in all law and politics, and lies behind all our systems of jurisprudence. The Sanskrit-speaking Brahmans found it there, when they came down the Ganges valley milleniums ago. The conquering Moguls found it, when they broke through into the Punjab from the wilds of Afghanistan and Turkestan. They scattered their "publicans" through the villages, to squeeze what they could out of the natives. And the English found installed villages and publicans alike; and, taking the latter to be land-owners and not mere tax-farmers, they turned them into the "landed gentry" which stands between the rulers and the peasants throughout India to this day. But the self-governing village survives immortal.

In India, therefore, the Civilians hold the balance among a score of nations, now brought together in a single great federation, and held together in the bonds of peace. This is the political achievement. Legally, this has been accomplished: to the countless millions, one-fifth of the entire human race, who swarm over the valleys and among the hills of India, there is secured personal liberty with the rights of property to a degree never before enjoyed by an Asiatic nation. Socially, what has been done is not less wonderful. Races as unlike as any on earth, not merely the very diverse peoples of the old "Four-Color System," but large intrusive elements from Arabia, Palestine, Armenia, Persia, Turkestan, China and the islands of the sea, have been brought into a condition of stable equilibrium, where all live their lives unmolested by the others, in many ways serving and supplying each others' needs. From the standpoint of religion, a marvel has also been attained. A score of creeds, Brahmanism, Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and many more whose very names are strange outside India, live side by side in perfect mutual toleration, each conceding to all others the liberty it claims and enjoys for itself. These are some of the tasks which one shared in "helping to govern India.”

THE SPANISH ADMINISTRATION OF PHILIPPINE

COMMERCE.

BY CHESTER LLOYD JONES.

The administration of Philippine commerce stands in sharp contrast to the Spanish policy in South America. In the one case all imports and exports under the national flag were encouraged to the utmost. In the other a definite limit was placed upon both not only as to the means provided for transportation, but also upon the value of the trade to be allowed. The trade of South America was protected by the squadrons of the royal navy, but the struggling commerce of the Western Islands, as they were called, had to fight its own battles against English, Portuguese and Dutch freebooters as well as the pirates of the surrounding Asiatic nations.1 Unjust as this treatment seems, from the Spanish point of view it was admirably well planned and consistent. In both cases the impelling motive was the same-the advancement of the interests of the home country.

The mines of South America contributed to the national wealth without interfering with the industry of the mother land, and the growth of the settlements there led to an ever increasing demand for the products of Spanish vineyards and the looms of Andalusia. The trade with America was considered highly desirable, for goods went abroad and precious metals returned. But the Philippines could offer no such advantages. They had no important mines and the undeveloped

1 Blair and Robertson: The Philippine Islands, Cleveland, 1903. Vol. IV. Report of the Governor, 1576. Chinese pirates. Vol. VII. Page 67, Salazar to Felipe II, 1588. English corsairs. Vol. XI. Page 292, Mindanao pirates. Page 305 et seq., Dutch freebooters (1602).

Vol. XVII. Page 100, Dutch freebooters.

Documentos Inéditos, America y Oceania. Vol. VI, 311-44 (1612). Vol. VI. Page 345 et seq. (1635).

native industry 2 did not allow of great trade, even in goods for goods. The only possible basis of development was the trade to China. This commerce, however, was of a kind least to be desired. Since there was no return trade it meant that the cargo of Asiatic goods would be paid for in coin and would incur a constant drain of the precious metals to the countries of the far east "whence it never returned.” 3

Almost from the beginning of Spanish settlement the Philippine Islands promised to win an important share of Asiatic commerce. Chinese ships came to trade at Manila and a yearly shipload of Asiatic goods left the colony for America. No restriction was placed upon traffic and it promised to make Manila one of the most brilliant of the trading capitals of the East. The market was crowded with grain and flour, precious stones from India and Ceylon, cinnamon, pepper and nutmegs from Sumatra, carpets and rugs from Bengal, Cambojan mother of pearl, silks of all designs and colors, velvets, damasks, china, porcelain and lacquer work.*

It was upon this flourishing commerce that the disfavor of the home country fell. The conditions in Spain at the time. were singularly inauspicious. The national debt was large and depressed the country by heavy taxation. Now the islands brought in a new competition to the already languishing Spanish industry. A fair consideration of Colonial claims was not to be expected under the conditions and the merchants of Seville and Cadiz aroused themselves to secure the suppression of the new traffic."

2 Zúñiga, Joaquin Martínez de; Estadismo de las Islas Filipinas, Madrid, 1803 (Retana's edition, 1893), Vol. I, p. 160, native weaving, etc. (1803). 3 Blair and Robertson, Vol. XIII, p. 258 (1604). Zúñiga, Vol. I, p. 170 et seq. (1803).

4 Blair and Robertson, Vol. VI, pp. 310-12. As early as 1587 this trade amounted to 2,000,000 pesos. Audiencia to Felipe II (1588).

