In February, 1605, a formal complaint against the Chinese is made before the authorities at Manila by Archbishop Benavides, supported by the depositions of several witnesses.  The Parian in that city, destroyed in the insurrection of 1603, has been rebuilt, and is again peopled by “infidel Sangleys.”  These Chinese are idolatrous, and exceedingly licentious and vicious; and in both these respects are demoralizing the Indian natives, and drawing them away from the Catholic faith.  The Chinese, moreover, are inclined to revenge themselves on the Spaniards for the slaughter of their countrymen in the insurrection of 1603, and thus are a constant source of danger.  He recommends that they be driven out of the city, except that they be allowed a place where they can live during the months while the ships for the Mexican trade are being unloaded and freighted; and that they be not allowed to hold intercourse with the Indians.  The archbishop also denounces the Japanese (who reside not far from the Chinese quarter in Manila) as being equally vicious and dangerous.  For all these reasons, he causes a secret investigation to be made of the whole matter, which he has not been able to induce the governor to do.  Further testimony to the same effect is given by several witnesses.  Talavera, a cura of the natives in Manila, states that he has been told that the Mindanao pirates were incited to hostilities by the Chinese; also that the archbishop had repeatedly striven, but in vain, to correct the evils arising from the proximity of the natives to these vicious foreigners.  A sworn statement by Francisco de Avila (June 15) is appended, showing that Chinese were then residing in the houses of prominent citizens of Manila.  A letter is written (March, 1605) by the officials of the Chinese province of Chincheo, to Governor Acuna, demanding investigation of the late Sangley revolt at Manila and redress for the killing of so many Chinese.

The leading Augustinians at Manila send to the king (May 4) a formal complaint against Fray Lorenso de Leon, whom they charge with arbitrary and illegal acts, and with scheming to gain power in the order, and with forcing his own election as provincial.  They ask the king to induce the papal nuncio to revoke Fray de Leon’s authority, and to send a visitor to regulate the affairs of the order in the islands.  This request is supported by a brief letter from the commissary of the Inquisition (a Dominican), One of the Augustinian officials signing the above document, Joan de Tapia, writes another and personal letter to the king, giving further accounts of Fray de Leon’s illegal acts and general unfitness for his office.  Tapia also accuses him and one Fray Amorin of having appropriated to themselves various funds entrusted to their care; and says that Leon is investing in mercantile speculations money which must have come from the convents.

One of the auditors, Antonio de Ribera Maldonado, writes to the king (June 28); he complains of the conduct of Governor Acuna toward himself and others, and of his appointments to government positions.  Maldonado also asserts that Acuna evades the laws regulating the Mexican trade, securing for himself and his friends privileges which rightfully belong to the citizens at large.  He asks that he may be permitted to remain longer at Manila, instead of going to Mexico.