[161] The superior efficiency of the Spanish Inquisition was largely due to its organization. The scattered subordinate tribunals, which dealt directly with the accused, were not independent, as in the old papal Inquisition, but were under the control of a central head, consisting of the inquisitor-general and a council which, for the sake of brevity, we have called the Suprema. It has been seen how Ferdinand and Isabella, after a few years' experience, obtained from the Holy See the appointment of Torquemada as inquisitor-in-chief with power of delegating his faculties and of removing his delegates--a power which gave him absolute control. At first the commission of the inquisitor-general was held to require renewal at the death of the pope who issued it, although, in the old Inquisition, after considerable discussion, it was decided, in 1290, by Nicholas IV, in the bull Ne aliqui, that the commissions of inquisitors were permanent. ⁽¹⁾ This formality was subsequently abandoned and, towards the close of the sixteenth century, the commissions were granted ad beneplacitum --during the good pleasure of the Holy See--and this continued until the end. ⁽²⁾ Similarly there was a question whether the powers of the inquisitors lapsed on the death of the inquisitor-general. When Mercader of Aragon died, in 1516, the Suprema, in conveying the news to the tribunals, instructed them to go on with their work; in some places the secular authorities assumed that they were no longer in office, a royal letter had to be [162] procured to prevent interference with them, and, when Cardinal Adrian was appointed, he confirmed their faculties. ⁽³⁾ It became customary for each new inquisitor-general to renew the commissions on his accession, but as there frequently was a considerable interval, the question arose whether, during that time, all the acts both of the Suprema and the tribunals were not invalid. In 1627 it was concluded that they held delegated power directly from the pope and not from the inquisitor-general, so that their faculties were continuous. ⁽⁴⁾ This was a forced construction, somewhat derogatory to the authority of the inquisitor-general, and was upset in 1639, when the Suprema decided that the inquisitor-general could confer powers only during his own life and therefore each one on his accession confirmed the appointments of all officials during his pleasure; which continued to be the formula employed. ⁽⁵⁾ This left open the question of the interregnum, which seems to have been somewhat forcibly settled by necessity, as when Giudice resigned in 1716 and his successor, Joseph de Molines, was serving as auditor of the Rota in Rome. The Suprema, in notifying the tribunals of his appointment, told them that, until his arrival in Madrid, they were to continue their functions. ⁽⁶⁾

As regards the Suprema, it would appear at first to have been merely a consultative body. I have already alluded to the case in which Torquemada ferociously overruled the acts of the tribunal of Medina del Campo, acting autocratically and without reference to the Council, as though it had no executive functions. Neither had it legislative powers. The earlier Instructions were issued in the name of the Inquisitor-general and, when he desired consultation and advice in the framing of general regulations, he did not confer with the Council, but assembled the inquisitors and assessors of the tribunals, who discussed the questions and formulated the rules of procedure, as in the Instructions of Valladolid, in 1488. ⁽⁷⁾ The crown, in fact, was the ultimate arbiter [163] for, in the supplementary Instructions of 1485, inquisitors were directed, when doubtful matters were important, to report to the sovereigns for orders. ⁽⁸⁾ It was the inquisitor-general also who held the all-important power of the purse. The instructions of Avila in 1498, still issued in the name of Torquemada, fix the salaries of all the officials of the tribunals and add that, when the inquisitors-general see that there is necessity or especial labor, they can make such ayudas de costa, or gratuities, as they deem proper. ⁽⁹⁾

It was inevitable, however, that the Council should acquire power. Torquemada was aging and, although at this period the tribunals acted independently, convicting culprits and holding autos de fe at their discretion, yet he held appellate jurisdiction, which doubtless brought a larger amount of business than he could attend to individually, in addition to his other functions. Cases also must have been frequent in which the consultas de fe, or juntas of experts called in to assist in pronouncing judgement, were not unanimous, or where there were doubts which the local judges felt incompetent to decide. Thus we are told that, in the gathering of inquisitors at Valladolid, in 1488, there was full discussion as to the difficulties arising from the incompetence or insufficient number of the consultors, and it was resolved that when there was doubt or discordia (the technical name for lack of unanimity) the fiscal of the tribunal should bring the papers to Torquemada, who would refer them to the Suprema or to such of its members as he might designate--thus indicating how completely its powers were derived from him and how subordinate was its position. ⁽¹⁰⁾ As Torquemada grew more infirm, even though four colleagues were adjoined to him, the importance of the Suprema increased, as is seen in the 1498 Instructions of Avila, where this provision wears the altered form that when difficult or doubtful questions arise in the tribunals, the inquisitors are to consult the Suprema and bring or send the papers when so ordered. ⁽¹¹⁾

When Torquemada passed away, in the absence of his vigorous personality, the Council rapidly became a determining factor in the organization. In 1499 and in 1503, instructions of a general [164] character, although signed by one inquisitor-general, also bear the signatures of two or three members of the Council and are countersigned by the secretary "por mandado de los señores del consejo." A decree of November 15, 1504, although signed by Deza alone, bears that it is with the concurrence, opinion and vote of the Council. ⁽¹²⁾ It was also assuming the appellate jurisdiction, for it announced to inquisitors, January 10, 1499, that, if any parties came before it with appeals, it would hear them and administer what it deemed to be justice. ⁽¹³⁾ If papal confirmation of this were lacking it was supplied by Leo X, in his bull of August 1, 1516, in which he conferred on members of the Council, in conjunction with the inquisitor-general, power to act in all appeals arising from cases of faith. ⁽¹⁴⁾

The death of Ferdinand, January 23, 1516, the preoccupations of Ximenes who, till his death in November, 1517, was governor of Spain, and the youth and inexperience of Charles V, gave the Suprema an opportunity of enlarging its functions. We find it regulating details and giving instructions to the tribunals much after the fashion of Ferdinand himself. ⁽¹⁵⁾ This was facilitated by the fact that it had a president of its own who, during vacancies, acted as inquisitor-general, a practice apparently commenced in 1509 when Ximenes, on the eve of his departure with his expedition to Oran, was required by Ferdinand to appoint the Archbishop of Granada, Francisco de Rojas, president of the Council during his absence. ⁽¹⁶⁾

The Suprema, with a permanent president of its own, was evidently well fitted to encroach on the functions of the inquisitor-general and, as policy varied with regard to this presidency, it is perhaps worth while to follow such indications as we can find with regard to it. In 1516 Martin Zurbano was president of the supreme Councils of both Castile and Aragon and, in the interval between the death of Mercader and the accession of Cardinal Adrian, he acted as inquisitor-general of Aragon. ⁽¹⁷⁾ In 1520, [165] when Charles at Coruña was departing from Spain, he appointed Francisco de Sosa, Bishop of Almería, as president. In 1522, Cardinal Adrian on August 5th, the day of his departure from Tarragona for Rome, appointed Garcia de Loaysa, the future inquisitor-general, president of the Councils of both Castile and Aragon. ⁽¹⁸⁾ It was inevitable that questions should arise as to the comparative standing of such an official and the inquisitor-general. Sosa, as president, had a salary of 200,000 maravedís, while Adrian as inquisitor-general had only 150,000, the same as the other members of the Council. ⁽¹⁹⁾ This implied superiority and it was evidently necessary to enforce subordination as when, in 1539, Cardinal Tavera was made inquisitor-general and Fernando Valdés president, the latter was told that he was not in any way to modify the orders of the former. So when, in 1549, Valdés succeeded Tavera and Fernando Niño, Bishop of Sigüenza, became president, Charles V wrote to him from Brussels, March 26th, that he was to obey the instructions given to Valdés on his accession. ⁽²⁰⁾ It was doubtless found that this duplicate headship led to trouble, and the position of president was allowed to lapse for, in 1598, Páramo tells us that the inquisitor-general was president. ⁽²¹⁾ In 1630 Philip IV proposed to revive it under the title of governor of the Suprema, but the Council protested, arguing that it had from the beginning functioned successfully without such a head; if the office had no special prerogatives, it would be superfluous; if it had, there would be collisions with the inquisitor-general; in either case, the innovation would be regarded by the public as evidence that the Council needed improvement. ⁽²²⁾ This may have postponed but did not prevent the creation of the office for, in 1649, we find a president acting. ⁽²³⁾ It was probably soon discontinued for, in some lists of members about 1670, none [166] is designated as president and if, in 1815, there is one found occupying the seat of honor as dean, he was probably only the senior member. ⁽²⁴⁾

Irrespective of the influence which the office of president may have had, the relations between the inquisitor-general and Suprema were ill-defined and fluctuating. Under Cardinal Adrian we sometimes find the Councils acting as though independent and sometimes Adrian doing the same. In the Aragonese troubles over Juan Prat, the Suprema nowhere appears--everything is in the name of Adrian or of Charles. During the interval between Adrian's election as pope, January 9, 1522, and his leaving Spain, August 5th, he and the Suprema acted at times each independently of the other. ⁽²⁵⁾ As the vacancy was not filled until September 1523, by the appointment of Manrique, there can be little doubt that this effacement of the inquisitor-generalship established precedents for a development of the activity and functions of the Suprema which, under Manrique, is found taking part in all business, the signatures of the members following his in the letters and decrees; it was rapidly becoming the direct executive and legislative head of the Holy Office. ⁽²⁶⁾ His disgrace and relegation to his see, in 1529, could not but stimulate this tendency. During his absence there are many letters from it submitting questions for his decision, but there are also many to the tribunals, showing that it was acting in full independence.

The result of this is seen, in 1540, when Cardinal Tavera, in announcing to the tribunals his accession to office, tells them that he will act with the concurrence and opinion of the members of the Council and when, in the same year, he appointed Nicolao Montañánez inquisitor of Majorca, he refers him to what the Council writes to him with regard to his duties. The appointing power continued to give to the inquisitor-general a certain predominance, but otherwise he and the Suprema had coalesced into one body--a fact emphasized by a declaration, May 14, 1542, that they formed together but a single tribunal and that there was no appeal from the one to the other. ⁽²⁷⁾ Still, there was a [167] primacy of honor in the inquisitor-generalship. When the Instrucciones nuevas --the elaborate code of procedure embodied in the Instructions of 1561--were sent to the tribunals, it was in the name of Inquisitor-general Valdés but, in the prefatory note, he is made to state that they had been maturely discussed in the Council, where it was agreed that they should be observed by all inquisitors. ⁽²⁸⁾

Thus the Suprema had fairly established itself as the ruling power of the Inquisition, and its independent position is described by the Venetian envoy, Simone Contarini, in his Relation of 1605, where he says that it is absolute in everything concerning the faith, not being obliged, like the other Councils, to consult with the king. The inquisitor-general, he adds, fills all the offices except the membership of the Council, whose names are presented to the king. ⁽²⁹⁾ Even in the matter of these appointments, as we have seen, the instructions of Philip II, III, and IV, from 1595 to 1626, require the inquisitor-general to consult with the Suprema in appointing inquisitors and fiscals.

Various documents, during the seventeenth century, show that the inquisitor-gen eral by no means attended all the daily sessions of the Council and rarely voted on the cases brought before it. ⁽³⁰⁾ In the letters of the Suprema, a decision reached when he was present records the fact--"visto en el consejo, presente el ex^mo señor inquisidor-general"--but by far the greater number have no such formula, indicating that it acted without him and that its acts were binding. ⁽³¹⁾ Another formula frequently employed is "consultado con el ex^mo señor inquisidor-general," which makes the Suprema act and the inquisitor-general merely consult. ⁽³²⁾ Yet of course the power wielded by the inquisitor-general must have varied greatly with the character of the individual and the influence which he had with the king. A man like Arce y Reynoso, in such a case as Villanueva's or Nithard under the queen-regent, used the tremendous authority of the Holy Office at his pleasure.

