The statement has been made above that the audiencia was not allowed to interfere in the internal regime of the convents or monasteries. [727]

However, when the provincials of the orders were unable to keep the friars in subordination they frequently called upon the civil government for support and a.s.sistance. This was done in 1715 when the Castilian Recollects rebelled against their provincial, incorporated themselves into a separate chapter, and entrenched themselves in the convent at Bagumbayan, outside the Manila wall. Oidor Torralba, then acting as governor and vicepatron, came to the support of the provincial upon appeal. He cannonaded the recalcitrants, arresting and imprisoning them on their surrender, and finally banished their leaders. [728] On this same occasion, it may be noted, the provincial solicited the aid of the archbishop, whose interference the rebellious friars had resisted as an attempt at episcopal visitation.

The disciplinary jurisdiction over priests and friars referred to above suggests a similar authority which the audiencia exercised over the prelates. Within the period of one year after the installation of Archbishop Guerrero at Manila in 1636, the governor, with the support of the audiencia, had banished this same prelate and his ecclesiastical provisor, [729] condemning the former to pay a fine of 2000 ducats. The governor contrived also to influence the judge-conservator [730]

to p.r.o.nounce a ban of excommunication upon them both, in return for a like censure that had already been pa.s.sed on the governor by the prelate. [731] The banishment of Archbishop Poblete by Governor Salcedo and the audiencia prior to the arrest of that governor by the commissary of the Inquisition, the exile of Archbishop Pardo in 1684, and the imprisonment of Archbishop de la Cuesta by Governor Bustamante and the audiencia in 1719, are incidents in the history of the Islands which serve well as ill.u.s.trations of the disciplinary and coercive jurisdiction of the vicepatron and audiencia over the churchmen. These events need only be referred to here, as they have already been discussed in relation to other phases of the history of the audiencia.

As visitors of the provinces, the oidores were required to inspect the ecclesiastical work of the parish priests and to note their care and treatment of the Indians. [732] In the exercise of these duties they were protected by a law which forbade prelates to proceed against them with censures while they were carrying on such investigations. Le Gentil, the noted French traveller, who visited the Islands during the middle of the eighteenth century, testified that the oidores did not fulfill their duty with great faithfulness. Le Gentil stated that on account of their dependence on the hospitality of the priests when travelling from place to place in the provinces, the visitors'

inspections were merely perfunctory and of little value. [733]

The above testimony is not corroborated, however, by the report of Oidor Francisco Guerela who was sent to Camarines in 1702 to take account of tribute and to inquire into the state of the encomiendas. He reported that in the curacies which were administered by the Franciscans there was an entire absence of religious instruction, the natives were mistreated, and they were permitted to continue in idolatry, drunkenness, and superst.i.tion. Neither the priests nor the alcaldes mayores exerted any uplifting or civilizing influence. The alcaldes mayores, it was alleged, connived with the priests to defraud the natives by the imposition of excessive tribute and by the exaction of all sorts of fraudulent ecclesiastical t.i.thes. The oidor in this case sought to remedy this state of affairs by dispatching reformatory edicts against the friars, and by posting notices and copies of royal decrees and cedulas designed to inform the natives of their rights under the law and to warn them against the imposture of the friars. Whereupon the Franciscans appealed to the Bishop of Camarines and persuaded him to excommunicate the oidor on the grounds that he had usurped the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This appeal to the papal delegate was in direct violation of the cedula mentioned above, protecting such visitations against ecclesiastical censure. The oidor appealed to the audiencia and that body solicited the prelate by ruego y encargo to remove his censures. The audiencia would go no further, however, as two of the magistrates were personally hostile to Guerela, hence the oidor was obliged to remain in the provinces at the mercy of the friars. After six months of isolation, Guerela, who was broken in health, sent an appeal for aid to the king on June 20, 1702. This memorial embodied a full account of his attempts to make necessary reforms in the provinces subject to his visitation. [734] It was presented to the Council of the Indies on October 14, 1706. [735]

Three observations might be made from this incident. First, there was little vigor, prompt.i.tude, or effectiveness in the Spanish judicial system as therein exemplified. It took four years for this pet.i.tion to be presented to the Council and considerably more time for an answer to be made. Secondly, this affair shows to what extent petty spite and private quarrels interfered with good government and efficient administration. Thirdly, it ill.u.s.trates the fact that the entire civil government, including the audiencia, was very much under the domination and influence of the ecclesiastics.

