Every attempt has been made to replicate the original book as printed.
Some typographical errors have been corrected. A list follows the text.
No attempt has been made to correct or normalize Spanish words or accents marks.

                      (etext transcriber’s note)


                       WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.


     _A HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION OF SPAIN._ In four volumes, octavo.
     (_Now Complete._)

     _A HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION OF THE MIDDLE AGES._ In three
     volumes, octavo.

     _A HISTORY OF AURICULAR CONFESSION AND INDULGENCES IN THE LATIN
     CHURCH._ In three volumes, octavo.

     _HISTORY OF SACERDOTAL CELIBACY IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH._ Third
     edition. In two volumes, octavo. (_Now Ready._)

     _A FORMULARY OF THE PAPAL PENITENTIARY IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY._
     One volume, octavo. (_Out of print._)

     _SUPERSTITION AND FORCE._ Essays on The Wager of Law, The Wager of
     Battle, The Ordeal, Torture. Fourth edition, revised. In one
     volume, 12mo.

     _STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY._ The Rise of the Temporal Power,
     Benefit of Clergy, Excommunication, The Early Church and Slavery.
     Second edition. In one volume, 12mo.

     _CHAPTERS FROM THE RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF SPAIN, CONNECTED WITH THE
     INQUISITION._ Censorship of the Press, Mystics and Illuminati,
     Endemoniadas, El Santo Niño de la Guardia, Brianda de Bardaxí. In
     one volume, 12mo.

     _THE MORISCOS OF SPAIN, THEIR CONVERSION AND EXPULSION._ In one
     volume, 12mo.




THE

INQUISITION

IN THE

SPANISH DEPENDENCIES


SICILY--NAPLES--SARDINIA--MILAN--THE CANARIES--MEXICO--PERU--NEW
GRANADA


BY

HENRY CHARLES LEA, LL.D., S.T.D.


New York

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., LTD.

1908

_All rights reserved_




COPYRIGHT, 1908
BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY


Set up and electrotyped. Published January, 1908




PREFACE.


The scope of my History of the Spanish Inquisition precluded a detailed
investigation into the careers of individual tribunals. Such an
investigation, however, is not without interest, especially with respect
to the outlying ones, which were subjected to varying influences and
reacted in varying ways on the peoples among whom they were established.
Moreover, in some cases, this affords us an inside view of inquisitorial
life, of the characters of those to whom were confided the awful
irresponsible powers of the Holy Office and of the abuse of those powers
by officials whom distance removed from the immediate supervision of the
central authority, suggesting a capacity for evil even greater than that
manifested in the Peninsula.

This is especially the case with the tribunals of the American Colonies,
of which, thanks to the unwearied researches of Don José Toribio Medina,
of Santiago de Chile, a fairly complete and minute account can be given,
based on the confidential correspondence of the local officials with the
Supreme Council and the reports of the _visitadores_ or inspectors, who
were occasionally sent in the vain expectation of reducing them to
order. While thus in the colonial tribunals we see the Inquisition at
its worst, as a portion of the governmental system, we can realize how
potent was its influence in contributing to the failure of Spanish
colonial policy, by preventing orderly and settled administration and by
exciting disaffection which the Council of Indies more than once warned
the crown would lead to the loss of its transatlantic empire. It is
perhaps not too much to say that these revelations moreover go far to
explain the influences which so long retarded the political and
industrial development of the emancipated colonies, for it was an evil
inheritance weighing heavily on successive generations.

I have not attempted to include the fateful career of the Inquisition in
the Netherlands, for this cannot be written until the completion of
Professor Paul Fredericq’s monumental “Corpus Documentorum Inquisitionis
hæreticæ pravitatis Neerlandicæ,” the earlier volumes of which have
thrown so much light on the repression of heresy in the Low Countries up
to the dawn of the Reformation.

It is scarce necessary for me to make special acknowledgement to Señor
Medina in all that relates to the American tribunals, for this is
sufficiently attested by the constant reference to his works. With
regard to Mexico I am under particular obligation to David Fergusson
Esq. for the use of collections made by him during long residence in
that Republic and also to the late General Don Vicente Riva Palacio for
the communication of a number of interesting documents. To the late
Doctor Paz Soldan of Lima my thanks are also due for copies made in the
archives of Peru prior to their dispersion in 1881.

     PHILADELPHIA, OCTOBER, 1907.




CONTENTS.


CHAPTER I--SICILY.

                                                                    PAGE

The Old Inquisition in Sicily                                          1

The Spanish Inquisition introduced in 1487                             2

Expulsion of Jews in 1492                                              3

Tardy Organization of the Tribunal                                     5

It gradually becomes efficient                                         7

Financial Mismanagement                                                9

Popular Disaffection                                                  10

Increasing Activity                                                   12

Complaints of Sicilian Parliament                                     13

Death of King Ferdinand--Tumult of 1516                               14

Re-establishment in 1519                                              17

Efforts to reform Abuses                                              18

Renewed Complaints of the Parliament                                  21

Charles V suspends the Temporal Jurisdiction in 1535                  22

Dread of Protestantism--Jurisdiction restored in 1546                 24

Official-Immunity--Case of the Duke of Terranova                      25

Renewed Activity--Popular Hostility                                   26

Enormous Increase in Number of Familiars                              27

Abuse of official Immunity                                            28

Attempt at Reform in the Concordia of 1595                            31

Increased Aggressiveness of the Tribunal                              33

Collisions with the Secular Authority                                 34

Quarrels with the Bishops                                             35

Continued Strife--Concordia of 1635                                   37

Activity during the Seventeenth Century                               38

The Inquisition under Austrian Rule--Auto de Fe of 1724--Pragmatic
Sanction of 1732                                                      40

Reconquest of Sicily by Spain in 1734--The Inquisition placed
under the Holy See--Its Exuberance repressed by Carlos III            42

Suppressed by Ferdinando III in 1782                                  43


MALTA.

A Dependency of the Sicilian Tribunal                                 44

Charles V in 1530 grants the Island to the Knights of St. John        45

Episcopal Inquisition under Bishop Cubelles                           45

The Tribunal passes under Papal Control                               46


CHAPTER II--NAPLES.

The Old Inquisition in Naples--The Jews                               49

Refugees from Spain                                                   50

Spanish Conquest in 1503--Capitulation excludes the Spanish
Inquisition                                                           52

Julius II revives the Papal Inquisition                               53

Ferdinand proposes to introduce the Spanish Inquisition in 1504       53

Neapolitan Organization--the _Piazze_ or _Seggi_                      54

Activity of the Papal Inquisition--Its Subordination to the Royal
Power                                                                 55

Ferdinand, in 1509, arranges to introduce the Spanish Inquisition     56

Popular Opposition becomes uncontrollable                             58

Ferdinand abandons the Attempt                                        62

His fruitless efforts to stimulate Persecution                        63

Inertness of the Papal Inquisition                                    65

Banishment of Jews in 1540                                            66

Protestantism in Naples--Juan de Valdés--Bernardino Ochino            67

Organization of Roman Inquisition in 1542--Charles V orders its
Introduction in Naples                                                70

Tentative Efforts create popular Excitement                           71

The Tumult of 1547--its Suppression                                   73

Punishment of the Leaders                                             76

Recrudescence of Persecution--The Roman Inquisition tacitly
introduced                                                            78

The Calabrian Waldenses--Their Extermination                          79

The Apulian Waldenses                                                 85

Intermingling of Jurisdictions                                        86

Philip II promises the _Via Ordinaria_                                87

The Roman Inquisition under Cover of the Episcopal                    87

The Accused sent to Rome for Trial and Punishment                     88

The Exequatur of the Viceroy is a Condition precedent                 89

Gradual Encroachment--A Commissioner of the
Roman Inquisition established in Naples                               92

He assumes to be an Inquisitor--Rome in 1628 denies the
Necessity of the Viceregal Exequatur--Quarrels over it                94

The Roman Inquisition virtually established in Naples                 96

Popular dissatisfaction--Demand for the _Via Ordinaria_               96

Commissioner Piazza banished in 1671                                  99

Outbreak in 1691--Commissioner Giberti ejected                        99

Carlos II prohibits the residence of Commissioners--Permanent
Deputation to oppose the Inquisition                                 100

The Roman Inquisition in 1695 publishes an Edict
of Denunciation                                                      101

The Episcopal Inquisition disregards the _Via Ordinaria_--Struggles
under the Austrian Domination                                        102

Accession of Charles of Spain--_Atto di fede_ of 1746                104

Episcopal Inquisition suppressed--Archbishop Spinelli forced
to resign                                                            105

Continued Vigilance of the Deputati until 1764                       107


CHAPTER III--SARDINIA.

The Spanish Inquisition introduced in 1492                           109

Conflicts with the Authorities                                       110

Productive Confiscations                                             112

Decadent condition of the tribunal                                   114

Charles V endeavors to reanimate it--Its chronic Poverty             115

Interference of the Bishops                                          117

Multiplication of Officials                                          117

Quarrels with the Secular Authorities                                118

The Inquisition disappears under the House of Savoy                  119


CHAPTER IV--MILAN.

The Old and the reorganized Roman Inquisition                        121

Energy of Fra Michele Ghislieri (Pius V)                             122

Inefficiency of the Inquisition                                      123

Cardinal Borromeo’s persecuting Zeal                                 124

Philip II proposes to introduce the Spanish Inquisition              125

Popular Resistance--General Opposition of Italian Bishops            126

Philip II abandons the Project                                       128

Political and Commercial Questions affecting Lombardy--Intercourse
with Heretics                                                        129

Cardinal Borromeo stimulates Persecution                             131

His Mission to Mantua                                                133

The Roman Inquisition perfected--Its Struggle to exclude Swiss
Heresy                                                               135

It is suppressed by Maria Theresa in 1775                            137

CHAPTER V--THE CANARIES.

Importance of the Islands as a Commercial Centre                     139

Episcopal Inquisition by Bishop Muros, in 1499                       140

Tribunal established in 1505--It is dependent on Seville             140

Its Activity until 1534                                              141

It becomes dormant and is suspended                                  144

It is reorganized in 1567 and rendered independent of Seville        145

Activity of Inquisitor Diego Ortiz de Fúnez                          147

Visitation of Doctor Bravo de Zayas in      1570                     148

Visitation of Claudio de la Cueva in 1590--Abuses                    150

Prosecution of escaped Negro and Moorish Slaves                      152

Prosecution of English and Dutch Sailors                             153

Number of Relaxations                                                155

Finances--Early Poverty--Wealth from Confiscations                   156

Prosecution of Judaizers                                             158

Moorish and Negro Slaves--Renegades                                  159

Trivial Cases                                                        161

Mysticism--_Beatas revelanderas_                                     162

Solicitation in the Confessional                                     163

Sorcery and Superstitions                                            165

Foreign Heretics--Sailors and Merchants                              167
  Treaties with England in 1604 and with Holland in 1609             171
  Precarious Position of Foreign Merchants                           173

Censorship                                                           176
  Examination of Houses of Foreign Residents                         177
  Irreverent religious Objects                                       178
  _Visitas de Navíos_                                                179

Quarrels with the Authorities, secular and ecclesiastical            180

Popular hostility--Opposition to Sanbenitos in Churches              188

Suppression in 1813                                                  189

Final Extinction in 1820                                             190


CHAPTER VI--MEXICO.

Propagation of the Faith the Object of the Conquest                  191

Organization of the Colonial Church                                  192

Attempts to exclude New Christians                                   193

Episcopal Inquisition                                                195

Establishment of a Tribunal proposed--Dread of Protestantism         199

Inquisitors sent out in 1570                                         200

Tribunal installed, November 4, 1571                                 202

Distance renders it partially Independent                            203

Commencement of Activity--The first auto de fe, February 28,
1574                                                                 204

Autos of 1575, 1576, 1577, 1578, 1579, 1590, 1596, and 1601          207

Persecution of Judaizers                                             208

Indians not subject to Inquisition                                   209

Finances--Temporary royal Subvention--The Tribunal expected
to be self-supporting                                                212
  Its early Poverty                                                  213
  It claims Indian Repartimientos                                    215
  It refuses to render Account of its Receipts                       216
  It obtains a Grant of Canonries in 1627                            216
  Fruitless Efforts to make it account for the Confiscations         217
  Large Remittances made to the Suprema from the Autos of
1646, 1648 and 1649                                                  219
  Efforts to make it forego and refund the royal Subvention          219
  Misrepresentations of the Confiscations and Remittances            223

Comparative Inaction in the first Half of the Seventeenth Century    226

Efficacy of the Edict of Faith                                       227

Growth of Judaism--Active Persecution commences in 1642              229

Autos de Fe of 1646, 1648 and 1649                                   230

Auto de Fe of 1659                                                   234
  Cases of William Lampor and Joseph Bruñon de Vertiz                236

Inertia during the Rest of the Century                               240

Solicitation in the Confessional                                     241

Temporal Jurisdiction--Immunity of Officials entitled to the
_Fuero_                                                              245
  Familiars--Commissioners--Abuse of their Privileges                247
  Concordia of 1610                                                  251
  Competencias                                                       252
  Concordia of 1633                                                  254
  Abusive Use of Power by Commissioners                              256

Quarrels with Bishops--Case of Bishop Palafox                        257
  Case of Doctor Juan de la Camara                                   259

Exemption from Military Service                                      263

Censorship--Irreverent Use of Sacred Symbols--_Visitas de
Navíos_                                                              264

Repression under the Bourbon Dynasty                                 267

Decadence of the Tribunal                                            269

Political Activity caused by the Revolution--Censorship              272

Prosecution of Miguel Hidalgo                                        276

Suppression in 1813                                                  288

Re-establishment in 1815                                             290

Prosecution of José María Morelos                                    292

Extinction in 1820                                                   297

Persistent Intolerance                                               298


THE PHILIPPINES.

Included in the District of the Mexican Tribunal                     299

A Commissioner established there--His Powers                         300
  Solicitation--Military Deserters                                   302

Trivial Results                                                      304

Censorship                                                           306

Conflicts with the Authorities                                       308

Audacity of the Commissioners                                        310
  Commissioner Paternina imprisons Governor Salcedo and
rules the Colony                                                     311

Records burnt in 1763                                                317

Episcopal Inquisition in China                                       317


CHAPTER VII--PERU.

Deplorable Condition of the Colony                                   319

Episcopal Inquisition--Its Activity                                  321
  Case of Francisco de Aguirre                                       322
  The Bishops seek to maintain their Jurisdiction                    325

The Tribunal established January 29, 1570                            326

The first Auto de Fe, November 15, 1573                              328

Organization and Powers--Exemption of Indians                        329

Supervision over Foreigners                                          332

Extent of Territory--Commissioners and their Abuses                  333

New Granada detached in 1611--Other Divisions proposed               337

Finances--Initial Poverty--Speedy Growth of Confiscations            342
  Fruitless Efforts to withdraw the Royal Subvention                 344
  Suppression of Prebends for the Benefit of the Tribunal            346
  Enormous Confiscations in the Auto de Fe of 1639                   347
  Other Sources of Income                                            349
  Increased Expenses exceed the Revenues                             350
  Malversations and Embezzlements in the Eighteenth Century          351
  Financial Condition at Suppression in 1813                         354

Abusive use of arbitrary Power                                       355
  Scandalous conduct of Inquisitor Ulloa                             355
  Visitation of Juan Ruiz de Prado                                   357
  His charges against Cerezuela and Ulloa                            358
  Ulloa’s Visitation of the District                                 360

Abusive use of arbitrary Power:
  Inquisitor Ordoñez y Flores                                        362
  Inquisitors Gaitan and Mañozca                                     363
  Inquisitors Calderon and Unda                                      366
  Visitation of Antonio de Arenaza                                   367

Paralysis of the Tribunal--Purchase of Offices                       372

Quarrels with the Viceroys                                           373
  Humiliation of Viceroy del Villar                                  374
  Complaints of succeeding Viceroys                                  380

Conflicts of Jurisdictions                                           382

Limitation of the Temporal Jurisdiction by Fernando VI               386

Quarrels of Inquisitor Amusquíbar with Archbishop Barroeta           389

Activity of the Tribunal--Bigamy, Blasphemy, Sorcery                 390
  Propositions                                                       392
  Solicitation in the Confessional                                   393
  Mystic Impostors--Maria Pizarro                                    396
    Angela Carranza                                                  400
  Quietism--The Jesuit Ulloa and his Disciples                       406
  Protestantism--English Prisoners of War                            412
  Judaism                                                            419
    Portuguese Immigration through Brazil and Buenos
Ayres                                                                421
    Case of Francisco Maldonado de Silva                             423
    The _Complicidad Grande_--Auto de Fe of 1639                     425
    Decline of Judaism--Case of Doña Ana de Castro                   433

Punishments                                                          437
  Arbitrary Inconsistency--Case of François Moyen                    439

Censorship                                                           444
  Morals and Politics                                                446

Decadence and Suppression                                            447

Re-establishment and Extinction                                      449

Work accomplished                                                    451


CHAPTER VIII--NEW GRANADA.

Settlement of New Granada                                            453

Commissioners appointed by Tribunal of Lima                          454

Demand for an Independent Tribunal                                   455

Extent of District--Attempt to include Florida                       457

Tribunal established in 1610 at Cartagena                            460

Early Operations                                                     461
  Sorcery and Witchcraft--Blasphemy                                  462
  Judaism                                                            466

Inertia--Sack of Cartagena in 1697                                   467

Decadence                                                            468

Censorship--The Copernican System                                    470

Quarrels with the Authorities                                        473
  Arbitrary Control exercised by Inquisitor Mañozca                  473
  Incessant Broils--Inquisitor Vélez de Asas y Argos--Fiscal
 Juan Ortiz                                                          476

Visitation of Dr. Martin Real in 1643--Its Failure                   480
  Internal Dissensions and external Quarrels                         483

Visitation of Pedro Medina Rico in 1648--Death of Inquisitor
Pereira and Secretary Uriarte                                        485

Internal and external Quarrels continue                              488

Degradation of the Tribunal                                          489

Quarrel with Bishop Benavides y Piedrola--Inquisitor Valera          491

Humiliation of Governor Ceballos                                     498

Decadence after the Sack of 1697                                     499

Finances--The Royal Subvention                                       500
  Wealth accruing from Confiscations                                 501
  Quarrels over the Subvention                                       502
  Asserted Distress of the Tribunal                                  505

The Revolutionary Junta banishes the Tribunal in 1810                506

It takes Refuge in Santa Marta and Puertobelo                        508

It returns to Cartagena in 1815                                      508

It is extinguished by the United States of Colombia in 1821          510

Influence of the Inquisition on the Spanish Colonies                 511


APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS                                                517




THE INQUISITION

IN THE

SPANISH DEPENDENCIES.




CHAPTER I.

SICILY.


The island of Sicily, in the fifteenth century, was a portion of the
dominions of Aragon. Like the rest of the possessions of that crown, it
had enjoyed the benefits of the old papal Inquisition under the conduct
of the Dominicans, but, as elsewhere, towards the close of the Middle
Ages, the institution had become nearly dormant, and at most was
employed occasionally to wring money from the Jews. An effort to
galvanize it, however, was made, in 1451, by the Inquisitor Fra Enrico
Lugardi, who produced a fictitious decree, purporting to have been
issued in 1224, by the Emperor Frederic II, granting to the inquisitors
a third of the confiscations, together with yearly contributions from
Jews and infidels; this was confirmed by King Alfonso of Naples, and
again, in 1477, by Ferdinand and Isabella.[1] When, in 1484, the Spanish
Inquisition was extended to Aragon, Ferdinand did not at first seek to
carry its blessings to his insular possessions. February 12, 1481, he
had appointed Filippo de’Barbari, one of his confessors, as inquisitor
of Sicily, Malta, Gozo and Pantelaria, who apparently did nothing to
further the cause of the faith, for Sixtus IV, in letters of February
23, 1483, to Isabella, complained of the prevalence in the island of the
same heresies that pervaded Spain; to repress these he had issued sundry
bulls, which had proved inoperative in consequence of the opposition of
the royal officials, to his no little grief. Seeing the zeal displayed
in Spain, he prayed and exhorted that it should be extended to Sicily
and that the necessary royal favor be exhibited to the measures which he
had taken and might take in the future.[2] There is no evidence that
this produced any effect, and the institution seems to have remained
inert until, about 1487, Torquemada, as Inquisitor-general of Aragon,
appointed Fray Antonio de la Peña as inquisitor who, on August 18th of
that year, celebrated the first auto de fe, in which Eulalia Tamarit,
apparently a refugee from Saragossa, was burnt. It seems that a
Dominican, named Giacomo Roda, had been exercising the functions under a
commission from the General of his Order, who subsequently instructed
the provincial, Giacomo Manso, to dismiss him. In 1488 la Peña left
Sicily, appointing Manso to act during his absence, when Roda reasserted
himself and it required a brief from Innocent VIII, February 7, 1489, to
make him desist. In fact, at this time there seems to have been some
confusion between the claims of the papal and Spanish Inquisitions, for
we hear of another Dominican inquisitor, Pietro Ranzano, Bishop of
Lucera, to whom the senate of Palermo, on January 19, 1488, took the
customary oath of obedience.[3]

In Sicily, as in Spain, the objects of the principal labors of the Holy
Office were the converts from Judaism. The Jews were numerous and rich
and, although popular hatred was perhaps not so active as in Spain, it
was sufficiently vigorous, in 1474, to bring about a massacre, under
the pretext that they were endeavoring to undermine the Catholic faith
by argument. The viceroy, Lope Ximenes de Urrea, hanged six of the
leaders of the movement, in the hope of suppressing it but, undeterred
by this, the populace, in many places, sacked the Juderías and put the
inmates to the sword; five hundred thus were slain in Noto, six hundred
in Modica and, for several years, the Jews were in constant fear of
massacre, in spite of royal and vice-regal edicts.[4] The number of
victims in these troubles indicates how considerable was the Jewish
population; indeed, in 1450, they petitioned that, in the assessment of
a donation to King Alfonso of 10,000 florins they might be reckoned as a
tenth of the population, a favor which was refused and, when in 1491,
the Jews were banished from Provence, a large portion of them flocked to
Sicily, attracted by the favorable conditions which had long been
accorded there to the race.[5]

The edict of expulsion from Spain, in 1492, was operative in Sicily,
under conditions even more repulsively cruel. It was published June
18th, and the day of departure was fixed at September 18th, under pain
of death and confiscation. At once all their valuables were seized, in a
house to house investigation, and inventories were made of their other
possessions. They were required, within the three months, not only to
collect what was due to them and to pay their debts, but also to
indemnify the king for their special tributes by capitalizing the annual
aggregate, on a basis of four per cent. interest. On August 13th an
order was issued to license each to take a suit of common clothes, a
mattress, a pair of worn sheets, a coverlet, three _tari_ in money
(equivalent to half a florin), and a few provisions for the journey.
Reduced to despair, the Jews of Palermo petitioned to be allowed to
retain money enough to pay their passages; that the rich could leave
their property on deposit, and that poor debtors might be discharged
from prison a month in advance. This drew from the viceroy an edict
allowing the rich to take twice as much as the poor, except in the
matter of clothes. Not only their mattresses were to be searched for
money and jewels, but even the cavities of their bodies, for which
examiners of both sexes were appointed. A payment of fifty thousand
florins to the king procured a postponement of three months, until
December 18th, and during the interval the composition for their
tributes was agreed upon, at a hundred thousand more, on payment of
which they were to be allowed to take what was left of their inventoried
goods, but all precious metals and jewels were required to be turned
into merchandise. There was delay in collecting these sums, causing a
further postponement of departure until January 12, 1493.[6] As the
object of the measure was the salvation of souls, the alternative of
conversion was offered, to which the Jews were urged by a proclamation
of Torquemada and by promises from the bishops and the viceroy.
Ferdinand, however, was not disposed thus to forego the opportunity of
despoiling his Jewish subjects, and issued an order requiring them to
purchase the privilege of baptism with the surrender of forty-five per
cent. of their property, which must have brought him in a considerable
sum for, in spite of it, the rigorous terms imposed upon the exiles
drove many into the Christian fold.[7]

These compulsory Christians, always suspected, and generally with
reason, of secretly cherishing their ancient faith, furnished a larger
and more lucrative field for inquisitorial operations, but there seems
to have been no immediate haste to cultivate it, and there is no trace
of increased inquisitorial activity during the remaining years of the
century. In December, 1497, Micer Sancho Marin, inquisitor of Sardinia,
was ordered to transfer himself to Sicily; he was in no haste to obey
and, on March 11, 1498, Ferdinand wrote to him angrily that he was doing
no good where he was and was much wanted in his new post, wherefore he
was commanded summarily to go there and leave all the effects of the
Sardinian tribunal for his successor. Short as was his career in Sicily,
he managed to disorganize the Inquisition and to incur general
detestation. Before the year was out, Ferdinand ordered him home and, on
January 20, 1499, he sent for all the other officials to return. To get
back, Marin borrowed three hundred ounces,[8] without making provision
for repayment; to settle this and other debts and to pay for the
homeward voyage of the officials, Ferdinand ordered his viceroy to give
to the receiver of confiscations, who was practically the treasurer,
eight hundred ducats, with a significant order to see that the parties
were not maltreated, which indicates the feelings popularly entertained
for them. The eight hundred ducats apparently were not easily raised,
for correspondence continued during the rest of the year as to the
payment of debts and salaries; Pedro de Urrea, the receiver, fell into
disgrace and Ferdinand, in August, sent the notary, Ximeno Mayoral, to
make copies of all the papers in the tribunal, in order to be able to
straighten out matters.[9] Apparently the officials had been intent
solely upon their own gains, allowing the affairs of the tribunal to
fall into complete confusion, and had confined their operations to
selling pardons and exemptions for, when the auditor examining Urrea’s
accounts asked for certificates of all who were condemned or penanced
during his tenure of office, Ferdinand epigrammatically replied that, as
there were none condemned or penanced, no certificates were required. It
is true that there is mention of a certain Iñigo de Medina as having
died in prison, but he had not been arrested as a heretic and his
sequestrated property was ordered to be returned to his widow.[10]

Evidently the Sicilian Inquisition thus far had been a failure and
thorough reorganization was necessary. It was for this that Ferdinand
had recalled the officials and, after an interval of some months, he
proceeded to replace them. A letter of July 27, 1500, to Montoro, Bishop
of Cefalù, announced his appointment as inquisitor, together with that
of the bearer, Doctor Giovanni Sgalambro as his colleague, with whom
were sent Diego de Obregon as receiver, and Martin de Vallejo as
alguazil, the rest of the officials being left for his selection. At the
same time the viceroy was instructed to show them all favor, to lodge
them in some suitable building and to advance to Obregon 780 gold
ducats for salaries, the sum to be repaid out of the expected
confiscations.[11] The Sicilian tribunal, however, was doomed to be
unlucky. Ferdinand speedily discovered that Sgalambro was utterly unfit
for the position and, on November 6th, we find him writing in hot haste
to Inquisitor-general Deza that, after it had had so unfortunate a
beginning, Sgalambro’s incumbency would destroy it; he had sent to
Valencia to stop his departure, but too late, and now he instructs Deza
to select some good jurist for the place, as soon as possible, and
before some evil is wrought in Sicily.[12] This eagerness, however,
speedily subsided and Sgalambro was allowed to retain his office for a
year. On November 8th, Montoro and he issued an edict requiring the
surrender of all official papers by those formerly connected with the
tribunal; also one prohibiting all Conversos, or baptized Jews, from
leaving the island without special licence, under pain of
excommunication, confiscation and arbitrary penalties, and offering to
informers ten per cent. of the confiscations. In December, the viceroy
and all public officials took the customary oath of obedience and the
inquisitors issued an Edict of Grace, promising relief from death and
confiscation to all heretics who would, within fifteen days, come
forward and confess fully as to themselves and their associates. This
was accompanied with an Edict of Faith, ordering all cognizant of heresy
to denounce it within fifteen days, threatening those who omitted to do
so with prosecution for fautorship of heresy and promising secrecy for
informers. This latter edict apparently brought in few denunciations,
for it was repeated on January 14, 1501, and, at the same time, was
published a decree of the inquisitor-general, announcing the
disabilities of the descendants of those convicted of heresy. That these
proceedings were as yet a novelty in Sicily is apparent from a monition
issued by the inquisitors to the president of the states of the _Camera
reginale_ not to impede in those districts the publication of the
edicts.[13]

Evidently the Inquisition was rapidly becoming organized for work, but
it still lacked a fixed habitation for, on August 22d, Ferdinand wrote
to his viceroy that a house was necessary for it and, as the one
occupied by Mosen Johan Chilestro, the royal carver, was suitable, it
was to be taken for the purpose; he had no recollection that it had been
given to the latter except for life but, if the heirs could prove a gift
in perpetuity, they should be paid a suitable rent. Apparently the
labors of the tribunal were beginning to promise results in the
long-expected confiscations, for a letter of September 4th empowers the
receiver Obregon to compound a suit against Johan de San Martin, for
property derived through his brother and father, for five thousand
florins and more if it could be obtained. It would seem, however, that
as yet the status and privileges of the officials were not clearly
recognized in Sicily, for a letter of September 10th to the viceroy
urges him to see that the inquisitors enjoy the immunities and
exemptions conceded to them by the Holy See and that the officials are
as well treated as in the rest of the Spanish dominions.[14]

At length a successor was found for Sgalambro in the person of Pedro de
Belorado, an old Spanish inquisitor, now Archbishop-elect of Messina, to
whom Obregon was ordered, September 30th, to pay the same salary.[15]
The people had not even yet become accustomed to the arbitrary methods
of the Holy Office, for the earliest act by which Belorado makes himself
known to us is his excommunication of the magistrates and judges of the
town of Catania as impeders of the Inquisition, because they had
prevented the alguazil Martin de Vallejo from removing from their city
certain New Christians whom he had arrested. Vallejo had vindicated his
office by imposing on the spot a fine of a thousand ducats on the
offenders, and this Belorado confirmed. In 1502 we find him issuing
fresh Edicts of Grace and of Faith and, in 1503, Deza empowered him and
Montoro to act either independently or conjointly.[16] It would seem
that the governor of the districts of the Camera reginale was still
recalcitrant, for a letter from Ferdinand, August 13, 1504, orders him
to favor the operations of the tribunal, “for our officials have naught
to do but what we ourself do, which is to obey the Holy Office.”[17]

There is not much evidence of activity at this period, but an auto de fe
was celebrated, August 11, 1506, in which was burnt Olivieri de Mauro,
a renegade Christian.[18] Probably this was followed by others, of which
the records have not reached us, but the troubles of the tribunal were
not yet over and, in 1509, it was practically suspended for awhile, for
the Bishop of Cefalù was transferred to Naples, as we shall see
hereafter; Belorado died, the receiver Obregon was in Spain, and the
other officials apparently dispersed, as there was no money to pay their
salaries. At length a successor was found in Doctor Alonso Bernal, whose
appointment Ferdinand announced to the viceroy, January 19, 1510, but he
was in no haste to assume the duties for, on April 2d Ferdinand was
obliged to furnish him with sixty ducats to expedite his departure from
Valencia. Obregon accompanied him and, as the whole staff of the
tribunal had disappeared, he was empowered to fill their places and
regulate their salaries, which were to be paid out of three hundred
ducats to be advanced by the royal treasurer and to be repaid out of the
first proceeds of the expected confiscations.[19] The need of money was
doubtless an incentive to active work. Bernal lost no time in getting
the tribunal into shape and, by August 27th, we hear of his having many
prisoners, for whose safe-keeping he had spent fifty ducats in arranging
a gaol.[20] The result of this industry manifested itself in an auto de
fe, celebrated June 6, 1511, in which eight persons were burnt.[21]

He was speedily furnished with a colleague, for royal letters of June
18th and 24th inform us of the appointment of a second inquisitor, in
the person of Doctor Diego de Bonilla, promoted from the position of
fiscal, to whom Obregon was ordered to pay a salary of 6000 sueldos,
while the new fiscal, Leonardo Vázquez de Cepeda was to receive 2000 and
the notary, Pedro de Barahona the same. It was one thing, however, to
grant salaries and quite another to get them paid, in the habitual
mismanagement of inquisitorial business. From a letter of September 17th
we learn that Obregon had left Sicily in the fleet, placing as his
substitute his son, a boy of 15 or 16. The salaries had fallen greatly
in arrears and the boy declared that he had no funds save twenty ounces,
while Inquisitor Bernal asserted that he had imposed fines and pecuniary
penances to the amount of thirteen hundred ducats, besides considerable
confiscations, which should be ample to meet all salaries and expenses,
whereupon Ferdinand ordered the viceroy to investigate the accounts and
discover where the money had gone.[22]

These were not the only difficulties which the tribunal had to
encounter. Accustomed as the people had been for centuries to the
existence of the Inquisition, the Spanish institution was a very
different affair, not only as to activity and severity but still more
from the privileges and immunities claimed and enforced by its officials
and their servants and familiars, especially their exemption from taxes
and import dues and their _fuero_ or right to the jurisdiction of the
Inquisition, whether as plaintiffs or defendants, giving rise to
perpetual irritation through the oppression and injustice thus rendered
possible. These innovations were not admitted without resistance, which
Ferdinand sought to repress by a letter of September 10, 1508, ordering
Belorado to see that his officials were as well treated in these
respects as elsewhere in the Spanish dominions. This received scant
obedience for, on November 14, 1509, he wrote to the _stratico_ of
Palermo expressing extreme displeasure on learning that he had arrested
a scrivener of the tribunal and had deprived other officials of their
arms; in future he must maintain their privileges and exemptions and
show them every favor and protection.[23] Yet Ferdinand knew that the
troubles arose from the over-weening pretensions of the tribunal and its
officials for, in a letter of July 30, 1510, to Bernal he attributed
them to the exorbitant invasions of the royal jurisdiction by the
inquisitors and their appointment of men of evil life who caused
scandal and infamy. Bernal must bear in mind that, in Sicily, the
prerogatives of the crown were greater than elsewhere; whenever he had
to take action in matters unconnected with heresy he must consult the
viceroy or advocate fiscal, so as to avoid prejudice to the royal
pre-eminence; he must also furnish to the viceroy a list of officials,
servants and familiars, the latter not to exceed ten in number.[24]

Inquisitors, especially of distant tribunals, were not accustomed to pay
much heed to instructions inculcating moderation in the exercise of
their powers and the Sicilians were indisposed to submission. We learn
from a royal letter of December 25, 1510, that the jurats objected to
taking the customary oath of obedience to inquisitors and that the local
authorities persisted in levying taxes on the officials.[25] Relations
were strained and disaffection grew until there was an explosion on St.
Bernard’s day, August 20, 1511, when the people rose with demands that
the privileges of the officials should be curtailed--a rising which
cost, it is said, the lives of a thousand Spanish soldiers.[26] Neither
this warning nor Ferdinand’s exhortations abated the pretensions of the
Holy Office. A letter of the viceroy, Hugo de Moncada, September 6,
1512, relates that when some troops pursued a band of robbers and
arrested them in the country-house of an inquisitor, where they had
sought refuge, the latter threatened the captain and his men with
excommunication if the prisoners were not released and then claimed
jurisdiction to try them, on the ground of the place of their
capture.[27] This was by no means an isolated case for soon afterwards
two other flagrant examples of similar character evoked from Ferdinand,
October 25th, an order to rescind their action, coupled with an
expression of extreme displeasure at their thus affording protection to
malefactors on one pretext or another. Their behavior in the
custom-house to evade the payment of duties was a further subject of
animadversion and he warned them sternly to avoid in future creating
such scandals.[28]

This somewhat exuberant zeal in asserting their privileges was
accompanied with corresponding activity in the performance of their
regular duties. In 1513 there were three autos de fe celebrated, in
which the burnings aggregated thirty-nine, a large portion being of
those who had been previously reconciled and had relapsed, thus
indicating the increased vigilance of the tribunal.[29] A further
evidence of this was the arrival, in September, 1513, at Naples, of four
hundred fugitives, including a number of priests and friars, to escape
the rigor of the inquisitors, who they said were endeavoring to force
confessors to reveal the confessions of their penitents.[30] One
gratifying result of this activity was the financial ease afforded by
the resultant large confiscations. A letter of Ferdinand’s to Obregon,
June 27, 1513, calls his attention to them and to those anticipated from
the number of prisoners on trial, requiring greater care than had
hitherto been devoted to the management; the officials were now
receiving their salaries and doing their duty. In spite of this warning
we find, a year later, that Obregon had abruptly quitted Palermo,
leaving the affairs of the office in confusion, rendering necessary the
appointment, June 15, 1514, of a successor, Garcí Cid, who was
instructed to reduce it to order and to invest in ground-rents twelve
hundred ounces which Obregon had deposited in a bank.[31] That the
profits of persecution continued is evidenced by a gift made, March 30,
1515, by Ferdinand, to his wife, Queen Germaine, of all the
confiscations of that year, in the city of Syracuse and district of the
Camera reginale, up to the sum of ten thousand florins--a gift which
Garcí Cid was ordered to keep secret until after he should have rendered
a statement of all that was on hand and was expected.[32]

It is perhaps not surprising that this increased effectiveness of the
tribunal stimulated popular discontent, which found expression in a
petition from the Sicilian Parliament asking Ferdinand that the
Inquisition be required to observe the ancient canons and methods of
procedure, for many of those burnt in the autos asserted their
innocence, declaring that their confessions had been extorted by torture
and dying with every sign of being good Christians. It was further asked
that some limit be put to the issue of licences to bear arms and as to
the kind of persons licensed; that the judge of confiscations should
have a fixed salary and should not exact fees and that there should be
an appeal from him to the viceroy; also that those who in good faith
entered into contracts with persons reputed to be good Christians should
be able to collect their debts, in place of having them included in the
confiscation, the contrary practice being destructive to trade and
commerce.[33] There was also a special embassy from Palermo, complaining
that the inquisitors required the city authorities to renew every year
the oath of obedience and that they issued licences to bear arms to men
of evil life who caused much disorder and scandal.[34] Ferdinand
promised relief of these grievances and, in due course, a fresh series
of instructions was issued, in 1515, by Bishop Martin de Aspeitia and
the Aragonese Supreme Council, or Suprema. It limited the number of
familiars to thirty for Palermo, to twenty for Messina and Catania, to
fifteen for Syracuse and Trapani and to not over ten in other places;
they were to be men of approved character and were to carry certificates
identifying them, in the absence of which they could be disarmed by the
secular authorities. If officials were accused of serious crime, the
evidence was to be sent to the inquisitor-general when, if the proof was
sufficient, the offender would be dismissed and the inquisitor who had
tolerated it would be punished. Officials were deprived of the _voz
activa_ or right as plaintiffs to the jurisdiction of the tribunal,
although Dr. Martin Real assures us that experience had already shown
that they could not exist without it, so universally were they detested.
Their buying up of claims and matters in litigation, in which they had
the benefit of the tribunal as a court, was prohibited. The dowries of
wives were protected from confiscation when husbands were convicted and
dealings with those in good repute as Christians were held good, in case
of confiscation, so that the claims of creditors were allowed and, if
the fisc desired to seize alienated real estate, it was required to
refund the purchase-money to the buyer.[35] There were various other
reforms embodied in the instructions, all indicating a desire to avoid
injustice to innocent third parties, but the whole is interesting rather
as an exposure of customary abuses than as effecting their removal,
although when, towards the close of 1514 a new inquisitor, Miguel
Cervera by name, was sent to Sicily, he was ordered to obey to the
letter the instructions of Torquemada and his successors and not to
increase the number of officials without permission.[36]

