The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898, Volume 45, 1736

Volume 45 — COMMERCE OF THE PHILIPPINES WITH NUEVA ESPAÑA

Reading edition

(Concluded)

PERIOD IX

[Here] is set forth what occurred in regard to the commerce of Philipinas from the year 1730 until that of 1733, in consequence of the practice of the ordinance of the year 1726, with occasion of the complaint made by the merchants of Andalucia.

View of port of Tacloban, in the island of Leyte

[From photograph procured in Madrid]

186–188. [The viceroy’s letter was referred to the royal Council; the deputies from Filipinas—at that time, Lorenzo de Rugama y Palacio, and Miguel Fernandez Munilla—thereupon asked for all the documents belonging to the Council which bore upon this subject; the Council consented (March 26, 1733) to do so, with the reservation of certain documents, and the deputies then drew up a long memorial protesting against the proposed restrictions on their commerce.]

191–192. [This memorial was sent by the Council to the fiscal; his reply was handed in on November 10, 1733. He thinks that the islands need indispensably the traffic to Nueva España, including the Chinese silks, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the viceroy of that country; and that the prohibition made by the latter ought to be raised. Moreover, he finds that the royal treasury is the gainer by the new arrangement: the duties up to 1702 amounted to 74,000 pesos, and from that time to 1729, to 100,000 pesos; but in 1730 (the first year in which goods were shipped under the permission of 1726) the duties, including the 20,000 pesos of contribution, were 202,754 pesos, and in the following year 229,552 pesos. He would not make a positive regulation regarding the Manila-Acapulco trade until the five-years’ term is completed; but he makes the following recommendations: that the commerce be free in all kinds of goods, not excluding the Chinese silks and ribbons, but that the lading of the galleon be restricted to 3,600 piezas, of which 400 may be in those silk goods and others which do not allow the use of the press; and that the duties on all packages be the same as those specified in the decree of 1726, and that Manila be freed from the contribution of 20,000 pesos. He also recommends that Manila be allowed to send wax in cakes of eighteen (instead of twelve) arrobas net; and that his proposed arrangement be put in force for five years, in order to test its practicability—or, if the king so prefer, that the decree of 1726 be extended for another term of five years.]

198–200. [When this opinion was ready to be sent to the king, letters arrived from the governor and Audiencia of Filipinas, remonstrating against the orders of the viceroy regarding the galleon of 1734. At the same time, the Manila deputies at Madrid presented another memorial to the Council, which accordingly held a new conference over this matter. On December 23 (after having consulted the fiscal), they reported to the king their opinion, which they said had not been changed by the aforesaid despatches. The king approved of their advice in regard to recalling the viceroy’s orders, and in regard to the controverted point of the amount which should be allowed to Manila, he approved the opinion of Zuñiga and his associates, that of the increase to 500,000 and 1,000,000 pesos. The letters from the governor and Audiencia ask that the cargoes be estimated by piezas, and propose 300 or 400 chests of Chinese silk goods, instead of the 500 formerly asked; the memorial of the deputies urges that the sales for the first three of the five years had averaged only 1,350,000 pesos, and the succeeding ones could not exceed 1,200,000 pesos, which latter sum was necessary for the preservation of the islands.]

[At this point (fol. 214 verso–264) is inserted the Memorial informatorio presented to the Council of the Indias in 1637 by Juan Grau y Monfalcón, procurator-general for the Philippine Islands at the court of Madrid; we have already published this document, in our VOL. XXVII, pp. 53–212. Abreu says that he places it here (as “an appendix to Period ii”) simply because he did not find it until after the fortieth sheet of the Extracto had been printed; and he speaks of it as “treating of the subjects of that undiscovered memorial” of 136 numbers which was cited in “Period ii” of the Extracto (see our VOL. XXX, p. 25)—“plainly showing that whatever discussion of this matter has occurred in these late years, and what will be said in the future, in regard to the commerce of that region is new talk, but not talk of a new thing [es decir con novedad, pero no decir cosa nueva].” For “Periods i and ii” of the Extracto, which, with Monfalcón’s memorial, should be read as a preliminary to the present summary of that work, see our VOL. XXX, pp. 23–109. Cf. the earlier memorial by Monfalcón (1635) in VOL. XXV, pp. 48–73.]