An inspection which was similar to that just described was made by Oidor Jose Torralba, in 1713, in the provinces of Albay and Cebu. Torralba was unable to complete his work, owing to his recall to Manila, where he was obliged to resume his place in the audiencia on account of the insufficient number of magistrates present in the tribunal. It seems that in the provinces subject to his visitation, the former charges of the Franciscans had been turned over to the seculars, most of whom were natives. Torralba reported that under the careless and incompetent administration of the parish priests, the churches had gone to ruin and all Indian instruction had been abandoned. In his report he commented unfavorably on the stupidity and immorality of the native clergy, alleging that in them lay one of the causes of the poverty and degradation of the people. He recommended the restoration of the regulars. [736] Torralba's recommendations were not followed. Either because of his hurried departure from the provinces where he left his work unfinished, or because of the disinclination or lack of authority of the audiencia and vicepatron, no definite steps were taken at this time for the amelioration of the condition of the people or for the reform of the clergy.

That the interests of the friars were vigorously and effectively championed at the court is evidenced by the royal decree of June 14, 1714, which was dispatched not alone to the Philippines, but which was made general in Peru and New Spain. [737] It forbade the governors and audiencias using their authority as vicepatrons to justify their interference with the interior administration of the convents and monasteries of the orders, which it was complained they were doing without authorization. This decree particularly emphasized the principle which has already been set forth in this treatise that the vicepatrons and audiencias should not concern themselves with the discipline and punishment of friars not holding curacies. The promulgation of this decree was brought about as a result of the efforts of the commissary of the Franciscan order in Madrid.

Not only were the oidores required to inspect the work of the parish priests, but the audiencia, in the exercise of the royal patronage, was authorized to receive, a.s.sist, and supervise the ecclesiastical visitors who came from Spain or Mexico, or were designated from the ranks of the local clergy to inspect the orders. [738] These visitors were also authorized to inspect friars who were in charge of parishes, [739] and when on these tours of inspection they might be accompanied by the prelate in charge of the curacies retained by the friars under inspection. The audiencia was to co-operate in all possible ways with these visitors, and should any question arise between them and a prelate over jurisdiction, the tribunal was to do everything possible to bring about a harmonious adjustment of the points of difference. This is ill.u.s.trated by a case which arose in 1776, when Fray Joseph Pereyra was given a royal commission to make a general investigation of the Augustinian order in the Philippines. Fiscal Andrade of the audiencia demanded that Pereyra should submit all his doc.u.ments for inspection on the basis of the royal patronage and other laws, [740] but the audiencia, under the presidency of Governor Anda, refused to support the fiscal. The king, on April 6, 1778, rebuked the audiencia for its failure to support the royal patronage, citing two cedulas, those of July 2 and of October 14, 1773, respectively, in which he had already admonished the vicepatron in that particular. [741] The failure of the audiencia and governor to exercise all their prerogatives in support of the royal patronage on these various occasions can probably be attributed to dissensions within the tribunal and to the corrupting influence of the church.

The statement has frequently been made in this treatise that the audiencia served as a connecting link between the court and the colony. It const.i.tuted a channel through which a large amount of correspondence was carried on, and one of the duties most frequently required was that of furnishing special and regular reports and informaciones [742] on various subjects connected with the church. [743] Notwithstanding the vast number of ecclesiastics present in the colony, who could and did make special and regular reports, and were indeed required to make them, the audiencia was frequently called upon to render reports on precisely the same subjects as those covered by the churchmen. In this way points of view other than the ecclesiastical were obtained. Thus the advice of magistrates, lawyers and men in active touch with the government served to temper ecclesiastical opinion in the same way that the advice of prelates exercised an influence on matters purely governmental. Taking into consideration their position in the colony, the oidores were better qualified to obtain and impart information concerning the church than most authorities.

To indicate the vast field of special subjects in which the oidores were required to report, various instances may be mentioned. On July 1, 1598, the king desired information concerning the alleged need of a greater amount of s.p.a.ce on the galleon for the support of the bishopric of Nueva Segovia. The archbishop and the bishop of that diocese had both recommended that more cargo-s.p.a.ce be given to the church. The king desired to know whether, in the opinion of the oidores, the privilege of shipping two hundred tons would be sufficient for the needs of the bishopric in question. [744] Again, on December 7, 1610, the audiencia was called upon to forward to the Council of the Indies evidence bearing upon a dispute between the natives of Quiapo and the Jesuits over lands claimed by the latter society. [745] On another occasion the king requested of the audiencia a report concerning the work, deserts, and financial condition of the convent of Santa Clara, which had asked for royal aid. [746] Frequently the audiencia was called upon to take a census of the number of priests, secular and regular, in the Islands and to report on the size of each order, the number of friars holding secular curacies in each, and the number of missionaries. [747] It came to be its regular duty to furnish these reports at stated intervals, and when, for some reason, it failed to render them, a royal reprimand was forthcoming. A yearly report was also made on the number of friars entering the Islands, how many had gone to China, the number of souls ministered to by each order, how large was each province, and how many people there were in each curacy. [748]

