The position of Rojo after the escape of the fiscal and the oidores was an exceedingly unpleasant one. The English commander complained that the prelate and the audiencia had failed to keep the agreement which had been made between them; in escaping, the fiscal and the oidores had violated their oaths; the indemnity had not been paid; the provinces had not surrendered and Anda was still continuing his resistance. The sack of the city was threatened. These conditions made Rojo redouble his efforts to betray Anda and to get possession of the treasure which had come on the patache, "Filipino". The British offered remission of tribute to all natives then in insurrection who would surrender. Anda was charged with responsibility for the danger with which the city was threatened. He was said to have prevented the fulfillment of the treaty between Rojo and the British. To this Anda replied that he had not been a party to the treaty. The state of perpetual worry in which Rojo was kept brought about his death on January 30, 1764. Even before this he had practically lost his status as governor and the British were treating with Anda for the surrender of the Islands. [672] This continued until the legitimacy of the position of Anda was recognized by Governor Torre. [673] A statement of the above facts aids in clarifying our view of Anda's position. It certainly can be said that there was neither an audiencia nor a governor with sovereign powers in Manila; this lack furnished a reasonable basis for Anda's claims. However clearly it was established that a vacancy existed in the governorship, his position would have been sufficiently tenable had it been based solely on the grounds that the archbishop had delegated him as lieutenant of the captain-general, with military powers. The archbishop-governor had granted him that title and those powers for the very purpose for which he had utilized them, namely, for the defense of the Islands against the British. In view of the support which was extended to Anda in his contention that he was governor and captain-general as long as the archbishop and the regularly constituted audiencia were prisoners, it is not easy to understand why it was necessary for him to justify himself by advancing the claim, first, that he was the audiencia, and, second, that he was the governor because he had the authority of the audiencia. The only accountable reason for this was probably the necessity of nullifying the commands of the archbishop which were being issued from the captured city. He may have felt that such measures were imperative in order to gain and retain the respect of the natives and provincial officials who were not under his immediate influence and who were consequently more independent and inclined to be insurrectionary and riotous. Yet, it is hardly possible that the legal arguments advanced in support of his claims were understood by this class.