Brief relation of events in the city of Manila, in the Filipinas
Islands
The fiscal of the royal Audiencia of these islands, Licentiate Don
Diego Viga, received two letters and an official report, with many
depositions of witnesses, which were sent to him by the alcalde-mayor
of the province of Ilocos. [49] These letters and documents were to
the effect that by the continued residence of Bachelor Sebastian
Arqueros de Robles, ecclesiastical head of the bishopric of Nueva
Segovia, in the village of Vigan (which is the capital of the said
province of Ilocos)--under the pretext of ministering ad interim to
the natives of the village of Bangues, [50] which had for many years
remained vacant--the natives were becoming uneasy and disturbed. This
was hindering in the exercise of their duties not only the officers of
justice, but also Licentiate Diego de Espinosa Maranon, the proprietary
beneficed cura of the said village of Vigan, with whom the said acting
bishop had notorious disputes. [According to the aforesaid documents],
all the trouble arose from the fact that the said ecclesiastical
ruler maintained his brothers and relatives in the said village, who
with his authority and presence there were causing notable injuries
and annoyances; and a decree was asked from the royal Audiencia,
providing that the said acting bishop should nominate in the usual
form persons for presentation to the benefice of Bangues, and that
he should change his residence to the capital of his diocese, [51]
and should not live at the village of Vigan, except during the period
which is allowed to the ecclesiastical visitors by the holy Council.
This royal decree was accordingly issued, and the said acting bishop
replied that his residence in the village of Vigan was by the order
and command of the archbishop, and that he had no way in which to
fulfil the decree; and he presented the warrant and order which he
held for the said residence, and some informal certificates by a few
religious. This royal Audiencia, considering the disturbances and
troubles which might result from issuing the second royal decree,
ordered that it be temporarily suspended; and that meanwhile the
president, governor, and captain-general should discuss and confer
with the archbishop as to measures for securing peace, and those most
expedient for a good example to the community.
This verbal reply [52] which the said archbishop gave to the said
governor gave occasion for the issue of a royal decree that the said
archbishop should command the ecclesiastical ruler of Nueva Segovia
to go to reside at the capital of his bishopric; but the latter would
not obey, excusing himself with various pretexts. The said archbishop
and his attorney-general [promotor fiscal] repeatedly urged that he
be furnished with certified copies of the acts in virtue of which the
royal decrees had been issued; and in the last petition, presented
by the said attorney-general, he inserted the following clause:
"In order that his Majesty may apply the needed corrective, and
remove the violence and oppression experienced by the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction; for, if one of its ministers attempts to administer
justice to a subordinate, the culprit finds shelter in the royal
Audiencia--not only to free himself from ecclesiastical justice, but
also that they may begin legal proceedings against, and even exile, his
superior and judge, who rightly desires and strives to punish him. And
all the above was made evident by the aforesaid acts; and it has come
to our knowledge through trustworthy persons that, in the petitions
which were presented for the issuance of the said decrees, the respect
due to the archbishop and to his high office was forgotten; and that,
in the investigations which were made for this purpose, inquiries
were directed into the hidden faults of ecclesiastical persons,
and attempt had been made to punish them with the first of the said
decrees, without punishing the chief authors [of those evil acts],
who were laymen. Moreover, decrees had been issued only against the
ecclesiastical judge on account of their own hidden faults, or those
of other persons, intimidating him therewith in order that he should
not administer justice in future; and a satisfactory account ought to
be given to the said archbishop of the reasons which had influenced
this royal Audiencia to issue the decrees. After [the publication of]
the royal and canonical decrees, the archbishop had a right to command
the clerk of the court to give him the said copy; but for the sake of
the quiet and comfort of this community, he had commanded him first
to request the acts from this royal Audiencia, making the proper and
necessary requisitions therefor, and asking that the said secretary
of the Audiencia be ordered and commanded to give him the said copy."