In the deliberations of the Council, as early as 1551, we find [168] decisions reached by a majority vote and when, about 1625, there chanced to be a tie and the imperious Pacheco endeavored to decide the matter, he was bluntly told that he could not do so --his vote counted no more than that of any other member. ⁽³³⁾ An elaborate account of the procedure, dating between 1666 and 1669, tells us that, when a letter, petition or memorial is read, if it is a matter of routine, the inquisitor-general decides it without taking votes; if it is doubtful, he takes the vote, beginning with the youngest member. If it is a question of justice, the majority decides; if there is a tie, it is laid aside until other members can be called in; all sign the papers, irrespective of how they had voted. It is not necessary for the inquisitor-general to be present throughout the session; it suffices for him to be there for two hours in the morning, for what especially concerns his jurisdiction and he need not assist in the afternoons, when matters not of faith are discussed with the two adjunct members of the Council of Castile. Another writer tells us that it was forbidden to give reasons for the vote and that absent members could vote in writing. ⁽³⁴⁾

The relations between the inquisitor-general and the Suprema thus had grown up without any precise definition and consequently were open to diversity of opinion. A writer who, about 1675, drew up an exhaustive account of the working of the Inquisition, admits that it was a disputed question whether the inquisitor-general could act by himself and dispense with the Suprema, but he states that the prevailing opinion is that the members are independent and act by immediate delegated papal powers; in his absence their acts are final and it is the same when the office is vacant. This, he says, is the invariable custom, nor can there be found an instance of his acting without the Suprema, while the Suprema in his absence acts without him. ⁽³⁵⁾

As we have seen, this was a usurpation, grown strong by prescription. It was fairly put to the test, in 1700, by Inquisitor-general Mendoza, in the trial of Fray Froilan Díaz, which was, in some respects, one of the .most noteworthy cases in the annals of the Inquisition.

[169] Carlos II, the last of the Hapsburgs who were the curse of Spain, was imbecile equally in mind and body. A being less fitted to rule has probably never encumbered a throne and it was his misfortune, no less than that of his people, that, reaching it in his fourth year, through thirty-five weary years, from 1665 to 1700, he staggered under the burden, while his kingdom plunged ever deeper in misery and humiliation. He was but a puppet in the hands of any intriguing man or woman or artful confessor who might obtain ascendancy; prematurely old, when he should have been in the prime of manhood, with mental and bodily sufferings continually on the increase, he was restlessly eager for whatever might promise relief. His first wife, Marie Louise of Orleans, had died childless, and the second, Maria Anna of Neuburg, whom he married in 1690, in the vain hope of an heir, was an ambitious woman who speedily dominated him and ruled Spain through her favorites. It soon became recognized that a successor would have to be selected from among the collateral branches and, after active intrigues, parties formed themselves in the court in support of the two most prominent aspirants-- Philip Duke of Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV, who was preferred by the mass of the people, and the Archduke Charles, son of the Emperor Leopold I, whose claims were urged by the queen. It was the misfortune of Froilan Díaz that he became the sport of the contending factions.

In 1698 there was a court revolution. The kingdom was practically governed by the royal confessor, a Dominican named Pedro Matilla, who controlled the queen by enriching and advancing her favorites, prominent among whom was Don Juan Tomás, Admiral of Castile. He asked nothing for himself--as he told Count Oropesa, he preferred making bishops to being one. Carlos hated and feared him and at last secretly unbosomed himself to Cardinal Portocarrero, Archbishop of Toledo, one of the leaders of the French faction. No time was lost in utilizing the opportunity and Carlos welcomed the suggestion of replacing Matilla by another Dominican, Fray Froilan Díaz, a professor of theology in the University of Alcalá, a simple-minded and sincere man, whose life had been passed in convents and colleges and who knew nothing of intrigues and politics. Carlos asked to have him brought secretly to court and Matilla's first intimation of his disgrace was seeing Díaz conducted to the king through the royal antechamber. He retired to his cell in the convent [170] del Rosario where, in a week, he died--it was said of mortification.

In April 1698 Froilan Díaz took possession of the seat in the Suprema reserved for the royal confessor. Plots for his overthrow commenced at once and he unconsciously aided them by fomenting strife in his own Dominican Order so injudiciously that, at the next chapter, his most bitter enemy, Nicolás de Torres-Padmota, was elected provincial. His inconsiderate zeal soon led him into still more dangerous paths, which inflamed hostility and afforded opportunity for its gratification. The king's health had been growing steadily worse, the convulsions and fainting-spells which afflicted him had constantly increased, and the opinion had spread that he was bewitched. Inquisitor-general Valladares had brought the matter before the Suprema, when it had been anxiously discussed without taking action. Valladares had died in 1795 and had been succeeded by the Dominican Juan Tomás de Rocaberti, Archbishop of Valencia, who, in January 1698, was secretly consulted by Carlos concerning the rumors attributing his sickness to sorcery, and was asked to investigate the matter and devise a remedy. It was again laid before the Suprema but, as before, the council deemed it too perilous a matter to be meddled with. When Díaz became a member, Rocaberti appealed to him and he eagerly promised to assist.

There were no indications to guide an investigation until Díaz chanced to learn that, in the nunnery of Cangas (Oviedo), there were several nuns demoniacally possessed who were being exorcised by Fray Antonio Alvarez de Arguelles, a former fellow-student of his. It had for ages been the belief that possessing demons, under the torture of exorcisms and abuse lavished on them by the priest, could be compelled to reveal facts beyond human capacity to ascertain. Much of the current medieval conceptions concerning the spiritual universe were derived from this source and the practice of thus seeking knowledge for laudable purposes was recognized as lawful, provided it was done imperatively and not solicited as a favor. Even the gratification of idle curiosity with demons was merely a venial sin. ⁽³⁶⁾ Froilan Díaz [171] was therefore merely adopting a legitimate method when he suggested that the demons of Cangas should be made to reveal the causes of the king's illness, which would be a step to its cure. Rocaberti eagerly assented and applied to the Dominican Bishop of Oviedo, but that wary prelate hesitated to embark in a matter so dangerous and discouraged the suggestion. Díaz then addressed Arguelles, who at first refused but finally consented, if he could have written commands from the inquisitor-general and confessor. Rocaberti accordingly wrote, June 18th, to inscribe the names of the king and queen on a piece of paper, place it in his breast and ask the demon if either of them were suffering from sorcery; Díaz enclosed this in a letter of his own and arranged a cipher for the correspondence. The obliging demon swore by God that the king had been bewitched at the age of fourteen to render him impotent and incapable of governing. With this Arguelles endeavored to withdraw, but Rocaberti and Díaz were insistent that he should ascertain further particulars and antidotes for the sorcery and, on September 9th, he wrote that the spell was administered April 3, 1675 in a cup of chocolate by the queen-mother, in order to retain power; the charm was made with the members of a dead man and the remedies were inunction with blessed oil, purging and separation from the queen.

Carlos was industriously stripped and anointed and purged and prayed over, but to no purpose save to terrify and exhaust him. For a year correspondence was vigorously kept up, obtaining from the demons answers curiously explicit and yet evasive and contradictory. At one time it was said that he had been bewitched on a second occasion, September 24,1694; then the demons refused to say more except that their previous assertions had been false and that Carlos had not been bewitched. There were also contradictions as to the sorceresses employed, who were named and their addresses were given, but the efforts to find them were fruitless. The destinies of Spain were made to hang on the [172] flippant utterances of hysterical girls, who unsaid one day what they had averred the day before. The affair reached such proportions that the Emperor Leopold officially communicated the revelations of a Viennese demoniac implicating a sorceress named Isabel, who was searched for in vain, and he also sent to Madrid a celebrated exorcist named Fray Mauro Tenda, who secretly exorcised the king for some months, which naturally aggravated his malady.

Meanwhile a storm was brewing. The queen's temper had been aroused by her political defeat; she was angered by the enforced separation from her husband and she was inflamed to fury when she secretly heard of the second bewitching of September, 1694, which was attributed to her. A month after her learning this Rocaberti died, with suspicious opportuneness, June 19,1699. This failed to relieve her, for soon afterwards three endemoniadas in Madrid were found confirming the story and implicating both her and the former queen-regent. Her wrath was boundless and she vowed Fray Froilan's destruction, for which the Inquisition offered the readiest means. To this end she sought to induce Carlos to appoint in Rocaberti's place Fray Antonio Folch de Cardona, a friend of Don Juan Tomás, Admiral of Castile, who had fallen from power when Matilla was dismissed. The king, however, who was resolved on pushing the investigation, appointed Cardinal Alonso de Aguilar and sent for the papal commission. In announcing his choice to Aguilar he said it was for the purpose of probing the matter to the bottom. To this Aguilar pledged himself and promptly sent for the senior member of the Suprema, Lorenzo Folch de Cardona (a half-brother of Antonio), telling him that all indications pointed to the guilt of the Admiral who must at once be arrested and his papers seized. Cardona replied that this was impossible; semi-proof was requisite prior to arrest and here there was no evidence. The queen grew more anxious than ever; Aguilar was taken with a slight indisposition, he was bled secundum artem and in three days he was dead--on the very day that his commission arrived from Rome. Suspicion was rife but there was no proof.

Carlos by this time was so enfeebled that the queen obtained from him the appointment of Baltasar de Mendoza, Bishop of Segovia, with whom she had a satisfactory understanding, he pledging himself to gratify her vindictiveness and she promising him a cardinal's hat as the reward of success. The first move [173] was against the Austrian exorciser Fray Tenda, who was arrested in January, 1700, on a different charge, but under examination he described the revelations of the Madrid demoniacs, made in Froilan's presence and he escaped with abjuration de levi and banishment. Froilan was then examined, but he refused to speak without the consent of the king, under whose orders he had acted and with strict injunctions of secrecy. Meanwhile the Dominican Provincial Torres-Padmota used his authority to obtain from Arguelles at Cangas the letters of Froilan, on the strength of which he promptly accused him to the Suprema in the name of the Order, to which Froilan answered that he had acted under Rocaberti's order at the pressing instance of the king, in what was sanctioned by Aquinas and other doctors. ⁽³⁷⁾ Mendoza informed the king that Froilan was accused of a grave offence but could not be prosecuted without the royal permission; Charles resisted feebly and then yielded to the pressure of the queen and Mendoza by dismissing him and replacing him with Torres-Padmota. Stunned, dazed and helpless, Froilan obeyed Mendoza's order to betake himself to the Dominican convent at Valladolid, but on the road he turned his steps and sought refuge in Rome. A royal letter to the Duke of Uceda, then ambassador, was speedily obtained ordering the arrest of Froilan on his arrival, as he was under trial by the Inquisition which permitted no appeal to Rome, while the tribunals of Barcelona and Murcia were instructed to throw him on arrival into the secret prison. He was shipped back to Cartagena and duly immured by the Murcia tribunal.

