Читать книгу The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies - Charles Henry Cunningham - Страница 10

1 The first encomiendas in the Philippines were granted by Legaspi in 1572 (Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 42–43). The encomenderos ruled the Indians in their care with little interference from alcaldes mayores, corregidores, or governors. Vander Linden especially emphasizes the fact that the encomenderos were not supposed to act as the private masters of the Indians on their holdings, but were to act as the representatives of the king (Vander Linden, L’expansion coloniale de l’Espagne, 345–346). The laws of the Indies specified that the encomenderos were to protect, aid and educate them, seeing particularly that they were taught the Catholic Faith (Recopilación, 6–8, 9, 10, 11; esp. tit. 9, laws 1–4).

The encomenderos, in the guise of benefactors, guardians and protectors of the Indians, supervised the labor of the latter on the encomiendas, drawing remuneration therefrom, collecting tribute from them, and retaining a share of that. Aside from the very intimate relationship of the encomenderos as the guardians of the Indians in spiritual and temporal things, they were not considered as officials in the same sense as were the alcaldes mayores and corregidores.

Dr. Pardo de Tavera characterizes the duties and relations of the encomenderos to the Indians as follows: “The encomenderos were the first Spaniards after the conquest and pacification of the colony who represented the civil authority of Spain in the Islands: they were obliged to maintain order and secure the well-being of the Indian residents of their encomiendas or holdings, and to defend their tenants against any encroachments on their rights by the Spaniards, soldiers, alcaldes, and judges; and to endeavor to bring their tenants together in towns and furnish them with opportunities to be converted to the Christian religion, and to help them build churches and convents ... encomenderos were charged with the succor and support of the people on their holdings in case of any calamity, famine or public disaster, and they were prohibited from charging tribute in bulk against the various barangayes, that is to say, they should not make the chiefs of a family or tribe responsible for the payment of tribute by the various members, nor were the encomenderos allowed to use force to secure the payment of a tribute. When an encomendero received a tribute from his people, he thereupon was considered to have assumed the duty of acting as their protector” (Pardo de Tavera, Philippines census [1905], I, 330). Suffice it to say that, theoretically, the encomenderos were the fatherly protectors and benefactors of the helpless, childlike natives, and their every act was to be for the good of their wards.

2 Antequera, Historia de la legislation española, 486–487; Bourne, “Historical introduction,” in Blair and Robertson, I, 56.

3 Recopilación, 6–8–38 to 39; 8–9–20 to 24. It seems that the oficiales reales merely supervised the collection of tribute, which was really accomplished in the provinces by the alcaldes mayores and corregidores, who acted as their agents. Martinez de Zúñiga, An historical view of the Philippine Islands, I, 2; Ordinances of Good Government, Blair and Robertson, L, 191–264; Recopilación. 6–5–64; Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 380–385.

4 The Relación of Miguél de Loarca, alcalde mayor of Arévalo, Panay, gives us a good idea of the rapidity with which this institution spread within ten years in the Philippines. It indicates the extent to which the encomienda was utilized as a means of opening up and settling the country. This report is dated June 12, 1582. At that time there were three principal centers of administration in the Islands: Manila, Cebú and Arévalo. About thirty encomiendas were located close to Manila, ten were near to Cebú, and fifteen near to Arévalo under the jurisdiction of Loarca. The latter group consisted of about 20,000 Indians. Encomiendas varied in size from 250 to 1500 natives, but the ideal encomienda was supposed to contain 500 souls. By cédula, of August 9, 1589, royal authority was extended for the increase of the size of encomiendas in the Philippines to 800 or 1000 persons, if necessary, in order to bear the greater expenses of instruction and defense. This was bitterly opposed by the churchmen on account of the additional missionary labors incumbent on the priests assigned to these larger encomiendas (Cédula of August 9, 1589, A. I., 105–2–11). Philip II, on November 30, 1568, had ordered that no encomienda should yield more than 2000 pesos (Recopilación, 6–8–30).

Loarca states that there were also encomiendas in the Camarines provinces in southeast Luzon and in IIocos, in the north of the same island. These encomiendas were under the jurisdiction of the alcaldes mayores and corregidores governing those provinces. (Relation by Loarca, Blair and Robertson, V, 35–187.)

5 Report of Governor Dasmariñas on the encomiendas of the Philippines, May 31, 1591, in Blair and Robertson, VIII, 96–141.

