The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies / As illustrated by the Audiencia of Manila (1583-1800)

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLICATIONS IN HISTORY

H. MORSE STEPHENS HERBERT E. BOLTON
EDITORS

VOLUME IX

THE AUDIENCIA IN THE SPANISH COLONIES

AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE AUDIENCIA OF MANILA (1583–1800)

BY
CHARLES HENRY CUNNINGHAM, Ph. D.
Adjunct Professor of History in the University of Texas

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
BERKELEY
1919

PREFACE

It seems proper to say at the outset that a general study of the Spanish colonial system convinced me of the need of an extended investigation of the audiencia, which was the central institution in the colonies. It was, however, the circumstance of my being situated in Manila for some years and thus having at my disposal the original documents bearing upon the history of the audiencia which was situated there that led me to study this particular tribunal. At first sight it may appear that something of direct applicability to Spanish-American conditions, which would have been gained by the study of the Audiencia of Mexico, or Guadalajara, or Lima, has thus been lost. Nevertheless, if it is borne in mind that the audiencia system was common to all the Spanish colonies, and that the laws by which it was constituted and regulated applied to the different political divisions of America as to the Philippines, the assumption will not seem wholly unjustified that the Audiencia of Manila may be taken as a typical legal and political institution.

A large part of the time expended in collecting the materials upon which this book is based was spent in the various depositories in Manila. The most notable group of documents there is to be found in the Philippines Library, and it is with pleasure that I express here my obligations to Dr. James Alexander Robertson, the librarian; for not only did Dr. Robertson place at my disposal all the resources of the library, but he contributed generously from his adequate knowledge of Philippine history and afforded continual inspiration during the course of my labors in Manila. I am also deeply conscious of the assistance so kindly rendered by Don Manuel Artigas, chief of the Division of Filipiniana, and by Don Manuel Yriarte of the Philippine Archive.

In addition to research in the Philippines Library, the Philippine Archive, and the Audiencia Records in Manila approximately three years have been spent in the archives of Spain. The main centre of my work, of course, has been the Archive of the Indies at Seville, where I was given free access to all the available materials, and every facility was extended to me by the chief of the archive, Don Pedro Torres Lanzas, and by his obliging assistants. I am also indebted for many courtesies to Don Miguel Gómez de Campillo of the National Historical Archive at Madrid, and to Don Juan Montero, chief of the archive at Simancas.

The object of this prefatory note would not be achieved if I failed to express adequately my acknowledgment to my teacher and friend Professor Frederick J. Teggart, of the University of California. His inspiration led me to appreciate the importance of institutional studies; his continued encouragement has helped me over the hard places in the work; and I am conscious now of the extent to which he has sought, by vigilant criticism, to guard me against precipitateness. I am indebted to Professor Herbert Bolton for valuable aid and for advice in the final presentation of the manuscript; to Dr. Charles Wilson Hackett for a systematic revision of the Bibliography and of the footnotes; to Professor E. C. Barker for advice and assistance; to Professor W. R. Shepherd and Professor Francis S. Philbrick for their criticism of portions of this book; and to Messrs. A. H. Allen and Morse A. Cartwright of the University of California Press for their many manifestations of courtesy and patience in the supervision of its publication. To Professor H. Morse Stephens of the University of California and to the generous order of the Native Sons of the Golden West I am indebted for the rare opportunity of two years of foreign residence and research in the various archives of Spain.

Finally, my greatest indebtedness is to my wife, who has cheerfully given up the pleasures and conveniences of life among friends in home surroundings to accompany me to less pleasant places, in order that I might succeed in the work which I have undertaken.

Charles H. Cunningham.

University of Texas, Austin, Texas,
March 1, 1918.

CONTENTS

Pages

[Preface] v–vii

[Introduction] 1–7

CHAPTER I

[The Audiencias of the Spanish Colonies] 8–31

CHAPTER II

[The Establishment of the Audiencia of Manila (1583–1598)] 32–82

CHAPTER III

[The Judicial Functions of the Audiencia] 83–120

CHAPTER IV

[The Judicial Functions of the Audiencia: The Residencia] 121–159

CHAPTER V

[The Semi-Judicial and Administrative Functions of the Audiencia] 160–192

CHAPTER VI

[The Audiencia and the Governor: General Relations] 193–225

CHAPTER VII

[The Audiencia and the Governor: The Military Jurisdiction] 226–258

CHAPTER VIII

[The Audiencia and the Governor: Conflicts of Jurisdiction] 259–303

CHAPTER IX

[The Audiencia and the Governor: The Ad Interim Rule] 304–361

CHAPTER X

[The Audiencia and the Church: The Royal Patronage] 362–409

CHAPTER XI

[The Audiencia and the Church: The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction] 410–444

[Bibliography] 445–462

[Index] 463–479

INTRODUCTION

The audiencia was primarily a judicial tribunal. It has been considered almost entirely as such by these modern historical writers who have referred to it in passing. Its legislative, administrative, executive, and ecclesiastical functions have received little attention. This may be owing to the fact that little or no documentary study of the audiencia has heretofore been made. A great deal of attention has been devoted in this book to the non-judicial functions of the audiencia. A chapter has been given, indeed, to its purely judicial activities, but the chief purpose of this investigation has been to show that the audiencia was more than a court of justice, and to bring out its governmental and ecclesiastical functions.

This study will be confined, chronologically, to the period extending from the time of the creation of the audiencia, at the close of the sixteenth century, to the end of the eighteenth. This limitation is advisable, first, because the vastness of the subject requires it, and second, because the audiencia became more concerned with judicial and less with administrative, political, and economic affairs through the constitutional changes which were made at the close of the eighteenth and at the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. The audiencia thus loses its interest, from our present viewpoint, after the eighteenth century. Again, it may be said that owing to the loss of colonies by Spain in the early nineteenth century, and the general anarchy that prevailed after 1810, a continuation of an intensive study beyond that period would be without value because its subject-matter would be no longer characteristic.

In assuming that the Audiencia of Manila was typical of all the audiencias in the Spanish colonial system, it is not claimed that the tribunal in the Philippines was identical in every function and detail with those of the other colonies of Spain. It is no doubt true that local conditions brought about pronounced differences and that each audiencia had its own local characteristics and powers, which differed from those of the others. The subject is so vast, however, and the research required for a comparative study of all these institutions would be so extensive that it would occupy more than a lifetime to complete it.

The main interest of this investigation does not lie in the organization, the scope, nature, or detailed powers of the audiencia as an institution of the Philippines, but in its larger relation to the general field of Spanish colonial history and government. It applies to the entire field of Spanish colonial administration. It is related to the government of Perú, New Spain, Cuba, and other colonies wherein there were audiencias, and where functions similar to those of the Manila tribunal were exercised. The establishment of all these audiencias was part of the same movement, and the act of their creation was the product of experience gained in Spain through efforts at centralization there. The audiencias of the colonies were alike dependent on the Council of the Indies; common institutions and departments of government existed in Spain for the control and regulation of the tribunals of the colonies. All were of equal judicial rank before the Council of the Indies, and cases appealed to the latter from the several audiencias were treated in the same manner and considered as having equal rank and importance. The general powers and attributes of these audiencias were prescribed in the same code, the Recopilación, and general laws and cédulas of reform were expedited from time to time and sent to the tribunals of all the colonies. Such is the basis, therefore, of the claim that this is in reality a study of the audiencia as an institution, illustrated particularly by the history of that of the Philippines.

A study of the audiencia of any colony is concerned with all of the problems that came up in its life—with legal, political, ecclesiastical, and social conditions. It will be seen that the audiencia was the one tribunal which regulated, checked, and often controlled both church and state in the colonies; it represented the king, and its duty was to see that the royal commands were obeyed; it was the royal audiencia. Isolated as were the officials of the Philippines, in those distant seas, removed from any but the most remote influence of the home government, beset on all sides by hostile forces, and dependent on themselves alone, conditions there present an especially favorable field wherein to note the ultimate possibilities of the authority of the audiencia. It is the design of this treatise to examine conditions in the Philippines under the aspects noted, and to assign them their place in the history of Spanish colonization. The investigation of what was, beyond doubt, the most important and many-sided institution in the Spanish administration of the Philippines provides a means of approach to that larger field of study.

A survey of the Spanish colonial system or a study of the government of any one colony will reveal the fact that political life and power there were vested chiefly in three institutions. Upon these the peace, prosperity and security of each colony largely depended. These institutions were the audiencia, the office of viceroy, or captain-general, and the church. By means of the two former the royal interests in the colony were represented, and through the latter one of the chief aims of Spain’s colonial system was effected, namely, the conversion of infidels and the subsequent care of their souls. The church added to its own power in various ways. No study of Spanish colonial institutions would be complete which failed to consider the church as a political power. It is to a consideration of these three chief factors of colonial government, and their interrelation, that this study will be dedicated. After a review of the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Audiencia of Manila, we shall devote ourselves to a detailed study of the audiencia itself. We shall first notice the audiencia’s judicial functions as a court of ordinary justice and secondarily as a court of residencia. The second part of this section will be concerned with the semi-judicial and administrative functions of the audiencia.

The title of captain-general was primarily of military significance, and it was exercised alike by viceroys and governors; the official designation of the former being “my viceroy and captain-general” and that of the latter being “my governor and captain-general.” Not all governors were captains-general.

The viceroys in the larger divisions and the captains-general in the smaller ones represented the king as head of the church and state in their several districts. Because these officials were so powerful and their duties so multitudinous, they came into contact with every department of the government. The audiencias came into relation with these officials most frequently. It is therefore necessary to study the governor and captain-general first from the viewpoint of his position as chief executive of the colony and as representative of the king. The frequency of their relations and the identity of their spheres of authority suggest that we give attention to the conflicts of jurisdiction of the governor and audiencia; finally, we shall take note of the occasions on which the audiencia assumed the government on the event of a vacancy, noticing the laws authorizing such action and the principles underlying them.

The importance of the church in the Spanish colonial system has already been alluded to. The extent of its power and the frequency and importance of its relations with the audiencia demand considerable attention. After studying the general phases of the relations of the audiencia and the church, we shall see that the tribunal exercised ecclesiastical authority of a very pronounced character. This power it derived from two sources: first, from the authority that was entrusted to it by virtue of the royal patronage; second, from its status as a court of justice with jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs similar to that which it had as an ordinary tribunal of justice. The above is an outline of the plan of this book.

That which impresses the modern student most with regard to Spanish administrative machinery was its failure to effect deliberately the division of powers which, with our traditions, we consider essential to a well-balanced government. The terms “executive” and “judicial” are employed in this book, as they were in Spain’s colonies, to designate functions rather than departments. The viceroy, as president of the audiencia, had cognizance of certain judicial matters, and more or less participation in them, though he was forbidden to act as judge, especially over affairs in which he had already officiated as executive. The audiencia likewise shared many executive functions, yet it was not judge of its own acts, for when judgment was passed on the administrative acts or judicial pronouncements of an oidor, either on appeal or by review of sentence, that magistrate was expected to retire, or to be occupied with some other case. So, while there was no judicial department with solely judicial functions, or a legislative or executive department, as they are known in some modern states, there existed certain interrelations which did not entirely result in confusion, as one might suppose. On the contrary, it may be often noted that as a resultant of this system, men and acts of an exceedingly well-balanced and statesmanlike character were produced. We shall see, moreover, that they were far from meriting the disapprobation that is frequently heaped upon so-called Spanish governmental incapacity.

The defects which appear so conspicuous in Spanish administration were largely due to the extremely methodical turn of the Spanish official mind, the vastness of the empire which was to be governed, and the lack of facilities available for efficient administration. It was a government of expedientes, literally a government on paper. All acts, estimates, budgets, and plans had to be drafted and written out, duplicates and triplicates of each report had to be made, advice had to be taken, and opinions rendered, whether the matter went any further than the theoretical stage or not. We do much the same in our modern age, but inventions and labor-saving devices have fortunately spared us much of the time and effort which a few centuries ago had to be expended to accomplish proportionate results. The apparent unwieldiness of the Spanish colonial empire would have been materially reduced by the use of the telegraph, cable, steamship, typewriter and carbon-paper.

An effort has been made that this should be something more than a theoretical dissertation. A knowledge that certain laws were promulgated is only half of what is necessary in a study of this character. It is imperative to understand how these laws were applied, and whether they were efficiently and effectively carried out. Every phase of the audiencia’s history has, therefore, been illustrated wherever possible with one or more concrete cases, taken from actual practice. Many of these illustrations are comparatively insignificant by themselves, involving persons of no historical importance and concerning matters of a seemingly trivial nature. Nevertheless, it has been necessary to consider these matters carefully because they were typical and true to actual conditions, and because they reveal better than anything else could the affairs which were the concern of the audiencia, showing the part played by the tribunal in the life of the colony.

In the preparation of this work due deference has been paid to the standard authorities usually cited by writers of Spanish-American history. So little attention has been given by students of Spanish colonial history to the audiencia as an institution, however, that the present writer has been obliged to depend almost entirely on the hitherto untouched documentary material in Spain and the Philippines, and to place almost his sole reliance upon it. This material consists of laws, cédulas, royal orders, ordinances, correspondence, and lastly, but most important, records of cases and actual happenings in the form of letters, memorials, reports, complaints and contemporary accounts. These latter convey, as nothing else can, an idea of how the laws were carried out, what was their effect, what part the audiencia played in the interpretation and execution of the law, and the relations of the tribunal to the other authorities and institutions of government. Of this sort of material there is much, and in its light the history of the Spanish colonies and of their institutions yet remains to be written.

CHAPTER I

THE AUDIENCIAS OF THE SPANISH COLONIES

The Spanish system of colonial administration was an adaptation beyond the seas of fundamental administrative, judicial and ecclesiastical institutions and principles which had grown up and had proved serviceable throughout a long period of successful use in Spain. As the audiencias and their allied officials had shown themselves to be efficient as agencies of centralization in the isolated provinces of Spain, so they were utilized, by the organization which they effected, to bring the colonies nearer the mother country. When Spain was confronted with the necessity of governing her vast empire, it was natural that she should profit by her former administrative experience, and make use of those institutions of government which had proved successful at home.

The purpose of the present chapter is to emphasize the fact that, these institutions which had served in Spain, and were still in process of development there, were utilized in all of the colonies. The Philippine audiencia, which will be more particularly studied in subsequent chapters, was not a rare and isolated exception, but rather an integral part of a great administrative system.[1] This will more clearly appear from a sketch of the early development of colonial administration.

In accordance with the terms of the concession made by the Catholic Monarchs at Santa Fé on April 30, 1492, Columbus was given the title of “Admiral, Viceroy, and Governor of the Undiscovered Lands and Seas of the Indies.”[2] He was likewise entrusted with the duty of proposing three candidates for the government of each colony, and from these three names the king was to select one. It was further provided that the alcaldes and alguaciles for the administration of justice should be named by Columbus, and that he should hear appeals from these minor judges in second instance. This is a brief outline of the first government and judiciary provided for the New World. It is improbable that this arrangement was the product of any great amount of study or reflection. It was formulated before the New World had even been discovered, and this scheme, as well as the conditions of commerce and tribute which went with it, were largely proposed by Columbus, and acceded to by the Catholic Monarchs without anticipation of the tremendous consequences which were to come from that voyage of discovery and those which were to follow it.

When Columbus undertook his second and later voyages the Catholic rulers began to modify the conditions of the original compact by sending royal representatives with him to take account of his expeditions. The difficulties which Columbus had in the government of his West Indian colony are too well known to be more than referred to here. Through the influence of Fonseca, and the gradual realization of the tremendous size and importance of the new dominions, the rulers of Spain began to feel that a mistake had been made in granting to this Genoese sailor and to his heirs the complete proprietorship and government of this distant empire. The abrogation of the contract was a natural consequence. It was the repudiation of a colonial system which had been created in the dark, and formulated without a knowledge of the conditions and problems to be met. Such an arrangement was foredoomed to failure, and if the colonies were to be administered successfully, reform was necessary.