It is interesting to know that the churchmen were also held responsible for this information and that reports on these same subjects were required of the prelates and provincials. [749] It is evident that the report of the audiencia was utilized as a check to prevent misrepresentation on the part of the friars, especially since it was always the object of each order to prove that it was over-worked and in urgent need of more members. As friars were sent to the Islands at the royal expense, [750] and as they were supported after their arrival by the royal treasury, the exercise of economy was always desirable. On the other hand, it was to the interest of an order to make its requirements and accomplishments appear as great as possible.

Another function which the audiencia came to exercise by virtue of its authority in behalf of the royal patronage was that of general supervision over the colleges and universities. In the laws of the Indies this duty was imposed upon the viceroys and governors, [751] and nothing was said of the authority of the audiencia in that particular. According to the laws of the Indies, in fact, the audiencia had little jurisdiction or authority over colleges, universities and seminaries, but as the administration of these was entirely in the hands of the church, the audiencia came to exercise much the same authority over education that it did over other church activities. [752] Oidores and fiscales were forbidden to act as rectors, but they might partic.i.p.ate in the law examinations to satisfy themselves whether the standard of instruction in the royal universities and colleges was sufficiently high, and whether the education, training and ability of candidates for the licentiate's degree gave evidence of their fitness. [753] According to the royal decree of November 27, 1623, the University of Santo Tomas was founded in the Philippines with the advice of the governor and acuerdo of the audiencia. [754] Here again that tribunal may be seen in the act of a.s.suming non-judicial functions which primarily belonged to the governor through the unwillingness or inability of that official to act alone.

The audiencia early exercised advisory powers in educational affairs. The Jesuits as early as 1585 had requested permission to found and establish a college or seminary in Manila, and the king, on January 11, 1587, requested of the audiencia a report on the general conduct, progress and accomplishments of the Jesuit order, asking in particular what benefit would accrue from the establishment of a Jesuit college in Manila. The audiencia, in its report of June 25, 1588, characterized their work as very effective, the learning and ability of their personnel remarkable, but in the opinion of the oidores there was scarcely any need of a college in Manila at that time, and there were no means of supporting one. [755]

When Santo Tomas became a royal university in 1648, the Jesuits were obliged to sue in the audiencia for the right to continue the bestowal of academic degrees. Their request was denied by the tribunal, but the decision was reversed by the Council of the Indies in 1653. [756]

On May 3, 1722, San Jose was made a royal college and was subjected to the visitation and patronage of the audiencia. In 1769, when the Jesuits were suppressed, an attempt was made to continue San Jose as a secular inst.i.tution under the supervision of the audiencia. This brought forth such determined opposition from the Dominicans and from the friends and supporters of Santo Tomas that on June 30, 1778, a cedula was issued ordering the audiencia to close San Jose and hand over all students in attendance there to the archbishop, so that they might be placed in secular colleges and seminaries. [757]

This was done, and the audiencia rendered to the Council of the Indies a report on the administration of the finances pertaining to the transaction. The revenues derived from all unsold properties belonging to the Jesuits were included in the temporalities, and the income from these were transmitted to the royal treasury. Subsequently the archbishop attempted to a.s.sume jurisdiction over these Jesuit properties and funds, and to this the audiencia objected. In 1784 the matter was finally settled by the decree of the king in answer to an appeal which had been carried by the prelate from the audiencia to the Council of the Indies. He sustained the audiencia and forbade the prelate from interfering with these temporalities.

The Dominicans were more successful in the maintenance of an educational inst.i.tution. [758] On the occasion of the extension of the charter of the University of Santo Tomas on May 17, 1680, the king ordered "my president and the auditors of my Audiencia of that city, and request and charge the archbishop of the city, the bishops of the said islands, the ecclesiastical and secular cabildos, the superiors of the orders, and any other of my judges and justices,"

... to acknowledge the University of Santo Tomas as a beneficiary of the royal patronage. Its t.i.tle was formally extended on June 21, 1681, by act of the audiencia. [759] The tribunal not only exercised the right of patronage over the Dominican university, but also over the College of San Juan de Letran, a seminary for boys which was founded in 1640 and maintained by the Dominicans as an adjunct to Santo Tomas.

