penalties are provided.

This decree is received (“Period” vii) at Manila on August 2, 1722. The municipal council address memorials to the governor protesting against the restrictions imposed on the Filipinas trade, and showing that the enforcement of these would ruin them; but the governor refuses to suspend the decree, and the fiscal advises the merchants to appeal to the Madrid court. The citizens send deputies thither, and persuade the Audiencia to second their petitions for more liberal treatment, and for the suspension of the decree of 1720. Letters to this effect from that body inform the home government of the losses previously sustained by the merchants of Filipinas, the dependence of the islands on their commerce with Nueva España, the vital importance to that commerce of the goods from China, and the danger that if these goods are prohibited the conversion of the Chinese will be rendered exceedingly difficult; the Audiencia therefore recommends that the trade in silks be allowed, and the amount of the permission increased to 250,000 pesos. This opinion is supported by one of similar tenor, given by the royal fiscal at Manila; the points which he makes are elaborated at length in a report sent by him to the king, dated November 15, 1722. In the same vein are letters written to support the demands of the citizens, by the royal officials, the archbishop and other prominent ecclesiastics, and the superiors of the religious orders; of these the most forcible is that written by the Jesuit provincial. He urges that the natural resources of the Philippines be more industriously cultivated, and suggests that the Spaniards compel the other inhabitants of the islands (Indians, mestizos, and others) “to weave the cloth goods which are manufactured in other regions.” Deputies go from Manila to Madrid, to present the claims of Filipinas, and hand in a printed memorial containing their arguments for the suspension of the decree of 1720. This and similar documents brought forward by both sides show a curious mixture of religious, political, and commercial motives, as well as the jealousy and ill-will aroused in the minds of the Spanish merchants as soon as Manila diverts from Cadiz any notable amount of trade; and interesting revelations are made of the practical workings of the selfish policy pursued by Spain toward her colonies, and the undue paternalism which would keep them forever in leading-strings. It is shown that the strength of Spain as a world-power is being undermined by the heretic nations of Europe—England, France, and Holland—because they display superior energy and ability in manufactures and commerce. From this time (1723) until the year when the Extracto was compiled by order of the Spanish government (1736), there appears a steady and increasingly bitter controversy between the commercial interests of Manila and Cadiz, the former evidently having powerful support in government circles, and the latter becoming alarmed at the precarious condition of both its American trade and the Spanish industry and commerce in silk fabrics. Manila tries to show that its trade in Chinese silks is necessary to the propagation of the Christian faith in China, and to its maintenance in the Philippines; Cadiz laughs this claim to scorn. Manila claims that the decadence of the silk industry in Spain is due to other causes than the importation of Chinese goods into Mexico; and a large part of the raw silk produced in Spain is bought by the industrial nations of Europe and manufactured into fabrics, which are brought back to Spain by these foreigners to supply not only that country but her colonies, the goods being shipped to the Indias in Spanish bottoms. The royal fiscal at Madrid supports the contention of Manila, but would confine its trade strictly to the amount allowed it by the government; and he thinks that