In 1507, the towns of Española petitioned the king for the same privileges and forms of government as were possessed by the towns of Spain. The request was granted, and municipal rights were bestowed upon fourteen towns. These concessions included the privilege of electing their own regidores and alcaldes ordinarios[3] and the rights of local legislation and administration of justice. The principle was subsequently enunciated that,

inasmuch as the kingdoms of Castile and of the Indies are under one crown, the laws and the order of government of one should be as similar to and as much in agreement with the other as possible; our royal council, in the laws and establishments which are ordered, must strive to reduce the form and manner of their government to the style and order by which the kingdoms of Castile and León are governed and ruled, to the extent that the diversity and difference of the lands and nations permit.[4]

In 1511, a tribunal of independent royal judges was constituted in the colony of Española to try cases appealed from the town magistrates and the governor.[5] This judicial body may be considered as the predecessor of the royal audiencia which was established fifteen years later. The organization and purpose of the tribunal were exactly similar to those of the courts existing in the frontier provinces of Spain before the establishment of audiencias. The chief reason for its creation was the need of checking the abuses of an absolute governor. This tribunal was composed of three magistrates, who were possessed of the licentiate’s degree, designated as alcaldes mayores, and appointed by the king. They were empowered to hear and determine appeals from the governor and from his tenientes and alcaldes.[6] These magistrates, acting collectively, became at once official organs for the expression of the needs of the colony in non-judicial matters, frequently presenting memorials to the Council of the Indies independently of the governor.[7] The crown had already assumed direction of the administrative and executive affairs of the colony of Puerto Rico, on August 15, 1509, by naming a special governor for that island. On July 25, 1511, Diego Colón, son of the discoverer, was named governor of Española, and of the other islands and of the mainland discovered by his father. This latter act of royal intervention did not confirm, but rather abrogated in practice, the claims of this same Colón to the inheritance of the provinces which had been given formerly to his father. This act maintained the pre-eminence and authority of the Spanish monarchs in these territories.[8] The further growth and development of the West Indian colonies, and especially the increasing Spanish population, called for the establishment of a more efficient tribunal of administration and justice. This need was met in the creation of the first audiencia in America, that of Santo Domingo, which was established September 14, 1526.

The law, which has been cited already, providing that the administration of the Indies should be patterned in all ways after the governments of Castile and León, shows very clearly the natural influence of the early history and institutions of Spain. The audiencias established in the colonies were at first similar in jurisdiction and organization to those of Spain, which country had already succeeded in governing provinces that were, in effect, almost as isolated and as far from actual contact with the court as were the Indies. The audiencia of Spain had proved of immense value as an agency of direct control. It had been found satisfactory under conditions very similar to those in the Indies, which were not regarded as foreign possessions, but as integral parts of Castile, being the property of the monarchs of that kingdom, and under their personal direction.

Before proceeding with a description of the growth of the audiencia system, it is desirable, first, to note the establishment in Spain of two organs for the administration of colonial affairs. These may be examined here conveniently, because their creation antedated the institution of the audiencia in the colonies. The first, chronologically, as well as in importance, was the Casa de Contratación, which was created January 10, 1503.[9] This essentially commercial body was intended at first to supervise the import and export trade of Spain with the colonies, and to arrange for the sale and distribution of imported articles, concessions of cargo to individuals, the lading and discharging of cargo, and the collection of duties. The functions of this body were soon amplified to the extent that it was given jurisdiction over emigration to the colonies. In 1509 it was granted further authority over certain criminal cases relating to trade, and in 1510, letrados were added to the tribunal of the Casa for the better determination of legal affairs.

As established in 1503, the Casa de Contratación consisted of a treasurer, auditor (comptroller), and factor.[10] That the institution flourished and increased in importance may be deduced from the reform of Philip II, on September 25, 1583, whereby the above mentioned officials were retained and a royal audiencia was created within the Casa. This was composed of three jueces letrados and a fiscal, besides the numerous subordinate officials who usually accompanied the judicial tribunal.[11] Though at first it exercised some of the functions which belonged later to the Council of the Indies, it came subsequently to be subordinate to that body.[12] It was transferred to Cádiz in 1717, and was suppressed by the royal decree of June 18, 1790.[13] its remaining attributions being assumed by the Consulado of Seville.[14]

The beginnings of the Council of the Indies may be noted in the creation of a special committee of the Council of Castile for the supervision of administrative affairs in the colonies. This was eight years after the establishment of the Casa de Contratación, when another need than the purely commercial, for which the Casa de Contratación had served, began to be felt.[15] The inadequacy of the system devised by the Catholic Monarchs at Santa Fé had already become evident. The problems of administration in the colonies were making clear the need of a more effective system of regulation. Just as the number of suits to be tried before the old tribunal de la cort del rey had increased to such an extent that the king could no longer attend to them personally, so the problems of administration in the new colonies demanded more attention and regulation than could be provided by the administrative machinery at hand. The functions of this new tribunal, if it may be designated as such at this time, do not seem to have been clearly expressed at first, at least by any law or decree now at hand, but it appears that they were advisory rather than administrative. It soon became evident that a distinction had to be made between the prerogatives of this council and those of the Casa de Contratación. During the early history of these two tribunals there was considerable conflict of jurisdiction between them. It is probable that until the reform of August 4, 1524, was promulgated, active supervision of colonial affairs was maintained by the Council of Castile, both the Casa de Contratación and this new tribunal of the Indies acting under its direction. Charles V gave new life to the tribunal of the Indies on the above date by assigning to it definite legislative and administrative powers, putting at its head Loaysa, the general of the Dominican order and his own confessor. The Council was further modified by Charles V in 1542, and by Philip II in 1571, in the following terms:

It is our royal will that the said council shall have the supreme jurisdiction in all our occidental Indies ... and of the affairs which result from them, ... and for the good government and administration of justice, it may order and make with our advice, the laws, pragmatics, ordinances and provisions, general and particular, ... which ... may be required for the good of the provinces ... and in the matters pertaining to the Indies, that the said our council be obeyed and respected, and that its provisions in all, and by all be fulfilled and obeyed in all particulars.[16]

The Council of the Indies, as established in 1524, consisted of a president, a high chancellor, eight members who were lawyers, a fiscal, two secretaries and a lieutenant chancellor.[17] All these were required to be of noble birth and qualified by experience and ability to carry to a successful issue the high responsibilities which they were called upon to discharge.[18] Besides there was a corps of accountants, auditors, copyists, reporters and clerks. The number of these last-mentioned functionaries was enormous, especially in subsequent years, when correspondence with twelve or thirteen different colonies was maintained.

The Council of the Indies was the high court of appeal to which all cases from the colonial audiencias came for final adjudication. It was, however, not only a court of appeal in judicial matters, but also a directive ministry for the supervision of the administrative acts of the colonial audiencias and executives.

The unqualified success of the Audiencia of Santo Domingo, both as a tribunal of justice and as an administrative organ, led to the general establishment of the institution throughout the Spanish colonial empire. The audiencias which were created in Spain’s colonies from 1526 to 1893 follow in the order of their establishment.[19]

Santo Domingo, created September 14, 1526, consisting of a president, four oidores,[20] and a fiscal.

Mexico,[21] created November 29, 1527, consisting of two chambers or salas, a criminal and a civil, a president, eight oidores, four alcaldes del crimen, and two fiscales for civil and criminal cases respectively.

Panamá, created February 30, 1535, with a president, four oidores and a fiscal.

Lima, created November 20, 1542, with two chambers, a civil and a criminal, a president, eight oidores, four criminal alcaldes, and two fiscales, as in Mexico.

Santiago de Guatemala, created September 13, 1543, with a president, five oidores, and a fiscal.

Guadalajara, created February 15, 1548, with a president, four oidores, and a fiscal.

Santa Fé (New Granada), created July 17, 1549, with a president, four oidores, and a fiscal.

La Plata (Charcas), created September 4, 1559, with a president, five oidores, and a fiscal.

San Francisco de Quito, created November 29, 1563, with a president, four oidores, and a fiscal.

Manila, created May 5, 1583, with a president, four oidores, and a fiscal.

Santiago de Chile, created February 17, 1609, with a president, four oidores, and a fiscal.

Buenos Ayres, created November 2, 1661, with a president, three oidores, and a fiscal; recreated July 2, 1778, when Buenos Ayres was made a viceroyalty.

Caracas, created June 13, 1786, with a regent, three oidores, and a fiscal.

Cuzco, created February 26, 1787, with a regent, three oidores, and a fiscal.

Puerto Rico, created June 19, 1831, to consist of a president, regent, three oidores, and a fiscal.

Havana, created September 26, 1835, reorganized June 16, 1838, to consist of a regent, four oidores, and two fiscales.[22]

Puerto Príncipe, transferred in 1797 from Santo Domingo, reorganized September 26, 1835, to consist of a regent, four oidores, and a fiscal. This audiencia was suppressed and its territory added to that of Havana on October 21, 1853. It was recreated on February 22, 1878, and on May 23, 1879.

Santiago de Cuba, created September 26, 1835, to consist of a regent, four oidores, and a fiscal. This audiencia was later suppressed, and its territory was added to the Audiencia of Havana; it was again reformed and added to Puerto Príncipe on February 22, 1878.

Cebú (Philippines), created February 26, 1886, to consist of a president, four magistrates, a fiscal, and an assistant fiscal.

Vigán (Philippines) created on May 19, 1893, to consist of one chief justice, two associates, a prosecuting attorney, and an assistant prosecutor.

It will be noted that the audiencias of Mexico and Lima contained the greatest number of magistrates. They were divided into two salas, a civil and a criminal, with appropriate judges and fiscales for each.[23] The judges of the criminal branch were designated as alcaldes and not as oidores. These audiencias were at first conterminous in territorial jurisdiction with the respective captaincies-general of those names, but they enjoyed no greater power or pre-eminence before the Council of the Indies than the audiencias of the lesser captaincies-general. In the words of the royal decree of establishment,

there are founded twelve royal audiencias and chanceries ... in order that our vassals may have persons to rule and govern them in peace and justice, and their districts have been divided into governments, corregimientos and alcaldes mayores who will be provided in accordance with our orders and laws and will be subordinate to our royal audiencias and to our Supreme Council of the Indies ... and may no change be made without our express order or that of the Council.[24]

Many changes were made in the territorial jurisdiction of the various audiencias. The audiencias of Lima and Mexico, in addition to their jurisdiction over their respective viceroyalties, exercised governmental authority over the adjacent districts when the viceroys were absent; the Audiencia of Lima over Charcas, Quito and Tierra Firme (Panamá), and that of Mexico over what was later Guadalajara, the Philippines, and Yucatán. All of these, except the latter, came to have audiencias, with the usual powers and authority.[25]

The first seven audiencias were founded by Charles V. Three were created by Philip II. The audiencias of Santiago de Chile and Buenos Ayres were established by Philip III and Philip IV, respectively. The greater number of these audiencias was created at the time of the most rapid extension of the tribunals in Spain; their establishment was part of the same general tendency; they were therefore closely related. When the audiencias of Santo Domingo and Mexico were formed, there had been already in existence in Spain the chanceries of Valladolid, and Granada. Thirteen audiencias were established in Spain after those of Santo Domingo and New Spain were created in the colonies. The two Spanish audiencias mentioned above were designated as models for the tribunals of the Indies, and the principle was laid down that if a necessary provision was omitted from the laws of establishment of the colonial audiencias, “all the presidents and audiencias of those our realms are ordered to preserve the order and practices which are followed in the chanceries of Granada and Valladolid.”[26]

Territorially, the audiencias of Santo Domingo, Mexico, and Lima were the nucleii from which and around which most of the other audiencias were established. Being the first in their respective sections, they included more territory than they could govern with facility; thus it later became necessary to divide up their districts. Santo Domingo held sway at first over Española, Cuba, and Puerto Rico, with authority also over Venezuela and subsequently over Louisiana and Florida.[27] New Granada was conceded an audiencia in 1549, and to this province were added the possessions of Panamá when the audiencia of that name was suppressed. The Audiencia of Mexico, created eight years before New Spain was made a viceroyalty, had territorial jurisdiction at first over a vast empire, which was later divided into smaller governments with audiencias. Its limits, as defined in the laws of the Indies, extended on both oceans from the Cape of Florida to the Cape of Honduras, and included Yucatán, and Tabasco.[28]

The audiencias of Guadalajara, Santiago de Guatemala, and Manila all set definite limits to the jurisdiction of the Audiencia of Mexico. The Audiencia of Lima had authority at first over most of Spanish South America, but its scope was in the same manner diminished from time to time by the establishment of the audiencias of Santa Fé, La Plata (Charcas), Quito, Santiago de Chile, and Buenos Ayres. Before the Audiencia of Cuzco was instituted in 1787, jurisdiction over that ancient city and district was divided between the audiencias of Lima and La Plata; Árica, although it belonged to the district of Lima, was not governed under that jurisdiction, but was administered by a corregidor directly responsible to the audiencia at Charcas.[29] Chile and Panamá were subordinate governmentally to the viceroy of Perú, but the audiencias were independent.[30]

Cuba was early divided into two districts under the rule of captains-general, those of Havana and Santiago de Cuba.[31] By cédula of February 24, 1784, Havana was made independent of the Audiencia of Santo Domingo in administrative matters. Aside from the one at Puerto Príncipe, audiencias were not created in Cuba, however, until 1835 and 1838, respectively. Prior to this, Cuba was subject to the Audiencia of Puerto Príncipe, the successor of Santo Domingo, in judicial matters, as the governments in Cuba were military. However, military cases were carried before the captains-general of Havana and of Santiago de Cuba, respectively.[32]

Although all the audiencias had the same rank before the Council of the Indies, both as political and judicial tribunals, those of Lima and Mexico may be said to have been tribunals of the first class, for reasons which we have noted. Indeed, it must be remembered that it was the individual captaincy-general that had an audiencia, whether the captaincy-general happened to be a viceroyalty or not. Judged by the amount of power they exercised, there were three classes of audiencias: those of the viceroyalties, of the captaincies-general, and of the presidencies. On this basis of classification, it may be said that the first-mentioned were the superior institutions. In matters of military administration, the captains-general had the same power as the viceroys, while the audiencias exercised less intervention in the government than in the presidencies. In the latter, the audiencias (and presidents) exercised governmental functions as well as judicial, with appeal to the viceroy. Though they had no military power, and their scope was strictly limited in financial affairs, these audiencias actually governed their districts. This the audiencias of the viceroyalties never did, except when they governed ad interim.

Before proceeding with a study of the powers and duties of the colonial audiencias, it would be well to compare them, as to extent of jurisdiction and authority, with those which were in operation in Spain. Were they equal? Did the colonial institutions, on account of their isolation, exercise prerogatives which were unknown to the tribunals of the Peninsula, or vice versa? These questions were answered by Juan de Solórzano y Pereyra, a distinguished Spanish jurist, oidor of the Audiencia of Lima in 1610, and subsequently councillor of the Indies.[33] Solórzano y Pereyra illustrates fourteen points of difference wherein the audiencias of the colonies exceeded those of the Peninsula in power and authority, in these matters exercising jurisdiction equal to the Council of Castile. This, he said, was “on account of the great distance intervening between them and the king or his royal Council of the Indies, and the dangers which delay may occasion.” Therefore, he said, the audiencias had been permitted many privileges and powers denied to the audiencias of Spain. The most important of these powers were as follows: jurisdiction over residencias of corregidores; the right to send out special investigators (pesquisidores); supervision over inferior judges—seeing that they properly tried cases under their authority, care for the education and good treatment of the Indians in spiritual and temporal matters, and the punishment of officials who were remiss in that particular; the collection of tithes; the assumption of the rights and obligations of the royal patronage, as well as jurisdiction over cases affecting the same, the building of churches, the installment of curates and holders of benefices, and the inspection and possible retention of bulls and briefs.

The colonial audiencias were instructed to guard the royal prerogative, and were authorized to try all persons accused of usurping the royal jurisdiction. They were to see that officials, lay and ecclesiastical, did not charge excessive fees for their services, limiting especially those exorbitant charges which priests were apt to demand at burials, funerals, marriages and baptisms. The colonial audiencias were given supervision over espolios,[34] collecting, administering and disposing of the properties left by deceased prelates, and paying claims of heirs and creditors. Another duty was the restraining of ecclesiastical judges and dignitaries through the recurso de fuerza.[35] This authority had been permitted to the chanceries of Valladolid and Granada, only.

