The present volume, which covers the period 1683-90, is mainly
devoted to an account of the controversy between Archbishop Pardo
and the religious orders on one side, and the secular government on
the other--a conflict of which such events as the disputes between
Salazar and Dasmarinas (1591) and Guerrero and Corcuera (1635-36)
were but preliminary skirmishes. In this case the archbishop gains
the ascendency, being reenforced by one of the governors.
Dampier's account of his sojourn in the islands is here concluded from
the preceding volume. He finds the Mindanaos friendly to the English,
but distrustful of the Dutch and Spaniards. They are ingenious and
clever in metal-work, and with very primitive tools and appliances
make excellent utensils and ship-repairs; another industry of
theirs is shipbuilding. The English ship remains about a week on the
southern shore of Mindanao, to wait for favorable weather, and then
proceeds to the Rio Grande of Mindanao, where it arrives July 18. The
natives there are anxious to secure trade with the English merchants,
and Dampier regrets that his companions did not resolve to give up
freebooting for Spice-Island trade, especially as they were so well
fitted, by experience and training, for establishing a trading-post,
and had an excellent equipment for that purpose. The English officers
maintain friendly intercourse with the natives, which enables them
to see much of Malay life and customs. Some of the English sailors
desert here, some are poisoned by the natives, and most of the crew
become drunken and disaffected. The captain neglects to discipline
them, and finally the crew sail away with their ship and leave him
(January 14, 1687), with thirty-six of his men, at Mindanao. They
halt at Guimaras Island to "scrub" their ship and lay in water; then
(February 10) sail northward past Panay. At Mindoro they encounter
some Indians, from whom they gain information as to the commerce of
Manila, which they intend to attack and pillage. On February 23, the
English begin their piratical acts in the Philippines by capturing a
Spanish bark, near the coast of Luzon. After describing that island,
he relates how some of the English sailors left at Mindanao find
their way to Manila. The men on Dampier's vessel, not finding the
Chinese vessels that they expected to seize, decide to wait on the
coast of Cambodia and Siam until the time when the Acapulco galleon
is expected. Having cruised along the mainland until July 29, they
direct their course to the Batanes Islands, north of Luzon, arriving
there August 6; they trade with the natives, clean the ship, and lay in
provisions, intending to go afterward to harry the Manila commerce. But
a fierce storm arises (September 25), driving them about for a week,
and disheartening the men; and finally (October 3) they sail from
the northern end of Luzon past the eastern coast of that island and
Leyte, until they reach Sarangani, where they halt to repair their
ship. Departing thence November 2, they go to Australia, and Dampier
soon afterward leaves the ship--spending the next four years in the
Malasian Islands, and, after numerous and varied adventures, arriving
in England in September, 1691.
Francisco de Villalva, procurator for the Dominicans at Madrid,
petitions for royal aid in sending forty missionaries of that order
to the Philippines.
Some unknown Jesuit furnishes a "diary of events from June,
1686 to June, 1687." These include the arrivals and departures of
ships from the port of Cavite; the deaths of prominent persons; the
dissensions between the Jesuits and the archbishop, and between the
religious orders; the conflicts between governor and Audiencia, and
their relations with the archbishop; attacks by pirates; and other
news-items, of miscellaneous character. A similar record (whether by
the same hand is uncertain) continues through 1688.
