Considerable attention has been given in another chapter to the charges made by the audiencia against Marquina at the time of his residencia. These complaints show that a state of continual disagreement had existed between these two authorities throughout the entire term of the governor, and the bringing of these charges was instrumental in making Marquina undergo a very strict investigation. Personal jealousy was no small factor in these continual recriminations. At no subsequent date, however, were the large issues at stake which were characteristic of the struggle between the audiencia and the governor at the time of Fajardo, Curuzaelegui, and Bustamante. Those were death-struggles on the issue of whether the audiencia should be an independent tribunal or whether it should be subservient and subject to the governor. During those struggles the tribunal was momentarily suppressed, or converted into an instrument, in the hands of the governor. But these were exceptional cases, and during the greater part of the long period of three hundred years the relations between the audiencia and the executive were not so discordant as they would seem to have been, judging by the instances cited in this chapter. The audiencia, on all occasions of dispute with the governor, was able to offer a formidable resistance to his so-called encroachments on the prerogatives of the tribunal. Although the governor, on most of the occasions noted above, occupied the stronger position, owing to his more recent instructions, the support given to him by the church, and his control of the residencias of the magistrates, nevertheless it may be said that either authority was sufficiently powerful and independent to be respected as an antagonist by the other, and each was indispensable to the other.

These disagreements have been discussed in the foregoing pages largely from the view-point of the audiencia. Practically all the charges and complaints which have been cited were made in behalf of the audiencia, and these show the magistrates in almost all cases to have been acting in defense of their rights against usurpation and tyranny. Fairness demands, however, that the other side should be presented in the same manner. [559] Reference will now be made to a few of the many memorials heretofore unquoted, which were sent by various governors in protest against the alleged excesses of the audiencia.

As a first instance we may note the criticisms which Governor Gomez Perez Dasmarinas made of the first audiencia which served from 1584 to 1589. We shall also consider the complaints which Dasmarinas made against Pedro de Rojas, former oidor and later teniente and asesor of that governor (1589-1593). Dasmarinas came to the colony shortly after the first audiencia had been suppressed and from his correspondence one may estimate the prevailing opinion of the tribunal which had been recently removed. The governor wrote as follows:

As the royal Audiencia was here so haughty and domineering, he (Pedro de Rojas) retains that authority and harshness, with which he tries to reduce all others as his va.s.sals. In the matters of justice that he discusses, he is unable to be impartial, but is in many matters very biased. This is because of his trading and trafficking, which the president and all the auditors (oidores) carried on from the time of their arrival--and with so great avidity, trying to secure it all to themselves, that I find no rich men here beside them. This is the reason why Rojas ... and the auditors opposed the pancada in order that the consignments of money sent by them to China might not be known--which, at last, have come to light. [560]

The governor charged the audiencia, moreover, with having opposed the three per cent tax levied for the construction of the city wall. Indeed, he accused the magistrates of having influenced the friars to oppose all his acts as governor. He referred to the commercial excesses of the oidores, saying: "If the matter of inspection and the residencia held here had fallen to my order and commission, as it fell to that of the Viceroy of Nueva Espana, I would have proved to your Majesty the investments of past years." He concluded with the statement that Rojas had been so busy with gain that he had been unable to attend to his other duties; he was "puffed up with the authority and name of auditor" (i. e., oidor). He protested against the transfer of Rojas to an office in Mexico, "for," he wrote, "such men go delighted with their interests and gains from trade here, they are fettered and biased by their relations with the trade of this country."

Thus we see that even this early in the history of the Islands, the oidores as well as the governors were accused of a predominating interest in commercial affairs.