However praiseworthy may have been the intentions at headquarters, it
was impossible to control the tribunal or to allay popular hostility,
which found opportunity for expression after the death of Ferdinand,
February 23, 1516. Hugo de Moncada had held the office of viceroy for
six years and had earned universal hatred by his cruelty, greed and
lust. Among other devices, he had monopolized the corn-trade and, by his
exportations, had reduced the island almost to starvation, though its
fertility rendered it the granary of the Mediterranean, while the
poverty of the people was aggravated by an adulterated currency.[37] He
concealed the news of Ferdinand’s death, in hopes of reappointment by
Charles V, but it became known and the people, led by some powerful
nobles, claimed that his commission had expired. While the popular mind
was thus excited, Fra Hieronimo da Verona, in his lenten sermons in
Palermo, denounced as sacrilegious the wearing of red crosses on the
green penitential sanbenitos of the reconciled heretics, who were very
numerous, and he urged the people to tear off the symbol of Christ from
the heretical penitents. His advice was followed and the aspect of the
mob grew more and more threatening. Moncada attempted to quiet matters
by proclaiming Charles and Juana, abolishing an obnoxious corn-tax and
exhibiting letters from Charles confirming him in office. These were
denounced as forgeries; a man who demanded to see them was arrested by
the prefect and rescued by the people, while the prefect was obliged to
fly for his life. That night, March 7, 1516, an immense crowd, with
artillery taken from the arsenal, besieged the vice-regal palace;
Moncada, disguised as a serving-man, escaped by a postern to the house
of a friend, whence he took refuge on a ship in the harbor and sailed
for Messina, which consented to receive him. After sacking the palace,
the mob turned its attention to the Inquisition. Cervera saved his life
by taking a consecrated host in a monstrance, under protection of which
he gained the harbor, amid the jeers and insults of the people, who
cried that he was an inquisitor and hunter of money, not of heretics. He
took ship for Spain, while the mob released the prisoners, destroyed the
records and pillaged the property of the Inquisition. The Palermitans
followed this with an embassy to Charles, complaining of the evil doings
of Moncada and the disorders caused by the Inquisition which had
well-nigh destroyed their city. The sole object of its officials they
said was to accumulate money and they would lay down their lives rather
than see it restored, except under the ancient form as carried on by the
bishops and Dominicans. Cervera betook himself to Flanders to solicit
his restoration, but the island held out and, for three years, there was
no Inquisition in Sicily, except in Messina and its territory.[38]

Enlightened by the insurrection and the Palermitan complaints, the
Suprema or supreme council of Aragon, on August 29, 1516, sent to
Centelles, Bishop of Syracuse, a commission to investigate the tribunal,
with a list of interrogatories from which it appears that Cervera had
filled the office with his kindred and servants, while every kind of
pillage and oppression is suggested, even to the rifling of the
treasure-chest by the officials on the day of the tumult. Bishop
Centelles, however, had died on August 22d; of course no investigation
was made and the Suprema contented itself with expressing, on October
27th, to Charles its gratification at his determination to restore with
the greatest honor the tribunal which had been expelled with such
disgrace.[39] This, however, was not so readily accomplished. Some seven
months later, on June 15, 1517, Charles wrote to the Sicilian viceroy
ordering Cervera to be received back and obeyed under penalty of the
royal wrath and three thousand crowns but, for a time, this was a dead
letter. Cervera returned to Spain when Charles went there, in 1517, and
it was not until 1519 that Sicily was sufficiently pacified to render it
expedient to send him back. A royal cédula of May 29, 1519, announces
this and orders Garcí Cid, the receiver, to pay him 343 ducats for his
accrued salary without deduction for absence, and, when the cédula of
June 15, 1517, was published at last on July 6, 1519, it was not in
Palermo but in Messina, where the Marquis of Monteleone, the new
viceroy, was still residing. Meanwhile a certain Giovanni Martino da
Aquino had been enjoying the title of inquisitor there, but he was
removed, May 20, 1519, in favor of Cervera. A second inquisitor, Tristan
Calvete had been appointed in 1517 and had been welcomed in Messina.[40]

Calvete’s first act was to issue an edict, May 16, 1518, requiring,
under pain of excommunication, all papers and property of the
Inquisition to be returned within fifteen days and the anathema duly
followed on June 6th.[41] Presumably this produced little result;
Palermo, the seat of the tribunal and scene of insurrection, had not yet
returned to obedience; the records had been destroyed and their lack
long remained a source of embarrassment. The tribunal however, in 1519,
was re-established and fully manned; it celebrated an auto de fe, June
11, 1519 and, for five or six years, there seems to have been one nearly
every year, but the number of executions was not large.[42] Popular
antagonism was by no means disarmed, for we find Calvete issuing,
September 29, 1525, two edicts, one commanding everyone to aid and favor
the Inquisition and not to defend heretics, and the other summoning all
cognizant of the numerous _penitenciados_ and their descendants, who
disregarded the disabilities imposed on them, to denounce them.[43]

There was ample cause for disaffection, arising, not from sympathy with
heresy, but from the arbitrary proceedings of those who regarded
persecution primarily as a source of enrichment. Instructions given,
July 31, 1517, by Cardinal Adrian to Calvete, commence with the remark
that all inquisitors thus far sent to Sicily had disregarded the rules
of the Holy Office, both as to civil and criminal procedure, as to
confiscations and as to familiars. It was therefore ordered that all
officials, under pain of excommunication, should inviolably observe the
instructions, including those given to Melchor Cervera; the whole body
of these rules was ordered to be read in presence of all the officials
assembled for the purpose, a notarial act being taken to attest the
fact. Moreover, in addition to excommunication for violations of the
rules, the special penalties provided were to be irrevocably enforced.
Following this were particular instructions for the correction of abuses
which indicate how completely the interests of the fisc and the rights
of the people were subordinated to official cupidity. One of the
practices prohibited shows how repulsive the religion of Christ, in
such hands, was rendered to converts. The inquisitors, it appears, were
in the habit of making reconciled penitents and baptized neophytes labor
on the fortifications of the castle; when they did not appear at the
appointed hour they were fined and these fines, which were collected by
Zamporron, the messenger of the tribunal, amounted to a considerable
sum, of which no account was rendered.[44] In this, as in all similar
denunciations of malversations and abuses, a noteworthy feature is that
punishment is always threatened for the future and none is inflicted for
the past; no one is dismissed and the thieving and corrupt officials are
allowed unmolested to continue their career of plunder and oppression.

Apparently Cardinal Adrian was advised that his instructions were not
obeyed and he sent Master Benito Mercader as “visitor” or inspector to
report on the condition of the tribunal. Before this report was
received, Adrian had passed through the papacy to the tomb, and it was
acted upon by his successor, Manrique, Archbishop of Seville, who
issued, January 31, 1525, a fresh set of instructions, based on its
revelations. From this it would appear that there was little in which
the inquisitors and their officials did not violate the rules, both in
the conduct of trials and management of the finances. There seems, in
fact, to have been a Saturnalia of peculation. Collections were made by
both authorized and unauthorized persons, of which no accounts were
kept. The fines and pecuniary penances, which formed so lucrative a
source of income, were kept from the knowledge of the notary of
sequestrations so that he could make no charge of them to the receiver.
Officials claimed and received twenty or twenty-five per cent. for
discovering hidden confiscated property, their knowledge of which was
acquired officially. The Christian slaves of condemned heretics were
sold in place of being set free, according to law. Inquisitors and
their subordinates received “presents,” or rather bribes, from penitents
and litigants, which perhaps explains the complaint that sentences to
the galleys and other penalties were not executed and that the
disabilities and sanbenitos of those reconciled were not enforced. There
is significance in the instructions for the collection of the two
hundred gold ducats, which the late inquisitor, Melchor Cervera,
had bequeathed to the Inquisition for the discharge of his
conscience--probably but a small portion of the irregular gains for
which he had had ample opportunity. As a whole, this inside picture of
the Holy Office shows us how completely it was converted into an engine
for oppression and peculation and how little there was of genuine
fanaticism to serve as an excuse for its existence, but, as usual, there
are no dismissals or punishments inflicted and the only remedy proposed
is the formal semi-annual reading of the instructions to the officials.
That they should continue to be the objects of popular detestation was
inevitable, and the complaint is made that their maltreatment and the
resistance offered to them remain unpunished.[45]

This was the only point on which reformation was attempted. Charles V,
in a letter to his viceroy, October 22, 1525, says that he understands
that the royal courts take cognizance of the cases of the officials of
the tribunal, which displeases him greatly; it is his will that the Holy
Office shall be cherished and favored and that in all cases, civil and
criminal, its officials are to enjoy the immunities and privileges to
which they are entitled; they are to exercise their functions with all
freedom, under the royal protection, guarded by the penalties expressed
in the royal concessions. This was supplemented by another cédula of
August 25, 1526, taking the inquisitors and their officials under the
royal safeguard and ordering that they should have all aid and support
and protection from the secular authorities.[46]

As for the wrongs committed by the inquisitors, their continuance is
shown by repeated petitions from the Sicilian Parliament, which indicate
how completely the instructions of 1515 and 1517 were ignored, while
Charles’s replies--probably drawn up for him by the Suprema--prove how
little hope there was of redress through an appeal to the throne. The
Parliament represented that the Conversos who remained were few and
poor, the rest having fled or been condemned, wherefore the inquisitors
despoiled the native Christians of their property, to remedy which it
asked as before that in future the Inquisition should be conducted by
the bishops and Dominicans as of old. To this the answer was that he
would consult the pope. It was also asked that Christians who had, in
good faith, made contracts with reputed Catholics and thus were their
creditors, should have their claims recognized and satisfied out of the
confiscated property of a condemned debtor. This shows that the
instructions of 1515 to this effect had been disregarded and there was
little hope of improvement in Charles’s assent with the nullifying
proviso that there must be a prescription of thirty years’ possession,
concerning which he would write to the pope. A further request was that
the dowries of orthodox wives should not be subject to confiscation and
that children’s portions should be exempted, to which the reply was
“agreed as to dowries received before the commission of heresy; for the
rest, the pope will be consulted.” Another point was that, in case of
denial of justice or evident scandal, the viceroy could appoint some
prelate who, with the Gran Corte or the doctors, could decide the
matter. This was rejected with the declaration that all appeals must be
to the inquisitor-general. It was further asked that each inquisitor
when he came should file his commission in the ordinary public
registers, so that every one could learn what was his authority, for the
inquisitors often exceeded their lawful powers. Complaint was also made
that the officials abused their immunities and privileges by engaging in
trade and it was asked that in suits thence arising they should be
subjected to the vice-regal or episcopal courts, to which Charles
replied that he had given orders to the inquisitor-general to see to
this.[47]

Thus supported, the Inquisition pursued its course and held one or more
autos de fe every year, until 1534, though the number of burnings was
not excessive, the summary for the nine years showing only thirty-nine
victims relaxed to the secular arm, the most of whom suffered for
relapse after previous conviction and reconciliation.[48] While thus
performing its full duties to the faith, the consciousness of imperial
support had not led it to mend its ways or to reform abuses, and popular
opposition was undiminished, for Charles found it necessary to issue
another rescript, January 18, 1535, addressed to Viceroy Monteleone,
confirming at much length the privileges and exemptions of the officials
from secular jurisdiction and their right to bear arms.[49] When,
however, in the following September, Charles visited Palermo, on his
return from his crusade to Tunis, and listened to the earnest
representations of the Parliament, his convictions changed--a change
possibly facilitated by a subsidy granted to him of two hundred and
fifty thousand ducats over and above the ordinary revenue.[50] He
suspended, for a period of five years, the jurisdiction of the
Inquisition in all cases involving the death-penalty and not connected
with matters of faith, and, when this term had elapsed, he prolonged the
suspension for five years more.[51] The historians of the Inquisition
tell us that this resulted in the unchecked multiplication of heretics
among the noblest families, while the hatred of the people for its
representatives manifested itself without fear of punishment. There can,
in fact, be little doubt that its operations were crippled on this
account, for its officials were no longer shielded from popular anger as
soon as offences committed against them became cognizable by the secular
courts in sympathy with the offenders. Thus when the Inquisitor
Bartolomé Sebastian made a visitation of the town of Jaca, with his
officials and servants, and published the Edict of Faith, the
inhabitants piled up wood around the house in which they were lodged and
would have burnt them all had not the Baroness de la Florida assembled
her kinsmen and retainers, raised the siege and enabled them to escape.
Soon afterwards, when the alguazil and his assistants went to San Marcos
to arrest some heretics, they were set upon by Matteo Garruba and his
accomplices; he was left for dead and some of his people were slain.[52]
Apparently the danger, of which these are examples, caused the
inquisitors to confine their labors to the larger cities for, in
January, 1543, Inquisitor-general Tavera ordered a general visitation of
the island, which he says had not been performed for a long while. In
June a new inquisitor, the Licentiate Gongora, was sent with special
instructions to carry out this visitation and peremptory orders were
issued by Prince Philip that he and his officials should be efficiently
protected.[53] Another manifestation of popular repugnance was the
resistance offered to the invariable custom in Spain of hanging in the
churches the sanbenitos of the condemned, or linens with inscriptions of
their names, heresies and punishment, thus perpetuating their infamy,
which was one of the severest features of the penalty of heresy. Páramo
explains that this was not observed in Sicily for when, in 1543,
Inquisitor Cervera endeavored to introduce it, by hanging them in the
church of St. Dominic, there arose so great a tumult that he was obliged
to abandon the attempt and it had never since then been possible to
effect it, up to his time (1598).[54] To add to the embarrassment of the
tribunal, it was or professed to be impoverished. When its alguazil
Marcos Calderon died, there was owing to him for arrears of salary 155
ounces, 24 tarines and 9 granos, and in February, 1543, the receiver
Francisco Cid declared his inability to pay this to the heirs. To
relieve him the Suprema agreed to place half the burden of this on the
tribunal of Granada and, by letter of May 30, 1544, ordered Cid to pay
the other half.[55]

In spite of popular disaffection and curtailment of temporal
jurisdiction, the Inquisition continued its deadly work. On May 30,
1541, there was celebrated at Palermo an auto in which twenty-two
culprits appeared, nineteen of them for Judaizing and three for
Lutheranism--among the latter Fra Perruccio Campagna, a tertiary of San
Francisco de Paola, who courted martyrdom and was burnt as an obstinate
impenitent heretic.[56] By this time Lutheranism was much more dreaded
than Judaism. In view of its threatening spread and of the occasional
outbursts of popular detestation, there was probably little difficulty
in convincing Charles that he had made a mistake in limiting the
exemptions of the officials; he announced in advance his intention of
not prolonging the limitation and, by letters of February 27, 1543, he
ordered his Sicilian officials, after the expiration of the term, to
give the Inquisition full liberty of action and not to interfere with it
in any way under a penalty of two thousand ounces. When the term
expired, Prince Philip, as regent of the Spanish dominions, by a decree
of June 18, 1546, published the letters of 1543 and ordered their strict
observance.[57]

It would seem that even before the expiration of the term the tribunal
arrogantly and successfully asserted the immunity of its officials from
secular law. Juan de Aragon, Duke of Terranova, was Constable and
Admiral of Naples, a Spanish grandee of the first class and kinsman of
Charles V, acting as President or Governor of Sicily, in the absence of
the viceroy. In this capacity he had occasion to torture and condemn to
the galleys Maestro Antonio Bertin, a familiar, and to imprison some
other familiars. The inquisitors took up the matter and sentenced him to
perform public penance, to release Bertin and to pay him a _solatium_ of
two hundred ducats. The case was of course carried to Spain, where both
sides were heard and as usual the decision was against the crown and in
favor of the Inquisition. Prince Philip conveyed this to Terranova by
letter of December 16, 1543, exhorting him to submit to it willingly and
not to wait to be compelled by excommunication. Terranova recalcitrated
against the public humiliation and finally a letter of Philip, April 24,
1544, remitted the penance, when the duke released and compensated the
criminal.[58]

Such an occurrence does not justify the assertion made by Prince Philip,
June 15, 1546, when a new inquisitor, Bartolomé Sebastian, was sent to
Palermo, that the officials of the Sicilian Holy Office were held in
such contempt and were so impeded in their functions that they could
scarce discharge their duties, wherefore special injunctions were laid
on him to exact from all authorities the oath of obedience, while every
assistance was emphatically ordered to be rendered to him.[59] In fact,
almost simultaneously with these utterances, an auto de fe, held June 6,
1546, showed that there was no impediment to the discharge of the proper
functions of the inquisition. In this auto there were no living bodies
delivered to the stake, but the effigies of four fugitives answered the
purpose of demonstrating that the authority of the tribunal was
undiminished. Sebastian indicated how far that authority extended when,
in 1547, he repeated the prohibition of Conversos expatriating
themselves and their families under pain of confiscation, while a fine
of two hundred ounces was decreed against shipmasters transporting such
persons without special licence. This recrudescence of inquisitorial
activity aroused the Parliament, which petitioned Charles V that the
accused should have copies of the evidence against them, with the names
of the witnesses, so that his faithful subjects should not perish
undefended, through false testimony suborned by enmity, but the emperor
turned this off with a vague promise that Sicilians should not be unduly
molested. This did not soothe popular hostility, for a letter of the
Regent Juana to the Viceroy Juan de Vega, September 29, 1549, thanks him
for the solicitude which he has shown in protecting the rights and
immunities of the Inquisition, seeing that recently some of its
officials have been wounded and slain while discharging their duties.
Possibly this may refer to the case of Giacomo Achiti, who was relaxed
to the secular arm, May 19, 1549, for having with others resisted and
slain Giovanni de Landeras, a minister of the Inquisition. Yet whatever
may have been the good will of Vega, it was impossible for a viceroy to
perform his duties and remain on good terms with the Holy Office. In
this same year, 1549, a certain D. Pietro di Gregorio had torture
administered to a familiar, for which Alberto Albertini, Bishop of Patti
and inquisitor, threw him in prison, when Vega liberated him by force
and was duly reproved therefore by Charles.[60]

In the numerous autos de fe which are recorded during the following
years, it is interesting to observe that Judaism sinks into the
background and that the predominant heresies punished are Protestant.
The Inquisition was aroused to renewed activity and its victims, whether
burnt or penanced, were numbered by scores.[61] It is probable that
peculation and waste continued for a letter of the inquisitors, April 2,
1560, to Philip II congratulates him on the prospect of some large
confiscations impending; these, they say, will relieve the tribunal,
which is deeply in debt and it is suggested to the king that if he will
invest the proceeds in ground-rents, the income will go far to pay the
salaries and perpetuate the institution. Apparently the suggestion was
unheeded for the complaints of poverty and indebtedness continue; the
convicts are mostly poor people, whose property barely meets their
prison expenses, and some rich abbey is asked for, of which the revenues
may be devoted to this holy cause.[62]

Whether the complaint of poverty be true or not, the inquisitors had
ample opportunity of irregular gains. The privileges and immunities of
its officials rendered the position of familiar eagerly sought for and,
in an age of corruption, we may reasonably assume that it was liberally
paid for. In addition to this, the exclusive jurisdiction over them, in
both civil and criminal matters, was very lucrative, not only from the
fees exacted for every transaction in suits and trials, but from the
custom of punishment by fines for all delinquencies. It is noteworthy
that in the discussions which arose, it was assumed on all sides that
the fuero of the tribunal was equivalent to immunity for crime, and so
it was as far as corporal penalties were concerned, but pecuniary ones
were a profitable substitute, which enured exclusively to the tribunal.
I have not met with any trials of Sicilian officials, but this was the
custom in the Peninsula and it is an unavoidable assumption that the
example was followed in the island. In addition to this was the
influence derivable from thus enrolling an army under the inquisitorial
banner, and thus there were ample motives for disregarding the
limitations placed by the instructions on the number of appointments.
The viceroy, Marc’ Antonio Colonna, in a letter of November 3, 1577,
states that there were twenty-five thousand familiars and that the
inquisitors proposed to increase them to thirty thousand; they included,
he says, all the nobles, the rich men and the criminals.[63] It was
practically an alliance between the tribunal on one side and the
influential and the dangerous classes on the other, against the
vice-regal government and the courts, rendering impossible the orderly
administration of justice and the maintenance of public peace. The
viceroys were involved in perpetual struggles with the Holy Office and
were constantly remonstrating with the home government, but to little
effect. An attempt was made to amend the situation by an agreement,
known as the Concordia of Badajoz, July 4, 1580, which was, in reality,
a surrender of the secular authorities to the Inquisition. In Castile, a
number of the more serious crimes were excepted from the exemption of
familiars, but in Sicily they were entitled to the jurisdiction of the
tribunal for all offences, however atrocious. This was continued by the
Concordia, which provided that, whenever a case involving an official or
familiar should come before the viceroy, he should promptly hand it over
to the tribunal. The inquisitors were empowered to excommunicate judges
who interfered with their jurisdiction and the judge so excommunicated
was required to present himself before them, to beg for absolution and
to promise obedience. Provision however was made for _competencias_, or
conferences between judges and inquisitors on disputed questions when,
if they could not agree, the matter was referred to the king for final
decision--a process which usually prolonged it indefinitely.[64]

The secular authorities were naturally restive under this and quarrels
continued. In 1589 there was an outbreak, when the Gran Corte undertook
to try a familiar named Antonio Ferrante. The Inquisition claimed him;
the viceroy, the Count of Alva, was less enduring than some of his
predecessors; he caused the sentence of hanging to be executed and, in
the ensuing recriminations, he imprisoned the consultors of the
Inquisition and its judge of confiscations. Both parties appealed to
Philip II who, after examining all the documents, wrote to Alba, March
29, 1590, strongly reproving him for bringing such scandal and discredit
on an institution so necessary for the peace and quiet of the land. In
future he must strictly observe the Concordia and the judges of the Gran
Corte must present themselves individually before the inquisitors and
obey their commands. Alba apparently had argued that the consultors were
not formally officials, for in 1591 Philip decided that they were so and
were entitled to all the privileges of that position.[65]

Philip was firmly convinced that the Inquisition was essential to keep
Sicily in subjection, which accounts for his upholding it against his
own representatives, but his eyes were somewhat opened by another case
which was in progress at the same time. Count Mussumelli, a familiar,
was charged with the murder of Giuseppe Bajola, fiscal of the Gran
Corte; he was claimed by the Inquisition and took refuge in its prison.
From this the Count of Alva took him forcibly, whereupon the inquisitors
excommunicated the subordinates concerned in the act and, finding this
ineffective, on April 6, 1590, they not only laid an interdict on the
whole city, but stretched their jurisdiction by prohibiting all vessels
from leaving the port. This brought Alba to terms; Mussumelli was
restored to the inquisitorial prison and the interdict was lifted.[66]
The case was necessarily carried up to the king and, as usual, was
referred to a _junta_ consisting of two members each of the Suprema and
of the Council of Italy. To the consulta which they in due course
presented, Philip replied, expressing his grief at the atrocious crimes
of recent occurrence in Sicily. That of the Count Mussumelli was so
aggravated that its impunity would render difficult the enforcement of
justice and he must therefore be remitted to the viceroy and judges of
the Gran Corte. As for the Count of Rocalmuto and the Marquis of la
Rochela, they were to be left to the Inquisition, in full confidence
that their punishment would correspond to the enormity of their
offences, for which he charged the inquisitor-general and Suprema.
Moreover, to prevent such occurrences for the future, he decreed that
the crime of assassination should be excepted from the immunity enjoyed
by familiars and should not be made the subject of competencias. In
addition to this, he proceeded to state that experience had shown the
great troubles and scandals arising from nobles being officials and
familiars--positions which they sought, not to discharge their duties
but to commit crimes under the protection of the Inquisition, thus
creating many quarrels between the jurisdictions to the discredit of
both, to scandal of the people and hindrance of justice. It would
therefore be well for the inquisitor-general and Suprema to order that
Sicilian nobles be no longer appointed as officials and familiars and
that existing appointments be called in and revoked, for he had resolved
to order the viceroys and judges to hold that they are not entitled to
the fuero of the Inquisition. It was unreasonable that so holy a
business should serve as a cover for delinquents and evil-doers and
there was ample experience that this was their sole object in seeking
these positions, so that he greatly wondered that the Inquisition
should persist in a course so damaging to its reputation and so foreign
to the object of its foundation.[67]

Such rebuke and such action could only have been elicited from a monarch
like Philip II by a profound conviction of the unbearable abuses of
inquisitorial jurisdiction. He would more wisely have followed the
example of his father in suspending wholly that jurisdiction, for the
tribunal continued to exercise it in a manner provocative of continual
disturbance. At length, in 1595, a junta or conference was formed,
consisting of two members of the Suprema, Doctors Juan de Zuñiga and
Caldas, and two regents of the Gran Corte, Bruñol and Escudero, to
reach, if possible, an agreement that should lead to peace. There were
many discussions and tentative attempts which finally resulted in a
consulta presented to Philip as a compromise acceptable to both sides.
This commences by stating that the special cases in dispute had been
settled or laid aside, awaiting further documents, and that for the
future it had been agreed that the Concordia of 1580 should be observed
with certain amendments. The Inquisition was not to protect officials or
familiars guilty of treason against the viceroy or his counsellors, of
assassination, of shooting from ambush, of insulting, wounding or
killing any one in presence of judges of the Gran Corte or Real
Patrimonio. It was the same with familiars who were notaries and
committed frauds in that capacity, or were warehousemen and adulterated
commodities stored with them, or dealers in provisions who used false
weights, or bankers or other debtors delinquent to the Real Patrimonio,
or delinquent taxpayers in general. Widows of officials were to enjoy
the fuero only so long as they remained unmarried, and servants were
only to be entitled to it when they were really part of the household
and not merely serving for food and wages, concerning which inquisitors
were strictly enjoined not to commit frauds. In Palermo and its suburbs
the number of familiars was limited to one hundred; in towns of sixty
hearths, to one; in other places the Suprema was to decide; they were
to be prohibited from carrying guns in the country and fire-arms of any
kind in the cities. If a judge arrested a familiar or official, he was
at once to send the papers in the case to the inquisitors that they
might see whether it was excepted or whether there should be a
competencia and, in the latter case, the judges were to be invited
courteously to meet them and not be summoned as inferiors. The judges,
when excommunicated, were to apply for absolution and not refuse as
heretofore to do so, thus discrediting inquisitorial censures, but the
viceroy was not to be excommunicated without the assent of the
inquisitor-general. The Regent Bruñol argued earnestly in favor of
including rape among the excepted crimes, pointing out how provocative
it was of assassination, when the husband of a woman thus injured saw
the culprit walking the streets unpunished, and he seems to have
succeeded in getting it added to the scanty list of those which the
Inquisition would permit to be dealt with in the secular courts.[68]

Thus far the conferees agreed, but they differed on the exclusion of
nobles from official position. The members of the Suprema represented to
the king that, since he had ordered their removal, the Inquisition had
fallen greatly in public estimation and found much difficulty in making
arrests; therefore they asked that there might be thirty, who would
always be selected from the most quiet and peaceable; otherwise the
tribunal would be confined to men of low extraction, who could not make
arrests. To this the regents replied that the maintenance of the royal
order was the only means of keeping the nobles and barons obedient to
the viceroy; in Sicily more than elsewhere this was necessary and
without it matters would be worse than before, when the tribunal
excommunicated the viceroy in the affair of Count Mussumelli; heresy was
unknown, the nobles and barons had never made an arrest and they
obtained the positions solely to gain the privileges.[69] These
arguments were unanswerable and the prohibition was maintained. With the
accession of Philip III an attempt was again made to have it repealed;
Inquisitor Páramo, in a letter of March 8, 1600, to the new king
described the condition of the tribunal as most deplorable in
consequence of it, but the appeal was unsuccessful. Philip contented
himself with secret instructions to the viceroy to enforce the cédula of
January 18, 1535, and the Concordia and to endeavor to come to some
understanding with the inquisitors.[70]

So far, indeed, was the Inquisition from being oppressed, that it was
seeking to assert exclusive claim to the obedience of its “subjects,” as
though they were released in all things from the control of the civil
authorities. Thus, in 1591, the tribunal issued an edict condemning all
its “subjects” who had not revealed the amount of corn possessed by them
or had sold it at unlawful prices--evidently referring to certain
measures taken by the government, as was frequently done in times of
scarcity. The Viceroy Alba was quick to recognize this attempt to
supplant the civil power and he stopped the publication of the edict. He
was soon afterwards succeeded by Count Olivares, whose temper Inquisitor
Páramo, with characteristic pertinacity, proceeded to test with a
proclamation of April 23, 1592, published throughout the island to sound
of trumpet, reciting the disturbance of public order by bands of
robbers, against whom and all harboring or favoring them the viceroy had
issued edicts, wherefore he summoned all those subject to the
jurisdiction of the Inquisition to abstain from sheltering the said
bandits, under the penalties provided by the laws and of a thousand
ounces applicable to the Holy Office. Olivares was no more disposed than
his predecessor to admit that his actions required inquisitorial
confirmation and, on May 30th, he issued an edict prohibiting, under
heavy penalties, the publication of the proclamation; if, in any place,
it had been entered on the records of the magistrates, the entry was to
be erased and no similar orders of the Inquisition were to be received
in future. He moreover told the inquisitors that it was none of their
business to issue decrees on this or any other matter of general policy,
but simply to obey the laws; that it had been done merely to enlarge
their jurisdiction illegally and that the government could not be
divided into two heads with one body.[71]

Between conflicting pretensions such as these, harmony was impossible
and the conclusions of the junta of 1595 did not restore it. Collisions
were frequent and the extremes to which they were sometimes carried are
seen in one occurring in 1602, when the Gran Corte prosecuted Mariano
Agliata, a familiar, for the murder of Don Diego de Zúñiga and Don Diego
Sandoval, a captain and a sergeant of the royal troops. The inquisitors
arrested him and claimed jurisdiction and, when the Gran Corte refused
to abandon the prosecution, they excommunicated the judges.
Excommunication by an inquisitor could be removed only by the power
which fulminated it or by the pope, but the viceroy, the Duke of Feria,
persuaded the archbishop, Diego de Haëdo, to absolve the judges,
whereupon the inquisitors interdicted him from performing any functions
until he should admit that his absolutions were invalid. At this the
viceroy lost his temper and despatched, August 7th, two companies of
soldiers to the Inquisition, with a gallows and the executioner. They
remained in front of the building until two o’clock in the morning and
returned on the 8th in greater force, erected six gallows, each with its
hangman, and stood with lighted matchlocks pointed at the windows. The
inquisitors were not daunted by this impotent display of force; they
barred the doors, hoisted the standard of the Inquisition, with a papal
flag and a crucifix, and flung out of the windows among the troops
notices of excommunication. Undeterred by this, the Spaniards broke
their way in and, after some parley, the inquisitors promised to absolve
them. Feria had gone as far as he dared without result and the victory
remained with the inquisitors, for the case of Agliata was surrendered
to them, on their removing the interdict on the archbishop and the
excommunication of the judges.[72] To emphasize Feria’s defeat, Philip
III, in 1603, issued a general letter to all of his viceroys, lauding
the services of the Inquisition and ordering them to give it all the
favor and assistance it might ask for, and to maintain intact the
privileges, exemptions and liberties, assured to its ministers and
familiars, by law, by the concordias, by the royal cédulas, by use and
custom and by any other source.[73]

       *       *       *       *       *

As though these sempiternal conflicts with the civil authorities were
not sufficiently disturbing to the public peace, the Inquisition was
involved in a similar series with the bishops, in which it did not fare
so well, entrenched as they were behind the canon law, which the
monarchs could not set aside. A portion of the officials of the Holy
Office were clerics, of whose immunity from the secular courts there
could be no question, but the bishops claimed, under divine and canon
law, an imprescriptible right of cognizance of their offences, when
these did not concern the faith or their official functions. The
inquisitors held that they possessed exclusive jurisdiction over their
subordinates and the conflict was waged with abundant lack of Christian
charity, causing great popular scandal until, as we are told, the people
were in the habit of asking where was the God of the clergy. The contest
raged chiefly over the commissioners appointed everywhere throughout the
island, whose duty it was to investigate cases of heresy in their
districts and report or, if necessary, make arrests and send the
culprits to Palermo for trial. In 1625 the Suprema endeavored to effect
a compromise, by designating what offences were cognizable by the
bishops exclusively, what by the inquisitors and what cumulatively by
either jurisdiction, for that of the bishops could not be denied and the
Inquisition had no papal letters to show in support of its claims. This
seems only to have emboldened the bishops and the quarrels continued. In
1630 Philip IV and the inquisitor-general wrote to the viceroy and the
inquisitors, enquiring what was the established custom in such cases,
but apparently the two ecclesiastical camps could not agree on terms of
peace and nothing was done. In 1642 the inquisitor, Gonsalvo Bravo
Grosero submitted to the Suprema a long and learned paper in which he
describes the condition of the Sicilian Inquisition as most deplorable,
in consequence of the implacable hostility of the bishops. It could not
possibly do without commissioners, for the inquisitors could not travel
around to visit the provinces; the roads were too bad and their salaries
too meagre to bear the expense, as they could not venture into the
country without a guard of at least forty men, in view of the robbers
and bandits. There was not money to pay the commissioners a salary and
their only inducement to accept the office was to gain immunity from
episcopal jurisdiction. As this was virtually denied to them, it became
impossible to find fitting clerics to undertake the duties, so there
were many vacancies that could not be filled.

Grosero evidently did not pause to consider the reflection cast on the
character of the clerics thus anxious to find refuge in the Inquisition
from the courts of their bishops, but the cases which he mentions, if
not exaggerated, testify amply to the virulence of episcopal
vindictiveness. Recently, he says, the tribunal became involved in a
quarrel with the Bishop of Syracuse over the case of a familiar.
Indignant at its methods, the bishop indulged in reprisals on the
unlucky commissioner of Lentini, on a charge of incontinence; he was
seized by a band of armed clerics, stripped and carried on a mule to
prison as a malefactor and cast into a dungeon where he lay, deprived of
all communication with his friends, until the Bishop of Cefalù, then
governor of the island, procured his release, but his persecution
continued for two years. So the Bishop of Girgenti seized the
commissioner of Caltanexeda because he had, under orders from the
tribunal, stopped the prosecution of a familiar. He was confined in a
damp, underground cell for forty days, until the viceroy procured his
release, and his unwholesome confinement nearly cost him his life. The
impelling cause of Grosero’s memorial was a pending case, which scarcely
evokes sympathy with his complaints. Alessandro Turano, commissioner of
Burgio, had given refuge in his house to a kinsman, a monk guilty of
murder, and had refused admission to the officers who came to arrest the
criminal. For this the Bishop of Girgenti was prosecuting him, and
Grosero appeals to the Suprema to intervene and put an end to such
violations of the immunity necessary to enable the Inquisition to
perform its pious work.[74] It is not likely that the Suprema succeeded
in establishing concord between the irreconcilable pretensions of the
two ecclesiastical bodies, but the struggle is worth passing attention
as affording a glimpse into the social conditions of the period under
such institutions.