Then followed a struggle for mastery in the Suprema. Mendoza procured the assent of the members to the appointment of special calificadores or censors to consider the charges and evidence. Five theologians were selected who reported unanimously, June 23, 1700 that there was no matter of faith involved, whereupon the Suprema, with the exception of Mendoza, voted to suspend the case, which was equivalent to acquittal. Then, on July 8th, Mendoza signed an order of arrest and sent it around for the signatures of the members, who unanimously refused, whereupon he summoned them to his room and with alternate wrath and entreaty vainly sought their co-operation. In a gust of passion [174] he declared that he would have his way and in an hour he had ordered three of them to keep their houses as prisons and the Madrid tribunal to prosecute the secretary for refusing to countersign the warrant. Folch de Cardona was the only member left and this was because his half-brother Antonio, now Archbishop of Valencia, was a favorite of the queen. This violence caused no little excitement, which was increased when Miguélez, one of the members, who talked freely, was arrested one night in August and hurried off to the Jesuit college in Compostella, followed by the jubilating, or retiring on half-pay, of all three in terms of reprobation, as unfaithful to their duties, while the secretary was banished.

The Council of Castile intervened with a consulta pointing out to the king that the members had been punished without trial for upholding the laws, the canons and the practice of the Holy Office. The queen became alarmed and urged Mendoza to be cautious but he assured her that in no other way could her wishes be gratified. Meanwhile he had sent the papers to the tribunal of Murcia with orders to prosecute Froilan and send the sentence to him. It obeyed and twice submitted the case to its calificadores and other learned men, who reported in favor of the accused, whereupon it voted for his discharge. Then Mendoza evoked the case to himself and committed it to the Madrid tribunal; he brought Froilan there and confined him in a cell of the Dominican house of Nuestra Señora de Atocha where, in the power of Torres-Padmota, he lay for four years, cut off from all communication with the outside world, his very existence being in doubt, while the tribunal selected another group of calificadores who had no difficulty in finding him suspect of heresy.

Carlos had died, November 1, 1700, appointing in his will Philip of Anjou as his successor, until whose coming the queen-dowager was regent. For some months the members of the Suprema, jubilated by Mendoza's arbitrary assumption of authority, were kept in reclusión, but were finally liberated. Mendoza, who belonged to the Austrian faction, was relegated to his see of Segovia, but this brought no redress to Froilan. The Dominican General, Antonin Cloche, a Frenchman without bias to either party in the Inquisition, felt keenly the injustice committed against him and sent from Rome successively two agents who for three years labored in vain for his release. Mendoza was at bay and, in defiance of the traditions of the Spanish Inquisition, [175] he appealed to the pope, to whom he sent an abstract of the proceedings. Clement XI was delighted with this surrender of Spanish independence and referred the case to the Congregation of the Inquisition which, after much deliberation, reported that it could not act without seeing all the papers. Mendoza replied that he was in exile through political reasons and could not furnish them, which was false, as he had carried them with him; he sent an agent with an argument drawn up by the new fiscal of the Suprema, Juan Fernando de Frias, at the instance of the nuncio at Madrid, in which the Suprema was denounced as the canonizer of a doctrine, heretical, erroneous, superstitious and leading to idolatry. This paper had been prepared in answer to one by Folch de Cardona, arguing that the members of the Suprema had not merely a consultative but a decisive vote and that the inquisitor-general had no more. Frias, however, had foolishly devoted himself to proving that the interrogations of the demoniacs were heretical; this did not suit the nuncio who openly declared that, in place of refuting Cardona, he had published a thousand scandals and was a fool of no account. The argument, which he had printed, was condemned and suppressed and he himself was suspended from office, in 1702, by the queen, Marie Louise Gabrielle of Savoy, who was regent during the absence of Philip in Naples. It was probably about this time that the Suprema notified the tribunals that any orders from Mendoza, contrary to its own, were suspended. ⁽³⁸⁾

The intervention of the nuncio shows that the struggle had widened far beyond the theological question as to the lawfulness of interrogating demons and the guilt of the luckless Froilan Díaz. Two important principles had become involved--the appellate jurisdiction of Rome and its original jurisdiction in determining disputed points in the internal organization of the Spanish Inquisition. Pope Clement had eagerly welcomed the opening afforded by Mendoza, not only to claim that Froilan's case should be submitted to him, but he had also assumed, in Mendoza's favor, that the Suprema was subordinate to the inquisitor-general, through whom its powers were derived from the Holy See, which alone could decide the question. All this was vigorously combated by Cardona, with the aid of the Council of Castile. In the name of the Suprema, which now had three new members, he [176] rehearsed all of Ferdinand's decrees against appeals and argued that the Suprema had always been a royal council, subjected to the king, and that the only distinction between its members and the inquisitor-general lay in his prerogatives as to appointments. He earnestly supplicated the king to order the seizure of a letter of Cardinal Paolucci, papal secretary of state, committing Froilan's case to Mendoza or to the Archbishop of Seville. The nuncio, on the other hand, insisted that the papacy had never divested itself of its supreme authority to judge everything throughout the world, and that the pope was the only authority entitled to construe papal grants, including the functions of the Suprema. While the controversy thus raged, Froilan lay forgotten in his dungeon.

Practically the decision lay with the king and, in the vicissitudes of the War of Succession, Philip had more pressing matters to vex his new and untried royalty. He seems to have vacillated for, in July 1703, there was circulated a paper purporting to confirm the jubilation of the members of the Suprema and to commit Froilan's case to Mendoza. This drew from the Suprema two energetic consultas, pointing out Mendoza's arbitrary course and the injury to the regalias of his appeal to Rome. Philip was embarrassed and, by a royal order of December 24th, sought advice of the Council of Castile, which responded, January 8 and 29, 1704, by vigorous consultas denouncing Mendoza's actions as inexcusable violence. The case seemed to be drawing to a conclusion when it was delayed by a new complication. The succession to Mendoza was actively sought by two churchmen of the highest rank, but the king declared that he would not appoint any one of such lofty station, when both withdrew and one of them, or some one in his name, started what Cardona calls the diabolical proposition that the Inquisition had become superfluous; the few Judaizers and heretics remaining could be dealt with by the episcopal jurisdiction--the case of Froilan Díaz could be settled by his bishop--and thus the enormous expense of the Holy Office could be saved. This revolutionary suggestion was warmly supported by the Princesse des Ursins but Philip rejected it--wisely, no doubt, for even had he been inclined to it his throne was as yet too insecure to risk the results of such an innovation.

The Admiral of Castile was a refugee in Portugal, whence he was actively fomenting resistance to Philip. Mendoza notoriously [177] belonged to the Austrian party and Philip could ultimately scarce fail to decide against him. On October 27th he sent for Cardona, with whom he had a secret interview, resulting in a paper drawn up for his signature the next day. On November 3rd a royal order was read in the Suprema restoring to their places the three jubilado members, who were to receive all the arrears of their salaries. This was followed November 7th by a decree addressed to Mendoza ordering him and his successors to respect the members of the Suprema as representing the royal person, as exercising the royal jurisdiction and as entitled to cast decisive votes. Moreover, he was, under pain of exile and deprivation of temporalities, within seventy-two hours, to deliver to the Suprema all the papers concerning Froilan Díaz and to make known whether he was alive and in what prison. The next day it was ordered that the Suprema should decide the case and, on November 17th, after hearing the proceedings, a sentence was unanimously rendered, absolving Froilan, restoring to him his seat in the Suprema, with all arrears of salary, and also the cell in the convent del Rosario assigned to the royal confessors, of which he had been unjustly deprived. A copy of this sentence was ordered to be transmitted to all the tribunals for preservation in their archives. ⁽³⁹⁾

Froilan Díaz was duly reinstated in the Suprema and we find his signature to its letters at least until 1712. ⁽⁴⁰⁾ In reward of his sufferings, Philip nominated him to the see of Avila; he was not, however, a persona grata in Rome and Pope Clement refused his confirmation on the ground that he must first see the papers in the case and determine whether the acquittal was justified, thus asserting to the last his jurisdiction over the matter. ⁽⁴¹⁾ Philip held [178] good and would make no other nomination until after Froilan's death, the see remaining vacant from 1705 until filled by Julian Cano y Tovar in 1714.

As for Mendoza, he was obliged to resign the inquisitor-generalship early in 1705. When, in 1706, Philip returned to Madrid, after his flight to Burgos, Mendoza and the Admiral, with many others, were arrested as traitors and the queen-dowager was escorted to Bayonne. Mendoza, of course, missed the coveted cardinalate, but he survived until 1727, in peaceful possession of his see. In replacing him as inquisitor-general, Philip was true to his maxim not to appoint a man of high rank and he nominated Vidal Marin, bishop of the insignificant see of Ceuta, who had distinguished himself, in 1704, by his gallant defence of that place against the English fleet that had just captured Gibraltar. In confirming him, after some delay, Clement took occasion, in a brief of August 8, 1705, to reassert the papal position and urgently to exhort him to maintain the subordination of the Suprema. He is to remember that he is supreme and in him resides the whole grant of apostolic power, while the members of the council derive their power from him; over them he has sole and arbitrary discretion by deputation from the Holy See, and the consultas of the Royal Council have caused great scandal and spiritual damage to souls by seeking with fallacious and deceitful arguments to prove that he, after receiving his deputation, is independent of the Holy See. If he will examine his commission he will see that his powers are derived from the Vicar of Christ and not from the secular authorities, who have no rights in the premises, and whatever is done contrary to the rights of the Holy See is invalid and is hereby declared to be null and void. ⁽⁴²⁾

This was doubtless consoling as an enunciation of papal claims and wishes, but the Bourbon conception of the royal prerogative was even more decided than that of the Hapsburgs. The exhortation to reassert the supremacy of the inquisitor-generalship fell upon deaf ears and the rule in the Suprema continued to be what Folch de Cardona described in 1703--that the majority ruled; if there was a tie, the matter was laid aside until some absent member attended, while, if the meeting was a full one, the fiscal was called in to cast the deciding vote. ⁽⁴³⁾

[179] In its relations with the tribunals the Suprema had even greater success. As it gradually absorbed the inquisitor-general, it exercised his power, which was virtually unlimited and irresponsible, over them, until it became a centralized oligarchy of the most absolute kind. To this, of course, the progressive improvement in communication largely contributed. In the earlier period, the delays and expenses of special messengers and couriers rendered it necessary for the local tribunals to be virtually independent in the routine business of arresting, trying, sentencing and punishing offenders. Only matters about which there could be dispute or which involved consequences of importance, would warrant the delay and expense of consulting the central head. Items in the accounts and allusions in the correspondence show that, when this was necessary, the outlay for a messenger was a subject to be carefully weighed. The matter was complicated by the fact that the central head was perambulating, moving with the court from one province to another, and its precise seat at any one moment might be unknown to those at a distance. The permanent choice of Madrid as a capital by Philip II--broken by a short transfer to Valladolid--was favorable to centralization, and still more so was the development of the post-office, establishing regular communication at a comparatively trivial cost, although at first the Inquisition was somewhat chary about confiding its secret documents to the postmen.