Governor Pedro de Acuna recommended the suppression of the audiencia in 1604, although he said that he had had no serious trouble with that tribunal. His chief reason in favoring its removal was that an appreciable saving would be realized thereby. The audiencia was, moreover, very unpopular in Manila. He alleged that the name of oidor was so odious that it was in itself an offense. He stated that affairs had come to such a pa.s.s that

because I, in conformity to what your Majesty has ordered, have attempted to maintain and have maintained amicable relations with the auditors; and have shown, on various occasions, more patience and endurance than the people considered right; and more than seemed fitting to my situation, in order not to give rise to scandal; some have conceived hatred for me, publicly saying that ... I was neglecting to look after them, and that I could correct the evil which the Audiencia was doing. But as I cannot do that, it has seemed to me the best means to let the public see that there was good feeling between me and the Audiencia. [561]

Here we have the case of a governor, who, in order to get along in harmony with a quarrelsome and unpopular audiencia, gave way to it on many occasions, and even incurred the displeasure of the residents of the colony on account of what seemed to them to be the governor's easy-going att.i.tude. His zeal for the king's service, as he expressed it, moved him to recommend the abolition of the tribunal. He said that the audiencia would not be missed if it were removed, since there were only twelve hundred residents in the colony and there were few cases to be tried. Most of the suits arising in the Islands could be adjudicated by the alcaldes ordinarios and appeals could be sent to Mexico. The acuerdo, or administrative session, Acuna alleged, existed in name only.

Acuna made practically the same charges that have been so often repeated already in this chapter. The magistrates had interfered in the appointment of officials, which the governor claimed as his sole prerogative. Each magistrate was accompanied on his journey to the Islands by a vast company of relatives and dependents, who came to get rich. These persons ultimately monopolized all the offices. Notwithstanding the king's orders which forbade that offices should be held by relatives of oidores, the governor was placed in such a position that if he did not allow these persons to hold office, the magistrates would take revenge by opposing him at every turn, thus ruining the success of his administration. [562] The same was true of trade, for these relatives had to live, and if the government could not support them, they had to be a.s.signed privileges and advantages in trade, which the oidores by virtue of their official positions could guarantee. [563]

In view of all these abuses and evils which, directly or indirectly, proceeded from the audiencia, Acuna maintained that all the powers of government, war and justice, should be concentrated in the office of governor and captain-general. The country, he said, was more at war than at peace. It was essentially military, by virtue of its location and isolation. Acuna contended that all authorities and departments of the government should therefore be dependent on a military chief rather than on a high court of justice which was out of sympathy with the spirit and needs of the colony. In a government so new as that of the Philippines, the same laws and punishments should not be enforced so rigidly as in more settled parts, yet the magistrates of the audiencia had failed to understand that their functions in a colony of this character should be in any way different than those of a similar tribunal in Spain. Acuna stated that there had been occasions in which the audiencia, in possession of partial evidence in regard to a military matter, had interfered with an action which the governor had wished to take. He had thus been rendered powerless to exercise sovereignty which rightfully belonged to him, and which, if put into effect, would no doubt have been for the best interests of the colony.

In addition to the above representations, the governor laid great stress on the financial advantages which would be derived from a suppression of the tribunal. He stated that the colony was short of money, a condition of which the magistrates were well aware, yet they always insisted on being the first to collect their own salaries, to the exclusion, if necessary, of all other officials in the colony. [564] With the money saved from the abolition of the audiencia, an armed fleet could be provided for the defense of the Islands. This was badly needed, and there was no other way of obtaining the necessary ships. The Chinese rebellion of the year before [565] had caused a diminution of 46,000 pesos in the commercial duties collected, [566] and the consequent shortage of money in the treasury of the colony furnished further reasons for the dismissal of this useless and burdensome tribunal. Acuna admitted that the inst.i.tution of the audiencia might be successful in larger dependencies of Spain, where the people were prosperous and where the government had an a.s.sured income, but in the Philippines, where the citizens were poor, with scarcely any means of support, and hara.s.sed by many magistrates and their dependents, the audiencia had been a failure and a serious burden.

