Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T19:50:01.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Decline of Manila as the Spanish Entrepôt in the Far East, 1785–1826: Its Impact on the Pattern of Southeast Asian Trade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

W. E. Cheong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A pattern of trade completely new to the traditional structure of Southeast Asian trade emerged in the eastern extremity of Southeast Asia following the permanent settlement of the Spaniards at Manila in 1571. The new addition was based upon the Manila-Acapulco trade with its two supply lines originating from the ports of Fukien province in China, and the Coromandel and Malabari Coasts in India. Two hundred years later, this trade with Manila as the entrepot, had become a well-defined system, and very much a part of the traditional pattern of Southeast Asian trade. The mercantilist regulations obtaining in Manila, the seasonal rhythm of shipping movements, the goods carried along the routes and the dependent trades outside the Spanish systems had moulded the character of the Manila trade.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , September 1971 , pp. 142 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bauzon, L. E., ‘Mexican Financial Aid: The Situado’, Philippine Historical Review (Manila, 1971) IV, 91.Google Scholar

2 Mexican mines: Guanajuato, Zacatecas, Sonora, Hidalgo, Oaxaca; minor mines: Durango, Chihuahua, San Luis, Jalisco, Sinaloa, Jaxco. Peruvian mines: Cerro de Pasco (342 separate mines), the Cotosi group including Huanchaca (Bolivia), Atacama group (Chile). Vide also Boxer, C. R., “Plata es Sangre 1550–1700”. Philippine Studies, XVIII, 3 (Manila 1970), 457–478.Google Scholar

3 Schurz, W. L., The Manila Galleon (New York, 1959), 181.Google Scholar

4 Quiason, S. D., English Country Trade with the Philippines, 1644–1765 (Manila, 1966), 51.Google Scholar

5 Schurz, 180.

6 Chaunu, P., Les Philippines et le Pacifique des Iberiques (Paris, 1960), 200–19.Google ScholarQuaison, S. D., ‘The Sampan Trade, 1570–1770’ in The Chinese in the Philippines, 1570–1770 ed. Felix, A. Jr (Manila, 1966) I, 160–74.Google Scholar

7 Chaunu, 92–93; Schurz, 82; Wickberg, E., The Chinese in Philippine Life, 1850–1898 (Yale, 1965), 9Google Scholar; R. Bernal, ‘The Chinese Colony in Manila, 1570–1770’ in The Chinese in the Philippines, I, 44.

8 Cheong, W. E., ‘Canton & Manila in the 18th Century’ in Studies in the Social History of China and Southeast Asia (Cambridge, 1970), 237, 241Google Scholar; G. Anson, The Manila Galleon (in Lopez Memorial Museum, Manila, undated), 7; White, J.: A Voyage to China (Boston, 1823), 126.Google Scholar

9 Quaison, English Country Trade, 84.

10 Blair, E. H. and Robertson, R. (B & R hereafter), The Philippine Islands, (Cleveland, 1906–1909), XLIV, 248Google Scholar, Report of Antonio de Abreau, Madrid, 1736.

12 Schurz, 163.

11 B & R, XLIV, 271, 176, XXV, 74–86; Schurz, 81; Cheong, ‘Canton & Manila’, 243; Wickberg, 9ffff.; L. Diaz-Trechuelo, ‘The Role of the Chinese in the Philippine Domestic Economy’ in The Chinese in the Philippines, I, 175–211.

13 B & R, XXV, 29. Law No. XXXVIII December 31, 1622, Felipe IV.

14 Quaison, Country Trade, 87, 89.

15 B & R, XXV, 29; Calderon, F. G., Encicopedia Filipina (Manila, 1908) 36.Google Scholar

16 By the Anglo-Armenian treaty of 21st June 1688 signed between Sir Josiah Childe for the Directors of the EIC and Coja Phanoos Khalantar, Armenians were allowed to settle trade and own property in Company ports, travel on English ships and share indulgences obtained by the Company. HMS 634, 581–98. Quiason, Country Trade, 40.

17 Quaison, Country Trade, 34–36, 89.

18 By Article 5 of the Treaty of Munster, (1648), and Article 34 of the Treaty of Utrecht, the Spaniards reiterated their acceptance of the Papal Bull of 1493 and the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494. This precluded their trade in the East Indies and passage of the Cape of Good Hope, Vide FO 72/6 to FO 72/9 passim; Home Miscellaneous Series (HMS), 77/14, 407, 415, 443.

19 Schurz, 185–87; Quaison, Country Trade, 66; Cheong, ‘Canton and Manila’, 239.

20 Bernal, p. 46.

21 Chaudhuri, K. N., The English East India Company. The Study of an Early Joint-stock Company. 1600–1640 (London, 1965), 118–36Google Scholar; Boxer, 464–464. ff.

22 Between 1656 and 1670, no ships from India were recorded, but The English Company spared no efforts to have the trade opened officially. It was only after 1670 that a regular clandestine trade became part of the system. Chaunu. 148–165.

