d, Fuente y Alanis, came
as fiscal of the Audiencia.

[61] Diaz states (pp. 752, 753) that Maranon came to Manila (but
without permission to do so), a few days after Arqueros, to complain
of the latter to the archbishop. The latter demanded an account
of Arqueros's proceedings in the case; Arqueros presented documents
which proved, by the complaints of many Indians, that Maranon deserved
punishment. The archbishop therefore sustained Arqueros, and ordered
Maranon's arrest.

[62] According to Diaz (p. 756), Pardo answered that he had
reserved Maranon's case as being the metropolitan, and because
the cura's offenses had been committed in the territory of the
archbishopric; moreover, that the parties in this case had accepted
his jurisdiction. Finally, "to avoid controversies he offered to
surrender to the bishop-elect the person of Licentiate Diego Espinosa
Maranon--which the bishop did not accept; but afterward, without
telling the archbishop, he sent Maranon to his curacy of Vigan,
removing him from his prison-bounds of the city [of Manila]."

[63] Diaz says (p. 757) that Pardo informed the Audiencia that he
had not punished Herrera for these reasons, but because the latter,
in his quarrel with Archbishop Lopez, had treated that prelate with
insolence and even posted him as excommunicate (Diaz, p. 705); and
when afterward he had been treated with great kindness by Pardo,
he had conspired with the cabildo against him.

[64] i.e., Requiring a previous judicial decision before the final
sentence (Velazquez's Dictionary, Appleton's ed., 1901).

[65] Adjuntos: "a body of judges commissioned or appointed jointly to
try a cause" (Velazquez). Pardo claimed that the cabildo of Manila
was not an exempted one (i.e., from submission to the ordinary),
and therefore its members did not enjoy the privilege of the adjunct
judges (Diaz, p. 757).

[66] "And these two suits, of the bishop and the cantor, were the
ones which influenced the auditors to [decide upon] his banishment,
which was decreed on the first of October [1682]." (Murillo Velarde,
Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 342 b.)

[67] There is an apparent omission here, as the decree previously cited
referred to the priority of San Jose college over that of Santo Tomas;
the reference here would seem to indicate another decree, in regard to
privileges and exemptions allowed to the Jesuits in regard to trading.

[68] Salazar states (Hist. Sant. Rosario, p. 235) that this action