As it was evident that the motives which existed for the despatch of
the first royal decree were still further justified by such writings,
the second was issued, which the said archbishop obeyed no better;
on the contrary he said, in the reply that he made to this second
royal decree, that he entreated the royal Audiencia to give little
hope for aid to the ecclesiastics. [53]
The royal Audiencia, influenced by the report made to it by the
fiscal, and considering the disrespectful and indecorous character
of the attorney-general's communication, and that it was entirely
directed against the reputation and equitable procedure of the supreme
tribunal and its ministers, issued a royal decree that the archbishop
should punish his attorney-general, and should be warned how much
he had derogated from his own dignity by having allowed such lack
of respect. To this the archbishop replied that the attorney-general
did not deserve punishment, because the petition had been presented
by his own order and mandate.
At this time the ecclesiastical cabildo presented themselves in
recourse to the royal Audiencia, with a paper signed by their dean,
[54] the dignitaries, the canons, and the other prebends, imploring
the royal aid against the archbishop on account of the acts of fuerza
and violence which were suffered by the cabildo, its members, and all
the clergy. [55] They declared that the worst of these were due to the
fact that the said archbishop had at his side a religious of the Order
of St. Dominic, named Fray Raymundo Verart; [56] that the archbishop
had retained him, ever since he came from Spain, under the title of
counselor [asesor] and director; that he had gained such influence
that he directed all the actions of the said archbishop; and that
his decisions were so extraordinary that he kept all minds in a state
of notable disquiet--to such a degree that he even refused recourse
from the acts of fuerza, endeavoring to render the jurisdiction of the
archbishop absolute, and to exclude his Majesty (as represented in the
Audiencia) from his highest prerogative, that of aid to his oppressed
ecclesiastical vassals. They represented that the archbishop acted as
an advocate in the very suits in which he was judge; that he lived
outside the city, in a hospital of Sangleys [57] which is in charge
of the religious of St. Dominic, from which resulted injury and delay
in the despatch of business; that he could think of nothing but his
friars, and behaved as one of them--for on the day of election of
provincial he had rendered obedience to the father who was elected,
and in the procession he walked in the fifth rank--regarding himself
as first of all a friar, although he was archbishop-elect; and that
he treated the cabildo and its members ill, showing aversion to them.
With this petition for relief the dean and cabildo presented a
mass of records in proof of their argument, asking that decrees be
issued: one for the archbishop, that he should remove from his side
the said Fray Raymundo; [58] and another for the father provincial
of St. Dominic, that he should send the said religious to the remote
parts of the missions in charge of his order, agreeably to the purpose
and vocation for which he had come to these islands at the cost of
the royal exchequer.
In this matter both first and second decrees were issued for the said
archbishop and the father provincial of St. Dominic, neither of whom
was willing to render obedience, the archbishop returning some very
uncivil answers. [59] Finally, the latter took exception to Doctor
Don Diego Calderon, assigning as the cause of this proceeding his
remarks about the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; he also challenged Don
Diego Antonio de Viga [the fiscal] for the mode of expression which
he had used in his writings. By this expedient the proceedings of
the Audiencia were suspended, for lack of judges--for at that time
it contained only the two gentlemen, Don Francisco de Montemayor and
Don Diego Calderon--until Doctors Don Christoval de Grimaldo and Don
Pedro Sebastian de Bolivar y Mena, the recently-arrived [auditors],
[60] could examine the question of the said challenge. At the petition
of Doctor Don Estevan Lorenzo de la Fuente y Alanis, who also had just
arrived, they declared that there was no cause for it; and without
doubt it would result thus, since the challenge was not sworn to, or
presented, in accordance with the regulations of the royal laws. They
likewise commanded that the said archbishop be requested and charged to
maintain in all things friendly relations with the [royal] ministers,
not only in writing to them but in speech. When he was notified of
this royal decree, he gave a very sharp answer, and concluded by
saying that his own behavior would be governed in accordance with
the actions of the ministers, as he thus tells them in all his replies.
