One reply of his to the archbishop on these two points gives us the feel of the tart side of his tongue:
"With regard to my having intervened in such a way as to make (the newly arrived friars) feel that they were being deterred from occupying the posts assigned to them by your lord- ship, I can affirm with an absolutely clear conscience that such an allegation is completely false. I merely made the observation that, since (the friars) were not familiar with the dialects of the parishes where they are supposed to officiate, which is in fact the case, it was, in my opinion, not merely advisable but proper that they should begin as coadjutors in said parishes and that until they had acquired some knowledge of those dialects, they should allow the Filipino priests now stationed there to continue as pastors. They could assume their appointed posts as soon as they are in a position to make themselves understood by the
people, who are, unfortunately, rude and even illiterate; and this delay would at the same time give the Filipino clerics the opportunity to make proper arrangements in the parishes to which they are being transferred, a courtesy to which their length of service in the Church would seem to entitle them.
"With reference to my recommendation of Fathers Allera and Camuning to the vacant parishes of Nagcarlang and Orion, I must with due respect remind your illustrious lordship that these fathers not only possess the qualifications required by Holy Mother Church for these vacancies, but that they have, in the opinion of the members of the archdiocesan board of examiners, successfully passed the examinations for the doctorate in moral theology.
"The fathers (obviously friars) whom your illustrious lordship has been pleased to send to the said parishes of Nagcarlang and Orion are, in my opinion, not qualified for them. These are parishes in which large numbers of the people are quite ignorant; and the fact that the said fathers possess estates in the territory may lead to disturbances of various kinds for which I would regret giving any direct occasion. A further and not less important consideration is that these fathers have not, in the examination given them, performed in such a way as to deserve, in my opinion, a passing grade.
"I must make clear, Your Re- verence, that I have always held that, since we are all equal in God's sight, the Filipinos deserve better treatment in the Church, though always in conformity with their merits. Any injustice done to them touches me to the quick, although I harbor no prejudices one way or the other. The course I have always followed is to give merit its due, without much caring where this course may lead me."
Quite a hoot at His Grace!
However, Archbishop Martinez (he would later refuse to unfrock Burgos, Gómez and Zamo- ra, and would order the tolling of churchbells during their execution) was a fair man. He did see the side of the Philippine clergy; in fact, he espoused it in a letter he sent to Madrid in 1870, when he warned the Court that the continuing decrease in positions available to Filipino priests might drive them to insur- gency:
"A veritable scandal for this country, this deprivation of the secular clergy. Is there no fear of exasperating them? Have they not suffered enough? Who can swear that their old loyalty to Spain will not turn into violent hatred? Some have long been able to believe that there was only racial and professional rivalry between the sons of the country and the friars, but now they should beware the suppression of the secular clergy. Who has not noticed the consequent change in their ideas and temper when they refer to those who despoil them? Many native priests have said that they would welcome the Americans or the Germans as their liberators, if these should seize the Philippines in a war with Spain. Very great, therefore, is the danger, because these pastors have more influence with the faithful than the Peninsulars. Besides, the accusations hurled against their conduct have proven." never been
Having defended the Filipinos, however, the archbishop decided that the Filipinos, especially in the person of the controversial Father Burgos, should justify his defense of them by pledging unequivocal loyalty to Spain, since the archbishop, too, was under attack by the reactionaries, who claimed that, by taking the side of the native clergy, he was encouraging treachery and sedition.
Burgos was, therefore, summoned to the archbishop's palace and asked to sign a pledge of adherence and loyalty to Spain. The Filipino priest hesitated; then he not only signed the pledge but took it upon himself to gather 300 other signatures to the pledge. When the document was later used against him, it was read, not as a pledge of loyalty, but as a proof of conspiracy, the manifesto of revolu- tionaries; and the 300 signatories would find themselves hounded as traitors and subversives.