At first there was hesitation in intruding upon the functions of the tribunals. A letter of November 10, 1493, from the Suprema to the inquisitors of Toledo, asks as a favor for the information on which a certain arrest had been made, explaining that this was at the especial request of the queen. ⁽⁴⁴⁾ Where there was not unanimity, however, a reference to some higher authority was essential, and we have seen that, in 1488, Torquemada ordered that all such cases should be sent to him to be decided in the Suprema and, in 1507, Ximenes went further and required all cases in which the accused did not confess to be sent to the Council. ⁽⁴⁵⁾ This seems speedily to have become obsolete, but the rule as to discordia was permanent. In 1509 a letter of the Suprema extends it to arrests and all other acts on which votes were taken, when a report with all the opinions was to be forwarded [180] for its decision. ⁽⁴⁶⁾ The costs attendant on these references were not small, for we happen to meet with an order, May 23, 1501, to pay to Inquisitor Mercado a hundred ducats for his expenses and sickness while at the court examining the cases brought from his tribunal of Valencia. Possibly for this reason references to the Suprema were not encouraged for, about this time, it ordered that none should be brought to it except those in which there was discordia, and in these it expected that the parties should be represented by counsel. ⁽⁴⁷⁾ The same motive may have led to an order, in 1528, limiting these references to cases of great importance, but this restriction was removed in another of July 11, 1532, when it was explained that, if an inquisitor dissented from the other two and from the Ordinary, the case must be sent up. ⁽⁴⁸⁾

Practically, the authority of the Suprema over the tribunals was limited only by its discretion, and inevitably it was making constant encroachments on their independence of action. Its correspondence, in 1539 and 1540, with the Valencia tribunal shows an increasing number of cases submitted to it and its supervision over minute details of current business. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ In 1543 the case of a Morisca, named Mari Gomez la Sazeda, shows that a sentence of torture had to be submitted to it and its reply indicates conscientious scrutiny of the records, for it ordered the re-examination of certain witnesses, but, if they were absent or dead, then she might be tortured moderately. ⁽⁵⁰⁾ A further extension of authority is seen during a witch-craze in Catalonia when, to restrain the cruelty of the Barcelona tribunal, in 1537, all cases of witchcraft, after being voted on, were ordered to be submitted to it for final decision and, in a recrudescence of the epidemic, between 1545 and 1550, it required all sentences of relaxation to be sent to it, even when unanimous. ⁽⁵¹⁾ On this last occasion, however, the Barcelona tribunal asserted its independence of action by disregarding the command and a phrase in the Instructions of 1561, requiring, in all cases of special importance, the sentences to be submitted before execution, was too vague to be of much practical effect. ⁽⁵²⁾

[181] The supervision which the Suprema was thus gradually developing was most salutary as a check upon the irresponsibility of the tribunals, whose acts were shrouded in impenetrable secrecy except when scrutinized with more or less conscientious investigation by visitors at intervals of five or ten years. The conditions in Barcelona as revealed by successive visitations, between 1540 arid 1580, show how a tribunal might violate systematically the instructions, and how fruitless were the exposures made by visitors when the inquisitors chose to disregard the orders elicited by reports of their misdoings. They were virtually a law unto themselves ; no one dared to complain of them and the victims' mouths were closed by the oath of secrecy which bound them under severe penalties not to divulge their experiences. The whole system was so devised as to expose the inquisitor to the maximum of temptation with the minimum risk of detection, and it was the merest chance whether this power was exercised by a Lucero or by a conscientious judge. The consulta de fe and the concurrence of the Ordinary furnished but a feeble barrier, for the record could generally be so presented as to produce the desired impression and the consultors, proud of their position and its immunities, were indisposed to give trouble, especially as their adverse votes did not create a discordia. When Salazar, in 1566, took the unusual trouble of investigating the interminable records of the individual trials, the rebuke of the Suprema to the inquisitors of Barcelona speaks of the numbers of those sentenced to relaxation, reconciliation, the galleys, scourging, etc., after the grossest informalities in the conduct of the trials. ⁽⁵³⁾ The world can never know the cruelties perpetrated under a system which relieved the tribunals from accountability, and consequently any supervision was a benefit, even that imperfectly exercised by the distant Suprema.

There seems to have come a dawning consciousness of this, possibly stimulated by the revelations of Salazar's investigations into the three tribunals of the crown of Aragon, which led to the Concordia of 1568. In the same year a carta acordada of June 22nd ordered that even when sentences of relaxation were voted unanimously, the process should be sent to the Suprema for its action. ⁽⁵⁴⁾ From this time forward its intervention, on one score or another, gradually increased. From the records of the tribunal of Toledo, [182] between 1575 and 1610, it appears that it intervened in 228 cases out of 1172, or substantially in one out of five, while in only 82 of these cases, or one out of fourteen, was there discordia--sometimes as to arrest and trial, sometimes as to torture, but mostly as to the final sentence. ⁽⁵⁵⁾

At this period it would seem to be the practice in the Suprema to refer cases to two members and act on their report. Thus in the matter of Mari Vaez, condemned in 1594 to relaxation in effigy, the two are Vigil de Quiñones and Mendoza, whose names are inscribed on the back of the sentence and under them the word " Justa" on the strength of which the secretary writes the formal letter to the tribunal, ending with "hagais, señores justicia"-- the customary formula of confirmation. ⁽⁵⁶⁾ As might be expected the degree of scrutiny exercised in the performance of this duty was variable. In the case of Jacques Curtancion, in 1599, it was observed that the ratification of the confession of the accused had been made in the presence of only one interpreter, when the rules required two; the papers were therefore returned to the tribunal of Granada for the rectification of this irregularity, but this exactitude was of no benefit to the sufferer. ⁽⁵⁷⁾ On the other hand, Pedro Flamenco was tortured in Toledo at 10 A.M., June 10, 1570, after which the consulta de fe was held which condemned him to relaxation for fictitious confession. At the earliest the papers could not have reached Madrid until late on the 11th, but on the 12th was despatched the formal reply confirming the sentence. There could scarce have been time to read the voluminous record and certainly none to give it more than perfunctory consideration. ⁽⁵⁸⁾ Again, delays attributable only to negligence were not infrequent. Diego de Horozco was sentenced to relaxation by the tribunal of Cuenca, which sent the process to the Suprema, September 3, 1585 and, at the same time, asked for instructions about the cases of Alonso Sainz and Francisco Caquen which had been previously forwarded. No reply was received for more than a month, when the tribunal wrote again, October 14th, that it was anxious to hold an auto de fe. This brought the prompt answer to torture Horozco and execute justice in accordance with the result. ⁽⁵⁹⁾

[183] Besides this direct intervention there grew up a watchfulness over the proceedings of the tribunals through their reports of autos de fe, which were closely scrutinized and returned with criticisms. These reports were required to give full details of all cases decided, whether for public autos or private ones in the audience-chamber, and their regular transmission was enforced by conditioning upon it the payment of the annual ayuda de costa or supplement to the salaries of the officials. There was also an opportunity, which was not neglected, of administering reproofs on the reports required from inquisitors of their annual visitations of portions of their districts. These were closely criticized and errors were pointed out without reserve, such as judging cases that ought to have been sent to the tribunal for its action, punishing too severely or too lightly, imperfect reports of cases, etc. ⁽⁶⁰⁾ Thus in various ways a more or less minute supervision was exercised, and the inquisitors were made to feel the subordination of their position.

This was greatly increased when, in 1632, each tribunal was required to send in a monthly report of all its current business and the condition of each case, whether pending or decided, and this in addition to an annual report on which depended the allowance of the ayuda de costa. It was difficult to enforce the regular performance of this and the command had to be frequently repeated, but it was successful to some extent and afforded an opportunity of criticism which was not neglected. Thus, in 1695, in acknowledging receipt of such a report from Valencia, its slovenliness and imperfection are sharply rebuked as deserving of a heavier penalty, which is suspended through benignity. The character, it is said, of the witnesses should be noted, the number or letter of the prisoner's cell, the ration assigned to him, whether or not he has property and, if sequestrated, a copy of the sequestration should be added; the crime and the time of entering the prison and the property items should be repeated in all successive reports. After this, each individual case is considered and much fault is found with the details of procedure. ⁽⁶¹⁾ Even the requests for information, made by one [184] tribunal of another, were required, by an order of 1635, to be the subject of regular reports by the fiscal every four months. ⁽⁶²⁾ It was impossible, however, to enforce with regularity the rendering of monthly reports and, in 1800, the Suprema contented itself with requiring them thrice a year, a regulation which continued to the end, although it was irregularly observed. ⁽⁶³⁾

The same process of centralization was developed in the control over individual cases. It was not only when there was discordia or sentences of relaxation that confirmation was required. A carta acordada of August 2, 1625, ordered that no sentence of scourging, galleys, public penance, or vergüenza should be executed until the process was submitted to the Suprema. ⁽⁶⁴⁾ The records of the tribunal of Valladolid, at this period, not only show that this was observed when corporal punishment was inflicted, but also indicate that a custom was springing up of submitting the sentence in all cases involving clerics, and further that the habit was becoming frequent of consulting the Suprema during the course of trials. ⁽⁶⁵⁾ When, in 1647, the Suprema required all sentences to be submitted to it as soon as pronounced, it assumed full control over the disposition of cases. ⁽⁶⁶⁾ It was concentrating in itself the management of the entire business of all the tribunals. The minuteness of detail in its supervision is illustrated when, in 1697, the daily ration of four maravedís for a prisoner in Valladolid was regulated by it and the vote of the tribunal whether a prisoner is to be confined in the carceles medias or secretas had to be confirmed by it. ⁽⁶⁷⁾

Simple arrest by the Inquisition was in itself an infliction of no common severity and, from an early period, the Suprema sought to exercise supervision over it. In 1500, the Instructions of Seville require the tribunals, whenever they make an arrest, to send to the inquisitor-general, by their messenger, the accusation, with the testimony in full, the number of the witnesses and [185] the character of the accused. ⁽⁶⁸⁾ This salutary check on the irresponsible power of the inquisitors was too cumbrous for enforcement and it soon became obsolete but, in 1509, when there was discordia as to sentences of arrest they were ordered, before execution, to be submitted to the Suprema with the opinions of the voters. ⁽⁶⁹⁾ In 1521, to check the persecuting zeal of the tribunals towards the Moriscos, or newly baptized Moors, Cardinal Adrian ordered that they should not be arrested save on conclusive evidence which must first be submitted to the Suprema--a humane measure speedily forgotten. ⁽⁷⁰⁾ The religious Orders were favored, in 1534, by requiring confirmation of all sentences of arrest pronounced against their members--a measure which required to be repeated in 1555 and, in 1616, it was extended to all ecclesiastics. ⁽⁷¹⁾ The Instructions of 1561 order consultation with the Suprema before arresting persons of quality or when the case is otherwise important ⁽⁷²⁾ and, in 1628, it was ordered that no arrest be made on the testimony of a single witness, without first consulting the Suprema; if escape were feared, precautions might be taken, but in such wise as to inflict as little disgrace as possible. ⁽⁷³⁾ Under these limitations the practice is summarized by a writer, about 1675, who tells us that there are cases in which the tribunals can vote arrest, but not execute it without the assent of the Suprema; these are where there is but one witness (but this is not observed with Judaizers), when the accused is a cleric, religious, knight of the Military Orders, notary or superior officer of justice--unless, indeed, flight be apprehended. In these cases the sumaria, or summary of evidence, must be well drawn up and submitted to the Suprema with the votes of the inquisitors. ⁽⁷⁴⁾

Thus gradually the independent action of the tribunals was curtailed until it finally disappeared and centralization in the Suprema was complete. The precise date of this I have been unable to determine, but a writer of the middle of the eighteenth century tersely describes the conditions, telling us that the inquisitors determine nothing without the orders of the Council, [186] so that, when they draw up the sumarias in cases of faith they submit them and, on their return, do what they are told; they do not sentence but only append their opinions to the processes and the Council decides. ⁽⁷⁵⁾

This continued to the end. The book of votes of the Suprema, in the restored Inquisition, from 1814 to 1820, shows that the tribunals had become mere agencies for receiving denunciations, collecting evidence and executing the orders of the Council. Even these slender duties were sometimes denied to them. In the case of Juana de Lima of Xeres, tried for bigamy, the sumaria was made up by the commissioner of Xeres and on it the Suprema, without more ado, sentenced her to four years in a house of correction and sent the sentence to the commissioner to be read to her; the functions of the Seville inquisitors were reduced to transmitting the papers and keeping the records. ⁽⁷⁶⁾ If a tribunal ventured on the slightest expression of dissent, it was roundly taken to task. Thus, December 23, 1816 that of Madrid was sternly rebuked because, in the case of Don Teodoro Bachiller, it had described as unjustified his imprisonment; that imprisonment had been approved by the Suprema and the tribunal was ordered to expunge from the records this improper expression and never to repeat such an offence, if it desired to escape serious action. So, when the fiscal of the same tribunal remonstrated against an order to remove Caietano Carcer, on the ground of ill health, from the secret prison, the Suprema replied, January 14, 1818, that its orders were dictated by justice and there was no fiscal or tribunal that could object to them. It expected that the tribunal and its fiscal would in future be more self-restrained and obedient to its superior decisions, thus escaping all responsibility, and that they would not oblige the Council to enforce its authority by measures necessary although unpleasant. ⁽⁷⁷⁾ To this had shrunk the inquisitor before whom, in the old days, bishops and magnates trembled.