This royal Audiencia, considering his insolent replies and disobedience
to the royal decrees, and the scandals thus caused, and that the whole
arose from the influence of Father Raymundo Verart, determined, for
the more thorough justification and proof of the whole matter; that
an investigation should be made by the auditor Don Pedro de Bolivar,
with regard to the injuries and other pernicious consequences which
were being caused to the public welfare, and which gave occasion to the
complaint of the ecclesiastical cabildo about the assistance rendered
to the archbishop by the said father Fray Raymundo Verart--[all the
more] as his illustrious Lordship had, before the said father came to
these islands, conducted himself in entire harmony and most friendly
intercourse with the royal Audiencia, the ecclesiastical cabildo,
and the other courts. The affair being in this condition, the said
father provincial, Fray Baltasar de Santa Cruz, was summoned before
the royal [court in] session, where they related to him the pernicious
consequences to the public welfare which were accruing from the said
assistance [of Father Verart], and were steadily increasing on account
of his acts of disobedience. The said provincial was admonished to
the fulfilment and execution of what was charged upon him in the said
two royal decrees, making him responsible for all the difficulties
that might result; but he resisted them at every point, repeating his
[former] replies. This bold attitude caused the Audiencia, on even more
justifiable grounds, to despatch a third decree, which the said father
provincial, Fray Baltasar de Santa Cruz, persisted in disobeying.
In the midst of these proceedings, another decree against the said
archbishop was claimed and demanded by Bachelor Diego de Espinosa
Maranon, saying that his Lordship had denied the just appeal that he
had made from an act which entailed [on him] an irreparable hardship;
and a royal decree was issued for him that the said archbishop must
grant the said appeal; or, even if he were not obliged to grant it,
his acts must be sent [to the Audiencia], in order to know whether
he committed fuerza in denying the appeal. [61] The said archbishop
did not obey this decree; before this, he had not, at the outset,
consented to let a receptor of this royal Audiencia enter to make
known to him one of its acts; and the matter was not followed up
(although in this recourse they went so far as to despatch the second
decree), for Bachelor Diego de Espinosa Maranon desisted from it,
at the instance of certain persons.
To the above-mentioned changes and indispensable acts of assistance
granted by this royal Audiencia, is added that which was secured by
the illustrious bishop-elect of Nueva Segovia, Doctor Don Francisco
Pizarro de Orellana, who came before the royal Audiencia, saying
that the archbishop had, in the credentials which he had given to the
bishop, reserved for his own cognizance the case of Bachelor Diego de
Espinosa Maranon--although this was a trial in the first instance,
and the said bachelor was under the bishop's parochial care and was
cura of the benefice of Vigan, one of the parishes belonging to his
bishopric. The said bishop requested a royal decree that the papers
should be furnished to him by the said archbishop in the customary
form, and that the said cases should be referred to him. In this
affair they went so far as to issue the fourth royal decree; but the
said archbishop did not obey one of them. [62]
The same resistance was encountered by four other royal decrees issued
against the said archbishop, at the demand, and appeal from fuerza,
interposed by Master Don Geronimo de Herrera y Figueroa, cantor of
this holy cathedral church. He was a prisoner of the said archbishop
in the college of Santo Tomas of this city, an indictment having been
brought against him, charging him with being guilty of disrespect for
the archiepiscopal dignity, and having at the session of the cabildo
concurred in their demand for relief, [63] of which mention has
been made--that the said archbishop should remove from his side Fray
Raymundo Verart, and the rest that is stated above. The said Master
Don Geronimo had alleged that the said archbishop was not competent
to act as judge, of which exception he had notified the prelate; but
the latter without settling this question--which, as pre-judicial,
[64] ought to have been summarily decided--proceeded in the case. Even
if he were a competent judge, he ought to proceed with the adjunct
judges, [65] as ordained by the holy Council of Trent; but, [not]
heeding these considerations, the said archbishop proceeded with
fuerza and violence, which he wreaked on Don Geronimo's person. This
case was decidedly within the cognizance of this royal Audiencia, and
to its organization and civil jurisdiction belongs the removal of the
fuerza with which the prelate had oppressed Don Geronimo. Upon this
ground they issued the said four decrees, to attain their object, in
order that the said archbishop should send them the acts, so that it
might be ascertained whether or not he had committed fuerza, or else
should send these with his notary; but he refused to obey the decrees.
