t, relating to the Pardo
controversy only, is placed here with others on that subject; it covers
only the first year, 1684-85. This writer also sympathizes with the
auditors; his account is given mainly as an index of popular feeling
on one side of the controversy. A letter from Auditor Bolivar to his
agent at Madrid (June 15, 1685) presents an interesting view of the
affair from the inside, and of the intrigues which kept Manila in
a ferment during most of Pardo's term of office. Bolivar dares not
write to the Council of the Indias, lest his letters be seized; he
therefore directs his agent to take certain measures in his behalf,
"for one cannot trust in friars." He recounts the proceedings in the
residencia of Vargas, in which there are many false witnesses. He
thinks that the Spaniards of Manila are more fickle than any others,
and regards that colony as "a little edition of hell." He is eager
to get away from the islands, and urges his friend to secure for
him permission to do so, and to make arrangements so that he may
not be needlessly detained in the islands. A letter from the Jesuit
Pimentel (February 8, 1686) relates the scheming by which Pardo's
return from exile was facilitated. Another unsigned paper contains
"news since the year 1688;" the writer claims that his intention is
"only that the truth may be known." This account is mainly occupied
with the fate of the auditors and other officials who had incurred
Pardo's wrath by taking part in his banishment. They are subjected
to imprisonment, privation, and exile; a reign of terror prevails in
Manila; and the governor is in close alliance with the archbishop,
so that there "is no recourse, except to God." The writer mentions
several things in condemnation of the governor's personal character,
and regards him as unscrupulous and tyrannical. Finally, the Dominican
account of this controversy is related by Vicente de Salazar,
one of the official historians of that order, in his biography of
Pardo. In 1677 that prelate enters upon the vacant see of Manila;
he finds many ecclesiastical abuses and social scandals, and much
official corruption. Undertaking to correct these, he incurs the
enmity of many persons, and the ecclesiastical tribunal is filled
with cases. For nearly three years the relations of the archbishop
with the governor and Audiencia remain friendly; but finally (1680)
certain ecclesiastics under censure have recourse to the Audiencia
against the arch