By the Royal Instruction of Regents of 1776, the regent was authorized to act as president of the audiencia during the absence of the governor, and in case there were no regent, the senior magistrate of the audiencia was to take his place. [685] This law was confirmed by the cedula of August 2, 1789, which ordered that viceroys and presidents, on going outside of their capitals, "should a.s.sign to the regents the faculties for the dispatch of the most important and immediate affairs." [686] A subsequent law, dated July 30, 1779, stated that "these important and immediate affairs" did not include "the duties and functions of the captain-general." Again, the royal order of October 23, 1806, [687] commanded that the audiencia should in no case take control of the government when there was a vacancy, but that the name of the temporary governor should be contained in an envelope which was to be opened on the death of the governor, or on his absence from the district. In case provision had not been made in this way, it was ordered that the government should be taken over by the ranking military officer of the colony, if he were higher than the grade of colonel; if not, the regent or decano should be temporary president, governor and captain-general, without ceding the exercise of any of the functions of this office to the audiencia. [688] This law was suspended by the royal order of July 12, 1812, and by the decree of November 2, 1834, which ordered that the segundo cabo, or lieutenant-commander of the king's forces should succeed the governor and captain-general. [689] It is important to note that these laws were applicable throughout the Spanish colonial empire. Subsequent vacancies in the Philippines were filled by military men, and the audiencia refrained from interference with the government.

Considering the question in its broadest phases, it cannot be said that the audiencia administered the ad interim rule with a great degree of success. This method of filling vacancies in the governorship failed for a number of reasons. Owing to the divided composition of the tribunal, the rivalry and personal jealousy of the magistrates and the perpetual quarrels and struggles which arose as a consequence, the periods of its rule became wild scrambles for power in which the strongest survived and reaped all the benefits of office. By their example, the oidores stimulated others to wrong-doing, and in their efforts to secure advantages for themselves they oppressed the residents, Spanish and native, with the burden of their misrule. They did not scruple to indulge in dishonest practices whenever occasion offered; indeed, they went out of their way to seek such opportunities.

Perhaps the gravest defect of the rule of the audiencia lay in its failure as an executive, owing to the divided character of its composition. There was much jealousy, but neither unity nor centralized responsibility. In their governmental capacity the oidores frequently enacted measures and made recommendations of a statesmanlike character, although they did not always succeed in enforcing them. The magistrates were neither experienced legislators nor trained soldiers, and the latter defect seems to have been a cause of considerable dissatisfaction, especially among the military cla.s.ses. These were naturally jealous of an a.s.sumption of military power by lawyers, whose commands they refused to obey. Nevertheless it must be conceded that such individual oidores as Morga, Alcaraz, Almansa and Anda acquitted themselves of their military duties with great credit when called upon.

The reform which gave the government to the churchmen was designed to obviate the defects expressed above. It was believed that a prelate would not be open to so many ventures of a questionable and mainly commercial character. Moreover, the archbishops in Mexico and elsewhere had fulfilled the duties of the executive on former occasions with a fair degree of success. The church was the most powerful, highly centralized and unified inst.i.tution in the Philippines at the time when both the audiencia and the governorship were weakest. The ecclesiastical authority had repeatedly triumphed over the civil government, and the former gave promise of being able to control matters more effectively in the future than the audiencia had done in the past. The rule of the churchmen did not remedy matters, however, except that it produced harmony through the exercise of force. During the rule of the archbishops, with the exception of that of Rojo, the audiencia was so completely dominated by the ecclesiastical power that the tribunal could scarcely be considered a factor in the government.

There were various defects in the rule of the ecclesiastics. Of these, perhaps the most prominent was their failure to meet the military requirements of the position. Because of the natural incongruity existing between ecclesiastical and military duties, they were obliged to delegate the command of the troops to military leaders, who thus exercised an influence never realized by them during the rule of the audiencia. Archbishop Rojo was unwilling to trust the problem of defense to any other person, though unable to cope with the situation himself. Hence Anda forced his way to the front because he was fitted to command and Rojo was not. As administrators and executives the prelates were as efficient as any others, but they were never able to reconcile successfully the opposition of the civil, political, and commercial elements, who were displeased with the rule of an ecclesiastic. Surprising as it may seem, the government of a prelate was usually most unsatisfactory to the churchmen and religious authorities. If the prelate-governor were a friar, his rule was resented by the members of all the rival orders. If he were a secular priest, he was opposed by the friars of all the orders.

