Note 3 — DOCUMENT OF 1721–1739

The Council of the Indias gave answer to the royal Audiencia [of Manila] that they had received the [papers in the] investigation of the death of the governor, and were giving the matter due attention; and at the same time came another order from the king to the Marqués de Torre-Campo, in which the latter was commanded to take cognizance of this affair and punish the culprits. The governor, who, it appears, had little inclination to plunge into this labyrinth, a second time consulted Father Totanes3 and the Jesuits—who told him that, just as he had before stayed the execution of the first order, he ought to do the same with this one, until his Majesty, advised of the governor’s reply [to the first order], which had not yet been received, should make another decision. Father Totanes in his advisory statement exaggerated the ruin of the fortunes of the citizens of Manila, the arrears [in the incomes] of the charitable funds, the scarcity of rice, and the lack of those who might give alms (on account of which, he said, many died of hunger), the cause of all these evils being the mariscal. The father expatiated on his acts of violence, and the consternation of the city, with which he strove to exculpate the action of the Manila people, who had no other recourse, in order to escape from such a throng of calamities, than to depose the governor from his office. “But to what tribunal,” he said, “were they to resort in order to deprive him of his office? He had suppressed the royal Audiencia, and held the archbishop and the ecclesiastics prisoners; and the city [council] was composed of an alcalde-in-ordinary who was a nephew of the governor, and two regidors who were his henchmen. Not having any one to resort to, they tried to arrest the governor, in order to free themselves from so many calamities; he resisted, turning his weapons against the citizens, who wounded him mortally in defense of their own lives; but this should be regarded as the misfortune of the mariscal rather than the fault of the citizens.” This statement, which veritably is a seditious one, they presented to the king, in order to show him the erroneous opinions of the religious of Philipinas; but it was a calumny, for Father Totanes was not the oracle of the islands, and most of the regulars thought as did the Jesuit fathers—who, while condemning in their advisory report the act of the Manila people, said only that the latter were worthy of the royal clemency. With this came to a halt all the severity with which at first this process was undertaken, and, the minds of people gradually becoming cool, the prosecution entirely ceased, and all these who were inculpated remained unpunished; the archbishop alone, he who had taken least part in these commotions and disturbances, was chastised4—a worthy prelate, who in imitation of Christ carried on his own shoulders the sin of his people. (Zúñiga, Hist. de Philipinas, pp. 514–517.)