Note 18 — The Pardo Controversy

The royal Audiencia, striving, in whatever pertained to its side, to avoid inflicting the chastisement which his actions demanded, in order to see whether their tolerance would constrain him to lay aside his arbitrary proceedings, had suspended, with the clause “for the present,” the execution of the penalties of banishment which he was declared to have incurred.18 This suspension had been attributed to negligence of the Audiencia—at which all the people were quite disconsolate; afterward it was known that the court had not acted without very deliberate resolution, which had been influenced no little by the zealous efforts of the governor; when all were hoping for a change in the sentiments of the archbishop, the courage of the auditors was still further strengthened. For the Order of the Society [of Jesus] presented an executory decree, issued by the royal and supreme Council of Indias, in regard to the precedence of the college of San Joseph over that of Santo Tomas, which is in charge of the Dominican religious—in which matter the Society has encountered much opposition from that order; they have even gone so far as to break out in threats, which the Society has seen carried out. But immediately the ecclesiastical attorney-general, with license from the archbishop (who had made legal complaint), demanded in the royal Audiencia aid and the proper documents against the decree,19 in order that the commander of the capitana “Santa Rosa”—which had just put back through stress of weather, and had not yet reached the port—might be furnished with a warrant for the seizure of the bales [of merchandise] which, he said, were coming in the said ship on the account of the Society of Jesus. At the same time the reverend Father Francisco Salgado, provincial of the said order of the Society, came before the said royal Audiencia with a plea of appeal, on account of which the said archbishop instituted suit against that father’s order, opposing the numerous privileges and bulls of exemption which aid it. While these actions were pending, and before anything had been decided in them, the said father provincial made representations that, notwithstanding the said questions were still (as I have said) unsettled, he was informed that a notary of the said archbishop had gone to the said ship on various matters of business, thus showing lack of respect to this royal Audiencia. He urged that documents should be issued, in order that no further proceedings be taken in this matter, and that the commander of the ship should not permit [the seizure of goods] until the points at issue were settled. But, although these decrees were issued, they produced no result; for, as is evident from competent testimony, the agents of the archbishop went to the said ship, on the day following that on which the attorney-general had demanded aid, and, without presenting any warrant to the commander, had undertaken and proceeded to make seizures and deposits of bales.20 This affair was not finally decided, because it was known outside of court that the archbishop had relinquished his claims therein.21