Although viceroys and governors were granted special jurisdiction over administrative matters, they were authorized to call upon the acuerdos[36] of the audiencias for counsel and advice whenever an exceptionally arduous case presented itself. The audiencias were permitted to entertain appeals against the rulings of viceroys and presidents, but these appeals could be carried again to the Council of the Indies. In the same manner that affairs of government belonged to the private jurisdiction of the executive, so did financial matters, according to Solórzano y Pereyra. In these, however, the viceroy or governor was assisted in the solution of perplexing problems by the acuerdo general de hacienda, a body composed of oidores, oficiales reales[37] and contadores. On the death, disability, or absence of the viceroy or governor and captain-general it was ordered that the government should pass under the charge of the entire audiencia. Lastly, Solórzano y Pereyra pointed out that while the sole duty of the Spanish oidores was to try cases, the magistrates of the colonial audiencias were called upon for a number of miscellaneous functions, such as those of visitador, or inspector of the provinces, or of other departments of the government, as asesor of the Santa Cruzada,[38] as inspector of ships, as auditor de guerra, as asesor of the governor, and as juez de las executorías, under commission of the Council of the Indies to collect and remit to the government receiver all money derived from fines and penalties imposed by official visitors (visitadores), judges of residencia, etcetera.[39]

With the exception of the entertainment of the recurso de fuerza, none of the above-mentioned functions could be exercised by the audiencias of Spain. Although the colonial audiencias were to a large extent patterned after those of Spain, they had greater power and exercised more extensive functions almost from the beginning. This was chiefly owing to the added responsibilities of government resulting from the isolation of the colonies and their distance from the home government. The audiencias in Spain remained almost purely judicial. There was no need or opportunity for them to encroach upon the executive, or to usurp its functions, because of the control exercised by its immediate representatives. In the colonies the audiencias were themselves established as the agents of the royal authority, with the special duty of limiting the abuses of the officials of the crown. In this capacity, aside from their customary duties, the tribunals exercised far-reaching authority of a non-judicial character.

It is desirable to point out in this connection that all the colonial audiencias utilized the same law in common. Cédulas, edicts, and decrees were issued to them from a common source, to be executed under similar circumstances, or on particular occasions when local conditions demanded such action. The great code of 1680, the Recopilación de leyes de los Reinos de las Indias, has already been described as containing laws, both general and particular, for the regulation of the colonial audiencias.[40]

In the foregoing paragraphs attention has been directed briefly to the relations of the audiencias and executives with each other, and with the central government. Some notice at least should be given to the means by which the will of the executive and judiciary was enforced and executed upon and in the local units, the provinces and towns. We have already seen that the offices of the corregidores, alcaldes mayores and the alcaldes ordinarios developed in Spain, the first with jurisdiction over the larger districts, the alcaldes mayores over the smaller areas and large towns, and the alcaldes ordinarios in the municipalities. In a general sense, this system was carried into the colonies; the corregidores and alcaldes mayores were in charge of the large provinces and districts, the alcaldes ordinarios were the judges of the Spanish towns.

Much the same intercourse and relations existed between these officials in the colonies as had been characteristic of the similar ones of Spain. But there were some differences: while in Spain the alcaldes were in most cases city judges, subject to the corregidores,[41] in the colonies there was little or no difference between alcaldes mayores and corregidores. They were most frequently appointed by the executive, sometimes independently, sometimes by the assistance and advice of the audiencia, as judges and governors of the provinces, although the laws of the Indies provided for their appointment by the king. The practice developed of designating them locally, and of sending their names to Spain for confirmation. Each alcalde mayor or corregidor resided at the chief town of his province and combined in himself the functions of judge, inspector of encomiendas, administrator of hacienda and police, collector of tribute, vicepatron and captain-general.[42] He was assisted by officials of a minor category, frequently natives, who exercised jurisdiction over their fellows. The law also provided for a teniente letrado to assist the alcalde or corregidor,[43] but in the Philippines there was no such official, except at irregular intervals in the Visayas.

These chiefs of provinces were responsible to the audiencias in matters of justice and to the viceroys or captains-general in administrative affairs. In Indian relations and in questions involving encomiendas they were subject to the executive, who had jurisdiction in first instance, with appeal to the audiencia. The tribunal could grant encomiendas in default of the regularly appointed executive. In financial matters the corregidores and alcaldes mayores were responsible to the executive, but they acted as the agents of the treasury officials (oficiales reales) in the collection of the revenue. In their provinces they supervised the building of ships, the construction of roads and bridges, the repartimientos or polos[44] of Indians, and the planting of tobacco when the tobacco monopoly existed in the Philippines. In these matters they were responsible to the governor, viceroy, or superintendent, and to the various juntas reales and committees, of which at least one oidor was always a member.

Tributes from the Indians, tithes from the encomenderos and other kinds of local taxes were collected by the alcaldes mayores and corregidores. Acting for the vicepatron, these officials represented the subdelegated authority of the king over the monasteries and churches of their provinces. They officiated at the formal bestowal of benefices, they were expected to maintain harmonious relations with the priests and friars in their provinces, and to check, by their personal presence and intervention, if necessary, any tendency on the part of the churchmen to abuse the Indians or to impose upon them.

In like manner they were supposed to prevent the ecclesiastical judges from exceeding their power, and particularly from transgressing the royal jurisdiction, which frequently occurred in the earlier years when that authority had not become clearly defined or firmly established. As the churchmen with whom these officials had to deal derived their authority from the higher prelates and the provincials of the orders and often acted by their direction, their opposition to the local officials of the civil government was frequently so effective that the latter were obliged to appeal to the audiencia. The latter tribunal had the power necessary to deal with these cases, and to restrain the offending churchmen, by bringing pressure to bear upon their prelates and superiors.

The provincial governors also had certain military duties. In the northern provinces of New Spain they had charge of defense, with responsibility to the viceroy.[45] In the Philippines, however, and in certain parts of New Spain, where the captain-general took the place of the viceroy, alcaldes mayores and corregidores acted as lieutenants of the captains-general, exercising authority of a military character.[46] They were required to defend their provinces and districts against invasions, insurrections, Indian outbreaks, and disturbances. They were authorized to impress men for military service. Local conditions in Mexico, Perú, Central America, and the Philippines caused some differentiation in these matters. This description will serve to convey an impression of the nature of the duties of these officials and the way in which they acted as the agents of the captain-general, viceroy, and audiencia.[47]

It has been already pointed out that the alcaldes mayores and corregidores had extensive judicial duties; a mere restatement of that important fact will suffice at this time. In subsequent chapters we shall study in detail numerous illustrations and instances of the judicial functions of the provincial judges. It has been noted also that the alcaldes ordinarios were the judges of the Spanish towns. So they were in the Philippines, but, as there were only four or five Spanish towns in the archipelago, the alcaldes ordinarios do not assume great prominence in this study. These alcaldes were usually chosen by the ayuntamientos (municipal councils), though they were appointed on some occasions by the governors. As the Spanish towns enjoyed special privileges conferred by the king, their judges were not a part of the regular judicial hierarchy, but were dependent on their ayuntamientos or the governor. However, an oidor was usually delegated to inspect the work of the alcalde ordinario.

With this introductory view of the general field of Spanish colonial administration, and this presentation of the characters and elements which are to assume important roles in this discussion because of their frequent relations with the audiencia, we may enter upon a more detailed study of a single institution. It has been emphasized especially that the audiencia in the Philippines was only an integral part of the governmental machinery used in the colonial empire of Spain. It is clear, therefore, that we are not studying an isolated tribunal, for every royal cédula promulgated to the Philippine audiencia was in some way related to those issued to ten or eleven other audiencias of equal status or similar character. Although the Philippines were apart physically, this institution, with its relation to the provincial and colonial governments on one hand, and the home government on the other, brought the colony as close as possible to Spain, and to the other colonies.

It is certain that the growth of audiencias was a part, not only of colonial, but of Spanish historical and institutional development. These institutions served the same purpose in the colonies that they accomplished in Spain; they were utilized for the administration of justice, and to check the excesses and abuses of officials. They were important because they facilitated a greater degree of centralization. They converged the provincial, colonial, intercolonial and home governments in the same manner as the audiencias in Spain brought about unity in provincial and national judicial administration.

[1] Vander Linden, in his L’expansion coloniale de L’Espagne (p. 360), states that the Philippine audiencia exercised fewer governmental functions than did the audiencias of New Spain and Peru. It is true that the jurisdiction of the Audiencia of Manila was confined to a territory which was politically and economically of less importance to Spain and to the world in general than New Spain and Perú. It is the conviction of the writer that the distance and isolation of the Philippines, their proximity to Japan, China, and the hostile colonies of the Portuguese and the Dutch, the necessities of self-dependence and defense, the corruption of the governors and officials and the problem of dealing independently with the ecclesiastical organization within the colony, forced the Audiencia of Manila to take upon itself powers and responsibilities as extensive, at least, as were assumed by the Audiencia of Mexico.

[2] “Título expedido por los Reyes Católicos, 30 de Abril, 1492,” in Navarrete, Colección de viages, II, 9–11; also see Vander Linden, op. cit., 277–283; 338.

[3] See Altamira, Historia de la civilización española, II, 477–480; Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 247–288; Helps, Spanish conquest, (1856), I, 187–227:

In the Spanish colonies an alcalde was usually an ordinary judge, not always trained in the law to the extent of being a letrado or togado. An alcalde ordinario or an alcalde de ayuntamiento tried cases in first instance. An alcalde mayor or an alcalde de partido might try cases on appeal from these. Generally speaking, alcaldes ordinarios were town judges, in contrast to alcaldes mayores who had provincial jurisdiction as well. Alcaldes ordinarios and regidores were members of the town ayuntamientos or cabildos (municipal councils). Regidores did not exercise judicial functions.

[4] Recopilación de leyes de los reinos de las Indias (hereinafter to be referred to as the Recopilación), lib. 2, tit. 2, ley 13. For an account of the Recopilación, see footnote 40, below.

[5] Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 269; see note 27 of this chapter.

[6] In some of the early Spanish colonies the alcalde was elected by his fellow-townsmen. He exercised the functions of judge and chief executive, subject to the governor, or adelantado, and in the absence of the latter assumed the government of the colony. Alcaldes in new settlements or on expeditions were different in character and exercised functions distinct from those of the alcaldes of the later periods. This earlier type probably existed in Española under Columbus (see Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 175, 330, note 7). That their duties varied in different colonies may be deduced from the statement of Bancroft that “the alcaldes mayores of New Spain under Cortés were merely entrusted with judicial powers ... later those of San Luís Potosí and other places acted also as lieutenants for captains-general, and exercised, in other respects, the duties and ceremonies of governors” (Bancroft, History of Mexico, III, 520). The term, therefore, does not always convey a clear impression of the exact nature of the duties attached to the office.

[7] Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 269.

[8] Altamira, Historia, II, 479.

[9] Bourne, Spain in America. 222; Vander Linden, L’expansion coloniale de l’Espagne, 339; see note in Bancroft, History of Central America, I. 280–283.

[10] Bourne, Spain in America, 222; Moses, The Spanish dependencies in South America. I, 250–1; see Col. Doc. Ined., XXXI, 139–155.

[11] Recopilación, 9–1–2, 5.

[12] Ibid., 2–2–82, auto 36; Desdevises du Dezert, Espagne de l’ancien régime. Les institutions. 100–101; see Veitia Linaje, Norte de la contratación de las Indias Occidentales, passim.

[13] Zamora y Coronado, Biblioteca de legislación ultramarina, 1, 450–451; II, 374 et seq.; also Recopilación, 9–1–1, note 1; Vander Linden, op. cit., 344.

[14] Desdevises du Dezert, op. cit., 100.

[15] Escriche, Diccionario, I, 578; see Desdevises du Dezert, Les institutions, 95–102; Robertson, History of America, IV (Book VIII), 21.

[16] Recopilación, 2–2–2.

[17] By the royal decree of March 24, 1834, the Consejo de Castilla and the Consejo de Indias were amalgamated. In place of these was created the Tribunal Supremo de España é Indias, with judicial functions and a Consejo Real de España é Indias for governmental and administrative affairs. On September 28, 1836, the Consejo Real de España é Indias was suppressed. On July 6, 1845, the Consejo de Estado assumed charge of affairs pertaining to the Indies, with a separate Ministerio de Ultramar. This reform was re-enacted on September 24, 1853 (Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, III, 313–315; Escriche, Diccionario, I, 578–579).

[18] It became the practice in later years to reward successful colonial administrators, including viceroys, governors, and magistrates, with membership in this council. Among those so elevated were Juan Solórzano y Pereyra, magistrate of the Audiencia of Perú, José de Gálvez, visitor of New Spain, Governor Simón de Anda y Salazar, and the able fiscal, Francisco Leandro de Viana, of the Philippines. These men rendered very distinguished service in the colonies.

[19] Recopilación, 2–15–2 to 14; see Danvila y Collado, Reinado de Carlos III, III, 151–157. No attempt is made here to indicate all subsequent changes.

[20] Oidor, a ministro togado who heard and sentenced civil suits in an audiencia (Escriche, Diccionario, II, 661). In this treatise the Spanish term oidor will be retained throughout to designate a magistrate of that particular class. Oidor is sometimes incorrectly translated into “auditor”, which in English means a reviewer of accounts (Spanish, contador). The Spanish term auditor has a special meaning, referring to a particular kind of magistrate, as auditor de guerra, auditor de marina or auditor de rota (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 369–371). Blair and Robertson, in their Philippine Islands (Cleveland, 1908), have used the terms oidor and “auditor” interchangeably, or rather, in almost all cases they have translated oidor as “auditor”, but this usage will not be followed here for the reasons given.

The oidor is also to be distinguished from the alcalde del crimen. The latter existed only in the larger audiencias of Mexico and Perú, or in Manila, Havana or Puerto Rico in the later nineteenth century. Alcaldes del crimen in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were subordinate in rank to oidores, but by virtue of the reforms of 1812, 1836 and 1837, the latter were required to be togados, and the ministers of all the audiencias were placed in the same class. (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 154; I, 363–369; II, 661; Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 297; see also Pérez y López, Teatro de la legislación, XXI, 351–369; IV, 525–528; Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, I, 525–526.)

[21] The original cédulas refer to this audiencia as La Audiencia Real de la Nueva España—see Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, f. 7.

[22] Zamora y Coronado, Biblioteca, I, 452; I, 483–486; Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, VIII, under “Justicia”. See also Danvila y Collado, Reinado de Carlos III, VI, 157–158.

[23] By the royal decree of May 23, 1879, the audiencias at Havana and Manila were each given a civil and criminal sala and a fiscal was provided for each sala as in the audiencias of Mexico and Lima. When it was necessary, oidores could be transferred from one sala to the other.—Colección legislativa de España, CXXII, 1093–1100.

[24] Recopilación, 2–15–1.

[25] See Professor Shepherd’s brief description of the governmental machinery of Spain’s colonies, in his Guide to the materials for the history of the United States in Spanish archives, 10–12; note also the articles recently published by Desdevises du Dezert in the Revue historique (CXXV, 225–264; CXXVI, 14–60, 225–270) under the title of “Vice-rois et capitaines généraux des Indes espagnoles a la fin du XVIII siècle.”

[26] Recopilación, 2–15–17.

[27] Ibid., 2–15–2. Although the Recopilación and Danvila y Collado (cited in note 19) give the date of the establishment of the Audiencia of Santo Domingo as 1526, the royal decree issued at Pamplona, October 22, 1523, is addressed to nros oydores de la audiencia real de la Ysla Española (A. I., 139–1–6, tom. 9, fol. 225). There are various references antedating 1526 in this and the following legajo.

[28] Ibid., 2–15–3. For the exact limits of this audiencia see Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, ff. 12–13; 47–48, and Hackett, “Delimitation of political jurisdictions in Spanish North America to 1535,” in Hispanic American Historical Review, I, 60, note 102.

[29] Ibid., 2–15–13, 14, 15.

[30] Ibid., 5–1–2, 3; 2–15–4, 12.

[31] Ibid., 5–1–16.

[32] Zamora y Coronado, Biblioteca, I, 486–487. The following will give some idea of the size and rank of the respective audiencias of the Spanish colonies in the later eighteenth century. This table was compiled from the Reglamento de 4 de Mayo, 1788 (Pérez y López, Teatro, IV, 522–524).

[33] Solórzano y Pereyra, Política Indiana (Madrid, 1647). This was the first great general work on the political institutions of the Indies, and probably the most valuable and comprehensive of its kind ever published, barring possibly the Recopilación. It comprises history, description, law, discussions of suits and cases, litigation and legal citations. Its ample title-page states that it is “divided into six books, in which, with great distinction and study, are treated and resolved all matters relating to the discovery, description, acquisition and retention of the Indies, and their peculiar government, as well as concerning the persons of the Indians and their services, tributes, tithes and encomiendas, as concerning spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs and doctrine, inquisitors, commissaries of crusade and of the religious. And in regard to temporal affairs, concerning the secular magistrates, viceroys, presidents, audiencias, the Supreme Council and its junta de guerra, including a setting forth of the many royal cédulas which have been despatched for the latter.” Solórzano y Pereyra contributed largely to the codification of the laws of the Indies.