The royal Audiencia, striving, in whatever pertained to its side,
to avoid inflicting the chastisement which his actions demanded, in
order to see whether their tolerance would constrain him to lay aside
his arbitrary proceedings, had suspended, with the clause "for the
present," the execution of the penalties of banishment which he was
declared to have incurred. [66] This suspension had been attributed
to negligence of the Audiencia--at which all the people were quite
disconsolate; afterward it was known that the court had not acted
without very deliberate resolution, which had been influenced no
little by the zealous efforts of the governor; when all were hoping
for a change in the sentiments of the archbishop, the courage of the
auditors was still further strengthened. For the Order of the Society
[of Jesus] presented an executory decree, issued by the royal and
supreme Council of Indias, in regard to the precedence of the college
of San Joseph over that of Santo Tomas, which is in charge of the
Dominican religious--in which matter the Society has encountered much
opposition from that order; they have even gone so far as to break out
in threats, which the Society has seen carried out. But immediately
the ecclesiastical attorney-general, with license from the archbishop
(who had made legal complaint), demanded in the royal Audiencia aid
and the proper documents against the decree, [67] in order that the
commander of the capitana "Santa Rosa"--which had just put back through
stress of weather, and had not yet reached the port--might be furnished
with a warrant for the seizure of the bales [of merchandise] which,
he said, were coming in the said ship on the account of the Society
of Jesus. At the same time the reverend Father Francisco Salgado,
provincial of the said order of the Society, came before the said
royal Audiencia with a plea of appeal, on account of which the said
archbishop instituted suit against that father's order, opposing the
numerous privileges and bulls of exemption which aid it. While these
actions were pending, and before anything had been decided in them,
the said father provincial made representations that, notwithstanding
the said questions were still (as I have said) unsettled, he was
informed that a notary of the said archbishop had gone to the said
ship on various matters of business, thus showing lack of respect to
this royal Audiencia. He urged that documents should be issued, in
order that no further proceedings be taken in this matter, and that
the commander of the ship should not permit [the seizure of goods]
until the points at issue were settled. But, although these decrees
were issued, they produced no result; for, as is evident from competent
testimony, the agents of the archbishop went to the said ship, on the
day following that on which the attorney-general had demanded aid,
and, without presenting any warrant to the commander, had undertaken
and proceeded to make seizures and deposits of bales. [68] This affair
was not finally decided, because it was known outside of court that
the archbishop had relinquished his claims therein. [69]
In this royal Audiencia a suit was pending for a long time
between Captain Don Pedro de Sarmiento y Leoz, as husband of Dona
Michaela de Lisarralde [70]--daughter of Don Juan de Lisarralde,
and great-granddaughter of Dona Maria de Roa, deceased, who had been
executrix for the said Don Juan de Lisarralde, and guardian of the
said Dona Michaela--against Father Geronimo de Ortega of the Society
of Jesus (who had been executor [71] for Bachelor Nicolas Cordero, and
is executor for the said Dona Maria de Roa), over the guardianship and
inheritance which belonged to the said Dona Michaela, and the account
which had been demanded for all the above affairs. The said father,
in conformity with the acts which had been made known to him in this
regard, presented the accounts in the royal Audiencia, after the
appointment, acceptance, and oath-taking of auditors therefor. This
suit, as stated, lasted a long time, [72] and in it came up revised