       *       *       *       *       *

Meanwhile the incessant bickering with the civil authorities continued
as active and as bitter as ever. No attention was paid to the
limitations prescribed in the Concordias, or to the protests of the
viceroys until, in 1635, an attempt was made, in a new Concordia, to
remedy some of the more crying evils by empowering the viceroy, in cases
of exceptional gravity, to banish criminal officials, after notice to
the senior inquisitor, so that he might appeal to Madrid, and in these
cases the inquisitors were forbidden to excommunicate the officers of
justice.[75] Slender as was this concession, the inquisitors, in a
letter of April 26, 1652, to the Suprema, did not hesitate to assert
that the exemptions of the officials were reduced to those of the vilest
plebeians and that their revenue suffered heavily through the
limitation of their jurisdiction and the great reduction in the number
of those who applied for appointments.[76] On the other hand, if we may
believe the _Consulta Magna_, drawn up, in 1696, by a special junta
composed of representatives of all the royal councils except the
Suprema, the Sicilian tribunal paid no respect whatever to the
Concordias, held itself as wholly independent of all rules and enforced
its arbitrary acts by the constant abuse of excommunication, which
rendered the condition of the island most deplorable. The inquisitors
refused to meet the judges in competencias on disputed cases and though,
by the Concordia of 1635, such refusal incurred a fine of five hundred
ducats for a first offence and dismissal for a second, yet as the
enforcement of this required the issue by the Suprema of a commission to
the Council of Italy, it was easily eluded. As a matter of course the
suggestion of the junta was ineffective that those oppressed by the
abuse of spiritual censures should have the right of appeal to the royal
judges.[77]

       *       *       *       *       *

These quarrels and the exercise of its widely extended temporal
jurisdiction by no means distracted wholly the tribunal from its
legitimate functions of preserving the purity of the faith. In 1640 it
held a notable auto de fe in which one case is worth alluding to as an
illustration of inquisitorial dealings with the insane. Carlo Tabaloro
of Calabria was an Augustinian lay-brother, who had conceived the idea
that he was the Son of God and the Messiah, Christ having been merely
the Redeemer. He had written a gospel about himself and framed a series
of novel religious observances. Arrested by the Palermo tribunal, in
1635, he had imagined it to be for the purpose of enabling him to
convert the inquisitors and through them the people. For five years the
theologians labored to disabuse him, but to no purpose; he was condemned
as an obstinate and pertinacious heretic and was led forth in the auto
of 1640 to be burnt alive. On his way to the stake he still expected
that torrents of rain would extinguish the fires, but finding himself
disappointed and shrinking from the awful death, at the last moment he
professed conversion and was mercifully strangled before the pile was
lighted.[78] At another auto, June 2, 1647, there were thirty-four
penitents and six months later another, January 12, 1648, with
thirty-seven, followed, December 13th of the same year, by one with
forty-three. January 22, 1651, there was another with thirty-nine,
honored moreover with the presence of Don John of Austria, fresh from
the triumph of suppressing the Neapolitan revolt of Masaniello. In fact,
in a letter of April 26, 1652, the inquisitors boasted that they had
punished two hundred and seven culprits in public autos, besides nearly
as many who had been despatched privately in the audience chamber. This
would show an average of about eighty cases a year, greatly more than at
this time was customary in Spain. The offences were mostly blasphemy,
bigamy and sorcery, with an occasional Protestant or Alumbrado, the
Judaizers by this time having almost disappeared.[79] The position of
inquisitor was not wholly without danger, for Juan López de Cisneros
died of a wound in the forehead inflicted by Fray Diego la Mattina, a
prisoner whom he was visiting in his cell and who was burnt alive in the
auto of March 17, 1658.[80] The activity of the tribunal must at times
have brought in considerable profits for, in 1640, we happen to learn
that it was contributing yearly twenty-four thousand reales in silver to
the Suprema and not long afterwards it was called upon to send five
hundred ducats, _plata doble_, to that of Majorca, which had been
impoverished by a pestilence. Still these gains were fluctuating and the
demands on the tribunal seem to have brought it into financial straits,
from which the Suprema sought to relieve it by an appeal, August 6,
1652, to Philip IV, to grant it benefices to the amount of twenty-five
hundred ducats a year.[81]

The treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, gave Sicily to Savoy, but the
Inquisition remained Spanish and nominally subject to the Suprema. There
was, however, an immediate change of personnel, for we find the
inquisitor, José de la Rosa Cozio, early in 1714, taking refuge in Spain
and billeted upon the tribunal of Valencia.[82] When, in 1718, Savoy
exchanged Sicily with Austria for Sardinia, the Emperor Charles VI would
not endure this dependence of the tribunal upon a foreign power and
procured, in 1720, from Clement XI a brief transferring the supremacy to
Vienna. In accordance, however, with the persistent Hapsburg claims on
the crown of Spain, the Inquisition remained Spanish. A supreme council
for it was created in Vienna, with Juan Navarro, Bishop of Albarracin as
chief who, although resident there gratified himself with the title of
_Inquisidor-general de España_, but in 1723 he was succeeded by Cardinal
Emeric, Archbishop of Kolocz. Apparently it was deemed necessary to
justify this elaborate machinery with a demonstration and, on April 6,
1724, an auto de fe was celebrated at Palermo with great splendor, the
expenses being defrayed by the emperor. Twenty-six delinquents were
penanced, consisting as usual mostly of cases of blasphemy, bigamy and
sorcery, but the spectacle would have been incomplete without
concremation and two unfortunates, who had languished in prison since
1699, were brought out for that purpose. They were Geltruda, a beguine,
and Fra Romualdo, a friar, accused of Quietism and Molinism, with the
accompanying heresies of illuminism and impeccability. Their long
imprisonment, with torture and ill-usage, seems to have turned their
brains, and they had been condemned to relaxation as impenitent in 1705
and 1709, but the sentences had never been carried out and they were now
brought from their dungeons and burnt alive.[83] Less notable was an
auto de fe of March 22, 1732, in which Antonio Canzoneri was burnt alive
as a contumacious and relapsed heretic.[84]

Although the zeal of Charles VI led to increased activity of the
tribunal in matters of faith, he was little disposed to tolerate its
abuse of its temporal jurisdiction, which had led to so many fruitless
remonstrances under Spanish domination. In letters of January 26, 1729,
to his viceroy the Count of Sástago, he recites the complaints made to
him, by the English factory, that foreign merchants were exposed to
constant frauds by bankruptcies of debtors who claimed the forum of the
Inquisition or of the Santa Cruzada, where creditors could get no
justice or even ascertain whether the bankruptcies were fictitious or
not. The emperor therefore orders that in future the Concordias shall be
strictly construed and rigidly adhered to; that if the inquisitors
proceed by excommunication they shall experience the effect of “los
remedios económicos” (presumably the suspension of their emoluments) and
that in future all mercantile cases, whether civil or criminal, shall
not be entitled to the forum of the Inquisition--all of which was duly
proclaimed by the viceroy in an edict of March 17th. At the same time
the legal functionaries were required to investigate the whole subject
and report what further measures might be essential to prevent
interference with the course of justice. The result of their labors is
embodied in a Pragmatic Sanction of May 12, 1732, consisting of eleven
articles, whereby it was ordered that the inquisitorial forum should not
include exemption from military service and taxes; that widows of
stipendiary officials should enjoy the forum only during widowhood; that
the privilege of bearing arms should be exercised only when in actual
service of the Inquisition; that commissions as messengers should not be
given to shipmasters; nobles holding fiefs were not to be enrolled as
familiars; the forum was not to exempt from serving in onerous public
office and the use of excommunication in cases of impeding jurisdiction
was allowed under certain limitations. This latter is explained by a
decision of March 6, 1734, on cases in which the inquisitors had
excommunicated D. Antonio Crimibela, a judge of the Gran Corte and D.
Felipe Venuto, _capitan de justicia_ of Paternò, when it was ordered
that excommunications could only be employed in matters of faith and in
cases where the secular tribunals had refused the conference preliminary
to forming a competencia to decide as to the jurisdiction.[85]

The conquest of the Two Sicilies by Charles III, in 1734, led the
inquisitors to imagine that, under a Spanish dynasty, they could
reassert their superiority over the law, but they were promptly
undeceived. D. Sisto Poidimani, when on trial, recused them for enmity
as judges in his case and the Giunta of Presidents recognized his
reasons as sufficient, whereupon Viceroy de Castro ordered them, October
2, 1735, to take no further action except to appoint some one to act in
their place. To this they demurred and de Castro repeated the order,
January 24, 1736, and again on February 19th. Finally, on April 21st he
told them that they were actuated, not by reason but by disobedience,
and that, if the order was not promptly obeyed, the senior inquisitor
must sail, within forty-eight hours, for Naples to render to the king an
account of his actions.[86]

The various changes that had occurred rendered the position of the
Sicilian tribunal somewhat anomalous and to remedy this the king
obtained, in 1738, from Clement XIII the appointment of Pietro Galletti,
Bishop of Catania, as inquisitor-general of Sicily, with power to
deputize subordinates, who was followed, in 1742, by Giacomo Bonanno,
Bishop of Patti, appointed by Benedict XIV.[87] Thus the severance from
Spain was perpetuated and it was rendered independent. This seems to
have revived its aggressiveness and it assumed that the limitations
imposed by the Emperor Charles VI had become obsolete with the change of
sovereigns for, in 1739, it endeavored to intervene in the bankruptcy
case of Giuseppe Maria Gerardi, who was entitled to its forum, but the
attempt was promptly annulled by the Viceroy Corsini. A further blow was
inflicted by a decree of July 12, 1746, suppressing the system of
competencias, for the settlement of conflicting cases of jurisdiction,
and substituting, in all cases not of faith, the decision of the
viceroy, who could, in matters of grave importance, refer them to the
king.[88] Thus gradually the secular business of the Holy Office was
circumscribed; in its spiritual field of activity there were no more
burnings, though it occasionally held autos de fe, in which figured
mostly women accused of the vulgar arts of sorcery, and in addition it
interfered with scholars in its capacity of censor.

The enlightened views of Charles III were not abandoned, when he was
summoned to the throne of Spain in 1759, and left that of Naples to his
young son, Ferdinando IV, then a child eight years of age. Public
opinion in Italy was rapidly rendering the Holy Office an anachronism
and Ferdinando only expressed the general sentiment when, by a decree of
March 16, 1782, he pronounced its suppression. He gave as a reason that
all attempts had failed to make it alter its vicious system, which
deprived the accused of legitimate means of defence; he restored to the
bishops their original jurisdiction in all matters of faith, but
required them to observe the same procedure as the secular courts of
justice and to submit to the viceroy for approval all citations to
appear, all orders for arrest and all sentences proposed; moreover, he
appropriated the property of the Inquisition to continuing for life the
salaries of the officials, with a provision that, as these pensions
should fall in, the money should be used for the public benefit. The
revenues, in fact, amounted to ten thousand crowns a year and eventually
they served to found chairs in mathematics and experimental physics and
to build an observatory. When the royal officials took possession of the
Inquisition, they found only three prisoners to liberate--women accused
of witchcraft. A few more had previously been discharged, in
anticipation of the suppression, by the inquisitor-general, Salvatore
Ventimiglia, Archbishop of Nicodemia.[89]

In its career, since 1487, Franchina, writing in 1744, boasts that the
Holy Office had handed over to the secular arm for burning two hundred
and one living heretics and apostates and two hundred and seventy-nine
effigies of the dead or fugitives.[90] It illustrates forcibly the
changed spirit of the age that Viceroy Caraccioli, in writing to
D’Alembert an account of the abolition, says that he shed tears of joy
in proceeding to the Inquisition with the great dignitaries of State and
Church, when he caused the royal rescript to be read to the inquisitor
and the arms of the Holy Office to be erased from the portal amid the
rejoicing of the assembled people.[91]


MALTA.


Malta, if we may believe Salelles, enjoyed the honor of having St. Paul
as the founder of its Inquisition, when he was cast ashore there on his
voyage to Rome.[92] In the sixteenth century, however, as a dependency
of Sicily, it was under the Sicilian tribunal, which maintained an
organization there, under a commissioner.[93] When, in 1530, Charles V
gave the island to the Knights of St. John, the Sicilian jurisdiction
lapsed but, even without the Holy Office, the Church had efficient
machinery for the suppression of heresy. In 1546 a Frenchman named
Gesuald was found to have been for ten years infecting the islanders
with Calvinist opinions, and the Aragonese Domingo Cubelles, the Bishop
of Malta, was at no loss in exercising his episcopal jurisdiction.
Gesuald was obstinate in his faith and was duly burnt alive; on his way
to the stake he called out “Why do priests hesitate to take wives, since
it is lawful?” whereupon Cubelles ordered him to be gagged and he
perished in silence. His converts lacked his stubborn convictions and
were reconciled--among them two priests who had secretly married their
concubines, for which they were condemned to wear the sanbenito. In
1553, the Grand Master, Juan de Omedes, constituted three of the knights
and a chaplain as an Inquisition, but there is no trace of their labors
and Cubelles continued to exercise his episcopal jurisdiction in several
cases during the following years. In 1560, however, when a Maltese,
named Doctor Pietro Combo, fell under suspicion, Cubelles seems to have
felt uncertain what to do with him and sent him in chains to the Roman
Inquisition, where he was acquitted. Cubelles informed the cardinals
that the Lutheran heresy was spreading in the island and this probably
explains why, by letters of October 21, 1561, the Roman Inquisition,
while recognizing the episcopal jurisdiction of Cubelles, enlarged it to
that of an inquisitor-general, empowering him to appoint deputies and to
proceed against all persons, whether clerics or laymen, to try them,
torture them, relax them or reconcile them with appropriate penance.[94]

In his zeal for the effective discharge of his duties, Cubelles sent to
Palermo for detailed information as to the conduct of the Inquisition
and was furnished with copies of the Spanish instructions and forms.
This seems to have provoked the Roman Congregation of the Holy Office,
between which and the Spanish there was perpetual jealousy, and it sent
to Malta a Dominican to act as his assistant and to direct him. He was
succeeded, both as bishop and inquisitor, by Martin Rojas de Portorubio,
to whom in 1573 Gregory XIII sent a commission. Apparently it was
impossible for the Inquisition to maintain harmonious relations with the
temporal power and, already in 1574, he complained to Rome that his
officials were beaten and that the Grand Master, Jean l’Evesque de la
Cassière, threatened to throw him out of the window if he came to the
palace. This created considerable scandal, but Rome, unlike Spain, was
not accustomed to support inquisitors through thick and thin, and the
result was that, by brief of July 3, 1574, Gregory revoked his
commission and sent Dr. Pietro Duzzina as apostolic vicar to conduct the
Inquisition. In thus separating it from the episcopate no provision was
made for its expenses, but soon after this the confiscated property of
Mathieu Faison, a rich heretic burnt in effigy, yielded a revenue of
three hundred crowns and, when Bishop Rojas died, March 19, 1577,
opportunity was taken to burden the see with a pension of six hundred
more for its benefit.[95] It was thus rendered permanent, but a
protracted struggle with successive grandmasters was necessary to secure
for its officials the privileges of the forum and the immunities and
exemptions which they claimed.[96]

Yet the Spanish Inquisition was not satisfied to be thus completely
superseded by that of Rome, even in so remote and inconspicuous a spot
as Malta. In 1575 Duzzina arrested a man as a heretic; it was known that
testimony against him had been taken in Sicily and application for it
was made to the inquisitors of Palermo. They applied for instructions to
the Suprema, which ordered them not to give it but to claim the
prisoner. The result was that the Maltese tribunal tried him on what had
occurred on the island and discharged him.[97] This emphasized its
absolute separation from the Spanish Holy Office and its history need
not be further followed here, except to allude to the most celebrated
case in its annals, when the two Quakeresses, Katharine Evans and Sarah
Cheevers, moved by the Spirit, went to Malta on a mission of conversion
and suffered an imprisonment of four years.[98]




CHAPTER II.

NAPLES.


In Naples the Inquisition had been introduced by Charles of Anjou after
the battle of Benevento had acquired for him the succession to the
unfortunate Manfred. The house of Aragon, which followed that of Anjou,
had permitted its existence, but under conditions of such subjection to
the crown that it was for the most part inert. Yet Naples offered an
abundant harvest for the zealous laborer. The Waldenses from Savoy, who
had settled and multiplied in Calabria and Apulia, had obtained, in
1497, from King Frederic, a confirmation of their agreements with their
immediate suzerains, the nobles, and felt secure from persecution.[99]
Still more inviting were the banished Jews and fugitive New Christians
from Spain, who found there a tolerably safe refuge. There was also a
considerable number of indigenous Jews. In the twelfth century Benjamin
of Tudela describes flourishing synagogues in Capua, Naples, Salerno,
Amalfi, Benevento, Melfi, Ascoli-Satriano, Tarento, Bernaldo and
Otranto, and these doubtless were representatives of others existing
outside of the line of his wanderings.[100] They had probably gone on
increasing, although, in 1427, Joanna II called in the ruthless St.
Giovanni da Capistrano to suppress their usury and, in 1447, Nicholas V
appointed him conservator to enforce the disabilities and humiliations
prescribed in a cruel bull which he had just issued.[101] Possibly,
under this rigorous treatment, some of them may have sought baptism for,
in 1449, we find Nicholas despatching to Naples Fra Matteo da Reggio as
inquisitor to exterminate the apostate Judaizers, who were said to be
numerous.[102] If we may believe Zurita, when Charles VIII of France
made his transitory conquest of Naples, in 1495, the Jews were all
compulsorily baptized, with the usual result that their Christianity was
only nominal.[103] Such unwilling converts of course called for
inquisitorial solicitude but, when Ferdinand of Spain obtained
possession of the land, it was the fugitives from the Spanish
Inquisition that rendered him especially desirous of extending its
jurisdiction over his dominions on the Italian mainland.

A single example will illustrate this and also throw light on the
resistance which, as we shall see, the Neapolitans offered to the
introduction of the Holy Office after the Spanish pattern. In the
inquisitorial documents of the period, no name occurs more frequently
than that of Manuel Esparza de Pantolosa, who was condemned _in
absentia_ as a heretic, in Tarragona. He had evidently sought safety in
flight, abandoning his property which was confiscated and sold, June 4,
1493, for 9000 libras to his brother, Micer Luis Esparza, a jurist of
Valencia, whose final payment for it is dated February 2, 1499, when the
inquisitor, Juan de Monasterio, was authorized to retain a hundred
ducats in reward for his labors.

Meanwhile Pantolosa had prospered in Naples as a banker and had become
one of the farmers of the revenue. As a condemned heretic, however, all
dealings with him were unlawful to Spaniards. It was difficult to avoid
these in transactions between Spain and Naples and, in February, 1499,
the inquisitors of Barcelona created much scandal by arresting a number
of merchants for maintaining business relations with him, an excess of
zeal for which Ferdinand scolded them, while ordering the release of the
prisoners. Pantolosa seems to have held out some hopes of returning and
standing trial, for a safe-conduct was issued to him, October 4, 1499,
good for twelve months, during which he and his property were to be
exempt from seizure, dealings with him were permitted and ship-masters
were authorized to transport him and, on the plea that he had been
impeded, the safe-conduct was extended, August 22, 1500, for two years.
There was manifest policy in suspending the customary disabilities for a
personage of such importance, as appears from one or two instances.
When, in the autumn of 1499, Ferdinand’s sister, Juana, Queen of Naples,
and her stepson, the Cardinal of Aragon, came to Spain, they provided
themselves with bills of exchange drawn by the farmers of
revenue--Pantolosa, Gaspar de Caballería and others--on Luis de
Santangel, Ferdinand’s _escribano de racion_, or privy purse. They could
not anticipate any trouble in a transaction between officials of Spain
and Naples, but Santangel, also a Converso, had reason to be cautious as
to his relations with the Inquisition and he refused to honor the bills,
because the drawers were fugitive condemned heretics, with whom he could
have no dealings. Ferdinand was obliged to confer with the
inquisitors-general, after which he authorized Santangel to supply the
necessities of the royal visitors. Possibly in this case the association
with Caballería neutralized Pantolosa’s safe-conduct, but this
disturbing element was absent from a flagrant exhibition of
inquisitorial audacity when, in 1500, Ferdinand sent the Archbishop of
Tarragona to Naples on business connected with his sister, the queen.
Requiring money while there the archbishop sold bills of exchange to
Pantolosa and, when they were presented in Tarragona, the inquisitors,
apparently regarding them as a debt due to a condemned heretic, forbade
their payment and sequestrated the archiepiscopal revenues to collect
the amount. The bills were returned and were sent back with a fresh
demand for payment, when Ferdinand intervened and, by letters of July
3d, ordered the inquisitors to remove the sequestration so that they
could be paid and the archbishop’s credit be preserved.[104] It is easy
to understand how Ferdinand felt towards the Neapolitan asylum for
condemned Spanish heretics and banished Jews and how Naples regarded the
arbitrary processes of the Spanish Holy Office.

When, in 1500, Ferdinand had seized Calabria and Apulia, in fulfilment
of the robber bargain between him and Louis XII, he lost little time in
turning to account his new acquisition for the benefit of the Sicilian
Holy Office. A letter of August 7, 1501, to his representatives recites
that the inquisitors of Sicily say that they will be aided in their work
by the testimony of the New Christians of Calabria, wherefore all whom
they may designate are to be compelled to give the evidence
required.[105] When, in 1503, Ferdinand obtained the whole kingdom by
ousting his accomplice Louis, Gonsalvo de Córdova, to facilitate the
surrender of Naples, made an engagement that the Spanish Inquisition
should not be introduced, for its evil reputation rendered it a
universal object of dread, to which the numerous Spanish refugees had
doubtless largely contributed.[106] The Neapolitans also desired to
destroy the principal incentive of the existing Inquisition by a
condition that confiscation should be restricted to cases of high
treason, but this they were unable to secure and the final articles
allowed its use in heresy and treason.[107] Ferdinand’s order of August,
1501, as to obtaining evidence for Sicily, seems to have met with slack
obedience, for there is a letter of November 16, 1504, from Gonsalvo to
the royal officials in general, reciting that Archbishop Belorado, as
Inquisitor of Sicily, had sent to Reggio, to obtain certain necessary
depositions, but that the officials had prevented it, wherefore he
reminds them of the royal commands and imposes a penalty of a thousand
ducats for all future cases of disobedience.[108]

No sooner was the conquest of Naples assured than Ferdinand proceeded to
clear the land of Judaism by ordering Gonsalvo to banish all the Jews.
The persecution at the time of Charles VIII had left few of them _de
señal_--those who openly avowed their faith by wearing the prescribed
letter Tau--and Gonsalvo seems to have reported that prosecution of the
secret apostates was the only method practicable. Julius II opportunely
set the example by instituting a severe inquisition, under the Dominican
organization at Benevento.[109] Ferdinand regarded with extreme jealousy
all exercise of papal jurisdiction within his dominions and to prevent
the extension of this he naturally had recourse to the commission of his
inquisitor-general which covered all the territories of the Spanish
crown. A secret letter was drawn up, June 30, 1504, by Ferdinand and
Isabella, in conjunction with the Suprema, or Supreme Council of the
Inquisition, addressed to all the royal officials in Naples, reciting
that as numerous heretics duly burnt in effigy in Spain had found
refuge there, the Inquisitor-general Deza had resolved to extend over
the kingdom the jurisdiction of Archbishop Belorado, Inquisitor of
Sicily, and had asked the sovereigns to support him in his labors of
arresting and punishing heretics and confiscating their property. All
officials were therefore ordered, under pain of ten thousand ounces, to
protect him and his subordinates and to do their bidding as to
arresting, transporting and punishing the guilty, all oaths and compacts
to the contrary notwithstanding. At the same time a personal letter to
Gonsalvo expressed the determination of the sovereigns to introduce the
Inquisition, their founding of which they believed to be the cause why
God had favored them with victories and benefits. Gonsalvo was warned
not to allow the suspect to leave the kingdom while, to avoid arousing
suspicion, Belorado would come to Naples as though on his way to Rome
and Gonsalvo was to guard all ports and passes through which the
heretics could escape. To prepare for the expected confiscations, the
commission of Diego de Obregon, receiver of Sicily, was extended over
Naples and Francisco de Rojas, then ambassador at Rome, was instructed
to obtain from the pope whatever was necessary to perfect the functions
of the Neapolitan Holy Office.[110]

Everything thus was prepared for the organization of the Spanish
Inquisition in Naples, but even Ferdinand’s resolute will was forced to
abandon for the time the projected enterprise with its prospective
profits. What occurred we do not know; the historian, to whom we are
indebted for the documents in the matter, merely says that Ferdinand, in
spite of his efforts, was prevented from carrying out his plans by
difficulties which arose.[111] We can conjecture however that Gonsalvo
convinced him of the impolicy of provoking a revolt in his newly
acquired and as yet unstable dominions. The Neapolitans were somewhat
noted for turbulence and had an organization which afforded a means of
expressing and executing the popular will. From of old the citizens were
divided into six associations, known as _Piazze_ or _Seggi_, in which
they met to discuss public affairs. Of these five, designated as
Capuana, Nido, Porta, Porta nueva and Montagna, were formed of the
nobles and the sixth was the Seggio del Popolo, divided into twenty-nine
districts, called Ottine. Each piazza elected a chief, known as the
_Eletto_, and these six, when assembled together, formed the Tribunale
di San Lorenzo, which thus represented the whole population. There were
Piazze in other cities but when, under Charles V, the national
Parliament was discontinued, the Piazze of Naples arrogated to
themselves its powers and framed legislation for the whole kingdom. A
Spanish writer, in 1691, informs us that no viceroy could govern
successfully who had not dexterity to secure the favor of a majority of
the Piazze, for the people were obstinate and tempestuous, easy to
excite and difficult to pacify, and, if the nobles and people were
united, God alone could find a remedy to quiet them.[112] In the
unsettled condition of Italian affairs, to provoke revolt in such a
community was evidently most unwise; there is no appearance that
Belorado made his threatened visit, and when Ferdinand himself came to
Naples, in 1506 and 1507, he seems to have tacitly acquiesced in the
postponement of his purpose.

The popular repugnance was wholly directed to the Spanish Inquisition
and there was no objection to the papal institution, which had long been
a matter accepted. In 1505 a letter of Gonsalvo directs the arrest in
Manfredonia of three fugitives from Benevento, who are seeking to escape
to Turkey; he does this, he says, at the request of the inquisitor and
of the Bishop of Bertinoro papal commissioner.[113] Evidently there must
have been active persecution on foot in Benevento and, though the
inquisitor is not named, he was probably the Dominican Barnaba
Capograsso, whom we find, in 1506, styled “generale inquisitore de la
fede” when, in conjunction with the vicar-general of the archbishop and
the judges of the vicariate, he burned three women for witchcraft.[114]
Yet anxious as was Ferdinand for the extirpation of heresy, he would not
abate a jot of the royal supremacy and would allow no one to exercise
inquisitorial functions without his licence. The correspondence of the
Count of Ribagorza, who succeeded Gonsalvo as lieutenant-general and
viceroy during the years 1507, 1508, and 1509, shows that Fra Barnaba
held a commission directly from the king. When a certain Fra Vincenzo da
Fernandina endeavored in Barletta to conduct an inquisition, Ribagorza
expressed surprise at his audacity in doing so without exhibiting his
commission; he was summoned to come forthwith and submit it so that due
action could be taken without exposing him to ignominy. So minute was
this supervision that, when Fra Barnaba reported that a colleague had
received a papal brief respecting a certain Lorenzo da Scala, addressed
to the two inquisitors and the Bishop of Scala, Ribagorza ordered it to
be surrendered unopened to the regent of the royal chancery and that all
three addressees should come to Naples when, in their presence and his,
it should be opened and the necessary action be ordered. From a letter
of February 24, 1508, it appears that the old Neapolitan rule was
maintained and that inquisitors had no power to order arrests, but had
to report to Ribagorza, who issued the necessary instructions to the
officials; indeed, a commission of January 14, 1509, indicates that
heretics were seized and brought to Naples before the viceroy, without
the intervention of the Holy Office. At the same time, when inquisitors
were duly commissioned and recognized, the authorities were required to
render them all needful assistance and any impediment thrown in their
way was severely reproved, with threats of condign punishment.[115]

Thus quietly and by degrees the old papal Inquisition was roused into
activity and was moulded into an instrument controlled by the royal
power even more directly than in Spain. Yet this did not satisfy
Ferdinand, who had never abandoned his intention of introducing the
Spanish Inquisition, and apparently he thought, in 1509, that the
Neapolitans had become sufficiently accustomed to his rule to endure
the innovation. Rumors of his purpose spread, causing popular agitation,
and Julius II, who wanted his aid against the French in Northern Italy,
earnestly deprecated action which might necessitate the recall of his
troops to put down insurrection. To the Spanish ambassador the pope
represented the danger of exciting the turbulent population; the time
would come when the Spanish Inquisition might safely be imposed on
Naples, but so long as the French were in possession of Genoa, the king
must be cautious.[116]

Ferdinand was not to be diverted from his course by such considerations
and, on August 31, 1509, a series of letters was addressed to Naples
showing that the organization had been fully and elaborately prepared.
Montoro, Bishop of Cefalù, whose acquaintance we have made in Sicily,
and Doctor Andrés de Palacios, a layman and experienced inquisitor, were
appointed to conduct the office, with a full complement of subordinates,
whose liberal salaries were to be paid out of the confiscations, showing
that a plentiful harvest was expected.[117] Viceroy Ribagorza and all
royal officials and ecclesiastics were instructed to give them all
necessary support and assistance under penalty of ten thousand ounces
and punishment at the royal pleasure, notwithstanding any previous
compacts or conventions, for agreements contrary to the faith were not
to be observed by Catholics. On arrival they were to be established in
the Incoronata or, if they preferred other quarters, the occupants
were to be summarily ejected and a proper rent be paid. The
Cardinal-archbishop of Naples was ordered to give them powers to act as
his ordinaries and vicars; a pragmatic sanction was drawn up for
publication, forbidding, under heavy penalties, the use of any papal
letters of absolution until they should have received the royal assent.
The local officials were also written to, ordering them to aid the
inquisitors in every way and a circular to the same effect was sent to
all the barons of the kingdom. As it was expected that, as soon as the
letters were published, the heretics would endeavor to escape, the
viceroy was ordered to take measures that none should be allowed to
embark, or to send away property or merchandise, and all who should
attempt it were to be delivered forthwith to the inquisitors.[118]
Evidently the matter had been thoroughly worked out in detail and
Ferdinand was resolved to enforce his will. Then followed, however, an
unexpected delay. Ribagorza left Naples, October 8th, probably resigning
or being removed owing to his conviction of the difficulty of the task
imposed on him, and his successor, Ramon de Cardona, did not arrive
until October 23d, showing that the change was sudden and unexpected.
The Bishop of Cefalù, also, did not reach Naples until October 18th and,
although officially received, he exhibited no commission as inquisitor
and took no action, awaiting his colleague Palacios, whose coming was
delayed until December 29th.

Meanwhile rumors of what was proposed had been spreading, popular
excitement had been growing and it now became uncontrollable. It was
openly declared by all classes that the Inquisition would not be
tolerated and, when it was reported that, on a certain Sunday, the
inquisitor would preach the customary sermon in the cathedral, an
unanimous resolution was adopted, January 4, 1510, that such an attempt
would be resisted, if necessary by force of arms. A delegation, selected
as usual by all the Piazze, was sent to the viceroy and overwhelmed him
with fierce denunciations of the detested institution as developed in
Spain--the tortures and the burnings inflicted for the most trivial
causes, the sentences against the dead and the burning of bones, the
execution of pregnant women, the disinheriting of children, the
scourging of naked virgins through the streets and the seizure of their
dowries, the innocent impelled to flight by terror and consequently
condemned in order to confiscate their property, while their servants
were tortured to find out whether anything was concealed, and the
stories of sacrilege invented in order to gratify rapacity. Although
most of this was the ordinary inquisitorial practice, it was
sufficiently embellished to show that the refugee New Christians had
been busy in fanning the excitement which now burst upon the viceroy.
Every delegate sought to outdo his colleagues in vociferously
enumerating the horrors which justified the evil reputation of the
dreaded institution, and the viceroy was told that they never would
allow themselves to be subjected to the accusations of informers, whose
names were concealed and whose perjuries were stimulated by a share in
the spoils; the whole business was not to protect religion but to get
money and they would not be dishonored and put to death and despoiled as
infidels under such pretexts. If he valued the peace of the realm, he
would prohibit the sermon. Cardona listened to the storm of objurgation
and, when it had exhausted itself, he replied that he had the king’s
orders to receive the inquisitors and would obey them. This aroused a
greater uproar than before and he weakened under it. He retired to
consult the council and on his return he told the deputies that they
might send envoys to the king to expound their views and learn his
decision; meanwhile he would prevent the inquisitors from acting and
they must preserve the peace.

The agitation continued; daily assemblies were held in the Seggi and,
on January 9th and 10th, a formal agreement was drawn up and executed
between the nobles and the people, in which they bound themselves to
sacrifice life and property sooner than to permit the introduction of
the Inquisition and, at the same time, they elected Francesco Filomarino
as envoy to Ferdinand. The next day a trivial occurrence nearly produced
a serious outbreak, showing how dangerous was the tension of popular
feeling. Luca Russo, who was one of the most active agitators, had an
old quarrel, arising from a lawsuit, with Roberto Bonifacio, the
justiciary of the city; he chanced to meet Colantonio Sanguigno, a
retainer of Bonifacio; words passed between them and Sanguigno made a
hostile demonstration, which started a rumor that Russo was slain. The
shops forthwith were closed, the populace rushed to arms, shouting
_ferro, ferro! serra, serra!_ and the house of the justiciary was
besieged by an enormous mob thirsting for his blood, but on the
production of the supposed victim they quietly dispersed. During all
this we hear nothing of the Bishop of Cefalù, but his colleague, Andrés
Palacios, was expelled from one domicile after another; he was a
dangerous inmate and finally found refuge in the palace of the Admiral
of Naples, Villamari, Count of Capaccio, where he lay in retirement for
some months.

Filomarino, the envoy to Ferdinand, did not start for Spain until April
and the reports received from him during the summer were such that the
people lost hope of a peaceful solution. Yet during the whole of this
anxious time, although the kingdom everywhere was united in support of
the capital, though all the troops in the land had been sent to the wars
in Northern Italy and there was not a man-at-arms left, factions were
hushed; Angevines and Aragonese and even Spaniards unanimously agreed
that they would endure the greatest sufferings rather than consent to
the Inquisition and perfect internal peace and quiet were everywhere
preserved. This did not indicate that agitation had subsided, for peace
was seriously imperilled on September 24th, when a rumor spread that
royal letters had been received ordering the Inquisition to be set to
work. Meetings of the Seggi were held and it was proposed to close the
shops and ring the bells to call the people to arms, but moderate
counsels prevailed and a deputation was sent to the viceroy to assure
him that they were ready to suffer all things in preference to the
Inquisition. He expressed his surprise; he had no letters from the king,
to whom he would write earnestly begging him to desist, and meanwhile he
exhorted them to abstain from violence. Another month passed, in
alternations of hope and despair; the nobles and people made a closer
union, in which they pledged their lives and property for mutual defence
and this was solemnized, October 28th, with a great procession of both
orders, seven thousand in number, each man bearing a lighted torch.

How little Ferdinand at first thought of yielding is seen in a letter of
March 18th to the inquisitors, acknowledging receipt of reports from
them and the viceroy; he was awaiting the envoy and meanwhile counselled
patience and moderation; they must persuade the people that matters of
faith alone were concerned and when this was understood the opposition
would subside. He had ordered the payment of four months’ salaries and
they could rely on his providing everything. Then, a few days later, he
announced that the vacant place of gaoler had been filled by the
appointment of the bearer, Francisco Velázquez, to whom salary was to be
paid from the date of his departure. If Ferdinand had had only the
Neapolitans to reckon with he would undoubtedly have imposed on them the
Inquisition at the cost of a revolt, but there were larger questions
involved which counselled prudence. In preparation for trouble in
Naples, he began to withdraw his troops from Verona. Julius II took the
alarm at this interference with his plans and urged that the Neapolitans
be pacified. At the same time, with an eye to the possible revendication
of the old papal claims on Naples, he sought popular favor by promises
to the archbishop to revoke the commissions of the inquisitors and
inhibit the Inquisition, thus creating a wholly unforeseen factor in the
situation. The viceroy clearly comprehended the danger of the position,
when a revolution could so readily be brought about and the people would
gladly transfer their allegiance to the pope or to France, thus costing
a new conquest to regain the kingdom. It is doubtful whether he acted
under positive orders from Ferdinand, or whether he assumed a certain
measure of responsibility, stimulated by a fresh excitement arising from
a rumor that the Inquisition had commenced operations at Monopoli.
However this may have been, on November 19th he sent word to the popular
chiefs, inviting them to the Castello Nuovo to hear a letter from the
king. Five nobles from each Seggio were deputed for the purpose, who
were followed by a crowd numbering three thousand. The viceroy read to
them two pragmáticas, by which all Jews and Conversos of Apulia and
Calabria, including those who had fled from Spain after condemnation by
the Inquisition, were ordered, under pain of forfeiture of person and
property, to leave the country by the first of March, taking with them
their belongings, except gold and silver, the export of which was
forbidden by the laws. From this the corollary followed, that as the
land would thus be purged of heresy, there would be no necessity for the
Inquisition. Thus the unfortunate Hebrews and New Christians were
offered up as a sacrifice to enable the government to retreat from an
untenable position.

The news at first was received with general rejoicings and some quarters
of the town were illuminated, but the people had not been taught to
trust their rulers; doubts speedily arose that it was intended to
introduce the Inquisition by stealth and, when on November 22d the
heralds came forth to proclaim the new laws, they were mobbed and driven
back before they could perform the duty. The next day a delegation
waited on the viceroy and asked him to postpone the proclamation for two
days, during which they could examine the pragmáticas. This was an
assumption of supervision over the legislative function which the
viceroy naturally denounced as presumptuous, but the necessity of
satisfying the people was supreme and, on the next day, the Eletti by
further insistence secured a preamble to the first pragmática, in which
the king was made to declare formally that, in view of the ancient
religion and Catholic faith of the city and kingdom, he ordered the
Inquisition to be removed, for the benefit of all. In this shape the
proclamation was made on November 24th, and on it was founded the claim
which, for more than two centuries, Naples persistently made that
exemption from the Inquisition was one of its special privileges. Andrés
Palacios departed on December 3d and thus the victory was won without
bloodshed, after a struggle lasting for a year.[119]

Even the pragmáticas ordering the expulsion of Jews and Conversos were
not obeyed and the situation was rendered more aggravating by the
facilities of escape from the Sicilian Inquisition afforded by the
proximity of the Neapolitan territories. In June of 1513 Ferdinand wrote
to the viceroy concerning this ever-present grievance and ordered him to
hunt up all refugees and send them back with their property, while at
the same time a royal letter to the alcaide of Reggio rebuked him for
permitting their transit and threatened him with condign punishment for
continued negligence.[120] That it continued is shown by the escape,
from Sicily to Naples, in the following September, of some four hundred
of these unfortunates (see p. 12) and they doubtless carried with them
funds sufficient to close the eyes of those whose duty it was to turn
them back. There does not seem to have been in Italy the popular
abhorrence felt in Spain for the Hebrew race or any desire for active
persecution, but at the same time there was no opposition to the
existence of the Inquisition, provided always that it was not of the
dreaded Spanish type. In December of the same year, 1513, the Dominican
Barnaba, now styling himself papal Inquisitor of Naples, applied to
Ferdinand, stating that in Calabria and Apulia the New Christians lived
as Jews and held their synagogues publicly; he evidently could have had
no support from the local authorities, for he solicited the aid of the
king. Ferdinand promptly replied, December 31st, ordering him to
investigate secretly and, if he could catch the culprits in the act he
was, with the assistance of the Bishop of Isola, to arrest and punish
them and the viceroy and governor of the province were instructed to
lend whatever aid was necessary. At the same time Ferdinand sought to
make this an entering wedge for the Spanish Inquisition, for Barnaba was
told to obey the instructions of Bishop Mercader, Inquisitor-general of
Aragon, with whom he was put into communication and to whom he reported.
He evidently did what he could, in the absence of secular support, for a
letter of June 14, 1514, to a bishop instructs him to assist Barnaba and
the Bishop of Isola who are about to visit his diocese to punish some
descendants of Jews who are living under the Mosaic Law, but his efforts
were fruitless. When he applied to the viceroy and to the Governors of
Calabria and Apulia for aid in making arrests, they replied that they
would have to consult the king. Moreover the viceroy reported that the
pragmáticas of 1511 were not enforced because they were construed as
applicable only to natives and not to foreigners such as Spaniards and
Sicilians. All this stirred Ferdinand’s indignation, which found
expression in a letter of June 15, 1514, to the viceroy, accusing him
and the regents and governors of sheltering the refugees,
characterizing as absurd the construction put on the pragmáticas and
ordering anew that every assistance should be given to Barnaba and the
Bishop of Isola. In spite of all this there was a deplorable slackness
on the part of the secular authorities--the spirit of persecution seemed
unable to cross the Faro. The Neapolitan officials would not arrest the
Sicilian refugees without formal requisitions from the Sicilian
inquisitors, brought by a duly accredited official. From what we have
seen of the disorganization of the Sicilian tribunal we can readily
believe their assertion that they had applied to both Alonso Bernal and
Melchor Cervera, but that neither had given the matter attention.
Ferdinand thereupon wrote to Cervera expressing his surprise at this
neglect, especially as it was understood that the refugees had large
amounts of property concealed. This seems to have produced little effect
for when, six months later, Ferdinand scolded Don Francisco Dalagon,
Alcaide of Reggio, about the refuge granted to the Sicilian fugitives,
the alcaide replied that, if he had proper authorization he would seize
them all, whereupon Ferdinand wrote, September 7th, to Cervera, ordering
him to send to Dalagon a list of the fugitives, with a commission for
their arrest--an order which seems to have been as resultless as its
predecessors.[121]

When Ferdinand’s restless energy exhausted itself ineffectually on the
inertia or corruptibility of the Neapolitan authorities, there was
little chance that, after his death, in February, 1516, the business of
persecution would be more successfully prosecuted. There was no inherent
objection to it and the old Dominican Inquisition with its limitations
continued to exist but, in the absence of the secular support so
essentially necessary to its success, its operations were spasmodic and
it affords but an occasional manifestation of activity, of which few
records have reached us. The only instances, during the next twenty
years, which the industry of Signor Amabile has discovered, are those of
Angelo Squazzi, in 1521 and of Pirro Loyse Carafa, in 1536.[122] It was
a remarkable development from the events of 1510 that the secular
courts came to assume jurisdiction over heresy and claimed that the
pragmática of Ferdinand deprived the bishops of cognizance of such
cases. That an assumption so subversive of the recognized principles of
canon law should call for protest was inevitable and, in the general
Parliament of 1536, the ninth article set forth the grievance that a lay
judge had gone to Manfredonia and thrown in prison several heretics.
Complaint was made to the viceroy, Pedro of Toledo, of this invasion of
episcopal rights, when he ordered the cases to be referred to the Bishop
of Biscaglie but, in spite of this, the prisoners were not surrendered
and remained for two years, some in the Castello Nuovo of Naples and
some in the castle of Manfredonia and, although an appeal was made to
the pope and briefs were obtained from him, these were not allowed to
reach the bishop, wherefore the barons supplicated the emperor to order
the cases to be remitted to the bishop and to forbid the intrusion of
the secular courts.[123] The affair is significant of the contempt into
which the Inquisition, both episcopal and Dominican, had fallen. Charles
was in Naples in 1536, when a letter from the Suprema to Secretary
Urries alludes to a previous one of February 8th, urging upon the
emperor his duty to revive the institution on the Spanish model and the
secretary is exhorted to lose no opportunity of advancing the matter,
but policy prevailed and nothing was done.[124]

Still, there came a sudden resolve to enforce the pragmática of 1510,
which seems to have been completely ignored hitherto and, in 1540, the
Jews were banished, after vainly pleading with Charles V at Ratisbon.
Most of them went to Turkey, and the expulsion was attended with the
misfortunes inseparable from such compulsory and wholesale expatriation.
Many were drowned and some were captured at sea and carried to
Marseilles, where Francis I generously set them free without ransom and
sent them to the Levant. Their absence speedily made itself felt
through the deprivation of facilities for borrowing money and, to
supply the vacancy, the viceroy founded the Sagro Monte della Pietà, or
public pawnbroking establishment.[125] This expulsion, however, does not
seem to indicate a recrudescence of intolerance and, if there were
apostate Conversos and Judaizing Christians, the authorities did not
trouble themselves about them. Yet the time was at hand when a more
threatening heresy would arouse afresh the persecuting spirit and lead
the Church to bare its sharpest weapons.