For Burgos himself, the pledge he gave availed him nothing, if he gave it in the hope that he could thus pursue reform with no further questioning of his motives and his politics. His enemies continued to see his every move as that of a filibustero. And Archbishop Martinez could not feel as free to defend a Filipino thus suspected once the counterrevolution had triumphed in Spain and De la Torre was recalled. His successor, General Rafael Izquierdo, vowed to rule with cross in one hand and sword in the other; and he made good his word, with the help of the reactionaries smarting from what they had suffered during the brief period of liberal ascend- ancy. Burgos was, of course, a prime target of their fury; the man had to be toppled from his key position as synodal examiner.
Luciano de la Rosa, who "compiled" the Burgos apocrypha La Loba Negra, offers a version of this beginning of Burgos's fall:
"The result of all this was the removal of Father Burgos as synodal examiner. 'You must vacate the position,' said the archbishop, 'and right now I order your indictment." Το which Father Burgos replied: 'Since your grace anticipates the facts, right now I offer my resignation. Burgos went home very tranquil, very serene. To a parishioner who met him at the door and wished to kiss his ring, Father Burgos said: 'Don't do that until justice has been done me. From now on I am just your friend, not the presbyter Father Burgos.' "
The fall of Burgos and the Cavite Mutiny climax a vital development in our history: the change in peninsular attitude toward the Philippine Creole. Before the 19th century the Creole had been taken for granted as the natural defender of Spanish power in the Philip- pines. But when Creole youth turned insurgent at the beginning of the century and allied itself with the liberal cause, the Peninsulars ceased to make any distinction between Creole and Indio; both were potentially sub- versive, and the Creole doubly so, because he could provide the educated leadership necessary for a successful revolt. (The traveler Jagor noted that an 1823 uprising led by two Creoles almost ended disastrously for Spain and that the Cavite Mutiny of '72, "under Creole direction," was evidently felt to be more serious than all previous uprisings.) Distrust of the Creoles led to their replacement by Peninsulars in key positions of the state. The notorious example was the arrival in 1822 of a new governorgeneral with "something unheard of before": a numerous cadre of officers and sergeants to take over the commands immemorially held by Creoles. (This pro- voked the Novales revolt.) Distrust of the Creoles was one reason the secularization trend was reversed with the assignment of friars to replace the native clergy in the parishes because the native clergy was under Creole influence. And distrust of the Creoles forced the repeal of privileges possessed by the military as a Creole establishment like the exemption from tribute and forced labor enjoyed by marines detailed to the navy yard of Cavite. The sudden repeal, under Izquierdo, of this particular privilege was the immediate cause of the Cavite Mutiny.
On the night of January 20, 1872, a group of marines in Cavite led by a Sergeant Lamadrid, mistaking the fireworks of the "Sampaloc fiesta" for the signal of a general uprising, seized the Fort of San Felipe, slew the officers that resisted, and held the fort for a night. But daybreak brought dismay to the mutineers when the troops in Cavite refused to join the rebellion and when from Manila came, not the expected allies, but four shiploads of infantry under General Felipe Ginovés y Espinar. These troops put the fort under siege, mowed down a parley group the mutineers sent out under a flag of truce, and then stormed into the fort, putting the mutineers to the sword. Among the first to fall was Sergeant Lamadrid. One mystery was the presence of a Spanish friar inside the fort.
As soon as news of the uprising reached Manila, a reign of terror began; and on the night of January 21 Burgos was arrested, along with Father Gómez (who was then curate of Bacoor), Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Anto- nio Regidor, Enrique Paraiso, Pio and José Basa, Máximo Paterno, Crisanto Reyes, Ramón Mauren- te, and the parish priest of Sta. Cruz church. In the next few days, more laymen and priests were to be taken to Fort Santiago. In the Noli, Rizal recreates the panic of those days, when even the markets closed, native soldiers were disarmed and replaced by Spanish troops, and French, English, American and Italian war vessels gathered in Manila Bay, like vultures awaiting the final spasm. For this the government was to blame, with its hysterical claim that the mutiny was part of an extensive well-plotted conspiracy.
