opinion contrary to this, saying that theobras píashad gained great profits through the voluntary concession and tolerance of the citizens, who ought not to be the only ones to make sacrifices for the public good; and that “in these islands they had winked at the business transactions of the confraternities, which are not carried on in other regions, on account of the convenience which the merchants found in having money ready for investment in their commerce.” The governor therefore demanded from the Misericordia 100,000 pesos of their reserve funds, and from the Third Order (of St. Francis) 30,000; and with these funds the company was for the time floated. (Among the advantages expected from this enterprise were: lower prices than the Chinese asked for goods, the same price the year round, the retention of all profits within the country, and the certain support of the twenty-one families belonging to the company’s employ.) Another great hindrance was found in the general practice of using clipped money in this trade, which caused great losses. This and other difficulties caused the dissolution of the company within the year, and it was unable to do more than save the capital invested therein.↑

46Ferrando says (iv, pp. 587–591) that Arandía cut off from the hospital of San Gabriel 800 pesos, out of the 2,000 which it received from the communal fund of the Sangleys, for whose benefit the hospital was founded; and this amount the Dominican province was obliged, through motives of humanity, to make good from its own treasury. Moreover, he insisted that the Augustinian provincial, Fray Juan Facundo Meseguer, should reveal to him the private reasons which he had for removing two of his friars from their charges in Indian villages. This was in reality an attack on all the religious bodies, who all resolved to make common cause on the governor, and forthwith sent to the king a remonstrance against the governor’s proceedings; this checked Arandía, who desisted from his demands against Meseguer.↑

47Vindel’sCatálogo, tomo i (Madrid, 1896), p. 94, cites from Rezabal y Ugarte’sEscritores de los seis colegios universitarios(Madrid, 1805) mention of works left by Viana, existing in the archives of the Council of Indias, among them “Ordinances for the government of the Indian provinces of Filipinas.” This, with the hostility which his letters and other writings exhibit toward the religious orders, indicates the possibility that Viana had some responsibility for the instructions here mentioned by Zúñiga.↑

48According to Concepción (xiii, pp. 360–366), the tax here referred to was a general one, called “the royal impost,” an ad valorem duty levied on all the products of the provinces, brought in the coasting trade to Manila; it was established, in view of the depleted condition of the royal treasury, for the maintenance of the royal fleets against the pirates and the defense of the internal commerce of the islands, and was exacted from all persons concerned, without exempting any one, whatever his rank or estate. The Dominicans were unwilling to pay this tax on certain commodities which they were sending to their convents in Cagayan, alleging that these were not commercial articles, and that they were exempt as a religious body. This was of no avail, and their vessel was seized; but, either through their representations at court or because Arandía had not first asked the royal permission for this measure, it was censured by the government and the duty removed.↑

49See Concepción’s full account of this venture (xiv, pp. 208–275). It will be remembered that Bustamante had attempted in 1718 to open up commerce with Siam (VOL. XLIV, p. 152); but this was a failure, through the apathy of the Spaniards. In the year 1747 a Siamese ship came to Manila with merchandise, and another four years later; these were well received there, and allowed to sell their goods free from duties. On the second ship came a Jesuit, Father Juan Regis Aroche, as envoy from the king of Siam to establish friendly relations with the Manila government; he proposed to Ovando to send an expedition to Siam to build there a galleon, then needed at Manila for the Acapulco trade. As the royal treasury had not the funds for this, Ovando formed a stock company, with a hundred shares, each of 300 pesos; 30,000 pesos were thus raised (said by the Jesuit to be enough to build the ship)—“with the idea that afterward the king [of España] would vouchsafe to buy it, and the gains would be dividedpro rataamong the shareholders, whose profits would be considerable even if the ship were sold at the usual and reasonable price.” Accordingly Captain Joseph Pasarin was sent to Siam (March 18, 1752), and made arrangements for the construction of the ship, which was facilitated and aided by the king of that country; labor was there abundant and cheap, yet the cost of the ship was much more than had been planned, and not only was a second remittance made from Manila, but the king furnished nearly 13,000 pesos besides. Pasarin set out on his voyage to Manila with the new ship, but, when in sight of Bolinao, a fierce storm drove the Spaniards back, and finally compelled them to land in China. They went to Macao, refitted their damaged ship (for which a wealthy Portuguese lent them, without interest, 20,516 pesos), and set sail for Manila on April 28, 1755; storms again drove them from Bolinao, and they were compelled to put back to Macao, and to remain there five months until the north winds should subside; Simon Vicente de la Rosa again generously aided them with 5,000 pesos. Returning their voyage on December 12 of that year, unfavorable winds again attacked them, and they were obliged to make port in Batavia. (January 12, 1756). Here Pasarin fell sick, and on his recovery found that the shipbuilder whom the Dutch had detailed to repair the galleon had fled with certain goods which he plundered from it, and twenty-eight of his seamen had deserted; at last he secured a new crew, and reached Cavite on July 6, 1756. This galleon was named “Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe,” or “La Mexicana;” its keel was 120 English feet long, and its capacity was 1,032 toneladas; it was built entirely of teak; the entire cost of vessel, equipment, and construction was 53,370 pesos. The king of Spain disapproved the enterprise; and when the accounts of the company were settled, it was found that they were still indebted to the extent of 9,520 pesos. The galleon was sold at public auction for 10,000 pesos.↑