Lutheranism had not penetrated as far south as Naples, but the spirit of
inquiry and unrest was in the air and a local centre of revolt developed
there independently. A gifted Spanish youth, Juan de Valdés, brought up
in the court of Charles V and a favorite of his sovereign, attracted the
attention of the Inquisition and, to avoid unpleasant consequences,
abandoned his native land in 1529. After some years of wandering he
settled in Naples, in 1534, where he drew around him the choicest
spirits of the time, until his death about 1540.[126] Among those whom
he deeply influenced may be mentioned Pietro Martire Vermigli,
Bernardino Ochino, Marcantonio Flaminio, Pietro Carnesecchi, Vittoria
Colonna, Isabella Manrique, Giulia Gonzaga and Costanza d’Avalos--names
which reveal to us how Naples became a centre from which radiated
throughout Italy the reformatory influences of the age.[127] Valdés was
not a follower of Luther or of Zwingli; rather was he a disciple of
Erasmus, whose teachings he developed to their logical results with a
hardihood from which the scholar of Rotterdam shrank, after the fierce
passions aroused by the Lutheran movement had taught him caution. Though
not driven like Luther, by disputation and persecution to deny the
authority of the Holy See, there is an infinite potentiality of
rebellion against the whole ecclesiastical system in Valdés’s
description of the false conception which men are taught to entertain of
God, as a being sensitive of offence and vindictive in punishment, who
is to be placated by self-inflicted austerities and by gifts of gold and
silver and worldly wealth.[128] He was also largely tinged with
mysticism, even to the point of _dejamiento_ or Quietism, the result
possibly of his intercourse with Pedro Luis de Alcaraz, in 1524, when
they were together in the household of the Marquis of Villena at
Escalona--Alcaraz being the leader of a knot of Alumbrados, who was
severely handled by the Inquisition.[129] This is manifested in Valdés’s
conception of the kingdom of God, in which man renounces the use of
reason and abandons himself to divine inspiration.[130] In his little
catechism, moreover, there is a strong Lutheran tendency in the doctrine
that man is saved by faith; there is no intercessor but Christ and the
whole sacramental system, save baptism, is condemned by being
significantly passed over in silence.[131] Still more significant is his
classification, in the _Suma de la predicazion_ Cristiana, of those who
rely on vain ceremonial observances, with the worldly and wicked, as fit
only to be ejected from the Church of Christ.[132]

All these were dangerous doctrines, even when merely discussed in the
little circle of bright intelligences which Vaidés drew around him. They
did not, moreover, lack public exposition in a guarded way. Bernardino
Ochino, the General Minister of the Capuchins, was reckoned the most
eloquent preacher in Italy. In 1536 he visited Naples, where he came in
contact with Valdés and preached the Lenten sermons with such success
that he emptied all the other churches. On February 4th of the same year
Charles V, then at Naples, issued an edict forbidding, under pain of
death and confiscation, any one from holding intercourse with Lutherans
and, on his departure, he impressed on Pedro de Toledo, the viceroy, the
supreme importance of preventing the introduction of heresy. Envious
friars accused Ochino of disseminating errors in his sermons and Toledo
ordered him to cease preaching until he should express himself clearly
in the pulpit as to the errors imputed to him, but he defended himself
so skilfully that he was allowed to continue and, on his departure, he
left numerous disciples. Three years later he returned and made a
similar impression, veiling his heretical tendencies with such dexterity
that they passed without reprehension. Yet the seed had been sown; it
was a time when theological questions were matters of universal interest
and soon the city was full of men of all ranks who were discussing the
Pauline Epistles and debating over difficult texts. No good could come
of such inquiries by the unlearned and the viceroy felt that some action
was necessary.[133] With the year 1542 came a sort of crisis in the
religious movement, not only of Naples but of Italy. The Archbishops of
Naples, who were customarily cardinals residing in Rome, had long
neglected the moral and spiritual condition of their see but, in that
year, the archbishop-cardinal, Francesco Carafa, conducted a visitation
there--the first for many years--and doubtless found much cause for
disquietude.[134] In that same year also, by the bull _Licet ab initio_,
July 21st, Paul III reorganized the papal Inquisition, placed it under
the conduct of a congregation of six cardinals, and gave it the form of
which the terrible efficiency was so thoroughly demonstrated during the
second half of the century.[135] In September of that year, moreover,
Ochino and Vermigli threw off all disguise and openly embraced
Protestantism. This naturally cast suspicion on their admirers and the
viceroy commenced a persecution; preachers were set to work to
controvert the heretical doctrines; an edict was issued requiring the
surrender of heretical books, of which large numbers were collected and
solemnly burnt, and a pragmática of October 15, 1544, established a
censorship of the press. Finally, Toledo wrote to the emperor that
sterner measures were necessary to check the evil and Charles ordered
him to introduce the Inquisition as cautiously as possible.[136]

It seems to have been recognized as useless to endeavor to establish the
Spanish Inquisition and Charles was not as firmly attached to that
institution as his grandfather Ferdinand had been, but it was hoped
that, by dexterous management, the way might be opened to bring in the
papal Holy Office.[137] Towards the end of 1546 Toledo wrote to his
brother, the Cardinal of San Sisto, who was one of the six members of
the Congregation, expressing his desire to introduce the Inquisition and
his dread of the consequences, for the very name was an abomination to
all, from the highest to the lowest, and he feared that it might lead to
a successful revolution. To encompass the object, it was finally
resolved to procure from the pope a commission for an inquisitor against
heresy which was prevalent among the clergy, both regular and secular.
The required commission was issued, in February, 1547, to the prior and
the lector of the Dominican convent of Santa Caterina; Toledo did not
personally grant the exequatur for it but caused this to be done by the
regents of the _Consiglio Collaterale_, but this precaution and the
profound secrecy observed were useless. Rumors spread among the people
that orders had been received from the cardinals to proceed against
regular and secular clerks; the old animosity against anything but the
episcopal Inquisition at once flamed up and deputies were sent to the
viceroy to beg him not to grant the exequatur. He assured them that he
wondered himself at the fact; he had written to the pope that it was not
Charles’s will or intention that the Inquisition should be introduced
and that meanwhile he had not granted the exequatur. Little faith was
placed in his statements and the general belief was that Paul III was
eager to create strife in Naples in order to give the emperor occupation
there and check his growing ascendency. It is said that he actually sent
two inquisitors but, if so, they never dared to show themselves, for
there is no allusion to them in the detailed accounts of the ensuing
troubles.

To carry out the plot, action was commenced in a tentative way by the
archiepiscopal vicar affixing at the door of his palace an edict
forbidding the discussion of religion by laymen and announcing that he
would proceed by inquisition to examine into the beliefs held by the
clergy. The very word inquisition was sufficient to inflame the people;
cries of _serra, serra!_ were heard and the aspect of affairs was so
alarming that the vicar went into hiding and the edict was removed. The
Piazze of the nobles were assembled and elected deputies charged with
enforcing the observance of the _capitoli_, or liberties of the city.
The Piazza del Popolo was crippled, for the viceroy some months
previously, in preparation for the struggle, had dismissed the Eletto
and replaced him with Domenico Terracina, a creature of his own, who did
not assemble his Piazza but appointed the deputies himself. Then, on
Palm Sunday (April 3d), Toledo sent for Terracina and the heads of the
Ottine and charged them to see that those guilty of the agitation were
punished but, in place of doing this the Piazze assembled and sent to
him deputies who boldly represented the universal abhorrence felt for
the Inquisition which gave such facilities for false witness that it
would ruin the city and kingdom, and they expressed the universal
suspicion felt that the edict portended its introduction. The viceroy
soothed them with the assurance that the emperor had no such intention;
as for himself, if the emperor should attempt it, he would tire him out
with supplications to desist and, if unsuccessful, would resign his post
and leave the city. But, as there were people who talked about religion
without understanding, it was necessary that they should be punished
according to the canons by the ordinary jurisdiction. This answer
satisfied the majority, but still there were some who regarded with
anxiety the implied threat conveyed in the last phrase.

Then, on May 11th, the patience of the people was further tested by
another edict affixed on the archiepiscopal doors, which hinted more
clearly at the Inquisition. At once the city rose, with cries of _armi,
armi! serra, serra!_ The edict was torn down; Terracina was compelled
against his will to convene the Piazza del Popolo, where he and his
subordinates were promptly dismissed from office and replaced with men
who could be relied upon. The ejected officials could scarce show
themselves in the streets and three of them were only saved from popular
vengeance by taking sanctuary. The viceroy came from his winter
residence at Pozzuoli breathing vengeance. He garrisoned the Castello
Nuovo with three thousand Spanish troops and ordered the popular leaders
to be prosecuted. By a curious coincidence, one of these was Tommaso
Aniello, whose homonym, a century later, led the revolt of 1647. He it
was who had torn down the edict and forced Terracina to assemble the
Piazza. He was summoned to appear in court, but he came accompanied with
so great a crowd, under the command of Cesare Mormile, that the judges
were afraid to proceed and when the people seized Terracina’s children
as hostages, Aniello was discharged. Then Mormile was cited and went
accompanied by forty men, armed under their garments and carrying papers
like pleaders; the presiding judge was informed of this and dismissed
the case.

Finding legal measures useless the viceroy adopted severer methods. On
May 16th the garrison made a sortie as far as the Rua Castillana, firing
houses and slaying without distinction of age or sex. The bells of San
Lorenzo tolled to arms; shops were closed and the people rushed to the
castle, where they found the Spaniards drawn up in battle array. Blinded
with rage, they flung themselves on the troops and lost some two hundred
and fifty men uselessly, while the cannon from the castle bombarded the
city. Angry recrimination and threats followed; the citizens determined
to arm the city, not for rebellion, as they asserted, but to preserve it
for the emperor. Throughout the whole of this unhappy business, they
were strenuously eager to demonstrate their loyalty and, when the news
came of Charles’s victory over the German Protestants at Muhlberg, April
24th, the city manifested its rejoicing by an illumination for three
nights. So when, on May 22d, the viceroy ordered another sortie, in
which there was considerable slaughter, the citizens hoisted on San
Lorenzo a banner with the imperial arms and their war-cry was “Imperio e
Spagna.” They raised some troops and placed them under the command of
Gianfrancesco and Pasquale Caracciolo and Cesare Mormile, but it was
difficult to form a standing army, owing to the question of pay, as the
money had to be raised by voluntary subscription.

Bad as was the situation, it was embittered when some catch-poles of the
Vicariat arrested a man for debt. On the way to prison he resisted and
called for aid; three young nobles stopped to enquire the cause and,
during the parley, the prisoner escaped. This enraged Toledo, who had
the youths arrested at night and condemned with scarce a pretext of
trial. On May 24th they were brought out on the bridge in front of the
Castello Nuovo, where their throats were cut by a slave and the corpses
were left in blood and mud, with a placard prohibiting their removal.
This gratuitous cruelty inflamed the people almost to madness; houses
and shops were closed, arms were seized and crowds rushed through the
streets, threatening they scarce knew what. To manifest his contempt for
the populace, Toledo rode quietly through the town, where he would
infallibly have been shot had not Cesare Mormile, the Prior of Bari and
others of the popular leaders earnestly dissuaded reprisals. Meetings
were held in which the nobles and people formally united for the common
defence, which was always regarded as a most threatening portent for the
sovereign, and they resolved to send envoys to the emperor, for which
office they selected the Prince of Salerno, the greatest noble of the
land, and Placido di Sangro, a gentleman of high quality. Toledo
summoned the envoys and told them that, if their mission concerned the
Inquisition, it was superfluous, for he would pledge himself within two
months to have a letter from the emperor declaring that nothing more
should be done about it; if it was about the _Capitoli_, he could assure
them that any infraction of the city’s privileges would be duly
punished; if it was to complain of him, they were welcome to go. The
envoys were too well pleased with their appointment to accept his offer
and wait two months for its fulfilment; the people suspected the viceroy
of trickery and the envoys set out. Six days later they were followed by
the Marquis della Valle, sent by the viceroy to counteract their
mission; the prince dallied in Rome with the cardinals, so that della
Valle reached the court before him and gained the ear of the emperor.

Meanwhile crowds of exiles and adventurers, under chosen leaders, came
flocking into the city and a guerrilla warfare was organized against the
Spaniards, who had advanced from house to house up to the Cancellaria
vecchia, making loop-holes in the walls and shooting everyone within
range. With the aid of these reinforcements the Spaniards were gradually
driven back to the Incoronata. On the other hand Antonio Doria came with
his galleys, bringing a large force of Spanish troops. Of course the
courts were closed and a state of virtual anarchy might be expected, yet
the chronicler tells us that four things were remarkable. First, there
were no homicides, assaults, or other crimes. Second, although there was
no government of the city, yet food and wine were abundant and cheap and
no fraud or violence was committed on those who came with provisions.
Third, although there were great numbers of exiles or bandits, with
their chiefs, some of them bitterly hostile towards each other, there
was no quarrelling or treachery; on one occasion two mortal enemies met,
each at the head of his band and a fight was expected, but one said
“Camillo, this is not the time to settle our affair,” to which the other
replied “Certainly; let us fight the common enemy; there will be ample
time afterwards for our matter.” Fourth, the prison of the Vicaria was
full of prisoners, some condemned to death and others held for debt, but
no attempt was made to rescue them and food was sent to them as usual by
women and children. Evidently the people felt that they were fighting
for their liberties and would not allow their cause to be compromised by
common lawlessness.

At length Toledo’s preparations for a decisive stroke were completed
and, on July 22d, a sortie was made in force, while the guns of the
fortresses and galleys bombarded the city. There was much slaughter and
some four hundred houses were burnt, whose ruins blockaded the streets.
Desultory fighting continued for some days and then a truce was agreed
upon until the envoys should return. On August 7th came Placido di
Sangro, the bearer of a simple order, signed by Secretary Vargas, to the
effect that the Prince of Salerno should remain in the court, while he
should return and tell the people of Naples to lay down their arms and
obey the viceroy. This cruel disappointment came near producing a
violent outbreak, but the Prior of Bari succeeded in quieting the people
and persuading them to obey the emperor. The next day, by order of the
Eletti, a huge collection of arms was made, loaded on wagons and carried
to the viceroy. Then the tribunals were opened and every one returned to
his private business. On August 12th the viceroy summoned the Eletti and
read to them a royal indult, which purported to be granted at his
request, pardoning the people for their revolt, except those already
condemned and seventeen other specified persons. Most of those deeply
compromised had, however, already sought safety in flight.

This doubtful mercy did not amount to much. A bishop came, commissioned
by the emperor, to try the city for its misdeeds when, as we are told,
through the procurement of the viceroy, witnesses were found to swear
that the cry of _Francia, Francia!_ was often raised. Whether this was
true or not, the letters of Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, imperial
ambassador at Rome, show that active negotiations had been carried on
with both France and the pope, and the sovereignty of Naples had even
been offered to Cardinal Farnese, the grandson of the latter. Mendoza
evidently regarded Paul III as ready to take advantage of the situation
if occasion offered and, when the revolt was suppressed, he mentions
that the fugitives received a warm welcome in Rome. It is not surprising
therefore that the decision of the episcopal commissioner was adverse to
the city, containing, among other things, a fine of a hundred thousand
ducats for ringing the bells as a call to arms.

The viceroy, moreover, by no means confined himself to the persons
excepted from pardon, but threw into prison all the leaders whom he
could seize. He had already published a considerable list of those
excluded and the seventeen also grew to fifty-six, of whom twenty-six
were condemned to death, although it does not appear that any were
actually executed, and the prisoners were gradually liberated,
twenty-four at one time, four at another and all the rest in 1553. Among
them was Placido di Sangro, whose friends could not learn the cause of
his confinement and sent Luigi di Sangro to the emperor to find out.
Charles said that Placido was _buon cavaliero_, but that he was a great
talker and that orders had already been sent to the viceroy about him.
The incident which left on the emperor the impression of Placido’s
loquacity is too characteristic of the former’s good-nature to be
omitted. Once, as he left his chamber, Placido followed him, pleading
for the city; he appeared not to listen and Placido had the audacity to
pluck his mantle and ask his attention. Charles turned smilingly and
said “Go on Placido, I am listening.” The Duke of Alva was close behind
and Placido said “Signore, I cannot talk, for the Duke of Alva hears all
I say,” to which Charles replied, laughing, “Tell him not to hear it”
and then obligingly drew Placido to one side and let him say all that he
wanted. The conclusion of the whole business was that their arms were
returned to the citizens and the emperor contented himself with the
fine, but the hated viceroy kept his post until his death in 1553, and
no assurance against the Inquisition was obtained.[138]

Yet the stubborn endurance of the Neapolitans had won a temporary
victory. Although they gained no formal condition of exemption from the
papal Inquisition, the attempt to introduce it was, for the moment,
abandoned. For awhile even the episcopal jurisdiction over heresy
appears to have been inert, as it has left no traces during the next few
years. This respite, however, was brief, for the tide of persecution was
arising in Italy. In March, 1551, Julius III issued a savage bull,
pronouncing by the authority of God eternal malediction on all who
should interfere with bishop or inquisitor in their prosecution of
heretics.[139] Paul III, in 1549, on the resignation of Cardinal
Farnese, had appointed, as archbishop of Naples, Cardinal Carafa, who
was unsparing in the extirpation of heresy and had been the leader in
promoting the reorganization of the papal Inquisition in 1542, of which
he was made the head. Charles V had refused to grant his exequatur to
Carafa, but yielded, in July, 1551, to the urgency of Julius, and Carafa
lost no time in appointing Scipione Rebiba as his vicar-general, through
whom the papal Inquisition was introduced into Naples.[140] It was at
first confined to his archiepiscopate, for various letters to bishops,
in 1552, from the viceroy Toledo show them to be busy in the prosecution
of heretics.[141] Toledo died, February 12, 1553 and was succeeded by
Cardinal Pacheco, who did not reach Naples until June. The interval,
under Toledo’s son Luis, seems to have been thought opportune for
extending the jurisdiction of the papal Inquisition for, by a decree of
the Congregation, May 30, 1553, Rebiba was created its delegate and
subsequently styled himself “Vicar of Naples and Commissioner of the
Holy Inquisition of Rome.”[142]

In 1555 the episcopal jurisdiction was completely subordinated to the
papal, for we find several instances in which prisoners of bishops were
demanded by the Roman Inquisition, when Mendoza, the lieutenant of the
Viceroy Pacheco, orders them sent under good guard to Naples, in order
to be transmitted to Rome and, in 1556, it would even seem that bishops
were required to obtain Roman commissions, for a letter of Mendoza to
the Bishop of Reggio reproves him for publishing his commission before
it had received the vice-regal exequatur.[143] It was probably to
reconcile the Neapolitans to this intrusion of the authority of the
abhorred institution that, by a brief of April 7, 1554, Julius III
abolished the penalty of confiscation, but this grace was illusory, for
it required the assent of the sovereign which was withheld and the brief
itself was revoked by Paul IV in 1556.[144]

It was not long after this that occasion offered to extend still more
directly the authority of Rome. Early in the fourteenth century, bands
of Waldenses, from the Alpine valleys, flying from persecution, had
settled in the mountains of Calabria and Apulia. Their example was
followed by others; they increased and multiplied in peace, under
covenants from the crown and from the nobles, on whose lands they
settled and made productive, until it was estimated that they numbered
ten thousand souls. As a matter of self-protection they strictly
prohibited marriage with the natives, they used only their own language
and their faith was kept pure by biennial visits from the _barbes_ or
travelling pastors of their sect, but it was under a prudent reserve,
for they occasionally went to mass, they allowed their children to be
baptized and they were punctual in the payment of tithes, which secured
for them the benevolent indifference of the local priesthood.[145] More
than two centuries of this undisturbed existence seemed to promise
perpetual immunity, but the passions aroused on both sides by the
Lutheran revolt were too violent to admit of toleration earned by
dissimulation. The heretical movement in Naples seems to have aroused
more watchful scrutiny for, in January, 1551, the Spanish Holy Office
had information, through its Sicilian tribunal, about the Waldenses,
whom it styled Lutherans, and it wrote to Charles V urging him to adopt
measures for their eradication.[146] Nothing came of this, however, and
the peaceful sectaries might possibly have remained in obscurity had
they not commenced to feel dissatisfied with their ancestral teachings
and sent to Geneva for more modern instructors. Religious zeal in Geneva
was at a white heat and the missionaries despatched--Giovan Liugi
Pascale and Giacomo Bonelli--were not men to make compromises with
Satan. They made no secret of their beliefs and they paid the penalty,
the one being strangled and burnt in Rome, September 15, 1560, and the
other in Palermo.[147] Pascale had been arrested, about May 1, 1559, by
Salvatore Spinello, lord of La Guardia, apparently to preserve his
vassals from persecution for, since the coming of the ardent
missionaries, they had ceased to attend mass.[148] With his companions
he was carried to Cosenza and delivered to the archiepiscopal
authorities. Then the viceroy, the Duke of Alcalá, intervened in a
manner to show how uncertain as yet was the inquisitorial jurisdiction,
for in letters of February 9, 1560, he urged the episcopal Ordinary to
try the prisoners for heresy and, to prevent errors, he was to call for
advice and assistance on a lay judge, Maestro Bernardino Santacroce, to
whom powers and instructions were duly sent, thus constituting a mixed
tribunal under royal authority.[149] Eventually however the papal
Inquisition claimed and took Pascale, who was carried to Rome and
executed.

Its attention was thus called to the Calabrian heretics, but it was not
until November 13, 1560, that the Dominican Valerio Malvicino da
Piacenza presented himself at Cosenza as inquisitor commissioned by Rome
to take the affair in charge. He wandered around among the Waldensian
villages of Montalto, San Sisto and La Guardia, distinguishing himself,
we are told, as a glutton and drunkard, and investigating the beliefs of
the people. Then at San Sisto he ordered them all to abjure their errors
and wear the “habitello” or sanbenito. This they refused, nor had he
more success at Montalto, though at La Guardia many abjured on his
telling them that their brethren at San Sisto had done so. Castañeto,
the Spanish Governor of Montalto, prepared to arrest the principal
inhabitants of San Sisto, when the whole population took to the woods,
and Fra Valerio returned to Cosenza to seek aid from the Marquis of
Bucchianico, Governor of Calabria, who chanced to be there. He ordered
the people to lay down their arms and return to San Sisto, which they
obediently did, on May 8, 1561, but they took flight again on being
commanded to present themselves in Cosenza with their wives and
children. Castañeto then raised a force to reduce them; he allowed them
to send the women and children back to San Sisto, before attacking them,
but when he did so he fell with fifty of his men. This victory availed
little to the victors. San Sisto was burnt; the women and children,
subjected to every species of outrage, scattered through the mountains,
where most of them were captured and sent to Cosenza; hunger forced the
men to disband and nearly all of them fell into the hands of
Bucchianico.

San Sisto being thus settled, Bucchianico proceeded to La Guardia with
Fra Valerio and a commissioner named Pansa appointed by the viceroy to
execute justice. Many of the inhabitants fled, but returned under
promise of pardon--their flight being subsequently held as relapse into
the errors which they had previously abjured. These numbered 300 men and
100 women, the latter of whom were sent to Cosenza, while the former,
together with the captives of San Sisto, were carried to Montalto, where
a sort of inquisitorial tribunal was formed, consisting of Fra Valerio,
Pansa, and two auditors, Barone and Cove. These divided the prisoners
between them and each proceeded to employ torture indiscriminately to
force them to confess the foul practices ascribed to them and to profess
conversion. Those who were condemned were confined in a warehouse and
their sentence was read in presence of a crowd gathered from all the
neighboring towns. The auto de fe which followed, June 11, 1561, is
described in a letter written the same day from Montalto by a Catholic
who cannot conceal his profound horror at the scene. From their place of
confinement the executioner led his victims one by one, bandaging their
eyes with the bloody rag which had served for their predecessors. Like
sheep to the slaughter they were thus taken to the public square where
he cut their throats; they were then quartered and the fragments were
distributed on poles along the roads from one end of Calabria to the
other--a spectacle which another pious contemporary describes as fearful
to the heretic while confirming the true believer in the faith. The
number thus butchered on that day amounted to eighty-eight, while in
addition there were seven who had triumphed over the torture and refused
to recant their heresies, and these were to be burnt alive as
impenitents. Sentence of death was also pronounced against a hundred of
the older women; the whole number of captives was reckoned at 1600, all
of whom were condemned. The writer adds that unless the Holy See and the
viceroy interfere, Bucchianico will not hold his hand until he has
destroyed them all.[150]

He doubtless continued his cruel work with the rest of his prisoners,
but details are lacking for our next source of information is a letter
of June 27th, written from Montalto by Luigi d’Appiano (apparently an
official of the Archbishop of Reggio) to the Abate Parpaglia. Rome had
taken alarm at the butchery of June 11th and had commissioned the
archbishop, then returning to Naples, to take charge of the affair and
conduct it in more regular fashion. D’Appiano explains that the
prisoners from La Guardia were regarded as relapsed (and consequently
to be abandoned to the secular arm), because they had abjured, while
those from San Sisto, who had not, were simple heretics, whom the Church
would receive back on their submission. He tells us that Bucchianico,
with the commissioner and the archiepiscopal vicar of Cosenza, had
concluded to impose a salutary penance on the least guilty; those more
obstinate were to be sent to the galleys, and the ministers and leaders
to the stake; of these five had already been sent to Cosenza to be burnt
alive, after smearing them with pitch so as to prolong their sufferings
and serve as a terrifying example. A reward of ten crowns a head had
been offered for the capture of fugitives and they were being daily
brought in. Many women prisoners, who were instruments of the devil,
were to be burnt and of these five, who had confessed to the nocturnal
orgies attributed to the heretics, would be executed at Cosenza the next
day.[151] All children under fifteen years of age were scattered among
Catholic families, at a distance of at least eight miles from the
Waldensian settlements and were forbidden to intermarry.[152] How long
the persecution lasted does not appear, but a letter of December 12,
1561, from the viceroy, alludes to prisoners whose trials he ordered to
be expedited.[153]

That the persecution was religious and not political is seen in the fact
that the people of San Sisto, who had risen in arms and had defended
themselves, were treated with much less harshness than those of La
Guardia whose offence was technically construed as relapse into heresy.
The conditions imposed on those who were spared the galleys or the stake
confirm this. The Roman Inquisition prescribed that all should wear the
yellow habitello with the red cross; that all should hear mass every
day, before going to labor, under heavy fines; that confession and
communion should be observed on the prescribed feast-days by all of
proper age; that for twenty-five years there should be no intermarriage
between them; that all communication with Piedmont and Geneva should
cease, together with various other prescriptions looking to the training
of the children in the faith and the instruction of the elders. To these
Fra Valerio added that not more than six persons should assemble
together and that their native tongue, which they had sedulously
preserved, should be abandoned for Italian.[154]

In the exigencies of the moment the papal Inquisition had thus obtained
a recognition in Neapolitan territory for which it had hitherto been
vainly struggling, but it was intermingled with the episcopal and royal
jurisdictions in a manner indicating how little organization there was
for action in an emergency. The royal jurisdiction, moreover, asserted
itself still further when, November 13, 1561, the viceroy issued a
commission to Fra Valerio as inspector of heretical books throughout the
kingdom, authorizing him to go to the points of importation and
empowering him to summon to his aid the secular magistrates--a
commission which was renewed May 8, 1562.[155] The viceroy also enforced
one of the provisions of the Spanish Inquisition, for he laid claim to
the confiscations and, on September 17, 1561, he commissioned Dr.
Antonio Moles to proceed to the spot and take possession of all the
property of those convicted, including the debts due to them. Apparently
there had been general plunder, for he was empowered to enforce the
surrender of what had been taken. Dr. Moles seems to have had much
trouble with clerics, who had been active in the spoiling and had
committed many enormous offences; as clerics they were beyond his
jurisdiction, but the vicar of Cosenza sent him an assistant to exercise
the necessary spiritual jurisdiction.[156] As La Guardia and San Sisto
had both been burnt and the country laid waste, there cannot have been
much left to confiscate, but Dr. Moles seems to have conscientiously
stripped the land bare, for when the results were sent to Naples and
sold at auction they produced a handsome amount of money.[157] This
evidently represents only the movable property; the real-estate seems to
have been granted by Philip II to the Confraternity for the redemption
of captives; it was valued at 5000 ducats and was sold for 2500 by the
Confraternity to Salvatore Spinello. He had been created Marquis of
Fuscaldo in recompense for the zeal with which he had aided the
Inquisition in destroying his vassals, and he finally sold the lands to
the communities for an annual revenue of 180 ducats.[158] Strenuous as
were the methods of the Inquisition, however, deeply rooted faiths have
power of protracted resistance, and some correspondence of the Roman
Congregation with the Duchess of Montesalto, in 1599 and 1600, would
indicate that there were still remnants of these heretics in Calabria
and that there was talk of establishing a school for their
conversion.[159]

The Waldenses of Apulia had a milder fate. The ruin and butchery in
Calabria was a warning to all parties. Their lords were powerful
nobles--the Prince of Molfetta, the Duke of Airola, the Count of Biccari
and others--who did not wish to see their lands laid waste and
depopulated. Fra Valerio was not called in, but a papal commission was
procured for Ferdinando Anna, Bishop of Bovino, in whose diocese most of
the infected district lay; less inhuman measures were employed and
doubtless the savage work in Calabria led the heretics to be
accommodating. Only a few of the more zealous were prosecuted; the mass
of the population submitted and seem to have been taken to the bosom of
Mother Church without severe penalties.[160]

Possibly Fra Valerio may have been engaged in more congenial occupation
in the province of Reggio, where at this time there were discovered some
survivors of those who had embraced the doctrines taught by Juan de
Valdés. The viceroy sent thither the Commissioner Panza, fresh from his
labors at Montalto. He must have had inquisitorial assistance and
though, in the fragmentary records, Fra Valerio’s name does not appear,
he was the most probable collaborator in the active work which ensued.
Four citizens of Reggio and eleven of San Lorenzo were burnt, while a
number abjured and escaped with imposition of the habitello.[161]

       *       *       *       *       *

In all these proceedings there is an incongruous intermingling of
jurisdictions--papal, episcopal and secular--which shows how well the
people had thus far succeeded in preventing the establishment of an
organized Inquisition. They looked with complacency on the sufferings of
the heretics and offered no opposition to the measures adopted,
satisfied with the participation of the civil and episcopal powers. They
had, however, lost none of their horror of the Spanish institution and,
when Philip II endeavored to force it upon Milan, their fears were
aroused that it might be imposed upon Naples. In 1564 there was much
popular excitement; the Piazze assembled and adopted strong
declarations; Pius IV, who did not wish to see the Spanish Inquisition
in Italy, seconded these efforts and peremptorily ordered the Theatin
Paolo d’Arezzo--subsequently cardinal and archbishop of Naples--to
accept the mission with which the city charged him to Philip, to
remonstrate against the threatened introduction of the Inquisition and
also to ask for the revival of the brief of Julius III abolishing
confiscations. The latter request Philip refused but, in letters of
March 10, 1565, he assured his subjects that he had no intention of
introducing the Spanish Inquisition and that trials for heresy should be
conducted in the ordinary way as heretofore.[162]

The “via ordinaria” meant episcopal jurisdiction exercised in accordance
with the practice of the spiritual courts in other criminal trials as
distinguished from the secret procedure of the Inquisition, which denied
to the accused almost every means of defence. This in the subsequent
struggles was constantly cited by the Neapolitans as their protection,
but it was easily evaded. The Roman Inquisition, it is true, was not
allowed to organize a tribunal with an inquisitor at its head and
commissioners in all the cities, as was the case in the northern
provinces of Italy, and to exhibit its power with the spectacle of autos
de fe, but it had its agents more or less openly and its victims were
transmitted to Rome for trial and execution. Alongside of this, for a
time at least, the episcopal jurisdiction over heresy was fully
recognized and a number of vice-regal letters of the period show that it
was vigorously exercised by some of the prelates, though whether by the
_via ordinaria_ or not does not appear.[163] This gratified the
Neapolitans who, in 1571, sent a deputation to Archbishop Carafa to
congratulate him on his holy labors against the heretics and Jews and to
ask him to express to the pope their satisfaction that these people
should be punished and extirpated by the episcopal Ordinaries, according
to the canons and without the interposition of the secular court.[164]
This is a scarcely veiled hint of the popular detestation of the
Inquisition, whether Spanish or papal, and that this continued unabated
is manifested by the Venetian envoy, Girolamo Lippomani who, in his
relation of 1575, describes the Neapolitans as most religious and filled
with zeal for the love of God, but nevertheless they will not endure the
very name of the Inquisition and would be ready to rise against it as
they have done in the past.[165]

The occasion of this address to the archbishop presumably was a lively
persecution of Judaizers then on foot. There had been many abjurations,
some burnings, and the archbishop was preparing to build cells attached
to the walls of his palace to provide for the confinement of those
sentenced to perpetual prison. There was considerable popular excitement
because an inquisitorial deputy, with the title of vicar, had been sent
from Rome, and there was faction among the citizens, for the number of
accused was large, with kinships ramifying throughout the community.
Cardinal Granvelle, then recently appointed viceroy, in a letter of July
31, 1571, to the Cardinal of Pisa, head of the Roman Inquisition,
expressed his fears of a tumult; he had asked the archbishop to suspend
the prosecutions and postpone building the cells; it would be better to
send, as the pope desired, the accused to Rome, where they would be
vigorously punished. In effect, towards the end of December, four women
and three men were sent as Judaizers to Rome, where they were duly
strangled and burnt on February 9, 1572.[166]

This sending of the accused to the Roman Inquisition, whether for trial
or execution, gradually became the accepted custom, as a sort of
compromise between the pretensions of the Holy Office and the settled
repugnance of the people. It was not, however, without some
complications. Of old, no arrests by the Inquisition were permitted
without the royal assent in each case, but in the absence of an
organized Inquisition this salutary rule seems to have been forgotten
and it evidently was not observed in the Calabrian persecutions. When,
however, in 1568, the authorities of Reggio were ordered by the Sicilian
tribunal to arrest and forward two individuals charged with heresy,
obedience was refused and the Duke of Alcalá, still viceroy, was
notified. He approved the position taken but instructed the officials to
arrest the parties and hold them until the Sicilian tribunal should
report whether the alleged offences were committed in Sicily or in
Naples; in the former case he was to forward them; in the latter to hold
them until it should be determined whether they were justiciable by the
Ordinary or by the Roman Holy Office, and such was to be the rule
hereafter. The Sicilian tribunal did not relish this interference with
its arbitrary methods and the next month there came news that two of its
emissaries had landed at Reggio, gone inland and carried off to Messina
a friar from an Augustinian convent; moreover they were now endeavoring
to do the same with another of the brethren. Thereupon the viceroy
ordered the utmost watchfulness to be observed and, if any attempt of
the kind were made, the inquisitorial agents were to be thrown in prison
and held for his instructions.[167]

If this caution was necessary in dealing with a province under the same
crown, much more was it applicable to the Roman Congregation of the
Inquisition. No independent state could permit its citizens to be
abducted, without the knowledge of the authorities, at the bidding of a
foreign prince whose policy at any moment might be hostile. To submit to
such a claim was an abdication of sovereignty.[168] Moreover, nearly all
Catholic kingdoms had been forced, by the perpetual meddling of the
papacy with their internal affairs, to adopt the rule that no papal
rescript of any kind should be enforced without first submitting it to
the government for its exequatur. Naples, as especially exposed to
papal encroachments, was particularly careful as to this, and no brief,
however trivial, was allowed to take effect without being submitted to
the authorities for approval.[169] In 1567 we find Pius V exhaling his
indignation to Philip II at the violation of the rights of the Holy See
because a bishop, whom he had sent to Naples as visitor to report on the
condition of the clergy, was not allowed to exercise his functions
without the exequatur.[170]

This necessarily applied to the citations and orders of arrest with
which the Roman Inquisition was endeavoring to extend its jurisdiction
over Naples. In April, 1564, Hieronimo de Monte, Apostolic Commissioner
in Benevento (a papal enclave in Neapolitan territory), in the case of
the Marquis of Vico, was taking testimony to the effect that no one
would dare to serve a summons from Rome on him without the vice-regal
exequatur, as he would thus expose himself to punishment, including
perhaps the galleys.[171] Rome endeavored to evade this limitation on
its jurisdiction and was met with consistent firmness. In 1568 Alcalá
was informed that, under orders from the Inquisition, the bishop had
arrested a citizen named Martino Bagnato and was holding him for
transmission to Rome. The bishop was at once notified that he must
surrender the prisoner to the captain of the city, to be held subject to
prosecution in the _via ordinaria_ by his competent judge, and the
captain was ordered, in case of refusal, to take him by force. This did
not avail Bagnato much, for the Roman Inquisition then wrote to the
viceroy, asking to have the prisoner forwarded, which presumably was
done.[172]