Acuna's concluding statement very aptly sizes up the situation and voices his demand for the abolition of the tribunal. He wrote:

The difficulty which presents itself to me in this matter is that, if the Audiencia is abolished and everything left in charge of the governor, there will be but slow and poor remedy for the grievances and disorders which may occur. For they must be taken to the Audiencia of Mexico, which is so far away that the aggrieved ones would consume both life and property before the business was settled ... all say that they consider government by one person the best, when he governs justly. These men (who believe in the above) know what the governor can do without the Audiencia, and with it; and they believe that it is better when there are not so many to command them, for they have never seen the audiencias redress illegal acts by the governors.... Although there is no doubt that much of what this paper recounts occurs in other regions where there are audiencias, it must be remembered that in this country, which is the newest of all and more engaged in war than any of the others; and where the hardships of conquest and maintenance are so omnipresent; and your Majesty has little profit or advantage, except the cargo of cloth which goes to Nueva Hespana (sic), and which is divided among all; and as the resources of the country are so scant that there is no place to go in order to seek a livelihood outside of Manila: there is much criticism in this matter, and the people are much aggrieved at seeing themselves in the utmost part of the world, hara.s.sed and troubled by so many magistrates and officers and their dependents, and at having so many to satisfy; and that matters are in such a state that he who has an auditor for a protector may, it appears, go wherever he wishes and with as much as he wishes, and he who has not must be ruined. [567]

This brings us to the administration of Governor Alonso Fajardo (1618-1624), whose relations with the audiencia we have already shown to have been very unpleasant. Fully as many charges were brought against the oidores by that governor as were put forward by the magistrates against him. According to Fajardo, the oidores had so used their power of appointment that it amounted to virtual dictation. Fajardo, like Acuna, found his control over the filling of offices greatly diminished. He energetically protested against the proposition which had been made to increase the size of the court from four to five magistrates. He stated that the amount of legal business which came before the tribunal did not justify an augmentation of the number of oidores; he recommended that the magistrates should spend their time more advantageously, and waste less in quarreling among themselves and in wreaking their pa.s.sions on their rivals. Like Acuna, Fajardo complained against the presence of so large a number of relatives and personal followers of the oidores, whose l.u.s.t for office had to be satisfied. [568] The magistrates had engaged in trade through intermediaries, and had spent the time which should have been devoted to the administration of justice in devising schemes whereby they and their agents could get the most out of forbidden commercial transactions, and at the same time be protected in their illicit activities. Fajardo claimed that the magistrates had abused their positions to such an extent that they had become an intolerable inc.u.mbrance to the colony.

Strife and discord between the audiencia and the governor were perhaps more bitter during the administration of Fajardo than at any other time in the history of the Islands. This governor accused the magistrates of deliberately attempting in all petty and inconsequential ways to hara.s.s him into compliance with its desires. He wrote that he had done everything possible to keep peace with the oidores, even at a sacrifice of the respect of the other elements of the colony. [569]

This testimony is practically identical with that submitted by Governor Acuna in 1604. The influence of the tribunal in the matter of appointments, judging by this and by other statements and allegations already quoted, and by the laws themselves, must have been great.

The tendency to fill offices with friends and relatives was characteristic not only of the magistrates, but of the viceroys and governors as well. More laws are to be found in the Recopilacion which guard against such abuses by governors and viceroys than by the magistrates of the audiencia. [570] Bearing in mind, of course, that there are two sides to the question, it is at least clear that the audiencia was successful in one of the purposes for which it was created--namely, that of preventing the governor from exercising entire control over appointments. We have the confession of Governor Fajardo here and of Governor Acuna in the preceding paragraphs that those governors were unable to prevent the oidores from filling offices with their own friends. Although we have been following the governor's side of the question in these last few pages, we have noted in the preceding chapter that the laws of the Indies gave to the audiencia the right of partic.i.p.ating in acuerdo with the governor in matters of appointment.