[34] See Chapter X of this book.

[35] Recurso de fuerza, see footnote 3, Chapter XI of this work.

[36] The origin and nature of the acuerdo is explained in Chapter VI, note 78, of this book; see also Chapter III, note 37.

[37] The oficiales reales consisted of the tesorero (treasurer), contador (accountant) and factor (disbursing officer and supply agent). See Recopilación, 8–4–34, 35; 8–2–5, 6.

The laws of March 2, 1618, and of November 17, 1626, ordered that in colonies having audiencias the acuerdos de real hacienda should be attended by the president (governor or viceroy), fiscal, senior oidor, and oficial real, respectively. In case there were no audiencia, the session should then consist of all the oficiales reales and the governor, and then the votes of the treasury officials should be final (Recopilación, 8–3–8, 11, 12). Under certain circumstances the factor was assisted by a veedor and a proveedor. The duties of the latter officials were largely administrative (ibid., 8–4–38 to 39).

Bancroft (History of Mexico, III, 520) states that “the provinces of royal officials [oficiales reales] were merely revenue districts whose heads received their appointment from the king, and administered their office under a certain supervision from the viceroy and governors attending their councils; yet they were responsible only to the tribunal of finance in the viceregal capital, and this again reported direct to Spain.” See also Priestley, José de Gálvez, 76–82.

[38] Bull of the Santa Cruzada, the apostolic bull by which the popes conceded certain indulgences to those who went to the conquest of Jerusalem, and later to the Spaniards who contributed alms to aid in the war against the Africans. It was called cruzada because the soldiers wore crosses as emblems (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 462). Funds for this purpose were raised in the Philippines, paid into the insular treasury and deducted from the subsidy at Acapulco (Recopilación, 1–20–24). As noted above, an oidor acted as asesor of these funds (ibid., 2–16–23).

[39] Solórzano y Pereyra, Política Indiana, II, 271–279.

[40] The first attempt at the codification of the laws for the governing of the colonies was made in New Spain in 1545, when the ordinances for the government of that viceroyalty and audiencia were printed. This collection was given the royal approval in 1548. A similar compilation was made in Perú in 1552 by Viceroy Mendoza. The first intimation of a universal code is to be found in the recommendations of the fiscal of the Council of the Indies, Francisco Hernández de Liebana, in 1552. On September 4, 1560, Luís Velasco, viceroy of New Spain, was ordered to print a compilation of laws for the Audiencia of Mexico. This commission was given to Oidor Puga of that tribunal and executed in 1563. In 1569 Viceroy Francisco Toledo was ordered to make a similar compilation for Perú, but the work was not completed at that time. The first volume actually printed by authority of the Council was accomplished in 1593. This was the beginning of the code of the Indies, but the volume which was published pertained only to the regimen of the Council of the Indies itself, and made no regulations for the colonies. A more extensive collection of provisions, letters, orders and cédulas was published on the authority of the Council by Diego de Encinas, a clerk of that tribunal, in 1596. In 1603, the Ordenanzas reales para la Casa de Contratación de Sevilla y para otras cosas de las Indias were printed in the same city. Another ordinance was published for the regulation of the contaduría mayor.

Various compilations were made by the oidores from time to time, either for their own use, or in compliance with the royal commands. Among the latter, perhaps the most famous and certainly the most useful was that of Juan de Solórzano y Pereyra, oidor of the Audiencia of Perú and later a member of the Council of the Indies. This collection was made at Lima in compliance with the commission of Philip IV, issued in 1610. The work, consisting of six volumes, received the stamp of royal approval on July 3, 1627. In 1623 León Pinelo published a Discurso sobre la importancia, forma, y disposición de la recopilación de leyes de Indias. On April 19 of that year Pinelo was ordered to make an examination of all the existing laws and cédulas relative to the government of the colonies, printed or in manuscript, with a view to codification. A magistrate named Aguilar y Acuña was ordered to collaborate with him. The result of these proceedings was a Sumario de la Recopilación General, which continued under process of compilation for a half century. It was finally perfected and published in 1677. In 1668 Pinelo’s work was issued as the Autos acordados y decretos de gobierno del Real y Supremo Consejo de las Indias.

Although the collection was practically ready by 1677, it was not officially accepted until May 18, 1680. On that day it was promulgated by Charles II, king of Spain. On November 1, 1681, the work was ordered published by the India House, and the Recopilación de los Reynos de Indias was issued at Madrid in four volumes. Subsequent editions were printed in 1754, 1774, 1791 and 1841. The last-mentioned contains in its index reforms down to 1820. A Recopilación Sumaria was published in Mexico in two volumes in 1787. The compilations of Zamora y Coronado, Rodríguez San Pedro and Pérez y López, cited repeatedly in this work, contain later laws, and serve in the place of the Recopilación for the more recent periods.

Authorities: Solórzano y Pereyra, Política Indiana, I, Introduction; G. B. Griffin, “A brief bibliographical sketch of the Recopilación de Indias” in Historical Society of Southern California, Publications, 1887; Fabié, Ensayo histórico de la legislación española; Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, (1563); Garcia Icazbalceta, Bibliografía Mexicana del siglo XVI, (1886), 25–26; Bancroft, History of Mexico, III, 550–551; History of Central America, I, 225–288; Antequera, Historia de la legislación española, 480–483.

[41] Altamira, Historia, IV, 165–166.

[42] Recopilación, 5–2–2, 3, 7, 15, 19, 28. In this case a local military functionary.

[43] Ibid., 37, 39, 41; Moses, Establishment of Spanish Rule in America, 83–84; Vander Linden, L’expansion coloniale de l’Espagne, 345–361.

[44] Repartimientos or polos; referring to the forced labor of natives on public works, such as ship and road-building. The provincial officials exercised supervision over this obligatory service, and were held responsible for the proper execution of the laws appertaining thereto (Blair and Robertson, The Philippine Islands [hereinafter cited as Blair and Robertson], XIX, 71–76).

[45] Cartas y expedientes de gobernadores de Durango, (1591–1700), Archivo de Indias, Sevilla, [hereinafter cited as A. I.,] 66–6–17, 18 (these numbers refer to archive place); Cartas y Expedientes del Virrey de Mégico que tratan de asuntos de Guadalajara (1698–1760), A. I., 67–2–10 to 13. These two series contain hundreds of letters on this subject, as do other series, relating to Nuevo León, Nueva Galicia, Nueva Vizcaya, and New Mexico.

[46] This was true of San Luís Potosí and Guadalajara in New Spain. See Bancroft, History of Mexico, III, 520; History of Central America, I, 297; Moses, Establishment of Spanish rule in America, 83.

[47] Bancroft (History of Central America, I, 297) defines the corregidor as a magistrate with civil and criminal jurisdiction in the first instance, and gubernatorial inspection in the political and economic government of all the towns of the district assigned to him. There were corregidores letrados (learned in the law), corregidores políticos (political and administrative), de capa y espada (military) and políticos y militares (administrative and military). When the corregidor was not a lawyer by profession, unless he had an asesor of his own, the alcalde mayor, if possessed of legal knowledge, became his advisor, which greatly increased the importance of the last-mentioned official. The alcalde mayor was appointed by the king. It was required that he should be a lawyer by profession, twenty-six years of age, and of good character. Practically, in cases of this kind, when the governor was not a letrado, civil, criminal, and some phases of military authority devolved on the alcalde mayor; the first two ex-officio, and the latter as the legal advisor of the military chief. In new colonies this officer was invested with powers almost equal to those of the governor.—See Recopilación, 5–2.

CHAPTER II

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AUDIENCIA OF MANILA (1583–1598).

The conditions which determined the establishment of an audiencia in the Philippines differed little, if at all, from those in Spain’s other colonies. All of Spain’s dependencies were situated at great distances from the mother country; the Philippines were farther away than any. Furthermore, the Philippines were isolated and could not be successfully maintained, if dependent on, or identified with any other colony; distance and other factors which we shall note made undesirable and impracticable a continuance of established relations with New Spain. If, however, the governor of the Philippines came to be almost absolute in his authority, his absolutism differed in degree rather than in kind from that of the governors and viceroys of other colonies. The contiguity of China and Japan, the constant danger of military invasion and naval attack by outside enemies and the dependence of the colony on the commerce of China also made the case of the Philippines somewhat different from that of the colonies in America. In general, the situation in the Philippines called for a distinct audiencia with the same powers and functions as were exercised by the audiencias of the other colonies.

A system for the administration of justice in the Philippines had been definitely established and organized before the audiencia was inaugurated in 1584. Many prominent features of the judicial and administrative systems of Spain and America had been already introduced into the Islands. At the head of both judicial and administrative affairs was the governor and captain-general, who was practically absolute, and whose authority was final except in certain matters of litigation which could be appealed to the Audiencia of Mexico. Subordinate to him were the alcaldes mayores and corregidores, whose functions have been already noted. In the Philippines, as elsewhere, the latter officials acted as magistrates and governors of provinces, combining judicial and administrative attributes. Directly subordinate to them were the encomenderos, whose holdings, including lands and Indians, may be said to have constituted the unit of the Spanish colonial land system until the close of the eighteenth century.[1] As in Spain, so in the Spanish towns of the Philippines, there were alcaldes ordinarios, or municipal judges, elected by the citizens in some cases, or appointed by the governor in others.[2]

But the system as established was defective in many respects. The governor and captain-general was chief judge, executive, and commander of the military forces. In him were centralized all the functions of justice and government, exercised in the provinces through the alcaldes mayores and corregidores. The latter officials he appointed ad interim, supervised their administrative duties, and heard judicial cases appealed from them. He likewise exercised supervision over the oficiales reales, who were entrusted with the collection, care and expenditure of the funds of the colony.[3] During the period before the establishment of the audiencia, the governor exercised complete control over all branches and departments of the government,—provincial, municipal, and insular—in matters of justice, administration, and finance. The centralization of all this authority in the person of one official made his position responsible and powerful, but capable of much abuse. And it was the abuses incidental to the exercise of absolute power by the governor that led to the establishment of the Audiencia of Manila.

Probably the most important indirect reason for the establishment of an audiencia in the Philippines may be noted in the abuses connected with the administration of the encomiendas. These may be attributed both to the powerlessness and inefficiency of the governors, and to their cupidity and deliberate favoritism to the encomenderos. As a result of the rapid spread of these encomiendas,[4] settlements, or agricultural estates, for such they were, and their location in distant and widely separated parts of the Archipelago, the encomenderos came to have increased responsibilities and powers. They were far removed from the central authority at Manila. They were infrequently inspected by the alcaldes mayores and corregidores in whose districts they were situated. Indeed, the encomiendas had spread so rapidly in the Philippines that the governmental machinery provided by Spain was unable to provide for them. In 1591, for example, there were 267 encomiendas containing 667,612 souls. These were supervised by twelve alcaldes mayores.[5] One hundred and forty priests were provided to minister to this large congregation of natives. The Philippine government, with an autocratic military governor at its head, had been originally designed for one settlement or province, and not for an extensive military possession, distributed over a widely separated area, with insufficient means of communication and transportation. Under the conditions outlined above, the encomenderos were permitted to forget the benign purposes for which they had been originally entrusted with the care and protection of the natives. The Indians on the encomiendas were reduced to the condition of slaves. They were mistreated, overtaxed, overworked, cheated, neglected, flogged, and abused.[6] Their protectors had become their exploiters. The churchmen who were supposed to act as their guardians and spiritual aids were insufficient in number to render effective service. Many of the latter served the interests of the encomenderos, and the latter were decidedly unfavorable to the introduction of more priests. The local officials of government and justice were in most cases too far away to care for and protect the natives, or even to visit the more remote encomiendas in their districts. Moreover, many of them were themselves encomenderos, perpetrating abuses on their own tenants, and accordingly little inclined to sacrifice their own interests for the protection of the natives on other encomiendas. Finally, the governor, located at the distant capital, was possibly ignorant of the real state of affairs; at any rate, he failed to enforce the laws which commanded humane treatment of the natives, leaving to the encomenderos, the alcaldes mayores, and corregidores the administration of the provinces and the supervision of the encomiendas.[7]

Efforts had been made for the correction of these abuses and to bring about a more effective control of the encomiendas by the governor. Early in the history of the Islands the king had empowered governors and viceroys to grant encomiendas for life, with thirty years’ remission of tribute, to those who had participated in the conquest. Legaspi and Lavezares, the first two governors of the Philippines, had given encomiendas without limit to favorites, relatives, and friends; consequently, when Sande became governor, he was obliged to direct much of his attention to the eradication of the resultant evils, and he attempted to establish the encomiendas on a profitable and honest basis. He dispossessed many of the holders of these large tracts, and reserved them for the crown, as royal encomiendas, thus creating a revenue for the newly established and financially embarrassed government.[8] Sande made royal many of the hitherto unprofitable encomiendas which had been in private hands.[9] On account of these acts Sande became very unpopular in Manila, and so unpleasant were his relations with the residents that, having no protection or recourse, he was obliged to give up his command, practically driven from the Islands by his enemies.

The only person in the Philippines who exercised any sort of check on the governor was the bishop, with whom he was ordered to consult frequently. These consultations were often productive of bitter quarrels. The first prelate of the Philippines, Bishop Salazar, arrived in 1581, and throughout his ecclesiastical administration exercised influence of a far-reaching character. It was he who first showed the need of a royal audiencia to check the encroachments of the governor on the prerogatives of the church, for the protection of the natives, and for the safeguarding of the royal interests. Bishop Salazar was a determined opponent of Governor Sande, whom he accused of excessive indulgence in trade and the extortion of large sums from the encomenderos. On June 20, 1582, he wrote to the Council: “if I were as rich as Governor Sande, I would engage to pay any sum of money.” He also testified that “the government here is a place for the enrichment of governors; they carry away as much as 400,000 ducats, knowing that they will have to pay a share of it at the residencia, but they steal enough to do that also.”[10]

The government of the Philippines, prior to the establishment of the Audiencia of Manila, during the period 1565–1584, was subordinate to the viceroy and to the audiencia in Mexico. The time required for the transmission of documents and correspondence, the fewness of ships available for the voyage between the Philippines and New Spain, and the unsatisfactory means of communication resulting therefrom, seriously inconvenienced the residents of the colony. In matters of government and justice appeals had to be taken to Mexico. This proceeding involved great loss of time and expense, and was especially inimical to the administration of justice. The assignment and regulation of encomiendas, the supervision of financial affairs, the control of the Chinese trade, the dispatch of the galleons to New Spain, and the assignment of cargo-space on these ships, were all matters which, at that great distance, and at that time, called for divided control. The execution of all these duties was too great a charge for the human frailties of one man; the governor could do it neither honestly nor well. The necessity was apparent of having a central government in Manila which would be self-sufficient in itself; that is, independent of New Spain, and at the same time capable of repairing its own defects.

The relations which existed between the Manila government and the authorities of New Spain are illustrated by a letter which Governor Gonzalo Ronquillo de Peñalosa wrote a month later than the correspondence above alluded to. In this letter he announced the arrival of a ship from Mexico, which, he said, bore nothing but charges against him. These complaints, he alleged, had been formulated by agents of Dr. Francisco de Sande, his predecessor, whose residencia he had conducted and whom he had deprived of his office as governor. Ronquillo wrote that

nevertheless, Sande has been received in that royal audiencia of Mexico as oidor, as a result of which all those who love justice may well despair. They meddle with my government from Mexico, giving orders to my corregidores without consulting me, and addressing private individuals in regard to the supplies, directing them to keep watch over this or that matter; they impose grave penalties upon me, and no matter how small the affair may be, they refuse to listen to me or to hear my side of the question.[11]

He concluded by pointing out the inconsistency of his position, subject as he was to Sande, the man whom he had displaced because of the former’s unfitness to occupy the post of governor. Although Governor Ronquillo de Peñalosa did not ask for an audiencia on this occasion, he did petition for an educated assistant to aid him in the administration of justice. “The trouble here,” he wrote to the king, in the letter above quoted, “is that the people are of such a nature that, at the same time when justice is done to one, an enemy is made of another person.” The rule of Ronquillo de Peñalosa as governor was distinctly typical of the possibilities of an absolute executive, far removed from the restraining influence of the courts, with scarcely any limitation upon his operations. Appointed as he had been for life, with proprietary attributes, and with the power of naming his successor, Ronquillo de Peñalosa was the first governor sent out from Spain in pursuance of the policy of entrusting frontier commands to military men who were fitted by profession and experience to deal with situations which demanded the qualities of the soldier, rather than those of the administrator and politician. An attempt thus seems to have been made to remedy the ills which had been characteristic of the administration of Lavezares and Sande by entrusting the governor with more centralized power—an attempt to correct the evils of absolutism with the mailed fist and more absolutism, backed by military power.

