 Section 15, Book 4, Chapter 1, Part 2 of The History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 2. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. The History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 2 by Henry Charles Lee. Book 4 Organization, Chapter 1, Part 2. The Inquisitor General and Supreme Council. Carlos was industriously stripped and anointed and purged and prayed over, but to no purpose saved 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 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 Fre Morotenda, who secretly exercised 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, Roguberty died, with suspicious opportuneness, June 19, 1699. This failed to relieve her, for soon afterwards three endimianadas in Madrid were found confirming the story and implicating both her and the former Queen Regent. Her wrath was boundless, and she vowed Freyfreulan's destruction, for which the Inquisition offered the readiest means. To this end she sought to induce Carlos to appoint in Roguberty's place Frey Antonio Foch 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 Foch 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 paper 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 artum, 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 enfeeble that the Queen obtained from him the appointment of Baltazar 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 was against the Austrian exorciser Freitenda, who was arrested in January 1700 on a different charge, but under examination he described the revelations of the Madrid-Dimionax, made in Freulan's presence, and he escaped with abjuration to Levi and banishment. Freulan 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 Arguell at Cangas the letters of Freulan, on the strength of which he promptly accused him to the Suprema in the name of the Order, to which Freulan answered that he had acted under Rocoberti's order at the pressing instance of the King, in what was sanctioned by Aquinas and other doctors. Mendoza informed the King that Freulan was accused of a grave offense, 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, Freulan obeyed Mendoza's order to but take 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 Euseida, then ambassador, was speedily obtained ordering the arrest of Freulan 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 emured 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 in 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 8, 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 cooperation. In a gust of passion 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. Foch 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 Migueles, one of the members, who talked freely, was arrested one night in August and hurried off to the Jesuit College in Compostela, 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 Froylan 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 Froylan there and confined him in a cell of the Dominican House of Nuestra Señora de Otocha, 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 1st, 1700, appointing in his will Philip Avanjou 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 or kept in reclusion, but were finally liberated. Mendoza, who belonged to the Austrian faction, was relegated to his sea of Segovia, but this brought no redress to Froylan. 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, he appealed to the Pope, to whom he sent an abstract of the proceedings. Clement XI was delighted with the 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. The paper had been prepared in answer to one by Foch 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 Demionics 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. 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 Froylon Diaz. 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 Froylon'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 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 Froylon'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 Froylon 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 Froylon'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 8th and 29th, 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 anyone of such lofty station, when both withdrew and one of them, or someone 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 Froylon Diaz 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 Princess Dersong, 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 once he was actively fomenting resistance to Philip. Mendoza notoriously 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 72 hours, to deliver to the Suprema all the papers concerning Froylon Diaz 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 Froylon, 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. Froylon Diaz was duly reinstated in the Suprema and we find his signatures to its letters at least until 1712. In reward of his sufferings, Philip nominated him to the Sea 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 at last his jurisdiction over the matter. Philip held good and would make no other nomination until after Froylon's death, the sea remaining vacant from 1705 until it was filled by Julian Cano Itovar in 1714. As for Mendoza, he was obliged to resign the Inquisitor General ship 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 sea. 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 Sea of Sueda, who had distinguished himself in 1704 by his gallant defense of that place against the English fleet that had just arrived. 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 soul 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 his hereby declare to be null and void. 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 Habsburgs. The exhortation to reassert the supremacy of the inquisitor-general ship fell upon deaf ears, and the rule in the Suprema continued to be what Foch 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. 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 cherry about confiding its secret documents to the postman. 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 special request of the queen. Where there was not unanimity, however, a reference to some higher authority was essential, and we have seen that, in 1488, Torquemata ordered that all such cases should be sent to him to be decided in the Suprema, and, in 1507, Zeminis went further and required all cases in which the accused did not confess to be sent to the council. 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 for its decision, the costs attendant on these references were not small, for we happened to meet with an order, May 23, 1501, to pay to inquisitor Mercado 100 dukots for his expenses and sickness while at 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 party should be represented by council. 