Governor Fajardo's method of referring matters to the audiencia for advice is interesting. Instead of submitting questions to the acuerdo for the general advice and opinion of all the oidores, he was said to have sought to escape the obligation of acting in accordance with the advice given him, by asking the oidores for their individual opinions concerning matters on which he desired advice. The audiencia took exception to this method of procedure, alleging that he was thus escaping the responsibilities of the acuerdo. Fajardo defended himself against the accusation by the statement that the oidores met together so seldom that he had been unable to submit questions to the magistrates collectively in accordance with the law.

Fajardo also complained against the failure of the oidores to comply with his instructions in regard to the inspection of the provinces. He stated that the magistrates disliked to bestir themselves from their inactive and indolent lives amid the comforts of Manila, and no inspections had been made during the three years prior to the date of this letter. Philip III, without raising his voice in indignation or decreeing any punishment upon those officials who had refused to execute his decrees, mildly solicited that they should devote their care and attention to the matter in the future. He remonstrated that this was the only way in which the facts relating to the country and to the interests and needs of its people could be ascertained.

These inspections are very essential, since they are based on the relief of miserable persons, and in no way can the condition of affairs be fully ascertained unless by means of these inspections; and the most advisable measures can hardly be well understood, if the condition and facts of what ought to be remedied and can be bettered are not known. Hence I again charge you to pay especial attention to these inspections. The Audiencia is commanded to observe the orders that you shall give in your capacity as president so that each auditor, when it concerns him, may observe his obligations and go out on the inspections. [571]

In reply to these observations, the Council ordered Fajardo to make recommendations for the reform of the government, stating that such suggestions as he would make would be duly considered and observed. [572]

On his arrival in the Islands, Fajardo, as yet unfamiliar with the duties and conditions of his office, expressed his unwillingness to recommend the entire abolition of the audiencia, preferring to have present a council which he could consult regarding the problems of his new office. The tribunal in the Philippines was probably not so important as were those in Spain, under the immediate supervision of the king, "where," as he expressed it,

one obtains strict justice, administered by upright and holy men--the people here considering that those who are farthest from meriting that name are those who are farthest from the presence of your Majesty and your royal counselors.... In what pertains to me, I do not pet.i.tion you for anything in this matter, since in no respect can it be ill for me to have someone to consult, and who will relieve me in matters of justice. [573]

Fajardo's act in forming a new audiencia after he had suppressed the real one shows that the audiencia was essential to him in the two particulars mentioned by him in the above letter.

That his att.i.tude towards this question was somewhat altered by three years' experience as governor of the Philippines is shown in his memorial of July 21, 1621. On this occasion Fajardo argued against the continuation of the tribunal, showing himself to be of the same opinion as Acuna, who, it will be remembered, contended that because the colony was military in character, there should be one person to control affairs, without any interference whatsoever. He wrote:

I beg your Majesty that while it shall last (the war) you may be pleased to discontinue the Audiencia here, as it is this that most hinders and opposes the administration and the government, ... This is the enemy which most afflicts this commonwealth, and most causes dissensions, parties, factions, and hatred between the citizens--each auditor persecuting those citizens who are not wholly of his own faction, especially those who extend aid and good-will toward the governor, against whom, as it seems, they show themselves always in league. They always make declarations of grievances [against him] because they are not each one given, as used to be and is the custom here, whatever they may ask for their sons, relatives and servants; and they habitually discredit the governor by launching through secret channels false and malicious reports, and afterward securing witnesses of their publicity. They even, as I have written to your Majesty, manage to have religious and preachers publish these reports to which end, and for his own security, each one of the auditors has formed an alliance with the religious order which receives him best. [574]

He summarized as follows:

I consider this government much more difficult, with the auditors of this Audiencia, than it is or would be even if there were more war, for that war which they cause within its boundaries appears beyond remedy, on account of their abilities and rank. [575]

An abundance of evidence exists on both sides of this controversy; letters of complaint against the governor and charges against the oidores by the governor. The vividness and apparent directness of the charges and the apparent sincerity of both the governor and the oidores make it extremely difficult, and, in fact, quite impossible to decide on the basis of the evidence presented, who was right or wrong, which charges, true or untrue, and who was really responsible for the difficulties. It would appear that the king was p.r.o.ne to sympathize with the governor rather than with the audiencia, for in practically all cases the decision of the sovereign was adverse to the tribunal. The fact that the governor was the royal representative was probably a large factor in securing him the support of the home government. Yet, on the other hand, the audiencia was in the same sense the royal tribunal.