It is satisfactory to be able to say that, as a rule, the interference of the Suprema with the tribunals was on the side of mercy rather than of rigor. It is true that torture, then the universal solvent of doubt, was frequently ordered, but there seems to have been a fairly conscientious discharge of the responsibilities [187] which it had grasped. In the Valladolid records of the seventeenth century, the modifications of sentences are almost uniformly mitigations, especially by the omission of scourging, which the tribunals were accustomed to administer liberally, and there would seem to be especial tenderness for the offences of the clergy. ⁽⁷⁸⁾ A typical instance of this moderation is seen in the case of Margarita Altamira, sentenced by the Barcelona tribunal, in 1682, to appear in an auto de fe, to abjure de levi, to receive a hundred lashes through the streets and to seven years' exile from Barcelona and some other places, the first two of which were to be passed serving in a hospital without pay. All this the Suprema reduced to hearing her sentence read in the audience-chamber and to four years' exile from the same places. ⁽⁷⁹⁾ This mitigating tendency is especially apparent in the restored Inquisition, from 1814 to 1820, where the sentences are almost uniformly revised with a reduction of penalties. Scourging is more rarely prescribed by the tribunals and, when it is ordered, it is invariably omitted by the Suprema, the power of dispensing with it being attributed to the inquisitor-general. ⁽⁸⁰⁾
 

As the functions of the tribunals thus gradually shrank to mere ministerial duties, the appellate jurisdiction lodged in the inquisitor-general and absorbed by the Suprema, of which we heard so much in earlier times, became less and less important. The bull of Leo X, in 1516, prescribes that appeals shall be heard by the inquisitor-general in conjunction with the Suprema and that, pending the decision, the case shall be suspended. ⁽⁸¹⁾ This indicates that appeals were suspensive, although subsequently the Inquisition eluded this by arguing, as in the matter of Villanueva, that they were merely devolutionary--that is, that sentences, in spite of them, were to be promptly executed, thus practically rendering them useless. ⁽⁸²⁾

At this period the relations between the Council and the inquisitor-general as to appellate jurisdiction do not appear to be definitely settled. In 1520, Antonio de la Bastida appealed about his wife's dowry from the judge of confiscations of Calahorra, [188] and the decision in his favor was rendered by the Suprema "in consultation with the very reverend father, the Cardinal of Tortosa (Adrian)," and, as the crown was concerned, it was confirmed by Charles V. ⁽⁸³⁾ In two cases, however, in 1527 and 1528, in which, on appeal, Cardinal Manrique remitted or mitigated sentences, the letters were issued in his name and without signature by the members of the Council. ⁽⁸⁴⁾ During Manrique's disgrace, the Suprema apparently acted independently for, in a letter of December 9, 1535, to the Valencia tribunal, alluding to the cases on appeal pending before it, it promises to adjudicate them as speedily as possible. ⁽⁸⁵⁾ That, by this time, at least its concurrence had become essential would appear from the modification, on appeal by Juan Gómez from a sentence imposed by the Valencia tribunal, when the letter was signed both by Inquisitor-general Tavera and the members of the Council. ⁽⁸⁶⁾ When, as we have seen, the secular courts endeavored to entertain appeals in cases of confiscation and matters not strictly of faith, Prince Philip's cédula of March 10, 1553 emphatically declared that appellate jurisdiction was vested solely in the Suprema, which held faculties for that purpose from the Holy See and from the crown. ⁽⁸⁷⁾

This would seem to dispose of any claim that appellate jurisdiction was a special attribute of the inquisitor-general, and this is confirmed by a case, in 1552, in which Angelica Vidama appealed from the sentence of the Valencia tribunal condemning the memory and fame of her deceased mother Beatriz Vidama. On March 8th, Inquisitor-general Valdés and the members of the Council with some assessors declared that, after examining the matter in several sessions their opinion was that the sentence should be revoked. Then, on March 12th, in the presence of Valdés, the Council adopted a sentence restoring her and her posterity to honor and good fame and releasing the confiscation of her estate. The sentence is not signed by Valdés but only by three members of the Council, which indicates that his signature was unnecessary. ⁽⁸⁸⁾ When he was held simply to have a vote, like every other member, he could claim no special authority as to [189] appeals and, with the gradual intervention of the Suprema in all the acts of the tribunals, appeals themselves became obsolete.
 

From a comparatively early period the control assumed by the Suprema over the provincial tribunals was absolute. Already, in 1533, it tersely informed them that what it ordered and what it forbade must be obeyed to the letter; this it repeated in 1556 and, in 1568, it took occasion to tell them that it was not to be answered, nor were inquisitors to offer excuses when they were rebuked. ⁽⁸⁹⁾ This control was not confined to their judicial proceedings but extended to every detail of their affairs. Even Ferdinand, with his minute watchfulness over the management of the tribunals, gave to the inquisitors a certain latitude as to expenses and instructed his receivers that they were to honor the requisitions of the inquisitors for outlays on messengers, lodgings, work on houses, prisons, stagings, etc. ⁽⁹⁰⁾ The Suprema permitted no such liberty of action; it required to be consulted in advance and roundly scolded tribunals which incurred expenses on their own responsibility. ⁽⁹¹⁾ In 1569 a general order specified in minute detail the trifling matters of daily necessity for which they could make disbursements; for everything else reference must first be made to the Suprema. ⁽⁹²⁾ This continued to the end and its correspondence is filled with instructions as to petty outlays of all kinds, and largely with regard to repairs of the houses and other properties belonging to the Inquisition. If Valencia, in 1647, wanted a clock in the audience-chamber, it had to apply for permission to purchase one and, in 1650, the Suprema ordered its price to be allowed in the receiver's accounts. In 1665 it ordered the fiscal of Barcelona to be lodged in the palace of the Inquisition and gave minute instructions how the apartments were to be redistributed so as to accommodate him. ⁽⁹³⁾ It is scarce necessary to add that the determination of salaries, which had originally been lodged in the hands of the inquisitor-general, had passed absolutely under the control of the Suprema.

[190] Among the perquisites of the officials was that they were furnished with mourning on occasions of public mourning, and a carta acordada of January 20, 1578 ordered that, when this was to be given, a detailed statement must be made out in advance of the persons entitled to it, how much there would be required, what kind of cloth and at what price. On the death of Philip II, in 1598, two persons in Valencia complained that they had been omitted in the distribution, whereupon it wrote to the tribunal for information, on receipt of which it ordered that one of them should be gratified. ⁽⁹⁴⁾ So, in 1665, on the death of Philip IV, Dr. Paladio Juncar, one of the physicians of the tribunal of Barcelona, asked for an allowance such as had been given to his colleague Dr. Maruch, whereupon the Suprema called for a report as to the cost of the mourning given to Dr. Maruch and whether it was customary to give it to two physicians. A similar petition from Juan Carbonell, one of the advocates for poor prisoners, led to another demand for information and the result was that the Suprema refused them both. ⁽⁹⁵⁾

This close watchfulness did not diminish with time. In 1816, when returning the papers of a case to the tribunal of Madrid, a reprimand was administered because in one place there was a blank of half a page which might have been utilized for a certain record. So, in 1817, Seville was rebuked for the number of blank pages in the processes sent, causing not only a useless waste of paper but an increase of postage; six months later Seville sent the sumaria of Miguel Villavicencio, in which the Suprema counted fourteen blank pages, whereupon it referred to its previous instructions and commanded the tribunal to tell the secretaries that they must obey orders, else they would be not only charged with the excess of postage but would be severely punished. ⁽⁹⁶⁾
 

The development of this absolute authority was largely aided by the complete control over the finances of the tribunals claimed and exercised by the inquisitor-general or the Suprema or con- . currently by both. This, after the death of Ferdinand, practically passed into their hands, except when Charles, in his early years, [191] made grants to his courtiers from the confiscations. All that was gathered in by the labors of the provincial inquisitors was treated as a common fund at the sole discretion of the central power. Most of the tribunals, as we shall see, held investments, partially adequate to their support, in addition to their current gains, but even these were held subject to the Suprema. In 1517, orders were sent to the farmers of the revenue to pay to the receiver-general of the Suprema, instead of to the tribunals, the juros, or assignments on the taxes, held by the latter. Of these the holdings of the Seville tribunal amounted to 500,000 maravedís per annum--100,000 on the tithe of oil, 200,000 on the alcavala of oil and 200,000 on the alcavala of the shambles. Córdova suffered less from this, for that tribunal held only 103,000 maravedís of income--63,000 on the alcavala of meal, 16,000 on that of wine and 24,000 on that of fruit. ⁽⁹⁷⁾ But it was not only on the investments but also on the current earnings of the tribunals that the Suprema laid its hand. Its salary list was considerable, it had no settled source of income and the royal policy was that the Inquisition must pay its own way besides having a surplus for the treasury. In 1515, while the Suprema of Castile was yet separate from that of Aragon, its pay-roll aggregated 750,000 maravedís, with 340,000 additional for ayudas de costa, or in all 1,090,000, without counting Inquisitor-general Ximenes who seems to have disdained the emoluments of his office. This large sum, the receiver of Seville, Pedro de Villacis, was required to defray in 1515, while, in 1516, the demand fell upon Guillastegui, receiver of Toledo; in 1517 the salaries were paid by Seville and the ayuda de costa by Toledo and, in 1518, by Valencia. ⁽⁹⁸⁾ The burden was apportioned among them according to their luck. In addition to this were the innumerable orders to pay the salaries and expenses of the tribunals, which were sometimes issued in the name of Cardinal Adrian and sometimes in that of the Suprema.