The bishop, who at this time kept the court well informed of the weaknesses of the government, as they appeared to him, sent many complaints against Ronquillo de Peñalosa, as other churchmen had done against former governors. Not only did the bishop himself write repeatedly, but he influenced the municipal and ecclesiastical chapters of Manila to send protests against the governor’s misrule. It was largely owing to Salazar’s influence that Captain Gabriel de Rivera (or Ribera) was sent to Spain with a petition signed by most of the influential men of the colony, asking for various reforms. Among these the establishment of a royal audiencia was especially requested.[12]

On the occasion of Ronquillo’s death in 1583, the bishop called attention to the straits into which the colony had fallen as a result of the tyrannical methods of the deceased governor.[13] He described Ronquillo’s efforts to prevent residents from appealing to the audiencia and viceroy of New Spain. He stated that the Indians had been unjustly treated by the encomenderos and alcaldes mayores, for when appeals had been made to the governor, the latter, on a plea of being too busy to occupy himself with such minute details, had ordered the alcaldes mayores to settle the questions at issue without disturbing him. Ronquillo was said to have engaged extensively in commerce, monopolizing the ships to the exclusion of the merchants, and forcing large loans from the officials and residents, who did not dare to refuse him, lest all their privileges be taken from them. He had established private encomiendas in nearly every town in Luzon, appropriating the income therefrom, instead of turning the proceeds into the royal treasury.[14] This the prelate conceded to be in accordance with the conditions of the governor’s appointment, but it was nevertheless unjust, as the privilege of holding encomiendas was denied to other officials, and the treasury of the colony was in need of the revenue which had been daily enriching the governor. The bishop accused the governor of seizing Indians, placing them en encomienda wherever and whenever he found them, irrespective of whether they were already free, or whether they belonged on other encomiendas. These acts, he said, had caused the Indians to be dissatisfied and rebellious, and he evidently was of the opinion that a revolt was impending when he penned this memorial. “Many times I have prayed,” he wrote, “that God should close the natives’ eyes in order that they may not see the weakness and the little power with which we might resist them in case they should arise to put down these evils.” The bishop closed this memorial with a vigorous protest against the continuance of the hereditary principle in the succession of governors in the Philippines. He made the general recommendation that in the future governors should be appointed by the king, with a view to securing men of administrative and executive ability. He brought forth strenuous objections to the accession of the ex-governor’s nephew. Diego Ronquillo de Peñalosa, who was not fitted to occupy the post of governor. If the latter assumed the government, the bishop could see nothing in store for the colony but a continuation of the evil days which had been extant throughout the administration of the elder Ronquillo, “who had spent all his time in gathering wealth for himself by means of trade, shutting his eyes and ears to those who asked justice of him.” Salazar expressed the opinion that “had Gonzalo Ronquillo de Peñalosa spent as much of his time in making conquests and discoveries as he had in making packages [of merchandise], the prosperity of the Islands and the general welfare would have been his chief aim.”[15]

Although the decree establishing an audiencia in the Philippines was promulgated before the above memorial reached court, there is no question but that the influence of Bishop Salazar did much towards bringing about the creation of a tribunal in the Islands. Indeed, Salazar has been given all the credit for this by more than one authority.[16] While the bishop did exert an important influence in bringing about this change, the support which he received from residents of the colony was also of immense advantage. Many individuals, aggrieved by the abuses of the executive, wrote vigorous complaints against “the tyranny of an absolute governor, who alone and unchecked, reserves to himself excessive power.” Their letters emphasize the injustice of having appeals carried to Mexico, “where the people of Manila never get their deserts, and where they suffer on account of the distance.” Various encomenderos had been wronged by the acts of the governor in dividing their encomiendas, and reducing the number of Indians thereon; they had appealed to Mexico, and after waiting over two years, had despaired of ever getting any return for the money and the time which they had spent in litigation at the distant capital. As a possible means of relief they requested the establishment of a royal audiencia at Manila.[17]

Another person who exerted considerable influence toward the establishment of an audiencia in the Philippines was Captain Gabriel de Rivera, who went to Madrid for that purpose. He was the first procurador general de las islas del poniente, and it was his duty to represent at court the needs of the colony, and of its inhabitants.[18] Rivera acted as the personal agent of Salazar in his advocacy of the establishment of an audiencia, and it was largely due to his efforts that the institution was established when it was. In his memorial of February 16, 1582, Rivera criticized the existing administration in the Philippines, the proprietary governorship, and the control over commerce which the governor had exercised. The latter had levied the almojarifazgo and other customs duties in defiance of the royal cédulas forbidding them, and without consulting the wishes of the merchants or officials. Rivera alleged that the almojarifazgo and the alcabala were ruining the commerce of the Islands.[19] His memorial treated extensively of the abuses which had occurred in the administration of the encomiendas, and he pointed out numerous defects in the judicial system of the colonies.

He suggested the establishment of a royal audiencia to consist of three judges, having criminal and civil jurisdiction, without appeal to any other tribunal than the Council of the Indies. The audiencia as outlined by him was to have administrative powers as well as judicial; it was to govern as a commission, with a governor at its head, chosen for a term of six years.[20] This scheme, he said, if put into operation, would result in no increased expense to the crown or colony. He proposed the abolition of the three oficiales reales, suggesting the substitution of three oidores in their places, thus extending the jurisdiction of the audiencia to matters of finance. The new tribunal should likewise take cognizance of the assignment of encomiendas, and see that in all cases the royal will was obeyed. The audiencia should exercise supervision over the alcaldes mayores in their relation to the encomiendas, with a view to remedying the existing abuses and seeing that justice was done to the Indians. The audiencia should hear cases appealed from the alcaldes mayores and corregidores instead of allowing these suits to be heard by the governor or sent to Mexico. Rivera also urged that there should be a special defender of the Indians as a part of the audiencia.[21]

Enough has been noted of the evils of the government as it existed before the establishment of the audiencia to understand the reasons for the creation of the tribunal. The whole matter summarizes itself in the excesses of the governor, and the necessity of protecting all classes of society from his absolutism. These abuses called for the establishment of a tribunal nearer than New Spain, which would, in a safe and expeditious manner, impose the necessary limitations upon the governor, insure an equitable collection and an economical expenditure of the public revenue, and bring about particularly the elimination of official corruption. It was desirable to protect the merchant in his legitimate business, to insure stability in the relations of church and state, and to obviate the existing evils in the administration of the provincial governments. The latter meant the assignment of encomiendas in accordance with the law to deserving individuals instead of to friends and relatives of the governors, or to other prominent officials of the colony. It also meant that the natives on these encomiendas should be protected from the rapacity of the encomenderos. It was realized that an effort should be made to insure the imparting of religious instruction to the natives in partial return for tribute paid by them. Finally, it meant the establishment of a tribunal which would have power to enforce the law prescribing that the alcaldes mayores and corregidores should exercise faithful supervision over these matters which were within their jurisdiction. A tribunal was needed, not merely to hear such appeals as might come to it by process of law, but with authority to intervene actively in affairs of government, checking the abuses of the governor and protecting the community from his absolutism.

The proposition to establish an independent audiencia in Manila was opposed by the viceroy and audiencia of New Spain. The latter tribunal wrote a letter of protest to the Council of the Indies, demanding that in matters of government and justice the colony of the Philippines should continue to bear the same relations to the viceroyalty of New Spain as did Guadalajara.[22] Rivera answered these objections in a special memorial, stating that the isolation of the Philippines alone justified the establishment of an audiencia and an independent government. He also pointed out that the nearness of Japan and China and the necessity of dealing with them required the presence of a sovereign tribunal in Manila. He asserted that the colony could deal directly with the Council of the Indies more profitably than through the Audiencia of Mexico. The latter mode of procedure was indirect and cumbersome and it exposed litigants to the meddling of the oidores of Mexico in matters which they did not understand.[23]

Finally, the Audiencia of Manila was established by decree of Philip II on May 5, 1583, in the following terms:

Whereas in the interests of good government and the administration of our justice, we have accorded the establishment in the city of Manila in the Island of Luzon of one of our royal audiencias and chanceries, in which there shall be a president, three oidores, a fiscal, and the necessary officials; and whereas we have granted that this audiencia should have the same authority and preeminence as each one of our royal audiencias which sit in the town of Valladolid and the city of Granada of these our realms, and the other audiencias of our Indies: now therefore we order to be made and sent to the said Island our royal seal, with which are to be stamped our decisions which are made and issued by the said president and oidores in the said audiencia.[24]

The jurisdiction of the tribunal, it is to be noted, extended throughout the Island of Luzon and the rest of the islands of the Archipelago, as well as over “the mainland of China, whether discovered or yet to be discovered.”

The decree which provided for the foundation of the Audiencia of Manila consisted of three hundred and thirteen sections. Although the audiencia was subsequently abolished for a few years, it was re-established in 1598 and these articles were again utilized. It is therefore worth while to notice the most important provisions of the law of establishment, which was to serve as a foundation for the audiencia during a period of approximately three hundred years. The first thirty-eight sections were devoted to the creation of the tribunal, to a definition of its jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases, and to a determination of the proper method of procedure in them. The audiencia was to have authority to try cases of appeal from gobernadores, alcaldes mayores, and other magistrates of the provinces; it also had jurisdiction over civil cases appealed from the alcaldes ordinarios of the city and original jurisdiction over all criminal cases arising within five leagues of the city of Manila. Appeals were to be tried by revista (review) before the tribunal. Cases of first instance (vista) were not to be tried in the tribunal, excepting those to which the government was a party, or the above-mentioned criminal cases. The judgment of the audiencia was usually to be final in ordinary suits, and always in criminal cases. Those involving the government, and civil suits exceeding a certain value were appealable to the Council of the Indies. Notice of appeal to the latter tribunal had to be served within one year after the objectionable decision was rendered, and the party appealing the case was obliged to post financial bonds covering the expenses of suit in case the final judgment were not favorable to him. The decision of the audiencia was to be executed in all cases, even though an appeal to the Council of the Indies had been made. The procedure followed in the chanceries of Valladolid and Granada was to be enforced in the Audiencia of Manila except when the contrary was especially ordered. Investigations might be made by one judge, but the concurrence of two was necessary for all decisions involving the reversal of a former judgment, or in cases wherein a certain amount was at stake. In the latter case, an assistant judge might be chosen from outside the audiencia to assist the regular magistrate.

The audiencia was forbidden to act alone in the selection of judges of residencias or pesquisidores; it was commanded not to interfere with governors of provinces, but it had the right, when, charges had been made by private individuals, to conduct investigations of governors’ official conduct. The audiencia was empowered to investigate the judges of provinces. Magistrates were forbidden to hear cases affecting themselves or their relatives, and when a case involving more than one thousand pesos was before the tribunal, and no oidor was eligible to try it, an alcalde ordinario might serve in the place of a regular magistrate, with appeal to the Council of the Indies. Criminal charges against the oidores were to be tried by the president, with the assistance, if need be, of such alcaldes ordinarios as the latter might select. No relative of the president or of an oidor could be appointed legally to a corregidor-ship or to an encomienda. Oidores were eligible for appointment by the president from time to time to inspect the administration of justice and government in the provinces.

Oidores were forbidden to receive fees from or to act as advocates for any private person, and they could not hold income-yielding estates in arable land or cattle. Oidores were forbidden to engage in business, either singly or in partnership, nor could they avail themselves of the compulsory services of Indians under pain of deprivation of office. Any person could bring suit against an oidor. As noted above, such cases would either be tried by the president or by an alcalde ordinario on the president’s designation. Such cases might be appealed to the Council of the Indies.

The audiencia, according to the terms of its establishment, had extensive authority over matters of government. In case of the death or incapacity of the president, the audiencia was to assume control of affairs, the senior oidor filling the post of president and captain-general, with special charge over military matters. Under such circumstances the administrative and executive functions were to be administered by the audiencia as a body. The governor, who was also president of the audiencia, was ordered to make a complete report annually to the Council of the Indies on the state of the government and the finances of the colony, including an account of the gross income and expenditures, a survey of conditions of the encomiendas and corregimientos, as well as a report on the conduct of officials, including oidores. In fact, all matters that came regularly under the care of the executive were to be covered in the annual report of the governor and captain-general of the Islands.

The president was empowered to delegate the oidores, in turn, to make tours of inspection in the provinces. The magistrates, as visitors, were to inquire into the character of service rendered by the alcaldes mayores in the administration of government and justice. They were to note the state of the towns and their needs, the means taken for the construction and preservation of public buildings, and the condition of the Indians on the encomiendas. They were to see whether they were faithfully and efficiently instructed in religion, or whether they were permitted to live in ignorance and idolatry. Reports were to be made by the visitors on the state of the soil, the condition of the crops and harvests, extent of mineral wealth and timber in the provinces under investigation, weights and measures, and in fact, everything that had to do with the general welfare. On these trips the oidores were authorized to take such action as they felt to be necessary. Two oidores were also required to make weekly inspections of the prisons of the colony.

The decree of establishment also directed that certain phases of ecclesiastical affairs should claim the attention of the audiencia. The chief duty of the tribunal in that regard was to keep the ecclesiastical judges from exceeding their authority, and the practices of the audiencias of Spain were especially prescribed as a precedent for the local tribunal. The audiencia was charged with supervision over the assignment of benefices, and especially with the settlement of the property and estates of bishops and archbishops who died in the Islands. The audiencia was ordered to permit nothing to be done which would be in prejudice of the rights and prerogatives of the church. The tribunal was instructed to assist the prelates on all occasions when they petitioned for royal aid. It was also to see that properly accredited bulls were read and applied in the Spanish towns, but not in the native villages.

As noted above, suits involving the royal treasury and the collection of money for the government were to be reviewed and decided before any other that might come up in the royal audiencia. It was the duty of the fiscal to prosecute these cases in the interest of the government. At the beginning of each year the president and two magistrates were to audit the reports of the oficiales reales, and if these reports were not duly and properly rendered, the salaries of these officials were to be withheld. After auditing the accounts the committee was to count the money in the royal treasury. The oidores who did this extra work were to receive an allowance of twenty-five thousand maravedís (about 56 pesos) in addition to their regular salaries. The authorization of the audiencia was necessary for the payment of extraordinary expenses not appearing in the regular budget and these disbursements were made subject to the later approval of the Council of the Indies. The audiencia was held responsible in these matters by the Council. Full reports of expenditures made on the responsibility of the audiencia were to be made to the Council, and the oidores were held accountable in their residencias for their votes cast in the junta or acuerdo de hacienda, as the committee was called.

The audiencia was given supervision over the administration of the estates of deceased persons; it was to examine the accounts of executors and see that the wills of the deceased were faithfully executed and that all was done in accordance with the law. For this purpose an oidor was delegated each year with authority to dispose of these cases in the name of the audiencia. In a subsequent chapter the duties and activities of this administrador or juez de bienes de difuntos will be enlarged upon.

Considerable space in this decree was devoted to prescribing the rules for the trial of cases involving Indians, with a view to securing justice both in their administration by the encomenderos and in the supervision which the alcaldes mayores exercised over the encomenderos. The provision was made that “our said president and oidores shall always take great care to be informed of the crimes and abuses which are committed against the Indians under our royal crown, or against those granted in encomiendas to other persons by the governors.” The audiencia was directed to exercise care that “the said Indians shall be better treated and instructed in our Holy Catholic Faith, as our free vassals.”

The audiencia was required to exercise care that suits involving Indians were neither lengthy nor involved, that decisions were reached promptly and without unnecessary litigation, and that the rites, customs, and practices to which the Indians had always been accustomed should be continued in so far as was practicable. The audiencia and the bishop were to see that there was a person appointed in each village to give instruction in religion. Alcaldes mayores were ordered not to dispossess native chiefs of their rule or authority; they were, on the contrary, to appeal cases involving them without delay to the audiencia, or to the visiting oidor. The audiencia was to devote two days a week to hearing suits to which Indians were parties. Encomenderos were to be protected by the audiencia in the possession of their encomiendas.