6 Blair and Robertson, VII, 269–294, Salazar to the Governor, January 25, 1591; Reply of the Governor [no date], ibid., 294–300; Carta del Obispo de Manila sotre la muerte de Ronquillo y los excesos que este cometió..., A. I., 68–1–32; Memorial de las cosas ... dignas de remediar en la Isla, Zulueta Papers. Place numbers not given. These are examples of the hundreds of complaints, mostly by churchmen, against the abuses of the encomenderos. It would be impossible to cite them all.

The Zulueta Papers are transcripts from the Archive of the Indies of Seville, the National Library of Madrid, and the British Museum. They were copied under the direction of a Filipino scholar, Señor Zulueta. These Papers are now in the Philippines Library at Manila.

7 On June 4, 1620, the governor of the Philippines was authorized to bestow encomiendas, with the provision that if he neglected to do so for a period of sixty days the vacant holdings should be bestowed by the audiencia. On October 24, 1655, Philip IV ordered that acting viceroys and acting governors should be limited to the faculty of providing encomiendas ad interim, subject to the subsequent ratification of the Council of the Indies (Recopilación, 6–8–8, 1–4, 5, 8, 11, 22).

8 Blair and Robertson, III, 304–306.

9 In this connection may be noted the distinction between the two classes of encomiendas which was made for purposes of administration. Private encomiendas were those which had been granted to private persons, conquerors, discoverers, soldiers, or persons who paid a regular rent, usually a third of the gross tribute collected. These were originally granted for life, and might be held for two subsequent generations. Later (after 1655), the usual period of confirmation was ten years, for persons who rented encomiendas as a business proposition. The royal encomiendas were situated near cities or ports and the income from them was reserved for the expenses and necessities of the royal estate, the payment of salaries, and other governmental expenses. Private encomiendas became royal on the death of an incumbent if he had no heirs, or on the expiration of the contract. The tribute from royal encomiendas was collected by the royal treasury. Morga’s Sucesos, Blair and Robertson, XVI, 157; also ibid., VIII, 27; see Bourne, “Historical introduction,” ibid., I, 39–40.

On June 7, 1597, the king, as a suggestion for the increase of funds for the maintenance of the government, wrote to the audiencia that a greater number of royal encomiendas should be established, and that the governor should not be permitted to assign so many to private persons (King to the Audiencia, June 7, 1597, A. I., 105–2–1). On February 16, 1602, the king again addressed the audiencia on the subject of the royal encomiendas, desiring to know why the tribute from them had so materially decreased, it having reached the low mark of 2500 pesos. In answer, the same reason for this falling off was suggested as in the letter above quoted, namely, that the governor had assigned many encomiendas to his friends (King to the Audiencia, February 16, 1602, A. I., 105–2–1). Francisco de la Misa, factor of the royal treasury of Manila, in a letter to the king, dated May 31, 1595, stated that the royal encomiendas, which had been established to provide revenue for the payment of the salaries of alcaldes mayores, tenientes, oficiales reales, and even that of the governor, had diminished greatly in number, so that not enough revenue was derived from them to meet the expenses for which they had been created. Misa concluded with a recommendation that eight royal encomiendas of the value of 8000 pesos a year should be established out of the first private encomiendas that were vacated (Misa to the King, May 31, 1595, A. I. 67–6–29).

10 Salazar to the Council of the Indies, June 20, 1582, A. I., 68–1–32.

11 Ronquillo de Peñalosa to the King, July 15, 1582, A. I., 67–6–6.

12 Morga’s Sucesos, Blair and Robertson, XV, 59–60; Carta del Obispo de Manila sobre la muerte de Ronquillo, y de los excesos que este cometio, ... A. I., 68–1–32.

13 Ibid.

14 The cédula of March 1, 1551, had forbidden the bestowal of encomiendas on ministers of justice, treasury officials, viceroys, ecclesiastics, and governors. According to the terms of the appointment of Gonzalo Ronquillo de Peñalosa as proprietary governor, he had been allowed an encomienda in each principal town. See Recopilación, 6–8–12.

15 Op. cit.

16 Including the two principal Spanish historians of the Philippines, Martínez de Zúñiga (Estadismo, I, 243) and Montero y Vidal (Historia general, I, 88).