23 Quaison, Country Trade, 43; Schurz, 216–283.

24 M.A.P. Meilink-Roelofsz, Asian Trade and European Influence in the Indonesian Archipelago between 1500 and about 1630 (S-Gravenhage, 1962) passim.

25 Jose Basco y Vargas (July 1778-November 1787) a naval officer from an illustrious Granada family, was resented by the majority of the Manila Audiencia for being without royal titles and decoration. Their petition to have him recalled having failed, they set about obstructing his rule. After the Philippines he was made a Rear-Admiral and Count of Batanes, and assumed the governorship of Cartagena.

26 B & R, L, 52.

27 Phipps, J., A Guide to the Commerce of Bengal (Calcutta, 1823), 94 B & N R, L, 48.Google Scholar

28 L. Diaz-Trechuelo, ‘The Economic Background’, The Chinese in the Philippines, II, 30.

29 Filipinas 977, 12.12.1796.

30 PP 1821 (746), VI, 257.

31 Phipps, 94, B & R, LI, 152.

32 B & R, L, 52.

33 M. Buzeta, Diccionario geografico, estadistico, historico de las Islas Filipinas, (Madrid, 1850–51), I, 51, 438.

34 Schurz, 182 claims that this was in 1804. I am indebted to Professor G. Zaide of Far Eastern University, Manila, and Fr. I. Rodriguez, O.S.A. of Seminaro Mayor Augustiniano, Valladolid, for the corrected date.

35 Diaz-Trechuelo, , ‘The Economic Background’, 26, V. Purcell The Chinese in Southeast Asia, (Oxford, 1965), 527.Google Scholar

36 Diaz-Trechuelo, ‘The Economic Background’, 28–30.

37 Wickberg, passim.

38 It included J. de Valdes, Minister for the Indies (later Diego Gardoqui), Francisco Cabarrus, the French President of the National Bank of St. Carlos, Bernardo Yriarte, a famous member of the Supreme Council of State, Leandro de Viana, former Fiscal of Manila, and later, Berenguer de Marquina, Governor of the Philippines (1787–93), and later Mexican Viceroy, and Alesandro Malaspina, Admiral of the Galleon for several years.

39 Between 1785–90 the Company took out $2,053,000 from Lima, $841,000 from Buenos Ayres, and $270,000 from Acapulco. In 1789, Buenos Ayres claimed a debt of $1,036,362, and Lima $820,850. Unsettled bills in India and China were $1,250,000, and debt to the Manila Hacienda was $190,000. Filipinas 987, No. 410, Lima, 31.3.1789; No. 70 Buenos Ayres, 29.1. 1790; 988, No. 34 ‘Extracto de la carta de la Direccion de Manila’, 15.7.1791.

40 FO 72/32 Commercial No. 4 Woodford to Grenville, 2.8.1792.

41 The Junta comprised: 2 Company Directors, the Governor, the Intendente, 1 member representing the ‘City & Commerce’; the Manila Consulado had final veto and ratifying powers. Cheong, W. E., ‘An Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese Clandestine Trade between the ports of British India and Manila, 1785–90’, Philippine Historical Review (Manila, 1965) I. i, 84.Google Scholar Schurz, 415. Filipinas 986 ‘Junta del Govierno de la Real Compania’, 27.12.1787.

42 BM Egerton 519, Madrid Directors to A. V. de Faranco, 7.11.1794; Filipinas 989, Madrid Directors to D. Gardoqui, 15.8.1794; Madrid Directors to D. Gardoqui, 3.2.1796.

43 Filipinas 989, Madrid Directors to, D. Gardoqui, 22.2.1794; Royal Instructions to Manila, 2.3.1794; No. 85 M. Aguilar to D. Gardoqui, 5.8.1795; No. 107 M. Aguilar to Cardoqui, 5.3.1795.

44 Cheong, W. E., ‘A Agencia do Opio na China’, Revista de Historia (Sao Paulo, 1968) LXXIII, 161–62.Google ScholarOpium Trade and Agencies in China, 1821–34 (Imperial History Prize Monograph, unpublished, 1964).

45 Egerton Papers (British Museum), 518, 47–77; Montero, J. y Vidal El Archipelago Filipino, (Madrid, 1886), 232. Estado, 886, No. 19, 20.8.1834, 22.8.1834.Google Scholar

46 Schurz, 416, asserts that the Company was viable as late as 1806. Filipinas 989, No. 36, 11.9.98.

48 HMS 403, 267 J. Prinsep to Sir S. Lushington, 1.10.1799. HMS 402, 48–61. Wellesley to Court, 30.9.1800. Cheong, W. E.: Some Aspects of British Trade and Finance in Canton, 1784 1834 (PhD. Thesis, unpublished, London, 1963), 99–107.Google Scholar

49 Compiled from Filipinas 985, 41.1787; Filipinas 976, 31.12.1787, Filipinas 977, 20.5.1796; Egerton 519, 104, No. 161, M. Aguilar to D. Gardoqui, 5.7.1796; Filipinas 978, 20.6.1799; Buzeta, 223, B & R, LI, 153.