A proportionate amount of attention in this cédula is devoted to outlining the duties of the fiscal, who, from many points of view, was the most important official directly connected with the tribunal. It was his function to appear as prosecutor for the government in all cases tried before the audiencia, and he was forbidden to serve as the advocate of any private person during his term of office. He should devote his attention especially to matters involving the exchequer. He was to prosecute all cases of appeal from the alcaldes mayores and corregidores on behalf of the government, and “he was to take care to assist and favor poor Indians in the suits that they have, and to see that they are not oppressed, maltreated, or wronged.” The fiscal, ordinarily, was not to prosecute unless it were on the complaint of some person, but in cases of notorious injustice, or when judicial inquiry was being made, he could take the initiative on his own account. It was his duty to perform any and all legal acts which were consistent with his position, and which were designed to bring about justice or to secure the royal interests.

The remaining sections of this decree, and, in fact, the greater part of it, are devoted to establishing the duties of the fiscal and the minor officials of the audiencia, to fixing a tariff of fees to be charged for notarial and other legal work and to the determination of other matters which are of no great consequence to the purposes of this chapter.

Among the minor officials attached to the audiencia were the alguacil mayor and his two deputies. These were to act as the executive officers of the court and were empowered to make arrests, serve papers and execute similar functions. Their duties, as a whole, were much like those of the English or American constable or sheriff. They might arrest, on their own initiative, persons whom they caught in crime, as, for example, those playing forbidden games of chance, or indulging in immoral practices, typical particularly of the Chinese. The alguacil was responsible for the maintenance of the prison of the audiencia; for this purpose he could appoint a certain number of jail-wardens.

There were also clerks of court and notaries, chosen by royal appointment. Their duties were those customarily required of such officials, not differing from those of today. The audiencia likewise had official reporters, similar to the court reporters of the present day. Advocates and attorneys practicing before the audiencia had to fulfill certain prescribed requirements in regard to learning, training, and general ability. Receivers, bailiffs, jail-wardens and interpreters each received their due amount of space and attention in this cédula. The interpreters were to assist the Indians who were defending themselves in a Spanish-speaking court. Among their duties was the translation of the testimony of witnesses, of the questions of attorneys and the rulings of the courts into the native dialects, or into the Spanish language, as the circumstances might require. These interpreters were also required to assist the natives in the formulation of legal documents. All these minor officials were to be regulated in the collection of fees by a legal tariff. Finally, the audiencia was provided with an archive within which were to be deposited and kept the great seal of the government, and all official papers, including records of cases and official acts.

The new audiencia having been provided for, Santiago de Vera, the recently appointed governor and captain-general of the Islands and president of the new tribunal, arrived at Manila on May 28, 1584. In accordance with the new law, it was his duty to govern the Philippines in the capacity of executive and military commander, and at the same time preside over the audiencia in its respective judicial, advisory, and administrative capacities. The first session of the audiencia was held on June 15, 1584.[25] The new tribunal was officially brought into being with much pomp and ceremony, including a procession of the president and magistrates in their robes of office, and the celebration of divine service in the cathedral by the bishop. The president and each of the oidores subsequently made lengthy reports to the Council of the Indies on the inauguration of the tribunal.

The most direct and striking consequence of the establishment of the audiencia in Manila was the discord which it engendered between the various officials and functionaries of the government. Whereas, before the inauguration of the tribunal, the chief ill of the colony had been the unrivaled absolutism and the high-handed proceedings of the governor, now, with the division of power newly effected, the creation of new departments, and the checking of one official against another, strife and contention took the place of despotism.

There were but few misunderstandings between the oidores over their judicial duties. The functions of the audiencia, as a court, were clearly defined and distinctly understood. Although appeals were made from the audiencia to the Council of the Indies, as appeals are always made from a minor court to a superior tribunal, there was little dissatisfaction with the body in the exercise of its purely legal functions. Its value in protecting the natives on the encomiendas from the tyranny of their masters, the facility rendered to the administration of justice by making appeal to New Spain unnecessary, and the advantage of having immediately at hand a tribunal with plenary powers were readily recognized.

The chief objection to the tribunal developed as a result of the audiencia’s interference in matters of government and administration. Disputes arose between the governor and the oidores, and among the oidores themselves. The lack of experience in the local field of the president and magistrates may have been one of the causes of the unsatisfactory conditions immediately following the establishment of the audiencia. Another and possibly a more important reason lay in the nature and wording of the articles of establishment. A certain amount of confusion existed in the minds of all as to the extent of power which the audiencia should have in governmental and ecclesiastical affairs. No definite distinction had been drawn between the powers of the president and those of the oidores in matters of government, and the former at once accused the latter of infringing upon the jurisdiction of the executive. The oidores, on the other hand, claimed that their advice should be taken in all matters of appointment, defense, patronage—both ecclesiastical and secular—finance, commerce and interior administration. They began to intervene actively in those matters, to the displeasure of the governor and treasury officials. All the oidores as well as the fiscal, wrote lengthy memorials and reports to the king, offering advice on this affair or that, and criticising the governor, the bishop, and the oficiales reales for acts done within their own spheres of authority. In sending these reports and in making these suggestions, the magistrates did not question their own authority and they resented exceedingly the objections and charges of interference by those concerned.

An illustration may be noted in the letter written on July 3, 1584, by Oidor Melchoir Dávalos to the king. After several clear intimations that he would like to be governor in case a vacancy should arise and after modestly setting forth his own qualifications and virtues, Dávalos wrote a faithful and vivid account of the expeditions which had been made recently against the Mohammedan Sulus. He petitioned for a suspension of the law forbidding slavery in order that Spaniards might avail themselves of captive Moros as slaves.[26] He made several recommendations in regard to the Chinese, stating particularly that he was devoting himself to a study of the kind of government best fitted for the Chinese in Manila. He complained that the Chinese merchants were draining the Islands of silver, bringing as many as thirty-four shiploads of Chinese cargo a year. Since nothing of commercial value was produced in the Philippines, they could take away nothing else than silver. This incessant drain on the coin imported from Acapulco was resulting in the impoverishment of the colony and constituted a source of danger to New Spain as well. The exportation of money was contrary to royal orders and distinctly prejudicial to the economic interests of the realm. Dávalos recommended immediate action in the matter. He then discussed military affairs, alleging that the pay of the soldiers was insufficient, and their condition miserable. The first and third of the matters touched upon by the oidor in his memorial, namely, the war in Mindanao and the condition of the soldiers, belonged to the private jurisdiction of the governor and captain-general,[27] the control of the Chinese coming later under the jurisdiction of the governor, as captain-general, with special inhibition of the interference of the audiencia.[28]

This letter furnishes a good illustration of the interference of an oidor in matters of government. The desire to interfere does not seem to have been confined to one individual, but was apparently characteristic of all the magistrates of the audiencia.[29]

The extensive field over which the oidores claimed cognizance is shown by a series of memorials which were sent by the audiencia as a body to the court under the date of June 26, 1586.[30] They are noted here because they illustrate the diversity of the interests of the oidores, and because their devotion to these various matters was characterized as unjustified meddling by the governor and the other opponents of the audiencia. The concern which the oidores manifested in the miscellaneous affairs of government constituted, no doubt, an indirect reason for the temporary removal of the tribunal in 1589.

These memorials suggested reform in many departments of government. The inadequate state of defense and the demoralized condition into which the garrison had fallen was the subject of one letter. Attention was called to the necessity of obtaining more funds for the fortifications of the Islands. Reference was made to the continual danger of Japanese invasion. Another letter dealt with financial affairs. The public exchequer was reported to be in bad condition, as there was not enough money in the treasury to pay the expenses of government. The oidores recommended that their own salaries should be paid out of the treasury of Mexico. They suggested an increase of tribute as a means of securing more money. This, they alleged, could be done in justice, since the amount of tribute paid by the natives of the Philippines did not equal that levied upon the Indians of New Spain.[31] The oidores reported an increase of 5000 pesos in the revenues of the colony as profits from the sale of certain offices which had formerly been bestowed gratis by the governor upon his friends, the righting of this wrong being effected through the influence of the fiscal and oidores who officiated as members of the junta de hacienda.

While ostensibly seeking means for the enlargement of the income of the Islands, as noted, the oidores protested against a recent royal order which had required that the proceeds returned from vacant encomiendas should be placed in the public treasury. They objected that this would take away all hope of reward from soldiers and subjects “who have served your Majesty, reducing them to poverty, with no means of support after a long career of service.”[32] In other words, the audiencia is here seen registering its objections to the conversion of private into royal encomiendas, notwithstanding the fact that this would mean greater revenue for the government. The inconsistency of this attitude was pointed out by Magistrate Dávalos in his letter of June 20, 1585.[33]

Another petition which may reflect some discredit upon the audiencia was one which asked for the abolition of the one and one-half per cent tax on imported money, and for the elimination of the three per cent almojarifazgo. Both of these taxes bore heavily on the Chinese and on the Spanish merchants of Manila. “These two taxes,” wrote the oidores, “are drawing the life-blood from the Chinese, who would otherwise bring products of great value to our shores.” The oidores had commenced this memorial by showing the financial needs of the colony. They had requested assistance from the treasury of Mexico, yet, in the same communication, they proposed to abolish three of the most profitable sources of colonial revenue that existed. These recommendations not only illustrate the wide sphere of influence of the magistrates, but they also seem to confirm the allegations which were often brought against them, charges, indeed, which they proffered against one another—that each was more interested in trade than in the welfare of the government. Notwithstanding the fact that the economic life of the colony depended on the Chinese trade, the evidence seems to indicate that, even this early in the history of the tribunal, its magistrates had personal interests to serve. In the letter referred to above, Dávalos, who seems to have been a dissenting party to all these proceedings, charged his contemporaries with being guilty of undue mercantile activity.

In this same memorial the oidores warned the Council against the Portuguese influence in China, deploring the existence of Macao as a rival to Manila as a trade emporium in the Orient. The audiencia warned the court against the influence and operations of Pedro Unamanú, the successor to Captain Gali, who had gone to China and Macao, supposedly to take on a cargo of Chinese silks. This was in defiance of the law which forbade Spaniards to trade in China, and it was also contrary to the instructions of the viceroy and audiencia of New Spain. In this connection the oidores stated that they had recommended to Governor Santiago de Vera that Unamanú should be arrested and punished for diverting his voyage in the interests of private trade. In accordance with the advice of the tribunal the governor had sent orders to Macao, summoning the leader of this expedition back to Manila; these instructions, however, the governor of Macao was unable to fulfill.[34]

This memorial shows that the oidores considered it to be their duty to inform the court fully as to the part which the audiencia played in this affair. The matter at hand constituted a question of disobedience of the law, and the Audiencia of Manila had done what it could to enforce it. The tribunal had assumed a role quite as important as that of the governor. The episode shows also that the audiencia was consulted by the governor in this matter, which was purely governmental. It would not be unfair to suggest that a potential factor in stimulating the oidores and merchants of Manila to prevent the voyage of Pedro Unamanú or the Portuguese to China for trading purposes must have been the desire to safeguard the Spanish interests in the Chinese trade, and particularly those of Manila, which were the sole reliance of the colony. It was essential that this commerce should be prevented from falling into the hands of other individuals or nations.

This memorial also dealt with ecclesiastical affairs. In it was set forth the audiencia’s arguments in certain contentions which the tribunal had had with the bishop, illustrating the fact that the audiencia was opposed not only by the governor but also by the ecclesiastical authorities. It appears that the king had formerly granted to the church courts a large share of temporal jurisdiction in the Islands. This former concession now stood in the way of the royal prerogative and caused endless conflicts between the civil and ecclesiastical judges. The audiencia took the ground that by virtue of its own establishment the authority of the church courts over civil matters was at an end. This the prelate declined to admit. Attention was also directed by the audiencia to the opposition which Bishop Salazar had manifested toward the claims advanced by the civil government for extending its jurisdiction over all the non-Christian tribes, the bishop alleging that Pope Alexander VI had ceded authority only over such Indians as had been christianized.[35]

In truth, the bishop had found after two years of conflict that the presence of the audiencia had not entirely solved the problems of administration, but, on the contrary, had increased the complexity of many of them. He had differed seriously with the oidores on several occasions. The ministers had opposed him not only in the larger questions of government and ecclesiastical administration, but in matters of ceremony as well. This was more than the prelate could endure. He appealed some of these disputes to the governor and that official, after having neglected these matters for a long period, finally referred them to the audiencia, which promptly made the settlements in its own favor.[36]

Salazar’s influence went far toward bringing about the removal of the tribunal, as it had helped in causing its establishment in 1584. The complaints of the bishop against the audiencia brought forth a royal reprimand for carrying on continual disputes with the audiencia. The prelate defended himself against these charges in a memorial dated June 24, 1590.[37] He stated that these petty matters of form and ceremony were of no great consequence. He accused the governor of seeking to stir up discord between him and the audiencia. As a matter of fact, he said, the relations between him and the audiencia were far more harmonious than they had been between the tribunal and the governor, and on many occasions he had been called in to settle disputes between the functionaries of the civil government. “It is well known,” he wrote, “within the city and outside of it, that had I not entered as mediator between the president and oidores there would have been no peace. It would not have been possible for me to mediate if there had not been friendly relations between them and me.”[38]

The unpopularity of the audiencia from 1584 to 1586 is proved by the fact that practically all the authorities in Manila—mercantile, ecclesiastical, political, and even the magistrates themselves—united in recommending its recall. On June 26, 1586, a series of petitions was directed to the Council from various personages and organizations of the city asking that the audiencia be removed. These included the municipal cabildo, the bishop, the governor, certain military officials, and, lastly, several oidores (all, in fact, excepting Dávalos). These greatly regretted the mistake which had been made in the establishment of the audiencia, conceded that it had been a failure, and represented that the financial burden which its presence had imposed had been too great for the colony to bear.[39] It is certain that the continual conflicts which had resulted from the presence of the audiencia had not produced a salutary effect on the government.

The audiencia itself wrote to the Council at the same time: “There has been in this tribunal, between the oidores and the president, continual misunderstandings as to jurisdiction, which we have decided to submit to your Majesty to ascertain whether precedence in these matters belongs to the president or to the oidores.” The Manila cabildo recommended the re-establishment of the governorship with centralized authority: the power to grant titles, offices and encomiendas, with exclusive authority over the latter. This would include the power of appointing encomenderos in the name of the king. The recommendation was made by the cabildo that consultative authority in matters of government should be conferred on the ecclesiastical and military officials. It was also suggested that a defender of the Indians should be appointed other than the fiscal, for the latter, by nature of his office, was their prosecutor rather than their defender. It was the current opinion, this memorial went on to state, that the local prelate should be restored to his former place as defender of the Indians, and that he should have authority to dispossess encomenderos, if necessity for such action arose.

It has already been stated that Oidor Dávalos was the only official of importance who would not join in these representations. He believed that the audiencia was necessary to the prosperity of the colony, and that, if properly controlled, it would prove beneficial. He believed, moreover, that the governor was the chief element of discord in the colony, and that his influence had rendered inefficacious the efforts of the audiencia to keep peace and to enforce the laws. In a letter to the king,[40] just a year before the memorial described above, Dávalos had represented Governor Santiago de Vera as a schemer, aiming to get absolute control of the government. De Vera, he said, had gone so far as to influence the bishop and clergy to recommend, against their better judgment, the abolition of the audiencia. The governor realized that the tribunal was the one obstacle in the way of the fulfillment of his designs and had used every possible means to discredit and humiliate the audiencia and its magistrates. Dávalos asserted that the appeal of cases to Mexico would inflict great inconvenience on the people of Manila. He renewed the argument that Spain should have some sovereign body at that great distance from the mother country. He enlarged on the future possibilities of the conquest and rule of the entire Orient by Spain, pointing out the value of the Philippines as a base of operations. It was, therefore, of the greatest importance that the Islands should be provided with the proper sort of government.

Dávalos was especially bitter in his denunciation of Governor De Vera, who, he said, had even resorted to force in order to intimidate the magistrates and had called a council of military officials on one occasion for consultation in matters of justice and government. The governor was accused of violating the laws which had forbidden officials to hold encomiendas; he had given the best posts in the government to relatives, and had completely set aside the judgments which Dávalos had rendered in his capacity as juez y administrador de bienes de difuntos. The audiencia had been powerless to oppose De Vera, largely, Dávalos inferred, because a majority of the magistrates were under his influence.

