65. That the absolute prohibition of that commerce which the consulate proposed in its memorial (it is not in the Expediente), following the precedent of prohibiting the commerce of Peru with Nueva España, ought not to be considered. For the latter prohibition left both those kingdoms free to trade with Castilla, by which the lack of commerce between them was made endurable; but this result could not occur with Philipinas if the commerce of Nueva España were prohibited to them, since there remained no other of which they could avail themselves. 66. That, if the products of the natives of those islands were sufficient to make up the annual [amount of] trade to the extent of 300,000 pesos, it would be just and reasonable that the commerce in silken fabrics be prohibited to them; but as the aforesaid viceroy positively stated that those products were not sufficient for that purpose, it would not be right to deprive them of this privilege without further knowledge of the subject. The conclusion of the fiscal was, that orders should be given to observe the royal decree of August 12, 1702; and that the viceroy and Audiencia of Mexico, and the governor, Audiencia, archbishop, and royal officials of Manila, should send in information very clear and detailed on the question whether the products of the country could fill up the amount, [of exports] assigned to that commerce. 67. The Council, in view of all that is mentioned in this "Period vi," and of a summary of the context of the letters of the Marqués de Valero, and of the replies of the fiscal, were of opinion, in their session of September 23, 1720, that his Majesty should be pleased to command a repetition of the orders given for the fulfilment of the regulations issued on August 12, 1702, and September 13, 1712--with a strict stipulation that the Philipinas ship should not sail with an investment which should exceed 300,000 pesos, and that to be in the commodities which were specified [therein], with exclusion of every kind of silken fabrics; and with other measures and statements which are contained in the despatches that were issued for the enforcement of those decrees, dated October 27, following, of which mention will be made.