17 These letters, dated June 18, 1583, are among the Zulueta Papers at Manila.

18 A procurador, according to Escriche (Diccionario, II, 759), “is one who, by virtue of power or faculty conceded by another, acts in his name.” There were in later times several procurators representing different interests of the Philippines at the Court of Madrid. The associated merchants had one or more, the consulado, each religious order, etc. These procuradores were usually lawyers, not infrequently men who had been in the islands. An interesting parallel might be noted between the procuradores and the American colonial agents of prerevolutionary days. Zúñiga here gives Rivera entire credit for the bringing of the audiencia to Manila—op. cit., I, 175. See note 16, supra.

19 The alcabala (al que vale, “according to value”) was a percentage tax levied on goods (movable and immovable) sold or exchanged. Merchants were held accountable for the payment of this tax, and for this purpose their accounts were examined by royal officials at regular intervals (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 143). It was first introduced into the Indies by Philip II in 1574, having been levied in Spain as early as 1079, though not in its perfected form. In accordance with the tariff of November 1, 1591, it was exacted from merchants, apothecaries, encomenderos (having farms and cattle-ranches), ragpickers, cloth-makers, silversmiths, goldsmiths, blacksmiths, and shoemakers. An alcabala was paid on wine. By the cédula of June 7, 1576, the rate of alcabala was fixed at two per cent. In Perú it was raised to four per cent during the administration of the Conde de Chinchón as viceroy and was collected at that rate there until the cédula of July 26, 1776, raised it to six per cent. This rate was paid thereafter in the Spanish colonies (Recopilación, 8–13–1 to 14, notes, 2 and 4), except for an increase in the rate to 8 per cent in 1782, to meet the added expenses of war. The old rate of 6 per cent was restored in 1791 (transcripts of these cédulas exist in A. I., 87–1–20).

Exemptions from this tax were made in favor of churches, monasteries, and prelates when they bought or sold goods not for profit. When they engaged in commerce for its own sake they were obliged to pay the alcabala in the same way as laymen (Recopilación, 8–13–17). Goods belonging to the Santa Cruzada, provisions bought, sold or stored which were destined for the poor, and munitions of war paid no alcabala (ibid., 18–23). Indians were also exempted under certain circumstances (ibid., 24; see entire Title 13 of Book 8, Recopilación, for further specifications regarding the payment of this tax). In 1568 Philip II exempted the Philippines for thirty years. As noted above, the alcabala was not introduced regularly into the Indies until 1574, though it was levied in individual cases as early as 1558. Even earlier than this Pizarro had obtained the right to levy it in Perú for a period of a hundred years (ibid., 8–13–1; note 1), but Philip II ordered it paid in the Philippines on August 9, 1589 (ibid., 9–45–66).

The almojarifazgo, like the alcabala, had been utilized early in the history of the Peninsula and because a productive source of revenue, it was introduced into the Indies. The earliest law dealing with this tax in New Spain was promulgated by Charles V on October 18, 1553, exempting cargoes which had already paid the tax in Spain. On June 24, 1566, and on December 28, 1568, Philip II ordered a five per cent export tax on all goods leaving Seville for the Indies (the ordinance of December 28, 1562, having fixed it at two and a half per cent) and an import tax in the Indies on these same goods of ten per cent, making in all a tax of fifteen per cent. Wine was to pay a ten per cent import and export tax respectively, making a total of twenty per cent paid on that commodity (ibid., 8–15–1, 2, 8). The law of April 21, 1574, ordered a two and a half export and a five per cent import tax on goods shipped between colonies (ibid., 10). On August 9, 1589, a three per cent almojarifazgo was authorized in the Philippines, with exemptions on provisions, munitions, and other specified articles brought to the Islands by the Chinese, Japanese, Siamese, and Borneans (ibid., 22, 24). The tax on Chinese merchandise was raised from three to six per cent on November 20, 1606 (ibid., 23). Chinese goods from the Philippines paid a ten per cent almojarifazgo at Acapulco. This tax was also paid on leaving the Philippines or other New Spain ports and on entrance at Acapulco (ibid., 21). For exemptions see Recopilación, 8–15–26 to 30.

20 Rivera to the King, February 16, 1582, A. I., 1–1–2/24.

21 A legal defender of the Indians was wanted in this case to serve them in the courts. The bishop, at this time, was protector of the Indians and in that capacity had protested against the abuses of the encomenderos. The bishop, of course, could not enter the courts and defend the Indians in litigation.