A notable event in the history of the islands was the
controversy (1681-89) between Archbishop Pardo and the secular
authorities. Hundreds of documents and printed books are extant
concerning this dispute, but our limited space will not allow us
to reproduce many of these; it seems most useful for our purpose
to give an outline of the main events during that time, as told by
some of those who took part therein, both secular and religious, and
representing different sides of the controversy. These contemporary
documents are reenforced with abundant citations from the chroniclers
of the religious orders--the Augustinian Diaz, the Jesuit Murillo
Velarde, the Dominican Salazar, and the Recollect Concepcion;
these are found in the annotations accompanying our text. The first
account is that written by Juan Sanchez, secretary of the Audiencia,
dated June 15, 1683; he relates the difficulties which arose between
the secular and the religious authorities during the three years
preceding that date--that controversy having begun in 1680, with
the complaint of the cura of Vigan against the acting head of the
diocese of Nueva Segovia, that the latter does not reside at the seat
of that bishopric, and interferes with the above cura. The Audiencia
undertakes to settle the affair, and the archbishop insists that it
belongs to his jurisdiction. His cathedral chapter are offended at
certain proceedings of his, and jealous of the influence acquired
over him by Fray Raimundo Berart, a friar of the Dominican order
(to which Pardo also belongs). The new bishop of Nueva Segovia
also claims that the Vigan case belongs to his jurisdiction, not
the archbishop's. Several other cases occur in which Pardo acts
in an arbitrary manner, among them his seizure of a shipment of
goods for the Jesuits, and his excommunication of a Jesuit for
declining to render him an accounting in a certain executorship
entrusted to the latter--Ortega alleging that this affair, as purely
secular, pertains to the Audiencia alone. The Audiencia endeavor to
restrain Pardo, but in vain; and the strained relations between them
quickly grow into open hostilities. The situation is complicated
by various antagonistic elements, which may be briefly summarized
thus: The archbishop's arbitrary conduct toward his own clerics and
other persons, and his strenuous insistence on his ecclesiastical
prerogatives; the undue influence over him obtained by his Dominican
brethren; the jealousies between the various religious orders; and,
still more fundamental, the unceasing conflict between ecclesiastical
and secular authority--the latter embodied mainly in the Audiencia,
as the governors often ranged themselves against that tribunal, under
the pressure of ecclesiastical influence. To these may be added the
remoteness of the colony from Spain, and its smallness, which renders
the limits within which these human forces are at work more narrow and
circumscribed, and therefore intensifies their action. After a long
conflict between Pardo and the Audiencia, in which their weapons are
used freely on both sides--decrees, appeals, protests, censures, and
legal technicalities of every sort, civil and canonical--that tribunal
decides (October 1, 1682) to banish the archbishop, a sentence which
is not executed until May 1, 1683. He is then seized by the officials
of the Audiencia, and deported to Lingayen, a village in Cagayan. His
assistant bishop, Barrientos, demands the right to act in Pardo's
place; but his claim is set aside in favor of the cathedral chapter,
or cabildo--which declares the see vacant in consequence of Pardo's
exile. Another Dominican, Francisco de Villalba, is banished to Nueva
Espana for seditious preaching; and others are sent to Cagayan.
The narration of events in Manila is continued in another document,
from July, 1684, to June, 1685; this account is unsigned, but it
suggests the hand of the preceding writer, Sanchez. On August 24 of
the former year occurs the formal entrance into the city of the new
governor, Curuzelaegui. This change of administration gives opportunity
for the return of the banished Dominicans, and an agitation for the
restoration of Pardo to his see, which is quickly accomplished. Soon
he lays an iron hand on all persons who had formerly opposed
him. Excommunications are imposed on ex-governor Vargas, the auditors,
and other persons concerned in the archbishop's banishment; and the
members of the cathedral chapter are suspended, and their official
acts during his absence are annulled. They are not absolved until near
the end of Lent (1685), and this is done in public, and very harshly,
with great humiliation to the penitents. At the urgent remonstrances
and entreaties of Curuzelaegui, Pardo finally consents to absolve the
ex-governor, Vargas; but he loads this concession with conditions so
grievous and humiliating that Vargas is unwilling to accept them.