There was in this merely an assertion of sovereignty and no desire to
shield the heretic, for when the Inquisition accepted the inevitable and
made application to the viceroy, it was granted almost as a matter of
course. The formality was simple. The application was referred to the
chief chaplain, who made a show of consulting with the judges of the
Audiencia and reported that it was in due form, when the exequatur was
granted. Occasionally, however, some question might be raised when the
process called attention to some abusive extension of inquisitorial
jurisdiction. Thus in 1610 a certain Fabio Orzolino asked for the
exequatur on a citation which he had obtained directed to the Abate
Angelo and Carlo della Rocca of Traetto (Gaeta). On this the chief
chaplain reported that the parties owed to Orzolino 88 ducats, for
non-payment of which they had been publicly excommunicated. Under this
excommunication they had lain for a year, which, according to the canon
law, rendered them suspect of heresy and thus, by a strained
construction, subjected them to inquisitorial action. It is not easy to
understand the decision of the chaplain that the exequatur should be
granted as to the abate and not as to the layman.[173] A more wholesome
case was one in 1574, shown in the application of Giovanni Tomase,
Modesto Abate and Sebastiano Luca for an exequatur to the order of the
Roman Inquisition to sell the property of Nicola Pegna and Giovanni
Mateo of Tagio, to reimburse the applicants for expenses amounting to
338 crowns arising from false accusations of heresy brought against them
by Pegna and Mateo, who had been condemned for false-witness to
scourging in Rome, with the addition of the galleys for Mateo.[174]

Under this system the Roman Inquisition had a tolerably free hand in
Naples and its arrests were sufficiently numerous for it to establish a
regular service of vessels to carry its prisoners, transportation by sea
being much more economical than by land. The latter was expensive, as we
chance to learn from a letter of March 8, 1586, ordering Captain Amoroso
to be forwarded by land because the tempestuous weather prevented
vessels from putting to sea. He was to have a guard of six soldiers who
were to bring back a certificate of his delivery to the Inquisition, and
the expenses of the journey were to be defrayed from the property of the
prisoner.[175] The sea service, however, was not without its risks.
When, in 1593, Fray Gerónimo Gracian, the disciple of Santa Teresa, left
Naples for Rome, it was on a _fragata de la Inquisicion_, which is
described as well provided with chains and shackles for securing
prisoners. It chanced to be captured by the Moors and Gracian narrowly
escaped burning, as he was supposed to be an inquisitor.[176]

Still Rome was not satisfied with this and it found Viceroy Osuna
(1582-86) obsequious to its exigencies. About 1585 he allowed Sixtus V
to establish in Naples a regular Commissioner of the Inquisition, with
jurisdiction practically superseding that of the archbishop. By this
time the spirit of the Neapolitans had been effectually broken. Already,
in 1580, the Venetian envoy Alvise Lando, in describing how they had
been subdued by the universal misery attendant on the Spanish
domination, especially under the vice-royalty of the Marquis of Mondéjar
(1575-79), adds that it is the opinion of many that if the king chose to
establish the Inquisition, so greatly abhorred, there would be little
opposition.[177] How speedily under these circumstances the episcopal
functions became atrophied is illustrated by a case occurring in 1592.
In 1590 a French youth named Jacques Girard was captured by a Barbary
corsair, circumcised and forced to embrace Islam. In 1592 he was sent on
shore in Calabria with a boat’s crew to procure water, when he escaped
and, being taken for a Moor, was thrown in prison at Cosenza. He applied
to the archbishop for reconciliation to the Church; the prelate felt
unable to act, even in so simple a matter, and wrote to the Roman
Inquisition for instructions. Before these came, Jacques had been
transferred to Naples; a second application was made to Rome and the
necessary powers were sent to the Archbishop of Naples, with orders to
report the result.[178] So, in the trial for heresy of the celebrated
Fra Tommaso Campanella, in 1600, Clement VIII designated as a court his
nuncio at Naples, the archiepiscopal vicar and the Bishop of Termoli,
and they were to transmit to Rome a summary of the case, with their
opinions, before rendering sentence.[179]

Under such a viceroy as Osuna, the inquisitorial commissioner was
superfluous, for all the powers of the state were put at the disposition
of the papal representatives. As early as 1582 we find the nuncio
assuming jurisdiction and requesting Osuna to execute a sentence of
scourging which he had passed on the Venetian Giulio Secamonte for
suspicion of heresy, a request which was promptly granted. The Roman
Inquisition had only to ask for the arrest of any one throughout the
kingdom, when immediately orders were given to the local authorities to
seize him and send him to Naples for transmission to Rome, and if
necessary to take possession of and forward all his books and papers.
From this the highest in the land were not secure. In 1583 Cardinal
Savelli, then secretary of the Inquisition, wrote that the person of
Prince Gianbattista Spinello was wanted in Rome to answer for matters of
faith, when immediately Osuna issued orders to seize him wherever he
might be found and bring him to the Royal Audiencia, where he was to
give security in 25,000 ducats to present himself within a month to the
Holy Office and not to leave Rome without its permission.[180]

Osuna’s successor, Juan de Zuñiga, Count of Miranda, was equally
subservient, but he insisted on the observance of the formalities when
Rome sought to act independently without vice-regal intervention. In
1587, at the order of Cardinal Savelli, the Apostolic Vicar of Lecce
induced the Audiencia of the Terra d’Otranto to arrest Giantonio Stomeo.
This was overslaughing the viceroy who rebuked the Audiencia, telling it
that it should have referred the matter to him and awaited his
instructions, meanwhile assuring itself of the person of the individual.
It was purely a matter of etiquette for, in the end, after some further
correspondence, Miranda ordered Stomeo to be forwarded to Naples by the
first chain (of galley slaves), giving advices so that arrangements
could be made for his transmission to Rome. There seems to have been
some doubt as to the correctness of the stand taken by Miranda for
subsequently Annibale Moles, Regent of the Vicaria, was called upon for
a consulta in which he stated the rule to be that arrests for the
Inquisition must always pass through the hands of the viceroy, who
always ordered their execution.[181]

Rome was not satisfied with this and continued its encroachments, taking
advantage of any weakness of the civil power to establish precedents and
claim them as rights. In 1628 we find it represented by the Dominican
Fra Giacinto Petronio, Bishop of Molfetta, who styled himself inquisitor
and was especially audacious in extending his powers. He arrested Dr.
Tomas Calendrino, a Sicilian, because he assisted in the escape from
Benevento of a contumacious person. He was carried to the Archbishop of
Naples and placed on the papal galleys for transmission to Rome, but the
Neapolitan spirit was rising again and the Collaterale and Junta de
Jurisdicion called on Viceroy Alba to demand his surrender under threat
of not allowing the galleys to depart and of banishing Fra Petronio
within 24 hours. Alba however conferred with the nuncio and archbishop,
who assured him that it was customary to arrest and send people to Rome
without notice to him. In this perplexity Alba referred the matter to
his master Philip IV, who warmly praised his prudence in so doing. The
papal nuncio at Madrid, he said, had received orders from Rome to
protest against the attempted innovation of requiring notice to the
viceroy and he therefore ordered Alba, as the matter was of the highest
importance, to investigate precedents of persons arrested with or
without notice, and not to introduce any novelty. What was the ultimate
result as respects Calendrino does not appear, but this nerveless way of
treating the matter was not calculated to check the insolence of Fra
Petronio who, in the course of the affair, excommunicated the judges
Calefano and Osorio, summoned the auditor Figueroa to present himself to
the Roman Inquisition and finally arrested him with his own armed
sbirri. This was no novelty, for he had no scruple in imprisoning and
maltreating royal officials for executing orders of the government.[182]

Philip was accustomed to allow his own officials to be thus abused by
the Spanish Inquisition, but the Neapolitan temper was stubborn and, in
1630, the Collaterale reminded Fra Petronio that all commissions to
arrest required the exequatur; it ordered him to present within three
days all that he had received from Rome, and moreover forbade him to
keep armed retainers. It made complaints to the king and to the Spanish
ambassador at Rome, while Urban VIII issued briefs defending him, under
which encouragement he continued his arbitrary methods. At length
Philip, by a letter of March 18, 1631, ordered that no papal brief
should be executed without the exequatur; a new viceroy, the Count of
Monterey, was prompted to defend the royal jurisdiction and Fra Petronio
complained to Rome that the aid of the secular arm was withheld unless
he would state the names of those whom he desired to imprison. The pope
appealed to Philip IV, who apparently had forgotten about the matter
and, in a letter of November 27, 1632, asked for explanations. Then Fra
Petronio commenced taking evidence against the auditor Brandolino, but
when the Collaterale deliberated, January 31, 1633, on a proposition to
banish him, he yielded. Monterey negotiated with Rome to have him
replaced with some one less objectionable and also that the new
incumbent should not hold a tribunal but should only report to the
Congregation the cases occurring. Urban VIII offered to appoint any one
whom they might select, and when the name was presented of Antonio
Ricciullo, Bishop of Belcastro, then their ambassador at Rome, he was
duly commissioned.[183]

There was nothing gained by the change. Ricciullo styled himself
inquisitor-general; he held a tribunal and in his time condemned four
clerics for functioning without priest’s orders--three strangled and
burnt in public, and one strangled privately. The pope ordered that the
Dominican convent should serve as an inquisitorial prison and its prior
should be a consultor, and thus after a struggle of nearly a century the
papal Inquisition was fairly established in Naples.[184]

Ricciullo died, May 17, 1642, and was succeeded by Felice Tamburello,
Bishop of Sora. He died in 1656 and was replaced temporarily by the
nuncio Giulio Spinola, who served until 1659, when Camillo Piazza,
Bishop of Dragona was appointed. That Naples should be impatient at
finding itself thus gradually and imperceptibly brought under the yoke
of the papal Inquisition was natural. The turbulent city had gallantly
resisted, at no little cost to itself, the imposition of the Spanish
Holy Office, through times in which unity of faith was seriously
threatened by successive heresies. Now all such danger was past. There
were no Cathari or Waldenses or Protestants to rend in Italy the
seamless garment of the Church and the period was one of spiritual
apathy, wholly averse to proselytism. Only the unappeasable longing of
Rome to make its power manifest everywhere could explain its persistence
in thus insinuating the abhorred jurisdiction in a city which prided
itself on its piety, on the number of churches and convents which
impoverished it, on the obedience of the people to the priesthood and on
the strictness of its religious observance. The only field of
inquisitorial activity lay in reckless speeches which might savor of
irreligion, in the blasphemy through which anger or despair found
expression, in the superstitious arts of wise-women, in burning clerics
who administered sacraments without having received the requisite orders
and in such offences as bigamy and seduction in the confessional, all of
which could only by a strained construction be deemed as savoring of
heresy, and could readily be disposed of by the ordinary spiritual or
secular courts. The Holy Office was a manifest superfluity and its
imposition was all the more galling.

Nor was there any alleviation in the fact that the tribunal was papal
and not Spanish, for there was nothing to choose between them, in spite
of frequent appeals to the pledge of Philip II that the _via ordinaria_
alone should be observed. There were the same confiscation and
impoverishment of families. There were the same travesty of justice and
denial of rightful defence to the accused. There were the same secrecy
of procedure and withholding from the prisoner the names of his accuser
and of the witnesses. There was the same readiness to accept the
denunciations and testimony of the vilest, who could be heard in no
other court, but who, in the Inquisition, could gratify malignity,
secure that they would remain unknown. There was even greater freedom in
the use of torture, as the habitual solvent of all doubts, whether as to
fact or intention. There were the same prolonged and heartbreaking
delays during which the accused was secluded from all communication with
the outside world. A careless speech overheard and distorted by an
enemy--or perhaps invented by him--sufficed to cast a man into the
secret prison, where he might lie for four or five years, while his
trial proceeded leisurely and his family might starve. It would probably
end in his torture, to make him confess if he denied the utterance, or
to ascertain his intention if he admitted and sought to explain it. If
he succumbed in the torture he was subjected to a humiliating penance,
to wearing the habitello and to infamy--probably also to confiscation.
If his endurance in the torture-chamber enabled him to “purge the
evidence,” as the legists phrased it, he was discharged with a verdict
of not proven, with nothing to make amends for his sufferings and wasted
years. Such was the fate which hung over every citizen and it was felt
acutely.[185] How little was required to arouse inquisitorial vigilance
was shown in 1683, when Agostino Mazza, a priest employed in teaching
philosophy, was thrown in prison by the Commissioner of the Inquisition
and humiliated by having to abjure in public two abstract propositions
which to the ordinary mind have the least possible bearing on the
faith--“The definition of man is not that he is a reasoning animal” and
“Brutes have a kind of imperfect reason.”[186] The human intellect
evidently had small chance of development under such conditions.

It is easy therefore to understand the growing uneasiness of the people
when they saw the commissioner, Monsignor Piazza, appointed in 1659,
gradually erect a formal inquisitorial tribunal, with a fiscal and other
customary officials and a corps of armed familiars, recruited, as we
are told, from the lowest class of the population. His activity was such
that he constructed eight prisons in as many convents, where even women
were confined, without respect to rank or condition, under the
guardianship of the _frati._ He celebrated _atti di fede_ in public,
where abjurations were administered, followed by scourgings through the
streets, and he levied on the resources of the Regular Orders to defray
the expenses of his court. Indignation gathered and, on April 2, 1661,
the Piazze ordered their representative body, the Capitolo di San
Lorenzo, to consider the innovations of the commissioner. The aspect of
the people grew threatening and Count Peñaranda, the viceroy, ordered
Monsignor Piazza to leave the kingdom, which he did on April 10th, under
escort of a troop of horse to assure his safety. This did not appease
the deputies who, on May 18th, presented a memorial to the viceroy, in
which they further drew attention to the subject of confiscation and
asked that the prohibitory bull of Julius III, in 1554, should be
enforced. Consultations and negotiations were long continued during
which discussion became so hot that Peñaranda threw some of the deputies
in prison, but, on October 24th, he announced that Philip IV had decided
that the grant of Philip II must be maintained and the _via ordinaria_
alone must be followed. Nothing was said as to the abandonment of
confiscation and efforts to procure it were protracted, but without
success.[187]

If the Neapolitans flattered themselves that they had obtained release
from the odious institution, they were mistaken. Rome continued to send
commissioners and they continued to disregard the privileges of the
kingdom. Another outbreak occurred in 1691 when, under orders from the
Roman Congregation, its commissioner--Giovanni Giberti, Bishop of
Cava--seized several persons without obtaining the exequatur of the
viceroy. The Collaterale, or Council, notified him that there was no
Inquisition in Naples and that the prisoners must be transferred to the
archiepiscopal prison, under pain of legal proceedings against him. He
treated with contempt the notary who bore this message and threatened
him with the savage penalties provided for impeding the Inquisition, in
response to which the Collaterale hustled him out of the kingdom, barely
allowing him time to perform quarantine at Gaeta. Innocent XII felt this
keenly, for he was a Neapolitan and had been Archbishop of Naples, and a
warm correspondence ensued with the Spanish court. It was claimed by the
curia that the pope was omnipotent in matters of faith; that he could
abrogate local laws and enact new ones at his pleasure, while the papal
nuncio at Madrid warned the king that Naples would be given over to
atheism without the Inquisition and the whole vast monarchy of Spain
might be destroyed. The city of Naples was equally vigorous in asserting
its rights and complained of the numerous officials of the commissioner,
exempted from secular jurisdiction and committing scandals with
impunity. The pope threatened an interdict and the Piazze threatened to
rise; the latter danger was to Carlos II the most imminent and, in 1692,
he prohibited all further residence in Naples of papal delegates or
commissioners. To render secure the fruits of this victory, the Piazze
took the decided step of appointing a permanent deputation whose duty it
was to guard the city from further dangers of the same nature.[188]

If again the good people of Naples imagined that they had at last shaken
off the dreaded Holy Office they underrated the persistence of Rome.
Trials for heresy continued in the archiepiscopal court, conducted in
inquisitorial fashion and not by the _via ordinaria_. This caused
renewed dissatisfaction and, in hopes of reaching some terms of
accommodation, envoys were sent to Rome in 1693 to ask that the
procedure should be open, the names of the witnesses and the testimony
being communicated to the accused; that no one should be imprisoned
without competent proof against him; that the city should be allowed to
supply an advocate for the poor and that two lay assistants should be
appointed to see that these provisions were enforced. Prolonged
discussions followed, the cardinals entrusted with the matter seeking to
gain readmission for the commissioner and arguing that the bishops were
mostly unfit to exercise the jurisdiction.[189] There was little
prospect of reaching an agreement when Naples was startled with a wholly
novel aggression. February 1, 1695, there was published in Rome by the
Inquisition an Edict of Denunciation which, under its orders, was
similarly published in at least one of the Neapolitan dioceses. Such
edicts were issued annually in Spain, but in Naples they were unknown
and the present one was evidently intended for that kingdom, for it
included the episcopal ordinaries as well as inquisitors, as the parties
to whom every one was required, under pain of excommunication _latæ
sententiæ_, removable only by the Inquisition, and other penalties, to
denounce whatever cases might come in any way to his cognizance, of a
list of offences ranging from apostasy to bigamy, blasphemy and sorcery.
The Deputati took the matter up in a long memorial addressed to the
Collaterale, pointing out the invasion of the prerogative in publishing
the edict without the necessary exequatur and the evils to be expected
from converting the population into spies and creating a universal
feeling of insecurity. There was also the fact that the edict assumed
the jurisdiction of the Inquisition over Naples, that it made the
bishops its agents, authorized as its deputies to employ the
inquisitorial process, and that it comprised not only offences which the
Neapolitans contended to belong to the secular courts but a general
clause, vaguely embracing whatever else might be claimed as subject to
the jurisdiction of the Holy Office.[190]

This shrewd device of the Roman Inquisition was successful. The bishops
to a considerable extent exercised the powers delegated to them and the
Deputati found constant occupation in endeavoring to protect those whom
they imprisoned and tried by inquisitorial methods. Then came the
troublous times of the War of Succession which followed the death of
Carlos II in 1700. After a fruitless struggle Philip V was obliged to
abandon Naples in 1707 to his rival, Charles of Austria, and during the
interval the Inquisition succeeded in re-introducing a commissioner, who
made free use of his powers. The new monarch sought to secure the
loyalty of his subjects and from Barcelona sent orders to his viceroy,
Cardinal Grimani to support the Deputati in their efforts to uphold the
privileges of the kingdom. In spite of this the Deputati were obliged to
appeal to him, in a petition of July 31, 1709, representing that, after
the publication of his despatch to Grimani, the ecclesiastics proceeded
to the greatest imaginable oppressions and violence, so that their
condition was worse than ever, wherefore they prayed for relief at his
hands, so that trials should be conducted in the _via ordinaria_. To
this Charles replied, September 15th, to Grimani, commanding that
matters of faith should be confined strictly to the bishops, to be
handled by the _via ordinaria_; any departure from this was to be
severely punished and the authorities were to use the whole royal power,
through whatever means were necessary, for the enforcement of his
orders.[191]

This won as little obedience as the previous royal utterance and the
Deputati were kept busy in attending to the cases of those who suffered
from the persistent employment of inquisitorial methods--efforts which
were sometimes successful but more frequently in vain. It was probably
some special outrage that induced the Deputati, in 1711, to employ
Nicolò Capasso to draw up a report on inquisitorial methods. The work is
a storehouse of inquisitorial principles as set forth by accredited
inquisitorial authorities--papal decretals and manuals of practice such
as those of Eymerich, Peña, Simancas, Albertino, Rojas, the Sacro
Arsenale etc., admirably calculated to excite abhorrence by laying bare
the complete denial of justice in every step of procedure, the pitiless
cruelty of the system and the manner in which the lives, the fortunes
and the honor of every citizen were at the mercy of the malignant and of
the temper of the tribunal. Yet so far from being an advocate of
toleration, Capasso commences by arguing against it at much length.
Religion, he says, is the foundation of social order and the principle
of toleration infers toleration of irreligion. Protestants are
intolerant between themselves and the Catholic system cannot endure
toleration. That which is taught by the philosophers is chimerical, and
a community to be stable must be united in faith, but the enforcement of
this unity is a matter for the secular power. Punishment must be
corporal and the Church has authority over the spirit alone, not over
the body. An allusion to the _gravissime agitazioni_ of the people would
indicate that his labors were called forth by some action which had
aroused especial resentment.[192]

It was all in vain. By the death of his brother Joseph I, Charles VI
succeeded to the empire in 1711. Wars and other interests diverted his
attention from Naples and, though he consistently resisted the pressure
from Rome to give the Inquisition recognition, the bishops continued to
exercise inquisitorial jurisdiction in inquisitorial fashion. The
Deputati did what they could, but the success of their efforts depended
upon the uncertain temper of the successive imperial viceroys, who,
though they might sometimes manifest a spasmodic readiness to enforce
the royal decrees, did not countervail the persistent ecclesiastical
determination to wield the power afforded by inquisitorial
methods.[193]

A change was at hand when, in 1734, Carlo VII (better known as Carlos
III of Spain) drove the Austrians out of Naples and assumed the throne.
The kingdom, after two centuries of viceroyalties, at last had a
resident monarch of its own, anxious to win the affection of his new
subjects and inclined, as his subsequent career showed, to curb
exorbitant ecclesiastical pretensions. His royal oath included a pledge
to observe the privileges of the land, including those concerning the
Inquisition granted by his predecessor. Apparently for some years there
was hesitation in testing the quality of the new régime, but in 1738 and
1739, as though by concerted action under orders from Rome, Cardinal
Spinelli, the Archbishop of Naples, and various bishops throughout the
kingdom, undertook prosecutions in the prohibited fashion. Complaints
reached the Deputati, who appealed to the king. He reproached them for
negligence, ordered the proceedings stopped and the processes to be sent
to Naples, and gave to Spinelli a warning that such irregularities would
not be permitted. Undeterred by this, the episcopal Inquisition
continued at work and in 1743 three bishops, of Nusco, Ortono and
Cassano, were called to account; the papers of trials held by them were
examined and pronounced irregular; in one case the Bishop of Nusco had
cruelly tortured a parish priest named Gaetano de Arco, after holding
him in prison for eight months.[194]

It seems incredible that under such circumstances ecclesiastical
persistence should defiantly call public attention to its disregard of
the laws, yet on September 26, 1746, the octave of San Gennaro--a time
when the popular afflux to the churches was greatest--an _atto di fede_,
conducted according to inquisitorial practice, was celebrated in the
archiepiscopal church, where a Sicilian priest named Antonio Nava
abjured certain errors and was condemned to perpetual irremissible
prison. Popular indignation was aroused, the cry arose that Spinelli was
endeavoring to introduce the Inquisition and he was insulted in his
carriage by crowds as he drove through the streets. The Deputati
represented to the king that they had been appealed to by three
prisoners whose trials were not conducted by the _via ordinaria_,
showing that the ecclesiastics were seeking to impose the abhorred
Inquisition on the kingdom. Spinelli protested that the trials were open
and according to the _via ordinaria_ and that he was ready to obey
whatever commands he might receive from the king. Carlos sent all the
papers to his council, known as the Camera di Santa Chiara, with orders
to investigate and report.

The Camera made a thorough examination and reported, December 19th, that
Nava had lain in prison since April, 1741; another prisoner, a layman
named Trascogna, had been incarcerated for three years and his trial was
yet unfinished; the third, a deacon named Angelo Petriello, was accused
of celebrating mass on July 24th last and was about to put in his
defence. The archbishop argued that, unlike his predecessors, he did not
conceal the witnesses’ names and therefore the process was the ordinary
one, but investigation showed that in other respects inquisitorial
practice was followed and inquisitorial authorities were cited; during
the trial the prisoner was kept _incomunicado_ in his cell and debarred
from all communication with the outside world. In the papers the
expression “Tribunale della Santa Fede” was constantly used; in the
marble lintel of the door leading to the rooms occupied by it the words
“Sanctum Officium” were cut and the part of the prison used by it was
called “del Sant’ Officio.” It had a full corps of special officials and
in a passage-way there had been for five or six years a tablet bearing
their names and positions, with the inscription “Inquisitori del
Tribunale del S. Uffizio.” It also had a seal different from that of the
court of the Ordinary, bearing for device two hands, one of St. Peter
with the key, the other of St. Paul with a naked sword and the legend
“Sanctum Officium Archiep. Neap.” The Camera thence concluded that it
was the old Inquisition under various devices and only awaiting an
opportunity to establish itself openly, as was shown by the occurrences
in 1691, 1711 and 1739 and, as it was impossible to place reliance on
the promises of ecclesiastics, so often made and broken, it advised that
all the officials of the pretended Tribunal of Faith should be banished
as disturbers of the public peace; the three processes should be sealed
and filed away in the public archives, the accused should be restored to
their original position and be tried again by the _via ordinaria_.
Everything connected with the Tribunal should be abolished--officials,
prison, seal and inscription--and notice be given that any one in future
assuming such offices would incur the royal indignation. All spiritual
courts should be notified that, in actions of the faith against either
clerics or laymen, before arrest the informations must be laid before
the king for his assent and before sentence the whole process, so as to
make sure that there were no irregularities. The accused while in prison
must have full liberty of writing and talking to whom he pleased and be
furnished with an advocate chosen by the Deputati or the Camera. To
protect the laity against prosecutions for simple sorcery or blasphemy
or other matters not subject to spiritual jurisdiction, the nature of
the alleged crime must be clearly expressed when applying for licence to
arrest.[195]

These suggestions were promptly adopted and were embodied in a royal
decree of December 29th, by which two of the officials were banished
within eight days and similar punishment was threatened for any future
attempt to exercise such functions. By January 5, 1747, the Marchese
Brancone, under royal order, was able to report to the Deputati that the
seal and commissions had been surrendered, the inscription over the door
had been changed to “Archivium” and the name of the prison altered to
prisons of S. Francesco and S. Paolo. Archbishop Spinelli was compelled
to resign and, when Benedict XIV sent Cardinal Landi to Naples to seek
some method of re-establishing the tribunal, he was in danger of being
mobbed and was obliged to return without having secured an official
audience. Thus the Inquisition ceased to have a recognized existence in
Naples; the rejoicing was general and, as an expression of its
gratitude, the city made a voluntary offering to Carlos of three hundred
thousand ducats. Yet the Deputati did not disband; taught by past
experience they kept vigilant watch to see that the detested institution
or its methods were not smuggled in and that the ecclesiastical courts
observed the new rules. Carlos was called to the throne of Spain in
1759, by the death of his half-brother Fernando VI, leaving Naples to
his young son, Ferdinando IV. Possibly it may have been thought that
during a minority there was an opportunity to revive the institution
for, in 1761, the Deputati made an appeal to the king. The Regent
Tanucci was not a man to relinquish the advantage gained. The decree of
1746 was again sent to all prelates with commands that it be strictly
obeyed and the royal thanks were conveyed to the Deputati for their
vigilance, which they were ordered not to relax.[196]

They heeded the injunction and, in 1764, they addressed to the king a
memorial on the case of Padre Leopoldo di S. Pasquale, a Bare-footed
Augustinian, who had been tried by his brethren on charges of financial
irregularities and unchastity. Inquisitorial procedure had been
employed, no opportunity for defence had been allowed and, for seven
years, the unfortunate friar had been subjected by his superiors to a
series of inhuman cruelties.[197] What was the result I have no means of
ascertaining, but this prolonged vigilance indicates the profound and
enduring impression entertained of the Inquisition by the Neapolitans.




CHAPTER III.

SARDINIA.


As the island of Sardinia was a possession of the crown of Aragon, it
was not neglected in organizing the Inquisition. There were Conversos
there and doubtless in the earliest period it served as a refuge for
some of those who fled from Spain. The introduction of the Holy Office
is probably to be attributed to the year 1492, when Micer Sancho Maria
was appointed inquisitor.[198] He served until 1497, for a letter of
December 15th of that year, from Ferdinand to Miguel Fonte, receiver of
Sardinia, recites that the inquisitors-general have appointed Maestre
Gabriel Cardona, rector of Peñiscola, as inquisitor in place of Sancho
Marin, transferred to Sicily, and it proceeds to give instructions as to
salaries, from which we learn that the organization was on a most
economical scale. There was, as yet, no settled habitation for it, as a
letter of March 11, 1498, to Don Pero Mata requests him to let Cardona
continue in occupation of his house, as Marin had been, and one of
September 24, 1500, orders that quarters be rented in Cagliari where all
the officials can lodge together. There was but one inquisitor, with an
assessor, no fiscal, one alguazil, a single notary to serve both in the
tribunal and for the confiscations, and a receiver, with salaries too
modest to offer much temptation to serve in an inhospitable land, where
the principal occupation seems to be quarrelling with all the other
authorities.[199] In fact the Inquisition was as unpopular in Sardinia
as elsewhere, for Ferdinand, in announcing to his lieutenant-general
the appointment of Cardona, feels it necessary to order that he and his
subordinates shall receive more favor than their predecessors, so that
they may freely exercise their functions; they are not to be ill-treated
by any one, nor be impeded in the performance of their duties. Ferdinand
had heard how his lieutenant-general took certain wheat out of the hands
of the receiver, resulting in the loss of a hundred and sixty libras,
wherefore he is ordered in future to abstain from interference in such
matters, as otherwise due provision will be made to prevent him.[200]

Notwithstanding these royal injunctions, Cardona was not long in
becoming involved in a bitter quarrel with both the secular and
ecclesiastical authorities. It appears from a series of Ferdinand’s
letters, September 18, 1498, that a certain Domingo de Santa Cruz--who
ten years before had been the cause of similar trouble in Valencia--was
imprisoned by the inquisitor and forcibly released by the
lieutenant-general and the Archbishop of Cagliari, who claimed that, in
furtherance of the king’s interests, they had given him a safe-conduct.
The archbishop, moreover, had withdrawn from Cardona a commission
enabling him to exercise the episcopal jurisdiction, the coöperation of
which was requisite in all judgements. Ferdinand writes in great wrath;
he instructs the inquisitor to reclaim Domingo at once, to throw him in
chains and hold him until the royal pleasure is known; if the
lieutenant-general and archbishop resist, he is to proceed against them
with excommunication; the latter are roundly scolded and ordered to
surrender the prisoner and hereafter to support the inquisitor and the
archbishop is told to renew the episcopal commission. Not content with
this, the king orders the viguier of Cagliari, under pain of dismissal
from office, to obey the commands of the inquisitor and similar
instructions are sent to the town-council.[201] The inquisitor thus was
made the virtual autocrat of the island, but his triumph was
evanescent, for on November 15, 1499, we find him in Ferdinand’s court
at Avila and his salary ceases on that day. He evidently left Sardinia
in undignified haste and involved in trouble, for a royal cédula of
November 18th commands the governor and other officials, under penalty
of the royal wrath and of a thousand florins, to allow the furniture,
books, bedding and personal effects of the late inquisitor Cardona to be
freely shipped to him.[202] Nine months elapsed before the vacancy was
filled by the commission of the Bishop of Bonavalle, August 18, 1500, to
whom was granted the power of appointing and dismissing his assessor and
notary--the two officials on whom, as Ferdinand tells him, the success
or failure of the Inquisition chiefly depends.[203]

It is quite possible that Cardona’s precipitate departure may have been
motived by terror for, about that time, the receiver, Miguel Fonte, was
assassinated in Cagliari, as we may assume, by some of those whom he had
reduced to poverty. He was not killed on the spot; from letters of
February 13, 1500, we learn that he had been carried to Barcelona, in
hopes of cure, and died there. Ferdinand ordered that his widow should
be treated with all consideration and that the lieutenant-general should
pursue and punish the assassins. Sympathy seems rather to have been with
the criminals and the royal commands were disregarded, under the
frivolous pretext that it was the business of the Inquisition--a
palpable falsehood, seeing that the tribunal was vacant--for which
Ferdinand took his representative severely to task on August 18th. The
receivership had also remained unoccupied, ‘for it was not until August
4th that a fit person could be found, venturesome enough to tempt its
dangers, in the person of Juan López, a merchant of Játiva.[204]

It may well be that there was wide-spread hatred felt for the receiver
of confiscations, for the correspondence of the period shows that
persecution had been fairly productive, considering the poverty of the
island. August 29, 1497, there is an order to pay the royal secretary
Calcena, out of the property of Antoni Cones, a debt claimed by him of a
hundred ducats, before any other creditors are paid. Then, on January
21, 1498, a servant of the royal household, Mosen Gaspar Gilaberte,
receives a gratuity of twenty thousand sueldos (833-1/3 ducats) out of
the confiscation of Juan Soller of Cagliari. On March 11th we hear of a
composition, made by request of the Archbishop and Syndic of Cagliari,
whereby the representatives of certain deceased persons, condemned by
Micer Morin, compounded for the confiscation of their property--an
agreement subsequently violated by Morin, whereupon the Dean of Cagliari
and other prominent persons appealed to Ferdinand. Then, October 14th,
there is an _ayuda de costa_ to the notary Bernat Ros to refund his
expenses on a journey to the court and back. Then, October 12, 1499,
there is a gratuity of two hundred and fifty ducats to Alonso Castillo,
servant of Don Enrique Enriquez, royal mayordomo mayor. Soon after this
Cardona, in hurrying to the court from Sardinia, brings five hundred
ducats to the royal treasury. During 1500 the disorganization of the
tribunal cut off receipts but, in June, 1501, we hear of six hundred and
fifty ducats given to the nuns of Santa Engracia of Saragossa. In 1502
there were found some pearls among the effects of Micer Rejadel,
condemned for heresy, and these Ferdinand ordered to be sent to him,
covered by insurance and, in due time, on July 17th, he acknowledged
their receipt, fifty-five in number, weighing’ one ounce and one eighth
and nine grains, after which they doubtless graced the toilet of Queen
Isabella. At the same time he warned Juan López, the receiver, to be
careful, for there were many complaints coming in as to his methods of
procedure. Some months before this, in February, Ferdinand had
complimented the inquisitor on the increased activity of his tribunal
and had urged him to be especially watchful as to the confiscations, so
that nothing might be lost through official negligence. To assist in
the enlarged business thus expected, he promised to appoint a _juez de
los bienes_, or judge of confiscations.[205]

Amid this eagerness to profit by the misery which he was creating it is
pleasant to find instances of Ferdinand’s kindliness in special cases.
Thus, January 12, 1498, in the matter of the confiscated estate of Joan
Andrés of Cagliari, he releases to Beatriz de Torrellas, sister and heir
of Don Francisco Torrellas, because she is noble and poor and her
brother had served him, a debt of 59-2/3 ducats due by Don Francisco to
Andrés, which of course Beatriz would have had to pay. A few weeks
later, on February 4th, he alleges clemency and charity as his motive
for foregoing the confiscation of certain houses in Cagliari, belonging
to Belenguer Oluja and his wife, both penanced for heresy. October 14th
of the same year he takes pity on Na Thomasa, the wife of Joan Andrés,
who had been penanced when her husband was condemned; as she is reduced
to beggary and has an old mother to support and two young girls of her
dead sister, he orders the receiver to give her fifty ducats in charity.
This same estate of Joan Andrés gave occasion to another act of
liberality, February 8, 1502, in releasing to the Hospital of San
Antonio a _censal_ of sixty libras principal, due by it to the
estate.[206] Trivial as are these cases, they are worth recording, if
only for the insight which they afford on the ramifications through
which confiscation spread misery throughout the land.