The failure of Rojo was enough to condemn the practice of permitting ecclesiastics to a.s.sume the government, but aside from that, there was a more significant and fundamental reason. The increasing political authority of the church at that time, both in the colonies and in the mother country, its widespread and almost irresistible dominance over temporal affairs, demanded a radical change of policy whereby this dangerous ecclesiastical power could be checked. The rule of Anda, though technically based on that law which gave the succession to the tribunal, was not a typical instance of the government of the audiencia, nor did that period present all the features of such a rule. The influence of the audiencia as a body was practically nil. Anda governed because he was a strong man, not because he was sole oidor or because he was lieutenant-governor. His government was virtually a dictatorship, based on military power, but, nevertheless, just and benevolent. His extra-judicial actions met with the king's approval, because they were efficient.

History will show that the Audiencia of Manila a.s.sumed temporary charge of the government because the distance and isolation of the colony rendered such a course necessary and because it was thought that the audiencia was best fitted to a.s.sume control. The government by the audiencia in the Philippines was not an isolated incident, but was typical of the entire Spanish colonial empire. Owing to the conditions which we have noted, and judged by the standards which const.i.tute good government, the rule of the audiencia was neither successful nor satisfactory. Its most far-reaching defect, as far as the relations of the audiencia and the governor were concerned, lay in the wholesale exercise of administrative and military functions by the magistrates of the audiencia. This impaired the quality of their services as impartial magistrates and contributed in most cases to an insatiable thirst for power. The magistrates were loath to surrender the exercise of these governmental activities on the accession of the succeeding governor, the audiencia displaying a marked tendency to continue in the exercise of administrative control. This, then, was a decided cause of strife and dissension between the audiencia and the governor.

CHAPTER X

THE AUDIENCIA AND THE CHURCH: THE ROYAL PATRONAGE

The audiencia was frequently brought into contact with the powerful ecclesiastical organization in the Philippines. We have already referred in this book to some of the notable occasions of this relationship. Before the establishment of the audiencia the church exercised an extensive authority in governmental affairs. The ecclesiastics aided the civil government by administering justice in the provinces when there were no civil courts. The prelates of the Islands, the provincials of the religious orders and even the friars advised the governors and provincial officials on Indian affairs and the administration of the encomiendas. When the advice of the church was solicited by the home government as to the advisability of removing the audiencia, the suggestions of Fray Alonso Sanchez and Bishop Salazar went far toward bringing about a final solution of the problem of government in the Philippines. [690] These were some of the ways in which the influence of the church was impressed upon the audiencia.

The creation of an audiencia, with judicial and advisory functions, put an end to the exercise of these extraordinary powers by the church and tended to confine its activities to the ecclesiastical field. Nevertheless, the prelates continued to advise the governors in administrative matters throughout the entire history of the Islands. Their influence was especially strong in matters relating to the natives, their government and protection, and the archbishops even went so far at times as to give advice on questions of foreign policy. Most of the time this counsel was solicited and was well received. From 1650 onwards, as we noted in the last chapter, the church waxed exceedingly strong in the Philippines and the prelates not only advised, but dominated governors and audiencias. In 1668, Governor Diego Salcedo was unseated, imprisoned and exiled by the commissary of the Inquisition, while a pliant magistrate of the audiencia took over the government and administered affairs in a manner entirely satisfactory to his ecclesiastical supporters. The period from 1684 to 1690 showed the weakness of the audiencia when opposed by a powerful prelate allied to a hostile governor. And in 1719 the church reached the climax of its power by bringing about the murder of a governor, and then succeeding him, overcoming every opposing element in the colony, including the audiencia. From that time onward the prelates governed during vacancies in the governorship--something which the audiencia had failed to do. Finally, in 1762, Simon de Anda y Salazar a.s.sumed the reigns of government and the obligations of defense, an act which was sanctioned technically because he was an oidor but really because he was an able man, capable of accomplishing what the church had failed to do.

In this chapter it is not our purpose to review the historical facts of the relations of the audiencia and the church or the growth of clerical influence over the audiencia. These matters have been referred to in earlier chapters. It is rather the design to study here the influence which the audiencia, in its turn, exercised in ecclesiastical affairs, noting whence it derived its authority and what was the nature of its powers.