Azcarraga y Palmero, M., La Libertad de Comércio en las Islas Filipinas, Madrid, 1871, pp. 39-44, describes market, society, etc., of that period (c. 1590).

Documentos Inéditos, Vol. VI, p. 345, describes trade of 1635.

Blair and Robertson, Vol. VI, p. 279 et seq. (1586). Petition of Seville merchants; Vol. XVII, p. 215 et seq. Viceroy of Peru defends Philippine trade (1612). Azcarraga, p. 45 et seq.

Accustomed to their monopoly of colonial commerce through the famous House of Trade they looked upon the prosperity of Manila as based upon a violation of their own rights. The manufacturing interests also joined the opposition because of the competition in the American market of Chinese with Spanish silks. It was proven that the decline of the Spanish silk industries dated from the same period as the growth of the Philippine commerce. There was no difficulty in convincing the manufacturers that the former was caused by the latter."

It is clear that the commerce of the islands did interfere to some degree with the profits of Spanish industry and trade." But the real cause of the decline of the silk industry from the flourishing condition under Charles V lay at home and not in the competition from the far East. The persecution of the Moriscoes deprived Spain of the peoples who had been the backbone of her industry and the tripling of the taxes under Philip II crushed all spirit from industrial enterprise.

9

The falling off of the profits on American trade also had but little connection with the rise of the Philippine commerce. It was brought about by the production of goods in the colonies, by overstocking the market1o and by the steady increase of wholesale smuggling not only from foreign countries but through Seville itself. Yet the merchants and

11

• Alvarez de Abreu, Antonio José, Extracto historial del expediente que pende en el Consejo Real, Madrid, 1736. Extended discussion of both arguments.

This was admitted even by the Viceroy of Mexico, who defended Philippine trade 1731. Alvarez de Abreu, p. 135.

8 Azcarraga, p. 83, citing Duque de Almodovar in Vol. V of Establicimientos ultramarinos de las naciones europeas en las indias occidentales (1790).

Haebler, Konrad, Die Wirtschaftliche Blüte Spaniens in 16 Jahrhundert und ihr Verfall, p. 44 et seq.

Colmeiro, Manuel, Cortes de los antiguos reinos de Leon y Castilla, Madrid, 1883-4, Introduction, p. 195 et seq.

Haebler, p. 70 et seq.

10 Moses Bernard, Amer. Hist. Asso., 1894, The Casa de Contrataccon of Seville, p. 93 et seq. passim. Alvarez de Abreu, pp. 73-4

11 Tornow, Max L., The Economic Condition of the Philippines, Nat.

12

manufacturers alike were jealous of any competition which seemed to threaten their interests. The King himself was anxious to grasp at anything which promised to recall the prosperity that had fled from his country and he was easily won over. In 1593 a royal decree was issued that all trade of the Philippines with America should cease with the exception of two ships to ply once a year from the islands to Acapulco, Mexico, with a cargo valued at 250,000 duros. On the return voyage a shipment of 500,000 duros in silver was allowed. No Spanish ships were to be allowed to trade between Manila and China.

This was the beginning of the system which by its repression of all individual enterprise kept the Philippines a frontier post rather than a colony, through the greater part of their Spanish history. That any trade at all was allowed was due only to the realization that otherwise not even the semblance of Spanish authority could be maintained. 13 At first the new restrictions were not enforced, as was to be expected when the very people to whom the enforcement of the law was entrusted were the ones it most harmed. The evasions, however, did not escape the notice of Seville and in 1604 measures were adopted to make the prohibitions effective.11 The decline of Spanish trade to Peru was due, it was maintained, to the competition of Chinese goods transhipped from Mexico.15 Thereafter all trade between Mexico and Peru.

Geog. Mag., Vol. 10, pp. 33-64. Washington, 1899, p. 49 et seq.; Haebler, p. 81 et seq.; Azcarraga, p. 58; Alvarez de Abreu, pp. 73-4.

Moses Bernard, passim. Attempts were made to prevent colonial production as late as 1803.

12 For the gradual extension of the restrictions on trade up to 1595 see: Blair and Robertson, Vol. VI, p. 282 (June, 1586), p. 284 (Nov., 1586); Vol. VII, p. 263 (1590); Vol. VIII, p. 313 (1593), and Vol. XII, p. 46 (1595); Alvarez de Abreu, p. I et seq.; Azcarraga, pp. 48-9.

13 Blair and Robertson, Vol. XIII, p. 258. Royal decree 1604. Alvarez de Abreu, pp. 37, 38, 53 (for 1718-22).

14 Azcarraga, p. 51; Alvarez de Abreu, p. 204 et seq., reviews laws and evasions.

15 Blair and Robertson, Vol. XIII, p. 249. Royal decree on commerce with New Spain.