The disciplinary jurisdiction over priests and friars referred to above suggests a similar authority which the audiencia exercised over the prelates. Within the period of one year after the installation of Archbishop Guerrero at Manila in 1636, the governor, with the support of the audiencia, had banished this same prelate and his ecclesiastical provisor, [729] condemning the former to pay a fine of 2000 ducats. The governor contrived also to influence the judge-conservator [730] to pronounce a ban of excommunication upon them both, in return for a like censure that had already been passed on the governor by the prelate. [731] The banishment of Archbishop Poblete by Governor Salcedo and the audiencia prior to the arrest of that governor by the commissary of the Inquisition, the exile of Archbishop Pardo in 1684, and the imprisonment of Archbishop de la Cuesta by Governor Bustamante and the audiencia in 1719, are incidents in the history of the Islands which serve well as illustrations of the disciplinary and coercive jurisdiction of the vicepatron and audiencia over the churchmen. These events need only be referred to here, as they have already been discussed in relation to other phases of the history of the audiencia. As visitors of the provinces, the oidores were required to inspect the ecclesiastical work of the parish priests and to note their care and treatment of the Indians. [732] In the exercise of these duties they were protected by a law which forbade prelates to proceed against them with censures while they were carrying on such investigations. Le Gentil, the noted French traveller, who visited the Islands during the middle of the eighteenth century, testified that the oidores did not fulfill their duty with great faithfulness. Le Gentil stated that on account of their dependence on the hospitality of the priests when travelling from place to place in the provinces, the visitors' inspections were merely perfunctory and of little value. [733]