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. 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. In 1543 the case of a Mariska, named Mare Gómez la Ceceda, 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. 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 a final decision, and, in a recrew-descence of the epidemic between 1545 and 1550, it required all sentences of relaxation to be sent to it, even when unanimous. 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. 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 and 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 victim's 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 occurrence 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. 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, Accarta Accordata, of June 22nd, ordered that even when sentences of relaxation were voted unanimously, the process should be sent to the Suprema for its action. From this time forward, its intervention, on one score or another, gradually increased. From the records of the Tribunal of Toledo, between 1575 and 1610, it appears that it intervened in 228 cases out of 1172, or substantially in 1 out of 5, while in only 82 of these cases, or 1 out of 14, was their discordia, sometimes as to arrest and trial, sometimes as to torture, but mostly as to the final sentence. End of Book 4, Chapter 1, Part 2, recording by Kathleen Nelson, Austin, Texas, September 2010. Book 4, Chapter 1, Part 3 of The History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 2. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. The History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 2 by Henry Charles Lee. Book 4, Organization, Chapter 1, Part 3, The Inquisitor General and Supreme Council. 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 Mare Valles, condemned in 1594 to relaxation and effigy, the two are Vigil de Cuignones and Mendoza, whose names are inscribed on the back of the sentence and under them the word husta, on the strength of which the secretary writes the formal letter to the tribunal, ending with Hagiaz Senores Hustia, the customary formula of confirmation. As might be expected, the degree of scrutiny exercised in the performance of this duty was variable. In the case of Jacques Cretancian 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 Grenada for the rectification of this irregularity, but this exactitude was of no benefit to the sufferer. On the other hand, Pedro Flamenco was tortured in Toledo at 10 a.m., June 10, 1570, after which the Consulta de Fay 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 dispatched 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. Again, delays attributable only to negligence were not infrequent. Diego de Horosco 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 instruction about the cases of volonso sounds and Francisco Coquen, which had been previously forwarded. No reply was received for more than a month when the tribunal wrote again, October 14, that it was anxious to hold in Otto de Fay. This brought the prompt answer to Torcha Horosco and execute justice in accordance with the result. Besides this direct intervention there grew up a watchfulness over the proceedings of the tribunals through their reports of Otto's de Fay 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. 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. Even the requests for information, made by one tribunal of another, were required, by an order of 1635, to be the subject of regular reports by the fiscal every four months. 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. 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. Acarta Accordata of August 2, 1625 ordered that no sentence of scourging, galleys, public penance, or verguenza, should be executed until the process was submitted to the Suprema. 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. 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. 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 merivades 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. Simple arrest by the Inquisition was in itself an inflection 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, whether they make an arrest, to send to the Inquisitor General by their messenger the accusation with the testimony in full, the number of witnesses, and the character of the accused. This salutary check on the irresponsible power of the Inquisitors was too cumbersome 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. 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. 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. The instructions of 1561 order consultation with the Suprema before arresting persons of quality, or when the case is otherwise important, 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. 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 Sumeria, or summary of evidence, must be well drawn up and submitted to the Suprema with the votes of the inquisitors. 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 18th century tertially describes the conditions, telling us that the inquisitors determine nothing without the orders of the council, so that when they draw up the Sumerias, in cases of faith, they submit them, and, on their way to the Suprema, they submit them, and, on their way to the Suprema, they submit them, and, on their way to the Suprema, they submit them. They do not sentence, but only append their opinions to the processes, and the council decides. 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 de Zerres, tried for Bigamy, the Sumeria was made up by the Commissioner of Zerres, 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 civil inquisitors were reduced to transmitting the papers and keeping the records. 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 Bachelere, 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 offense, if it desired to escape serious action. So, when the fiscal of the same tribunal remonstrated against in order to remove Caetano 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. To this had shrunk the inquisitor, before whom, in the old days, bishops and magnets 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 which it had grasped. In the valedolid records of the 17th 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 in a special tenderness for the offenses of the clergy. 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 autodefe, to abjure de Levi, and 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. 