Governor Fajardo affords an example of a successful military man who, having won fame for himself in the wars of the continent, but without legal knowledge or administrative experience, was called to the government of a distant and isolated colony, with the responsibility of continuing in harmonious relations with a hostile civil and judicial tribunal on the one hand, with whose powers and functions he was not familiar, and an equally hostile religious inst.i.tution on the other. Men of military training usually had great contempt for the abilities and good intentions of priests and lawyers in those days, and it was frequently evident, both by their actions and by their own confessions, that conquistadores of the stamp of Fajardo, Acuna, and Corcuera were little fitted for the exercise of administrative and governmental functions, however useful they might be in adding to the domain of the Spanish empire.

Thus, there being present in the colony a tribunal of trained lawyers who were at the same time capable and experienced administrators, the governors became accustomed to rely on them for advice and a.s.sistance, in compliance with the commands of the laws of the Indies. As one governor of military tastes and training succeeded another, each lacking administrative ability and experience, the audiencia came to a.s.sume an increased share in the governmental activity of the colony. This tendency was accentuated by the fact that the governor was absent from the capital city on campaigns of conquest and defense a large share of his time. Ability as a soldier and commander was always the chief criterion for the selection of a governor and captain-general, and military affairs were given more attention by far than matters of administration. Spain's policy of selecting soldiers instead of administrators for the post of governor went far towards making the audiencia more than a court of justice, and towards giving it a share in the executive functions of government. This tendency was also furthered by the fact that the audiencia came to a.s.sume the entire administration on the death or absence of the governor, a power which it did not always exercise well, but which it always relinquished with reluctance.

The Salcedo affair in 1668-1670 emphasizes other differences than those of the audiencia and the governor, yet reference should be made to it in this connection, because, after all, the oidores were concerned indirectly in the struggle. An examination of the data at our command will reveal the fact that the refusal or failure of the oidores to intervene in behalf of the governor led to his defeat and humiliation by the commissary of the Inquisition. The audiencia might have prevented that disaster had the magistrates been so inclined.

Before Governor Salcedo was arrested, imprisoned and sent to Mexico in 1668 by the commissary of the Inquisition on charges of a purely ecclesiastical character, the two oidores, Bonifaz and Montemayor, were consulted by the enemies of the governor as to the legality of the proposed action. There is every reason to believe that the entire plot was worked out beforehand with the fore-knowledge and consent of the oidores. Inharmonious relations had existed before the arrest of the governor between Salcedo and his a.s.sociates, because of his independence and his unwillingness to provide offices and opportunities for commercial profit for their relatives. The exact part which the audiencia played in the arrest of Salcedo is not known, since the entire plot was schemed and executed under the cloak of the Inquisition; but the fact remains that Oidores Montemayor and Bonifaz each hoped to a.s.sume the management of governmental affairs upon the exile of Salcedo. Indeed, the ambitions of Bonifaz were realized. The removal of Salcedo culminated in the usurpation of the government by Bonifaz, in the exile of Montemayor, his rival, to the provinces, and in the complete suppression of the audiencia for a year. It is said that Bonifaz, through a usurper, ruled beneficently and well, and that he little deserved the sentence of death which was p.r.o.nounced on him by the Council of the Indies. The authority for the a.s.sertion that his rule was meritorious was ecclesiastical and hence, in this case, possibly questionable. [576] It is certain, at least, that Bonifaz and his government were under the complete domination of the church. [577]

