2 Burgos and the Equality of Filipino and Spaniard, 1864-72 ‘THE DEATH OF PELAEZ MARKED THE TRANSITION of the Filipino clergy’s struggle to anew stage —a stage to be characterized not only by a new leader, but by new directions. The new directions and the new leader were signalled by the appearance of an anonymous pamphlet in mid-1864, entitled Mani- fiesto que a la noble nacién espaiiola dirigen los leales filipinos en defensa de su honra y fidelidad gravemente vulneradas por el periodico “La Verdad” de Madrid.’ It was fundamentally a reply to the articles in the newspaper La Verdad, inspired, if not written by the Recoleto procurator Fr. Guillermo Agudo, attacking the archbishop, Pelaez, and the Filipino clergy. The author of the Manifiesto was almost certainly Jose Burgos, then still a theological student in the University of Santo Tomas. Due to be ordained a priest by the end of that year, he was to occupy the post of rector of the Sagrario, the cathedral parish.” Burgos was at the time twenty-seven years old, the son of a Spanish army officer and a mother of mixed Spanish and Filipino blood, from the Tlocos town of Vigan, Educated in Manila from his earliest years, he had already obtained the degrees of bachelor and licentiate both in philosophy and in theology. In the succeeding years he would earn the same degrees in canon law, and finally, doctorates of theology and of canon law, generally with the highest academic honors.> Burgos as Successor of Pelaez The period between the death of Pelaez and the appearance of the Manifiesto saw worsening attacks on the Filipino clergy. The vague insinu- ations concerning the political unreliability of the Filipino clergy had now become open accusations of sedition. For the Filipinos, on the other hand, what had been primarily an intra-Church cahonical dispute between secular 1 Text and translation in Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 58-115. 2 The evidence for Burgos’s authorship has been discussed in detail in Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 22-23. For Father Agudo’s sponsorship of the articles in La Verdad, see the archbishop’s letter to the nuncio, ASV, Arch. Nunz. Madrid, 447, no. 1354, 27 May 1864, 8 For Burgos’s birth, education and academic achievements, see Villaroel, Burgos,ty REVOLUTIONARY CLERGY and regular clergy had now moved with the Manifiesto to be clearly a strug- gle for racial equality. One who identified himself as a Filipino, even if he were three-fourths Spanish by blood, had stood up to defend the native capacity of his people against its detractors, even while vigorously disclaim- ing any desire or possibility of separation from Spain. ‘The Manifiesto makes clear both the continuity of Burgos with Pelaez and the important difference in their attitudes. The continuity is evident in the arguments from civil and canon law used to demonstrate the right of the secular clergy to the parishes and the juridical incapacity of the religious orders to maintain themselves there. Not only the arguments used but even the language betray the dependence of the Manifiesto on the “Brebes [sic ] apuntes” of Pelaez, which must have been in the hands of Burgos.* But the Manifiesto moves far beyond the juridical question, and attacks directly the question of the native capacity of the Filipino clergy. More broadly, it de- fends the ability of Filipinos in general, attacking the notions of racial in- feriority in the writings of the opponents of the Filipino clergy. The hints of national consciousness which had been found in Pelaez, but which had never been openly displayed, find their full expression in this anonymous pamphlet. ‘The first attack is on the crude racism implied in the notion of inferior races. Burgos refutes this with arguments from contemporary anthropology and illustrations of Filipinos of the past who have been outstanding for their ability and accomplishments. If it be true, he says, that in the present not so many Filipinos distinguish themselves, this is the effect of their growing exclusion from positions of responsibility in Church and in State, which destroys all incentive.® In spite of this, he continues, one can enumerate among the clergy “individuals who honor it as much by their knowledge and learning as by their virtue, their zeal in the fulfillment of their duties and their abnegation.”* The other major theme of the Manifiesto is the loyalty of the Fili- pino clergy to Spain. Not only is there no evidence of disloyalty on the part of the Filipino clergy, the whole idea is “nothing more than a trick with which they try to frighten the Government and to induce it to believe them [the friars] necessary in the country for its preservation.” The pitch rises when finally the author takes up the accusation that Pelaez had himself been planning an insurrection, frustrated only by his providential death in the earthquake. Full of indignation, Burgos rejects the accusation as cal- umny, and pays wholehearted tribute to the revered memory of Pelaez.* ‘Though the public discussion of the issues faded from view after this, the feelings of resentment on the part of the Filipino clergy remained and 4 See p. 12 above. In his letter to the nuncio transmitting a copy of the “Brebes apuntes,” Pelaez says that he had given the original to an interested friend, Inasmuch as this was written less than two weeks before Pelaez’s death, it seems likely that it was with Burgos and remained with him, since he cortainly made use of this document in the Manifiesto. 5 Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 68-77. 6 Ibid., pp. 78-79. 7 Ibid., pp. 92-93. 8 Ibid., pp. 108-13.BURGOS AND FILIPINO-SPANISH EQUALITY 15 showed their head from time to time. At the same time distrust of their loyalty to Spain continued to grow among Spaniards in authority. Trivial incidents give evidence of this. In 1867 the archbishop gave title to the parishes of Naic and Indang in Cavite to two Dominicans, instructing them to receive possession of their parishes from the vicar forane, Fr. Mariano Gomez, or from another priest “designado por el mismo.” The two friars interpreted the phrase to mean a priest designated by themselves, and acted accordingly, ignoring the vicar forane. Gomez complained to the archbishop, who was indignant, and inquired from the theological faculty of the univer- sity if such an act did not render null the taking of possession.? Trivial as the incident was, it indicates Gomez’s reputation as an antagonist of the friars: to escape the acknowledgement of his authority, the two friars seized on the ambiguity in the archbishop’s document against the latter’s obvious inten- tion. Of more substance was a new claim of the Augustinian friars to the parish of San Rafael, Bulacan. This parish was not one of those secularized after 1774, but it had been in the possession of the secular clergy since its foundation in 1746. Not only was the archbishop unsuccessful in defending the rights of the secular clergy, but the governor refused to allow his pro- test to be elevated to Madrid.'° Meanwhile parishes continued to be taken away from the secular clergy by virtue of the three prior royal decrees. Only in 1870 was the process of transferral provided for by the decree of 1826 completed, and the implementation of that of 1849 would only be complete with the transferral of Bacoor to the Recoletos after the execution of Gomez in 1872.'