acts of the said royal Audiencia ordering that all who were interested
in the said executorships should prefer their claims in the said royal
Audiencia. The affair being in this condition, the said captain Don
Pedro Sarmiento--urged on by Licentiate Nicolas de la Vega Caraballo,
[73] an ally of the archbishop--demanded before the said archbishop
that the said Father Ortega should be commanded, under penalty of
censure, to furnish him the said accounts. This command was laid
upon him by repeated acts; nevertheless, the said father refused
[the ecclesiastical] jurisdiction, since he had [the case] in a
competent tribunal, pending judgment, and the said accounts had
been presented--in proof of which he presented sworn statements to
the said archbishop. Nevertheless, the latter persisted in ordering
the said father to give him the said accounts--even going so far as
to denounce him as excommunicated. The ground for this action was,
that in the ecclesiastical court demand had been made by the said Don
Pedro for the surrender of the bequest [74] to the said Archdeacon
Cordero. Father Ortega made appeal in the proper quarter from this
censure, but the archbishop refused to allow the said appeal; from
this arose the recourse to royal aid from the act of fuerza in having
denied to the father the said appeal and attempted to compel him
to what he had no right to do--the surrender of the said accounts,
which had already been presented in the said royal Audiencia. [75]
On that account, and because of the very nature of the case, it was
wholly within the cognizance of the royal Audiencia, and concerned
laymen. For this reason, the usual royal decree was issued, in order
that the notary should come to make report. This being made known
to the archbishop, he made a very prolix reply, taking the ground,
in very disrespectful language, that the appeal was not legitimate,
and that he was not obliged to send the documents; but saying that,
upon the necessary declarations, and with the stipulation that the acts
should not pass into the possession of any official of the Audiencia,
but must remain in the hands of his own notary, he would give orders
that the latter should go to make the report, whenever the Audiencia
should command it, but he must refuse to absolve the said father. The
Audiencia, in order to avoid new occasions for controversy with this
prelate, overlooked his imposing upon it a condition, and one which
was so unusual. Domingo Diaz [76] having made the report, and noted
in the course of it two false assertions--which he discovered while
inspecting the acts, having read them through--the said notary went
away, carrying them with him, without waiting for the opinion and
decision of the said royal Audiencia on them to be affirmed. That
tribunal declared the said suit, [77] and the cognizance of it, as it
concerned laymen, to be altogether secular--as were also questions
of guardianship, inheritance, the charge of property, dowries,
and other matters of that nature; and that, by virtue of this, all
[episcopal] acts regarding these questions be suspended in this royal
Audiencia. As for the pious legacies contained in the said testaments,
the archbishop was declared to have committed fuerza in not granting to
Father Ortega the appeal which he had interposed before the delegate
of his Holiness; and the Audiencia resolved that, in consequence of
all the above facts, the prelate should absolve the said father, and
immediately remove his name from the list of excommunicated persons,
and that a royal decree [to this effect] be issued in his behalf. When
this was made known to the archbishop, he gave an extremely insolent
and uncivil reply, opposing the authority of this royal Audiencia,
the royal jurisdiction, the governor, and the auditors. He refused
to send the acts [to the Audiencia], or to absolve the said father,
and declared in plain terms that he would persist in this opposition,
and that the Audiencia might therefore inflict whatever violence they
chose on him and his dignity.