However unfavorable were the above comments on the governor, the picture which De Vera drew of himself in a letter to Archbishop Contreras,[41] at that time viceroy of New Spain, is exceedingly interesting by way of contrast. In his own words, the governor had grown “old and worn” in his Majesty’s service. According to him, the audiencia was of no service to the government, and only a drawback, making his own duties as governor doubly heavy, especially “since the Council [of the Indias] so poorly seconds my efforts ... everything concerning the government and war in these islands depends on the president. He must attend to everything punctually; and, in order to comply with his Majesty’s commands, he must pay over and spend from the royal treasury what is necessary for the affairs of government and of war.”

He complained that the audiencia had interfered with his administration of the finances and had suspended the payment of the drafts which he had drawn on the treasury. He had no recourse on account of the delay necessary before an appeal to the Council of the Indies could be answered. He complained that the audiencia had meddled with affairs of government on trivial pretexts, rendering him practically powerless.

During this period the internal troubles of the colony were supplemented by the interference of the viceroy and audiencia in Mexico. The latter had been reluctant to surrender their former authority over the Philippines. There were conflicts of jurisdiction between the viceroy and the governor and between the two audiencias over a number of matters, among which affairs of a commercial nature were preëminent. Both the authorities at Manila and those of Mexico claimed jurisdiction over the galleons which plied between Manila and Acapulco.[42] Numerous protests were made during this early period against what was considered the unauthorized interference of the Mexican authorities. Those in Manila felt that inasmuch as they had an audiencia which was co-equal in power with that of New Spain, they should be independent of the viceroyalty in all the affairs of justice, government, and commerce.

The combined memorials of the residents and officials of Manila, which we have already noted, were presented at court by a new procurator, Fray Alonso Sánchez. The latter, a Jesuit, was a churchman of high standing, and his abilities were recognized both at Madrid and in Rome. Besides carrying commissions from the secular officials, he represented the bishop, but the latter, distrustful of the influence at court of a Jesuit commissioned by the secular government, with which the prelate was constantly at war, determined to send one of his own supporters to Spain to represent his interests. The emissary of Salazar was Fray Francisco Ortega, of the Augustinian order. Ortega followed Sánchez to Spain and rendered valuable service as procurator of his order at Madrid.[43]

In written memorials and in personal interviews with the king and with members of the Council of the Indies, Sánchez summarized all the arguments heretofore given, asking for the abolition of the audiencia. The newness of the country, the sparseness of the population and the poverty of the inhabitants, according to his argument, made such an institution a financial burden. If it were continued, the salaries of the magistrates would have to be paid from Mexico. An audiencia in Manila was not necessary, he urged, since the chief element of the population was military, and hence under martial law and jurisdiction. Even before the establishment of the audiencia it had been necessary to send but few cases to Mexico; indeed, alleged Sánchez, lawsuits seldom arose in the colony, and the presence of the audiencia encouraged rather than prevented litigation among the few merchants who lived in Manila. The discord caused by the presence of the tribunal and the continual lawsuits which it encouraged among the Spaniards had a disquieting effect on the natives, who had no need of such an institution, and who did not even understand its purposes. The audiencia, instead of serving as a protection to the natives, was an instrument of tyranny. The Spaniards, understanding the use of a court which would enforce the contracts made between them and the ignorant Indians, were often supported in the seizure of the latter’s property, which act, in reality, amounted to deprivation and legalized robbery. Sánchez stated that the natives had been terrorized by the audiencia. The magistrates, versed in the legal customs and practices of Spain rather than of the Indians, were unfit to administer justice in the Philippines.

Sánchez also emphasized the international phases of the audiencia’s existence in the Philippines, though with conclusions slightly different from those which we have already noted. He stated that the presence of the audiencia had caused the Portuguese, in China, formerly friendly, to be distrustful of the Spaniards, and this had resulted in a considerable diminution of trade. This change of attitude he attributed to the wording of the cédula by which the tribunal had been created, extending its jurisdiction throughout the “entire archipelago of China.” Sánchez concluded his appeal with the statement that some act was necessary to restore the confidence of the Portuguese, whose influence, exerted upon the Chinese, could spell ruin for Spain’s Far Eastern colony. The cancellation of that claim to China would remove all evidence of Spanish bad faith; it would show to the Portuguese that the Spaniards had no desire to encroach on their rights, and through the restoration of commerce and prosperity the future of the colony would be assured.[44]

Sufficient has been presented to show that the audiencia, as established in 1584, was not a success. The chief objection to the tribunal was not its influence as a court; the real fault seems to have lain in the indefiniteness of the articles of establishment which gave it administrative powers, co-ordinate with the governor and captain-general. Almost every difficulty occurred in the administrative field. The audiencia also failed to preserve harmony between church and state and added to these complexities by itself having dissensions with the bishop. The petty character of the men who constituted this particular government, their personal selfishness, and their eagerness to take advantage, in dishonest ways, of the time and the distance which separated the colony from the royal control, contributed to the failure of the institution at that time. The audiencia was scarcely established, and it certainly did not have time to adjust itself to the new conditions with which it found itself surrounded, before it was removed. It would seem that the authorities in Madrid were somewhat hasty in withdrawing the audiencia, for it had proved its efficacy throughout the entire Spanish empire. The ill success of the Audiencia of Manila at this time does not prove that the institution was a failure, or that its establishment was a mistake, for seven years later it was returned and continued without interruption until 1898, and continues still as then reorganized. The statement of Philip II on November 25, 1595, “that experience had proved it to be unnecessary in a land so new and unsettled”[45] can hardly be justified in view of subsequent events.

The causes of the breakdown of the first audiencia may be found in the circumstances of the time, the personnel of the tribunal, the indefiniteness of the laws which created it, the novelty of the situation to magistrates and officials and their failure to adapt themselves to their duties and to one another. As an institution of reform the audiencia did not have time to adjust itself to a permanent status.

The king, in compliance with the demands of the various organizations and individuals of Manila as communicated by their respective envoys, abolished the Audiencia of Manila by royal cédula on August 9, 1589, ordering the Viceroy of New Spain to take the residencias of all officials who had been identified with the Manila government. To carry out these orders Licentiate Herver del Coral was sent from Mexico to Manila, where he arrived in May, 1590, in company with the new governor, Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas.[46] Santiago de Vera, the ex-governor, was promoted to a magistracy in the Audiencia of Mexico; the oidor, Pedro de Rojas, was made teniente and asesor to the governor, while the former oidor, Rivera, and Fiscal Ayala, were left without office.[47]

The regular organization for the administration of justice in the provinces was left precisely as it had been when the tribunal was in existence. The alcaldes mayores and the corregidores still functioned as judges of first instance and as governors of the provinces. The alcaldes ordinarios remained the judges of first instance in the city of Manila. These judges tried cases with appeal to the governor, and the judgment of the latter was final in cases involving a value of a thousand ducats or less. Cases of a higher category might be appealed from the decision of the governor to the Audiencia of Mexico, and thence, if again appealed, to the Council of the Indies.

The audiencia of three magistrates and a fiscal was replaced by a governor, who was both captain-general and sole judge. He was assisted in the latter capacity, as above noted, by a teniente and asesor, a lawyer, who advised him in legal affairs and prepared his judicial decisions for him. This reform was made on the representation of Fray Sánchez, that Manila had no need of a judicial system more pretentious than that of any Spanish provincial town. That city was accordingly reduced to the rank of a city or district, with dependence in judicial and administrative matters on New Spain, in whose audiencia appeals from the governor of the Philippines were heard.

With these new reforms the leading authorities in Manila professed to be greatly pleased. Bishop Salazar, who was the most influential person in Manila at this time, expressed his satisfaction to the king in a letter dated June 24, 1590.[48] He suggested, however, that the continuance of the audiencia might have been satisfactory could its members have been paid from the treasury of New Spain. He reported the arrival of the new governor, and stated that the latter had already given evidence of a desire to govern wisely and justly.

Salazar’s optimism in regard to the good intentions of the governor could not have been long continued, for Morga tells us that in the first year of the government of Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas the need of an audiencia was felt by many.[49] At that time, all the powers of government were centralized in the governor, and there was no immediate authority to which the people could apply for relief. Salazar had many disputes with the governor over questions relating to the respective spheres of the church and state, and from the decisions of the executive the prelate had no recourse. Dasmariñas, on reporting these matters to the king, stated that the bishop had interfered in the matter of the collection of the tribute, the government of the encomiendas, the Chinese trade (in which, the governor alleged that the prelate had an unpriestly interest), and in the administration of justice.[50] The prelate had interpreted the removal of the audiencia as constituting a re-establishment of the concession formerly made to the church of extensive control in the administration of government and justice. He claimed that ecclesiastical judges should have the same civil jurisdiction as they had exercised before the audiencia was first founded. This, of course, the governor would not tolerate.

Bishop Salazar was so displeased with the turn which affairs had taken in Manila that he determined to leave the Islands, and passage being placed at his disposal by the willing governor, the bishop set out in July, 1592.[51] On his arrival in Spain, Salazar concerned himself principally with religious matters, securing some valuable reforms. Among the latter was the erection of the Philippines into an archbishopric and the creation of three subordinate bishoprics. Salazar showed the desirability of the restoration of the audiencia as a preventive check on the excesses of the governor, but this change was not made as an immediate consequence of his recommendations.

A cédula was issued on January 17, 1593, which outlined with more definiteness a judicial system for the Islands. This reform confirmed the position of the governor as nominal head of the judiciary, with jurisdiction over appeals from the lower courts, but it decreed that these cases should be tried by a letrado. The governor’s final and conclusive jurisdiction was extended to all cases not exceeding a thousand ducats in value. Cases of a greater value might be appealed to the Audiencia of Mexico.[52] The governor was given authority to name a protector of the Indians.[53]

The above changes were followed shortly by the cédula of August 18, 1593, by which the title of teniente de capitán-general y asesor de gobernador y capitán-general de las Islas Filipinas was bestowed on Don Antonio de Morga, who was probably the most efficient jurist and one of the most versatile officials that Spain ever sent to her Asiatic dependency.[54] Morga was at this time not only successor to the audiencia in judicial matters, but also attorney-general and sole legal adviser to the governor. His predecessor, Pedro de Rojas, was transferred to Mexico, in pursuance of the idea, as alleged in the order of transfer, of removing from the Philippines all the members of the old audiencia, so that the new scheme, as revised at that time, might be allowed to work itself out without prejudice. Before his departure, the residencia of Rojas was conducted by Morga.

Even the reforms of 1593 did not suffice to make the administration of justice satisfactory to all parties. From the large amount of correspondence which exists, embodying complaints against the harsh methods of Dasmariñas and his successor, Tello, three letters may be cited which show the attitude of the various officials of the colony towards the re-establishment of the audiencia. The first of these was written by Governor Dasmariñas himself, and it may be in some ways surprising to note that he asked for the restoration of the audiencia. His reasons, in part, however, were different from those advanced by his contemporaries. Dasmariñas was of the opinion that an audiencia would be effective in the nullification of the interdicts and excommunications imposed by the archbishop and the local prelates, which he claimed were working havoc with the civil government.[55]

The treasury officials complained that the absolute government of the executive was contrary to the interests of real hacienda. Their objections to the prevailing system were voiced in the second of the memorials alluded to above, that of Francisco de la Misa, factor of the royal treasury of Manila.[56] Misa said that under the former arrangement the audiencia had audited the accounts of the royal treasury and of the city of Manila each year. In this way the accounts had been well kept and the funds properly accounted for. The removal of the audiencia had left the governor with authority over the nomination of the officials of real hacienda, as well as the supervision of the accounts. Since Dasmariñas had been governor, no accounts had been rendered by the minor officials of the treasury, and, as a consequence, their superiors had been unable to make up their reports for the Contaduría of Mexico. The governor’s attention had been called to this deficiency repeatedly, but the latter had displayed no interest in the state of the colony’s finances, which, said Misa, exceeded all other matters in importance. “This comes,” the factor observed, “from placing in charge of Your Majesty’s finances a soldier, unfitted to do else than command troops, and then unchecked by an audiencia, so far distant from your royal person.” The laxity of the governor and of his subordinates seems to have resulted in the loss of much revenue.

Misa also showed that there had been many irregularities in the sale of offices, deficiencies which the presence of an audiencia would have checked. Instead of selling the minor clerkships of the exchequer, the governor had given them to his friends. Two offices, which were by no means insignificant, those of the chief clerkships of government and of justice, respectively, had been sold formerly for four thousand pesos each. The governor, however, had preferred to have them on his civil patronage list; this would not have been permitted had an audiencia been present to enforce the law.

The governor was charged by Misa with extravagance in the expenditure of the revenue of the colony. The payment of the salaries of new appointees to offices, friends of the governor, had made heavy drains on the treasury. The king, by repeated cédulas, had forbidden the designation of an excessive number of alcaldes and corregidores because of the desirability of economizing the resources of the colony. While the audiencia was in existence its consent had been necessary for the creation of new judicial districts, but since the recall of the tribunal, the governor had trebled the number of provincial officials, and, in addition, had permitted each to have a salaried assistant.

According to Misa, various other evils had resulted from the absolutism of the governor, among which were numerous abuses which he had tolerated in the galleon trade. It was alleged that Spanish merchants in Mexico had sent money to agents in Manila, and in that way had caused the legal amount brought from Acapulco for investment on the annual galleon to be exceeded.[57] This, the factor stated, was due partially to the laxity and corruption of the Acapulco officials, who had permitted the galleon to leave that port with more than the authorized amount of money. The governor of the Philippines, however, could have prevented this abuse had he been so inclined, as the ships’ manifests were always subject to his inspection on arrival at Manila. The money sent by the merchants of Mexico was invested in merchandise in the Islands and these goods were shipped back to Acapulco on the galleon, thus excluding the commerce of the local merchants. The latter were growing poorer daily while the governor and his friends were waxing richer. The governor had also exercised favoritism in the distribution of cargo space, thus rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies.[58] Since the suppression of the audiencia these abuses had increased, as there had been no authority in Manila to hold the governor in check.

This memorial, from Misa, which was carefully considered at court, went far toward demonstrating that the restoration of the audiencia would have beneficial results, so far as the administration of real hacienda was concerned.

The third of the letters referred to as reflecting the attitude of the Manila officials toward the re-establishment of the audiencia and ultimately contributing to its restoration, was directed to the court by Antonio de Morga, the efficient lieutenant-governor. Morga, as did Misa, placed great emphasis on the need in Manila of a more efficient system for the administration of the exchequer. Morga was moderate in his characterization of the governor, alleging that Dasmariñas had been brought completely under the influence of the ecclesiastics. He expressed the belief that an audiencia would aid in combatting what he termed the retrogression of the colony under the influence of the priests. “There should be someone,” he wrote, “to oppose the ecclesiastics in a land so far away from the Audiencia of Mexico; for, no matter what question is sent there for decision, at least two years must elapse before despatches can be returned.”[59] No official was better qualified to explain the needs of the colony in matters of justice than Morga, for he was at that time, in reality, the supreme court of the Islands.

The audiencia, after an interregnum of seven years, was restored by a cédula promulgated by Philip II, November 26, 1595.[60] The tribunal was to consist of a president, who should also be governor and captain-general, four oidores, a fiscal, and various subordinates. The history of the former audiencia and the reasons for its suppression and re-establishment are summarized in the cédula as follows:

I established an audiencia in that city and province in order that everything might be governed by means of it, and that justice might be administered with the same universal equality, mildness, and satisfaction desirable; after its establishment I ordered it suppressed as experience proved it unnecessary in a land so new and unsettled; in its place I sent a governor, and though his administration was excellent, yet, inasmuch as that community had grown, and I hope that it will continue to grow, I have thought it advisable to found and establish the said audiencia again.