! As the archbishop remonstrated in a letter of Decem- ber 1870 to the then regent of Spain, Marshal Francisco Serrano, each trans- ferral of a parish renewed the resentment, and each new measure reopened and inflamed the wound.!? Liberal Reformist Alliance In the midst of this growing tension, the revolution of 1868 in Spain suddenly changed the whole situation. The results were before long felt both in Madrid and in Manila. In June 1869 the provisional government of Madrid sent a new governor, Carlos Maria de la Torre, to Manila. Since De la Torre had been one of the generals who carried out the revolution, his coming was anticipated anxiously both by those who feared him and by those who looked forward to a liberalization of the Manila regime. Though not as doc- trinaire a liberal as he has frequently been made out to be, De la Torre did create an atmosphere of liberalism and reform in Manila, permitting consid- erable freedom of speech and of the press and setting up various commit- 9 AM, Documentos administrativos, 1681-1929, “Reso sesion de sus respectivos curatos por los parrocos de Yndén y Nai 10 PNA, Patronato, Bulacan, archbishop to governor, 4 March 1868; archbishop to regent, 31 December 1870, in Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 206-13. 11 Ibid., pp. 194-95; Montero y Vidal, Historia, 3:585. 12 AHN, Ultramar, leg. 2255; in Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 194-95, 214-15. acerca de la po-16 REVOLUTIONARY CLERGY tees to study reforms for the Philippines. Encouraged by the new climate, the small number of politically conscious hijos del pais — for the most part, though not entirely, criollos and Spanish mestizos — began to show activity in favor of the desired reforms. On 12 July 1869 a group of these liberal reformists staged a demon- stration of gratitude before the residence of the governor, who welcomed them affably — to the scandal of conservative peninsular Spaniards. Among the demonstrators was Fr, Jose Burgos. His presence was significant of the new direction that he was giving to the struggle of the Filipino clergy, a frankly political one in alliance with the liberal reformist lawyers and busi- nessmen of Manila.!? Out of this alliance was formed the Comite de Refor- madores.!* Its section of lawyers and businessmen was headed by Joaquin Pardo de Tavera of the faculty of law of the University of Santo Tomas; Father Burgos headed that of the secular clergy. The movement had its ramifications likewise among the university students, among whom there appeared the Juventud Escolar Liberal." ‘The principal active priests are said to have been, besides Burgos, Fathers Mariano Gomez, Jacinto Zamora, colleague of Burgos as cathedral parish priest, Agustin Mendoza, parish priest of Santa Cruz, Manila, and Jose Guevara, parish priest of Quiapo.'® Gomez, of course, had been the active collaborator of Pelaez at least since 1849. Zamora had been a classmate of Burgos in the university, and had obtained his post at the cathedral simul- taneously with Burgos. Santa Cruz and Quiapo were among the wealthiest parishes of Manila, and Mendoza had earlier contributed to the lobbying efforts of 1850 and had financed Pelaez’s Documentos importantes. Very likely Guevara likewise contributed to the campaign.'7 ‘The first to run afoul of the government were the university stu- dents.'* In October 1869 anonymous leaflets began to appear in the class- rooms, calling for academic freedom and criticizing the Dominican pro- 18 A hostile account may be found in Montero y Vidal, Historia, 2:498-512. Dela Torre’s own account is contained in his Manifiesto al pais sobre los sucesos de Cavite y memoria sobre la administracion y gobierno de las islas Filipinas (Madrid: Imp. de Gre- gorio Hernando, 1872) 14 Manuel Artigas y Cuerva, Los sucesos de 1872, pp. 55-57. Felipe Buencamino, St., “Sixty Years of Philippine History,” pp. 4-5, speaks of the same people rather as form- ing the “Liberal Party.” The coincidence of the two on substantials makes it clear that some kind of organization existed, on whose main lines the two accounts agree. 15 Artigas, Sucesos, pp. 56-57 ; Buencamino, ‘‘Sixty Years,” p. 5; Gregorio Sancianco y Goson, El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 110-11, Buencamino and Sancianco were among ‘the student members. 16 Artigas, Sucesos, pp. 56-56; Buencamino, “Sixty Years,” p. 4. Artigas also men- tions Fathers Mariano Sevilla and Simon Ramirez; Buencamino mentions Fr. Vicente Garcia, But the five named above were the ones denounced to the archbishop by the governor in 1869 (PNA, Insurgent Records, Cavite, archbishop to Izquierdo, 30 January 1872; text in John N, Schumacher, SJ, and Nicholas P. Cushner, SJ, tr. and ed., “Docu- ments Relating to Father Jose Burgos and the Cavite Mutiny,” Philippine Studies 17 [1969] : 516-17). All of the five too (apparently with the suxprising exception of Gomez) were ander mail surveillance from 1869 (ibid., p. 490). 17 Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 52-58, 117; Retana, Aparato, 2, no. 1030. 18 The only accurate account, and the most thorough, is that in Villarroel, Burgos,SSEESSTSer BURGOS AND FILIPINO-SPANISH EQUALITY 17 fessors, The students particularly criticized the Dominicans for their lack of "pect for Filipinos, as shown by their use of the familiar ‘hu” when at Gressing them. More significantly, one of the leaflets took up the there of racial discrimination: We Indios love our country as the foreigners and the Spaniards love (their own) and (we want) not to receive insults from them, Professors, open and see the books of his- tory and all their pages will prove this truth)? The anonymous leaflets supposedly taking on a political character, Felipe Buencamino, the alleged author, was arrested. Papers found in Ia house led De la Torre to suspect that there was a revolt being plotted, and soon other students were also arrested. ‘That there was a close association between students and clergy is seen When the investigation was extended to various Filipino priests, Fr Agustin Estrella, professor in the Colegio de San Jose, with whom Buencamino had favlier been living, was accused of having urged students not to sign the pro- tests against the leaflets which were being circulated. It was asserted, more- over, that Estrella claimed that the other secular priests of San Jose felt the same. Tn the end Estrella was removed from his teaching post by the gover. nor as being anti-Spanish, and his mail was put under surveillance,?° An. : other Filipino priest who was removed at the same time trom his post as director of a college in Bacolor, Pampanga, and whose mail was similarly placed under surveillance was Fr. Vietor Dizon del Moral. Given the coin- cidence in time of the punitive measures taken, and the fact that Dizon fut from the center of the area — Bulacan and’ Pampanga — from which the alleged conspirators came, it seems likely that his case too Wae n result of his association with the students, even though his name dove not appear in the existing documents of the case.? ! fished to make up the classes he had lost from his course, it was Father Burgos whom he requested as tutor. It was also the latter who examined him and certified his having completed the course some months later.2? PP: 24-104, who utilized a document from PNA, “Expediente sobre los anénimos atri Ruldos 2 Jos estudiantes de la Universidad de Santo Tomés.”" I have supplemented tha Pabliog Pom TNA; Sediciones y rebetiones, 1870-1878, “Conspiracién Contre el onto pitblico—Pampanga,” fols. 822-908, 19 Quoted in Villarroel, Burgos, p. 99, oo Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 130-31. Among the other priests at San Jose was Fr. Mariano Sevilla, who would be exiled in 1872.. 