Reports, recommendations, and informaciones exist in abundance to prove that the audiencia exercised considerable influence in the life and history of these inst.i.tutions. The tribunal celebrated acuerdos to improve the instruction in mathematics, physics, law and medicine. It provided for the examination of students, pa.s.sed on their credentials, made regulations for the bestowal of degrees and decided upon the fitness of prospective teachers. [760] It supervised the records of these inst.i.tutions, audited their finances and sent reports to the king and Council concerning the work of the universities and colleges. In its jurisdiction and authority over these educational inst.i.tutions the audiencia served in behalf of the sovereign as his royal tribunal. These were royal universities, endowed with special royal charters and privileges and it was fitting that they should be controlled by the royal audiencia in the king's name. In addition to this, as they were administered by the church, the audiencia and the vicepatron exercised joint control over them, in the name of the royal patronage in the same manner that they supervised other ecclesiastical activities.

As we have already noted, the audiencia exercised jurisdiction over matters of church finance. The most notable examples of its control may be seen in the administration of t.i.thes, [761] the funds of temporalities, obras pias, funds of the Crusade, and espolios of the prelates.

The audiencia was authorized to guard the royal interest in the matter of the collection and the administration of t.i.thes, particularly with a view to seeing that over-ambitious churchmen did not obtain more than their share, and that in the collection of the t.i.thes they did not oppress the natives. The special care of the oidores was to see that t.i.thes be not paid directly to the prelates. [762] In fact, these funds were to be administered by the civil government, and prelates were not to be allowed to interfere with their collection. No changes were to be made in the authorized manner of collecting these funds on the responsibility of colonial officials. Recommendations for reform should be made to the Council of the Indies either by the prelate or by the audiencia. [763] The audiencia was ordered to see that the proper division and distribution of t.i.thes were made, and that the two-ninths of the gross sum collected was duly set aside for the crown, in accordance with the law. [764]

Further evidence that the audiencia was regarded as the instrument of the royal will in these matters is afforded by the circ.u.mstances leading up to the reforms of 1768 and 1786; and it should be noted particularly that the king and Council relied on that tribunal for advice and a.s.sistance in the drafting and execution of these measures. A number of tentative laws and proposals for changes in the system of collection and administration of the t.i.thes was sent to the audiencia, from time to time, prior to 1768, and the magistrates were required to submit opinions as to the availability and applicability of the proposed measures. In 1768 a decree was issued fixing the t.i.the at ten reales per Indian. Previous to that year a number of religious orders owning large tracts of agricultural land had refused to pay these taxes, and the audiencia, by virtue of the royal order of September 25, 1768, was ordered to enforce the law, which it did, even proceeding to the seizure of the chattels of the recalcitrant friars. [765] On December 11, 1775, the audiencia pa.s.sed an ordinance diminishing the t.i.thes to be paid by natives, mestizos, Chinese and j.a.panese by one-half real per person. [766] On July 12, 1778, the king asked the audiencia to submit evidence on the question of whether the law worked any hardship on the inhabitants of the colony, and whether encomenderos and friars were paying their share. [767]

At the same time, and on the same date, the royal approval was given to the auto which the audiencia had enacted on December 11, 1775. The recommendations of the audiencia were also largely followed in the decree of January 20, 1786, which was merely a repromulgation of an earlier auto of the audiencia, which ordered that t.i.thes should not be collected directly from the Indians unless the latter were owners of lands. Otherwise they were to be collected from the landlords. [768]

By subsequent laws the audiencia was temporarily deprived of its jurisdiction over t.i.thes. When the Philippine government was reorganized in 1787 by the Ordinance of Intendants, many of the special commissions which had been previously retained by the magistrates were ceded to the superintendent of real hacienda. The actual collection of t.i.thes was made the duty of the superintendent by cedula of October 6, 1792, [769] but because of its relation to the royal patronage the audiencia, in practice, found it convenient to retain control. Governor Aguilar, who was also superintendent of real hacienda, wrote to the king on July 31, 1799, [770] alleging that there was no reason why the audiencia should exercise this authority, when, by virtue of its financial nature, this duty belonged to the superintendent. He stated that the audiencia had been given this jurisdiction when there had been no other authority for the collection of t.i.thes, but that as it was not a controversial matter, there was no reason for the continuance of this condition. In the letter referred to Aguilar stated that he had attempted to put his interpretation of the law into execution, but in so doing had been opposed by the audiencia. The answer to this appeal does not appear in connection with the original, but the royal cedula of April 21, 1803, restored to the audiencia jurisdiction over the collection of t.i.thes. [771]