The law of March 17, 1593, which ultimately established a defender of the Indians in Manila, filled the need voiced by Rivera. The law referred to read as follows: “The protection and defense of the Indians in the Philippines was entrusted by us to the bishops there, but having recognized that the latter cannot conform to the demands, autos and judicial summons which require their personal presence, we order that our president-governor shall name a protector and defender of the Indians, assigning to him a sufficient salary from the taxes levied pro rata upon the Indians who are under the royal jurisdiction and on private encomiendas, without touching the revenues of our royal hacienda which are for other purposes. And we declare that this does not signify that it is our intention to deprive the bishops of the superintendence and protection of the Indians in general” (Recopilación, 6–6–8).

Philip II, on January 10, 1589, restored the office of protector or defender of the Indians in the Indies generally. It was stated in this law that as a result of the earlier abolition of the office many inconveniences and injustices had arisen. The law authorized the appointment of a person of good character and morals to the office (ibid., 1). The reform of April 9, 1591, required that the appointee should be a lawyer, and that there should be a defender of the Indians attached to each audiencia (ibid., 3). The reform of March 11, 1784, provided that the fiscales should name these protectors in the future. (Ibid., note 1.)

22 The Audiencia of Guadalajara was at that time subordinate to the Viceroy of New Spain in matters of war, government, and finance (hacienda). Ibid., 2–15–47, 49 to 54.

23 Rivera to the King, June 26, 1583, A. I., 1–1–2/24.

24 Foundation of the Audiencia, Blair and Robertson, V, 274–318; VI, 35–43; also in A. I., 1–1–3/25, the latter being the original cédula, signed by the king and ministers.

25 Ibid.

26 Permission had been granted by Philip II on July 4, 1570, to enslave Mindanaos. A second cédula permitting the Spaniards in the Philippines to do this was promulgated by Philip III on May 29, 1620. This act was rendered justifiable in the eyes of the Spaniards by the fact that they were dealing with semi-savages who were of the Mohammedan faith, and accordingly the ceaseless enemies of the Spaniards. Recopilación, 6–2–12.

27 Recopilación, 3–10–13, 14; see Chapter VIII of this book.

28 Recopilación, 2–15–55, promulgated November 4, 1606; see also 6–18–5 and 5–3–24.

29 Dávalos to the King, July 3, 1584, A. I., 67–6–18.

30 Audiencia to the Council of the Indies, June 26, 1586, A. I., 67–6–18.

31 The Recopilación is singularly indefinite regarding the rate or amount of tribute to be assessed in New Spain. Beyond the stipulation that tribute levied under the supervision of viceroys, presidents, and audiencias should be moderate and just, practically nothing is said as to the amount that should be collected (See cédulas of June 19, 1536, and September 29, 1555, Recopilación, 6–5–21), excepting certain increases as stipulated in the law of November 1, 1591 (ley 16).

According to the laws just cited, the rate was to be fixed by the officials mentioned above. By cédula of December 19, 1534, the oficiales reales were empowered to fix the rate of tribute (ibid., 28). Reductions in the rate of tribute were to be authorized by the fiscal and oficiales reales (ibid., 29). Apparently the rate varied according to the locality (ibid., 1 to 5, 16, 17), and in the cédulas of 1536 and 1555, cited above, consideration was given to the rate formerly paid by the Indians to their caciques. Fonseca y Urrutia (Historia de la real hacienda, I, 417 et seq.) tell us that the tribute paid in the province of Tlascala in 1572 was 13 reales; in 1564 the rate for New Spain was fixed at two pesos, and in 1600 it was reduced to one peso of eight reales. (Bancroft, History of Mexico, II, 586–9.) Humboldt (Political Essay, II, 431–2) states that there had been a gradual diminution of tribute paid by the Indians during the hundred years preceding his visit. In 1601, he states, Indians paid 32 reales tribute and 4 reales additional, de servicio, in all, about 23 francs. It had been reduced, little by little, till the amount actually paid was from 5 to 15 francs, and, “in the greater part of Mexico,” he states, “the head-tax amounts to 11 francs.”

Archbishop Benavides, of Manila, writing in 1600 (Zulueta Papers, date and place number not given) pleaded for the abolition of the tribute in the Philippines, stating that while the collection of tribute in New Spain was justifiable because the natives had been accustomed to paying tribute before the Spaniards came, the custom was entirely new in the Philippines, since the native princes had never levied tribute. On the other hand, various persons writing from the Philippines at different times urged that the tribute there should be increased to the rate imposed in New Spain.