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. As the functions of the tribunals thus gradually shrink 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. 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. 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 Calahora, 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. 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. 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. That, by this time, at least its concurrence had become essential, would appear from the modification, on appeal by Juan Gomez, from a sentence imposed by the Valencia Tribunal, when the letter was signed both by Inquisitor General Tovera and the members of the Council. When, as we have seen, the secular courts endeavored to entertain appeals in cases of confiscation and matters not strictly of faith, Prince Philip Sedgula 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. 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 Vedama, appealed from the sentence of the Valencia Tribunal, condemning the memory and fame of her deceased mother Beatrice Vedama. On March 8, Inquisitor General Valdez 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 12, in the presence of Valdez, 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 Valdez, but only by three members of the Council, which indicates that his signature was unnecessary. When he was held simply to have a vote, like every other member, he could claim no special authority as to appeals, and, with the gradual intervention of the Suprema in all 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. 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 the 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. 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. In 1569, a general order specified in minute detail the trifling matters of daily necessity for which they could make disbursements. For everything else referenced first must be made to the Suprema. 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. 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. Among the perquisites of the officials was that they were furnished with mourning on occasions of public mourning, and Accarta Accordata 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. So, in 1665, on the death of Philip IV, Dr. Palladio Junkar, one of the physicians of the Tribunal of Barcelona, asked for an allowance such as had been given to his colleague, Dr. Marouk, whereupon the Suprema called for a report as to the cost of the mourning given to Dr. Marouk 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. 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. 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 Sumeria of Miguel Vilevicensio, 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 not only be charged with the excess of postage, but would be severely punished. 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 concurrently by both. This, after the death of Ferdinand practically passed into their hands, except when Charles, in his early years, made grants to his courtiers from the confiscations. All that was gathered in by the laborers 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 Horos, or Assignment on the Taxes, held by the latter. Of these, the holdings of the Seville Tribunal amounted to 500,000 merivades 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. Cordova suffered less from this, for that Tribunal held only 103,000 merivades of income, 63,000 on the Alcavala of Meal, 16,000 on that of Wine, and 24,000 on that of Fruit. 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 to separate from that of Aragon, its payroll aggregated 750,000 merivades, with 340,000 additional for Ayudas de Costa, or in all, 1,090,000, without counting Inquisitor General Zeminis, who seems to have disdained the emoluments of his office. This large sum, the Receiver of Seville, Pedro de Velasís, was required to defray in 1515, while in 1516 the demand fell upon Guilastegui, Receiver of Toledo. In 1517 the salaries were paid by Seville and the Ayuda de Costa by Toledo, and in 1518 by Valencia. 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 Sedgulas to all the Receivers of Castile and Aragon to pay whatever the Inquisitor General and Suprema should order. 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 Menrique, naturally passed into the hands of the Council. Under his successor Tvera, orders were sometimes drawn in his name and countersigned by the members of the Council, and sometimes all referenced 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. End of Book 4, Chapter 1, Part 3. Recording by Kathleen Nelson, Austin, Texas, September 2010. Book 4, Chapter 1, Part 4 of The History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 2. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. The History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 2 by Henry Charles Lee. Book 4, Organization. Chapter 1, Part 4. The Inquisitor General and Supreme Council. 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 Viodolid in 1549, it demanded 2,000 ducats from that tribunal for its payroll. It seems to have made an attempt to levy a settled contribution on Saragosa, 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 Loase, 15,000 Maravedes, a year for making the collection. After an interval of 10 years in 1557, it demanded of Saragosa 10,000 sueldos, or 400 ducats, a year toward its payroll. 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. In 1559, a people grant of 100,000 ducats, on the ecclesiastical revenues of Spain, kept in its funds for a while, and when the tribunals of the colonies were fairly in operation, they contributed largely. But, in the 18th century, we still find it drawing upon the tribunals, although it had accumulated a considerable invested capital, yielding a handsome income. While thus caring for itself, it also looked after the tribunals which were less fortunate than their fellows, treating the prophets of all as a common fund to be distributed at its discretion. These transfers were incessant, as examples of them may be cited in order. In 1562, to Viadolid, to pay 1,000 ducats to Barcelona, which was deeply in debt. And, in 1565, Murcia was called upon to give it 400,000 moravedes for its salaries. Murcia, at this time, seems to have struck a rich vein of confiscations. For, in 1567, it was required to contribute 1,500 ducats for the salaries of Valencia. Barcelona continued in trouble. There were few heretics there, and its chief business was quarreling with the people, which was not productive financially. So, in 1579, Yarena was required to give it 500 ducats towards its payroll. And, in 1586, Saville, Murcia, and Yarena were ordered to furnish 500 ducats each for the same purpose. The expulsion of the moriscos, in 1609, 1610, brought Valencia to destitution. And, in 1612, Granada and Saville were obliged to lend it 1,000 ducats apiece. 