It has been frequently stated in this chapter, that jealousy and rivalry were always determining factors in the relationship of the audiencia and the governor. A new executive, until familiar with the duties of his station, was always glad to seek the advice and a.s.sistance of the oidores, meanwhile permitting the audiencia to a.s.sume many functions which belonged to him as governor. A new governor was gracious, and agreeable to all, and we find that most of the favorable comments made concerning governors by magistrates, prelates, and officials were p.r.o.nounced when the environment was new to them or to the governor. When the routine of official duties became irksome and opportunities for private profit presented themselves, as always happened in the course of time, friction arose, and jealousy and discord took the place of the goodwill and harmony which at first seemed so promising.

The most contaminating influence in the colony was the commercial spirit. Governors and magistrates engaged in trade on a large scale, and the churchmen also yielded to the commercial instinct. The latter a.s.sertion will be enlarged upon in its proper place; proof of the commercial activities of governors and magistrates has already been given. The resentment of the oidores always led them to place every conceivable opposition in the way of the governor when it was seen that he was obtaining more than his fair share of profit from trade, appointments, or indulgences to the Chinese. This led to a refusal to ratify his appointments in many cases, to oppose him in the acuerdo, to incite the residents of the colony against him, and to do everything possible to make a failure of his administration. Governors on the other hand might employ one of two methods in dealing with the magistrates. That most commonly pursued was to allow them a liberal share of the booty, commercial or political, the latter obtained by permitting them to disregard the law by giving offices to their relatives and followers, thereby purchasing their favor. The other method was to meet their charges with counter-charges, which were probably as truthful, though usually not so serious as those which the magistrates made against them. The administrations of those governors who openly opposed the audiencia and sought to keep it within the limits of its jurisdiction as a judicial tribunal, were most notable for their conflicts.

The Court of Madrid was unable to remedy these defects in colonial administration. It could and did discipline the officials by sending an occasional visitor, or by forcing them to give vigorous residencias, but these punishments only led to greater abuses in order to reimburse themselves for the fines which they had to pay. Officials were able to send away large sums of money and consignments of merchandise, and then, after having paid liberal penalties, they returned to Spain and lived in comfortable retirement. Acceptance of the office of governor, oidor, corregidor, or alcalde mayor was made with a foreknowledge that disputes would arise, enemies would bring accusations, and punishments would be meted out, whether deserved or not. This condition led to the abuses which have been noted, and the recriminations and struggles between authorities. From the view-point of these officials the Philippines were neither governed for the good of the natives nor for the residents, nor for the honor of Spain, nor for the propagation of the Catholic religion, but merely for the profit and advancement of those who were on the ground to take advantage of their opportunities. They were struggles for profit; pure and simple contests between the officials either to get all the proceeds possible from their offices or to keep other officials from getting all, and thus to get a share for themselves. There were exceptions, of course, to the conditions and circ.u.mstances just noted. Some able and well-intentioned men came to the Islands, as came to all of Spain's colonies, among whom may be mentioned Oidor Antonio de Morga, the fiscal, Francisco Leandro de Viana, and Governors Anda y Salazar, Basco y Vargas, Aguilar, Enrile, and others of the nineteenth century when opportunities for gain were somewhat diminished. Some of these officials erred on the side of over-strictness, and their efforts to restrain the avarice of their colleagues and to infuse the spirit of honesty into their administrations united the opposition and led to battles as violent and unrelenting as those which were fought when all parties were dishonest.

In a chapter which deals alone with the conflicts of jurisdiction which occurred between the governor and the audiencia, it would be possible to arrive at an entirely mistaken conclusion. Disagreements and differences were frequent as well as p.r.o.nounced, yet the history of the Philippines throughout the three hundred years of Spanish rule is not a record of perpetual strife. It is, of course, understood that no effort has been made in this chapter to describe all the struggles which occurred in the Islands between the audiencia and the governor. Those which have been reviewed were selected for the purpose because they ill.u.s.trate, in a general way, the subjects over which disagreements arose, and the principles underlying them.