21 Ibid, Villarroel, Burgos, p. 103, n. 128, names the suspects and indicates that all18 REVOLUTIONARY CLERGY Role of the University Indeed, the university would seem to have been a major focus for bringing together the different groups. This was true particularly in the canon law faculty where lay students of law and ecclesiastical candidates for degrees shared courses. At the same time when Burgos was working for his doctorate in canon law, the two principal leaders of the lay reformist group, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera and Antonio Regidor, were both in the fac~ ulty of law, the former as professor, the latter as a doctoral candidate. In the relatively small student body the contacts of like-minded men must have been frequent, and progressive ideas easily spread.** Bishop Juan Aragones of Nueva Segovia pointed out clearly, if rather negatively, the role of the university. Answering Governor Izquierdo’s proposal after the Cavite Muti- ny that admission to the seminaries be made more difficult, he wrote: It is not the seminaries, Your Excellency, from which the worst come; itis from those who study in the university there and ihe colleges of Letran and San Jose. .. Bvery student from Manila who returns to the town of his province is a rebel .. . Justlook at where those have studied who took part in the past insurrection; I do not know the facts, but without rashness I dare to assert that all or the great majority must have been students of the university, not of the seminaries. And if in the provinces there is an; priest stigmatized as being anti-Spanish, it is one of those who have studied in Manila.” Though the bishop was concemed with the influence of lay professors like Pardo de Tavera on the young priests, what seems much more likely is the in- fluence of the Filipino priests in the university on the lay students. As has been seen in the first chapter, the Filipino priests did not need to be stirred to action by others, though there was to be an increasing alliance between the two groups out of common objectives and contacts in the university. The Reformists and De la Torre ‘The incident of the anonymous leaflets is especially significant, for it indicates De la Torre’s attitude toward the liberal reformists and their aspi- rations. In December 1869 he ordered surveillance for the foreign mail of a number of the more prominent liberals. In addition to Estrella and Dizon, the priests included were Burgos, Guevara, Mendoza, and Zamora. His convictions on the subject were expressed shortly thereafter in a letter to the overseas minister: With rare exceptions there is not a priest or a lawyer born in this country with some ‘education and influence who, both now and always, has not employed them in creating around him aspirations for independence. At present, unfortunately, in spite of my ef forts and the exquisite care I dedicate to this matter, I have not been able to find out anything conerete about their projects. Nonetheless the whole country points its finger 23 See Villarroel, Burgos, pp. 106 ff. and passim for Burgos’s academic career; slso DPB, 1:318-17, 367-71. 24 PNA, Patronato, Bishop Juan Aragonés to Inquierdo, Vigan, 7 May 1872. 25 Schumacher and Cushner, “Dociments,” pp. 489-90,BURGOS AND FILIPINO-SPANISH EQUALITY 19 at certain individuals of the clergy and certain lawyers, all mestizos and Philippine Span- iards . . . Everything, I repeat, leads one to believe that these lawyers and priests are the only ones here who dream of the independence of the country.° A few weeks later he repeated his failure to find any incriminating evi- dence against the suspect clergy in their intercepted mail. Nonetheless he remained firm in his conviction that “the native clergy is and always will be here a constant element of more or less open disturbance.” He did ac- knowledge, however, that there was a basis for their discontent in their dep- tivation of the parishes, and in the lack of consideration they often received from the regular clergy.?7 It would appear that De la Torre was gradually giving up the prejudices against the friars proper to a man of the revolution. As he would write the following year in his confidential memorial to his successor, “one must view the friars not with modern ideas, no, but with ideas and the criterion which should rule our policy in the Philippines.” His final judgment would be: “those who are ill-disposed towards the friars are the same who are very ill-disposed towards Spain . .. They are attempting to destroy one of the strongest supports of our glorious rule”? ® With these views he could only show himself ever more suspicious of all those who were united principally on the issue of hostility to the friars — the Filipino clergy because they had despoiled them of the parishes, the liberal lay reformists because they saw in friar conservatism the chief obsta- cle to the introduction of the liberal principles of the Spanish revolution into the Philippines. The Campaign in Madrid The aspirations of both groups now found their expression in the acti- vity carried on in Madrid by Manuel Regidor, a Philippine-born Spaniard, whose brother Antonio was one of the reformist leaders in Manila.?° At the outbreak of the revolution the two brothers had been in Madrid, Some time later Antonio returned to Manila, while Manuel became involved in radical politics in Madrid in collaboration with the Cuban-born Rafael M. Labra, soon to be deputy to the Cortes and a prominent republican leader.?® Al- ready in 1869 Manuel Regidor had published under the pseudonym Rai- mundo Geler a book entitled Islas Filipinas: Reseiia de su organizacion social y administrativa y breves indicaciones de las principales reformas que reclaman. In it he advocated radical reforms for the Philippines, taking a strongly antifriar position.>! He likewise published anonymously numerous articles on the Philippines in the radical newspaper of Madrid, La Discusion, 26 Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 120-21, letter of 4 January 1870. 27 Ibid., pp. 126-29, letter of 18 January 1870. 28 Manifiesto al pais, p. 21. This Manifiesto, published in 1872, reproduces his “Me- moria,” written in 1871. 29 For biographical data on Manuel Regidor, see “Regidor y Jurado (Manuel),” in the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europea-americana, 50:160. 30 “Labra y Cadrana (Rafael Maria de),” Enciclopedia universal, 29:101-2 31 Retana, Aparato, 2, no. 1206, gives a detailed summary of the book, though he does not mention Regidor’s name.,20 REVOLUTIONARY CLERGY advocating “the reform of the Philippine administration, the restoration of the parishes to the secular clergy, the secularization of all the parishes in the archipelago, the representation of [the] country in the Cortes, and the modification and perfecting of public instruction, by turning it over to laymen.”3? In answer to the accusations against the friars, the procurator of the Philippine Franciscans in Madrid, Fr. Joaquin de Coria, wrote an article in La Discusion. In it Coria defended the position of the friars by alleging their necessity in the face of the anti-Spanish tendencies of the Filipino clergy.?