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 DasmariÑas (1591) and Guerrero and Corcuera (1635–36) were but preliminary skirmishes. In this case the archbishop gains the ascendency, being reËnforced 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 GuimarÁs 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 LuzÓn. 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 LuzÓn, 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 LuzÓn 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 reËnforced with abundant citations from the chroniclers of the religious orders—the Augustinian Diaz, the Jesuit Murillo Velarde, the Dominican Salazar, and the Recollect ConcepciÓn; these are found in the annotations accompanying our text. The first account is that written by Juan SÁnchez, 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 LingayÉn, a village in CagayÁn. 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 EspaÑa for seditious preaching; and others are sent to CagayÁn.

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, SÁnchez. 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 VicÉnte 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 LingayÉn, in the province of PangasinÁn. 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 PangasinÁn; 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 EspaÑa (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.