[6] Certainly in 1480, possibly not five-and-twenty years later. From curious criminal proceedings instituted against the Corregidor of Medina del Campo, we learn that that high judicial authority had not hesitated to declare that the soul of Isabella had gone direct to hell for her cruel oppression of her subjects, and that King Ferdinand was a thief and a robber, and that all the people round Medina and Valladolid, where the queen was best known, had formed the same judgment of her. “Arch. Gen. Simancas,” Estado, Legajo i., folio 192; “Calendar of State Papers” (Spain), Supplement to i. and ii. (1868), p. 27. [7] From January, 1493, till October, 1497. [8] Legaspi and Guido Lavezares, under oath, made promises of rewards to the Lacandola family and a remission of tribute in perpetuity, but they were not fulfilled. In the following century--year 1660--it appears that the descendants of the rajah Lacandola still upheld the Spanish authority, and having become sorely impoverished thereby, the heir of the family petitioned the governor (Sabiniano Manrique de Lara) to make good the honor of his first predecessors. Eventually the Lacandolas were exempted from the payment of tribute and poll tax forever, as recompense for the filching of their domains. In 1884, when the fiscal reforms were introduced which abolished the tribute and established in lieu thereof a document of personal identity (cedula personal), for which a tax is levied, the last vestige of privilege disappeared. Descendants of Lacandola are still to be met with in several villages near Manila. They do not seem to have materially profited by their transcendent ancestry--one of them was serving as a waiter in a French restaurant in the capital in 1885. [9] Guido de Lavezares deposed a sultan in Borneo, in order to aid another to the throne, and even asked permission of King Philip II. to conquer China, which of course was not conceded to him. _Vide_ also the history of the destruction of the Aztec (Mexican) and Incas (Peruvian) dynasties by the Spaniards. [10] According to Juan de la Concepcion, in his “Hist. Gen. de Philipinas,” Vol I., page 431, Li-ma-hong made his escape by cutting a canal for his ships to pass through, but this appears highly improbable under the circumstances. [11] Other authors assert that only Soliman rebelled. [12] Bondage in the Philippines was apparently not so necessary for the interests of the Church as it was in Cuba, where a commission of friars, appointed soon after the discovery of the island to deliberate on the policy of partially permitting slavery there, reported “that the Indians would not labor without compulsion, and that, unless they labored, they could not be brought into communication with the whites, nor be converted to Christianity.” Vide W. H. Prescott’s “Hist. of the Conquest of Mexico.” [13] “Hist. Gen. de Philipinas,” by Juan de la Concepcion Vol. III., Chap. IX., page 365, pub. Manila, 1788.