> To these accusations Burgos replied with a series of signed articles in the same paper.34 Burgos indignantly refuted the charge made against the Filipino clergy, and in a tour de force, tumed back the argument, showing that it Was the friars who were the real enemies of Spain in the Philippines, He then went on to propose the total substitution of the friars in the regular parishes by secular priests, whether Filipino or peninsular Spaniards, and the dedication of the friars to the missions to the pagan peoples. Quite aware that few, if any, peninsular secular priests would be ready or able to come to the Philippines to take a parish outside Manila, Burgos had disguised the fact that he was advocate not of the secular clergy as such, but of the Filipino clergy. Though the arguments in the articles offer little that is new, their im- portance is that they signalled the open entrance of Burgos into the struggle for Filipino rights, though he had already been marked out in Manila as a suspicious character.?> In the following months the cooperation between the Regidors and Burgos increased. Through Manuel Regidor, Burgos was to oversee the new effort to obtain a reversal of government policy. One of the first moves was made toward the end of 1870. The clergy of Manila sent to Marshal Francisco Serrano, the regent of Spain, an exposi- tion of their case, recounting the deprivations of which they had been the victims since 1826. The document, almost certainly authored by Burgos, went on to ask for a revocation of the decree of 1861 which had provided for the compensation of the Recoletos in the archdiocese of Manila, and for the retum to the secular clergy of the parishes already taken away from them.** Regidor followed up the petition through the Council of State and by means of one of his political colleagues managed to get a report supporting the secular clergy. By the time this was communicated to Manila, however, the Cavite Mutiny had already taken place and Burgos had been executed?” 72 “A los mértires de la Patria: Burgos, Gémez y Zamora,” Filipinas ante Europa 2 (28 February 1900): 73. The author of this article was Antonio Regidor (see Schama: cher, “The Cavite Mutiny: An Essay on the Published Sources,” Philippine Studies 26 [1972]: 607-8). 83 Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 26-27. 84 Text and translation ibid., pp. 134-93, 35 See the letter of the archbishop in Schumacher and Cushner, “Documents,” pp. 516-17, 36 Text and translation in Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 220-47, 37 The letters are in Leandro Tormo Sanz, 1872, pp. 117, 182-33. From internalBURGOS AND FILIPINO-SPANISH EQUALITY 24 Burgos and others were likewise attempting at this time to use agents in Madrid to obtain places in the cathedral chapter. Shortly after his arrival in 1863 the archbishop had warned the overseas minister of the dangers of a preponderance of Filipino prebendaries, as had been the case under the lead- dership of Pelaez.°* In 1868 it was decreed that the openings for prebends should be announced in Madrid as well as Manila, thus making it more diffi- cult for a Filipino to enter the chapter.” Nonetheless, it soon became clear after the revolution that, given the proper connections in Madrid, it was pos- sible for the Filipinos to get appointments too. Already in 1868 Fr. Mariano Sevilla was being offered such an appointment at a substantial fee for the agent.? In 1871 Regidor was seeking an appointment for Burgos, who had already held an interim appointment from Manila several times. In spite of his receiving first place in the competitive examinations, however, he con- tinued to be supplanted for a permanent appointment by the recommendees of Madrid politicians. Nonetheless, Regidor still had hopes, and had in the meantime obtained for him the title of Commander of the Order of Isabel la Catolica, a decoration which would serve to make secure his place in Ma- nila. Ironically, by the time this was obtained, Burgos was already under arrest. All this activity did not go unperceived. At the end of 1870 the arch- bishop himself made another attempt to defend the rights of the secular clergy and to seek the revocation of the decree awarding Manila parishes to the Recoletos. In it he defended the fundamental loyalty of the Filipino clergy, but insisted that the suspicion displayed towards them and the con- sequent unjust treatment was beginning to alienate them from Spain: What before was simply resentment of the regular orders now takes on a kind of anti- Spanish character. They do not hesitate to say that if the Americans or the English should take possession of the Philippine Archipelago, certainly they would show them more con- sideration than they receive from the Spaniards. Thus it is, Most Sereno Sir, that in order to escape an imaginary danger, a very real and true one is being created.” The archbishop went on to insist on the urgency of a remedy, for the excite- ment had notably inereased in recent months, and from the clergy it would ass to their relatives “and to the whole Filipino people, with whom they are evidenee they should be dated late December 1871, and late January or early February 1872. 38 AHN, Ultramar, leg. 2255, archbishop to the overseas minister, 22 June 1863. 39 Matias Gomez Zamora, Regio patronato Espafiol e Indiano, p. 424. 40 Tormo, 1872, p. 95. The agent was Tomés Cayla, who asked Sevilla to recom- mend his services to other priests. Evidently Sevilla did not then attempt to take advan- tage of the offer, since only on 26 June 1871 did he ask the archbishop for testimonial letters to enable him to apply for a prebend (AAM, Expedientes sobre jubilacion, 1776- 1900). Shortly afterward he was placed third by the archbishop on a list of candidates headed by Burgos, but the latter received the interim appointment (Schumacher and Cushner, “Documents,” pp. 494-97). Izquierdo later complained that disloyal Filipino clergy were being given places in the chapter in exchange for the hundreds of pesos they were sending to Madrid (letter of February 1872, in Tormo, 1872, p. 125). 