No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Spanish Administration of Philippine Commerce
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 October 2013
Extract
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. 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 native industry 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.”
- Type
- Papers and Discussions
- Information
- Proceedings of the American Political Science Association , Volume 3: Third Annual Meeting , December 1907 , pp. 180 - 193
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1907
References
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 free-booters (1602).
Vol. XVII. Paige 100, Dutch freebooters.
Documentos Inéditos, America y Oceania. Vol. VI, 311-44 (1612).
Vol. VI. Page 345 et seq. (1635).
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.
5 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.
6 de Abreu, Alvarez, José, Antonio, Extracto historial del expediente que pende en el Consejo Real, Madrid, 1736Google Scholar. Extended discussion of both arguments.
7 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 naciomes europeas en las indias occidentales (1790).
Haebler, Konrad, Die Wirtsthaftliche Blüte Spaniens in 16 Jahrhundert und ihr Verfall, p. 44 et seq.
Colmeiro, Manuel, Cortes de los antiguos reinos de Leon y Castilla, Madrid, 1883–1884, Introduction, p. 195Google Scholaret seq.
9 Haebler, p. 70 et seq.
10 Bernard, Moses, Amer. Hist. Asso., 1894, The Casa de Contrataccon of Seville, p. 93Google Scholaret seq. passim. Alvarez de Abreu, pp. 73-4.
11 Tornow, Max L., The Economic Condition of the Philippines, Nat. Geog. Mag., Vol. 10, pp. 33–64Google Scholar. 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. 1 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.
16 Recopilacíon de las leyes de Indias, lib. IX, tit. XXXV, leyes LXXI to LXXVIII (1604), Madrid, 1864. Azcarraga, p. 73; restriction lasted until 1774.
17 Alvarez de Abreu, pp. 28-33, 108, 204. Numerous evasions of the law even by Mexican viceroys reviewed. Th e restrictions noted were included in the earlier decree but had never been observed.
18 See Cedula of 1593, noted above, and Azcarraga, pp. 74-5.
19 Alvarez de Abreu, p. 2 et seq.; also p. 125.
20 Blair and Robertson, Vol. VII, p. 137. Royal decree establishing pancada, 9 Aug., 1589.
21 Azcarraga, pp. 141-2; also Blair an d Robertson, Vol. XIV, p. 108 et seq., from Morga, Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, Mexico, 1609.
22 Alvarez de Abreu, p. 75 (1723). English, French and Dutch enterprises monopolizing the trade.
23 Zúñiga, Vol. I, p. 264.
Azcarraga, pp. 76, 114-6. French and English chiefly engaged in this illicit trade, c. 1771.
24 Zúñiga, Vol. I, p. 433. Dependence upon thereligious orders for loans. Methods of trade (1803).
Tomas de Comyn, The State of the Philippine Islands (translation, London, 1821; original, 1810), p. 67 (1810).
25 Zúñiga, Vol. I, p. 266 et seq. Unsuccessful efforts to secure honesty in division of cargo space.
26 So large a part of the cargo was of silks that it was often called simply “the cloth” (1803).
Blair and Robertson, Vol. XI, p. 272. Felipe III to the Governor (1602).
Alvarez de Abreu, pp. 29-34 (1705-14). pp. 101-2 (1724).
27 Zúñiga, Vol. I, p. 434 et seq.
28 Blair and Robertson, Vol. X, p. 101 (1597), describes abuses; Vol. XII, p. 70 and Vol. XIII, p. 259, documents concerning efforts to secure accountability of officers; Vol. XIII, p. 261, classes of officers forbidden to engage in trade.
Azcarraga, pp. 63-4.
Zúñiga, p. 267.
29 Alvarez de Abreu, p. 29 (1699); also pp. 98-9 (1724). Azcarraga, p. 49. Zúñiga, Vol. I, p. 269 (1803).
30 Alvarez de Abreu, p. 98-9, protest against abuses, 1724. Azcarraga, p. 50, 50,000,000 duros lost in 17th century through overloading. Zúñiga, Vol. II, pp. 50-4, mentions six vessels lost in the 18th century. Blair and Robertson, Vol. X, p. 102 (1597), p. 131 (1598) and 163; Vol. XI, p. 115; Vol. XII, p. 48, etc. Vol. VIII, p. 261, gives royal decree aimed to prevent overloading.