The audiencia was established as the ultimate local authority, co-ordinate with the governor (or the viceroy in New Spain or Peru), for enforcing the laws of the royal patronage. [691] Not only was it authorized to act as a tribunal in these matters, but also to officiate as an active executive agent. It is clear that although the governor was the royal vicepatron, he was not expected to act alone and unsupported in dealing with the powerful and often hostile ecclesiastical authority. In former chapters of this treatise attention has been given to the considerations which forced him to share the duties and responsibilities of government, finance, commercial supervision, and even military affairs with the audiencia; the support of that body was even more necessary in dealing with the powerful ecclesiastical organization.

The authority which the audiencia exercised jointly with the royal vicepatron was based upon the law ordering

our viceroys, presidents, oidores and governors of the Indies to see, guard, and fulfill (the laws), and in the provinces, towns, and churches (in the Indies) to see that all laws and pre-eminences which pertain to our royal patronage are guarded and fulfilled, ... which they will do by the best means that may appear to them convenient, giving all the orders and instructions necessary to the end that all (the instructions) that we may give shall be carried out in due form; and we pray and charge [692]

our bishops and archbishops, deans, and ecclesiastical chapters of the metropolitan and cathedral churches and cathedrals and all the curates and occupants of benefices, clerics, sacristans and other ecclesiastical persons, and the provincials, guardians, priors and other religious of the orders, in so far as it is inc.u.mbent upon them, to guard and fulfill them (the laws and preeminences of the king) and see them fulfilled and obeyed, conforming with our viceroys, presidents, audiencias and governors as much as may be appropriate and necessary. [693]

In accordance with this law the audiencia exercised the right of intervention in practically all matters to which the authority of the vicepatron extended. Foremost among these were the supervision and administration of ecclesiastical revenues, the administration of vacant benefices, the extension of missionary influences and the construction of churches and monasteries. The audiencia, moreover, had authority over the reception and installation of prelates, parish priests, and regulars, and their removal for cause. In all these matters the audiencia was responsible directly to the king and made reports thereon; in fact, it may be said that the tribunal, in co-ordination with the vicepatron, served as a connecting link between the church in the Islands and the royal council in Spain.

An a.n.a.lysis of the relations between the audiencia and the church will show that the tribunal exercised two kinds of ecclesiastical powers. These may be regarded respectively as executive and judicial. Although it was in their union that the audiencia exercised its most extensive and far-reaching power of ecclesiastical control, it is advisable for several reasons that these powers should be considered as distinct from one another. They will therefore be discussed separately in this treatise. In this chapter we shall consider only the first of these powers--the one which was most directly concerned with the maintenance of the royal patronage--namely, the authority which the audiencia exercised co-ordinately with the governor in the supervision and control of the church in the colony.

Although there appears to have been no conflict of authority between the governor and the audiencia over their mutual relations under the laws of the royal patronage, it is advisable at the outset to settle one difficulty which may present itself in this connection. Many of these powers which the audiencia exercised were conferred upon the vicepatron exclusively. Indeed, a study of the laws alone would suggest the possibility of a conflict of jurisdiction between the governor and the audiencia in matters relating to the royal patronage. In actual practice, however, the governor shared the powers of ecclesiastical supervision with the audiencia, and their relations were harmonious in all matters appertaining thereto. Indeed, there is record of fewer conflicts between the audiencia and the governor in this field of activity than in any other.

It would seem that the intervention of the audiencia in ecclesiastical matters developed in the same manner and for the same reason as it came to have authority in matters of government, finance and military administration. The manifest impossibility of the successful administration of the many affairs of civil and ecclesiastical government by the governor (or viceroy in New Spain and Peru) made inevitable the division of power, which, though real, was not always formally recognized by the laws. The audiencia was the only body available with which the governor (or viceroy) might share these responsibilities. Its judicial character, and the talent, training, and administrative ability and experience (wider than that of the governor himself) of its members made it the logical inst.i.tution to which the executive should naturally turn for advice and a.s.sistance. Not only did he require counsel, but the moral and physical support of a tribunal of weight and authority was invaluable in dealing with the united forces of a powerful ecclesiastical hierarchy. This is the best possible explanation of that gradual a.s.sumption of authority by the audiencia which seems to have been so indefinitely, yet freely conceded, and which apparently grew up neither in conflict with the law nor yet entirely in accord with it, but which, now recognized, and now ignored, was never denied or prohibited.

