Part 47 (1/2)

1563, No. 146.--Palavicini, Hist. Council of Trent, Book 22, Chap.

viii.--Sarpi, Hist. Council of Trent, Book 8. No. 42.

[18] See Chapter XVI.

[19] Pellecyr, Ensago de Biblioteca de Traductores Espanoles. Articles, _Reina_, _Perez_, and _Valera_.

[20] Regnialdus Gonzalirus Monta.n.u.s, _Sanctae Inquisitionis Hispanicae artes aliquot detectae_, in the rubric _Publicato testium_, p. 50.

[21] Fleury, Hist. Ecoles, liv. 154, ann. 1559, No. 14.

[22] Ulloa, _Vita di Carlos V._, edition of Venice; 1589, p. 237.

[23] The _informer_ is admitted as a witness, in contempt of the rule of right, and the punishment due to a false witness is not inflicted, if he is discovered to be such.

[24] They never found this measure necessary. The old bulls and the Cortes had provided that the interlocutory act of arrest should be consented to, and signed by the inquisitor in ordinary of the diocese.

Reason dictated this measure, because the decree for an arrest does not permit the summons.

[25] This form is very prejudicial to the prisoner, when the conversation takes place with one person, because the manner of relating the fact supposes three, the accused, the interlocutor, and the individual who has seen or heard.

[26] This inconvenience was the danger to which the secrecy of the holy office was exposed from the activity of these procurators.

[27] This is false; the advantages on the contrary were very important, because the procurators who knew the persons capable of proving the challenge of presumed witnesses, informed them of it, in order to favour the accused.

[28] The New Christians, the relations, the servants, malefactors, infamous persons, in fact every man, a wife, a child, are admitted to depose against the accused, and he cannot call as a witness any person who is a relation or a servant!

[29] This is an injustice. If an accused person had seen the proved articles of the examination in his defence, or if they had been communicated to his lawyer, he would have often derived conclusive arguments from them against the depositions for the prosecution.

[30] _It was not often used_, because the inquisitors were unwilling to reveal the secret of their irregular proceedings; they considered it _dangerous_, because it was favourable to the accused, in the few cases where it had been employed; they wished it to be used with great caution, because they felt that those who are not inquisitors act like judges. The canonical proof takes place in the presence of twelve persons, who declare upon oath whether they believe the accused to be innocent or guilty. They were a kind of jury, to whom the inquisitors were obliged to show the original process, and thus the accused depended more upon the jury than on the inquisitors.

[31] I have not read any process which proves that more than one inquisitor has a.s.sisted at this execution; I have never seen either the ordinary, or the consultors present at it; the question was only applied in the presence of the inquisitor, the notary, and the executioners.

[32] It was afterwards regulated that this should be done in all definitive sentences.

[33] The trial began in 1558; it had already lasted more than fifteen years, yet the council said that it went on quickly!

[34] Father Kircher has inserted this letter in his work called _Principis Christiani Archetipon Politic.u.m_.

[35] Kircher has inserted the whole of this letter in the work before mentioned.

[36] Estrada: Decades of the War of Flanders. Decade i. b. 7.

[37] This refers to the queen's journey to Bayonne, to confer with her mother on the political affairs of the League. It took place in 1565.

[38] Cabrera: History of Philip II., chap. 28.

[39] Wander-Hamer: History of Philip II., p. 115. Cabrera: Prudence of Philip II., b. vii. chap. 22.

[40] Cabrera. Ibid. chap. 28.