islands--the British government tried afterwards to get the archbishop to give letters of surrender for Zebu, Yloylo, and Zamboanga, which he refused and did not give, as appears from his letters, rejecting the instances of the above-mentioned British government. 55. Also false is the end of this report, which asserts, not indeed that it is presumed, but that it is presumed if not proved, that the archbishop tried to shield himself. Without this protection or shelter, he made the cession in his letter of the said twenty-ninth day, as is said above, with the signature of the auditors, which they placed in the letter of Draper on the thirtieth (in our calendar, the twenty-ninth), which in view of and after the receipt of that of the archbishop, the said general sent on that same twenty-ninth day, with the threatening message that he would send them to the galleys. Only the constancy of the archbishop can be well inferred. In his protest he asserts and [MS. worn] to the general in consideration of his threat of the extermination of the city the lives of many, which did not move the animosity of the auditors for their signature until they received the personal threat of their own imprisonment. 56. The ambiguous letter of Draper of the twenty-eighth (in our calendar, the twenty-seventh), is slight foundation for so gross a suspicion and its proof; in which he seems to infer that the archbishop had made the cession, and infers on the other hand, that he was in condition of acting in regard to the cession. For the letter says that those who endeavored to persuade him not to make the cession would answer with their lives. It is a proof of the sincerity of the archbishop that he showed the said letter in the second council, for if it contained anything suspicious, or anything by which he would be discovered to be lacking in application, it would have been very easy for him to suppress it and return it to the general, in order that the latter might write another, in which nothing would be understood in regard to the secret understanding. It is not the mark of a good reason and less is it Christian to assert so great a crime as proved without having had any motive. For to such infamies, one is moved either by self-interest or the expectations of honors, or important posts which both lacked. For the archbishop had previously stripped himself of all his few valuables and pectorals, without reserving any; and he was clothed in the greatest honors and employments with which the powerful Catholic king can honor a vassal of his in these islands. And only by depriving himself of this recognition, and of his character as a Christian and archbishop could he offend so enormously against his king and religion because of the expectation or promise of greater honors in Londres or with the very crown of all Ynglaterra. Through the mercy of God, the archbishop has not been abandoned by His divine hand in his right judgment or in the works of his misery and weakness.