It would seem that the receivers of the tribunals, who were practically treasurers, occasionally hesitated in honoring these calls for, in 1520, Charles V issued cédulas to all the receivers of Castile and Aragon to pay whatever the inquisitor-general and [192] Suprema should order. ⁽⁹⁹⁾ The theory that the funds belonged to the crown in no way limited the control of the inquisitor-general and Suprema and this, during the disgrace of Manrique, naturally passed into the hands of the Council. Under his successor, Tavera, orders were sometimes drawn in his name and countersigned by the members of the Council and sometimes all reference to him was omitted. There seems not to have been any settled rule until, about 1704, the victory of the Council over Mendoza was emphasized by an instruction that no order for the payment of money, given by the inquisitor-general, was to be recognized unless countersigned by the members. ⁽¹⁰⁰⁾

The Suprema called without stint on the tribunals to meet its expenses and its fluctuating sources of supply are indicated in its varying demands for a few ducats for some special payment to large sums from some tribunal which had made a fortunate raid on wealthy heretics as when, being in Valladolid in 1549, it demanded 2000 ducats from that tribunal for its pay-roll. ⁽¹⁰¹⁾ It seems to have made an attempt to levy a settled contribution on Saragossa which, in 1539, it ordered to furnish the money for its salaries, but the enforcement of this seems to have been difficult for, from 1540 to 1546, we find it paying its receiver-general Loazes 15,000 maravedís a year for making the collection. After an interval of ten years, in 1557, it demanded of Saragossa 10,000 sueldos (400 ducats) a year toward its pay-roll, but again there was trouble, for although the order was issued in April, the inquisitors in October were reminded of it, with the significant hint that, unless the money were forthcoming, their salaries would be cut off. ⁽¹⁰²⁾ In 1559 a papal grant of 100,000 ducats on the ecclesiastical revenues of Spain kept it in funds for awhile and when the tribunals of the colonies were fairly in operation they contributed largely but, in the eighteenth century, we still find it drawing upon the tribunals, although it had accumulated a considerable invested capital, yielding a handsome income. ⁽¹⁰³⁾

[193] While thus caring for itself, it also looked after the tribunals which were less fortunate than their fellows, treating the profits of all as a common fund to be distributed at its discretion. These transfers were incessant; as examples of them may be cited an order, in 1562, to Valladolid to pay 1000 ducats to Barcelona which was deeply in debt and, in 1565, Murcia was called upon to give it 400,000 maravedís for its salaries. Murcia, at this time, seems to have struck a rich vein of confiscations for, in 1567, it was required to contribute 1500 ducats for the salaries of Valencia. Barcelona continued in trouble; there were few heretics there and its chief business was quarrelling with the people, which was not productive financially, so, in 1579, Llerena was required to give it 500 ducats towards its pay-roll and, in 1586, Seville, Murcia and Llerena were ordered to furnish 500 ducats each for the same purpose. The expulsion of the Moriscos, in 1609-10, brought Valencia to destitution and, in 1612, Granada and Seville were obliged to lend it 1000 ducats apiece. ⁽¹⁰⁴⁾

This system remained in force until the last. Under the Restoration the Holy Office was seriously cramped for funds, as we shall see, and its financial troubles were frequent. In 1816, Majorca was required to furnish over 40,000 reales to Logroño and Logroño was called upon to supply the same sum to the Suprema. It was not prompt in meeting this demand but paid 15,000; in March, 1817, the Suprema notified it that the balance would be drawn for; on this a partial payment seems to have been made, leaving 12,000, for which, in 1818, the receiver-general of the Suprema drew, but his draft came back dishonored. This aroused the wrath of the Council which wrote, July 3rd, expressing its surprise; if the tribunal had no funds in hand, it should have gone out and borrowed them; it must do so now and not let such a thing occur again. ⁽¹⁰⁵⁾

A necessary feature of this financial control was the centralization in the Suprema of the auditing of the accounts of all the tribunals. Their receivers or treasurers were supposed to send, at regular intervals, itemized statements with vouchers of all receipts and expenditures, which were audited by the contadorgeneral, or auditor, of the Council. ⁽¹⁰⁶⁾ The efficiency of this system was marred by habitual vices of maladministration and the hesitation to punish offenders, of which a petition of the historian, [194] Gerónimo Zurita, affords us a glimpse. In 1538 he was made secretary, or escribano de cámara of the Suprema. In 1548 Inquisitor-general Valdés gave this place to Juan de Valdés, presumably a kinsman, and Zurita was transferred to the contaduria general for Aragon. In a petition presented May 2, 1560, he represents that he has served as contador for twelve years at a salary less than that of his predecessor and with more work; there were the accounts of the tribunal of Sicily, which had not been rendered for twenty years, and it was notorious that the accounts of the receivers had been very confused and embarrassing, all of which he had straightened out with the utmost care, rejecting, for the service of the Holy Office, opportunities offering him better prospects, and now the only reward he asks is that his son, Miguel Zurita, a youth of 18, may be adjoined to him as an assistant--a moderate prayer which was granted. ⁽¹⁰⁷⁾ That Zurita was a laborious and conscientious auditor it would be impossible to doubt, but the frequency of defalcations, as we shall see hereafter, would indicate that such officials were not universal and that the precautions of the system were negligently enforced.
 

That the Suprema should exact all that it could from the tribunals was a necessity, for its pay-roll grew, partly as the result of its increased functions in the centralizing process, and partly in accordance with the inevitable law of an office-holding class to multiply. As the business and profits of the Inquisition decreased its officials consequently grew more numerous and costly. After the death of Ferdinand in 1516, when Aguirre and Calcena were dismissed, there were for some years only three members, a fiscal, a secretary, an alguazil, a "relator" (to report on cases sent up on appeal), a contador and receiver-general, two physicians, a messenger and a portero--twelve in all--with a pay-roll, including the ayuda de costa, of 1,090,000 maravedís [195] or a little less than 3000 ducats. ⁽¹⁰⁸⁾ In the seventeenth century all this had changed. Various gratifications had become habitual additions to the salaries proper, in lieu of the old ayuda de costa. Thus there were three larger propinas or pourboires a year, on the days of San Isidro (May 15th), San Juan (June 24th) and Santa Ana (July 26th) and five smaller ones, called manuales on certain other feasts. There were also luminarias or reimbursement for the cost of the frequent illuminations publicly ordered, which seem to have been averaged into a fixed sum, and at times there was an allowance for the Autos of Corpus Christi, or plays represented before the Council on Corpus Christi day, while the toros or bull-fights which were celebrated on the days of the three chief propinas sometimes replace the latter. There were other smaller perquisites, such as wax and sugar--the latter a distribution, on each of the feasts of Corpus Christi and San Pedro Mártir, of an arroba (25 pounds) of sugar to the inquisitor-general, half an arroba to the members and a quarter to the subordinates, making in all nine arrobas. In 1657 we learn that sugar was worth 161 reales per arroba, making an annual outlay for this purpose of 2900 reales. ⁽¹⁰⁹⁾ A larger gratuity was that of houses. The Suprema owned a number and allowed them to be occupied by its officials, while those who were not thus housed received a cash equivalent. Thus in various ways the nominal salaries were largely supplemented and, whatever were the necessities of the State, the Council took care that its members and officials should be abundantly supplied.

When, in 1629, there was some talk of reforming the Suprema, Philip IV called upon Castañeda, the contador-general, for a detailed statement of the salaries, propinas, bull-fights and illuminations, with their aggregate for each person connected with it, from the inquisitor-general down to the lowest employee, and the same information was required as to the tribunals. As usual the Suprema equivocated and concealed. All that it saw fit to reply was that the salary of a member was 500,000 maravedís, of a consejero de la tarde 166,666, of the royal secretary and receiver-general 200,000 each. ⁽¹¹⁰⁾ We happen to have a detailed statement of the personnel and emoluments of the Suprema at this period which furnishes the information thus withheld from [196] the king. It shows that the salary of the inquisitor-general was 1,100,000 maravedís and the extras 352,920, or in all, 1,452,920. Each of the full members received one half of this, while the consejeros de la tarde had one third of the salary of a full member, one half of his propina and no luminarias. The whole number on the pay-roll was thirty-six; the aggregate of their salaries was 7,152,539 maravedís and of the extras 2,891,088, or in all, 10,043,627, equivalent to 295,400 reales or 26,855 ducats, being about ten-fold the cost of a century earlier. ⁽¹¹¹⁾ Of course, the purchasing power of money had fallen greatly during the interval, but this does not wholly explain the later extravagance. It is observable, moreover that, in the case of the minor subordinates, where the salaries were low, the extras amount to twice as much as the regular pay, and also that as yet there were but three propinas a year and these and the luminarias were the only extras.

A statement of a few years later, probably 1635, may be summarized thus;
 

Salaries	7,644,500 mrs.
Propinas	2,382,900
Luminarias	1,232,875
Allowances to officials for houses, estimated	800,000
Expenses, repairs to houses, estimated	890,000
Expenses, postage, couriers, secret service, estimated	400,000
Total	13,350,275

 

In this for the first time appears the name of the king as a recipient of the propinas and luminarias, with an allowance double that of the inquisitor-general, but though he figured in the estimates he was not paid. ⁽¹¹²⁾ So carefully were these extras [197] observed that when, in 1679 and 1680 the fiestas de toros or bullfights, on the feasts of San Isidro and Santa Ana, were omitted and, in 1680 the Autos Sacramentales of Corpus Christi, the Suprema indemnified itself, in 1680, by distributing 687,276 maravedís, from which we learn that the perquisites of a bullfight amounted to 137,275 and of an exhibition of autos to 144,976. ⁽¹¹³⁾

The terrible condition of the debased currency, known as vellon, at a discount from plata or silver, ranging from 25 to 50 per cent., gave further opportunities for quietly increasing salaries. As a rule, public officials had to take their salaries in the depreciated vellon--the government was obliged to accept it for taxes and to pay it out at its face value. ⁽¹¹⁴⁾ The Suprema, however, computed its salaries in silver and paid in vellon with the discount added. In 1680 the members made a special grant to themselves, for they ordered the salaries to be paid one half in silver and the other half in vellon with a hundred per cent, added, thus in effect doubling their salaries. How often this liberality was repeated it would be impossible now to say; it was not a settled matter, for the receipts in 1681 show a return to the usual practice of payment in vellon with 50 per cent, added. ⁽¹¹⁵⁾ Another device by which the depreciation in vellon was made a pretext for augmenting salaries is shown by the receipts for 1670. Payments were made every three months in advance; the first tercio, on January 1st, and the second on May 1st, were made in vellon with the customary addition of 50 per cent.; then, on September 1st this augmented sum was taken as a basis and 66 2/3 per cent, added, bringing the payment to two and a half times the legitimate amount. ⁽¹¹⁶⁾ The Suprema was not particular as to other devices for increasing its emoluments. In 1659, the birth of the Infante Fernando Thomas served as an excuse for two extra propinas and for five luminarias. ⁽¹¹⁷⁾ In 1690, when it probably was in funds from the confiscations in Majorca, under the transparent pretext of replacing various articles of which it had availed itself, it voted to its members and chief officers 14,160 reales in silver and to the subordinates 8555 in vellon. ⁽¹¹⁸⁾ It was also profuse in gratuities to its employees, as when, in 1670, it voted to Doña Juana de [198] Fita y Ribera--evidently the daughter or niece of its secretary Joseph de Ribera--the handsome pension of four hundred ducats, to enable her to marry. ⁽¹¹⁹⁾ In spite of its perpetual complaints of poverty, it evidently was not an inexpensive department of the government.

The Suprema was none the less liberal in providing for the amusement and gratification of its members, in ghastly contrast with the sources from which the funds were drawn--the confiscations that ruined thousands of industrious and happy families. In fact, it gives us a new conception of the grim tribunal, which held in its hand the life and honor of every Spaniard and had as its motto "Exsurge Domine et vindica causam tuam," to note its careful provision for comfort and enjoyment on festal occasions.