41 Schumacher and Cushner, “Documents,” pp, 494-97; Tormo, 1872, pp. 116-17, 130-33, 42 Letter of 31 December 1870, in Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 214-15,2 REVOLUTIONARY CLERGY more in céntact than is the regular clergy.” He emphasized the danger of listening to vain fears, for “those fears can certainly be called vain, since up till now, [in spite of] the exquisite efforts which have been made to justify the accusations lately made against the secular clergy, there has never come forth any positive proof. In 1870 Manuel Regidor had founded with Rafael Labra the newspaper El Correo de Esparia to defend overseas interests, and in it attention was giv- en to the interests of the Filipino clergy." The Filipinos, on the other hand, had collected money, it would appear, for the founding of a newsps- per in Madrid for the same end. In July 1871 Fr. Agustin Mendoza sent Labra 7,000 through Regidor for the proposed daily newspaper. Three months later Labra wrote to Mendoza, explaining that the amount was not sufficient for the purpose. However, he said they could apply the amount to increasing the frequency of El Correo to three or four times a month. If further aid came from Puerto Rico, it might then be possible to fulfill the original intention. In January 1872 Regidor again urged on Burgos the necessity of more money to promote their cause through the press: Battles are not won without powder; why then not multiply the subscriptions to EI Correo de Espaiia, so that this newspaper, the only one in which one can expound his thought with some extension, may not only be maintained, but made more frequent? ‘Are we so few who are interested in the fortunes of that country that there is no way to get even 300 subscriptions?*¢ However, the newspaper which attracted more Filipino support, and certainly more unfavorable attention from the authorities, was El Eco Fili- pino, which devoted itself totally to Philippine affairs.” The publisher and editor was Federico Lerena, a Spaniard who had lived in the Philippines for a number of years, and who was married to the sister of Jose Maria Basa, a Manila businessman associated with the other liberal reformists. The news- paper, begun on 5 September 1871, was directed against “the friars and those refractory to all progress,” and did not fail to mention the struggle of the secular clergy against the friars. While some have considered Manuel Regidor its editor, his letter cited above suggests that he either was unaware of the paper or chose to ignore it.*® 43 Ibid., pp. 216-17. 44 The article cited in n, 29 gives the date as between 1868 and 1870, but judging from the sequence of letters in Tormo, 1872, the more likely date seems to be 1870. 45 Ibid., pp. 113-14, letter of 18 October 1871. Mendoza appears to have had com siderable resources at his disposal, which he offered freely. Besides having financed Pe- laez’s pamphlet, as mentioned above, he was a generous contributor to the mission of Hongkong. In 1860 the prefect-apostolic of that mission requested from the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in Rome that the Pope bestow a gold benemerent medal on Mendoza as being one of the most distinguished benefactors of the mission (ACPE, Udienze, part 2, vol. 135, fol. 860A). 46 Tormo, 1872, p. 133. 47 See Retana, Aparato, 2, no. 1288; Schumacher, Burgos, p. 27, where, however Lattributed its editorship to Regidor, wrongiy it would seem. See n. 48. 48 Tormo, 1872, p. 133, from January or February 1872. Mariano Ponce was 2 source which attributed the editorship to Regidor, but he seems to have confused it wiBURGOS AND FILIPINO-SPANISH EQUALITY 23 ‘The paper’s connection with the Filipino clergy is aiso somewhat ob- scure. It would seem that it was founded by Lerena on his own initiative, its principal propagators in the Philippines being Lerena’s brother-in-law Basa and Enrique Paraiso, both to be exiled as a result of the mutiny of 1872.*° Gov. Rafael de Izquierdo was later to say, with reference to those of the clergy accused of complicity in the mutiny, that they were in relations with the subversives of Madrid, whose newspapers they propagate in these islands, such as EI Eco Filipino, to the support and diffusion of which they devote them- selves by means of the subscriptions they collect among all their followers.°° In spite of this rather general statement, there is no evidence of formal sponsorship of El Eco Filipino by any of the clergy, though undoubtedly many were among its subscribers. At least the archbishop thought so suffi- ciently to prohibit the clergy from subscribing to or reading it. Most likely, however, their participation in the newspaper was limited to subscriptions, in common with other supporters of liberal reforms in the Philippines. The Cavite Mutiny ‘These efforts at political influence and journalistic propaganda in Spain to obtain the goals of the Filipino clergy were all interrupted by the revolt which was to send three priests to the gallows — the Cavite mutiny of 20 January 1872. ‘On the evening of 20 January, the marine battalion guarding the arse- nal of Cavite, together with a group of artillerymen from the fort, killed their commander and took possession of Fort San Felipe. The leaders were a Filipino sergeant named Lamadrid and two peninsular lieutenants, confined to the fort for disciplinary reasons, named Morquecho and Montesinos. The insurgents had apparently counted on the cooperation of the Seventh Infan- try Regiment. Unfortunately, the regiment’s Spanish officer was able to rally his men against the rebels and the latter were forced to shut them- selves up in the fort. When the word reached Manila the following morning, reinforcements were sent under the general Felipe Ginovés Espinar, second in command to the captain-general. After a day of siege, the fort fell to the troops led by General Ginovés the following morning, all the rebellion’s leaders being killed.*! ‘A few hours later a telegraph message to Manila requested the arrest of Father Burgos. The truth, however, was that Fathers Burgos, Zamora, El Correo de Espa, and has other inaccuracies on the topic (Mariano Ponee and Jaime C. de Veyra, Efemérides filipinas [Manila: LR. Morales, 1914], 1:180). 49 Details on the newspaper in various letters of late 1871 and early 1872 from Lerena to Manila correspondents, in Tormo, 1872, pp. 98-100, 101-2, 104-5. 50 PNA, Sediciones y Rebeliones, 1870-73, letter to the captain-general, 3 February 1872. See also his letter of the same date to the overseas minister in Artigas, Sucesos, p. 224, 51 This account has been drawn from the sources evaluated in my article, “The Cavite Mutiny,” pp. 603-32, and from the account given by Izquierdo to the overseas minister in letter 390, 31 January 1872, in PNA, Irsurgent Records, Cavite, no. 17. 52SHM, 16-1-1 “Filipinas, Informes, 1872”; and in Schumacher and ,Cushner, “Documents,” pp. 512-18.4 REVOLUTIONARY CLERGY and apparently Guevara, Sevilla, Mariano Gomez, and Feliciano Gomez, to- gether with Pardo de Tavera and Antonio Regidor, had already been arrested on the previous day on orders of Izquierdo.®? In the weeks that followed, the soldiers who had not been killed in the siege were executed or sentenced to prison at hard labor. Meanwhile, further arrests of priests and laymen con- tinued to be made, and a military tribunal was set up to try even these cases of civilians. On 15 February Fathers Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora were con- demned to death, together with a former minor government employee from Cavite by the name of Francisco Zaldua.* ‘The governor-general forwarded the sentence to the archbishop so that the latter might proceed to the canonical penalty of degradation, that is, deposition from the clerical state, before the execution. In his reply, the archbishop explained that he could not apply such a canonical penalty without having access to the evidence against the priests, which he requested Izquierdo to forward to him. He went on to beg the governor once more not to proceed to the extreme penalty, particularly now, a month after the events themselves, when the agitation had calmed, and when such an event, could only scandalize the Filipino people. Both requests were denied, and on 17 February the three priests and Zaldua were executed publicly by the garrote before a large crowd. During the succeeding weeks a large number of other Filipinos were sentenced to varying terms of exile in the garrison in Guam, among them ten priests, These were Fathers Feliciano Gomez, Mariano Sevilla, Agustin Mendoza, Jose Guevara, Toribio H. del Pilar, Justo Guazon, Vicente del Ro- sario, Pedro Dandan, Anacleto Desiderio, Miguel de Laza.