The money value of the tribute in the Philippines was fixed at eight reales by Legaspi. It could be paid either in gold or in kind. De Morga tells us that the encomenderos made great profit by receiving the payment in rice, cotton, cloth, fowls, and other commodities, at a cheap rate, selling those same articles later to the improvident natives at greatly increased prices (Morga’s Sucesos, Blair and Robertson, XVI, 159). When Dasmariñas arrived as governor in 1590, the tribute was raised from eight to ten reales (cédula of August 9, 1589, Recopilación, 6–5–65, also A. I., 105–2–11). While the eight reales were to be appropriated by the encomenderos, the additional two reales were to be distributed between the religious and military governments in proportions of one-half to one and a half (Blair and Robertson, XVI, 160).

In the instructions of May 23, 1593, to Governor Dasmariñas, reference was made to a current rate of eight reales (ibid., IX, 249), so it would seem that the local rate had been reduced from ten to eight reales at some date between 1589 and 1593. On February 16, 1602, the rate was restored at ten reales (Recopilación, 6–5–65), and was so continued until a subsequent regulation made optional on the part of the natives the payment of the ten reales or four reales and a fowl. On August 19, 1623, Fray Juan de Balmaseda complained that the encomenderos were making the natives pay ten reales in addition to the fowl and that the above law was thus resulting in the payment of sixteen reales tribute (A. I., 68–1–63). Accordingly, on November 21, 1625, a cédula was issued which eliminated the substitution of the fowl, and the rate was restored at ten reales, payable in gold or silver (A. I., 105–2–1). The king, in response to complaints against the collection of tributes in the provinces of Camarines and Albay, issued a cédula on September 25, 1697, ordering the observance in the Philippines of Book 6, Title 5, of the Recopilación de Indias, which meant the correction of the abuse above referred to (A. I., 68–4–12). It would seem that the rate of ten reales was levied throughout the seventeenth century.

32 Audiencia to the Council of the Indies, June 26, 1586, A. I., 67–6–18.

33 Dávalos to the King, June 20, 1585, A. I., 67–6–18.

34 Pereyra to Santiago de Vera, July 10, 1597, A. I., 68–1–33.

35 This involves the real patronato, which will be dealt with in Chapter X of this book.

36 Dávalos to the King, June 20, 1585, A. I., 67–6–18.

37 Memorial of Salazar, June 24, 1590, A. I., 67–6–67.

38 Ibid.

39 Memorials of the organization and officials of Manila for the removal of the royal audiencia, June 26, 1586, A. I., 68–1–33.

40 Dávalos to the King, June 20, 1585, A. I., 67–6–18.

41 Santiago de Vera to Contreras, June 20, 1585, Blair and Robertson VI, 67–68.

42 See Recopilación, 9–45, for regulations of the galleon trade between Acapulco and Manila. By these laws, promulgated from 1583 to 1636, the governor of the Philippines was given authority in Manila over the dispatching, manning, lading, and control of the galleon (see Recopilación, 9–45–3, 4, 20, 24, 29, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 59). He retained these powers until the latter part of the eighteenth century, when the abuses resulting from his control were eliminated (Martínez de Zúñiga, Estadismo, I, 268).

43 Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 94–95; Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, I, 183–186; see Ortega’s Memorials to the King, Blair and Robertson, IX, 95–119.

44 Memoria y consultas de Fr. Alonso Sánchez (no date given), A. I., 67–6–27; see also Juan de la Concepción, Historia general de Filipinas [cited hereinafter as Concepción, Historia general], II, 103–184. These agreements are interesting because they show how intensely nationalistic were the respective sentiments of the Spaniards and Portuguese with regard to their Asiatic colonies, notwithstanding the fact that since 1580 the home governments of the two nations had been united. This correspondence illustrates the fact that the Portuguese regarded their former colonies as still distinctively their own.