The season of prosperous confiscations seems to have speedily passed
away and the Sardinian tribunal proved to be a source of more trouble
than profit. It is true that, in 1512, Ferdinand derived a momentary
satisfaction from it, when he learned that a certain Miguel Sánchez del
Romero, who had been condemned and burnt in effigy in Saragossa, had
escaped to the island, where the lieutenant-general had taken him into
favor and made him viguier of Sassari. He promptly ordered the
inquisitor to seize him secretly at once and send him, under charge of
his alguazil, to Saragossa, by the first vessel and, at the same time,
he notified the lieutenant-general that any impediment offered would be
punished with deprivation of office, confiscation of property and
excommunication by the inquisitor.[207] This exhibition of vigor,
however, did not serve to put the tribunal on an efficient basis;
Ferdinand was becoming thoroughly dissatisfied and, in August, 1514, he
tried the expedient of appointing as inquisitor Juan de Loaysa, Bishop
of Alghero, at the other end of the island from Cagliari, without
removing the existing inquisitor, Canon Aragall, but rendering him
subordinate to the bishop, whose place of residence was to be the seat
of the tribunal. It is significant of the decadent condition of affairs
that Bernat Ros, who had become the receiver of confiscations, sent in
his resignation, on the plea of ill-health, and that Ferdinand refused
to accept it unless he would find some one to take his place. Presumably
the trouble was that the harvest of confiscations had been gathered and
spent, without making investments that would give the tribunal an
assured income, and that the financial prospects were gloomy. Ferdinand
realized this and his zeal for the faith was insufficient to lead him to
assume the responsibility. He made out a new schedule of salaries on an
absurdly low basis, amounting, for the whole tribunal, to only three
hundred and thirty libras, telling the receiver that, if the receipts
were insufficient, the salaries must be cut down to a sueldo in the
libra for he did not propose to be in any way responsible.[208] The
institution was to be self-supporting, which was perhaps the best way to
stimulate its activity but, if this were the object, it was scarce
successful for, in January, 1515, Ferdinand writes that the baile of the
island, in whose house the Inquisition was quartered, is about to return
home and wants the house; as there is so little business and so few
prisoners, it can get accommodation in the Dominican convent, which will
serve the purpose. Loaysa’s term of office was short, for he was sent to
Rome as agent of the Spanish Inquisition, and the Bishop of Ales and
Torrealba was appointed in his place. In announcing this to him, August
28, 1515, Ferdinand significantly warns him not to meddle in matters
disconnected with the Holy Office.[209]

Notwithstanding this palpable decadence, the Sardinian Inquisition
continued to exist. It was in vain that, after Ferdinand’s death in
January, 1516, followed by that of Bishop Mercader, the
Inquisitor-general of Aragon, the people rejoiced in the expectation of
its abandonment, for the representatives of Charles V, by a circular
letter of August 30th to the lieutenant-general and the municipal
authorities, assured them that it would be continued and ordered them to
take measures for its increased activity, while the inquisitor was
informed that, although Sardinia was under the crown of Aragon, it was
not to enjoy the provisions of the Concordias to which Ferdinand had
been obliged to assent at home.[210] Possibly the tribunal may have
become more active but it was not more productive for, in 1522, the home
tribunals were assessed for its support, Majorca being called upon for
two hundred ducats and Barcelona and Saragossa for a hundred each.[211]
About 1540, however, it seems to have discovered some well-to-do
heretics, for we hear of its having three thousand ducats to invest in
censos.[212] This accession of wealth, however, does not argue that its
financial management was better than was customary in the Inquisition
for, in 1544, a commission was sent to the Bishop of Alghero, the
inquisitor, clothing him with full power to require from the receiver,
Peroche de Salazar, a detailed account of his expenditures and his
receipts from fines, penances, commutations and rehabilitations, and to
investigate all frauds, collusions and concealments, the terms of the
commission indicating that there had long been no check on
embezzlements.[213]

Such prosperity as the tribunal enjoyed was spasmodic and it soon
relapsed into indigence. In 1577 we find the tribunal of Murcia ordered
to pay two hundred ducats, arrearages of salary due to Martínez Villar,
who had been promoted, in 1569, from the inquisitorship to the
archbishopric of Sassari[214] and, in 1588, Seville and Llerena were
each called upon for 119,000 maravedís to repair an injustice committed
by the Sardinia tribunal on María Malla--apparently it had spent the
ill-gotten money and was unable to make restitution.[215] In hopes of
relieving this poverty-stricken condition, Philip II, in 1580, appealed
to Gregory XIII stating that it could not sustain itself and asking for
assistance, which of course meant that canonries or other benefices
should be assigned to its support.[216] This appeal was unavailing for,
in 1618, the Suprema represented to Philip III the deplorable condition
of the tribunal, unable to defray the salaries of a single inquisitor, a
fiscal, two secretaries and the minor officials; it urged him to obtain
from the pope the suppression of canonries and meanwhile to meet its
necessities by the grant of some licences to export wheat and horses,
which the pious monarch hastened to do.[217] This did not relieve the
chronic poverty and, in 1658, Gregorio Cid, transferred to Cuenca after
six years and a half of service in Sardinia, represented to the
inquisitor-general that the tribunal ought to have two inquisitors and a
fiscal and that it was difficult to find any one to serve as a notary,
for the salary was small and expenses were great; besides, the climate
was so unhealthy that the tribunal often had to be closed in consequence
of the sickness of the officials.[218]

The tribunal was evidently a superfluity, in so far as its legitimate
functions were concerned, and we may assume that it was maintained not
so much to deal with existing heretics as to prevent the island from
becoming an asylum for heresy. This could have been accomplished by
strengthening and stimulating the episcopal jurisdiction, but the
Inquisition had monopolized this and was jealous of all interference. In
1538 Paul III addressed to the bishops and inquisitor of the island a
brief in which he recapitulated the provisions of the Council of Vienne
requiring them to coöperate and work in harmony; he urged the bishops to
be so active in repressing heresy that they should need no outside aid
but, if such should be necessary, the mandates of the council were to be
observed. The bishops apparently were not remiss in taking advantage of
this to revendicate the jurisdiction of which they had practically been
stripped and the Inquisition resented the intrusion; Charles V must
speedily have made the pope sensible of his mistake for, in 1540, he
addressed to the judges of the island another brief revoking the
previous one and reciting that the episcopal Ordinaries were interfering
with the functions of the inquisitors and must be restrained from
impeding or molesting them in any way by the liberal use of censures and
the invocation, if necessary, of the secular arm. This was not allowed
to be a dead letter for, when in 1555 Salvator, Archbishop of Sassari,
under the brief of 1538, undertook to interfere with the tribunal, Paul
IV, at the request of the emperor, promptly ordered the Bishops of
Alghero, Suelli and Bosa to intervene and granted them the necessary
faculties to coerce him.[219]

The tribunal had little to show as the result of the jurisdiction so
eagerly monopolized. In fact, its chief industry consisted in
multiplying its nominal officials and familiars--positions sought for in
consequence of their privileges and immunities and doubtless liberally
paid for. As early as 1552, Inquisitor-general Valdés rebuked Andreas
Sanna, Bishop of Ales and inquisitor, for the inordinate number of
familiars and commissioners who obtained appointments for the purpose
of enjoying the exemptions, and he ordered them reduced to the absolute
needs of the Holy Office.[220] This command was unheeded, the industry
flourished and the principal activity of the tribunal lay in the
resultant disputes with the secular courts. So recklessly did it
distribute its favors that, on one occasion, an enumeration in three
villages of Gallura disclosed no less than five hundred persons entitled
to the privileges of the Holy Office. The consequences of this widely
distributed impunity were of course deplorable on both the peace and the
morals of the island.[221]

Under such circumstances quarrels with the secular authorities were
perpetual and inevitable and were conducted on both sides with a
violence attributable to the remoteness of the island and the little
respect felt by either party for the other. A specimen of the spirit
developed in these conflicts is afforded in a brief of Paul V, March 22,
1617, to Inquisitor-general Sandoval y Rojas, complaining bitterly of a
recent outbreak in which the inquisitor excommunicated two officials and
the royal court ordered him to absolve them. On his refusal, the court
cited him to appear and sentenced him to exile--a decree which was
published in Cagliari and elsewhere to sound of drum and trumpet. Then
the governor intervened in support of the court, treating the
inquisitor, if we may believe the _ex parte_ statement, with
unprecedented harshness. He broke into the Inquisition with an armed
force and ordered the inquisitor either to grant the absolutions or to
go on board of a vessel about to sail for Flanders and, on his refusal,
he was so maltreated as to be left almost lifeless on the floor. On a
second intrusion he was found in bed with a fever; he still refused to
embark and was left under guard, but he succeeded in escaping by a rope
from a window and took asylum in the Dominican church, whither the
governor followed him and seized him while celebrating mass, with the
sacrament in his hands. This time he was kept in secure custody until he
gave bonds to sail, after which, in fear of the voyage, he submitted
and absolved the excommunicates. Paul summoned the governor and his
accomplices to appear in Rome and undergo the penalty of their offences,
but it may be doubted whether they were obliged to obey, for Spanish
jealousy of the curia was quite as acute as indignation caused by
invasion of inquisitorial inviolability and appeals to Rome were
absolutely forbidden to all parties.[222] It was impossible to devise
any permanent basis of pacification between the conflicting
jurisdictions and, up to 1630, there were enumerated no less than seven
Concordias, or agreements to settle their respective pretensions, in
spite of which the disturbances continued as actively as ever.[223]

       *       *       *       *       *

During the War of the Spanish Succession, Sardinia was captured by the
Allies in 1708 and, in 1718, it passed into possession of the House of
Savoy. As soon as the Spanish domination ceased the Inquisition
disappeared and the bishops revendicated their jurisdiction over heresy,
each one organizing an Inquisition of his own, not so much, we are told,
with the object of eradicating heresy as to enable them to exempt
retainers from public burdens, by appointing them to useless
offices.[224] Jealousy of the Inquisition had been the traditional
policy of the Dukes of Savoy[225] and, as the support of the secular arm
was essential to the activity of the institution, we may presume that
even these episcopal substitutes faded away in silence. In 1775 a survey
of the ecclesiastical and religious condition of the island makes no
allusion to prosecutions for heresy although it records a tradition
that, towards the end of the seventeenth century, certain Quietists and
followers of Molinos had found refuge in the mountain caves.[226]




CHAPTER IV.

MILAN.


By the treaty of Cambrai, in 1529, Francis I abandoned the Milanese to
Charles V and it thenceforth formed part of the Italian possessions of
Spain. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries it had been the hot-bed of
heresy and it was, in the thirteenth, one of the earliest scenes of
inquisitorial activity. It was there that Pietro di Verona sealed his
devotion with his blood and became the patron saint of the Holy Office.
With the gradual extermination of heresy, the Inquisition there as
elsewhere grew inert and, even after the new and threatening development
of the Reformation, when Paul III, in 1536, was alarmed by reports of
the proselyting zeal and success of Fra Battista da Crema, he had no
tribunal on which he could rely to suppress the heretic. In default of
this he commissioned Giovanni, Bishop of Modena, who was then in Milan,
together with the Dominican Provincial, to preach against the heretics
and to punish according to law those whom they might find guilty, at the
same time significantly forbidding the inquisitor and the episcopal
Ordinary to interfere.[227]

Even when the Inquisition was reorganized by Paul III, in 1542, it was
for some time inefficiently administered and lacked the secular support
requisite to its usefulness. This was especially felt in the Milanese
which, from its neighborhood to Switzerland and the Waldensian Valleys,
was peculiarly exposed to infection. The adventure which brought the
Dominican Fra Michele Ghislieri into notice and opened for him the path
to the papacy, shows the danger and difficulty of the situation. Heresy
was creeping through the Grisons, the Valtelline and the Val di
Chiavenna, forming part of the diocese of Como when, in 1550, Fra
Michele was sent thither as inquisitor to arrest its progress. He found
a dozen bales of heretic books consigned to a merchant in Como, to be
distributed throughout Italy where, in all the cities, there were said
to be agencies for the purpose. He seized the books in the custom-house,
whereupon the merchant complained to the episcopal vicar, who took
possession of them. Ghislieri wrote to the Roman Holy Office which cited
the vicar and the canons to appear; in place of obeying, they appealed
to Ferrando Gonzaga, Governor of Milan, and raised such a storm among
the people that Ghislieri’s life was in danger. Gonzaga summoned him to
come to him the next day; he started at night on foot and it was only
the accident of his taking the longer road that led him to escape an
ambush where he would have shared the fate of St. Peter Martyr. Gonzaga
threatened him with imprisonment, but finally allowed him to depart,
when he went to Rome and so impressed the cardinals of the Holy Office
that he was marked for promotion. It was not much better in 1561 when,
after being created Bishop of Mondovi, he visited his diocese and
returned dissatisfied, for he had been unable to secure the support of
the secular arm for the suppression of heresy.[228]

In Milan, we are told, there were many heretics, not only among the
laity but among the clergy, both regular and secular, some of whom seem
to have been publicly known and to have enjoyed the protection of the
authorities. In 1554 Archbishop Arcimboldo and Inquisitor Castiglione
united in issuing an Edict of Faith, comprehensive in its character,
promising for spontaneous confession and denunciation of accomplices the
reward of a fourth part of the fines and confiscations that might ensue.
Denunciation of heretics was also commanded, with assurance of secrecy
for the informer. This Edict is moreover of especial interest as
comprehending what is perhaps the earliest organization of censorship,
for it required the denunciation of all prohibited books and the
presentation by booksellers of inventories of their stocks, with heavy
penalties for omissions or for dealing in the prohibited wares.[229]
This zeal seems not to have aroused the secular authorities to a fitting
sense of their duties, for a brief of Paul IV, May 20, 1556, to Cardinal
Mandrusio, lieutenant of Philip II, recites how that son of iniquity,
the apostate Augustinian Claudio de Pralboino, had been condemned by the
inquisitor and handed over to the secular arm; how, while awaiting his
fate in the public prison, a forged order, purporting to be signed by
the inquisitor, had been fabricated by some lawyers, on the strength of
which he escaped and, in view of all this, the cardinal is urged to see
to the punishment of those concerned in the fraud, to lend all aid and
assistance to the inquisitor and to be watchful against the heresies
creeping in from the Grisons. It was doubtless with the hope of securing
greater efficiency that, in 1558, the Inquisition was taken from the
friars of San Eustorgio and confided to those of Santa Maria delle
Grazie and the Dominican Gianbattista da Cremona was appointed
inquisitor-general.[230]

In 1560, Cardinal Carlo Borromeo, in his twenty-second year, was,
through the nepotism of his uncle Pius IV, appointed to the great
archiepiscopate of Milan, which extended over all Lombardy. Sincere as
was his piety, he accepted an office which he did not fill, for he
remained in Rome until the severe virtue of Pius V, in 1566, required
him to reside in his see. His ceaseless labors to reform his people,
both clergy and laity, his self-devotion, his charity, earned for him
the honors of canonization and the admiration even of Jansenists, but
the zeal displayed in the enforcement of discipline upon unwilling
ecclesiastics found equal expression in the persecution of heretics. He
was, in fact, the incarnation of the Counter-Reformation, in combating
heresy by force as well as by depriving it, as far as possible, of its
_raison d’être_. In the early years of his archiepiscopate, during his
attendance on the papal court, the business of the Inquisition in Milan
was carried on in most slovenly fashion. This was not for lack of any
sensitiveness as to heresy for, when in July, 1561, the Franciscan
Guardian of Marignano, being delayed in making a sacramental confession,
exclaimed, in a fit of impatience, that confession to God sufficed, he
was arrested for such heretical speech and sent for trial to Milan,
under a guard of soldiers. They arrived at night and carried their
prisoner to the archiepiscopal palace, where they were told to take him
to the prison, but misunderstanding, as was said, their instructions,
they marched him to one of the city gates and let him go, whereupon he
naturally disappeared.[231] In that same month of July, Carlo’s uncle,
Giulio Cesare Borromeo, writes to him that the inquisitor has allowed to
escape a certain chief of the Lutherans, whom he had had infinite
trouble to seize; he would give a thousand ducats that the culprit had
not been brought to Milan for, as a relapsed, he was already convicted.
He shrewdly suspects complicity, but there is no remedy and great
scandal is to be expected.[232] Matters probably did not improve when,
in the Spring of 1563, the inquisitor Fra Angelo da Cremona involved
himself in a bitter quarrel with Andrea Ruberto, the archbishop’s vicar,
over a printer named Moscheno, whom he had cast into prison and whose
wife and work-people he threatened to arrest. It was a conflict of
jurisdiction, the vicar claiming concurrent action and the inquisitor
that his cognizance of the case was exclusive. The vicar appealed to the
archbishop and represented the inquisitor in no flattering terms. The
inquisitor wrote to the Roman Congregation that the vicar was a man
without fear of God and was interfering to protect a heretic who was
disseminating his heresies throughout the land; he had refused the
vicar’s request to communicate the proceedings, as he desired to
preserve the privileges of the Holy Office. Carlo counselled moderation
to his vicar and, as the latter was replaced the next year by Nicolò
Ormanetto, he was evidently worsted in the encounter.[233]

It is not surprising that this imperfect working of the machinery of
persecution should prove wholly unsatisfactory to Philip II. Twenty
years had elapsed since the reconstruction of the papal Inquisition, yet
in the Lombard province where, if anywhere, it should be active and
unsparing and where he had ordered his representatives to give it all
favor and assistance, it was proving manifestly unequal to its duties.
The natural remedy lay in taking it out of hands that proved incompetent
and in remodelling it after the Spanish fashion and this he resolved to
do. He applied to Pius IV for the necessary briefs, but met with some
delay. This was inevitable. The Roman Congregation had already ample
experience of the unyielding independence of the Spanish Suprema and it
could only look with disfavor on having to surrender to its rival so
important a portion of its own territory, with the inevitable result of
an endless series of broils in which it would probably often be worsted.
At that time however Philip’s request was equivalent to a command; it
was difficult to frame a plausible reason for refusal and Pius gave his
assent.[234] It was Philip’s intention that the Milanese Inquisition
should be organized on an imposing scale and he had a commission as
inquisitor issued to Gaspar Cervantes, an experienced Spanish
inquisitor, then Archbishop of Messina and recently elected to the see
of Salerno, but Pius delayed the confirmation for months. Cervantes was
at the council of Trent when he received the commission; he replied
that, as the decree requiring episcopal residence had been adopted, he
could not be absent from his see more than three months at a time, but
that, if the king considered his services at Milan essential, he would
resign the archbishopric. Archbishop Calini, who reports this from
Trent, August 23, 1563, adds that two ambassadors from Milan had just
arrived there to plead with the papal legates against the introduction
of the Spanish Inquisition in their city.[235]

In fact, as soon as the rumor spread of the impending change, there
arose an agitation which speedily grew to serious proportions and
threatened a repetition of the experiences of Naples. The people
declared that they would not submit peaceably. The municipal Council of
Sixty at once arranged to send envoys to Philip, to the pope, and to the
legates at Trent. The latter reached there, as we have seen, on August
22d and their instructions doubtless were the same as those prepared for
the envoys to the pope, representing that the existing Inquisition was
thoroughly manned and active and had the earnest support of the secular
authorities, while the mere prospect of introducing the Spanish
institution had so alarmed the people that many were already leaving the
city, threatening its depopulation if the project were persisted in and
the transfer of its commerce and industries to rival communities. The
envoys to the pope were also told to invoke the good offices of Cardinal
Borromeo and to point out that, as he was responsible for the
Inquisition and for the defence of the faith in Milan, the necessity for
a new organization would infer neglect of duty on the part of his
representatives.[236]

A Milanese agent of the Cardinal-Archbishop confirmed this in a letter
to him of August 25th, describing the great popular perturbation,
arising not from a consciousness of the existence of heresy but from
the disgrace of the imputation and the dread of the facilities offered
for the gratification of malignity, coupled with the destruction of the
families of the accused. It were to be wished that the virtue of the
people was equal to their devotion, for the ardor of their faith was
seen in the frequentation of the sacraments, the great demand for
indulgences and the performance of other pious works.[237] Further news
was sent to him, September 1st, by his confidential agent, Tullio
Albonesi, who reported that the governor, the Duke of Sessa, has not
wished the city to send envoys to Philip II, for he had already taken
measures to prevent the introduction of the dreaded tribunal. Still it
was desirable that the cardinal, on his part, should see that this
turned out to be successful, for the popular mind was so inflamed that
great disorder would be inevitable and it would be well for him to let
it be clearly seen that he had opposed the project so as to disabuse
those who asserted the contrary.[238] The municipal authorities trusted
the governor and promptly abandoned their purpose of sending envoys to
the king and to the pope. These had already been chosen and had arranged
for the journey, incurring expenses which had to be defrayed.
Accordingly, at a meeting of the Council of Sixty, held September 24th,
it was resolved that, as the governor had stopped them and taken upon
himself to deal with the king and the pope, the envoys should be repaid
the fifteen hundred ducats expended in preparations, on their
surrendering the articles purchased for the purpose, which were then to
be publicly sold at sound of trumpet in the Plaza delli Mercanti, as was
customary in such cases. Besides this there had already been spent a
hundred and ten ducats in twice sending letters to the pope and
cardinals.[239]

The mission to Trent had proved conspicuously serviceable, for the
popular resistance was efficiently seconded by the bishops assembled
there. Those of Lombardy dreaded to be exposed to the experience
endured by their Spanish brethren, humiliated in their dioceses by the
unrestrained autocracy of the inquisitors. Those of Naples argued that,
if the Spanish Inquisition were once installed in Milan, it would surely
be extended to Naples, with similar results to them. Those of the rest
of Italy felt that it could not then be refused to the princes of the
other states, while the papal legates recognized that in such case the
authority of the Holy See would be seriously crippled, for the
allegiance of the bishops would be transferred to their secular rulers
who could control them through the inquisitors and, in the event of
another general council, it would be the princes and not the pope that
would predominate in its deliberations. Earnest representations to this
effect were promptly sent to Rome and great was the relief in Trent when
word came that the pope was of the same opinion and would not assent to
the execution of the project.[240]

Even Philip’s fixity of purpose gave way before these obstacles, but he
delayed long before yielding. More than two months of anxiety followed,
until at length, on November 8th, he wrote to the Duke of Sessa that his
report as to the condition of Milan had been confirmed by letters
furnished by the Bishop of Cuenca. His dextrous management in preventing
the envoys from coming was praised and, in conformity with his
judgement, the Bishop-elect of Salerno was ordered not to leave Trent
and the efforts to obtain faculties for him from the pope were to be
abandoned. The duke was ordered to tell the people, as plausibly as he
could, that Philip had never had the intention of introducing any
innovation in the procedure of the Inquisition but only to appoint an
inquisitor of more authority and with larger revenue, who could do what
was necessary for the service of God in that infected time and dangerous
neighborhood. They could rely that there would be no change and the king
was confident that so Catholic and zealous a community would do its duty
as heretofore.[241] The whole letter shows how unwillingly he withdrew
from a position that had become untenable and how hard he strove to
obtain a capitulation with the honors of war.

Philip’s failure left the Milanese Inquisition in its unsatisfactory
condition. There was one burning question especially which refused to be
settled. Political considerations of the greatest moment required the
maintenance of friendly relations with the Catholic Cantons of
Switzerland, but the Catholic Cantons were deeply infected with heresy.
Moreover the financial interests of the Milanese called for free
commercial intercourse with their northern neighbors while, at the same
time, the rules of the Inquisition forbade the residence of heretics
and dealings with them. It was impossible to reconcile the
irreconcileable--to erect a Chinese wall between Lombardy and
Switzerland, as the Roman Holy Office desired, and at the same time to
retain the friendship of the Swiss and maintain contentment among the
Lombards. Intolerance had to yield to politics and commerce, but not
without perpetual protest. Tullio Albonesi writes, April 12, 1564, to
Cardinal Borromeo that he had presented to the Duke of Sessa the letter
asking him to cease employing those heretic Grisons, the Capitano
Hercole Salice and his sons and had remonstrated with him in accordance
with the information received from the inquisitor. The duke was to
depart for Spain the next day, but took time to explain that the pope
was misinformed as to his wishing to bring heretics to reside in the
Milanese; he had arranged to pay them in their own country for the
king’s service and had given them greater privileges of trade than were
accorded to the Grisons in general under the capitulations and, if this
did not please his Holiness, he must treat with the king about it.
Albonesi adds that he reported this to the inquisitor who concluded that
the only way to stop the trade of these heretics with the Milanese was
for the pope to appeal to Philip.[242] The next year we find the Bishop
of Brescia, in a letter to Borromeo, alluding to two persons in his
diocese suspected of heresy because they caused scandal by dealing with
the Grisons.[243]

How delicate were these international relations and how little the
Inquisition was disposed to respect them are manifest in an occurrence
some years later, after Cardinal Borromeo had come to reside in his see.
In visiting some Swiss districts of his province he promulgated some
regulations displeasing to the people, who sent an ambassador to
complain to the Governor of Milan. He took lodgings with a merchant and,
as soon as the inquisitor heard of his arrival, he arrested and threw
him in prison. This arrogant violation of the law of nations was a
peculiarly dangerous blunder and, as soon as news of it reached the
governor he released the envoy from prison and made him a fitting
apology, but word had already been carried to the Swiss, who made prompt
arrangements to seize the cardinal. Borromeo escaped by a few hours, and
his obnoxious regulations were never obeyed.[244] How completely, in his
eyes, all material interests were to be disregarded, in comparison with
the danger of infection from heresy, is to be seen in a pastoral letter
addressed, in 1580, to all parish priests--a letter which is moreover
instructive as to the extent to which the ecclesiastical jurisdiction
trespassed on the secular. He recites the danger to the faith arising
from those who, under pretext of business or other pretence, visit
heretical lands, where they may be perverted, and on their return spread
the infection, wherefore he orders that no one shall make such journeys
or visits without first obtaining a licence from him or from his
vicar-general or from the inquisitor. All who disobey this are to be
prosecuted by the Inquisition as suspect of heresy and are to be
penanced at discretion. This letter is to be read from the altar on
three feast-days and subsequently several times a year, while the
priests are further ordered to investigate and report within a month all
who are absent, the cause of their going and the length of their
stay.[245] The question was one which refused to be settled and was the
subject of repeated decrees by the Roman Congregation, which serve to
explain why the nations subjected to the Inquisition fell behind their
more liberal rivals in the race for prosperity.[246]

With the failure to introduce the Spanish Inquisition, Cardinal Borromeo
seems to have felt increased responsibility for the suppression of
heresy, prompting him to efforts to render the Milanese tribunal more
efficient. In his correspondence of 1564 and 1565, we find him paying
the salary of the inquisitor, enlarging the archiepiscopal prison with
the proceeds of confiscations and discussing the transfer of the
Inquisition from the monastery of le Grazie to the archiepiscopal
palace, where it would be more conveniently and honorably established.
He is also recognized as its head, for Fra Felice da Colorno, the
inquisitor of Como, asks his instructions about a box of books addressed
to the impious Vergerio, which he has found among those hidden by the
Rev. Don Hippolito Chizzuola.[247] In fact, the Inquisition of the
period seems to be a curious combination of the inquisitorial and
episcopal jurisdictions. As early as 1549 we find the Roman Congregation
giving to Antonio Bishop of Trieste a commission as its commissioner as
though the ordinary jurisdiction were insufficient.[248] In 1564 Gasparo
Bishop of Asti boasts to Cardinal Borromeo of his earnest labors in
keeping his diocese free of heresy, although the neighboring ones were
infected; in 1565 Costaciario Bishop of Acqui excuses himself for delay
in obeying the summons to the first provincial council (October 15th)
because he was engaged on an important trial of a heretic whom he had
imprisoned; in November of the same year Bollani Bishop of Brescia
writes in considerable dread of the Signory of Venice because he had
forced the podestà to abjure for some impudent and reckless speeches; he
throws the responsibility on the cardinal and begs that his letter may
be burnt. A few days later he seems much relieved, for the podestà has
apologized and he describes a curious assembly “la solita nostra
congrega della Santa Inquisizione,” which he was accustomed to hold
weekly in his palace, consisting of the inquisitor, the podestà, the
rettori (or Venetian governors) and some others, when the inquisitor
rejoiced them by reporting that there were but two heretics in the city,
one of whom was _mentecaptus_.[249]

Evidently Cardinal Borromeo was stimulating his suffragans to increased
zeal and activity and when, in 1566, he came to reside in Milan, his
ardor for the extermination of heresy grew apace, whether through his
own convictions or through the impetuous urgency of the new
Inquisitor-Pope, St. Pius V, whose aim was to subject the whole
Christian world to the Holy Office.[250] There is a curious memorandum
drawn up by Borromeo, detailing the matters to be enquired into in
episcopal visitations, which shows that the persecution of heresy, the
efficiency of the Inquisition, the avoidance of communication with
heretics and the observances of the faith were regarded by him as the
points of first importance.[251] In 1568 he was suddenly summoned to
Mantua as the most fitting person to put the Inquisition there into
working order. The duke, Guillelmo Gonzaga, was liberally inclined and
had long given trouble to the Holy Office. Pius V, soon after his
accession, in 1566, had been moved to pious wrath by his refusal to send
to Rome two heretics for trial. A threat to bring him to terms by open
war failed and Pius would have proceeded to extremities, had he not been
dissuaded by the other Italian princes.[252] He contented himself with
sending orders to the inquisitor there, Fra Ambrogio Aldegato, to clear
the city of heretics, who were numerous, but the frate was old; he
shrank from the struggle and, pleading age and infirmity, he asked to be
relieved. Pius gave him the bishopric of Casale and extended over Mantua
the jurisdiction of Fra Camillo Campeggio, styled Inquisitor-general of
Ferrara, who had doubtless been selected as a man of vigor for that
post, in view of the encouragement to the reform given not long before
by Renée de France, the Duchess of Ferrara. The new inquisitor was not
favorably regarded by Gonzaga, who interfered with the public penances
and abjurations imposed by him, who was slack in obeying his commands to
make arrests and who even allowed suspected heretics to escape.
Campeggio was more earnest than respectful in his remonstrances and
mutual ill-will increased until, on Christmas night of 1567, some sons
of Belial slew two Dominicans who had doubtless been overzealous in
aiding the inquisitor. No active efforts were made to detect the
assassins; some higher authority was evidently needed and Pius V, by a
brief of February 12, 1568, ordered Cardinal Borromeo to go there with
all speed, to bring the duke to obedience and to sit with the inquisitor
in the trial of cases. Borromeo lost no time in obeying the mandate and,
on his arrival he gave the duke to understand that the pope’s
determination was unalterable; he would rather see all Dominicans cut to
pieces, and all Dominican convents burnt, than that heresy should go
unpunished in Mantua. It required resolute action for there were
heretics high-placed in both Church and State; a company of sbirri had
to be borrowed from Bologna, but Borromeo succeeded in breaking down all
opposition. Already, by May 16th, he was able to report that his mission
was accomplished and that his presence was no longer needed. On May 21st
he writes that the duke has come humbly to the inquisitor to beg for
release from prison and sanbenito of two penitents, which was granted,
seeing that they had already been compelled to abjure publicly. As the
pope had rewarded Campeggio with the bishopric of Sutri and Nepi, the
duke had at once begged that the place might be filled by Fra Angelo,
the vicar of the Inquisition, to all of which the cardinal points
triumphantly as showing how the ducal temper had changed. Possibly some
explanation of this may be sought in a request from the duke that the
confiscations should be made over to him, which Borromeo was willing to
meet in so far as to suggest that he be allowed one half. Another reason
may perhaps be discerned in his apprehension of an attack by the Duke of
Savoy, for, on June 4th, Borromeo writes that he had asked for the
support of the papacy in such contingency. Be this as it may, Borromeo
was able in June to return to Milan, leaving the Inquisition firmly
established in Mantua.[253]

It is an indication of his predominating zeal for the extirpation of
heresy that when, on May 16th, he begged permission to return to Milan,
the reason he assigned was that he was wanted there for the
long-protracted trial of Nicholas Cid. This was a case which had for
years been occupying the Milanese Inquisition. The accused was
treasurer-general of the Spanish forces, in whose favor Cesare Gonzaga
wrote, November 2, 1565, to the cardinal, repeating what he had
frequently stated before, that it was a persecution arising from
malignity.[254] This ardor for the purity of the faith did not diminish
with time. In his second provincial council, held in 1569, the first
decree requires the bishops to promulgate an edict to be read in all the
parish churches, on the first Sundays in Lent and Advent, calling upon
all persons, under pain of excommunication, to denounce within ten days,
to the bishop or inquisitor, any case of heresy or of reading forbidden
books that may come to their knowledge. His own formula for this, in
1572, is very stringent, insisting on the denunciation of every heretic
act or suspicious word.[255]

It is evident that thus far the episcopal jurisdiction over heresy was
not superseded by the inquisitorial, but that both worked in harmony
and, between the two, it may be questioned whether the Milanese gained
much in escaping the Spanish Inquisition. As the Roman organization
perfected itself throughout Northern Italy, Milan naturally was a centre
of activity, as a sort of bulwark against the influence of Switzerland.
The troubles arising from the inevitable commercial intercourse with the
heretics, and the capitulations which provided for the residence of
traders on each side, continued to be a source of perpetual anxiety and
vigilance. Then the transit of merchandise had to be watched; everything
destined for Milan had to be opened and searched for heretic literature,
but packages in transmission were allowed to pass through, relying upon
examination at the points of destination. Correspondence by mail was
also the subject of much solicitude. In 1588 the Congregation of the
Inquisition was excited by the news that the heretic Cantons proposed to
establish in the Valtelline a school for instruction in their doctrines,
whereupon it wrote urgent letters and threatened to cut off all
intercourse if the project was not abandoned. In the same year it wrote
to the Milanese inquisitor favoring warmly the plan of rewarding those
who would capture and deliver to the tribunal heretic preachers and
promising to pay for “this holy and pious work” according to the
importance of the victims kidnapped, but it uttered a warning that this
had better not be attempted in the Grisons, for fear of reprisals that
would ruin the Catholic churches and monasteries there. In 1593 the
tribunal was reminded that, while the capitulations permitted the
residence of heretic merchants from the Grisons and Switzerland, the
privilege was confined to them and all others must be prosecuted and
punished. As for Milanese who desire to go to Switzerland, returning
home several times a year, they are to be watched, and licences are not
to be given to reside in places where they cannot have access to
Catholic priests. Then, in 1597, there was fresh excitement over an
edict of the Three Leagues, prohibiting the residence in the Valtelline
of foreign priests and friars. In 1599 the zeal of the Milanese tribunal
seems to have provoked reclamations on the part of the Swiss, for the
inquisitor was ordered not to molest the heretic merchants but to
observe the capitulations strictly. This was doubtless part of an
outburst of persecution for, in 1600, orders were given to seize and
retain the children of the heretics who had fled to Switzerland.[256]

It is evident that the Milanese tribunal had ample work in protecting
the faith from hostile invasion. Its activity continued under the
Spanish Hapsburgs until, in 1707, the genius of Prince Eugene won
Lombardy for Austria, as an incident in the War of the Spanish
Succession. It still existed on sufferance until the eighteenth century
was well advanced. In 1771 Maria Theresa foreshadowed the end by
ordering that no future vacancies should be filled and by suppressing
the affiliated Order of the Crocesignati, whose property was assigned to
the support of orphanages. This was followed by a decree of March 9,
1775, declaring that the existence of such an independent jurisdiction
was incompatible with the supremacy and good order of the State,
wherefore it was abolished and, as the inquisitors and their vicars
should die, their salaries should be applied to the orphanages.[257]
Thus passed away the oldest surviving Inquisition, which may be said to
date from 1232, when we find Fra Alberico commissioned as Inquisitor of
Lombardy.




CHAPTER V.

THE CANARIES.[258]


In 1402 Jean de Bethencourt, an adventurer from Normandy, discovered or
rediscovered the Canaries and made himself master of the islands of
Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gomera and Hierro. After various changes of
ownership, they fell to the crown of Castile, and Isabella undertook the
conquest of the remainder of the group, the Grand Canary, Tenerife and
la Palma. The sturdy resistance of the native Guanches rendered the
enterprise an arduous one, consuming eighteen years, and it was not
until 1496 that it was finally accomplished. That Columbus, on his first
voyage, took his departure from Gomera indicates the importance assumed
by the Canaries in the development of trade with the New World and this,
conjoined with their productiveness, as they became settled and
cultivated, rendered them a centre of commerce frequented by the ships
of all maritime nations, as well as an object of buccaneering raids, in
an age when trade and piracy were sometimes indistinguishable. Their
proximity to Morocco and the Guinea coast moreover exposed them to
attacks from the Moors and gave them an opportunity of accumulating
Moorish and negro slaves, whom the piety of the age sought to convert
into Christians by the water of baptism. In various ways, therefore,
there came to be abundant material for inquisitorial activity, although
the Judaizing New Christians, who furnished the Spanish tribunals with
their principal business, appear to have been singularly few.