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, Mallorca was required to furnish over 400,000 reales to La Gronio, and La Gronio 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. A necessary feature of this financial control was the centralization of the Suprema of its 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 Contador General or Auditor of the Council. The efficiency of this system was marred by habitual vices of maladministration and the hesitation to punish offenders, of which a petition of this historian, Heronimo Surita, affords us a glimpse. In 1538, he was made Secretary or Escribano de Camara of the Suprema. In 1548, Inquisitor General Valdez gave this place to Juan de Valdez, presumably a kinsman, and Surita was transferred to the Contadoria General for Aragón. In a petition presented May 2, 1560, he represents that he has served the 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 or embarrassing, all of which he had straightened out with the utmost care, rejecting, for the service of the Holy Office, opportunities affording him better prospects. And now the only reward he asks is that his son, Miguel Zurita, a youth of eighteen, may be adjoined to him as an assistant, a moderate prayer which was granted. 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 payroll 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, and Al Guizal, 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 payroll including the Ayuda de Costa of 1,090,000 Maravedes, or a little less than 3,000 Ducats. In the 17th 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 purborres a year, on the days of San Isidro, May 15th, San Juan, June 24th, and Santa Ana, July 26th, and five smaller ones called Manueles on certain other feasts. There were also luminarias, or reimbursement, for the cost of the frequent illuminations publicly ordered, which seemed 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 bullfights, which were celebrated on the days of the three chief propinas, sometimes replaced 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 Martyr, of an aroba, 25 pounds, of sugar to the Inquisitor General, half an aroba to the members, and a quarter to the subordinates, making in all nine arobas. In 1657 we learned that sugar was worth 161 reales per aroba, making an annual outlay for this purpose of 2900 reales. 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 Castaneda, the Contador General, for a detailed statement on the salaries, propinas, bullfights 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 Maravedis, of a Concejero de Atarde, 166,666, of the Royal Secretary and Receiver General, 200,000 each. We happen to have a detailed statement of the personnel and emolument of the Suprema at this period, which furnishes the information thus withheld from the King. It shows that the salary of the Inquisitor General was 1,100,000 Maravedis, and the extras 352,920, or in all 1,452,920. Each of the full members received one half of this, while the Concejero de Atarde had one third of the salary of a full member, one half of his propina, and no luminaries. The whole number on the payroll was 36. The aggregate of their salaries was 7,152,539 Maravedis, and of the extras 2,891,088, or in all 10,043,627, equivalent to the 295,400 Reales, or 26,855 Ducats. Being about tenfold the cost of a century earlier. Of course, the purchasing power of money had fallen greatly during the interval, but this does not wholly explain the latter 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 luminaries were the only extras. A statement of a few years earlier, probably 1635, may be summarized thus. Salaries 7,644,500 Maravedis, propinas 2,382,900, luminaries 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 luminaries, with an allowance double that of the inquisitor general. But though he figured in the estimates, he was not paid. So carefully were these extras observed, that when, in 1679 and 1680, the fiestas de Toros, or bullfights, on the feasts of Sanicidro and Santa Ana, were omitted. And in 1680, the autos sacramentales of Corpus Christi, the Suprema indemnified itself in 1680 by distributing 687,276 Maravedis, from which we learn that the perquisites of a bullfight amounted to 137,275, and of an exhibition of autos to 144,976. The terrible condition of the debased currency, known as veillon, at a discount from plata or silver, ranging from 25 to 50%, gave further opportunities for quietly increasing salaries. As a rule, public officials had to take their salaries in the depreciated veillon. The government was obliged to accept it for taxes and to pay out at its face value. The Suprema, however, computed its salaries in silver and paid in veillon 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 veillon with a hundred percent 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 veillon with 50% added. Another device by which the depreciation in veillon was made a pretext for augmenting salaries is shown by the receipts for 1670. Payments were made every three months in advance, the first terzio, on January 1, and the second on May 1, were made in veillon with the customary addition of 50%. Then, on September 1, this augmented sum was taken as a basis and 66¾% added, bringing the payment to two and a half times the legitimate amount. The Suprema was not particular as to other devices for increasing its emoluments. In 1659, the birth of the Infante Fernando Tomás served as an excuse for two extra propinas and for five luminarius. In 1690, when it probably was in funds from the confiscations in Mahorca 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 8,555 in veillon. It was also profuse in gratuities to its employees as when, in 1670, it voted to Donia Juana de Fita y Rivera, evidently the daughter or niece of its secretary, Joseph de Rivera, the handsome pension of 400 Ducats to enable her to marry. In spite of its perpetual complaints of poverty, it evidently was not an inexpensive department of the government. The Suprema was nonetheless 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, ex surgae domine et vindica causam tuam, to note its careful provision for comfort and enjoyment on festival 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 veillon and 1168 of silver. The fiestas de toros, or bullfights, 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 of the toros of June 5, 1690, amounting to 2067 