** In a pastoral letter of 19 February 1872, Archbishop Meliton Martinez condemned in the most energetic terms the participation of priests in the insurrection: We lift our voices .. against the disloyalty of some native priests who, to the scan- dal of the world, of ind of the Church, have lamentably taken so ill-advised a part in a plan so deserving of punishment, uniting themselves in a vile conspiracy with other sons of the country as misguided as themselves. Referring to his own appeal to Izquierdo for clemency, he went on to jus- tify the latter’s refusal on the grounds of the exigencies of duty and of pub- lie satisfaction, which demanded imperiously the full expiation of the crimes committed in the citadel of Cavite.*” 58 APT, ET--5, “Diario de la mision, 1859-1879”; Artigas, Sucesos, pp. 118-17; PNA, Sediciones y Rebeliones 1872-1873, “Pampanga 1872.” There is in AAM an order, from the ecclesiastical governor to Gomez, dated 30 January 1872, ordering him to li apart from the parish (Quirino, “A Checklist,” p. 62). Nonetheless, it seems certain that by this time he had already been arrested. See the letter of the archbishop of 24 January in Schumacher and Cushnes, “Documents,” pp. 516-17; also Marcelino Gomez, “El P. Mariano Gomez,” p. 117. 54 Schumacher and Cushner, “Documents,” pp. 523-29. ‘The name is in spelled “Zaldua” or “Saldua” in the documents. 55 Letters of 15 February 1872, in Tormo, 1872, pp. 170-71. 156 ‘The sentences of those condemned are to be found in SHM, 14-1-4-9, “Filipinas, Justicia, 1872." See also PNA, Insurgent Records, Cavite, exp. 137. 57 Nos el Dr. D. Gregorio Melitén Martinez y Santa Cruz. .. Arzobispo de Manila ferentlyBURGOS AND FILIPINO-SPANISH EQUALITY 25, What reality corresponded to this accusation? The records of the trial disappeared and have not yet been located. Nonetheless sufficient documen- tation has survived to give a reasonably clear idea of what was alleged against the various priests to merit the penalties imposed on them. The sources of information as to the government version of the role of the priests are basically two —a letter of Izquierdo to the overseas minister of 81 January 1872, and the testimony and confession of one of the princi- pal figures of the insurrection, Sergeant Bonifacio Octavo, captured in Sep- tember 1872.* The former document contains the preliminary findings of the military court, just two weeks before the death sentence of the three priests; the latter document was said by Izquierdo to have confirmed and further clarified the obscure points in the findings of the court, Indeed, it would appear from the words of Izquierdo that full certitude came only with Octavo’s testimony: Everything that has been brought out in the investigation tends to corroborate how justly the tribunal which passed sentence made the full rigor of the law fall on the guilty ones. This corroboration is always important, even though neither the court martial which Pronounced sentence nor the captain-general who approved the sentences had any need of this, convinced as they were of the justice of their judgment, Obviously the question arises as to the means by which Octavo’s confession was obtained, and hence its value. But at least it seems clear from Izquierdo’s statement that the proofs offered at the trial were at best no stronger than those offered by Octavo. According to Izquierdo’s account, the insurrection had been instigated by the Filipino clergy and lawyers, playing on the grievances of the unpaid tobacco monopoly vouchers and of the imposition of tribute on the workers of the Cavite arsenal: ‘To seduce the native troops they made use of superstition to which the natives are 80 Prone, persuading them that the one who was to be the chief of state (hari), an ecclesias- tie, and the other priests who were promoting the rebellion were celebrating Mass daily for its successful outcome; hence it could not fail. They likewise persuaded them that God was with them, and that those who did not join the revolt would be killed, or would die immediately.°° ‘Though the ambiguity of the word hari in Tagalog made it unclear whether the new government would be a monarchy or a republic, a priest was to head the government, “Very probably, almost certainly, the designated chief of state was D. Jose Burgos or D, Jacinto Zamora.” +» PP. 11-12. A copy of this pamphlet, with the text in Spanish and Tagalog, is in APP, IF-7/ Feb. 72. 58 PNA, Insurgent Records, Cavite, no. 117, “Comunicacién nfm. 390.” The tes- timony of Octavo is in AHN, Ultramar, leg. 6216. The text of the covering letter of Iz- suierdo is in Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 248-59, while the testimony itself is found in Tormo, 1872, pp. 152-68. 59 Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 248-49. 60 PNA, Insurgent Records, Cavite, “Comunicacién nim. 390,” pp. 50-52, 61 Ibid., pp. 52-53,62 Ibid., pp. 53-56, 83 Ibid., pp. 57-59, 64 Tormo, 1872, pp. 153, 155-56, 160-61, 163-64, REVOLUTIONARY CLERGYBURGOS AND FILIPINO-SPANISH EQUALITY 27 mation given on the priests involved, as well as on Pardo and Regidor, was sheer hearsay. The only one alleged to have had contact with Burgos or the others was Zaldua, who had assured the simple soldiers of the fort that the priests and lawyers were behind the plot, and offered them unsigned com. missions in Burgos’s name. Octavo affirmed that he did not even know Bur- gos or Zamora, and knew Guevara only from having seen him at the cock- pit. Though he had known Gomez some years ago when living in Bacoor, he was a friend of neither him nor Guevara. Nor had they ever discussed revolution with him,°° The only certain conclusion that can be drawn from the whole testi- mony is that the immediate instigator of the entire revolt was Zaldua. Wheth- er he was actually backed by the accused or whether he merely used their names to influence the ordinary soldiers is something that cannot be deter- mined with certainty. One cannot help, however, but be reminded of the warning given to Burgos by his Jesuit friend Fr. Pedro Bertrén in order to dissuade him from taking further part in the liberal agitation and wonder whether it was prophetic. Even supposing that you have sufficient strength to turn back, pethaps you may not be able to prevent @ hand doubly criminal from writing your name on a banner waved by deluded men and traitors.°° For it seems highly improbable that Burgos and his collegues could have proposed the indiscriminate slaughter of all Spaniards, among whom, includ- ing the friars particularly, he had many friends.