There was no haste in extending the Spanish Inquisition to the Canaries.
As early as 1406 a bishopric had been founded in Lanzarote, subsequently
transferred to Las Palmas in the Grand Canary, which was regarded as the
capital of the group. If the successive bishops, who, with more or less
regularity, filled the see, exercised their episcopal jurisdiction over
heresy, their labors have left no trace. It is not until the time of
Diego de Muros, who was consecrated in 1496, that we have any evidence
of such action. That stirring prelate, who held a diocesan synod in
1497, announced, April 25, 1499, that, as inquisitor by his ordinary
authority, he would have inquest made in some of the islands into heresy
and Judaism and other crimes against the faith. What was the result, we
have no means of knowing except a confession made, on May 22d, by Isabel
Ramírez, of having taught a superstitious prayer which was regarded as
sorcery. It is probable that Bishop Muros was warned that he was
invading the jurisdiction of the Holy Office, for he sent the papers in
the case to the tribunal of Seville.[259] It is noteworthy that, after
the establishment of the Canary tribunal, the bishops and their
provisors long continued to use the title of “ordinary” inquisitor, to
which no exception seems to have been taken, although elsewhere it was
contested and forbidden. The latest occasion of its employment with
which I have met occurs in 1672.[260]

It was not until 1505 that the Suprema bethought itself of establishing
a tribunal in the Canaries, when Inquisitor-general Deza appointed as
inquisitor Bartolomé López Tribaldos. The first entry in his register is
dated Tuesday, October 28, 1505, and the earliest record that we have of
his activity is in 1507, when there were two reconciliations, one of
Juan de Ler, a Portuguese, for Judaism, and the other of Ana Rodríguez,
a native, for sorceries, whose sanbenitos were duly hung in the
cathedral.[261] What were the exact powers conferred on Tribaldos we
have no means of knowing, but they must have been exceedingly limited,
and for a long time the tribunal continued to be in close dependence on
that of Seville. When, about 1520, Martin Ximenes, fiscal of the Seville
tribunal, came to Las Palmas in the combined capacity of precentor of
the Cathedral, provisor and inquisitor, he left as his deputy fiscal in
Seville Doctor Fernando de Zamora, thus not abandoning that office. Even
as late as 1548 we chance to have the record of a _consulta de fe_ held
by the Seville tribunal, January 13th, to decide on certain informations
and cases sent to it by the Canary inquisitor Padilla. In the affair of
Juan Alonso, a Morisco, it was ordered that he should be arrested and
tried, when the result was to be reported for action. In that of Juan
Fernández, he was to be summoned and examined as to his blasphemy and
then be penanced at the discretion of Padilla and the Ordinary. Leonor
de Lera was to be arrested and tried and the result be submitted. The
case of Diego Martínez had apparently been concluded under Padilla, for
the Seville consulta sentenced him to twelve years of galley
service.[262] Thus every act, from the preliminary arrest to the final
decision, was regulated from Seville. To render the position still more
anomalous we hear of an _inquisidor ordinario_, Alonso Vivas, Prior of
the cathedral, commissioned, in October, 1523, to try cases of faith
throughout the Grand Canary as he had already done in Telde and
Agüimes.[263]

Irregular and imperfect as may have been the organization of the
tribunal, it yet managed to accomplish some convictions. In 1510 there
was held an auto de fe in which there were three reconciliations for
Judaism and one, of a Moorish slave, for reincidence in Mahometan error,
while a fifth culprit was penanced for Judaism.[264] Then in 1513
occurred the first relaxation, that of Alonso Fátima, a native Morisco,
who had fled to Barbary. This was always deemed sufficient evidence of
relapse to former errors, and he was duly burned in effigy. It was
probably also to 1516 that may be attributed the first relaxation in
person--that of Juan de Xeres of Seville, for Judaism. It shows that the
tribunal was indifferently equipped that, when he was sentenced to
torture, the physician whose presence was obligatory on such occasions,
Doctor Juan Meneses de Gallegas, was required personally to administer
it. It was exceedingly severe, extending to eleven jars of water; the
accused was unable to endure it; he confessed his faith, was sentenced
to relaxation as a relapsed and for fictitious confession, and was
executed on Wednesday, June 4th.[265]

Martin Ximenes seems to have performed his duties with commendable
energy. He commenced by making an alphabetical register of all the
parties denounced under his predecessor, comprising 139 individuals,
besides various groups, such as “the Confesos and Moriscos of
Lanzarote,” “other Confesos, their kindred,” “certain persons of Hierro”
etc., which indicate how slovenly had been the procedure.[266] He made a
visitation of Tenerife and la Palma, from which he returned with ample
store of fresh denunciations.[267] May 29, 1524, all the dignitaries,
civil and ecclesiastical, and all the people were assembled in the
church of Santa Ana, where an edict was read commanding them to render
aid and favor to the Inquisition, and an oath to that effect was
administered. There was also an Edict of Grace, promising relief from
confiscation to all who would come forward and confess as to themselves
and others; also an Edict of Faith requiring denunciation of errors and
specifying the various kinds of blasphemies and sorceries and the
distinctive Jewish and Moorish rites; and finally an edict reciting that
the Conversos were emigrating and forbidding their leaving the islands
and all ship-masters from carrying away suspected persons without
licence from him, under the penalties of fautorship and of forfeiting
their vessels.[268]

The terror inspired by the activity of Ximenes may be estimated from a
single instance. On May 21st, Ynes de Tarifa came before him to confess
that when, a couple of months before, she had heard of the burning in
Seville of her son-in-law Alonso Hernández and of his brother Francisco,
she recalled that after meals Alonso used to read to Francisco out of a
book in an unknown tongue and, if she had erred in not denouncing this
to the Seville tribunal, she begged to be treated mercifully.[269] The
publication of the edicts throughout the islands brought in an abundant
store of denunciations, the record for eight months, from September 13,
1524, to May 15, 1526, amounting to 167. They were nearly all of petty
sorceries by women, in sickness or love affairs, but with an occasional
blasphemy or suspicion of Judaism, and persons of station were not
exempted, for the list comprises the Adelantado Don Pedro de Lugo and
his wife Elvira Diaz, the Dean Juan de Alarcon, the Prior Alonso Bivas
and others of position. The adelantado, in fact, was dead, but the
accusation against his memory is sufficiently significant of the
prevailing temper to be worth relating. The Bachiller Diego de Funes
came forward, by command of his confessor, to state that when Diego de
San Martin was holding for ransom a _Judío de señal_ (one obliged to
wear a distinctive mark) who had been caught on his way to Portugal, the
captive was starving to death because he could not eat meat slaughtered
by Christians: de Lugo charitably gave him a sheep to kill according to
his rites and even himself ate some of the mutton. These petty cases
kept Ximenes busy and he despatched them with promptness; the
punishments as a rule were not severe--in one or two cases scourging or
vergüenza, but mostly small fines, exile and occasionally spiritual
penances.[270]

There were, however, cases in which the faith demanded more exemplary
vindication. The island of Grand Canary, from 1523 to 1532, was ravaged
with pestilence creating great misery. Among other causes of divine
wrath the people included the secret apostasy of the Portuguese New
Christians and of the Moorish slaves, and demanded severe measures for
its repression. It may have been with an idea of placating God that
Ximenes, on February 24, 1526, celebrated the first _auto publico
general de fe_ with great solemnity, in which all the nobles of the
island assisted as familiars. The occasion was impressive, for there
were seven Judaizers relaxed in person and burnt, there were ten
reconciliations, of which five were of Moorish baptized slaves, four
were for Judaism and one of a Genoese heretic, in addition to which
there were two blasphemers penanced.[271]

This is the last that we hear of Ximenes, whose place, in 1527, was
filled by Luis de Padilla, treasurer of the cathedral. For awhile he
imitated his predecessor’s activity and, on June 4, 1530, another
oblation was offered to God, in an auto celebrated with the same
ostentation as the previous one. This time there were no relaxations in
person, but there were six effigies burnt of as many Moorish slaves, who
had escaped and were drowned in their infidelity while on their way to
Africa and liberty. There were also the effigy and bones of Juan de
Tarifa, the husband of the Ynes de Tarifa who had denounced herself in
1524; he was of Converso descent and had committed suicide in prison,
which was equivalent to self-condemnation. There were three
reconciliations, of which two were for Judaism and one for Islam and
five penitents for minor offences.[272] The next auto was held on May
23, 1534, in which there were two relaxations of effigies for Judaism
and twenty-five reconciliations--twenty-four of Moriscos and one of a
Judaizer. One of the relaxations carries with it a warning, for it was
of Costanza Garza, who had died in 1533 during her trial. When too late
her innocence was discovered and the Suprema humanely rehabilitated her
memory and her children, and ordered the restoration of her confiscated
estate.[273]

Whether this aggressive vindication of the faith put an end to heresy or
whether Padilla had exhausted his energies, it would be impossible now
to say, but after this auto the tribunal sank into lethargy so complete
that on February 8, 1538, the chapter notified Padilla and the
secretary, Canon Alonso de San Juan, that the revenues of their prebends
were stopped, for they did not assist in the choir and it was notorious
that the Holy Office had nothing to do.[274] Possibly this may have
stimulated action, but we have seen that in 1548 the tribunal was merely
collecting evidence and obeying the instructions of the Seville
Inquisition. Under this there was an accumulation of culprits for an
auto held in 1557, where there were seventeen effigies burnt of
fugitives--all Moriscos, except a Fleming, Julian Cornelis Vandyk. There
were also four Moriscos reconciled, one of them, curiously enough, for
so-called Calvinism.[275] This seems to have exhausted whatever remains
of energy Padilla possessed for we hear of no further action by him,
except a quarrel with the royal Audiencia in 1562, but nevertheless the
tribunal shared in the suppression of prebends, and a papal brief
assigning one to it was presented to the chapter, August 27, 1563, thus
adding another efficient cause of dissension between them.[276] Soon
after this the tribunal virtually ceased to exist. In 1565 there was a
curious case, of which more hereafter, of John Sanders, an English
sailor. It was carried on wholly by the episcopal provisor, during the
absence of the bishop Diego Deza. There were arrest, sequestration and
the collection of voluminous testimony, which was carefully sealed and
despatched to Bishop Deza, to be handed to the Seville tribunal.
Throughout it all, there is no trace of participation by the local
Inquisition, which, in the consuming jealousy of episcopal
encroachments, could not possibly have been the case had there been a
tribunal in the Canaries.[277]

The policy followed thus far had evidently proved a failure, and
Inquisitor-general Espinosa resolved to reorganize the tribunal and
render it independent of Seville. The fiscal of Toledo, Diego Ortiz de
Fúnez, was selected and was sent out as a full inquisitor, with the
unusual powers of selecting and removing his subordinates, while
subjected only to the requirement of reporting his acts to the Suprema.
The royal letters commanding obedience to him are dated October 10,
1567, and he left Madrid in the Spring of 1568, landing at Las Isletas
on April 17th. Four days later he started for Las Palmas, accompanied in
procession by all the dignitaries, secular and ecclesiastical, of the
island. On May 1st all the population was summoned, under pain of fine
and excommunication, to assemble the next day in the cathedral, at the
reading of the Edict of Faith and to take the oath to obey and favor the
Holy Office, all of which was performed with due solemnity.[278]

Fúnez carried instructions to appoint twenty familiars and no more in
Las Palmas, and such as were found necessary in the other cities and
islands. This was his first care, and he soon had a formidable body,
recruited from the old nobility, to support his authority. Thus far the
Inquisition had had no special habitation, not even a prison, and those
under trial on the most serious charges were confined in their own
houses or in the public gaol, where there was no provision for their
segregation. Fúnez demanded a competent building, with the necessary
conveniences, a demand not easily complied with in so small a place, and
he finally was installed in the episcopal palace, then vacant through
the absence of the bishop.[279] This of course could be but temporary
and some other provision must have been made, for we are told that, when
the Dutch under Pieter Vandervoez, in 1599, took possession of Las
Palmas, they burnt both the episcopal palace and the building of the
Inquisition. The former was not rebuilt until thirty years later by
Bishop Murga and the latter, as we shall see, was reconstructed in due
time on a large scale by the tribunal.[280]

A matter not easily understood is the bestowal, May 25, 1568, on Fúnez,
by the dean and chapter, _sede vacante_, of cognizance of superstitions
and sorcery, because these crimes should not remain unpunished and his
powers as inquisitor were deficient in this respect.[281] These offences
in Spain were recognized as subject to inquisitorial jurisdiction when
savoring, as they always were assumed to do, of heresy and pact with the
demon; they formed by far the larger part of the cases coming before the
Canary tribunal and the previous inquisitors had not hesitated to deal
with them. They formed however a kind of debatable ground, claimed by
both the secular and spiritual as well as the inquisitorial jurisdiction
and Fúnez may have taken advantage of the impression produced by his
reception to obtain from the chapter, in the absence of a bishop, a
transfer of its powers.

Fúnez was zealous and energetic in restoring the tribunal to usefulness
and, in about eighteen months, he had accumulated material for an auto
de fe, celebrated November 5, 1569. For this he sent out his
proclamation through all the islands so that, as he boasted to the
Suprema, although the Grand Canary had only fifteen hundred inhabitants,
there were fully three thousand spectators assembled. The new bishop,
Juan de Azólares, took so warm an interest in the affairs of the
Inquisition that he voted personally in all the cases, he walked in the
procession and he preached the sermon. There were twenty-seven penitents
for minor offences, involving fines, scourging, galleys and other
penalties, and there were three effigies of Moriscos relaxed. One of
these represented Juan Felipe, a rich merchant of Lanzarote who, on
learning that a warrant had been issued for his arrest, chartered a
vessel under pretext of going to Tenerife, on which he embarked with his
wife and children and some thirty of his compatriots, finding a safe
refuge in Morocco and furnishing material for heightening the interest
of several more autos.[282]

The activity of Fúnez was not confined to the Gran Canaria for he made
repeated visitations to the several islands, gathering in denunciations
from all quarters, so that, between May 2, 1568, and January 4, 1571,
the list of accused amounts to 544 besides a number of collective
entries, such as “_bruxas_,” “the Frenchmen who took the caravel of the
Espinosas,” “renegades,” “Moriscos of Lanzarote,” “fugitive negroes”
etc. The names of Englishmen and of an occasional Fleming also begin to
appear. Yet the denunciations consist largely of the veriest trifles of
careless speech, indicating how acute was the watchfulness excited to
observe and report whatever might seem to savor of heresy. There was no
safety in lapse of time, for matters were treasured up to be brought out
long afterwards, when there was no possibility of disproving them. In
Gomera, October 23, 1570, María Machin denounced Catalina Rodríguez for
telling her of a love-charm some thirty years before; in Garachico,
December 21, 1570, Marina Ferrera informs on Vicente Martin, a cleric
who had gone to the Indies, who told her more than twenty-seven years
before of an unnamed woman who had tried on him a conjuration to stop
nose-bleeding. More serious was the accusation brought in Laguna,
January 14, 1571, by Barbolagusta, wife of the Regidor Francisco de
Coronado, against the physician Reynaldos, because, twelve or thirteen
years before, when the husband of a patient told her to seek the
intercession of the saints, he said that God alone was to be prayed to
and there was no need of saints.[283]

Complaints of Fúnez must have reached the Suprema for, after a short
interval, probably in 1570, Doctor Bravo de Zayas was sent out as
visitador or inspector. He seems to have associated himself
companionably with Fúnez as a colleague and, in August, 1571, he made a
visitation of the islands, bringing back an abundant store of
denunciations. The two held together an auto on December 12, 1574, in
which there was but one relaxation--the effigy of a fugitive Morisco.
Four slaves were reconciled, including a case which is suggestive--that
of a negro of whom it is recorded that he was tortured for an hour, when
the infliction was stopped because he was so ignorant and stupid. Pious
zeal for the salvation of these poor savages led to their baptism after
capture; they could not be intelligent converts or throw off their
native superstitions, and no one seemed able to realize the grim
absurdity of adding the terrors of the Inquisition to the horrors of
their enslaved existence. When a negro slave-girl was bemoaning her
condition, she was kindly consoled with the assurance that baptism
preserved her and her children from hell, to which she innocently
replied that doing evil and not lack of baptism led to hell. This was
heresy, for which she was duly prosecuted.[284]

Under the inquisitorial code the attempt to escape from slavery thus was
apostasy, punishable as such if unsuccessful, and expiated if successful
by concremation in effigy. This is illustrated in an auto, held by Zayas
and Fúnez, June 24, 1576, in which among sixteen effigies of absentees
were those of eight slaves, seven negroes and one Moor. They had
undergone baptism, had been bought by Doña Catalina de la Cuevas and
were worked on her sugar plantation. They seized a boat at Orotava and
escaped to Morocco, for which they were duly prosecuted as apostates and
their effigies were delivered to the flames--a ghastly mockery which
does not seem to have produced the desired impression in preventing
other misguided beings from flying from their salvation.[285]

While Zayas thus coöperated with Fúnez, he did not neglect the special
mission entrusted to him. Charges piled up against Fúnez, which he
condensed into a series of thirty articles, embracing all manner of
misdeeds--favoritism, injustice, improper financial transactions,
illicit trading with the Moors of Barbary, ill-treatment of prisoners,
lack of discipline in the tribunal, etc. Zayas and Fúnez seem to have
returned to Spain towards the close of 1576, for the latter’s defence
against the charges is dated at Madrid, February 12, 1577. In this he
answered all the points in full detail, with citation of documents; the
people of the islands, he asserts, are given to perjury and, when
offended, bring false accusations to revenge themselves--a habit which,
it may be hoped, he bore in mind when sitting as a judge. Doubtless he
had given them provocation enough to induce them to exercise their
talents in this line against him and the numerous charges indicate a
wide-spread feeling of hostility towards the tribunal. His defence was
skilfully drawn and, on its face, seems to be sufficient.[286]

The Canary tribunal was thus placed upon the same footing as those of
Spain, though perhaps it was subjected to a somewhat closer supervision
by the Suprema than was as yet exercised at home, for we happen to have
a letter of October 11, 1572, ordering that Antonio Lorenzo be released
from the secret prison and be given his house as a prison. Perhaps it
felt that assertion of its authority was necessary, in view of the delay
and uncertainty of communication, for commercial intercourse was not
frequent; as Fúnez says, about this time, it was notorious that there
were no vessels sailing for two or three or even more months.[287] Be
this as it may, there was another visitor sent to the Canaries in 1582,
and a third about 1590. The latter was Claudio de la Cueva, whose
visitation lasted until 1597 and was useful in exposing the iniquities
of Joseph de Armas, who had served as fiscal for more than twenty years.
A quarrel between him and the secretary, Francisco Ibañez, led to mutual
accusations and the unveiling of secrets which show how the terror
inspired by the Inquisition and the immunity of its officials enabled
them to abuse their positions. There was a rich and respected Fleming
named Jan Aventrot, married to a native widow, who was accused by a
stepdaughter of eating meat on Fridays and saying that meat left no
stain on the soul; also of eating meat in Lent and speaking Flemish.
Aventrot was secretly a Protestant, which could readily have been
developed by the ordinary inquisitorial methods, but he escaped with a
reprimand and a fine of 200 ducats.[288] How this happened finds its
explanation in the fact that, while he was in prison, Armas obtained
from him, without payment, a bill of exchange on Seville.[289] He also
defrauded the revenue by receiving goods imported by an Englishman named
John Gache (Gatchell?) and selling them through his brother Baltasar.
Hernan Peraza, alguazil of the tribunal, complained that Armas would not
pay his debts and so did Daniel Vandama, a Flemish merchant. A harder
case was that of a chaplaincy in the Inquisition founded by Andrés de
Moron for the benefit of Juan de Cervantes, son of Gaspar Fullana,
auditor of accounts in the cathedral. Armas induced Inquisitor Francisco
Madaleno to take the chaplaincy from Cervantes and give it to him. When
Claudio de la Cueva came, Fullana complained to him and he ordered the
chaplaincy restored and the income accrued during four years, amounting
to 190 doblas, to be refunded. Armas delayed payment for some months and
then insisted on compromising it for 120 doblas, which Fullana agreed
to, fearing that Armas, who was a canon, would induce the chapter to
deprive him of his auditorship, but in place of getting money he
received orders on parties at a distance. In stating this under
examination by la Cueva, May 4, 1596, Fullana begged him not to insist
on the restitution of the remaining 70 doblas, for Armas was a dangerous
man.[290]

He proved so to the convent of la Concepcion, founded by Doña Isabel de
Garfias, a Cistercian nun, whom Cardinal Rodrigo de Castro, Archbishop
of Seville, had sent to Las Palmas for the purpose. Armas persuaded the
bishop, Fernando de Figueroa, to appoint him as visitor of the convent
and used his authority to cultivate a suspicious intimacy with some of
the younger inmates, to the destruction of discipline and rules of the
Order. When the abbess endeavored to enforce them, he deposed her and
replaced her with Francisca Ramírez, a Dominican, who had accompanied
her from Spain, and who was of near kin to Doña Laura Ramírez, his
mistress, by whom he was said to have a child. The abbess appealed to
the archbishop, who addressed, December 19, 1595, a forcible letter to
the bishop, recapitulating the misdeeds of Armas and ordering him to
investigate and apply the appropriate remedies, but to no purpose, and
the abbess turned to la Cueva, February 28, 1596, with an earnest
memorial, imploring his interposition. Armas, she said, desired her
death, for when she was sick he would not allow the physician to visit
her, so that she nearly died.[291] A more prominent ecclesiastic who
experienced the risk of provoking him was the prior of the cathedral,
Doctor Luis Rúiz de Salazar, who was also a consultor of the tribunal.
They had a quarrel in the chapter; Salazar called him the son of a
clockmaker and, when Armas gave him the lie, Salazar seized his cap and
beat him with it. Inquisitor Madaleno promptly threw Salazar into prison
and prosecuted him, but, as the affair concerned a church dignitary, he
was obliged to submit the papers to the Suprema for the sentence. With
unexpected moderation the latter replied, April 2, 1591 that, as the
affair took place in the chapter and in the capacity of canons, the
tribunal must abandon the case and allow it to be decided by whatever
judges had jurisdiction--but it did not prescribe any satisfaction to
Salazar for the infamy inflicted by his imprisonment.[292]

Meanwhile the tribunal had been actively performing such duties as came
in its way, strengthened by the addition of another inquisitor, for, in
1581, we find Fúnez replaced with Diego Osorio de Seijas and Juan
Lorenzo, who celebrated a public auto on March 12th of that year. It
will be remembered that, in the auto of 1569, there appeared the effigy
of Juan Felipe, who had escaped from Lanzarote, carrying with him some
thirty other fugitives. The tribunal had not forgotten them and now,
after duly trying them it burnt their effigies, to the number of
thirty-one, including Felipe’s wife and sister and three children,
fifteen slaves, mostly negroes and a miscellaneous group of others. In
addition there were fifteen reconciled penitents, with the usual
penalties.[293]

Six years elapsed before there was another auto, celebrated July 22,
1587, in which there were burnt three effigies of a remnant of the
Lanzarote fugitives. There was also the more impressive relaxation of a
living man--the first since that of the Judaizers in 1526. This was an
Englishman named George Gaspar who, in the royal prison of Tenerife, had
been seen praying with his back to a crucifix and, on being questioned,
had said that prayer was to be addressed to God and not to images. He
was transferred to the tribunal, where he freely confessed to having
been brought up as a Protestant. Torture did not shake his faith and he
was condemned, a confessor as usual being sent to his cell the night
before the auto to effect his conversion. He asked to be alone for
awhile and the confessor, on his return, found him lying on the floor,
having thrust into his stomach a knife which he had picked up in the
prison and concealed for the purpose. The official account piously tells
us that it pleased God that the wound was not immediately mortal and
that he survived until evening, so that the sentence could be executed;
the dying man was carted to the _quemadero_ and ended his misery in the
flames. Another Englishman was Edward Francis, who had been found
wounded and abandoned on the shore of Tenerife. He saved his life, while
under torture, by professing himself a fervent Catholic, who had been
obliged to dissemble his religion, a fault which he expiated with two
hundred lashes and six years of galley service. Still another Englishman
was John Reman (Raymond?) a sailor of the ship Falcon; he had asked for
penance and, as there was nothing on which to support him in the prison,
he was transferred to the public gaol. The governor released him and, in
wandering around he fell into conversation with some women, in which he
expressed Protestant opinions. A second trial ensued in which, under
torture, he professed contrition and begged for mercy, which he obtained
in the disguise of two hundred lashes and ten years of galleys. In
addition there were the crew of the bark Prima Rosa, twelve in number,
all English but one Fleming. One of them, John Smith, had died in
prison, and was reconciled in effigy; the rest, with or without torture,
had professed conversion and were sent to the galleys, some of them
with a hundred lashes in addition. Besides these, this notable auto
presented twenty-two penitents, penanced or reconciled, for the ordinary
offences and with the usual penalties.[294]

Another auto was celebrated December 21, 1597, with a large number of
penitents, but no relaxations either in person or in effigy. It was the
last of these solemnities held in public, for the next one, December 20,
1608, was an _auto particular_, in the cathedral, when three effigies
were relaxed.[295] In fact, while the Inquisition in Spain was
consolidating its power and threatening to dominate the monarchy, in the
Canaries there seems to have been an unconscious combination of opposing
forces which crippled its energies and gradually rendered it inert. Yet
during the early years of the seventeenth century it had vigor enough to
burn two unfortunates alive. Gaspar Nicholas Claysen (Claessens?) a
Hollander, had been condemned to a year of prison, in the auto of 1597,
when he must have professed conversion. He seems to have imagined that
he would escape recognition and, in 1611, he tempted his fate again and
sought the Canaries as the captain of a merchant vessel. He was arrested
April 19th and tried again. In spite of torture he maintained his faith
to the last and, on January 27, 1612, he was sentenced to relaxation, as
an impenitent, by the inquisitors Juan Francisco de Monroy and Pedro
Espino de Brito. Then a delay of two years occurred, possibly occupied
with efforts for his salvation, and it was not until February 22, 1614,
that the governor, Francisco de la Rua, was summoned to hear his
sentence and receive him for execution. There was a Dutch ship in the
harbor and many of his compatriots in the town, so that his rescue seems
to have been feared, for such is the reason given for loading him with
chains and guarding him with four soldiers carrying arquebuses with
lighted matches. At the appointed hour he was paraded through the
streets, under a guard of soldiers, to the plaza de Santo Domingo, where
he was duly burnt alive. The next year, on June 2, 1615, Tobias
Lorenzo, a Hollander settled in Garachico (Tenerife), who had been
arrested in 1611, was burnt as a relapsed Protestant.[296]

This was the last relaxation in person, making, according to Millares, a
total of only eleven since the foundation of the tribunal, but, as he
omits the earliest one, Juan de Xeres, the count amounts to twelve.[297]
After this a long interval occurs before there was even an effigy burnt.
Duarte Henríquez Alvarez was a Portuguese New Christian, who was a
collector of the royal revenues and a rich merchant in Tenerife. In his
frequent voyages to Europe he fell in love with the daughter of an
Amsterdam correspondent and resolved to marry her and return to the
faith of his ancestors. He remitted to Holland as much money as he could
without exciting suspicion, he abandoned to the Inquisition the rest of
his considerable property and departed, never to return. He was duly
prosecuted _in absentia_ and condemned to relaxation in effigy.
Permission to execute the sentence in an auto particular was asked of
the Suprema and its assent was received, May 29, 1659. No time was lost;
on June 1st the auto was held in the cathedral; the effigy was delivered
to the corregidor and was solemnly burnt in the quemadero, being the
last execution in the Canaries.[298] From this time to the end of the
century the work of the tribunal was almost nothing, the records of the
prison showing that there were rarely more than one or two
prisoners.[299]

       *       *       *       *       *

Before following the history of the tribunal to its decadence and
extinction, we may pause to consider its condition and the various
directions in which its activity was developed.

Its financial resources presumably were limited. During the earlier term
of its career, when it had no buildings of its own and no prison to
maintain, when its officials for the most part were drawn from the
chapter and other beneficed incumbents, an occasional confiscation and
levying of fines probably met the moderate necessary expenses. In 1563
it had the benefit of a suppressed prebend and when, in 1568, Fúnez was
sent to organize it, the energy of his administration doubtless supplied
the funds necessary for the establishment which he founded. Imposing
fines, however, probably was easier than collecting them, for when, in
1570, he was about to depart on a visitation of the islands he impressed
upon the fiscal, Juan de Cervantes, that there were many persons who
owed the fines to which they had been condemned and he was especially
empowered to use all the rigor of law in compelling payment.[300] This
seems to have been the only source thus far of funds, for when one of
the charges against Fúnez, in the visitation, was that he kept no book
for recording confiscations, his reply, in 1577, was that there had been
none since that of the Felipes (in 1569) and this was so involved that
he waited till he could visit Lanzarote and straighten it out.[301]

A more promising field, however, as we shall see, was now developing in
the prosecution of heretic merchants and shipmasters who were seeking
the trade of the Canaries, when a latitudinarian construction of the law
permitted the seizure of vessels and cargoes, on which the grip of the
Inquisition was not easily relaxed. Either from this or some other
source the tribunal was emerging from its poverty, for a stray document
shows us that, in 1602, it was investing 5000 ducats in a ground-rent,
from which it was still receiving the income in 1755.[302] We also catch
a glimpse of its affairs in 1654, when the Seville Contratacion sent its
fiscal to the Canaries to put a stop to the exportation of wine to the
Indies, the commerce of which was confined to Seville. On June 15th the
tribunal addressed to Philip IV a memorial, arguing that to cut off
this trade would be the total destruction of the islands, which now pay
the king 60,000 ducats a year over the expenses of the garrison and
judiciary, for the English took only the malmsey of Tenerife and the
rest of the vintage, amounting to 16,000 pipes per annum, went to the
Indies. The bishopric, now worth 30,000, would not be worth 10,000; as
for the Inquisition, it held ground-rents on the vineyards paying 22,232
reales and 28 maravedís, which it would lose, and, as its only other
source, the prebend, was worth only 300 ducats a year, its support would
fall on the king.[303] The only relief obtained from the king was
permission to ship 1000 tuns a year to various American ports. Whether
the tribunal suffered or not we have no means of knowing, but in 1660 we
find it gathering in the estate of Duarte Henríquez, burnt in effigy in
1658, and applying 1942 reales from it to the renewal of 212 sanbenitos,
hung in the churches, which had become worm-eaten and indistinct with
age.[304]

This does not look as if the tribunal were oppressed with poverty; in
fact it must have enjoyed abundant means for about this time it
completed what is described as an imposing palace for its habitation.
This had a spacious patio, covered with an awning in hot weather, which
led into a handsome garden, opening upon a street in the rear. To these
the public was freely admitted and they formed a thoroughfare from one
street to another, the object of which was to enable witnesses and
informers to come without attracting attention. In the building were
lodged the senior inquisitor, the gaoler and the subordinate officials,
the prison and the torture-chamber being in the rear.[305] Later
financial data are missing, but the tribunal probably managed to meet
its expenses to the end, with no greater difficulty than those of the
Peninsula. From first to last it was not burdened with a punitive prison
or _casa de la misericordia_, and its sentences to confinement are
always to convents or to the houses of the culprits or to hold the city
as a prison. The detentive or secret prison was economically
administered, the ration, as we learn in 1577, being only 24 maravedís a
day. The visitor, Bravo y Zayas, was assailed with many complaints by
the inmates of insufficient food, which they ascribed to the knavery of
the officials, but Fúnez explained it by saying that, while in the
Canaries there were usually one or two months of scarcity in a year,
there had been a famine lasting through 1571, 1572 and 1573, when the
price of bread went up to a cuarto of six maravedís for two or three
ounces and the people were reduced to eating chestnuts; meat was
correspondingly scarce and the supply of fish was very uncertain. Rich
and poor suffered alike and, as the prisoners’ allowance was in money,
their food was unavoidably diminished.[306]

       *       *       *       *       *

Judaizing New Christians, who furnished, in the Peninsula, so abundant a
source of exploitation, formed a comparatively insignificant feature in
the activity of the Canary tribunal. At first there was better promise,
as we have seen in the statistics of the earlier autos, but these
energetic proceedings seem either to have driven them away or to have
thoroughly converted them and, in the subsequent period, the cases of
Judaism are singularly few, in so far as we can learn from existing
documents. In 1635 there is a denunciation of a Dutchman named Rojel,
who had been in Tenerife and who subsequently was seen in Holland,
dressed and living as a Jew. In 1636, a man named Mardocheo, aged 80,
resident of La Laguna in Tenerife, was accused of talking Judaism by a
man who had been a fellow-prisoner with him in the public gaol. In 1638
the Licenciado Diego de Arteaga was suspected of being _de casta de
Judío_, in consequence of irregular conduct in a procession. In 1653,
Francisco Vicente, a West Indian, who had accompanied his master Diego
Rodrigo Arias from Havana to London and thence to Tenerife, denounced
him for taking a crucifix every night from his chest and flogging it for
half an hour. In 1659 we have seen the relaxation in effigy of Duarte
Henríquez Alvarez. In 1660 Fray Matias Pinto accused Antonio Fernández
Carvajal of saying that he was a Jew since Protector Cromwell had broken
peace with Spain. In 1662 Gaspar Pereyra, alias de Vitoria, was
convicted of Judaism and sent to Seville to serve out his term of
imprisonment. His grandmother had been burnt and his business as a
merchant had carried him to Brazil, Angola, Lisbon, Madrid, Antwerp,
Amsterdam, Middelburg and many other places, so that he had a
comprehensive acquaintance with the communities of Jewish refugees
everywhere, and the care with which the minute evidence that he gave
concerning them was collected and ratified, although they were all out
of reach, shows that the paucity of cases in the records is not the
result of any lack of desire to persecute. It was natural however that
the inquisitors should enquire about Gerónimo Gómez Pesoa, a rich Lisbon
merchant who disappeared just in time to avoid arrest and, as an English
vessel sailed that night without a licence, he was supposed to have
escaped in it--a supposition fortified by learning that he had joined
the colony of Conversos in Rouen and had thence gone to Amsterdam.[307]
Doubtless there were more cases than these, but the records available do
not furnish them.

       *       *       *       *       *

During the sixteenth century baptized Moorish and negro slaves furnished
a certain amount of business, especially when they escaped and added to
the impressiveness of the autos with their effigies, but subsequently we
hear little of them. When prosecuted in person it would seem that the
owner was obliged to pay for their maintenance, for a warrant of arrest,
in 1575, of Pedro Morisco manco, slave of Pedro d’Escalona, requires
eight ducats to be brought with him, to be furnished by his
master.[308] There is one case of a free Morisco which is not easy to
understand. About 1590, Sancho de Herrera Leon, with his wife and
children, was carried off in a Moorish raid. After a short time he
returned and, although he asserted that he had come back to preserve his
faith, he was made to abjure _de levi_, was fined in forty doblas and
was exiled perpetually from Lanzarote and Fuerteventura, under pain of
scourging and galleys.[309] In the seventeenth century we hear little of
such cases, but in 1619 there occurs one which throws some light on the
fate of the Moriscos expelled from Spain in 1610. Juan de Soto, born in
Valladolid and brought up as a Christian, was seven years old at the
time of the expulsion. The family passed into France; at Toulouse his
parents and brothers died, but a kinsman took charge of him and carried
him to Barbary, where he was circumcised and made to utter certain words
in Arabic. For seven years he served various masters, who carried him
twice to Constantinople, Alexandria and other places. In 1618 a fleet
sailed from Algiers to the Canaries, in which he served a Turkish
captain named Hamet. Sent ashore on Lanzarote with a foraging party and
attacked by the natives, three were killed and he was wounded and
captured. The Inquisition claimed him, which was probably fortunate for
him, for, as a renegade he escaped with reconciliation and four years of
sanbenito and reclusion in a convent.[310]

Renegades, in fact, were quite numerous, and the facility is noteworthy
with which Christians when captured abandoned their faith. The tribunal
kept a close watch on them and all who escaped from Barbary were closely
questioned as to fellow-prisoners who had renegaded, when these could be
prosecuted _in absentia_, or record be kept to confront them in case of
their return.[311]

       *       *       *       *       *

The vast number of denunciations which kept pouring in upon the
tribunal shows how sedulously the population was trained as spies and
informers upon their neighbors. Many of the alleged offences were of the
most trivial character, yet they have their interest as an index of the
hypersensitiveness of orthodoxy with which the Spanish mind was imbued.
Among the cases which Doctor Bravo y Zayas brought home with him for
trial, from his visitation of the islands in 1571, was that of a man
who, while dressing himself, was annoyed by the glare of the sun and
pettishly exclaimed “Devil take the sun,” which was gravely qualified as
blasphemy. Another who, in a procession, had aided in carrying the frame
on which was seated an image of the Virgin, remarked that it was a load
for a camel, which was decided to be ill-sounding and offensive to pious
ears. Even absence of intention did not excuse. In 1591, Gaspar López of
Tenerife, when on guard one night, went through the exercise of arms
with his partizan, in the course of which he happened to strike a wooden
cross that was behind him, and for this he was sentenced to the
indelible disgrace of appearing in an auto, followed by
vergüenza--parading on an ass through the streets, naked from the waist
up, while the town-crier proclaimed his misdeed.[312] This hyperæsthesia
did not diminish with time. In 1665 the tribunal entertained and
investigated an accusation that a certain person when praying allowed
his rosary to hang down his back, which was regarded as
irreverence.[313]

How readily such a system could be abused to gratify malevolence is
indicated in the case of the Dominican Fray Alonso de las Roelas. In
March, 1568, he made an utterance about purgatory which excited remark,
and some of his brother frailes discussed it with him, when Fray Blas
Merino, a prominent member of the Order, said that Roelas was simple and
did not know what he said and that it was not for them to denounce him.
Some years later, however, Blas Merino, in the hope of being made
Provincial, was engaged in a sort of plot to get the Canaries separated
from the Province of Andalusia and erected into a province of the Order.
The Dominican authorities heard of this and Roelas was commissioned to
seize all the papers connected with it and to notify Merino to abandon
the project. To revenge himself Merino hunted up all the witnesses to
Roela’s utterance and persuaded them to denounce him in 1572. Bishop
Azólares, whose zeal for the Inquisition we have seen, said that the
matter was not worth prosecuting, because Roelas did not deny purgatory,
which was a matter of faith, while its place and the character of its
torment were matters of debate with theologians. Nevertheless Roelas was
arrested and tried, and, as usual during trial, he was recluded in the
convent of his Order in Las Palmas. One midnight he came knocking at the
door of the Inquisition; Fúnez was awakened and sent him word that it
was no time for him to call and that he could come the next day. He did
so and stated that his brethren so maltreated him, because he had once
served as inspector of the house, that he asked to be placed in the
secret prisons, a request which was granted, and he stayed there until
sentenced. The sentence punished him with reclusion and he was delivered
to the prior of the convent, when they at once commenced snarling and
growling at each other like quarrelsome dogs. Fúnez rebuked the prior,
telling him to avoid such public scandals and that he would send Roelas
to the convent in Tenerife until the Provincial should decide as to his
place of reclusion. Fúnez probably spoke from experience when he said
that among frailes there was no restraint nor truth, but only envy.[314]

       *       *       *       *       *

The Canaries enjoyed an ample supply of _beatas revelanderas_, but, as a
rule, the tribunal did not follow the example of the Peninsula in
molesting them. One of the most renowned of these was Catalina de San
Mateo, a nun of the house of Santa Clara in Las Palmas, who had
ecstasies and revelations and was reverenced as a saint. God spoke with
her familiarly through the medium of a painted Ecce Homo, which hung in
her cell, giving her counsels and spiritual comfort and prophecies. On
her death, May 26, 1695, the body lay for three days emitting the odor
of sanctity and was viewed by a vast concourse, eager to touch it with
rosaries and other objects, and all her clothes and effects were
treasured as relics. All this is described in a letter of July 5th, to
the Suprema, by the inquisitors Lugo and Romero, who express no doubts
as to her holiness. Commencement was made to collect testimony for her
canonization, but enthusiasm evaporated and the effort was abandoned.
She was succeeded in popular veneration by Sor Petronila de San Esteban,
of the convent of San Bernardo in Las Palmas, which she had entered in
1680, at the age of four. She was a bride of God; the child Jesus came
to nestle in her arms; the man Christ came to soothe her with sweet
words; legions of angels, headed by David, came to rejoice her with the
music of heaven. She had terrible conflicts with demons, whom she
overcame, and a little wooden image of St. John, with which she held
discourse, was the medium through which she enjoyed revelations and
prophecies. The Inquisition took no action to interfere with her and
almost the only case in which it instituted proceedings, in such
matters, was one, in 1695, against Don Miguel de Araus, confessor of two
beatas in La Laguna, Francisca Machado de San José and Margarita de
Santa Teresa, the former of whom boasted of the stigmata.[315]

       *       *       *       *       *

In the later period a very considerable share of the labors of the
tribunal was devoted to cases of “solicitation”--the seduction of women
by their confessors. It was not until 1561 that this crime was subjected
to inquisitorial jurisdiction, under the pretext that it implied
erroneous belief as to the sacrament of penitence, and some time was
required to settle the question of including it in the Edict of Faith
calling for denunciations. The earliest case I have met occurs in 1574,
when María Ramos accused her confessor, Fray Pedro Gallego.[316] After
this they occur with increasing frequency and offenders appear to be
treated with even more sympathetic leniency than in Spain. There was
moderate rigor in the sentence of Fray Pedro de Hinojosa, denounced in
1579 by numerous maids, wives and widows, for he was deprived of the
faculty of hearing confessions, he received a circular discipline in his
convent and he was recluded for three years in a convent with the
customary disabilities.[317] Much less severity was shown, in 1584, to
Manuel Gómez Pacheco, priest of Garachico, accused by a number of women,
for he was only sentenced to abjuration _de levi_, deprivation of
administering the sacrament of penitence, two months reclusion in a
convent and some spiritual exercises.[318] The penalties varied with the
discretion of the tribunal. About 1590 Fray Antonio Pacheco Sampayo,
against whom there were many accusers, was deprived of confessing, had
three years of reclusion and fifty lashes in his convent, while Andrés
de Ortega, parish priest of Telde, likewise accused by several women,
was deprived merely of confessing women, fined in twenty ducats and
severely reprimanded.[319]

Cases grow more frequent with time and, with their increasing frequency,
the penalties seem to grow less. In 1694 Fray Domingo Mireles was
accused by four women, with details of foul obscenity. He was sentenced
to deprivation of confession and reclusion for four years, but was
allowed to choose his place of retreat. He served out the term, went to
Spain, and returned with a rehabilitation charitably granted by the
inquisitor-general. In 1698 Fray Cipriano de Armas was prosecuted on the
evidence of two women; the case was carried to the end and remitted for
decision to the Suprema, which ordered its suspension. In two cases in
1742 the sentence was merely deprivation of confessing, six months’
reclusion and five years’ exile from certain places. In 1747 Fray
Bartolomé Bello had not only seduced Maria Cabral González, but had
strangled in his cell a child born to them, after piously baptizing it,
but when the case reached the Suprema it was suspended. In 1750
Francisco Rodriguez del Castillo was prosecuted on very serious charges
but was only suspended for two years from confessing and given some
spiritual exercises. In 1755 there were nine complainants against Fray
Francisco García Encinoso, who was deprived of confessing and sentenced
to six months’ reclusion, when he was sent to the convent of N. Señora
de Miraflor, with instructions to the superior to keep the matter
profoundly secret and to treat him well. In 1769 Fray Domingo Matos was
sentenced only to six months’ reclusion and the denial of certain
privileges, which was subsequently remitted. The sympathy of the
tribunal apparently was exhaustless and frequently resulted in practical
immunity. In 1785, Fray Joseph Estrada, Franciscan difinidor, was
accused by several women with full details, but the tribunal, on
December 7, 1793, suspended the case. Then, in 1804, he was again
accused by a nun in the convent of la Purisima Concepcion of Garachico.
Finally, after twelve years’ delay, on February 28, 1805, the tribunal
ordered its commissioner to give him _audiencias de cargos_, or private
examinations, on report of which the case would be voted on, bearing in
mind the advanced age of the accused and the difficulty of communicating
with the Suprema, in consequence of the war. This was the last of the
matter for, on April 9, 1806, the commissioner at Ycod reported the
death of the culprit.[320] When so serious an offence was visited so
lightly, we can scarce be surprised that its subjection to inquisitorial
jurisdiction failed to check it. There naturally was much difficulty in
inducing women to come forward as accusers, yet the number of
denunciations was large and steady. Thus, from July 26, 1706, to
February 15, 1708, the total denunciations of all kinds to the tribunal
was 75; of these only 22 were of men, out of which 7, or practically
one-third, were for solicitation.[321]

       *       *       *       *       *

The bulk of the business of the tribunal consisted in trials for
sorcery, under which term were included all the superstitions, more or
less innocent, employed to cure or to inflict disease, to provoke love
or hatred, to discover theft and to pry into the future, for
theological ingenuity inferred pact, express or implicit, with the demon
in everything which could be construed as transcending the powers of
nature, except the ministrations of the priest or exorcist. Such a
community as that of the Canaries, in which the primitive magic arts of
the natives were added to those of their conquerors, and on these were
superimposed the beliefs of Moorish and negro slaves, could not fail to
accumulate an incongruous mass of superstitions affecting all the acts
of daily life, and the summaries of cases printed by Mr. Birch afford to
the student of folk-lore an inexhaustible treasury of curious details.
No matter what might be the industry of the tribunal in prosecuting and
punishing the practitioners of these arts, it could effect nothing in
repressing them, or in disabusing popular credulity, for its very
jurisdiction was based on the assumption that the powers attributed to
the sorcerer were real, and he was punished not as an impostor but as an
ally or instrument of the demon.