50 Montero y Vidal suggests these figures should read. Imports: $3,900,000 Exports: $3,500,000. B & R. LI, 153.

51 Filipinas 980, Contador Pedro Aprici, 25.4.1796. 3.8.1805.

52 Chaunu, 219; Filipinas 979, 29.5.1812; 4.9.1813.

53 See Table I. Schurz wrote of profits up to six times cost in the earlier period; Montero y Vidal suggested 100% to 150%.

54 Filipinas 976 ‘Nota de los efectos y caudales que conduce Is Fragata de S. M. ‘San Jose de Gracia’ 23.4.1788; Filipinas 977, 26.2.1797.

55 B & R, LI, 149. Compare with supra p. 6.

56 Filipinas 986, Directors to A. Valdes, 4.2.1788; Egerton, 519, 97–103, Directors to A.V. de Faranco, 7.11.1794.

57 Filipinas 983, Miguel Orbaneja y Ortega (deputy representing the Manila Consulado in the Cortes) to King. Madrid, 3.3.1787.

58 Canton Secret Cons. I, Pt II, 49, 29,12.1797; 82, 12.11.1798; Canton Cons. (CC) Vol. 122, 100, 5.11.1798; Filipinas 932, Manuel de Aparici (Accountant-General), 7.11.1815; 6.7.1816. Filipinas 965, 23.12.1801; Filipinas 980, 4.3.1803.

59 Filipinas 985, Royal Tribunal of the Manila Consnlado to King, 8.7.1786.

60 Ibid. M. O. y Oretga to King, 16.5.1788; Filipinas 978, Memorandum, by B. Doncel (Deputy of Consulado in Cortes), 13.7.1803. Cheong, W. E.: Some Aspects of British Trade & Finance in Canton, 1784–1834, (Ph.D. Thesis, London, unpublished, 1963), 137–38.Google ScholarCheong, W. E.: ‘Trade and Finance in China, 1784–1834’, Business History (Liverpool, 1965), VII, i, 51. Vide Table II.Google Scholar

61 Filipinas 980, No. 396. B. de Marquina to P. de Aparici, 6.10.1801; P. de Aparici memo. 21.7.1803; Filipinas 932, ‘Sobre San Francisco Xavier’, 10.11.1806; Filipinas 991, No. 1295 J. Yturrigaray, to C. Soler, 15.8.1807; Madrid Directors, to C. Soler, 4.4.1807; CC, Vol. 150, p. 95, 17.9.1805; Vol. 153, p. 101, 3.9.1806.

62 Filipinas 932 Decree of Regents, 17.9.1813; Filipinas 965, Minute of Jose de Texada, 28.4.1817.

63 Canton Consultations (CC), 242, II, 317 G. Yreretagoyena to Select, 27.3.1830 on trans-Pacific trade after 1821.

64 See Table III.

65 Bengal Reports on Private External Trade, (BRPET) Range 174, volumes 26–34 contain reports on the revolts for the period 1815–24.

66 Cheong, ‘The India-Manila Trade, 1785–1809’, 14–18; Furber, H., John Company at Work (Harvard, 1948) passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See Tables IV to VI.

67 BRPET range 174, XXIX-IVL, Tables No. 2 and 10 in each volume from 1817–1932. Cheong, ‘Trade & Finance in China’, 52, Table 5. See Table VII and VIII.

68 Greenberg, M., British Trade and the Opening of China, 1800–42 (Cambridge, 1969) 75–123.Google Scholar

69 Chaunu, 147–98; Wickberg 21.

70 Cheong, W. E.: ‘The Beginnings of Credit Finance on the China Coast’, Business History, XIII, 2. (Liverpool, 1971).Google Scholar

71 Cheong, W. E.: ‘China Houses and the Bank of England Crisis of 1825’, Business History, XIV, 1, (Liverpool 1972).Google Scholar

72 Cheong, ‘Trade & Finance in China’, 45, 56.

73 BM Egerton 518, 47 Royal Cedula, 10.3.1785; Filipinas 986, Madrid Directors to A. Va'des, 11.10.1787; FO 72/15 Royal Cedula, 15.8.1789.

74 HMS 494, 7, E. Parry and C. Grant to Court of Directors, 14.10.1807. Cheong, W. E., ‘Changing the Rules of the Game: The India-Manila Trade 1785–1809’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, (Singapore, 1970) I, 2, 1–19.Google Scholar

75 Jardine & Matheson Papers, Private Letter Books, James Matheson, IV. passim; Greenberg, 207–210.

76 These included X. Yrissarri who died in 1826 and left a penniless estate; J. Uriarte who failed with his partner in 1826 as Mendietta & Uriarte; M. Laruletta who escaped narrowly the two failures of 1826; Lorenzo Calvo whose two firms in Paris and Canton failed in 1831. Cheong, ‘Opium Trade & Agencies in China’, Chapters, IV & V.

77 Phipps, J., A Practical Treatise on the China & Eastern Trade (Calcutta, 1835), 307–308.Google Scholar