°” Nor does it inspire confi- dence to know how much reliance Izquierdo placed on rumor, anonymous denunciations, and his personal convictions. His connection of the events with the supposed projected revolt of 1863, of which no evidence had ever been brought forward, and his assertion that the revolt had been planned since 1869 are even less convincing. Moreover, he was forced to admit that in spite of his having been advised in May 1871 of the existence of a junta of priests and lawyers conspiring against Spain, whose meetings he had various times tried to surprise, he had never been successful in doing so. Nonetheless, he professed complete certainty of the exactitude of the reports he had received.** It should be noted, however, that he kept the execution of the three priests secret from the Madrid government until it was an accomplished fact. In spite of almost daily communications by cable to Madrid on the progress of the investigations, he made no mention of the condemnation of the priests, and only on 19 February, two days after the execution, did he cable the news to Madrid.” It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he was determined that the priests be executed, and was unwilling to have the suffi- 66 Ibid, p. 157. 66 Schumacher, Burgos, pp. 268-69. 67 The original version spoke of the death of all Spanish males. In one of his recti- fications Octavo said that only those Spaniards who resisted would be killed, but that since it was likely that all would resist, it was said that all would be killed (Tormo, 1872, P. 163). 68 PNA, Insurgent Records, Cavite, exp. 177. 69 Telegram of 19 February to the overseas minister in PNA, Sediciones y Rebelio- nes, 1870-1873. Me28 REVOLUTIONARY CLERGY ciency of the evide: be reversed. which no one knew anything, !e newspaper called El Globo, and that h concerning which there was n fe had promoted secret, meetin, ‘© information.” If this statement was made in an appeal to the government, it was almost certainly accurate, since the aware ment had the records of the trial and would have been immediately pute of any falsification, Of Fathers Mariane Sevilla and Toribio H. de) Pilar it. was said that they were arrested on the basis of letters from eac: of them found in the possession of Father Burgos.” Del Pilar at least Was not even in Manila, 70 See the letters of Manuel Regidor to Burgos cited inn. 37. 71 PNA, Insurgent Records, Cavite, no, 99, 30 July 1873. 72 Epifanio de los Santos ing Marcelo del Pilax ‘ight have comprom Papers is unclear, 73 PNA, Sediciones y Rebeliones, 1872-1878, “Pampanga, 1872.” 74 Marcelino Gomez, “EI P. Mariano Gomez, p. 117; Schumacher and Cushne> “Documentos”, pp, 516-17, 75 PNA, Sediciones y Rebelion general, 20 Feby fol. 337, ‘t 1870-1873, Fiscal Manuel Boscasa to governor mary 1872; AM, Libro de Gobierno Eelesidstica — Ofieios 1871.BURGOS AND FILIPINO-SPANISH EQUALITY 29 but most especially against Fathers Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora, rectors of San Pedro, Jose Guevara and Agustin Mendoza, parish priests of Quiapo and Sta, Cruz, Maria- no Gomez of Bacoor, Mariano Sevilla and Miguel de Laza, From confidential reports, from anonymous letters and from other information, some of it unquestionable, they are considered to be members of the Filipino Club. Some of them, especially the parish priests of Quiapo, Sta, Cruz, and Bacoor, were strongly admonished by the ecclesiastical governor at the insistence of the superior civil governor, General de Ia Torre, in January 1870. It is known from public rumor and also from confidential reports that they are in relations with the subversives of Madrid, whose newspapers they spread through these islands, such as El Eco Filipino, to whose support and distribution they devote them- selves by means of subscriptions which they collect among all their followers. Moreover, public rumor and general opinion believe that they have been the principal authors and instigators of the Cavite revolt.”° ‘The prominent role of “public rumor and general opinion” is evident. As in the case of Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora, so in that of the other priests, there is little evidence of any other complicity than that of having support- ed the campaign for liberal reforms and for the return of the parishes to the secular clergy. This is confirmed by the struggle which went on between Izquierdo and the archbishop over the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties on the lesser figures among the clergy. In a correspondence of some six months, the ecclesiastical court, sustained by the archbishop, insisted on the need to have access to the evidence so as to ascertain the degree of culpabil- ity before penalties could be imposed. Just as adamantly, the government refused to accede, and finally dropped the issue in October 1872 rather than make known to the ecclesiastical court the evidence brought forward at the trial.”” Though it is possible that this reflects merely the unwillingness of Iaquierdo to acknowledge the competence of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, it certainly casts further doubt on the adequacy of the evidence used, If there is doubt as to the evidence on which Izquierdo depended to eliminate the outstanding Filipino clergy, there is no doubt as to his atti- tude towards them. His intent was clearly to eliminate them from positions of influence in the future, and to obtain the dominance of the friars in the Philippine church. In a confidential letter written to the superiors of the friar orders in March 1872, he castigated the friars for having allowed the Filipino clergy to win over much of the influence which had formerly been theirs, and insisted that they recover their position for the sake of Spain, “I believe that it is to the interest both of religion and of the country that the care of souls be exclusively in the hands of the religious orders. in this sense and on this basis my efforts, my endeavors, my representations with the supreme government will be active.””* As a matter of fact, he had already recommended that one of the meas- ures urgently needed to secure the country for Spain was “to restrain the archbishop in giving parishes to the secular clergy, and to diminish the num- ber of seminarians until they are extinguished.” 76 PNA, Sediciones y Rebeliones, 1870-1878, letter of $ February 1872. 77 PNA, Insurgent Records, Cavite, exp. 160. 78 PNA, Insurgent Records, Cavite, exp. 186, 27 March 1872. 79 PNA, Sediciones y Rebeliones, 1870-1873, letter 391 to the overseas minister, 2 February 1871 [si¢, should be 1872].30 REVOLUTIONARY CLERGY At the same time it must be noted that there was at least one Filipino priest who had been the subject of accusations but against whom no meas- ures were taken by Izquierdo. Fr. Vicente Garcia, a doctor in theology, had held for several years the office of provisor and vicar-general of the diocese of Caceres in spite of not possessing the required advanced degree in canon law, “in attention to his outstanding merits.”8° A book which otherwise is an apology for the friars, published in 1869, had mentioned him together with Burgos and Father Jose Garcia of Manila as examples of those native priests whose “great knowledge and outstanding qualities shone forth bril- liantly.”"