reales seven maravides, 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 by the council and its servants. This is a single example of the 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 Suprema paid 3300 reales for balconies on the Caya Mayor, from which to see the new queen, Maria Anna of Neuerburg, when she entered Madrid. In addition to the salaries and extra emollements, 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, everyone was entitled to charge for the services pertaining to his office. According to the Arranquel or Fee Bill issued in 1642, the secretaries were entitled to 20 reales for every grace issued, licenses to read prohibited books, commutations of penance, dispensations, and the hundred other matters in which the Suprema alone could grant favors. The Secretario de Cámara, 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 Arranquel of Cardinal Guyudice, were payable in silver. Burdensome, as were these legalized fees, the limitations of the Arranquel 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 benefits with dispensation for non-residents. 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 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. About 1675 we chanced to hear of a remittance of 40,000 pesos, about 29,000 ducats, of which Lima furnished 10,000 and Mexico 30,000. 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 Maravedes. In the hands of the Fucares awaiting investment 2,618,200 at 5%, 130,900. St. Sos 2,210,625. Total 9,939,228. 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. 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 12 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 modern 80s, or 50,000 ducats, showing what power of accumulation it had possessed, in spite of the troublesome times through which it had passed. All this was clear interest on investment securities, except 10,000 ducats from the colonial tribunals, about 2,000 ducats estimated to come in from confiscations, etc., and 200,000 modern 80s from the Fabrica de Savilla. This latter item merits a word of explanation. In 1626, the castle of Triana, occupied by the Seville Tribunal, was threatened 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 27.5 libras, and an allusion to it in 1817 shows that the Fabrica de Savilla was still collected. About 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 unconscious utterers of suspicious propositions. But its machinery was as ponderous and costly as ever. The payroll of the Suprema counted 40 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. How this was made does not appear. Possibly there was concealment in the statement of resources, for the Suprema does 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 41. 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. 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 18th century amounted to 4,030 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 of the Council of Castile, who received 1,400 Ducats. The pay of the Inquisitor General was nearly 7,000 Ducats, 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 Favourite, Rodrigo Calderón, was purchased for it, and became its permanent office. End of Book 4, Chapter 1, Part 4 Book 4, Chapter 2, Part 1 of The History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 2. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. The History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 2 by Henry Charles Lee. Book 4, Organization, Chapter 2, Part 1, The Tribunal. During the active career of the Inquisition, it was the local tribunal which represented it to the people. The Inquisitor General and Suprema were distant and held no direct relations with the community. It was otherwise with the Inquisitors, at whose bidding anyone, however high placed, could be thrown into the secret prison to emerge with an ineffasible mark of infamy, while his property, to the minutest item, was sequestrated and tied up, perhaps for years, and, if not confiscated, was largely consumed in expenses. Men wielding such power, and virtually irresponsible, shed terror around them as they walked abroad and, as we have seen, their habitual use of their position was not such as to allay these apprehensions. They were the visible agents of the Holy Office. The embodiment of its mysterious and all-embracing authority, empowered to summon to their aid the whole resources of the state and answerable only to the Chief. The tribunal, in which they sat in judgment on the lives and fortunes of all whom they might call before them, could only be regarded with universal dread, for no one knew at what moment an unguarded utterance or the denunciation of some enemy might bring him before it. The delimitation of the land into districts, each subject to its own tribunal, was naturally a work of time. In the early period, when there were converso suspects everywhere, it mattered little where an Inquisition was set up, for it could find abundant occupation in any place, and, when the field was temporarily exhausted, it could transfer itself elsewhere in search of a fresh harvest. Ferdinand, in his instructions to the Inquisitors of Saragossa, in 1485, tells them that wherever in Aragón they think that an Inquisition is necessary, they are to notify Torquemada, who will send Inquisitors there. Thus we hear of tribunals in Aragón at Teruel, Chaca, Tarathona, Barbastro and Calatayud. There was one, partly Aragonese and partly Catalan, Lérida and Oesca, which was not divided between Saragossa and Barcelona until 1532. In Catalonia there were tribunals at Pechpiñón and Balaguer, and in Castile others more or less permanent at Medidna del Campo, Ávila and Guadalupe, Osuna, Jaén, Jerez, Alcaraz, Plasencia, Burgos, Durango, León, and doubtless many other places. Even as late as 1501, a royal sedula announces that Deitha is about to send Inquisitors with their officials to various bishoprics to provide them with tribunals, and all receivers were instructed to pay them such sums as he might designate. Under such conditions there could be no very precise boundaries of jurisdiction, for it meted little who burnt a judaizing new Christian, but it was otherwise with the confiscations which required to be garnered by those responsible and authorized by the king, and the first strict definitions of districts would seem to have arisen in commissioning receivers. Thus, in 1498, the receiver of Saragossa is qualified for the seas of Saragossa and Tarathona, he of Valencia for those of Valencia, Tortosa, Segurbe and Terúe, while we hear of one for Oesca, Jerona and Urgel, apparently distinct from Barcelona. For a considerable time or over the tribunals to a certain extent were