We happen to have the details of the cost of the autos sacramentales performed before the Council on the Corpus Christi feast of 1659, amounting to 2040 reales vellon and 1168 of silver. ⁽¹²⁰⁾ The fiestas de toros, or bull-fights, cost nothing for the performers but were attended with elaborate and somewhat expensive preparations for the enjoyment and refreshment of the members and officials. As there were three or four of these a year, the amusement was costly, but the Suprema did not grudge expense when its own gratification was concerned. As affording an insight into this unexpected aspect of the Holy Office, I give below the items of expenditure for the "toros" of June 5, 1690, amounting to 2067 reales 7 mrs., to which is to be added, as the exhibition was given at the palace of Buen Retiro, the sum of 4400 reales paid to the treasurer of the palace for the use of the balconies occupied [199] by the Council and its servants. ⁽¹²¹⁾ This is a single example of a constant outlay on occasions where the Suprema defrayed the expenses of its members and attendants. They were by no means confined to the toros and autos. In this same year 1690, the [200] Suprema paid 3300 reales for balconies on the Calle Mayor from which to see the new queen, Maria Anna of Neuburg, when she entered Madrid. ⁽¹²²⁾

In addition to salaries and extra emoluments, the officials of the Suprema had a fertile source of income from the fees which they were entitled to charge. Every act or certificate or paper made out was paid for by the party applying for it, in the multitudinous business flowing in to the Council, from applicants for favors, examinations into limpieza or purity of blood, or in the perpetual litigation subject to its extensive jurisdiction. From the fiscal and his clerk, who levied upon all documents passing through his hands, down to the portero who had his recognized fee for serving a summons, every one was entitled to charge for the services pertaining to his office. According to the arancel, or fee bill, issued in 1642, the secretaries were entitled to twenty reales for every grace issued--licences to read prohibited books, commutations of penance, dispensations and the hundred other matters in which the Suprema alone could grant favors. The secretario de camara, or private secretary of the inquisitor-general, had a fee for every commission issued--on one for an inquisitor or fiscal, he collected a hundred reales, besides eight for his clerk, on those for minor offices a doubloon and eight reales for his clerk, and so on, and these, according to the arancel of Cardinal Giudice, were payable in silver. ⁽¹²³⁾ Burdensome as were these legalized fees, the limitations of the arancel were not enforced and complaints of imposition were constant. The members of the Suprema had not this source of income, but, as a rule, they held lucrative benefices with dispensation for non-residence.
 

The Suprema could not be thus lavish in its expenditures without an assured and steady source of income. It no longer was dependent on what it could call from one tribunal or another, for it had so persistently utilized its control over their funds as to accumulate for itself an amount of invested capital the interest on which went far to meet its regular requirements, the deficiency being made up by contributions from the tribunals, especially those of the colonies. These latter had become very productive. Besides accumulating large capital for themselves, they were able [201] to make heavy remittances to Spain. Mexico and Lima were expected to furnish regularly 10,000 ducats a year and this was frequently exceeded. Even from Cartagena de las Indias the Suprema received, in 1653 and 1654, more than 100,000 pesos. ⁽¹²⁴⁾ About 1675, we chance to hear of a remittance of 40,000 pesos (about 29,000 ducats) of which Lima furnished 10,000 and Mexico 30,000. ⁽¹²⁵⁾

An estimate of income and outlay, of about the year 1635, shows that the Suprema held securities of various kinds bringing in an annual return as follows:
 

Assignments on the public revenues	7,497,703 mrs.
In the hands of the Fuccares (Fuggers) awaiting investment, 2,618,200, @ 5 pr. ct.	130, 900
Censos	2,210,625
Total	9,839,228

 

Against this its regular expenses were estimated at 13,350,275, which, with a sum of 1,353,625 that it had been ordered to pay to Cardinal Zapata, the late inquisitor-general, left a deficit of 4,864,672, or 12,966 ducats. ⁽¹²⁶⁾ This it could have had no trouble in making up from the tribunals at home and in the colonies, besides such amounts as might still come in from confiscations.

In the period of storm and stress for some twelve years, commencing with 1640, the incessant demands of the king unquestionably caused the Suprema some trouble. Already, in 1640, we find it borrowing considerable sums, but its resources were large and, about 1657, a statement of its indebtedness amounts, reduced to silver, only to 14,500 ducats. Against this may be set a list of investments and sources of income, yielding a revenue of 18,500,000 maravedís or 50,000 ducats, showing what power of accumulation it had possessed, in spite of the troublous times through which it had passed. ⁽¹²⁷⁾ All this was clear interest on investment securities except 10,000 ducats from the colonial tribunals, about 2000 ducats estimated to come in from confiscations, etc., and 200,000 maravedís from the Fabrica de Sevilla. This latter item merits a word of explanation. In 1626, the Castle of Triana, occupied by the Seville tribunal, was threatened [202] with ruin by an inundation. In view of the heavy cost of repairs, in 1627, it was determined to meet this by imposing for three years, on every calificador appointed, a fee of 10 ducats, on every commissioner and familiar 5, and on every notary 4. The three years passed away but the charge was continued and, in 1640, it was extended to a number of other minor positions, both salaried and unsalaried. The repairs had long been finished but the Suprema coolly appropriated the income as part of its regular resources and kept it to the end. In 1790 the receipts from Valencia amounted to 27 1/2 libras, and an allusion to it in 1817 shows that the Fabrica de Sevilla was still collected. ⁽¹²⁸⁾

In 1743, Philip V made an effort to reduce the excessive number of officials and expenses of the Inquisition and some other departments, but he was unable to withstand the conservative influences brought to bear. It was probably in connection with this that an elaborate statement of the resources and expenditures of the Suprema was prepared. The work of the Inquisition by this time had shrunk virtually to censorship of the press and punishing bigamists, soliciting confessors, blasphemers, diviners, wise-women and incautious utterers of suspicious propositions, but its machinery was as ponderous and costly as ever. The pay-roll of the Suprema counted forty names whose salaries and emoluments aggregated in round numbers 64,000 ducats, to which were added the expenses of the Madrid tribunal, dependent on the Suprema, and other estimated outlays amounting to 12,000, making a total of 76,000 ducats. Its annual revenue was stated at 51,000 ducats, leaving a deficit of 25,000. ⁽¹²⁹⁾

How this was made good does not appear; possibly there was concealment in the statement of resources, for the Suprema does [203] not seem to have curtailed its liberalities, and a salary list of 1764 shows that there had been no change in the pay and emoluments, except that the number of officials had increased to forty-one. ⁽¹³⁰⁾

The financial condition of the whole Inquisition, however, was seriously compromised by royal orders, from 1794 onward, requiring investments to be sold and the proceeds to be placed in government securities to aid in defraying the costs of the wars, in which Spain became involved, with France and then with Portugal and England. ⁽¹³¹⁾ The virtual bankruptcy of the monarchy and the destruction consequent on the Napoleonic wars naturally reduced it to the greatest straits, the results of which will be seen when we come to investigate its finances as a whole.
 

Considering the liberal salary and allowances which, in the eighteenth century, amounted to 4030 ducats for each full member, the labor was not heavy. The council held daily sessions of three hours in the morning and, on three days of the week--Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays--a two hours' session in the afternoon at which were present the two auxiliary members from the Council of Castile, who received 1400 ducats. The pay of the inquisitor-general was nearly 7000 ducats, ⁽¹³²⁾ besides which he usually held a bishopric and the members some comfortable preferment. The meetings of the Council were originally held in the apartments of the inquisitor-general, until the accession of Philip IV, when the house of the condemned favorite, Rodrigo Calderon, was purchased for it and became its permanent office. ⁽¹³³⁾

1. Potthast, Regesta, No. 23,302.

2. Biliario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I de copias, fol. 118, 137.--Archivo de Simancas, Gracia y Justicia, Inquisicion, Legajo 629.

3. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 72, fol. 45, 49, 80, 81, 103.

4. Ibidem, Gracia y Justicia, Inquisicion, Legajo 621, fol. 63.--Cf. Eymerici Director. P. III, Q. vi.--Simancas de Cath. Institt. Tit. xxxiv, 14.

5. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 50, fol. 82.--Ibidem, Sala 39, Leg. 4, fol. 57.

6. Archivo hist, nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Cartas del Consejo, Leg. 15, n. 11, fol. 30; Leg. 16, n. 6, fol. 33; no. 9, fol. 17, 26.

7. Arguello, fol. 9.

8. See Vol. I, Appendix, p. 578.

9. Arguello, fol. 22.

10. Arguello, fol. 9.In the Simancas copy of these Instructions (Lib. 933) it is one of the inquisitors, or the assessor, to whom the duty was assigned.

11. Ibidem, fol. 13.

12. Arguello, fol. 16, 20, 23.

13. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 933, p. 89.

14. Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I de copias, fol. 219.

15. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 72, fol. 49.

16. Archivo de Alcalá, Estado, Leg. 3137.

17. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 9, fol. 68; Lib. 72, fol. 45.

During the separation of the Inquisitions each of course had its Suprema, and even after their union under Adrian the particularist tendencies of the kingdoms kept up for some time distinct organizations. Adrian continued to sign as inquisitor-general for Aragon in all business under that crown (Archivo de Simancas, Libro 940, fol. 190). The two councils continued to keep their organizations complete, except that one relator served for both (Ibidem, fol. 188, 191; Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 98). Even as late as 1540 we have seen that payments for Aragon required special powers from the king (Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 107). To the last there were two secretaries, one for Castile and one for Aragon (Ibidem, Lib. 940, fol. 65-7).

18. Ibidem, Lib. 940, fol. 53.

19. Ibidem, Lib. 5, fol. 21.

20. Salazar y Mendoza, Crónica del Cardenal Juan Tavera, p. 217 (Toledo, 1603).

21. Páramo, p. 150.

22. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 31, fol. 34.

23. Ibidem, Gracia y Justicia, Legajo 624, fol. 181.

24. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Registro de Genealogías, n. 916, fol. 66.

25. Ibidem, Lib. 5, fol. 29; Lib. 73, fol. 52, 100, 115, 142, 143, 144, 182, 193, 240, 315; Lib. 74, fol. 116.

26. Ibidem, Lib. 76, fol. 227, 235.

27. Ibidem, Libro 939, fol. 136; Sala 40, Libro 4, fol. 104, 115.

28. Arguello, fol. 27.

29. Cabrera, Relaciones, Append, p. 571.

30. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 31, fol. 34.

31. Libro xiii de Cartas (MSS. of Am. Philos. Society).

32. Archivo hist, nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 1, n. 4. Under Rocaberti, in 1696, there is still another formula "El ex^mo señor inquisidor-general con consulta de los señores del consejo.--Ibidem, fol. 194.

33. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol. 136.--MSS. of Royal Library of Copenhagen, 218^b, p. 320.

34. Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 544² (Lib. 10).--MSS. of Royal Library of Copenhagen, 218^b, p. 341.

35. Bibl. nacional, MSS., Pp, 28, 58-88.

36. Tomás Sánchez, the supreme Spanish theologian, says " Licitum quoque est interrogare, non deprecative sed coactive, aliquam veritatem ad peculiariam Dei gloriara et astantium utilitatem quando adjurans prudenter judicaverit id expedire . . . Ex levitate tamen et curiositate quadam res vanas etinutiles interrogare dsemonem in energúmeno existente m est veníale propter actus imperfectionem."--In Pracepta Decalogi Lib. ii, cap. xiii, n. 24, 25.

The offence of Villanueva consisted in enquiring about the future and believing the responses of the demons. This was divination, which infers denial of free-will and is therefore forbidden as heretical. This is well defined in the Edict of Faith of 1696, which restricts the offence to enquiries as to the future--"O si sabeis . . . que alguna ó algunas personas ayan preguntado en los cuerpos endemoniados ó los espiritados ó lunáticos cosas por venir ocultas, preguntándolas á los demonios."

37. S. Th. Aquinat. Summae Sec. See. Q. xcv, Art. iv ad 1. "Aliud autem est inquirere aliquid a drrmone sponte occurrente; quod quandoque licet propter utilitatem aliorum, máxime quando divina virtute potest compelli ad vera dicenda."