! In November 1871 he was denounced by the alcalde-mayor of Camarines for the second time as exercising “an immense and decisive in- fluence on all the natives of this province, and most especially on those who nourish the condemnable intention of disturbing the peace.” However, in spite of his conviction that Garcia would always be a source of disturbance, the alcalde-mayor did not dare remove him, “given the conditions of prestige and affection bordering on adoration which the natives have for him.” In- stead he asked the governor-general somehow to effect Garcia’s removal from Naga as being “‘the only one in this province who could boast of being able to lead these peaceful inhabitants into a revolutionary movement.’ A few weeks after this accusation, Garcia received from a friend in Ma- nila, Vicente Garchitorena, a copy of the first number of El Eco Filipino, evidently sent with the intention of obtaining subscribers in the province to the newspaper.*? This copy fell into the hands of Izquierdo, and in spite of the emphasis that support of this newspaper constituted a reason for sus- Picion, no move against Garcia appears to have been taken by the govern- ment, either before or after the Cavite Mutiny. The only explanation would seem to be that, living in the province, Garcia was not actually associated with the Manila organization of lawyers and priests which received the blame for the revolt. That he shared, however, their feelings and aspirations may be supposed from the fact that fifteen years later he would come to the defense of Rizal’s novel, Noli me tangere, eliciting from Rizal the grateful comment that the fact that Father Vicente Garcia defends me, moves me deeply, and tells me that I should continue on the path which I have traced. To have an old man at my side like that is to believe that I am not in opposition to the spirit of my country.’ Motivation of the Clergy The case of Fr. Vicente Garcia points up the difficulty of giving a just estimate to the activity of the clergy in this second phase of their struggle. 80 PNA, Patronato (unclassified), exp. of 22 April 1863 and 14 June 1865. 81 [Vicente Barrantes] Apuntes interesantes sobre las Islas Filipinas, que pueden ser titiles para hacer las reformas convenientes y productivas para el pais y para la nacién, p. 45. 82 Rafael de Escalada to governor general, 14 November 1871, in Tormo, 1872, pp. 187-38. 83 Ibid. 84 Ep. p. 114-15, 261.BURGOS AND FILIPINO-SPANISH EQUALITY 31 To what extent can it be termed a nationalist movement? Or should the whole episode be considered a struggle for class privileges, which the inepti- tude and prejudices of Spaniards turned into a major act of oppression against the Filipino people? Rizal would later judge the preceding genera- tions harshly in comparison with what he expected of his own: ‘The men who preceded us struggled for their own interests, and for this reason God did not sustain them. Novales for a question of ranks, Cuesta for vengeance, Burgos for his Parishes, We on the other hand struggle that there may be more justice, for freedom, for the sacred tights of man; we do not ask anything for ourselves, we sacrifice all to the com mon good.*® ‘The judgment seems too harsh, As Rizal was to find out in the succeed- ing years, if his words concerning dedication to the national cause could be justly applied to himself, to Del Pilar, and to certain others, not all of his colleagues would show such abnegation of their own interests and dedication to the national cause. Similarly, even if we knew more about each of the priests involved in the struggle, it would be rash to say that no thought of personal advancement entered into their motivation in fighting for justice to the Filipino clergy. Wounded pride and ambition to obtain a position for themselves no doubt played a part, at least with some. But it should be noted that the principal leaders of the movement were not those who had been de- prived, but the fortunate few who did hold prominent positions within the Church — Burgos and Zamora as rectors of the cathedral, Mariano Gomez, al- ready a septuagenarian and in possession of the most prosperous parish in Cavite for almost fifty years, Mendoza and Guevara, parish priests of the two wealthiest parishes in Manila. Burgos, it is true, aspired for a canonry in the cathedral chapter, But as the nominee of the archbishop and the most highly qualified academically, he would have been more likely to obtain such a position by silence rather than by exposing himself in defense of the rights of the Filipino clergy as a whole, If it was not self-interest which primarily motivated the leaders of the Filipino clergy, was it class interest? No doubt the discrimination against the Filipino clergy was their first concern. But it was not merely because they themselves belonged to this class. It was particularly this group of Fili- pinos which was being attacked by Spanish discrimination. It was the clergy among the Filipinos who had attained the level of education which ought to have enabled them to take their place alongside Spaniards, and who were being discriminated against precisely as being Filipinos. Only in the next generation would there be a significant number of Filipino laymen — such as, many of those of the Juventud Escolar Liberal — who were similarly qual- ified. As a matter of fact, in the reform group of 1869-72 —Comité de Refor- madores, Partido Liberal, or Club Filipino — it was the clergy generally who represented the native Filipino — indio — element, while the lawyers and businessmen were almost all criollos or Spanish mestizos. Nothing could have been further from the minds of most of these latter than to promote Indio interests; they wanted liberal reforms merely because as true Spaniards 85 Ibid., 2:201.32 REVOLUTIONARY they felt they should have the same rights to enjoy them as the Spaniards - the Peninsula. Indeed some of them were concerned lest the struggle bec> a racial one: if that happened, they themselves would be threatened. Wr pardon was finally given to the exiles to the Marianas, it was the clergy returned to the Philippines, while the criollo and mestizo lay leaders Pardo de Tavera, Regidor, and Basa expatriated themselves. To be sure, the Filipino clergy could not express their nationalist ing openly. Even though, as is probable, they had no aspirations for se tion from Spain and independence, even to insist too much on the distin= tights of Filipinos was dangerous. Hence they exerted themselves to the argument on the plane of the rights of secular versus regular cl rather than of Filipino versus Spanish, as their enemies insisted. Only anonymous publication like the Manifiesto could Burgos express hi freely, defending the ability and natural capacity of all Filipinos aga:- Spanish racism. Here we can see that for him at least, the issue was not « of the clergy, but one for all Filipinos. Here the foundation for the future development of Filipino nationelis= Was laid. With the tragic failure to obtain Filipino rights within the Spani== framework, and the execution or nullification of the leaders of the Fili clergy, the initiative would pass to another generation. Many of them wor be disciples of the priests of 1872, who would carry on the struggle in Spa and eventually turn it in a different direction. The major issue would longer be the rights of the clergy, nor would the major protagonists of ¢ next phase be priests, Nonetheless, even if now in a supporting role, = clergy would not be absent from that nationalist struggle. 86 See, for example, F. de Lerena to Jose Basa, in Tormo, 1872, p. 110.