ambulatory, traveling around with their whole corps of officials and empowered to take possession of such buildings as they might require, wherever they saw fit to establish themselves for a time, while the receivers were instructed not to require of them an account of their traveling expenses. The regulations for such an itinerant court may be gathered from a sedula of May 17th, 1517, addressed to all the officials and inhabitants of León and the bishoprics of Placencia, Coria, Badahol and Ciudad Rodrigo, instructing them to give free lodgement, but not in ins, to the inquisitors and their officials, and to charge them only current prices for food. Where they settle for a time and set up their court, they are to rent lodgings and houses where they can have the use of one door and the owner of another, while suitable provision must be had for an audience chamber and a secret prison. The rent is to be determined by appraisers mutually selected, but if the stay is less than a year, rent will be payable only for the time of occupancy. There is to be no opposition or maltreatment, but they are to have all aid in favor under penalty of ten thousand marabedis. The power thus conferred of temporary expropriation was not always exercised considerably. In 1514 Hernando Sánchez of Jereña complained to Ferdinand that, seven years before, the inquisitors had taken his house, compelling him to build another, and this they were now about to seize. Ferdinand compassionate him and prohibited them from doing so. It was otherwise when the tribunal in 1516 was transferred to Placencia. The Corregidor reported that the most suitable house was that of the dean, who was residing in Rome and had rented it, when he was told to turn out the tenant and install the tribunal, the rent as usual, to be determined by two valuers. Even the episcopal dignity had to give way to the exigencies of the inquisition. The Bishop of Cuenca was president of the Audiencia of Toro, and during his absence his palace was occupied by the tribunal. In 1519 he was about to return and give it notice to quit, when Charles V wrote to him that, if he was going to Cuenca, he could find other buildings for his residence. The inquisition had spent much money on the prisons and must not be disturbed. Nor was this the only similar case. Yet existing rights were sometimes respected. When in Seville, the Castle of Triana was assigned to the tribunal, the Count Duke of San Lucar was its hereditary al-Qaeda. He seated his position in exchange for the hereditary office of El Guatil Mayor of the tribunal, and in 1706 this office was still enjoyed by his descendants, the Marquises of Leganes, to whom it was reckoned to be worth 150,000 Marabedis a year. A similar bargain was made with the Marquis del Carpio, who was hereditary al-Qaeda of the Royal Alcázar of Córdoba, when it was occupied by the tribunal of that city, and in 1706 the Marquis of the period was drawing an income of 100,000 Marabedis from it. In both cases the incumbents provided deputies at their own expense. In the original economical simplicity of the institution, Torquemada, in 1485, ordered that all the officials should lodge in one house, but as the personnel of the tribunals waxed larger and self-indulgence increased, this role became obsolete, and houses were furnished to the subordinates, the rents of which under instructions from Cardinal Manrique about 1525 were defrayed from the fines and penances levidant culprits. This became the general rule, although there are some instances of its in-observance and of individual officials complaining of adverse discrimination in not being thus favoured. In thus providing houses for its employees, the Inquisition claimed the right of eminent domain and vindicated it after the usual arbitrary fashion when it encountered resistance as occurred in Bale of the Leith in 1612. The secretary of the tribunal wanted a house which was occupied by an official of the Chancellery or High Court of Justice for Old Castile and León. The tribunal incontinently ejected him and installed its secretary who in turn was ousted by the offended court. The judges were promptly excommunicated and the court rejoined by fining the parish priests for publishing the censures. Arrests were made on both sides. The court imposed fines on the Inquisitors who replied by threats of further anathemas. The chronicler fails to inform us of the outcome, but under Philip III there can be little doubt of the final triumph of the tribunal. The Seid-La of 1517 was repeated in another at February 8, 1543 and remained as a permanent regulation. In 1645 a formula shows that whenever any official traveled on the business of a tribunal he was furnished with a letter embodying the Seid-La of 1543 and commanding, in the customary imperial style, that he be furnished with free lodging and beds and provisions at current rates under pain of excommunication and a fine of 100,000 marabedis. The organization of the tribunal at first was exceedingly simple. We have seen how in 1481, in Seville, two Dominican friars with a legal assessor to guide them into fiscal as prosecuting officer did such active work that they speedily required two receivers of confiscations to gather in the products of their industry. There must doubtless have been subordinates to attend to the clerical duties to serve citations and to take charge of prisoners, but the tribunal was manned on the most economical basis and there was no time wasted. After four years' experience, Turke Mada defined a tribunal as consisting of two inquisitors, an assessor, an al-Gothil and a fiscal, with such notaries and other minor officials as might be necessary. They were to receive salaries and no fees were to be charged under pain of dismissal and no inquisitor was to use an official as a household servant. In this no account was taken of the force necessary to secure and handle the confiscations, for these were the concern of the sovereigns and as yet their management was distinct from the prosecution of heretics. It constituted an intricate business involving innumerable questions arising from claims of every description which at first were settled in the secular courts, not always to Ferdinand's satisfaction. He grew intensely anxious to bring them within the jurisdiction of the inquisition, declaring that if they were decided according to the law of the land, he would never get justice. For a while these duties were therefore thrown upon the inquisitors. In 1499, in the tribunal of Burgos and Valencia, Ferdinand de Carguelho is styled inquisitor and judge of confiscations at a salary of 75,000, while his colleague Alonso de Torres receives only 60,000. Eventually, as we shall see, a