Volume 34 — BISHOP SALAZAR’S COUNCIL REGARDING SLAVES
Reading edition
The meeting and resolution held by the bishop in regard to the execution of the decree about slaves
First: Whether the hardship that it is thought will follow on the part of those who hold slaves or any other reason that the former can offer in their behalf will be a sufficient reason so that the governor may in conscience neglect to publish and execute the said decree.
Second: Whether, after the publication and order to execute [the decree], he can in conscience neglect the prosecution of its terms and execution because of the petition that may be presented to his Majesty in behalf of the masters of the slaves.
Third: Whether, after the said decree has been ordered executed, the governor can in good conscience assign any limit within which the masters shall release the slaves and the latter be recognized as free; or whether the masters be obliged to declare them free immediately. Inasmuch as the matter is so serious the bishop requested and charged them to commend it to God, and to consider and confer, and then under charge of their consciences to declare their opinion with all freedom and truth. After they had examined and conferred upon the matter among themselves, they resolved as follows.
In reply to the first point they declared that his Majesty’s decree is no new law or order, but a declaration of the justice that the matter of the Indians has of itself, and a reply and resolution of the petitions and reports that have been made from here. It is the confirmation of another decree given for the same purpose by the emperor Carlos Fifth of blessed memory in the former year one thousand five hundred and thirty. He ordered therein that from the time of its date and thenceforth all the Indians yet discovered or to be discovered should not be allowed to become slaves however they might be acquired, whether in just war, or got or bought from the natives, although they should be held by the latter as legitimate slaves. Consequently, it is clear from the above that no fear or suspicion of any inconvenience or hardship is sufficient for the governor or any other person, on whom devolves the execution of the decree, to neglect the execution of it, or to declare the liberty which the Indians possess inherently, and which his Majesty declares and concedes. On the other hand he who shall do the contrary, besides the most grave sin that he will commit, will be obliged to restore immediately to the Indians all the service and wrongs that they shall have received in their persons, possessions, and honors. The former governors were in duty bound to have endeavored to free the slaves, although no new decrees were despatched by his Majesty, both because of the decree already issued and because of the manifest injustice that was being practiced toward one whom they were obliged to protect, defend, and give justice; for his Majesty has sent the governors to this land for the correction of those and other like injuries, and thereby relieves his conscience through them. In regard to what is feared from any troubles, it is not credible that they will follow to a people so loyal and obedient to their king, because they are ordered to obey him in a matter so just and so reasonable.
In reply to the second point, they declared that it is clearly inferred from the answer to the first article that the governor cannot conscientiously neglect to follow up the liberty of the said Indians, even though their masters appeal from the decree. For his Majesty has also been informed of this matter as appears from the old and new decrees, and from the general custom of all the other Yndias, in all of which nothing contrary has ever been allowed or any slave permitted. Hence, it is clear that the present petition is only a means to postpone and prolong the injustice. The judge on whom this matter devolves cannot in good conscience neglect to execute the decree and to further the liberty of the Indians, in spite of any petition or effort to the contrary.
In reply to the third point, they declared that the freedom of the Indians could not be deferred as it was a matter of natural and divine right and clear justice, just as he who has anything belonging to another is obliged instantly to restore it, as soon as he knows it, and the judge who tries the case is bound to order the restoration. However, they thought that if the Indians were declared free immediately and were set at liberty, the governor could order them not to leave their masters for a brief time, because of the trouble that they would suffer if their slaves left them suddenly. When they were asked how long his Lordship could detain them in the power of their masters without endangering his conscience, they said that that depended on the judgment of good and prudent sense. They all thought that his Lordship might extend the time for them for the space of twenty or thirty days. Whoever dared to detain them for a longer period would be committing mortal sin and be obliged to make restitution.
The bishop having examined the opinions of the abovesaid fathers, declared that after he had left his Lordship he had also considered the matter very deeply and had conferred upon it with grave and very erudite persons of conscience. The above opinions and the final resolution of the fathers seemed to him to be quite in harmony with the law of God, and with natural, divine, and human law, and to be established on entire truth and justice. As such he approved and confirmed those opinions and said that his opinion was the same as theirs. In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, amen. His Lordship signed the same and ordered it sealed with his seal. The others above named, who gave their opinions in the form herein contained, nemine discrepante, also signed it. Given in the convent of Tondo, October seventeen, of the above-mentioned year. This opinion was given to the governor with the signatures of all the religious herein contained. In testimony thereof, I affixed my signature to it.
Fray Domingo, bishop of the Filipinas.