The cedula of October 6, 1578, in explanation of the various forms of address in the expedition of royal cedulas, was designed to make clear the respective jurisdictions of the vicepatron and the audiencia in ecclesiastical as well as in other governmental affairs. It ordered that

when our royal cedulas refer in particular to the viceroys, they alone shall attend to their fulfillment without other intervention; if they designate the viceroy, or president or audiencia, they shall all attend to their execution in accordance with the opinion of the greater part of them that are in the audiencia, and the viceroy or president shall not have more than one vote like the rest that may be present, provided that this do not contravene the superior government which we regularly commit to our viceroys and presidents. [694]

While more than a joint authority with the vicepatron cannot be claimed for the audiencia, and that authority not necessarily coequal, this cedula established beyond question the royal intention of recognizing the audiencia as a support and an aid to the governor. This law applied to all the affairs of government, not pertaining any more extensively to the ecclesiastical than to the administrative sphere, but this cedula, together with what actually happened, may be taken as evidence that the audiencia was meant to have jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs when royal cedulas granting or a.s.suming the exercise of such jurisdiction were addressed to it.

The right of the officials of the civil government to interfere in questions of patronage was seldom seriously questioned by the churchmen, although there were some notable instances in which religious authorities objected to this exercise of power. Bishop Salazar, in his opposition to the plan of Fray Alonso Sanchez at the court of Madrid (1593-1595), expressed his disapproval of the interference of the governor and audiencia in questions of patronage. His opposition is further attested by several of his letters and declarations enunciated previous to that time. [695] He admitted that the civil government, by virtue of the bulls of Alexander VI and Julius II, should act as the defender and champion of the church, but he opposed any further partic.i.p.ation in ecclesiastical affairs by the civil power. Salazar's arguments are worth noting because they were advanced during the formative period of the Islands' history. It was during his prelacy that the basis of all future relations of church and state was established. The arguments of Bishop Salazar were repeated with little variation by Archbishop Poblete in his controversy with Governor Salcedo in 1665 and later by Archbishop Pardo in 1686. [696]

In considering this question, the calm and impartial judgment of a scholar is eminently preferable to the pa.s.sionate arguments of a prelate deeply concerned in the outcome of the dispute. Let us turn from the field of original research to a modern Spanish writer on church history and law. Fray Matias Gomez Zamora, writing from the vantage ground of the modern day, characterizes the acts of the government officials of the earlier era as excessive and unjustified by papal bull or ecclesiastical canon. He even goes a step farther when he declares that "many royal decrees and cedulas were wrongfully issued, without proper basis." He cites examples to prove his contention and among these he points to the foundation of churches and monasteries by civil authorities without the confirmation of the prelate, alleging that such practices were entirely illegal. [697] In like manner, he criticises the cedulas of October 19, 1756, and of June 24, 1762, which bestowed upon the governor jurisdiction as vicepatron, [698]

with the right of settling whatever questions might arise. "But,"

he writes, "it is clear that the viceroys, the audiencias and the governors did not have, nor could they have spiritual jurisdiction over the persons or property of the ecclesiastics, because in no case can power which is delegated be greater than he to whom it is delegated." [699] Thus does this distinguished writer attack the foundation of the entire inst.i.tution whereby Spain controlled the church in her colonies during a period of three hundred years.

Notwithstanding the fact that the governor was the civil head of the church in the colony, it would be possible to fill this chapter completely with quotations of laws which were addressed to the audiencia in recognition of its right of intervention in ecclesiastical matters. The necessity of reserving s.p.a.ce for specific cases ill.u.s.trative of history and practice permits only a scanty summary of the most important of these laws. In practically all these cases the audiencia partic.i.p.ated conjointly with the vicepatron. The interposition of the audiencia was authorized in the calling of provincial councils and synods, and the resolutions of these bodies had to be examined by the viceroys, presidents, and oidores to see that they were in accordance with the laws of the royal patronage. [700] The audiencia was empowered to examine all papal bulls and briefs and to suspend those which had not been properly authorized by the Council of the Indies. Disputes between prelates and arguments of churchmen based on bulls and briefs were to be referred by the audiencia to the Council of the Indies. The audiencia was authorized to enforce all properly authorized bulls and briefs and to exercise care that the ecclesiastical courts were granted their proper jurisdiction in accordance with canon law. [701]