subsidiary court for this purpose was established in each tribunal under a juif de Benis, or judge of confiscations. Ferdinand was thriftily resolved that the prophets of persecution should be protected against the growth of expenses and he struggled, though in vain, against the expansion of the payroll. Writing to Torque Mava, July 22, 1486, he protests against the efforts of the inquisitors to multiply salaried positions, the torturer, the scriveners, the deputy Alguafiles, the Alguafiles should supply the latter and also pay the portero. The payroll is already excessive and the inquisitors demand so many salaries that they must be carefully watched. Ferdinand might chafe under the increasing burdens, but he could not check them. In this same year we find him obliged to give orders for the payment in the tribunal of Saragosa of two inquisitors, an assessor, an Episcopal vicar general, an advocate fiscal, a procurator fiscal, an Alguafile, two notaries, a receiver of witnesses, two messengers, a receiver and a scrivener, a physician, and a royal notary for the confiscations, whose salaries amounted to 37,700 suildos, about 1,800 ducats, to which were to be added Ayudas de Costa, not as yet an established custom, but prevalent in one form or another. At the same time the payroll of the tribunal of Medina del Campo was somewhat smaller, amounting to about 1,550 ducats, although there were three inquisitors and an assessor, for there were fewer minor officials. In 1493 the tribunal of Balentia, one of the most active, was run with only one inquisitor and no assessor, costing only about 1,450 ducats. At the same time it should be borne in mind that these sums include the prison expenses, defrayed by the Alguafile out of his salary, which was usually the largest in the list, an arrangement more economical than conducive to the welfare of the captives. The law of growth continued to operate. A list of Ayudas de Costa for Balia the Leed in 1515 shows three inquisitors, a fiscal, an Alguafile, three notaries of the secretor or trial chamber, a receiver, a notary of sequestrations, a jailer, a messenger, and a portero. In 1568 Philip II, in defining the salaried officials exempt from taxation enumerates for the same tribunal, two or three inquisitors, a fiscal, an Alguafile, an auditor, a judge of confiscations, four notaries of the secretor, a notary of sequestrations, a receiver, a messenger, a portero, an al-Qaibay of the secret prison and one of the penitential prison, a notary of the juzgado or court of confiscations, an advocate of the fisk, a procurator of the fisk, two chaplains, a physician, a barber, a surgeon, and a steward for the poor prisoners. Besides these salaried officials, there was an indefinite number of un-salaried ones, consultors, who served in the consultas de fe, calificadores or censors, who pronounced on the charges prior to arrest and sat in judgment on books and writings, advocates of the accused, quote persona sonestas, unquote, who were present at the ratification of witnesses, in addition to the familiars and commissioners with their notaries. Then there came subsequently to be other officials, either salaried or living on fees, the notary de los civil, or secretary in civil cases, the notary of octos positivos in matters of limpieza, the depository with whom applicants to prove their limpieza had to deposit in advance the cost of investigation, the superintendent of sequestrations, the superintendent of property, a proveedor or purveyor of food for prisoners and, in some tribunals, the locksmith and bricklayer were reckoned as officials. Even when the salaries were trifling, the pressure for place was incessant in order to enjoy the privileges and exemptions of the inquisition, and we shall see that when financial despair caused offices to be offered for sale, they were eagerly purchased, irrespective of profit. This overgrown personnel was admitted to be in abuse and repeated efforts were made for its reform. A decree of June 19, 1629, repeated in 1638, prescribed the number to be allowed in each tribunal, but, as usual, these provisions were disregarded or eluded. In 1643 Philip IV annum inverted on this disobedience. The excessive number of officials caused the greatest evils, both to the tribunals and the kingdom, and he ordered the reduction to the ancient standard in the briefest time possible. To this the inquisitor general replied, fully admitting that this overplus of officials was the cause of the impaired character of the inquisition and of the insufficiency of the revenues to meet the salaries. The suprema, he said, had repeatedly attempted a reform, but the misfortunes of the times, and the pressure of the king had rendered it powerless, and the only remedy would be a papal brief defining numbers and invalidating all surplus commissions. The suprema on its side presented a consulta suggesting a reissue of the decrees of 1629 and 1638, while the inquisitor general should be deprived of power to exceed these limitations. It further stated that it had sent orders to each tribunal prescribing the number of inquisitors and requiring them to be reduced forthwith. The effect of all this was nougatory. In the Aragon Concordia, forced upon the king in 1646, the number allowed to a tribunal, in addition to the inquisitors and fiscal commissioners and their notaries and familiars, was 23, which shows how excessive had been the practice. What this was elsewhere is indicated in a memorial from a horca about 1650, occasioned by the imprisonment and chains of a familiar named Reginaldo Estado, prepared to resign on being appointed consul Del Mar. The opportunity is taken of representing the evils arising from the multiplication of officials as set forth in a previous petition of January 11th, 1647, and protesting that the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the inquisition was the total ruin of the people, so that they would welcome its limitation to matters of faith as a full recompense for all the services rendered to the crown. In each of the 34 villages outside of the capital, there were three officials besides familiars. In Palma they were multiplied without limit by creating places that had no duties and appointing assistants and deputies at Libitum, while all the tradespeople and mechanics employed were reckoned as officials, bringing the number up to 150 besides familiars. All these, with their wives and children and household servants and the widows of the deceased, enjoyed the active and passive fuero in both civil and criminal cases, bringing in large revenues to the tribunal, through the excessive costs of litigation and stimulating oppression of all kinds endured through