It may be said, however, that with the creation of the superintendency the audiencia was shorn of many of the miscellaneous functions with which it had been formerly endowed. The funds of the temporalities, however, did not come under this category. They were greatly augmented in 1767 when the Jesuits were suppressed, and as was usual with such miscellaneous and uncla.s.sified duties, as well as on account of the audiencia's relation to the royal patronage, the administration of these funds came under the charge of an oidor whose official t.i.tle was "administrator of the funds of the temporalities." [772]

Nevertheless, the audiencia's share of direct control over these funds was still considerable. On January 23, 1803, a cedula was issued ordering that the money of the temporalities and obras pias should be put at the disposal of the acuerdo of the audiencia. [773] A report was submitted to that tribunal by Superintendent Aguilar on July 20, 1804, in accordance with this cedula. The report of Aguilar showed a balance on hand of 151,625 pesos waiting to be sent to Spain by the first transportation. In 1809, the jurisdiction of these funds was completely restored to the audiencia, with the provision that the oidores who acted as their administrators should receive a three per cent commission. As the funds were constantly drawn upon, and there were no further confiscations of property of this sort, they can be accounted as of little importance, yielding practically no revenue from that date. Owing to the continual appeals of the government for money with which to defray the expenses of putting down the various insurrections from 1808 to 1814 and subsequently, the funds of the temporalities, like every other peso that came into the treasuries of the colonies, were sent to Spain as rapidly as they were collected. [774]

The audiencia also audited the accounts of the obras pias, though its jurisdiction over these funds was often opposed. [775] The chief foundations of the obras pias in Manila were the Santa Misericordia and San Juan de Dios. The wealth and power of the Misericordia became so great, [776] and so well did it profit by the various immunities extended to it, that by the early part of the eighteenth century it had become the object of the distrust and envy of all cla.s.ses of Manila society. It was chiefly disliked because it had been permitted to utilize so much free s.p.a.ce on the galleon. Other inconveniences had arisen from its partic.i.p.ation in trade, wherein, possessed of so many advantages, it was enabled to derive profits and benefits that were denied to competing merchants in the colony. Complaints were made against it by certain religious orders, merchants, treasury officials, oidores, and the governor, himself. It was the consensus of opinion among these that the accounts of this society should be inspected by the government, and, in accordance with these recommendations, a cedula was expedited, ordering the society to submit its accounts to the audiencia for inspection and approval. [777]

The suspicions of the general public were confirmed, and the popular distrust increased when the inspection of Oidor Calderon revealed that the finances of the society had been carelessly kept, and that the books contained numerous discrepancies. The scrutiny of the oidor showed the existence of a deficit of 383,437 pesos; that is, the records called for property in the hands of the society to the value of that sum which could not be found. The Misericordia, in a series of protests, accounted for the discrepancies by alleging that the audiencia had declared many of its debtors bankrupt. Relief from the inspection was requested on the grounds that the local feeling and the prejudice of the oidores would cause them to be unfair to the society. It pleaded that the inspection should be made by the chief accountant of the Council of the Indies (contador de cuentas) once in five years. In this request it was supported by the recommendation of this official. [778]

On April 19, 1755, the cedula of November 9, 1747, was modified on the basis of these protests, and in lieu of the annual inspection of the oidor was subst.i.tuted the requirement that once in three years the Misericordia should submit its own accounts. [779] This brought forth a storm of protest from the residents of Manila, headed by Governor Arandia, who went to some length to describe the abuses which had arisen in the past from the unrestricted liberty which the Misericordia had enjoyed. He accused the society of dishonest political practices, interference with the government, bribery and corruption. He said that behind its commercial operations there existed a veiled scheme by which the church was seeking to monopolize the trade of the Islands. [780]

The opposition of the governor and residents bore fruit to the extent that a compromise was made in the royal cedula of February 21, 1759, which restored the practice of having oidores inspect the accounts of the Misericordia, though the examination was to be held only once in five years. This, of course, was sufficiently lenient to defeat the entire scheme. Oidores were forbidden to interfere with the property of the society at any other time and in any other manner. [781]