Another instance: Sargento-mayor Don Juan Gallardo--who was chief
magistrate, castellan, and commander of the seamen and sailors,
in the port of Cavite (the most important port in these islands,
and its command one of the highest military posts)--had a prisoner,
an artillerist named Lorenco Magno. [78] The said archbishop sent
him a letter of requisition, demanding that Don Juan hand over to
him the said prisoner and the suit that had been brought against him;
or that he should declare under oath whether or not that suit was in
his hands. In this letter of requisition the archbishop did not state
the cause for which his illustrious Lordship said he had accused the
aforesaid [prisoner, which was] bigamy. The said castellan, moreover,
noticed in it certain imperative expressions and the archbishop
addressed him as vos [i.e., "you"], [79] in the manner which is
customary in the royal decrees. The said castellan sent the prisoner to
the archbishop, who issued another letter of requisition, in the same
form as the preceding, at the petition of Francisca Ignacia, wife of
the said Lorenco Magno--against whom, it was declared, he was carrying
on a suit for divorce--demanding that immediately, without any delay,
under penalty of excommunication and a fine of five hundred pesos,
the said castellan should within three hours deliver to the notary a
certified statement of the suit which he had instituted against the
said Lorenco Magno. The castellan came before the royal Audiencia with
his deposition regarding these two letters of requisition, demanding
that the said archbishop be requested and charged to observe, in the
communications that he might send to the judicial officers of his
Majesty, the forms ordained by law, treating the magistrates with the
courtesy due to their position. These acts having been considered in
the Audiencia, a royal decree was despatched requiring that the said
archbishop must, in the requisitions which he might send to the royal
magistrates, treat them with due politeness, conforming to the forms
of law and usage--not using imperative terms, or the word vos. When
the archbishop was notified of this royal decree, he gave an answer
full of uncivil, improper, and disrespectful expressions against the
royal jurisdiction, the governor, and the auditors. The latter had
issued an act that Doctor Don Joseph Zervantes and Master Nicolas de
la Vega Caravallo should not meddle with the profession of advocate,
into which they had thrust themselves--from which resulted consequences
pernicious to the public welfare, since they had not taken the courses
of study in the school of law. When notified of the act, they replied
that the archbishop had already ordered them not to plead in secular
tribunals, and the said Caravallo added that he was the only one
who could issue such commands. On the following day the archbishop
issued an act in opposition to that of the Audiencia, commanding that
no petitions should be accepted in his court that were not signed by
the said Doctor Zervantes and Master Caravallo. The fiscal, when all
the replies had been shown to him, demanded that, without giving
opportunity for any further acts of disobedience or disrespect,
they should execute upon the person of the reverend archbishop the
penalties which he had been declared to have incurred--banishment,
and the loss of his secular revenue [temporalidades]; and that, for
this purpose, the clause "for the present," contained in the act of
October 1 in the past year of 82, be revoked and erased, and the act
put into execution on May 1 of the said year [i.e., 1683]. These acts
having been considered by the royal Audiencia with the attention and
mature deliberation which so grave a matter demanded, it was decided
that sentence of banishment should be executed on the archbishop, and
that he should be sent to the village of Lingayen, in the province of
Pangasinan, a village of Christian Indians in charge of the Dominican
religious. This charge was committed to Doctor Don Christoval Grimaldo
de Herrera and Sargento-mayor Juan de Veristain, alcalde-in-ordinary,
who fulfilled it with the utmost discretion, quietness, and moderation;
[80] and the archbishop was embarked in a barcoluengo, in which the
forethought of the governor had provided all his kitchen equipment,
with everything else that was necessary for his support and the needs
of the voyage. [81]
The royal Audiencia had proceeded very cautiously, for, foreseeing the
tumults or disturbances that are wont to arise on such occasions, and
endeavoring to avoid whatever could serve as an incentive thereto, they
recognized that the ringing of the bells in making any demonstrations
might act as such incentive; and they asked the governor to command
that guards be posted in the bell-tower of the church, and in the house
of Master Juan Goncalez de Guzman, the provisor, so that the latter
could not order any demonstration to be made while the sentence of
banishment was being executed. On the same day when this was done, the
royal Audiencia sent a decree to the cabildo, ordering that they should
conduct themselves in all respects amicably with the royal Audiencia
and the other royal officials, not allowing any acts of violence to