50Concepción furnishes an interesting account (xiv, pp. 76–79) of the abolition by Arandía of the “rotten borough” of Cebú. During the term of Governor Arrechedera, he received a request from Juan Baraona Velazquez, governor and chief magistrate of Cebú province, that in view of the lack not only of regidors there but of citizens who could fill that office, the governor should confer it on certain persons named by him, among them two who were the only permanent (Spanish) settlers there. Nevertheless, affairs soon returned to their former condition: of the five persons thus appointed, one was long detained in Manila, and one died; another was deprived of office for harsh treatment of the headman of the Sangleys, and still another for failure to perform his duties. “Thus, only the regidor Espina was left, and in him much was deficient, if he were not actually incapable; for he could not read or write, and his judgment was not very sound.” Velazquez therefore proposed that these offices be extinguished, and some suitable person be appointed from Manila to assist him in ruling the province. Nothing came of this, and his successor, Joseph Romo, applied to Arandía for relief, saying that for two years no election of alcalde-in-ordinary had been held, and the office was exercised by the regidor Pedro Muñoz—the same who had ill-treated the Sangley—“of whom alone that municipality was composed;” that the latter had obtained his post onlyad interim, and now refused to surrender it to Romo. “In view of this report, Señor Arandía decided that these remnants of the city should be abolished, leaving it with only the name of city, and that it should be ruled by its chief magistrate, as alcalde-mayor of the province; and in this wretched condition was left the first city of this sphere, endowed with privileges by our Catholic kings, and worthy of other and greater consideration. Its lack of citizens transformed it into so dry a skeleton; and, although this measure was provisional, necessity has made it perpetual.” Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, i, p. 555) that since then Cebú had been governed by a gobernadorcillo, like any native village; and at the end of that same volume they give a table of the population of Cebú province in 1818, which shows that the ancient city of Santisimo Nombre de Jésus contained no pure Spaniards, its population of 2,070 souls being all native or Chinese except 233 Spanish mestizos. Its present population, according to the late U. S. census, is 31,079—of whom 793 are natives of China, 131 of America, and 168 of Europe.↑

51He had witnessed personally at Acapulco the careless, disorderly, and even fraudulent manner in which this trade was carried on by the Mexican merchants, who contrived to secure the advantage in every way over those of Manila. He therefore imposed severe penalties on all who on either side should practice frauds. He also appointed four of the most distinguished of the citizens of Manila to register, apportion, and appraise the goods sent thence; but the only result was that these men took the best for themselves, and consulted their own profit; he therefore revoked their commissions and sharply rebuked them. Arandía also made many reforms in the management of the Acapulco ship, its supplies, and its men, both on the sea and in port. (Concepción, xiv, pp. 171–183.)↑

52Le Gentil and Marquina are cited by Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 14) to show that Arandia died by poison or other violent means.↑

53His full name was Manuel Antonio Rojo del Río y Vieyra.↑

54At this point properly should come the documents which relate the invasion of the islands by the English, their capture of Manila, the consequent disturbances in the provinces, etc.; but the great length of this episode, and the desirability of bringing all this material together in one volume, induce us to place it all in VOL. XLIX, completing this present volume with the noted memorial by the royal fiscal Viana, written nearly a year after the evacuation of Manila by the English.↑

Back to IndexNext