In this cédula, which was addressed to Governor Tello, the king pointed to the increased importance of the Philippines, and to the many expeditions by which the Island of Luzón and other islands of the Archipelago had become pacified and more densely settled. The increase of commerce with the Chinese was also cited as a reason for providing the Islands with a more stable government. It was stated that in the administration of justice there should be as much efficiency as possible without the loss and inconvenience involved in appealing cases to Mexico. The governor would have more time for his increasing administrative and military duties if disengaged from his former judicial functions. The cédula continued:

You [the governor] may find it advisable to have by you persons with whom to take counsel, in order that matters may be considered with the requisite conformity and by a sufficiently large body of advisers; for these reasons I have decided to form an audiencia; ... you shall be its president, holding that office with those of my governor and captain-general.[61]

Together with this decree of re-establishment the king issued special instructions to Tello, prescribing in detail the relations which the governor was to observe with the audiencia. These instructions, in general, sought to prevent the recurrence of the misunderstandings which had been so fatal to the earlier tribunal. The governor and oidores were ordered to co-operate in the formulation of commercial regulations, with a view, particularly, to securing the Chinese trade, in the enforcement of the pancada,[62] the consideration of ways and means to prevent money from passing to China, in matters of taxation and finance, encomiendas, and the pacification and government of the wild tribes. By these instructions, it is important to note, the function of advising the governor in administrative matters was definitely bestowed upon the oidores. “Matters of importance,” the cédula prescribed, “the said president-governor shall discuss with the oidores of the said audiencia, so that the latter, after consultation, may give him their opinion.”[63]

The governor and the magistrates were jointly charged to do all possible to discourage Indians and Spaniards from wasting their means in fruitless and petty lawsuits. The natives, according to this new reglamento, should always be protected against the designs of those who would take undue advantage of them. The governor was moreover instructed to confer with the archbishop and audiencia in ecclesiastical affairs, and the prelates were especially forbidden to excommunicate and issue declamations from the pulpit against the officials of the civil government, such as were constantly proclaimed when Salazar was bishop. Priests were not to meddle with the civil government, or with the pancada, or with any form of trade.

The audiencia as reformed, with the powers and duties noted, began its life in Manila on May 8, 1598. The inauguration of the tribunal was attended with general rejoicing, and a celebration characterized by great formality and pomp. The royal seal was conducted through the city in a procession which was composed of all the royal and clerical dignitaries. Church, state, and citizenry united in expressing satisfaction at the restoration of the tribunal, with its consequent prospect of an efficient government and administration of justice.

Reforms were made in the scope and composition of the audiencia at various times during its existence. It developed from a commission of three magistrates, with a president at its head, with definite and ill-expressed powers over a vast archipelago, whose population was sparse and scattered, to a double-chambered tribunal of appeal in second and third instance, with definite jurisdiction over a well-organized commonwealth. It would be highly desirable, did space allow, to review chronologically the important reforms which were made in the organization, scope and jurisdiction of the Audiencia of Manila throughout its history. The most important of these, however, will be noted incidentally in the following pages.

The audiencia, from the time of its renewal onward, typified and represented the royal authority, and its tenure was more continuous than the governorship. Eight times subsequently did the audiencia assume the reins of government in lieu of the governor. It became the most reliable channel through which the royal authority made itself felt in the Islands, and it was especially utilized by the court as a check on the governor.[64] Whenever occasion arose, the audiencia interposed as the intermediary and arbiter between dissenting parties in the name of the sovereign, and its decrees were listened to with respect. It was no longer a temporary organization, and so firmly established was it henceforth that no person seriously considered its recall a possibility. Through a period of three hundred years the audiencia exercised its functions. It was first and always a judicial body. It shared executive and administrative duties with the governor. It frequently exercised attributes of an advanced legislative character. It participated in the government of the provinces. It shared the authority of the royal patronage in the control of ecclesiastical affairs. These various activities will be studied in subsequent chapters.

[1] The first encomiendas in the Philippines were granted by Legaspi in 1572 (Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 42–43). The encomenderos ruled the Indians in their care with little interference from alcaldes mayores, corregidores, or governors. Vander Linden especially emphasizes the fact that the encomenderos were not supposed to act as the private masters of the Indians on their holdings, but were to act as the representatives of the king (Vander Linden, L’expansion coloniale de l’Espagne, 345–346). The laws of the Indies specified that the encomenderos were to protect, aid and educate them, seeing particularly that they were taught the Catholic Faith (Recopilación, 6–8, 9, 10, 11; esp. tit. 9, laws 1–4).

The encomenderos, in the guise of benefactors, guardians and protectors of the Indians, supervised the labor of the latter on the encomiendas, drawing remuneration therefrom, collecting tribute from them, and retaining a share of that. Aside from the very intimate relationship of the encomenderos as the guardians of the Indians in spiritual and temporal things, they were not considered as officials in the same sense as were the alcaldes mayores and corregidores.

Dr. Pardo de Tavera characterizes the duties and relations of the encomenderos to the Indians as follows: “The encomenderos were the first Spaniards after the conquest and pacification of the colony who represented the civil authority of Spain in the Islands: they were obliged to maintain order and secure the well-being of the Indian residents of their encomiendas or holdings, and to defend their tenants against any encroachments on their rights by the Spaniards, soldiers, alcaldes, and judges; and to endeavor to bring their tenants together in towns and furnish them with opportunities to be converted to the Christian religion, and to help them build churches and convents ... encomenderos were charged with the succor and support of the people on their holdings in case of any calamity, famine or public disaster, and they were prohibited from charging tribute in bulk against the various barangayes, that is to say, they should not make the chiefs of a family or tribe responsible for the payment of tribute by the various members, nor were the encomenderos allowed to use force to secure the payment of a tribute. When an encomendero received a tribute from his people, he thereupon was considered to have assumed the duty of acting as their protector” (Pardo de Tavera, Philippines census [1905], I, 330). Suffice it to say that, theoretically, the encomenderos were the fatherly protectors and benefactors of the helpless, childlike natives, and their every act was to be for the good of their wards.

[2] Antequera, Historia de la legislation española, 486–487; Bourne, “Historical introduction,” in Blair and Robertson, I, 56.

[3] Recopilación, 6–8–38 to 39; 8–9–20 to 24. It seems that the oficiales reales merely supervised the collection of tribute, which was really accomplished in the provinces by the alcaldes mayores and corregidores, who acted as their agents. Martinez de Zúñiga, An historical view of the Philippine Islands, I, 2; Ordinances of Good Government, Blair and Robertson, L, 191–264; Recopilación. 6–5–64; Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 380–385.

[4] The Relación of Miguél de Loarca, alcalde mayor of Arévalo, Panay, gives us a good idea of the rapidity with which this institution spread within ten years in the Philippines. It indicates the extent to which the encomienda was utilized as a means of opening up and settling the country. This report is dated June 12, 1582. At that time there were three principal centers of administration in the Islands: Manila, Cebú and Arévalo. About thirty encomiendas were located close to Manila, ten were near to Cebú, and fifteen near to Arévalo under the jurisdiction of Loarca. The latter group consisted of about 20,000 Indians. Encomiendas varied in size from 250 to 1500 natives, but the ideal encomienda was supposed to contain 500 souls. By cédula, of August 9, 1589, royal authority was extended for the increase of the size of encomiendas in the Philippines to 800 or 1000 persons, if necessary, in order to bear the greater expenses of instruction and defense. This was bitterly opposed by the churchmen on account of the additional missionary labors incumbent on the priests assigned to these larger encomiendas (Cédula of August 9, 1589, A. I., 105–2–11). Philip II, on November 30, 1568, had ordered that no encomienda should yield more than 2000 pesos (Recopilación, 6–8–30).

Loarca states that there were also encomiendas in the Camarines provinces in southeast Luzon and in IIocos, in the north of the same island. These encomiendas were under the jurisdiction of the alcaldes mayores and corregidores governing those provinces. (Relation by Loarca, Blair and Robertson, V, 35–187.)

[5] Report of Governor Dasmariñas on the encomiendas of the Philippines, May 31, 1591, in Blair and Robertson, VIII, 96–141.

[6] Blair and Robertson, VII, 269–294, Salazar to the Governor, January 25, 1591; Reply of the Governor [no date], ibid., 294–300; Carta del Obispo de Manila sotre la muerte de Ronquillo y los excesos que este cometió..., A. I., 68–1–32; Memorial de las cosas ... dignas de remediar en la Isla, Zulueta Papers. Place numbers not given. These are examples of the hundreds of complaints, mostly by churchmen, against the abuses of the encomenderos. It would be impossible to cite them all.

The Zulueta Papers are transcripts from the Archive of the Indies of Seville, the National Library of Madrid, and the British Museum. They were copied under the direction of a Filipino scholar, Señor Zulueta. These Papers are now in the Philippines Library at Manila.

[7] On June 4, 1620, the governor of the Philippines was authorized to bestow encomiendas, with the provision that if he neglected to do so for a period of sixty days the vacant holdings should be bestowed by the audiencia. On October 24, 1655, Philip IV ordered that acting viceroys and acting governors should be limited to the faculty of providing encomiendas ad interim, subject to the subsequent ratification of the Council of the Indies (Recopilación, 6–8–8, 1–4, 5, 8, 11, 22).

[8] Blair and Robertson, III, 304–306.

[9] In this connection may be noted the distinction between the two classes of encomiendas which was made for purposes of administration. Private encomiendas were those which had been granted to private persons, conquerors, discoverers, soldiers, or persons who paid a regular rent, usually a third of the gross tribute collected. These were originally granted for life, and might be held for two subsequent generations. Later (after 1655), the usual period of confirmation was ten years, for persons who rented encomiendas as a business proposition. The royal encomiendas were situated near cities or ports and the income from them was reserved for the expenses and necessities of the royal estate, the payment of salaries, and other governmental expenses. Private encomiendas became royal on the death of an incumbent if he had no heirs, or on the expiration of the contract. The tribute from royal encomiendas was collected by the royal treasury. Morga’s Sucesos, Blair and Robertson, XVI, 157; also ibid., VIII, 27; see Bourne, “Historical introduction,” ibid., I, 39–40.

On June 7, 1597, the king, as a suggestion for the increase of funds for the maintenance of the government, wrote to the audiencia that a greater number of royal encomiendas should be established, and that the governor should not be permitted to assign so many to private persons (King to the Audiencia, June 7, 1597, A. I., 105–2–1). On February 16, 1602, the king again addressed the audiencia on the subject of the royal encomiendas, desiring to know why the tribute from them had so materially decreased, it having reached the low mark of 2500 pesos. In answer, the same reason for this falling off was suggested as in the letter above quoted, namely, that the governor had assigned many encomiendas to his friends (King to the Audiencia, February 16, 1602, A. I., 105–2–1). Francisco de la Misa, factor of the royal treasury of Manila, in a letter to the king, dated May 31, 1595, stated that the royal encomiendas, which had been established to provide revenue for the payment of the salaries of alcaldes mayores, tenientes, oficiales reales, and even that of the governor, had diminished greatly in number, so that not enough revenue was derived from them to meet the expenses for which they had been created. Misa concluded with a recommendation that eight royal encomiendas of the value of 8000 pesos a year should be established out of the first private encomiendas that were vacated (Misa to the King, May 31, 1595, A. I. 67–6–29).

[10] Salazar to the Council of the Indies, June 20, 1582, A. I., 68–1–32.

[11] Ronquillo de Peñalosa to the King, July 15, 1582, A. I., 67–6–6.

[12] Morga’s Sucesos, Blair and Robertson, XV, 59–60; Carta del Obispo de Manila sobre la muerte de Ronquillo, y de los excesos que este cometio, ... A. I., 68–1–32.

[13] Ibid.

[14] The cédula of March 1, 1551, had forbidden the bestowal of encomiendas on ministers of justice, treasury officials, viceroys, ecclesiastics, and governors. According to the terms of the appointment of Gonzalo Ronquillo de Peñalosa as proprietary governor, he had been allowed an encomienda in each principal town. See Recopilación, 6–8–12.

[15] Op. cit.

[16] Including the two principal Spanish historians of the Philippines, Martínez de Zúñiga (Estadismo, I, 243) and Montero y Vidal (Historia general, I, 88).

[17] These letters, dated June 18, 1583, are among the Zulueta Papers at Manila.

[18] A procurador, according to Escriche (Diccionario, II, 759), “is one who, by virtue of power or faculty conceded by another, acts in his name.” There were in later times several procurators representing different interests of the Philippines at the Court of Madrid. The associated merchants had one or more, the consulado, each religious order, etc. These procuradores were usually lawyers, not infrequently men who had been in the islands. An interesting parallel might be noted between the procuradores and the American colonial agents of prerevolutionary days. Zúñiga here gives Rivera entire credit for the bringing of the audiencia to Manila—op. cit., I, 175. See note 16, supra.

[19] The alcabala (al que vale, “according to value”) was a percentage tax levied on goods (movable and immovable) sold or exchanged. Merchants were held accountable for the payment of this tax, and for this purpose their accounts were examined by royal officials at regular intervals (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 143). It was first introduced into the Indies by Philip II in 1574, having been levied in Spain as early as 1079, though not in its perfected form. In accordance with the tariff of November 1, 1591, it was exacted from merchants, apothecaries, encomenderos (having farms and cattle-ranches), ragpickers, cloth-makers, silversmiths, goldsmiths, blacksmiths, and shoemakers. An alcabala was paid on wine. By the cédula of June 7, 1576, the rate of alcabala was fixed at two per cent. In Perú it was raised to four per cent during the administration of the Conde de Chinchón as viceroy and was collected at that rate there until the cédula of July 26, 1776, raised it to six per cent. This rate was paid thereafter in the Spanish colonies (Recopilación, 8–13–1 to 14, notes, 2 and 4), except for an increase in the rate to 8 per cent in 1782, to meet the added expenses of war. The old rate of 6 per cent was restored in 1791 (transcripts of these cédulas exist in A. I., 87–1–20).

Exemptions from this tax were made in favor of churches, monasteries, and prelates when they bought or sold goods not for profit. When they engaged in commerce for its own sake they were obliged to pay the alcabala in the same way as laymen (Recopilación, 8–13–17). Goods belonging to the Santa Cruzada, provisions bought, sold or stored which were destined for the poor, and munitions of war paid no alcabala (ibid., 18–23). Indians were also exempted under certain circumstances (ibid., 24; see entire Title 13 of Book 8, Recopilación, for further specifications regarding the payment of this tax). In 1568 Philip II exempted the Philippines for thirty years. As noted above, the alcabala was not introduced regularly into the Indies until 1574, though it was levied in individual cases as early as 1558. Even earlier than this Pizarro had obtained the right to levy it in Perú for a period of a hundred years (ibid., 8–13–1; note 1), but Philip II ordered it paid in the Philippines on August 9, 1589 (ibid., 9–45–66).

The almojarifazgo, like the alcabala, had been utilized early in the history of the Peninsula and because a productive source of revenue, it was introduced into the Indies. The earliest law dealing with this tax in New Spain was promulgated by Charles V on October 18, 1553, exempting cargoes which had already paid the tax in Spain. On June 24, 1566, and on December 28, 1568, Philip II ordered a five per cent export tax on all goods leaving Seville for the Indies (the ordinance of December 28, 1562, having fixed it at two and a half per cent) and an import tax in the Indies on these same goods of ten per cent, making in all a tax of fifteen per cent. Wine was to pay a ten per cent import and export tax respectively, making a total of twenty per cent paid on that commodity (ibid., 8–15–1, 2, 8). The law of April 21, 1574, ordered a two and a half export and a five per cent import tax on goods shipped between colonies (ibid., 10). On August 9, 1589, a three per cent almojarifazgo was authorized in the Philippines, with exemptions on provisions, munitions, and other specified articles brought to the Islands by the Chinese, Japanese, Siamese, and Borneans (ibid., 22, 24). The tax on Chinese merchandise was raised from three to six per cent on November 20, 1606 (ibid., 23). Chinese goods from the Philippines paid a ten per cent almojarifazgo at Acapulco. This tax was also paid on leaving the Philippines or other New Spain ports and on entrance at Acapulco (ibid., 21). For exemptions see Recopilación, 8–15–26 to 30.

[20] Rivera to the King, February 16, 1582, A. I., 1–1–2/24.

[21] A legal defender of the Indians was wanted in this case to serve them in the courts. The bishop, at this time, was protector of the Indians and in that capacity had protested against the abuses of the encomenderos. The bishop, of course, could not enter the courts and defend the Indians in litigation.

The law of March 17, 1593, which ultimately established a defender of the Indians in Manila, filled the need voiced by Rivera. The law referred to read as follows: “The protection and defense of the Indians in the Philippines was entrusted by us to the bishops there, but having recognized that the latter cannot conform to the demands, autos and judicial summons which require their personal presence, we order that our president-governor shall name a protector and defender of the Indians, assigning to him a sufficient salary from the taxes levied pro rata upon the Indians who are under the royal jurisdiction and on private encomiendas, without touching the revenues of our royal hacienda which are for other purposes. And we declare that this does not signify that it is our intention to deprive the bishops of the superintendence and protection of the Indians in general” (Recopilación, 6–6–8).