The Misericordia maintained a stubborn and vigorous resistance to the principle of visitation by the audiencia, but as far as may be judged by the data at hand, the law was not changed again, and the audiencia continued to exercise supervision. That the audiencia was p.r.o.ne to overstep its authority in the matter of these inspections is shown by an incident which occurred in 1776-1777. In the regular quinquennial inspection of the records of the Misericordia a number of abuses were uncovered. The funds were found to have been carelessly administered, and the books inaccurately kept, owing to the negligence, incapacity, and corruption of the members to whom the funds had been entrusted. Governor Sarrio, as vicepatron, appointed Oidor Calderon as receiver and administrator of the funds, with the charge that the oidor should suspend all payments until the accounts were straightened out. The Misericordia protested and on April 25, 1778, the king ordered the governor and audiencia to desist from further interference with the funds of the society, the royal disapproval being based on the cedula of February 21, 1759, which, while authorizing the inspection of the books of the society, forbade any minister "to interfere with or interrupt said House in the administration or distribution of its funds." [782]

The cedula of February 21, 1759, was reaffirmed on repeated occasions when the Misericordia refused to submit its books to the audiencia. The last law touching upon this particular question was promulgated on August 2, 1787, when it was decreed that the accounts, books, records, and work of the Misericordia and its officials should be subject to the inspection of the audiencia. [783]

Not only was the opposition of the Misericordia a source of dispute between that society and the audiencia, but the matter of financial inspection caused disputes between the audiencia and other officials and departments of the government. The reforms of 1787 made trouble between the superintendent and the audiencia. Since this was a financial matter, the former claimed the right of auditing these accounts, which the audiencia refused to concede for the reason that it had always had supervision over these funds (when the right was exercised by any secular authority). The question was definitely settled by the cedula of January 22, 1803, which ordered that "the money of temporalities, pious funds, and charitable societies should be put at the disposal of the acuerdo, and that if any matters relative to those branches were then pending before the superintendent, they should be remitted at once to the audiencia." [784] This was accordingly done by Governor (and Superintendent) Aguilar, [785] and after that time the jurisdiction of the audiencia was no longer questioned.

Shortly after the establishment of the consulado of Manila in 1769, a bitter dispute arose between that body and the audiencia for jurisdiction over cases involving the commerce of the Misericordia. On the basis of the cedula of July 8, 1774, the consulado claimed exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes involving trade which arose between merchants. It advanced the contention that in all suits involving losses of galleons the society should be considered in the case of an individual merchant. The audiencia, basing its claims on the royal patronage, declared the consulado to have exceeded its powers, in a.s.suming the jurisdiction described above, and fined several of its members. The consulado appealed the case, and in reply the king promulgated a cedula on June 7, 1775, declaring that neither to the audiencia nor to the consulado belonged the jurisdiction over such cases, but that they should be tried in first instance by the Council of the Indies. [786] The reasons a.s.signed for this decision were that the consulado could not try such cases because merchants const.i.tuted its membership and because the fiscal and two oidores also belonged to its tribunal. Neither the audiencia nor the consulado, accordingly, could impartially try commercial suits between merchants and the Misericordia; accordingly thereafter all evidence should be submitted to the Council for special action.

The audiencia and the governor had supervision over espolios and vacant benefices. [787] When a prelate entered into office it was his duty to file with the fiscal an inventory of all properties belonging to him at the time of his advent to the diocese. [788] On the occasion of his death a treasury official was designated to estimate and administer the property left, pay the debts of the deceased churchman, execute his will with regard to his property in accordance with the law, and turn over the residue to the royal treasury. This process was known as taking the espolio.

The espolio of a deceased prelate was taken, according to the early laws, by an official of the royal treasury, who was designated by the president for the purpose, and who officiated under the supervision of the audiencia. The tribunal verified the autos and substantiated the proceedings of the agent. [789] Whether any modifications in the manner of collecting, distributing or accounting for the funds or properties derived from these espolios were made elsewhere is not clear, but in the Philippines the abuses which arose in the settling of these ecclesiastical estates and benefices made the personal intervention of the oidores necessary on a number of occasions. By royal cedula of June 23, 1712, it was ordered that in all the audiencias of the Indies the magistrate next in rank to the senior oidor should be const.i.tuted as the

private judge, who, with the concurrence of the oficiales reales, should have jurisdiction over and should proceed against, receive and collect all the products and rents of the vacant archbishoprics and bishoprics until the day on which the new prelates should take possession of their offices, proceeding with full cognizance ... to the collection ... of whatever might be due, ... with the a.s.sistance of the oficiales reales who in this matter are subject to the royal audiencia. [790]

By this same law the audiencias, viceroys, presidents and tribunals were forbidden to interfere with this judge in the execution of his duties, or to impede the execution or the law in any manner whatsoever. The estates of prelates were thus placed on a basis similar to that occupied by the properties of civilians, which, we have noted, were administered by a special magistrate of the audiencia. This cedula also provided that all money left as a residue, after the debts of the prelates were paid, should be sent to the king for distribution.

