Volume 25 — Chapter XVI

Relation of the disputes and strife between the archbishop and the governor, Don Sebastián Hurtado de Corcuera.

The strife, being greatly inflamed by the events above mentioned, became entangled with one of the most memorable disputes that have occurred in the islands—a necessary occasion for the sharpest encounter between the two jurisdictions, and one from which Don Fray Hernando Guerrero could not excuse himself, as it concerned the most sacred part of the ecclesiastical immunity. That was a matter in which the archbishop could not neglect to sally out with all his might, in order to comply with the obligation of a true prelate. The case was as follows: There was an artilleryman in Manila, named Francisco de Nava, who had a female slave with whom he had illicit communication, as came to the ears of the archbishop. The archbishop ordered him to remove from himself this occasion [for sin] by selling the slave-girl to another person; and had the latter placed, for that purpose, in the house of a lady who was related to Doña María de Francia, who became fond of her and arranged to buy her from the artilleryman. The latter was so beside himself over the loss of the said slave that he refused to sell her at any price, saying that he wished, on the contrary, to marry her. But Doña María de Francia so arranged matters that the slave was sold, and came into her possession with very slight effort. The artilleryman, grieved and regretful for what had happened, almost became mad, and, it having been given out that he was mad, certain violence was shown him; and on one occasion he had received a sound beating at the house of Doña María de Francia, because he had gone there to request that they should give him the slave, as he had resolved to make her his wife.

Aggrieved and rendered desperate in this way, he saw the girl pass one day in a carriage with Doña María de Francia. Going to her he asked her whether she knew him, who was her master. The slave answered him with some independence, whereupon he, blind with anger, drew his dagger in the middle of the street and killed her by stabbing her, before anyone could prevent it. All the people, both those in the carriage and those in the street, ran tumultuously [after him]; but the artilleryman escaped them all, and took refuge in the church of our convent in Manila. The governor heard of what had happened, and ordered Don Pedro de Corcuera, his nephew (who was then sargento-mayor of the camp), to take the artilleryman from the church, saying that he could not avail himself of the sanctuary of the church, as he had committed a treacherous act—although it was only a homicide, and the settlement of this question did not concern the governor. However, his action arose mainly from the anger that he felt that what had happened was in the presence of his nephew, Don Pedro de Corcuera—who, also being angered at what concerned his wife, made use of his commission with less prudence than he ought to exercise in executing such orders from his superiors. He caused the church and convent to be surrounded; and, going inside, examined everything, not excepting even the sacristy; and it is even said that he declared that, if he found the artilleryman there, he would take him out a prisoner. But not having been able to find him then, Don Pedro left the church and convent surrounded by a double guard. The governor added to that that he would not allow the religious to enter or leave, until he had hold of the refugee. The latter was finally found, and taken from the sacristy, and surrendered to the commander of artillery, in order that he might proceed with the trial as his competent judge; and he, either carried away by flattery, or in obedience to the commands of the governor, proceeded so hastily that in a very short time he condemned the artilleryman to death.

The archbishop’s provisor, Don Pedro Monroy, bore himself on this occasion with the prudence that was fitting, and proceeded against the commander of artillery, requesting him to deliver his prisoner and return him to the church. Having been informed that the commander of artillery was a mere instrument, and that all his actions were according to the impulses of the governor, he sent three lay priests to the palace to intimate to the latter that the judge should deliver the refugee to him. The priests entered, without anyone hindering them; and finding that the governor had already retired, as it was then an advanced hour of the night, they started to withdraw in order to return next morning; but the soldiers of the guard would not permit them to leave, saying that such was the order of the governor.