38. MSS. Bibl. nacional de Lima, Protocolo 225, Expediente 5278.

39. For most of the details of this case we are indebted to an anonymous memoir, evidently written by Folch de Cardona. It was largely circulated in MS. and finally was printed by Valladares, in 1788, under the title "Proceso criminal fulminado contra el R^mo P. M. Fray Froilan Díaz" and was followed by another volume of the same date " Críticos Documentos que sirven como de segunda parte al Proceso criminal etc."

Consultas by Cardona, in the name of the Suprema, are in the Bibl. nacional MSS., G, 61; D, 118. A review of the case from the Roman standpoint is in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, Class 3, Vol. 27. The decree of Nov. 3, 1704, is also in Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 1465, fol. 74.

40. Archivo hist, nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 1, n. 4, fol. 123, 134; Leg. 13, n. 2, fol. 13, 17, 54.

41. MSS. Trinity College, Dublin, loc. cit.

42. Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. 5, fol. 137.

43. Bibl. nacional, MSS., G, 61, fol. 203.

44. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 933, fol. 136.

45. Ibidem, Lib. 939, fol. 936.

46. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol, 105.

47. Ibidem, Lib. 1; Lib. 933.

48. Ibidem, Lib. 76, fol. 114.

49. Ibidem, Lib. 78, fol. 235, 275.

50. MS. penes me.

51. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 191; Lib. 98, fol. 144.

52. Arguello, fol. 36.

53. Archivo de Simancas, Visitas de Barcelona, Leg. 15, fol. 20.

54. Ibidem, Libro 939, fol. 121.

55. MSS. of Library of University of Halle, Y^e, 20, T. I.

56. Proceso contra Mari Vaez (MS. penes me).

57. MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Y^e, 20, T. VIII.

58. Ibidem, Y^e, 20, T. III.

59. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 1157, fol. 153-55.

60. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 81, fol. 27.

61. MSS. of the Royal Library of Copenhagen, 218k, p. 252.--Archivo hist, nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 8, n. 2, fol. 533, 547, 553, 667; Leg. 9, n. 2, fol. 234; Leg. 12, n. 2, fol. 126; Leg. 11, n. 1, fol. 247, 278.--Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 5442, Lib. 6, Lib. 10.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion,Sala 39, Leg. 4, fol. 23--Libro xiii de Cartas, fol. 266, 274-5 (MSS. of Am. Philos. Society).

62. MSS. of the Royal Library of Copenhagen, 218^b, p. 185

63. Archivo hist, nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 17, n. 3, fol. 18.-- Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 559.

64. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 240, fol. 340.

65. Ibidem, Leg. 522.

66. Archivo hist, nacional, Inquisicion, de Valencia Leg. 10, n 2, fol. 34.

67. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Leg. 552, fol. 52.

68. Vol. I, Appendix, p. 580.

69. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol. 105.

70. Ibidem, fol. 89.

71. Ibidem, fol. 105.--MSS. of Royal Library of Copenhagen, 218^b, p. 242.

72. Instrucciones Nuevas, 5 (Arguello, fol. 28).

73. MSS. of Royal Library of Copenhagen, loc. cit.

74. Bibl. nacional, MSS., Pp, 28.

75. Bibl. nacional, MSS., Mm, 130.

76. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 890.

77. Ibidem.

78. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Leg. 552.

79. Proceso contra Margarita Altamira, fol. 198-99 (MSS. of Am. Philos. Society).

80. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 890.

81. Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I de copias, fol. 219.

82. Archivo de Simancas, Gracia y Justicia, Inquisicion, Lib. 621, fol. 165.

83. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 5, fol. 24.

84.Ibidem, Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 99.

85. Ibidem, Lib. 77. fol. 354.

86. Ibidem, Sala 40, Lib. 4. fol. 105.

87. Archivo de Alcalá, Estado, Leg. 3137.

88. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 79, fol. 173.

89. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol. 135.

90. Ibidem, Lib. 3, fol. 225, 313.

91. Ibidem, Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 227; Visitas de Barcelona, Leg. 15, fol. 20.

92. MSS. of Royal Library of Copenhagen, 218^b, p. 212.

93. Archivo hist, nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 9, n. 1, fol. 7, 8, 9, 13, 19, 276, 277, 278; n. 3, fol. 142, 2.53, 259, 320, 323, 324, 332; Leg. 17, n. 10, fol. 47, 81, 99.--Libro xiii de Cartas, fol. 11 (MSS. of Am. Philos. Soc.).

94. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol. 132.--Archivo hist, nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 5, n. 2, fol. 165, 166.

95. Libro XIII de Cartas, fol. 84, 89, 114 (MSS. of Am. Philos. Society).

96. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib 890; Lib. 435²

97. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 5, fol. 15, 21.

98. Ibidem, Lib. 3, fol. 397, 446; Lib. 940, fol. 34; Lib. 5, fol. 6, 16, 21. Cf. Lib. 9, fol. 27, 66, 192.

For the settlement in 1502, see Lib. 2, fol. 35.

99. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 73, fol. 106, 107.

100. Ibidem, Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 107, 110, 113, 114, 115, 118, 137, 139, etc.-- Archivo hist, nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Lib. vii de Autos, Leg. 2, fol. 327; Ibidem, Leg. 10, n. 2, fol. 164.

101. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 184.

102. Ibidem, fol. 124, 226; Lib. 940, fol. 41, 43, 184.

103. Archivo hist, nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 9, n. 2, fol. 177, 238; Leg. 14, n. 2, fol. 41.

104. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 940, fol. 43, 44.

105. Ibidem, Lib. 559.

106. Ibidem, Lib. 9, fol. 8.

107. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 78, fol. 192; Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 169, 239.

As a contribution to the life of one to whom all Spanish students owe a debt of gratitude, I print Zurita's petition in the Appendix. He was probably well paid for his services; in 1542 there is an order on the receiver of Aragon to pay him an ayuda de costa, or gratuity, of 600 ducats (Ibidem, Lib. 940, fol. 42).

There was a secretary of the Suprema, in 1519, named Gerónimo Zurita-- probably an uncle of the historian (Arch. hist, nacional, Inq. de Valencia, Leg. 371).

108. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 5, fol. 6, 16, 21.

109. Bibl. nacional, MSS., D, 150, p. 224.

110. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 30, fol. 647, 653.

111. Archivo de Simancas, Lib. 940, fol. 205.

112. Ibidem, Lib. 31, fol. 637.--These royal perquisites were quietly left unpaid until, in 1640, Philip in his distress suddenly remembered them and ordered the receiver to render a statement of the amount due to him, until the settlement of which no other payments were to be made. To this the Suprema replied that orders had been given for its immediate settlement. This was more easily said than done, for three months later it represented that it had responded liberally to his demands; it had paid 35,000 reales of the arrearages and hoped to increase the amount to 40,000 and begged to be forgiven the balance, but the king was obdurate.--Ibidem, Lib. 21, fol. 223, 231. The crown continued to share in these perquisites. In 1670, an order for paying luminarias on the accession of Clement IX, is headed by Carlos II for the amount of 114,240 mrs.--Ibidem, Leg. 1476, fol. 7.

113. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Leg. 1480, fol. 1.

114. Ibidem, Lib. 21, fol. 252.

115. Ibidem, Leg. 1480, fol. 1, 10, 16.

116. Ibidem, Leg. 1476, fol. 7.

117. Ibidem, Leg. 1475, fol. 1, 2, 4, 19.

118. Ibidem, Leg. 1477, fol. 154.

119. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Leg. 1477, fol. 45.

120. The vellon payments were 1940 reales for erecting the staging and 100 for stretching the awning. The items in silver were for
 

the companies of players	516 reales
the authors of the autos	500
the keepers of the wardrobe	16
the dancers	48
three coaches for the players	24
Juan Rana	32
three alguaziles	32

Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Leg. 1475, fol. 52.

In 1665, to reduce expenses, Philip IV ordered that these autos should not be performed separately before each royal council, but collectively before them all in the plaza.--Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 544² (Lib. 10).

121. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Leg. 1477, fol. 95, 100.

The items of the account are:--
 

Item	Rs.	Mrs.
95 lbs. Genoese sweetmeats @ 10 1/2 RS. vellon	1008
32 Talavera dishes @ 5 cuatros	18	28
4 baskets @ 7 1/2 Rs.	30
6 trays @ 2	12
4 padlocks for the baskets @ 2 1/2	10
32 glasses @ 9 cuartos	33	30
6 Venetian glasses for members of the council	34
2 Talavera plates	10
4 Double urinals with their covers @ 3 Rs.	12
30 lbs. of ordinary sweetmeats and biscuits for the attendants @ 5 Rs.	150
Porters to carry the sweetmeats to the houses of the officials and the utensils to Buen Retiro	15
Beverages:
20 Azumbres (about 10 gallons) of lemonade:
10 lbs. of loaf sugar @ 3 Rs.	30
Lemons	6
1 oz. of scented lozenges	4
20 Azumbres of cherry water:
15 lbs. of sugar	45
18 lbs. of cherries @ 6 cuartos	13
1 oz. of scented lozenges	4
10 Arrobas (250 lbs.) Of snow for all the beverages @ 9 Rs.	90
1 Arroba sent from Retiro to keep the jars from melting	9
Rent of 14 garrafas (jars with ice-pails) @ 3 1/2 Rs.	49
Cost of some of them broken	12
Rent of 3 small ones for the council	3
3 pecks of salt to freeze the beverages @ 22 cuatros	10	17
2 porters for the snow and cooling jars	10
8 do. to take them to Retiro and return	24
Labor of the official who renders the account	50
Total:	433	17
Ornamenting and furnishing the staging	300
Total:	2067	7

Apparently the utensils were a perquisite of the attendants as they seem to be furnished anew on each occasion.

122. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Leg. 1477, fol. 106.

123. Bibl. nacional, MSS., D, 122 (Modo de procesar, fol. 10-12); Ibidem, D, 150, fol. 1.--Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 544 2 (Lib. 9).

124. J. T. Medina, La Inquisicion en Cartagena, p. 266 (Santiago de Chile, 1899).

125. MSS. of Bibl. nacional de Lima, Protocolo 225, Expediente 5278.

126. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 31, fol. 637.

127. Ibidem, Lib. 21, fol. 231.--Bibl. nacional, MSS., D, 150, p. 224.

128. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 240, fol. 360; Lib. 559.--MSS. of Royal Library of Copenhagen, 218b, p. 180.--Archivo hist, nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Cartas del Consejo, Leg. 16, n. 9, fol. 7.

129. Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 544² (Libro 10). This statement shows
 

Item	Reales	Mrs.
Salaries of Suprema	337,274	28
The three larger propinas	157,290
The five smaller do.	73,836	32
Tablados (bull-fights)	21,000
Houses for officials	65,156
Nine luminarias	50,618	5
Salaries of Madrid Tribunal	24, 258	12
Maintenance of poor prisoners (estimated)	3,000
Sundry expenses of Suprema	30,000
Ayudas de costa and gratuities	8,000
To assist Tribunal of Toledo and others	50,000
Taxes and incumbrances on property	17,500
Total	837,934	9

130. Archivo de Simancas, Inq., Leg. 1286, fol. 20; Leg. 1478, fol. 1-41, 61-87.

131. Archivo hist, nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 16, n. 9, fol. 20; Leg. 17, n. 4, fol. 7; Leg. 4, n. 3, fol. 173-258.

132. Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 544 2 (Lib. 10).

133. Llorente, Añales, I. 282.