In view of the above-mentioned law, the practice followed in 1715, on the death of Bishop Gorospe of Nueva Segovia, seems to have been a direct violation of the royal command, and somewhat different from the usual method of settling the estates of prelates. As soon as Gorospe died at Magaldan, Pangasinan, the alcalde mayor of the province sent immediate notification to the governor and audiencia. The tribunal, in acuerdo, on the motion of the fiscal, authorized the alcalde mayor and the treasury officials to take the espolio of that prelate, which order was duly complied with. [791] The audiencia also dispatched a formal notification to Archbishop de la Cuesta and the metropolitan chapter, designating the former as the ecclesiastical governor of the bishopric. [792]

The significant feature of this espolio is that it was taken by an official as inferior in rank as an alcalde mayor through the express authorization of the audiencia, instead of being conducted by the second magistrate of the audiencia as the law directed. It is possible that the arrival of the cedula of June 24, 1712, had been delayed, or that this may have been a case, so frequent in the Spanish colonies, of compliance without obedience. Certain it is that the conditions of life and travel in the provinces were of such a character that an oidor would have found it more comfortable to remain in the capital and delegate the disagreeable duties of the espolio in a far-distant province to the resident alcalde mayor. Attention has already been called to various complaints made by governors and others against the disinclination of the magistrates to submit to the inconveniences of provincial inspections. Again, it is very probable that the time and attention of the magistrate whose duty it should have been to take this espolio were occupied with more important judicial duties. [793]

The citation or further multiplication of data relative to espolios would be monotonous and unprofitable. Sufficient has been said already to show the extensive partic.i.p.ation of the audiencia in the administration and settlement of the estates of prelates and the a.s.signment and care of vacant benefices. It may be noted, however, that the audiencia suffered little if any diminution of its authority over the espolio through the Ordinance of Intendants. That code deprived the oficiales reales and oidores of the duty, formerly inc.u.mbent on them, of taking espolios and conferred it upon the intendants and corregidor-intendants of provinces. However, it was still required that the papers relative to the proceedings should be submitted afterward to the audiencia for legalization and approval. [794]

Appeals and cases of litigation arising from them were to be settled in the audiencia. This decree made little difference in the procedure in the Philippines, as the corregidor-intendants were never inst.i.tuted there, and the oidores continued in the settlement of these matters, subject to the designation of the superintendent, who, it will be remembered, was also governor and president of the audiencia. The tribunal pa.s.sed, as always, on all acts of espolio and heard cases affecting them on appeal. In this manner the properties of the prelates were administered in a conservative and legal manner and the interests of the crown were safeguarded.

The audiencia exercised joint authority with the vicepatron over questions relating to the construction of churches and the conservation of ecclesiastical property. No monastery, convent, college, hospital, or other religious inst.i.tution could be founded without the consent of the king, and this permission was obtained through the viceroy, governor, or audiencia upon the recommendation of the prelate of the diocese. [795] The laws of the Indies conceded that matters which did not admit of delay could be settled by the president and audiencia. [796] In fact, as early as August 15, 1620, Governor Fajardo acknowledged receipt of a letter from the king in which occurred the statement that "no church or convent, not even a chapel, ought to be, or can be, founded unless concurrent with your permission, and that of the Audiencia." [797] It was provided that all pet.i.tions of religious orders for permission to construct convents and monasteries should be referred to the council, with the recommendations of the audiencia, but in actual practice, when the advice of the audiencia was in the affirmative, the vicepatron gave the desired consent, reporting on his action to the Council of the Indies. Thus we see that the governor and audiencia in reality exercised complete authority in uncontested cases.