45 Royal cédula for the restoration of the Audiencia of Manila, November 25, 1595, A. I., 106–4–19.

46 Morga’s Sucesos, Blair and Robertson, XV, 65–66.

47 Suppressed Audiencia to the King, June 20, 1590, Blair and Robertson, VII, 208–211; also Recopilación, 2–15–181.

48 Salazar to Felipe II, June 24, 1590, Blair and Robertson, VII, 252.

49 Morga’s Sucesos, Blair and Robertson, XV, 75.

50 Dasmariñas to Felipe II, June 20, 1591, Blair and Robertson, VIII, 142–168, passim.

51 Salazar, on reaching the Spanish court, was made first archbishop of the Philippines. He died on December 4, 1594, before he could assume his new post.

52 Cédula of January 17, 1593, Blair and Robertson, VIII, 315.

53 Ibid.; see also cédula of same date in Recopilación, 6–6–8.

54 Morga remained in the Philippines throughout a period of eight years and during this time distinguished himself as a lawyer and judge, administrator, soldier, and later as a historian. It was due to his energies as senior magistrate that Van Noordt, the Dutch free-booter, was defeated at the entrance of Manila Bay. Morga, in his Sucesos, already quoted several times, has left us a scholarly view of conditions as they existed at the time of his residence in the Islands. Morga left the Philippines on July 10, 1603, with a promotion to the Audiencia of Mexico; he served in New Spain for several years and in 1616 he was again promoted to the post of president of the Audiencia of Quito.

55 Dasmariñas to the King, December 6, 1595, A. I., 67–6–18.

56 Misa to the King, May 31, 1595, A. I., 67–6–29.

57 The amount legally permitted to be taken to the Philippines at this time was 500,000 pesos (subsequently 1,000,000 pesos). The galleon, on the voyage from Manila to Acapulco, could carry merchandise to the registered value of 250,000 pesos (later 500,000 pesos). This regulation was first enacted January 11, 1593 (Recopilación 9–45–6, 9). On the same date residents of New Spain were forbidden to trade in the Philippines and the entire Philippine and Chinese trade was expressly reserved to subjects in the Philippines. The latter were given the exclusive privilege of sending goods to New Spain (ibid., 1). They were permitted to buy only from the Chinese merchants who came to Manila (ibid., 34).—See Martinez de Zúñiga, Estadismo, I, 266–270.

58 Cédula of January 11, 1593, Recopilación, 9–45–44.

59 Morga to Philip II, July 6, 1596, Blair and Robertson, IX, 271.

60 Ordinance for the re-establishment of the Audiencia of Manila, November 26, 1595, A. I., 106–4–19; also in Blair and Robertson, IX, 189–191.

61 The Archbishop of Manila, in a letter to the king, on August 15, 1624, stated that the principal motive which influenced Philip II to re-establish the audiencia at the time of Governor Tello, was that in a district so remote and distant from his royal presence the governors might not be so absolute, but that there might be a superior arm to check them, and to prevent their extortions from innocent people (Blair and Robertson, XXI, 95). It is certain, too, that the audiencia was also destined to champion the royal prerogative in the face of the encroachments of the higher officials of the church. This need was especially urged by Morga.

Grao y Monfalcón, the procurator of the merchants of Manila at the court in 1636, wrote on June 13 of that year: “In the year 590 the royal Audiencia of Manila was suppressed ... and its suppression must also be reckoned among the hardships of that city ... because of those which it suffered until the year 597, when the Audiencia was reëstablished (sic).” (Blair and Robertson, XXVII, 189).

62 Pancada, the wholesale purchase of the goods brought to Manila by the Chinese. These goods were bought by a committee of two or three persons, acting for the governor and ayuntamiento, then sold or apportioned among the merchants of the city in proportion to the amount of money which they were able to invest. This arrangement was designed to give all the merchants a chance to buy and at the same time to prevent the Chinese from selling at exorbitant prices (Cédula of January 11, 1593, Recopilación, 9–45–34.)

63 Cédulas of May 5, 1583, and May 25, 1596, Recopilación, 2–15–11. It will be noted that this authority was granted to the first audiencia established in Manila. This same faculty was conferred by the Ordenanzas nuevamente formadas para el régimen y govierno de la audiencia nacional de Manila, Art. I, Chap. 1, Sec. 1 (A. I., 106–4–19).

64 Martínez de Zúñiga has this to say concerning the work and purpose of the tribunal: “The royal audiencia was established to check the despotism of the governor, whom it has never impeded, because its learned members were always the weaker, and the governor may send them as prisoners to Spain, exile them to the provinces to take census, or imprison them in Fort Santiago, as has been done” (Martínez de Zúñiga, Estadismo, I, 244).