The audiencia was authorized to enforce the law which forbade laymen to trade with priests. Punishment in the latter case was not meted out by that tribunal, but the offending churchmen were handed over to the prelates. [702] The audiencia, viceroy, and governors were commanded to exercise supervision over the prelates and provincials, receiving from the latter annual reports on the state, membership, and progress of the religious orders and the work performed by them, which information in turn was forwarded to the Council of the Indies. [703]

All possible a.s.sistance was to be furnished by the audiencia and governor to missionaries remaining in the Philippines or going to j.a.pan. [704] The governor and audiencia were ordered to supervise closely the work of ecclesiastical visitors in the provinces, exercising special care that the natives were not imposed on or abused. The oidores were prohibited from interference with the internal government of the religious orders. [705] Members of orders could not usually be removed by their provincials without the consent of the vicepatron and the audiencia, the authority of the latter extending to the removal and exile of offending priests. [706] The audiencia was ordered to make every possible effort to preserve harmony among the religious and to adjust all differences arising between the orders, or within them. [707] The tribunal was authorized to keep prelates from exceeding their authority in pa.s.sing judgment on erring priests, especially to see that no punishments were imposed such as would interfere with the prerogatives of the civil government. [708]

The following brief summary of laws of the early period, although possibly repeating data already given, shows the extent of the partic.i.p.ation of the audiencia in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs: [709]

All ecclesiastics holding office were first to gain the recognition of the viceroy, president, audiencia or whatever authority might be in charge of the province.

A list of the members of each order was to be furnished by their provincial to the governing authority. Any changes subsequently made in the membership of the orders had to be reported in the same way.

The names of all religious teachers were to be submitted to the audiencia, governor or other authority in control, for inspection and approval.

The audiencia was instructed to inform itself relative to the efficiency of the clergy and of religious teachers working among the Indians, and to see that those lacking in educational qualifications or in general capacity were not permitted to enter the Islands. [710]

Notices of removals or of new appointments made among the clergy were to be sent to the governor, audiencia, and to the bishop. [711]

The jurisdiction of the audiencia under the royal patronage extended to practically all cla.s.ses of churchmen and church affairs. [712] By the cedulas of August 4, 1574, and of October 25, 1667, the audiencia acquired the right of pa.s.sing on the credentials of prelates who came to the Islands. That tribunal was entrusted with the duty of seeing that bishops and archbishops carried with them the duly attested confirmation of the Council of the Indies, and no prelate was allowed to leave the Islands unless he had the permission of the governor or audiencia. [713] The tribunal exercised a check on the governor in this particular and saw to it that in granting this permission he did not show favoritism or otherwise violate the laws of the royal patronage.

Two striking ill.u.s.trations of the audiencia's jurisdiction over the inspection of the credentials of the prelates and higher churchmen occur in the history of the Philippines. In 1674, Francisco de Palou, a French bishop who had been engaged in missionary work in China, was cast upon the sh.o.r.es of the Philippines. The audiencia immediately dispatched orders for his detention, and he was not permitted to return to his district on the ground that his presence and jurisdiction in China const.i.tuted an encroachment on the rights of Spain. China had been conceded to Spain by Alexander VI, and by virtue of the royal patronage, the right of making ecclesiastical appointments and the exercise of jurisdiction there were prerogatives belonging to the Spanish crown. [714]

A similar case occurred in 1704, when Archbishop Touron, a French delegate destined for China, arrived in Manila. He was received by the governor and audiencia, as he bore a legally executed commission from the pope for the visitation of all the churches in the Orient, and for the settlement of all ecclesiastical controversies which had arisen there. The royal acuerdo considered that the dispatches and credentials which he carried were in accordance with the law. Touron was accordingly permitted to set up an ecclesiastical court. He suspended Archbishop Camacho from his office and freed from prison some of the worst criminals in the Islands. He ordered the regulars to submit to diocesan visitation; but they refused to obey him since they had already rejected the efforts of the archbishop to enforce the principle. The Council of the Indies ultimately disapproved of the admission of this foreign ecclesiastic without the authorization of the Spanish government [715] and as a consequence ordered the removal of the governor and senior oidor, heavily fined the remaining magistrates and reduced Archbishop Camacho to the position of Bishop of Guadalajara. [716]