be inflicted on the vassals of his Majesty, or hindering them from
appealing to the Audiencia in cases of fuerza. The cabildo were also
warned not to accept any documents of appointment from the ruler
of the archbishopric, or allow him to exercise jurisdiction, until
the person appointed should present himself before the royal court,
where he must take the customary oath. To this decree the cabildo
rendered obedience; and, the very illustrious master Don Fray Ximenez
Barrientos, bishop of Troya and assistant bishop of these islands,
having presented himself before the cabildo with the appointment
of ruler [of the archdiocese]--which the archbishop had conferred
upon him on the twenty-seventh of March, when the said archbishop
was already declared an exile--he was referred by the cabildo to the
Audiencia. Being present there, his appointment was, in consequence
of the demand made by the fiscal that license should not be granted
to him, suspended in that court, for weighty reasons there presented,
and it was referred to the Council, in order that his Majesty might
decide according to his pleasure; and [it was declared that] in the
interim the cabildo should govern the archdiocese. [82] And here it
occurs to me to remark, parenthetically, that, although the secrets
and the justifiable motives of the Audiencia are inscrutable, we may
regard it as probable that their principal reason for this action
was their knowledge of the fact that this bishop, a few days after
arriving in this city, had preached in the convent of Santo Domingo,
on the day of the naval battle, [83] and the entire tendency of his
sermon was to disparage the royal jurisdiction and rebuke those who
would appeal to it. He said that this entire city was a university of
vices, although of that he could have had no experience; and it was
he who had exerted most influence on the actions of the archbishop,
over and over again strengthening him in acts of disobedience [to the
secular government]. The cabildo, since the Audiencia had not accepted
the said bishop as ecclesiastical ruler, declared that the see was
vacant by interpretation [of that act]; and the bishop of Troya replied
that they could not have sent him better news, as he did not desire to
take charge of other men's flocks. Thereupon he immediately went back
to the convent of San Juan del Monte, outside the walls of this city;
[84] and on the following day a Dominican religious set out to stir
up the other religious orders (except the Society), that after sunset
prayers they should ring the bells for an interdict. This was done by
[the convent of] Santo Domingo. [85] [He also told them] that Master
Juan Gonzalez de Guzman, provisor of the said archbishop, would post
as excommunicated the dean, Master Don Miguel Ortiz de Cobarrubias,
whom the cabildo had appointed ecclesiastical ruler. At this, the dean
asked the governor for the aid of some infantry, to go to the convent
of Santo Domingo, to which the said master had retreated, to remove
him thence. This was granted; but, on going to the said convent,
they encountered much opposition to their entrance, on the part of
the religious. The dean was so insolently treated by them that he was
obliged, in order to prevent greater troubles, to return and inform
the governor and the royal Audiencia, then in session. That court
issued a royal decree to notify the superiors of the religious orders
that in publishing an interdict [86] they must follow the metropolitan
church [matriz]; and thus was prevented a great scandal, disturbance,
and popular commotion in this city--in which, since the said sentence
of banishment was carried out, the utmost peace has been experienced,
nor has there occurred the slightest disturbance.
I must not omit, since it is a part of this account, the following
information: On Epiphany [dia de Reyes; in 1682] while the royal
Audiencia were present in the holy cathedral church, a sermon was
preached there by father Fray Francisco de Villalva, a Dominican
religious, whose language was insolent in the highest degree. He
spoke openly and expressly against the governor, the auditors, and
the ecclesiastical cabildo (which he pointed out as the source of
disturbances in the community), saying to the archbishop: "Let not your
illustrious Lordship concern himself with the secular revenues; look to
God [for maintenance]." He tried to disparage the royal jurisdiction,
and rebuked appeals to the Audiencia--saying so much that he gave cause
for that tribunal to send by its chaplain a message to the archbishop,
asking him to order the preacher to cease. His illustrious Lordship
replied that the preacher was doing his duty, and the latter, in
the face of these demonstrations, went on with the sermon even to
the end. Afterward, by order of the court, the auditor Don Pedro de
Bolivar put the said father on a ship, to be taken to the province
of Cadbalogan--in which he must remain until the opportunity should
arrive, by the departure of a ship [from Manila], for him to embark
for Madrid, whither the acts were to be sent. This was carried out,
and, although the ship was driven back to port, he is now going on
board the capitana. [87] May God conduct these affairs for our good,
and preserve your Grace [88] for many years. Manila, June 15, 1683.