The governor ordered the provisor, Don Pedro Monroy, to go to the island of Hermosa to serve in the post of chief chaplain, endeavoring by this means to revenge himself—as if he were able to give the former the collation and the spiritual jurisdiction necessary. The provisor resisted him, and informed the archbishop thereof. The governor also wrote a letter to the latter, ordering him to appoint another provisor in place of Don Pedro Monroy, both because he had been assigned to the island of Hermosa and such was advisable for his Majesty’s service (the mask under which the passions of those who ought to fulfil their duties with justice are generally cloaked), and because the office of provisor could not be exercised by him in contradiction of a royal decree which ordered that the provisor should not be one who had not been graduated and who did not have the learning necessary (although the learning of Don Pedro was sufficient, and the holy Council [of Trent?] and the sacred canons do not fix conditions for such an office). The archbishop convened the orders for the solution of this matter. Having written to Father Luis Pedrosa, rector of the Society, to attend the meeting, the said father rector excused himself; and, although summoned the requisite number of times, he refused to attend. Consequently, the archbishop promulgated an act, in which he deprived the fathers of the Society of the privilege of preaching throughout the archbishopric, of the titles of synodal examiners, and of active and passive right of assembly with the secular priests and the orders both in public acts and in other functions, in consideration of the fact that they refused to concur in the defense of the rights of the ecclesiastical estate. On the following day, Tuesday, October 9, 1635, the archbishop sent a letter to the governor, requesting him to accept the excuse given by the provisor, so that he might not go to serve in the post of chaplain at the island of Hermosa; for he had need of him [i.e., the provisor]. The governor should know that it was beyond the power of secular judges to appoint ecclesiastical vicars and to confer spiritual jurisdiction. Consequently, he petitioned the governor in his own name, that of the bishop of Cebu, and those of the orders, to refrain from such appointment; and counseled him that he should consult with learned persons who feared God, since there were so many in the body of secular priests and in the orders, in such determinations. The religious of the Society, angered at the act of the archbishop, after various demands and replies on both sides (which I shall not set down here, as it is not my intention to stir up so delicate matters—in which it must be believed that each one would strive according to the dictates of his conscience, for one cannot imagine the opposite of either side, rather believing that the common enemy was preparing his weapons in order to occasion the misfortunes that followed afterward), appointed the schoolmaster, Don Fabián de Santillán y Gabilanes, judge-conservator (because they declared that they were prevented from the exercise of their privileges). He accepted the appointment, and immediately erected a tribunal against the archbishop, issuing acts against him and fulminating censures in case he should again oppose the proceedings that had been commenced.

Who could now look for less lamentable issues than those that were seen in these islands from so wretched beginnings, as are those that we have seen even to our days? The archbishop was very much grieved over this determination, for he saw arrayed against himself, on one side, the tyrannical governor (for Don Sebastián Hurtado de Corcuera was domineering), and on the other an order so great as the Society. Notwithstanding he determined to present himself in the royal Audiencia by way of [pleading] fuerza, although he recognized the little that he could accomplish by that means. But he was unwilling to incur the fault of having failed to take this precaution, as was determined by the orders of these islands—who firmly and steadfastly assisted the archbishop, aiding him to maintain the ecclesiastical immunity, which was running so great danger. The archbishop presented himself in the royal Audiencia, where his arguments were examined in two meetings; and a disagreement [in the Audiencia] having resulted, the fiscal, who was the third, undertook to discuss the question. He declared against the archbishop, saying that the judge-conservator had used no fuerza. The latter continued to urge his censures against the archbishop, who, destitute of all aid, determined to surrender and withdraw the acts. He first made a protest before Diego de Rueda, royal notary and a familiar of the Holy Office, in regard to the fuerza that the governor and the judge-conservator were employing against him. When the governor learned of the protest that the archbishop had made, he had the notary, Diego de Rueda, arrested, through the agency of the judge-conservator, and locked him up in the castle of Santiago, after having taken from him his deposition as to the contents of the protest—for the governor had been informed that it was a defamatory libel against him. The notary declared that the protest of the archbishop contained no special clause that was prejudicial to anyone, but that it was directed only to the defense of his rights. After the arrest of the notary, the judge-conservator fulminated new censures against the archbishop, ordering him to annul the protest. The archbishop treated those censures as invalid, for the judge-conservator’s jurisdiction did not extend to the trial of that question. He further replied that the said protest no longer remained in his possession, as it had been given to father Fray Diego Collado to keep. He contented himself with this reply, being unwilling again to attempt the remedy of having recourse to the Audiencia by a plea of fuerza, whence he knew that he would issue ill-despatched. The archbishop retired to the convent of St. Francis, where the governor went to see him, pretending that he wished to serve as intermediary between the archbishop and the judge-conservator, although it was clear that all the actions of the latter were regulated according to the governor’s intentions, and were executed by his aid. At the end of his visit he asked the archbishop to give him the protest, pledging his word that he only desired to burn it, without reading it or showing it to any one. The archbishop recognized the purpose of his pretense, and reaffirmed the first reply that he had given the judge-conservator. In order to free himself for the time being from the importunities of the governor, it was necessary to give him some hope that he would make the efforts possible to get hold of the protest and send it to him. In a letter that he sent afterward to the governor, he wrote the following:

“After your Lordship showed me the kindness to come to console and favor me, the most diligent efforts possible were made in order to have the protest returned to me. But it is hammering on cold iron. What more can I do? Had my purpose been not to show it, I could have said that I had torn it up, or have alleged some other pretext, and would not have indicated the person to whom I gave it to keep, as I knew that there was an order to sequester my goods. Since it is impossible, sir, and it is not my fault, I do not accept the excuse which your Lordship gives me in your letter, in order to free yourself from showing me further kindness, and from making the effort to settle this matter as a governor and friend. Therefore, I petition your Lordship, since this matter rests with you, and is to be settled by you alone, and since you are all-powerful in this matter, that your Lordship do as you are able to do for one who has recourse to your protection; for I wish to remain in your Lordship’s protection, only bound to serve you as long as I live. May God preserve the life of your Lordship for long years. From this convent of St. Francis, November 24, 1635.

Fray Hernando, archbishop.”

That prelate wrote the letter with this humility and gentleness; but it was insufficient to cause the so ingenuous confession of the archbishop to be believed, although it was the truth.

On the other side, father Fray Francisco de Herrera, of the Order of Preachers, commissary of the Holy Office, made a demand, asking that the notary, Diego de Rueda, as one of his household, be given up to him. For that purpose he fulminated censures against the judge-conservator, demanding from him the prisoner, and ordering him to make no further search for the protest, as that was outside his jurisdiction. He was obeyed, and order was given to deliver the prisoner to him; but the governor refused to deliver him up. Consequently, the father commissary of the Holy Office sent two religious of St. Dominic to notify the governor by another act, similar to that sent to the judge. The governor not only did not obey it, but arrested the two religious and sent them to Cavite with an adjutant, and had them placed in the convent of San Telmo of their order. Afterward, when the governor found himself at variance with the tribunal of the Holy Office, he began to work more clearly in the opposition that he had commenced, repeating many times that proposition of his which speaks of the ecclesiastical estate: “In order to curb the spirit of the obstinate and arrogant mule, take away its fodder.” That was an impious comparison, and unworthy of a gentleman who was so good a Christian and so devout, and of whom some pens so well affected to him write so much, that already they pass on (as is generally said) to ennoble his actions, gilding his errors with the excellent gold of vigor and rhetoric. Some of them, however, refrain almost entirely from discussing this contention, which gave the Dutch of Batavia much matter for blasphemous talk.

At that time the Order of the Society having considered the disturbances which the judge-conservator had occasioned, full of repentance at having been the origin of troubles of so disagreeable publicity, in the attempt to check them for the sake of the future made the judge-conservator renounce his commission, and be absolved by the archbishop. This the latter did on January twenty-eighth, 1636. The governor pretended that he had been the mediator of that agreement. The archbishop nodded acquiescence and pretended to believe it, in order not to lose that occasion for peace. The governor went to the archiepiscopal house, and took the archbishop to the church in his own carriage, and there knelt down on his knees, begging pardon from him. The good prelate gave him pardon very willingly, thinking that that was to be the end of all those past troubles. But the common enemy did not so permit, for he very soon relit the fire which had only been hidden under the ashes of those courteous exteriors.