Another unsigned document relates the "occurrences during the
government of Cruzalaegui," of which a part, relating to the Pardo
controversy only, is placed here with others on that subject; it covers
only the first year, 1684-85. This writer also sympathizes with the
auditors; his account is given mainly as an index of popular feeling
on one side of the controversy. A letter from Auditor Bolivar to his
agent at Madrid (June 15, 1685) presents an interesting view of the
affair from the inside, and of the intrigues which kept Manila in
a ferment during most of Pardo's term of office. Bolivar dares not
write to the Council of the Indias, lest his letters be seized; he
therefore directs his agent to take certain measures in his behalf,
"for one cannot trust in friars." He recounts the proceedings in the
residencia of Vargas, in which there are many false witnesses. He
thinks that the Spaniards of Manila are more fickle than any others,
and regards that colony as "a little edition of hell." He is eager
to get away from the islands, and urges his friend to secure for
him permission to do so, and to make arrangements so that he may
not be needlessly detained in the islands. A letter from the Jesuit
Pimentel (February 8, 1686) relates the scheming by which Pardo's
return from exile was facilitated. Another unsigned paper contains
"news since the year 1688;" the writer claims that his intention is
"only that the truth may be known." This account is mainly occupied
with the fate of the auditors and other officials who had incurred
Pardo's wrath by taking part in his banishment. They are subjected
to imprisonment, privation, and exile; a reign of terror prevails in
Manila; and the governor is in close alliance with the archbishop,
so that there "is no recourse, except to God." The writer mentions
several things in condemnation of the governor's personal character,
and regards him as unscrupulous and tyrannical. Finally, the Dominican
account of this controversy is related by Vicente de Salazar,
one of the official historians of that order, in his biography of
Pardo. In 1677 that prelate enters upon the vacant see of Manila;
he finds many ecclesiastical abuses and social scandals, and much
official corruption. Undertaking to correct these, he incurs the
enmity of many persons, and the ecclesiastical tribunal is filled
with cases. For nearly three years the relations of the archbishop
with the governor and Audiencia remain friendly; but finally (1680)
certain ecclesiastics under censure have recourse to the Audiencia
against the archbishop's authority, and this soon leads to hostilities
between the religious and secular branches of the government. Next the
cathedral chapter become insubordinate to Pardo, their proper head,
and they too appeal to the Audiencia; and a long legal war ensues,
in which the weapons are official acts on both sides. At last (in
1682) the Audiencia decree Pardo's banishment from his see, but
hold this measure in suspense for a time. He irritates the Jesuits,
by proceeding against one of their number who is acting as executor
for an estate, and seizes goods belonging to that order which are
brought by the Acapulco galleon; and soon the archbishop encounters
complaints and clamors from all sides. The decree of banishment is
enforced, and Pardo is arrested (March 31, 1683) and deported to the
village of Lingayen, in the province of Pangasinan. The cabildo assume
the government of the archbishopric, ignoring Pardo's appointment of
Barrientos to that office; and many of Pardo's supporters are banished
or otherwise chastised. A new governor coming to the islands, the
archbishop is reinstated in his see (November 16, 1685) and the case
is afterward decided by the courts of Rome and Madrid in his favor. He
finds much to do in restoring his church to its former condition, and
defending the ecclesiastical rights and privileges--an undertaking
which keeps him engaged in conflicts, but cannot abate his zeal and
constancy. In the outcome he is vindicated, even God taking vengeance
on the enemies of the archbishop, whose saintly qualities are extolled
by Salazar. Pardo dies on December 31, 1689.
A royal official comes to the islands (1688) to bring suit against
the auditors who had banished the archbishop; but he finds that
all of them are dead, except Bolivar, and even he dies while on
his way to Manila. Accounts (ca. 1690) of Valdivia's proceedings
are given by a Dominican and a Jesuit respectively (as appears from
internal evidence). He reconciles the Jesuits and the Dominicans in
Manila; sends Vargas, sentenced in residencia to pay 100,000 pesos,
to Pangasinan; and sides with the archbishop in everything. This
encourages Pardo to continue taking vengeance on his enemies; and
he and Valdivia chastise whomsoever they will, in highly arbitrary
fashion--the visitor aiding Pardo in many cases, and in others
inflicting penalties on citizens of Manila in connection with purely
secular affairs. Vargas is sent into exile, the archbishop refusing
to the last to absolve him, notwithstanding the commands of the
Audiencia. The second letter, written from Nueva Espana (probably
1691), apparently by a Jesuit, relates briefly the proceedings
of Valdivia in the islands. The writer sends a warning to combat
the influences that will be exerted at court to secure the see for
Barrientos; and asserts that Valdivia has appropriated to himself
great wealth (part of which has been seized) obtained from the Manila
proceedings. The governor died in April, 1690.
The Editors May, 1906.