We have noted, in general, that the audiencia exercised functions and prerogatives which were not conferred upon it by the laws of the Indies. The type of men who were appointed to the office of governor and captain-general made inevitable the accretion of power in the hands of the magistrates. The audiencia gradually came to a.s.sume more attributes than the solely judicial ones. Necessity compelled the governor in many instances to entrust the tribunal with many of his own functions because of his lack of skill and experience as an administrator or on account of his devotion to military affairs. In these ways the acuerdo came to be legislative as well as advisory; the frequent absence of the governor, or his death, led to the audiencia's a.s.sumption of the governorship and the tribunal was always reluctant to surrender the administrative powers once gained.

Jealousy between officials and the resultant conflicts of authority may be cla.s.sified together as a cause of strife. These difficulties resulted in part from the fact that the sphere of authority of each official was not defined with exactness in the laws of the Indies, and also because those laws were often countermanded by later cedulas of whose existence the colonial officials were not always aware. Spanish laws were frequently repealed and subsequently put in force without notice; this was always a source of confusion. Then again the exceptional opportunities for trade offered by the transfer of the rich oriental cargoes at Manila tempted oidores and governors alike. The trading privileges conceded by the government did not always end when the limit of permission was reached. Some officials, and particularly governors, could command more than their rightful share of galleon s.p.a.ce; this led to disputes and recriminations which often interfered seriously with the government. We have noted that the appointing power which belonged nominally to the governor and which was shared by the oidores was also a source of much trouble. The knowledge that the residencia would ultimately bring about the punishment of guilty officials and enemies, the distance and isolation of the colony, and the length of time necessary for communication--all these factors made it possible for officials to commit excesses. Another cause of discord was what might be termed the reaction of the executive against the increased power and authority of the audiencia. This accretion of power was due to the complete dependence of the governor on the tribunal in administrative matters, especially at the beginning of his term, the increasing power of the acuerdo, the superiority of the audiencia as a court of appeals from the decisions of the governor, and the fact that the latter always needed the presence of the audiencia to lend legality to his government.

It may be stated, nevertheless, that the governor actually held the more powerful position in the colony, and that he most frequently emerged victor in the various struggles with the audiencia. Various reasons may be a.s.signed for this. The governor was the personal representative of the king, and in this capacity he had the backing of the home government. He commanded the military forces in the colony. The authority of the royal patronage was vested in the governor; he was thus often able to command the support of the church and clergy in his struggles with the audiencia. The authority over the disposal of offices, either by sale or appointment belonged legally to the governor, although this power was effectively disputed and often shared by the audiencia. The governor employed the last-mentioned power on some occasions to the extent of reforming and reconst.i.tuting the audiencia, thus making the government entirely dependent on him. A new governor always carried with him a more recent appointment than those of the oidores whom he found in the colony, and aside from this he usually possessed definite instructions embodying the royal will on all current issues. The control of the residencias of the oidores was usually in the hands of the governor, and lastly, the laissez faire att.i.tude of the Spanish government, its extreme conservatism, and its apparent reluctance to correct the evils and abuses which were reported to it--all these were potent factors in leaving the balance of power as it had been, in the hands of the governor, notwithstanding the presence of the audiencia.

A previously quoted statement made by a famous British historian in his description of the relative powers of the viceroys of New Spain, and Peru, and their respective audiencias, may be used here, with equal effect, to characterize the situation in the Philippines, and to summarize this part of our discussion: "They (the magistrates of the audiencia) may advise, they may remonstrate; but in the event of a direct collision between their opinion and the will of the viceroy (governor), what he determines must be brought into execution, and nothing remains for them but to lay the matter before the king and the Council of the Indies." [578]