In its joint capacity as a.s.sistant to the vicepatron and as a high court with jurisdiction over ecclesiastical cases, the audiencia settled disputes between rival claimants to positions of authority in the church, particularly to the position of archbishop. The law which had been in force up to 1619 prescribed that the ecclesiastical chapter should fill the vacancy with a temporary inc.u.mbent, but some effort had already been made to have the senior bishop succeed to the post. Bishop Arce of Cebu was opposed to this plan on the ground that each prelate had more than he could do in the proper administration of his own bishopric. [717] Nevertheless it may be noted that on January 22, 1630, Arce was made acting archbishop of the metropolitan see of Manila by virtue of the acuerdo of the audiencia and the vicepatron. [718] Arce's accession to the post was in accordance with a papal bull which had been promulgated with the king's approval at some date between 1619 and 1630. There had been a three-cornered fight between the ecclesiastical chapter, the Bishop of Cebu, and the Bishop of Nueva Segovia, and this conflict had been settled by the acuerdo in favor of Arce, while the chapter appealed to the Council of the Indies. When Guerrero, the new appointee, arrived, he immediately laid claim to the office, which Arce refused to surrender on account of an irregularity in the archbishop's appointment. Arce appealed to the audiencia, but the tribunal refused to authorize any innovations. [719] In a statement to the king, dated October 17, 1655, he related that in 1629 the governor and audiencia had solicited that he come to Manila and take the place vacated through the death of Archbishop Serrano. This would seem to indicate that the audiencia had acted solely on the basis of its authority derived from the royal patronage, but in settling the dispute among the various ecclesiastical authorities it also acted judicially. Guerrero's credentials finally came, apparently executed in the proper form and they were referred to the audiencia by the governor. The tribunal, when it had satisfied itself that the commission was valid, placed thereon the stamp of its approval and accepted Guerrero as archbishop. Then the latter, in the words of Governor Corcuera, presented himself "in the royal court of justice (the audiencia) before which he appeared to be presented [to his see], he swore upon the gospels not to interfere with your Majesty's jurisdiction, to respect your royal patronage, and to be always your royal va.s.sal." [720] In other words, he took his oath of office as archbishop in the audiencia.

The above may be considered as a typical case of the temporary designation of a prelate for the archbishopric of Manila by the audiencia. To cite further instances of a similar nature would be unnecessary. The tribunal continued to inspect the credentials of bishops and archbishops before they were admitted to their posts throughout the history of the Islands. This practice was followed even during the period from 1660 to 1762 when the church counted for more as a political inst.i.tution than either the audiencia or the governor. [721]

The audiencia exercised intervention in the removal of curates from their parishes. [722] As noted, already, these removals were made by the vicepatron upon the recommendation of the prelate concerned. Of course, when the audiencia was governing ad interim it made these removals itself. It also intervened when the vicepatron was present on occasions when he requested the support of the tribunal or failed to act himself. The judicial authority of the audiencia, exercised through its entertainment of appeals from curates who had been removed, will be considered in the next chapter.

A great many reasons for removals were purely ecclesiastical, such as questions of the private lives and conduct of priests and friars and their insubordination and non-compliance with ecclesiastical or monastic rules. With these matters the audiencia did not concern itself unless deportation was involved, or the offenses of the priests const.i.tuted crimes against the civil government. There is record of many removals from curacies because of infractions of the marriage laws by priests, such, for instance, as uniting heathen Chinese with Christian women, which was a violation of the pragmatic law of March 23, 1776. Such cases, and indeed all which had to do with removals from curacies after 1795, were settled by ecclesiastical tribunals with appeal to the papal delegate, without the intervention of the audiencia. [723]

The operation of the removal of regulars for cause was slightly different. Unless the regular was the holder of a parish and subject to episcopal visitation, the prelate had no jurisdiction over him, and neither the governor nor the audiencia could interfere in the matter, unless such intervention was requested by the provincial. [724]

When the deportation of regulars not holding curacies was decreed, the consent of the vicepatron or audiencia, acting for him, was necessary. This was usually given on the recommendation of the provincial, and the exile accordingly became an act of the civil government. The formal consent of the Council of the Indies was necessary for all deportations of this character, but the complete exercise of this prerogative gradually devolved upon the vicepatron, who notified the Council of the act. [725]

The crimes of priests or ecclesiastics against the law and order of the realm were punishable in the same manner and by the same agency as the simpler violations of ordinary subjects. Attention has already been given in another part of this treatise to a case in which the audiencia, in 1617, tried and punished six Augustinian friars who had been convicted of murder. [726] Their guilt was first ascertained by a preliminary investigation within the order, after which they were handed over to the audiencia.