Note 45 — Chapter X · THE AUDIENCIA AND THE CHURCH: THE ROYAL PATRONAGE

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 superstition. 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 tithes. 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 cédulas 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 cédula 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.45 It was presented to the Council of the Indies on October 14, 1706.46 Three observations might be made from this incident. First, there was little vigor, promptitude, or effectiveness in the Spanish judicial system as therein exemplified. It took four years for this petition 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 illustrates the fact that the entire civil government, including the audiencia, was very much under the domination and influence of the ecclesiastics.