31 Alvarez de Abreu, p. 30 (1702); also pp. 101-2 (1724), and p. 210. Blair and Robertson, Vol. VIII, p. 252 (1592). Vol. X, p. 100 (1597) priests in trade; Vol. X, p. 148, governor in trade.
In later years the religious orders loaned their funds to merchants instead of trading directly. Interest to Acapulco, 50%. Zúñiga, Vol. I, pp. 254-6. Rules changed later when enforcement found impossible. Zúñiga, 1, p. 266.
32 Alvarez de Abreu, p. 32 et seq. (1714); also p. 84 (1723) and p. 103 (1724).
33 Alvarez de Abreu, p. 28.
34 Idem, p. 31; also pp. 127-9.
35 Alvarez de Abreu, pp. 54-90, abuses. 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 duros taken back. Azcarraga, pp. 55-8, Seville charged that one ship had a cargo worth 10,000,000 duros. Comyn, p. 76 (1810), “Many ships have brought 3,000,000 duros.” Zúñiga, Vol. I, pp. 269-70, evasions; “return nearly 3,000,000.”
36 Azcarraga, p. 51; Documentos Inéditos, Vol. VI, p. 368 et seq. Effort to get honest administration in 1636.
37 Blair and Robertson, Vol. XI, p. 118 (1599); Vol. XII, p. 68 (1602).
38 Alvarez de Abreu, p. 29 et seq., for steps leading up to this increase, p. 27, Vioeroy of Mexico, argues for extension of permission. Pp. 54-74, arguments of Manila and Seville. Pp. 130-193, renewed-contest in 1731. P. 210, King grants extension permanent (1834).
Azcarraga, p. 54 et seq.
Documentos Inéditos, Vol. VI, p. 298, Viceroy of Peru defends Philippines; Vol. VI, p. 345. Report of Procurador of Manila.
39 Alvarez de Abreu, p. 44 et seq., discussion leading up to increase (1718-22) reviewed.
Zúñiga, Vol. I, p. 269-70 (1803).
Azcarraga, p. 51. Special exceptions to law noted.
40 Azcanraga, pp. 68-9. Other economic results of exclusivism.
41 Moses, Bernard. The seat of the monopoly was removed to Cadiz in 1718 and its privileges limited in 1728. Other ports were opened after 1765.
42 Azcarraga, pp. 60-4. Decline of Spanish silk importation.
43 Azcarraga, pp. 117-8.
44 Comyn, p. 84 et seq.
Azcarraga, p. 114 et seq. Failure of the earlier attempt of 1733. See also pp. 119-41.
Zúñiga, Vol. I, p. 493 et seq.
45 Recur, Carlos, Filipinas, Estudios Adminisitrativos y Comerciales, Madrid, 1879, pp. 20-2, reviews company's privileges and the rule s on trade.
46 Arenas, Rafael Diaz, Memoria sabre el Comercio y Navegacion de las Islas Filipinas, Cadiz, 1838, p. 1, states tha t not till 1820 were all taxes on Philippine products in Spain removed.
47 Azcarraga, pp. 141-2.
48 Tornow, pp. 49-50. New regulations in Codigo de Comercio, July 15, 1833. Final settlement of Company's accounts, 1834. See also Arenas, p. 5; also Azcarraga, p. 146.
Andree, Karl, Geographie des Welthandels, Vol. II, pp. 443-8.
49 Azcarraga, p. 143.
50 Tornow, p. 49.
51 Zúñiga, Vol. I, p. 265. The prohibition against foreigners was not strictly enforced in rthe later 18th century. Zúñiga reports foreign shopkeepers in Manila in 1803.
Azcarraiga, p. 147.
Andree, p. 445.
52 See tables in Tornow, p. 53 et seq.
53 Azcarraga, p. 158.
Arenas, p. 4. European goods drove out Bengal goods. Rise of trade to England and the United States (1838).