PERIOD X

Relation is made of what occurred in regard to this commerce from November in 1734 until the present month of May in 1736, with occasion of the petition made by the consulate and commerce of Andalucia, proposing to surrender to that of Manila the traffic and transportation of all the cinnamon, pepper, and cloves which the kingdom of Nueva España can consume; and that Manila may ship the chintzes (of fine, middling, and ordinary qualities), and the silk, raw and spun [beneficiada], if these are separated from the commerce in the silken fabrics and ribbons of China.

Notes in this chapter

Note 1 · “All the New World was subjected to the alcavala. This is a tax levied only upon whatever is sold at wholesale, and does not extend to the a Note 2 · The italics in this and a few other sentences are the same as in the printed text of the Extracto. ↑Note 3 · “This new despatch threw into consternation the commercial interests here.” The governor asked advice from the fiscal, who, as the order cam Note 4 · “Although the silks which Spain furnishes are in general very choice, those of Valencia are far superior [to the rest]; and both are suitabl Note 5 · At the end of the atlas volume of Raynal’s Histoire ... des établissemens et du commerce des Européens (ed. of 1780, Geneva) are various sup Note 6 · In 1731 and 1733 Sevilla and Cadiz “both imagined (and it is rather surprising that this had not been sooner evident) that it would be an ad Note 7 · “The settlements, commerce, and conquests of the English in the East Indies” are related by Raynal in his Établissemens et commerce des Euro Note 8 · Formerly the fardo was 1⅓ varas long, ¾ vara high, and ¾ vara less one pulgada (nearly one English inch) wide; but for a long time previous Note 9 · Perhaps alluding to the Ribera (i.e., “shore”) or navy-yard of Cavite—that is, the standard of measure used in shipbuilding and other indust Note 10 · “With this, it may be said, finally came to an end the celebrated controversies which so persistently and for so long a time were waged by t Note 11 · Spanish comercio, a word which has numerous meanings, according to the context; here evidently meaning a chamber of commerce, or an executiv Note 12 · At the outset, Pintado makes some statements to the effect that the Council of the Indias had taken the action which led to the decree of 17 Note 13 · The Manila deputies, however, claimed that the decree of 1726 did not reach the islands until 1730, so that it was first put into practice i Note 14 · One of the tables at the end of Raynal’s atlas volume gives an itemized list of the cargoes carried by the “last eight Spanish trading-fleet Note 15 · Churlo (or churla; from the Latin culeo, ablative of culeus): a sack made of pita (i.e., agave) fiber-cloth, covered with another sack of le Note 16 · Palmeo: measure by palmos; evidently referring to the usual estimate of lading-space in a ship by cubic palmos. ↑Note 17 · That is, the spice trade with Nueva España, offered by Cadiz to Manila as an equivalent for the latter’s traffic in Chinese silks. ↑Note 18 · 28–162. [In July, 1729, the consulate and merchants of Cadiz sent to the king a memorial protesting against the favor recently granted to Ma Note 19 · 163–185. [The viceroy, Marqués de Casa-Fuerte, wrote to one of the royal Council, Don Joseph Patiño (November 1, 1731), giving his opinion i Note 20 · 189–190. [This memorial may be “reduced to five points: In the first it is proved that, for the preservation of the islands, and the propaga Note 21 · 193–197. [In this place is presented the informatory report of the royal accountant at Mexico to the viceroy in 1730, because it is frequent Note 22 · 201–212. [On February 23, 1734, the Manila deputies presented a new memorial, under eight heads, making various minor requests in regard to Note 23 · 215–221. [It was supposed that the foregoing decree had settled the question of the Manila-Acapulco trade “for many years;” but on November Note 24 · 223–224. [The Filipinas deputies made answer to this attack by Cadiz, in a long memorial dated March 30, 1735. Manila claims to have enjoyed Note 25 · 225–233. [This memorial from the Philipinas deputies was communicated to the deputy from the commercial interests of España, Joseph Lopez Pi Note 26 · 237–241. [This memorial having been sent to the fiscal, he replied (November 10, 1735) that the proposal of Cadiz was not a fair one; for th