dread of its censures. This memorial, with evidence sustaining its allegations, was submitted to the Council of Aragon, which, after due examination, reported it to the king with the recommendation that the officials and familiars in Mahorca should be reduced to what was necessary for the business of the tribunal, but there is no trace that attention was paid to this advice. These major king grievances reveal not only the consequences, but the causes of this inordinate multiplication of official positions. It had been stimulated, moreover, by the suicidal policy of selling offices and of creating them for the purpose of sale, one of the ruinous expedients resorted to by Philip IV in his desperate efforts to make an exhausted treasury supply the extravagance of the court and the drain of foreign wars. There is no positive evidence that this example was followed by inquisitors for their individual profit, but it would be surprising if this were not occasionally the case. Vennality had crept in as early as 50 years after the death of Philip IV, and the death of Philip IV, and the death of Philip IV, in 1595, when Philip II, in his instructions to Manrique de Lara, speaks of an innovation by which offices were transferred for money, sometimes for large sums, which was very prejudicial and caused much murmuring. These apparently were transactions between individuals, but they could not take place without the connivance of the appointing power, and from this the step to creating offices for sale was easily taken when the pressure or the temptation was sufficient. It came in 1629, though injustice to Philip IV that must be said that he hesitated before succumbing. In that year the Suprema assembled, December 23rd, a number of theologians, and submitted for their opinion the proposition that in every place where there were six familiars, one of them should be permitted to purchase the Vara or Juan de Van Alguathil, with the title and all the privileges and exemptions being a valuable privilege that would bring in much money. The theologians pronounced the scheme lawful with advantages far outweighing its disadvantages, and suggested that districts might be combined so as to furnish the six familiars. The proceeds were evidently intended for the exchequer of the Suprema, for, when the plan was submitted to Philip, he said that it might greatly prejudice the public peace and referred it to the Council of Castile and the Suprema. Finally, on March 20th, 1630, he returned it to the Inquisitor General, saying that it had been approved by persons of learning and conscience, and he asked for an estimate of its productiveness. After some further paroling, the scheme was adopted and announced to the tribunals by the Suprema, on March 15th, 1631. The limitation of one familiar out of six was abandoned, and the offer was thrown open to all who could prove Limpiedtha. The sale was for three lives. The commissions were issued by the Inquisitor General himself. The vada of the Alguathil ship carried with it a familiar ship, and the only limitation was that if the third life fell to one who could not prove Limpiedtha, the tribunal could sell it again and report to the Suprema. Thus the sale went on, and there was no limit to the Alguathil ships, and finally other offices came into the market. The Depositario de Pretendientes, the Notariate of Civil Causes, of the Huzgado of Sequestrations and Receiverships, Auditorships, etc. It goes without saying that simple familiar ships were sold, and in 1642 we hear of a block of 300 being offered. Regulations issued between 1631 and 1643 show that although public auctions were nominally forbidden, the positions were put up privately and sold to the highest bidder. Even women sought to obtain the privileges attached to the ornays, and in 1641 it was found necessary to prohibit receiving bids from them, except when made in favor of men whom they were about to marry. In 1639 Philip proposed even to put up for sale the office of Alguathil Mayor of the Suprema and of all the tribunals by which he expected to defray the pay of 400 foot and 200 horse. The price was considered necessary and the proceeds would be small as the places were all filled and would fall in slowly, while only that of the Suprema and three or four others would fetch considerable sums, reasoning which put a quietess on the project. From various indications we may assume that the confidential posts in the secreto were not sold and that offices of active duty in the tribunals were sold only when vacated, but in 1644 Valencia reported that the sale by auction of the unimportant office of Depositario de Pretendientes for 6000 Reales of full weight silver had been cancelled because the purchaser insisted that it conferred the exemptions of an office in the secreto. A reply of the Suprema, February 11, 1643 to a request from Philip for means to pay 400 foot and 200 horse for eight months gives us the prices fetched to. In Murcia it says there were still do 3500 duquets Vélion for the offices of auditor and notary of sequestrations. In Seville the receivership had been auctioned for 8500 duquets of which 2000 were in silver and there were still do 1000 duquets in silver for an auditorship. In Gerena the notariate of sequestrations had brought at auction 3000 duquets Vélion. In Lagronio the auditorship had fetched 1000 duquets Vélion. In Cordoba the receivership had brought 5000 duquets. One fourth in silver the aggregate payable at various periods was 4250 duquets silver and 24110 duquets Vélion. But the final remark of the Suprema shows the incurable prodigality of Philip even in his deepest distress where it quietly adds that none of this is available because it had all been granted by Royal Decree to Don Pedro Pacheco We are told that when in 1643 R. C. Irenoso assumed the Inquisitor Generalship he recognized that there were too many supernumeraries and that he prohibited the sale of offices until further orders. If so, the intermission was but temporary for a Royal Decree of 1648 shows that it was still going on and in 1710 we happened to hear of the sale in Valencia Renotare del Juzgado for four lives for 16000 reales In 1715 the Tribunal of Peru began doing a little business of the kind on its own account which the Suprema promptly stopped stigmatizing it as Simoniacal This probably indicates that it had ceased in Spain but the custom of selling for three or four lives seems to have been conducive to longevity for many continued to be thus held until late in the 18th century An investigation ordered in 1783 into the records concerning them indicates that there were still survivors or at least claimants whose titles were to be scrutinized in part four