54 Crampon, Ernsit, Le Commerce des Iles Philippines (in Société academique indo-chinoise, Bulletin 2° ser., t. 3, pp. 278-93. Paris, 1890, p. 279. Outlines the rapid growth of sugar, hemp and coffee exportations following the opening of commerce to the world.
55 Andree, p. 445; also Arenas, p. 45. Not the least hindrance, to trade was the multiplicity of coins in use. In 1838 there were no less than ten different pesos in use, besides various other smaller coins often debased and counterfeited.
56 Azcarraga, p. 161, 1855 Zual, Iloilo and Zaimiboanga opened; Cebu 1860.
Crampon, passim, on effect of opening ports.
Andree, p. 445.
Arenas, p. 25 et seq., describes the disadvantages of trade when Manila was the only open port (1838).
57 Crampon, pp. 281-2: Iloilo had rapid growth, after 1880.
Value of imports-exports 1880.……. 549,419 piastres (Mexican).
Value of imports-exports 1881 ……. 4,663,379 piastres (Mexican).
Increase chiefly due to exportation of sugar directly to foreign countries instead of through Manila.
58 Azcarraga, pp. 17-22. Page 24, increase in public revenues resulting.
59 Tornow, pp. 49-50; also as to cumbersome banking methods of the Banco Español Filipino, established 1581.
60 Arenas, p. 2; restrictions on ships' papers discussed. Limitation as to destination removed 17 July, 1834.
Azcairraga, p. 148 et seq. Spanish ships and products favored by the customs schedules made by Juntas in 1828 and 1855. These discriminations in favor of Spanish ships were abolished December 28, 1868, but replaced 16 October, 1870.
Tornow, p. 52. Up to 1872 Spanish flag favored. In that year had a reduction of 25% of customs-house charges. After abolition of discriminations Spanish tonnage steadily declined.
Tornow, p. 34. Endless chicanery practiced by customs-house officials.
61 Azcarraga, p. 6. Philippine affairs little noticed even in Spain up to 1860.
62 Alvarez de Abreu, p. 202. One-half of the Council of State declared 23 December, 1733: “The propagation of the faith is the only reason for maintaining the islands.”
Blair and Robertson, Vol. XIII, p. 233. Governor to Felipe III, July, 1604; not more than 1,200 Spaniards in the islands.
Zuñiga, Vol. I, p. 250 (1803). “Spanish families, even counting those not strictly pure, do not reach over 1000.” Vol. I, p. 433, describes the paralyzing effect of the Acapulco trade.
M'Konochie, Alexander, A Summary View of the Statistics and Existing Commerce of the Principal Shores of the Pacific Ocean, London, 1818, p. 127. “Permanent population of Spaniards was about 1,200” (1818).
Azcarraga, p. 25. Pure white families numbered not more than 9,000 in 1861. Page 37, effects of exclusivistn upon commerce. Page 54, white population increased very little during 17th century.
63 Zuñiga, Vol. I, p. 265 (1803). When Asiatic trade was opened to Europeans, “Swedes, Danes, English, Bostonians (sic), Frendh and Armenians” monopolized it.
Comyn, pp. 89-90 (1810). North Americans (sic), English and French take the majority of Philippine trade, especially in liquors.
Arenas, pp. 76-77 (1838). Chief participants in importation are England, United States and China. One or two French ships a year. Almost all the products of the Philippines are exported by foreigners for the United States, England or China.
Corbez, Balbino, Estudios del Archipiélago Asiatico bajo el punto de vista, geographico, historíco, agrícola, política y comercial. Madrid, 1861, p. 77. Trade to Singapore chiefly in hands of English and Germans.
Azcarraga, p. 29 (1871). “Almost all foreign commerce done ….. through foreign houses … English, North American (sic), German and French. Spanish commerce limited to coastwise cargo trade (cabotaje).
Tornow, pp. 50-51. Up to 1860 and later banking done almost entirely through two lairge American houses. “Since 1896 there has been no American house in Manila.” English, Germans and Swiss most important in foreign trade in 1899 (1899).
64 Zuñiga, Vol. I, pp. 271-3. Attitude of Spaniards as to development of the islands (1803).