A large number of communications written to the audiencia by the royal authorities exist, ill.u.s.trating the nature and extent of the influence of the audiencia in these matters. In 1604, the king learned that the Augustinians of Cavite had founded a convent with no other authority than that of the governor. This was contrary to the laws of the royal patronage and the audiencia was ordered to correct the abuse, and to see that the royal orders were obeyed in the future. [798] On another occasion the audiencia was ordered to correct certain abuses of the Jesuits, who had dispossessed the natives of their lands and had built various structures thereon. The lands were ordered to be returned to their rightful owners and the buildings destroyed. [799]

The ambitions of the friars to construct monasteries, convents and hospitals, and otherwise to manifest their powers and add to their increasing strength had to be checked frequently. The audiencia was called upon to do this throughout the history of the Islands. Possibly the best ill.u.s.tration of the authority of the audiencia in these matters may be noted in the part which it played in restraining the Augustinians from the further extension of their influence during the period from 1763 to 1778. The entire matter was summarized in the consulta of the Council of the Indies dated December 10, 1777, and the cedula of April 6, 1778, with unfavorable results for the Augustinians.

On November 17, 1770, the provincial of this order applied for permission to construct a convent in Cavite and solicited an appropriation of four thousand pesos for this purpose. It was suggested that the money should be supplied either by the income from vacant benefices or from the profits of the sale of betel to the natives. The provincial laid special claim to royal aid on the extraordinary justification that the convent of his order at Imus, Cavite, had been bombarded and destroyed by the British in 1763. On August 16, 1772, the Council of the Indies referred the matter to the Audiencia of Manila and the tribunal, after an exhaustive investigation of the subject, recommended non-compliance with the provincial's request. In its report, the audiencia reviewed the former attempts of this order to extend its power and influence. On December 2, 1765, it had tried to obtain permission to construct a convent at Nagtajan, which the audiencia and Fiscal Viana frustrated. The Augustinians tried again on February 20, 1766, asking for permission to build at Bagumbayan. This plan the audiencia was also able to defeat. On August 16, 1772, this same order, impatient at the delay of the Council in answering its pet.i.tion of November 17, 1770, and still persistent, solicited permission from the governor alone, not alluding to the fact that a pet.i.tion of this sort was at that time pending before the Council of the Indies. This request was considered in the acuerdo with unfavorable consequences for the Augustinians.

The report of the audiencia was forwarded to the court and was there reviewed by Francisco Leandro de Viana, formerly fiscal of the Audiencia of Manila and at that time a member of the Council. Viana recommended that not only should the desired permission be refused but a rigid investigation of the legitimacy of t.i.tles to properties held by the Augustinians should be made. He regarded as especially reprehensible the deliberate effort on the part of the provincial to obtain this permission from the governor in view of the unfavorable att.i.tude of the Council of the Indies and of the laws ordering that licenses for the construction of convents should be given only by the Council of the Indies, after consultation with the prelate of the ecclesiastical district and with the audiencia, governor, or viceroy. [800] In this way, due very largely to the influence of the audiencia, the efforts of this order to extend its authority were checkmated. This may be considered as a typical case of the intervention of the audiencia in behalf of the royal patronage.

It will be noted in another connection that the audiencia was called upon, from 1680 to 1720, partly as a tribunal of justice and partly as an agent of the royal patron, to investigate the t.i.tles of the lands of the friars, and, by this proceeding, the tribunal deprived the orders of much of the property which they had usurped. [801] It may also be noted that an oidor regularly inspected the royal hospital at Manila, [802] and when prelates and curates were transferred from one district or parish to another, property left by them was inventoried and taken under the direction of the audiencia. [803] These measures were designed to insure the security and conservation of royal property.

In summary, it may be said that the audiencia possessed joint authority with, but not equal to the vicepatron in the regulation and supervision of religious affairs. As a tribunal, and as an agent of the civil government, the audiencia supported and a.s.sisted the vicepatron. At times, indeed, it acted in his stead. We have seen that the audiencia labored in the interests of the royal authority when it pa.s.sed on the acts of provincial synods and councils, and it inspected bulls and briefs before they were allowed to become operative in the colony. It sought always to bring about a peaceful settlement of disputes between prelates, curates, and religious orders. Acting in the interests of the civil government, the oidores made inspections in the provinces, noting the work of the friars and parish priests in their particular fields, giving special attention to the treatment afforded to the Indians by their ecclesiastical protectors. The tribunal acted as the patron of the royal colleges and universities. It regulated the administration of ecclesiastical finances, devoting especial attention to t.i.thes, obras pias and espolios. And finally, as we have just noted, it was endowed with considerable authority in determining the advisability of authorizing the construction of churches, monasteries, and convents, or of permitting the orders to extend their influence in various parts of the colony. The intervention of the audiencia in these matters was recognized by the court at Madrid and by the ecclesiastics of the Philippines.