It would carry us too far to attempt even a summary of the multitudinous
superstitions embalmed in the records, but a couple of cases may be
mentioned which illustrate the popular tendency to ascribe to sorcery
whatever excited wonder, and also the good sense which sometimes
intervened to protect the innocent. In 1624, Diego de Santa Marta of
Garachico was denounced as a sorcerer to the tribunal in consequence of
his performance of some tricks with cards. The accusation was
entertained and Fray Juan de Saavedra was ordered to investigate and
report. He invited Diego to exhibit his skill and the performance took
place in the cell of the Provincial, Fray Bernardo de Herrera, who was a
consultor of the Inquisition, with whom were associated Padre Luzena,
regent of the schools, several theological professors and Don Francisco
Sarmiento, alguazil of the tribunal. Diego was not aware that he was
practically on trial before this imposing assemblage, and he performed
some surprising card tricks as well as sundry other juggleries.
Fortunately for him the spectators were clear-sighted and Fray Saavedra
reported that it was all a matter of sleight of hand, which could be
detected by careful observation.[322] More serious was the denunciation,
in 1803, of any one of four women named (apparently the individual was
not identified) who had, twelve years before, administered to María
Salome some snuff which caused her to bark like a dog. Luckily Doctor
Elchantor, the inquisitor-fiscal, had a touch of the rationalism of the
age. He reported that the vomiting and extraordinary movements alleged
might have been produced by natural causes; that among timid and
ignorant women there was a habit of attributing all disease to sorcery;
that it could not be said that the snuff had been prepared with diabolic
arts and that there were no other suspicions against the parties
accused. He therefore advised that the papers be simply filed away, and
in this Inquisitor Borbujo concurred.[323]

Although the term _bruja_, or witch, occasionally appears in the
records, there would not appear to be any cases of specific witchcraft.
The nearest allusions to the Sabbat occur in 1674, when Doña Isabel
Ybarra testified that, a year before, Doña Ana de Ascanio told her that
Don Juan de Vargas, now dead, told her that once, in returning home
about midnight; he encountered a dance of women with timbrels and
lighted candles. In the same year Fray Pablo Guillen deposed that at
midnight he saw Guillerma Peré naked; she anointed herself and flew
through the air with another woman. Connected with this was the
statement that a son of Juan Hernandez, at midnight, found in the street
Doña Ana María, widow of Captain Juan de Molina, entirely naked. He took
her to her house, when she gave him a garment and begged him to keep
silence.[324]

       *       *       *       *       *

For a comparatively brief period the most important work of the tribunal
concerned the foreign heretics--mostly Englishmen and Flemings, or
rather Hollanders--who frequented the islands, whether for peaceful
commerce or for piracy. As the port of call in the trade with America,
the islands were the favorite resort of the sea-rovers of all the
nations at enmity with Spain, that is of nearly all Europe, in hopes of
capturing some rich galleon or of ravaging some unprotected spot. In
1570, a Norman Huguenot, cruising off Gomera, seized a vessel starting
for Brazil with forty Jesuit missionaries; he put them all to death and
landed his other prisoners at San Sebastian, a port of Gomera, which
next year was sacked by another French corsair.[325] To some extent,
doubtless, the Inquisition was regarded as a safeguard against such
marauders. In 1589, an Englishman, captured at Garachico from the ship
of Vincent Pieter the Fleming, was said to have been a pirate who had
pillaged in company with other Englishmen, and was brought before the
tribunal, although nothing else was alleged against him. About the same
time certain French “pirates,” taken on the islet of Graciosa, off
Lanzarote, were delivered to the tribunal, when they proved themselves
to be good Catholics by their familiarity with the prayers and other
observances.[326]

Much more serious was the interference of the Inquisition with those who
came to trade, and it is difficult to understand how Spain could carry
on any commerce with foreign nations under the impediments which it
interposed. The earliest case in the records is one to which allusion
has already been made, that of John Sanders who, in 1565, came as a
sailor in a vessel from Plymouth, of which the master was James Anthony,
the cargo consisting of 28 casks of sardines, 20 dozen of calf-skins and
a lot of woollen goods, the property of the master and his brother
Thomas. On arrival at Las Isletas, as Sanders could speak and write
Spanish, Anthony got him to enter the goods as his own and installed him
in a shop to sell them. After two or three months, one day the public
scrivener, Melchor de Solis, came and demanded three reales, which
Sanders refused. While they were talking he placed his hand on the wall,
where there was hanging a paper print of Christ, which he had not
recognized, as its face was turned to the wall and it was partly torn.
Passing his hand over it, a piece fell off, when Solis charged him with
tearing an image of Christ; he picked it up, reverently kissed it and
replaced it. The story spread and caused scandal; in the abeyance of the
tribunal, the provisor took up the matter, arresting Sanders March 29th
and sequestrating the property, which consisted of 2492 reales in money,
3-1/2 casks of sardines and 2-1/2 dozen of calf-skins, all of which was
duly placed in the hands of the secrestador, and, in addition, Leónez
Alvarez testified that he had bought and paid for goods to the amount of
340 ducats. Under examination Sanders professed himself a Catholic; he
could recite the Pater Noster and Credo and the Ave Maria without the
final clause imploring the prayers of the Virgin, which he said he had
never been taught; he could cross himself but did not know the peculiar
Spanish form; he reverenced images of saints although the Queen of
England had banished from the churches all but those of Christ and the
Virgin, and he had attended mass since he came. Then James Anthony came
forward and claimed the property, confirming the story of Sanders, and
it was delivered to him, but not until he had furnished satisfactory
security to abide the result. What was the outcome we have no means of
knowing, as the papers were sent to the tribunal of Seville for its
action, but the least that could happen to Sanders and Anthony was
interminable delay.[327]

Trading with the Canaries evidently was a hazardous business and the
danger increased as time went on, for it sufficed that the crew were
heretics to justify their trial and punishment, with the accompaniment
of sequestration and confiscation. Thus on April 24, 1593, a single vote
ordered the arrest with sequestration of the pilot and other officers,
the sailors and boys and passengers of the ship named El Leon Colorado
and of all who came in the ship named San Lorenzo, both now at anchor in
the port of Las Isletas.[328] The case of the Leon Colorado is
suggestive. She was an English ship which, until 1587, had been employed
in the Lisbon trade under a licence from the Marquis of Santa Cruz, but
after his death she seems to have been transferred to Flanders. On this
voyage she had sailed from Antwerp, a Spanish port, under a licence from
Alexander of Parma, the nephew of Philip II and the governor of the Low
Countries. The _escrivano_ or purser of the ship, Franz Vandenbosch,
while on trial, procured a certificate from the municipal authorities of
Antwerp setting forth that his parents were good Catholics and so were
their children, and that Franz had sailed for the Canaries with the
licence and passport of the Duke of Parma. The only effect of this was a
vote to torture him, on learning which he confessed that in Mecklenburg
he had embraced Calvinism, and his sentence was reconciliation and
confiscation, prison and sanbenito for three years and perpetual
prohibition to visit heretic lands or to approach within ten leagues of
the sea, for which reason he was to be sent to Spain. Another member of
the crew Georg Van Hoflaquen asserted his Catholicism and adhered to it
through four successive inflictions, each of three turns of the
_cordeles_. Then he was ordered to be placed on the _burro_ or rack,
when he declared that he could no longer endure the agony and that he
was a heretic. He was sentenced to reconciliation and confiscation, and
three years of prison and sanbenito, with the corresponding
disabilities.[329]

In these cases the adverse evidence is almost wholly derived from other
members of the crews, who had no hesitation in testifying to their
comrades’ Protestantism. There was usually no concealment attempted but,
when orthodoxy was asserted, torture was unsparingly employed.
Conversion did not obtain much alleviation of punishment. Another of the
crew of the Leon Colorado was Jacob Banqueresme, a Hollander, who freely
admitted his Calvinism. He knew nothing of Catholicism but was ready to
embrace it if it seemed to him good. Theologians were set to work and,
in due time, he announced his conversion and was formally admitted to
the Church, but he was sentenced to be sent to Spain and confined in a
convent for two years, in order to be thoroughly instructed, and he was
prohibited to go to heretic lands or to approach the sea within ten
leagues.[330]

The result of these labors was seen in the auto of 1597, in which there
were seventeen Englishmen and Flemings reconciled, with imprisonment
ranging from two to eight years, and twenty-six penanced, with from one
to four years of prison, the ships to which they belonged being La Rosa,
San Pedro, La Posta, San Lorenzo, Leon Colorado, Margarita and María
Fortuna.[331] There were no obstinate heretics and no martyrs. When this
active proselytism was carried on for twenty years or more with its
consequent confiscation of ships and cargoes, it is easy to understand
the financial ease of the tribunal and to conjecture its influence on
the commerce and prosperity of the islands.

This flourishing industry was interfered with by the treaty with England
ratified by James I on August 29/19, 1604, and by Philip III on June 16,
1605. It provided that English subjects visiting or resident in the
Spanish dominions were not to be molested on account of their religion,
so long as they gave no occasion for scandal, and this was extended to
the United Provinces in the twelve years’ truce, concluded in 1609.[332]
The caution induced by the treaty, even before its ratification by
Spain, is exemplified in the case of Edward Monox, an English captain
and merchant, charged September 10, 1604, with offences in the matter of
images and with following the doctrines of Luther and Calvin. The
consulta de fe, September 11th, unanimously voted his arrest with
sequestration but that, before action, the papers be sent to the Suprema
for its decision, in view of the considerations of state arising from
the peace with England, and from the fact that he was a rich merchant
who, since the death of Queen Elizabeth, had twice come with highly
commendatory passports from the Spanish ambassador in London.[333]

While thus some wholesome restraint was imposed on the Inquisition and
the vexations inflicted on merchants and seamen became much less
frequent, they did not wholly cease, for the Suprema construed the
treaties arbitrarily in such wise as to limit the privileges of foreign
heretics as far as possible. How it still continued to throw obstacles
in the way of trade may be seen in the petition of Jacob and Conrad de
Brier and Pieter Nansen, merchants of Tenerife, presented May 3, 1611.
The ship Los Tres Reyes arrived at Las Isletas with some goods for them;
for some reason, not stated, it had been seized by the tribunal and its
cargo had been sequestrated and they sought release of their property.
Their prayer was granted and, on May 25th, an order was given to deliver
to their agent the packages specified and their letters, subject however
to the payment of the cost of disembarking the goods, the carriage to
Las Palmas, the fees of the secrestador for keeping them, 24 reales to
the interpreter of the tribunal for his trouble, 18 ducats 4 reales for
the freight and 10 reales average to the ship, at the rate of one real
per package.[334]

When war broke out with England, lasting from 1624 to 1630, of course
the treaty of 1604-5 became dormant, but it was not until April 22,
1626, that a royal proclamation of non-intercourse with England
appeared, confiscating all English goods imported in contravention of
it, and this was followed, May 29th, by a _carta acordada_ of the
Suprema ordering the prosecution, in the regular way, of all Englishmen
who had been delinquent as regards the faith.[335] This led to a
discussion between the three inquisitors. Francisco de Santalis
presented a long opinion to the effect that in Tenerife there were very
many of them who, in spite of the war, remained, in place of departing
as enemies. The orders of the Suprema were therefore applicable to them;
Catholics incurred the risk of excommunication in supplying them with
food and were exposed to the danger of infection; they were delinquents
in not hearing mass or confessing and communing, and in eating meat on
fast days. This was not only a great scandal, but it afforded
opportunity of flight and of concealing their property, which was
large. He therefore voted that secret information be taken as to their
delinquencies and, when this was sufficient, that they should all be
arrested and their property be sequestrated, after which the orders of
the Suprema could be awaited as to their prosecution. The other two
inquisitors, Alonso Rincon and Gabriel Martínez, referred to a
consultation had on September 2d with the Ordinary, the consultors, and
the calificadores, when it was resolved that the matter be referred to
the Suprema and no action be taken till its orders were received; the
royal proclamation had said nothing about residents; to seize them and
their property would be a great hardship; the commissioners at La
Laguna, Orotava and Garachico had been instructed to be vigilant and no
denunciations had been received. It is creditable to the tribunal that
it resisted the temptation of seizing the large amount of property
involved, and the English appear not to have been molested.[336]

Yet the position of the foreign merchants was exceedingly precarious, as
is shown by the case of John Tanner, prior to these deliberations. He
was arrested and brought to the prison, November 12, 1624. On
examination he stated his age as 22; he was a baptized Christian, who
kept feast-days and Sundays, but did not hear mass or confess, for in
his country there was no mass or confession; he knew nothing of the
Catholic faith and had never been instructed in it. When asked as usual
if he knew the cause of his arrest he said that he did not, unless it
was because Juan Jánez, the commissioner at Garachico, had asked him for
some linens and a pair of wool stockings which he refused, when Jánez
called him a heretic dog and they came to blows, and then he was thrown
into the public gaol. On being told, as usual, to search his memory, he
added that once he went with some other Englishmen to La Laguna to see
Don Rodrigo de Bohórquez, then governor of Tenerife; he asked Bohórquez
to pay him 400 pesos owing to him and 2800 reales due to Robert Spencer
for goods taken, when Bohórquez grew angry and said that Henry Ysan was
the cause of all the English making demands upon him; if he had hanged
him while in his power there would be none of this and he was a heretic
dog, for no one could be a Christian who was not a Roman. Tanner replied
that one could be a Christian without being a Roman, when Bohórquez
called for witnesses and swore that he should suffer for it. Tanner was
then asked what he meant by saying that one could be a Christian without
being a Roman, when he fell on his knees and begged mercy if he had
erred. He was a poor youth and had a ship lying at Garachico, on which
he had to pay demurrage of 120 reales a day, while the embargo on his
property prevented his despatching her. At a second audience on November
19th he again begged mercy on his knees; his credit was being ruined by
the demurrage on his ship, and the loss fell on his principal. Then, on
the 23d, he asked for an audience in which he represented that the ships
were loading and preparing to sail, while his was idle; his whole career
was being wrecked; he begged them for the love of God to have mercy on
him and tell him what he had done; he had lived in the religion of his
fathers and must continue to do so, or he could not return to England;
he had engaged to serve his master for seven years and his parents were
under bonds for him. The pleadings of the poor wretch were fruitless;
the case dragged on through the customary formalities and, on February
11, 1625, the consulta de fe voted that he be absolved _ad cautelam_ and
be recluded for two years in a convent for instruction, at the
expiration of which he must bring a certificate of improvement. In
accordance with this, on February 18th, he was placed in the Franciscan
convent, his maintenance being paid for as a pauper.[337] Proselytism
after this fashion can scarce have conduced to the salvation of souls,
however much it may have replenished the treasury of the Holy Office.

With the peace of 1630 the provisions of 1604 were revived but hardly a
year passed in which some Englishman was not thrown in prison and
prosecuted on one pretext or another, as Roderick Jones, in 1640, for
saying that God alone is to be prayed to, and Edward Bland, in 1642, for
having a Bible in his house.[338] In spite of this the flourishing
wine-trade of the islands brought many English and Hollanders as
residents, and there was even an English company established at
Tenerife, where, in 1654, the tribunal reported that there were more
than fifteen hundred Protestants domiciled, who were prevented from
infecting the people by its incessant vigilance. The captains-general
usually sought to protect them, and the influence of their ambassadors
in Madrid was invoked on occasion, but, when one fell sick, the
Inquisition sought to isolate him from his family and friends and put
him in charge of theologians to convert him, giving rise to unseemly
contests in which it was not always successful. To remedy this the
tribunal, September 18, 1654, asked of the Suprema power to insist that
when one of the rich Protestant residents fell sick, his compatriots
should be excluded and entrance should alone be permitted to learned
Catholics who might wean him from his errors.[339] We should probably do
no injustice to the motives of the tribunal in assuming that this was
dictated rather by the expectation of pious bequests than by zeal for
death-bed conversions.

Foreigners sometimes sought to avert trouble by pretending Catholicism
and thus placed themselves in the power of the tribunal, which was
constantly on the watch for them. In 1654, for instance, Fray Luis de
Betancor was summoned and interrogated as to his knowledge of such
cases, to which he replied that, some twelve years before, Evan Pugh, an
English surgeon, had come to Adeje to cure Doña Isabel de Ponte, and
sometimes went out to hunt with her brother Juan Bautista de Ponte. He
remembered that one day, when he had finished celebrating mass, he was
told that Pugh had stood at the church-door with his hat in his hand,
and it was currently said that he confessed to Fray Juan de Medina.
Similarly, in 1674, we find the Hollander Pieter Groney testifying that
when he sailed from the Texel in 1671 Juan de Rada was a
fellow-passenger, who told him he was a Protestant and as such joined in
the services during the voyage, but, when the ship was visited on
arrival he swore that he was a Catholic and had since then acted
exteriorly as a Catholic, though, when they lived together for a couple
of months, he ate meat freely on fast days and he regarded him as a
Protestant rather than as a Catholic.[340] What was the outcome in these
cases cannot be told, but the investigations illustrate the careful
watchfulness of the tribunal and the dangers incurred by residence
within its jurisdiction. Even his official position did not protect from
prosecution Edmund Smith, the British consul at Tenerife, when he was
accused, in 1699, of maltreating converts to Catholicism and of
persuading and threatening those inclined to it, even, it was said,
shipping them away when other measures failed.[341]

In the 18th century, while foreign vessels were closely watched and a
vigilant eye was kept on resident Protestants, they were no longer
molested with investigations and denunciations. If, in 1728, Philip V
ordered the expulsion of all foreigners, it was not on religious
grounds, but to put an end to frauds on the revenue. None, however, were
expelled, although some professed conversion to save themselves from
annoyance.[342] A similar impulse seems to have impelled Dr. James
Brown, a physician of Tenerife, who wrote, in March, 1770, to the
tribunal, from the Augustinian convent of La Laguna, in which he had
sought asylum from the captain-general, who was seeking to seize him and
send him to England. To secure its protection he asserted his desire to
abjure his errors and to be received into the Catholic Church, but in
this he failed for, on July 14, he was ordered to leave the islands
within forty days.[343]

       *       *       *       *       *

The intellectual activity of the Canaries was not such as to call for
much vigilance of censorship, at least during the earlier period. The
_visitas de navíos_, or examination of ships arriving, for heretics and
heretic books, was performed after a fashion, but the tribunal was
inadequately equipped for the duty. One of the charges against
Inquisitor Fúnez, in 1577, was his sending the gaoler to perform it, to
which he replied that he had done so but once and that on occasions he
had sent the fiscal or the secretary; it was not his business and he had
no one to whom to depute it.[344]

Towards the middle of the seventeenth century there was some little
activity with regard to the foreign Protestants, who were assumed to be
subject to the rules of the Index. The prosecution of Edward Bland, in
1642, for possessing a Bible, seems to have attracted attention to this
and, on July 5, 1645, the tribunal ordered its commissioner at Orotava
to take the alguazil, notary and two familiars and visit the houses of
the English heretics, secretly, without disturbance and with much
discretion, asking them to exhibit all the books they possessed,
examining all their chests and packages, making an inventory of all
books and their authors, and making them swear before the notary as to
their having licences to hold them; also whether they had been examined
by the Inquisition and, if so, at what time and by what officials. If
there were works by prohibited authors, or such as had not been seen by
the Inquisition, they were to be deposited with a suitable person,
sending a report to the tribunal, with lists of the books, and awaiting
its action. If portraits or busts of heresiarchs were found they were to
be seized and deposited with the books.

Under these elaborate instructions the search was duly made and the
reports, if truthful, would indicate that literature and art were not
extensively cultivated by the English traders. Nothing dangerous was
found, though of course, as regards English books, the investigators had
to accept the word of the owners. In one house they describe, as hanging
on the walls of a room, very ugly half-length portraits of a strange
collection of worthies--Homer, Apelles, Philo Judæus, Aristotle, Seneca,
Pliny, two of Gustavus Adolphus and one without a name. It is perhaps
significant that nowhere was there a Bible, a prayer-book or a work of
devotion. The houses of two Portuguese traders were similarly
inspected, where were found pictures of saints and of damsels with
exuberant charms; also of Barbarossa and of some other pirates.[345]
Possibly supervision of this kind may have continued for, on June 7,
1663, Richard Guild was summoned to the tribunal to describe six English
books and four pamphlets, found in possession of Edward Baker, when
among them there proved to be several controversial works as to
Presbyterianism and the Independents. So, in 1670, Captain Joseph
Pinero, a Portuguese, who was building a ship, was denounced for the
more dangerous offence of having some Jewish books, but diligent search
failed to discover them.[346]

Books, however, were not the only objects of censorial animadversion. In
1671 some plates and jars with figures of Christ, the Virgin and the
saints, sold by Juan Martin Salazar of Ycod, were apparently deemed
irreverent, as subordinating the divine to the commonplace of daily
life, and Fray Lucas Estebes was ordered to go to his shop, with
alguazil and notary, and break the stock on hand, at the same time
ascertaining the name of the seller and of all purchasers. Soon after
this, in 1677, an edict was issued ordering the surrender of some
snuff-boxes, brought by an English vessel, which were adorned with two
heads--one with a tiara and the legend _Æcclesia perversa tenet jaciem
diaboli_, and the other of a philosopher and the motto _Stulti sapientes
aliquando_.[347]

In the latter half of the eighteenth century there seems to be more
intellectual activity and desire to seek forbidden sources of knowledge,
for we begin to hear of licences to read prohibited books. A register of
them, commencing in 1766, shows that when obtained from the
inquisitor-general they had to be submitted to the tribunal for its
endorsement, but it could exercise the discretion of suspending and
protesting, as in the case of one granted, in 1786, by Pius VI and
endorsed by Inquisitor-general Rubin de Cevallos, to Fray Antonio
Ramond, on which the tribunal reports that he ought not to have it, as
he is of a turbulent spirit and disorderly life. Licences generally made
exception of certain specified books and authors, but sometimes they
were granted without limitation. When the holder of a licence died, it
was, as a rule, to be returned to the tribunal.[348]

At this period the main activity of the tribunal was in its function of
censorship. It did not content itself with awaiting orders but assumed
to investigate for itself; nothing escaped its vigilance, and we are
told that the monthly lists which it forwarded to the Suprema of the
books denounced or suppressed are surprising as coming from a province
so small and so uncultured. In fact, in 1781 it expressed its grief that
great and small, men and women, were abandoning themselves to reading,
especially French books.[349] To do it justice it labored strenuously to
discourage culture and to perpetuate obscurantism.

Yet the _visitas de navíos_, as described in a letter of August 23,
1787, were less obstructive to commerce than the practice in Spain. When
a vessel cast anchor, after the visit of the health officer, the captain
landed and, in company with the consul of his nation, went to the
military governor, and then to the Inquisition where, under oath, he
declared his nationality, his port of departure and what passengers and
cargo he brought. When the vessel was discharging, the secretary of the
tribunal superintended the process and noted whatever he deemed
objectionable, whence it often happened that matters adverse to religion
were seized.[350]

Notwithstanding all vigilance, however, the dangerous stuff found
entrance. The works of Voltaire and Rousseau were widely read among the
educated class and the hands of the tribunal were practically tied. It
would laboriously gather testimony and compile a _sumaria_ against one
who read prohibited books, only to be told, when submitting it to the
Suprema, to suspend action for the present. In a letter of May 24, 1788,
it complained bitterly of this and of the consequent diminution of
respect for the Inquisition. Chief among the offenders were the
Commandant-general and the Regent of the Audiencia, whose cases had been
sent on April 26th. Their openly expressed contempt for the tribunal
perverted the whole people, who laughed at censures and read prohibited
books. An object of especial aversion was the distinguished historian of
the Canaries, José de Viera y Clavijo, Archdeacon of Fuerteventura. His
sermons had caused him to be reprimanded repeatedly and, when his
history appeared with its explanation of the apparition of the Virgen de
Candelaria and other miracles of the Conquest, and its account of the
controversies between the chapter and the tribunal, the indignation of
the latter was unbounded. A virulent report was made to the Suprema,
September 18, 1784, which remained unanswered. Another was sent,
February 7, 1792, complaining of the evil effect of allowing the
circulation of such writings, but this failed to elicit action, for the
work was never placed on the Index.[351]

       *       *       *       *       *

Whatever may have been its deficiencies in other respects, the tribunal
seems never to have lost sight of its functions in fomenting discord
with the authorities, secular and ecclesiastical. In 1521 we hear of
Inquisitor Ximenes excommunicating some of the canons, in consequence of
which the chapter withdrew the revenue of his prebend and sent a special
envoy to the court, but he appealed to Rome and a royal cédula of July
8, 1523, ordered the chapter to make the payments.[352] Even during the
inertness of Padilla’s later inquisitorship, he had sufficient energy to
carry on a desperate quarrel with the Audiencia. He ordered the deputy
governor, Juan Arias de la Mota, to arrest Alonso de Lemos, who had been
denounced to the tribunal and, on his obeying, the Audiencia arrested
and prosecuted him, which led to an envenomed controversy in which
excommunications and interdict were freely employed, until Philip II,
February 16, 1562, ordered the liberation of Arias, adding an emphatic
command in future to give to the inquisitor and his officials all the
favor and aid that they might require in the discharge of their duties
and to honor them as was done everywhere throughout his dominions. It
was doubtless in the hope of putting an end to these unseemly
disturbances that Philip, by a cédula of October 10, 1567, prescribed
rules for settling competencias, or conflicts over jurisdiction. The
inquisitor and the Regent of the Audiencia were required to confer,
when, if they could not come to an agreement, the bishop was to be
called in, when the majority should decide.[353]

No regulations were of avail to prevent the dissensions for which all
parties were eager and which were rendered especially bitter by the
domineering assumption of superiority by the Inquisition. It was not
long after Fúnez had reorganized the tribunal that he became involved in
an angry controversy with Bishop Cristóbal Vera. Alonso de Valdés, a
canon, incurred the episcopal displeasure by removing his name from an
order addressed to the chapter for the reason that he was not present.
Vera thereupon imprisoned him _incomunicado_ so strictly that his food
was handed in to him through a window. It chanced that Valdés was also
notary of the tribunal and Fúnez claimed jurisdiction, but the bishop
refused to surrender him, in spite of the fact that the absence of its
notary impeded the Inquisition. The tribunal complained to the Suprema
which came to its aid in a fashion showing how complete was the
ascendancy claimed over the episcopal order, and how little chance a
bishop had in a contest with such an antagonist. Inquisitor-general
Quiroga wrote to Vera that, if the fault of Valdés was such that he
should punish it, this should have been done in such wise as not to
impede the operation of the tribunal. He hoped that already the case
would have been handed over to the tribunal to which it belonged and
that in future Vera would not give occasion for such troubles. This was
enclosed in a letter of instructions from the Suprema prescribing the
utmost courtesy and the most vigorous action. Fúnez is to call, with a
witness, on the bishop and demand the person of Valdés and the papers
in the case, as being his rightful judge, at the same time promising his
punishment to the bishop’s satisfaction. If Vera refuses, Quiróga’s
letter is to be handed to him, and if he still refuses he is to be told
that he obliges the tribunal to proceed according to law.

This so-called law is that the fiscal shall commence prosecution against
the bishop and his officials for impeding the Inquisition. Then the
inquisitor is to issue his formal mandate against the provisor,
officials, gaolers, etc., ordering them, under pain of major
excommunication and 200 ducats without further-notice, to surrender
Valdés within three days to the tribunal for punishment, so that he can
resume his office of notary. If this does not suffice, a similar mandate
is to be issued against the bishop, under pain of privation of entering
his church. If the provisor and officials persist in disobedience
through three _rebeldias_ (contumacies of ten days each), the inquisitor
shall proclaim them excommunicated. If the bishop is stubborn he is to
be prohibited from entering his church and to be admonished that if he
does not comply he will be suspended from his orders and fined. If he
perseveres through three _rebeldias_, letters shall be issued declaring
him to have incurred these penalties and admonishing him to obey within
three days under pain of major excommunication. If still contumacious,
letters shall be issued declaring him publicly excommunicated and
subject to the fine, which shall be collected by levy and execution. In
all this he is not to be inhibited from cognizance of the case, but only
that he must not impede the Inquisition by detaining its notary, and, as
it is very possible that he may seek the aid of the Audiencia, if it
intervenes it is to be notified of the royal cédula (of 1553)
prohibiting all interference in cases concerning the Inquisition.[354]

This portentous document was received in the tribunal, April 11, 1577.
It was impossible to contend with adversaries armed with such weapons
and Bishop Vera was obliged to submit. Not content with its triumph the
tribunal undertook to humiliate him still further. Doña Ana de Sobranis
was a mystic who believed herself illuminated and gifted with miraculous
powers. In 1572 she had denounced herself because a Franciscan, Fray
Antonio del Jesús, had given her, as he said by command of God, nine
consecrated hosts, which she carried always with her and worshipped. The
tribunal took the hosts and dismissed the case but, as the bishop was
her warm admirer and extolled her virtues, to mortify him, in 1580, the
fiscal presented a furious accusation against her, as a receiver and
fautor of heretics and heresies. She was arrested and imprisoned, but
the tribunal had overreached itself. She had friends who appealed to the
Suprema and, in May, 1581, there came from it a decision ordering a
public demonstration that she was innocent and that there had been no
cause for her arrest.[355]

Undeterred by the fate of Bishop Vera, his successor Fernando de
Figueroa, about 1590, had a lively struggle with the tribunal. He
excommunicated Doctor Alonso Pacheco, regidor of the Grand Canary and
deputy governor of Tenerife, because he would not abandon illicit
relations with a married woman. The tribunal intervened and evoked the
case, giving rise to a prolonged competencia, which remained undecided
in consequence of the death of the culprit.[356] Causes of such strife
were never lacking and the first half of the seventeenth century was
largely occupied by them and by an endless struggle to compel the
chapter to allow to the inquisitors cushioned chairs in the
cathedral.[357] On one occasion, in 1619, the chapter offended the
tribunal by obeying a royal cédula and disregarding a threat which
enjoined disobedience. The canons were thereupon excommunicated and
appealed to the king, who found himself obliged to withdraw the
cédula.[358] The overbearing conduct of the tribunal produced a chronic
feeling of exasperation and the veriest trifle was sufficient to cause
an outbreak. One custom provocative of much bad blood was that of
selecting in Lent a fishing-boat and ordering it to bring its catch to
the Inquisition, when, after supplying the officials and prisoners, if
there was anything left it might be sold to the people. In 1629 the
municipality fruitlessly complained of this to the visitor Juan de
Escobar, and in 1631 there was an explosion. The Audiencia rudely
intervened by throwing in prison Bartolomé Alonso, the luckless master
of a boat selected, and threatening to scourge him through the streets.
He managed to convey word to the tribunal, which at once sent its
secretary Aguilera to the Audiencia, with a message asking the release
of Alonso, but the Audiencia refused to receive anything but a written
communication and Aguilera came back with a mandate requiring obedience
under pain of two hundred ducats, but he was received with insults and
Alonso was publicly sentenced to a hundred lashes. Then the tribunal
declared the judges excommunicate, displayed their names as such in the
churches and had the bells rung. The Audiencia disregarded the censures
and arrested Aguilera, while the Alcaide Salazar, who had accompanied
him, hid himself, but the Audiencia ordered a female slave of his to be
seized and his house to be torn down, in response to which the tribunal
published heavier censures and fines, demanding the release of the
prisoners. Then Bishop Murga intervened and asked the tribunal to accept
an honorable compromise, but it refused; he returned to the charge,
urging the affliction of the people, who dreaded an interdict at a time
when there was so much need of rain and when Holy Week was approaching;
if reference were made to the Suprema there would be a delay of six
months and meanwhile the prisoners under trial by the Audiencia would
languish in gaol, for the judges would be incapacitated by the
excommunication. The inquisitors, in their report to the Suprema,
explained that, seeing that the people were ready for a disastrous
outbreak, and as the bishop promised that the prisoners should be
released at once (as they were, after a confinement of five hours) they
ordered the excommunicates to be absolved and abstained from proceeding
against the guilty. Then, when peace seemed restored, the quarrel broke
out fiercely again, for the inquisitors demanded the surrender of the
warrant of arrest, which Bartolomé Ponce, the official charged with it,
refused to give up. He was arrested and as, after two days, he appealed
to the Audiencia, they manacled him and ordered the arrest of the
advocate and procurator who had drawn up the appeal. This secured the
surrender of the document and the inquisitors felicitated themselves to
the Suprema on the vigor with which they had impressed on every one the
power of the Inquisition. Whether the innocent cause of the disturbance,
the fisherman Bartolomé Alonso, received his lashes, seems to have been
an incident too unimportant to be recorded.[359]

Rodrigo Gutiérrez de la Rosa, who was bishop from 1652 to 1658, was a
man of violent temper, not as easily subdued as Bishop Vera, and his
episcopate was a prolonged quarrel with his chapter and with the
tribunal. In 1654, Doctor Guirola, the commissioner at Santa Cruz de
Tenerife, was denounced, for his oppression, to the bishop, who ordered
an investigation and his arrest if cause were found. This proved to be
the case and the arrest was made, against which the tribunal protested
in terms so irritating that Gutiérrez excommunicated all its officials,
ringing the bells and placing their names on the _tablillas_, besides
imposing a fine of 2000 ducats on each of the inquisitors. They met this
by calling on the civil and military authorities for forcible aid and
summoned all the bishop’s dependents to assist them. Miguel de Collado,
the secretary, went to the cathedral to serve these notices, on hearing
which Gutiérrez hastened thither with his followers and, not finding
Collado, proceeded to the house of Inquisitor José Badaran, which he
searched from bottom to top for pledges to secure the payment of the
fine. Word was carried to the tribunal, when the inquisitors, with a
guard of soldiers, went to Badaran’s house, which they found barred
against them, broke open the door and a stormy interview ensued. The
bishop in the cathedral, published Badaran and the fiscal as
excommunicates; the inquisitors ordered the notices of excommunication
removed and fined the bishop in 4000 ducats. To collect this, they
embargoed his revenues in Tenerife and he in turn embargoed the fruits
of their prebends. They obtained guards of soldiers posted in their
houses and in that of the fiscal, fearing attack from the satellites of
the bishop, such as he had made in 1552 in the cathedral and in 1554 at
the house of the dean. In reporting all this to the Suprema, they
promise to send the fiscal with all the documents by the next vessel,
for the authority and power of the Inquisition depend upon the
result.[360]

While this was pending a quarrel arose between the tribunal and the
chapter, because the latter refused to pay to the fiscal the fruits of
his prebend. Inquisitor-general Arce y Reynoso ordered the chapter to
make the payment, which led the canon Matheo de Cassares and the
racionero Cristóbal Vandama to commit certain acts of disrespect. To
punish this the inquisitors, on November 16, 1655, arrested them, in
conformity with the rules prescribed by the Suprema, in its letter of
September 6, 1644, respecting the arrest of prebendaries, but, at the
prayer of the chapter, they were released on the third day. They were
friends of Bishop Gutiérrez, who nursed his wrath until December 26th,
when there was a solemn celebration in the cathedral, at which
Inquisitor Frias celebrated mass. When Inquisitor Badaran entered and
took his seat in the choir, Gutiérrez in a loud voice commanded him to
leave the church, as he was under excommunication for arresting clerics
without jurisdiction. To avoid creating a tumult he did so; Frias
celebrated mass and then joined him in the tribunal, where they drew up
the necessary papers. The affair of course created an immense scandal
and led to prolonged correspondence with the Suprema, which ordered it
suspended April 12, 1657.[361] They were not much more successful in the
outcome of the previous quarrel, although they succeeded, at the end of
1656, in procuring a royal order summoning Gutiérrez to the court. In
communicating this to the bishop, December 13, 1656, the Licenciate Blas
Canales advises him, if he has any money to spare, to invest it in a
jewel for presentation to the king, through the hands of the minister
Louis de Haro. He probably followed the judicious counsel, for the
matter ended with a decree relieving him from the fine imposed on him by
the inquisitors.[362]

The next encounter was with the Audiencia, in 1661. For eight years
there had been no physician in the island, when the tribunal, needing
one for the torture-chamber, induced, in 1659, Dr. Domingo Rodríguez
Ramos to come. He became a frequent visitor at the house of Doña Beatriz
de Herrera, the _amiga_ of the judge Alvaro Gil de la Sierpe, to whom
she had borne several children. Sierpe became jealous and, on some
pretext, Dr. Ramos was arrested, January 28, 1661, and imprisoned in
chains. The tribunal asserted its jurisdiction by inhibiting the
Audiencia from prosecuting the case and, on this being disregarded, the
judges were excommunicated with all the solemnities. They impassively
continued their functions; the tribunal then excommunicated the
officials of the court, who were more easily frightened; for several
months there was much popular excitement but, in October, the
competencia was decided in favor of the Audiencia--doubtless because the
physician was not an official of the tribunal--and a royal letter
sharply rebuked the inquisitors.[363]

The tribunal was evidently losing its prestige and matters did not
improve with the advent of the Bourbon dynasty. The enmity between it
and the chapter continued undiminished and when, on the death of the
Marquis of Celada, in 1707, his son, the Inquisitor Bartolomé Benítez de
Lugo, asked that his exequies should be performed in the cathedral, the
request was refused. This led to a violent rupture, in the course of
which the tribunal voted the arrest of the canons, with sequestration.
The chapter appealed to Philip V, who condemned the tribunal in a cédula
of November 7, 1707. This did not arrive until the following year, when
the chapter kept it secret until Easter; in the crowded solemnity of the
feast-day, when Inquisitor Benítez was present, a secretary mounted the
pulpit and read the royal decree, to his great mortification.[364] Even
worse befell the tribunal in 1714, when its inexcusable violence, in
another quarrel with the chapter, led Philip V to demand the recall of
the inquisitors and to enforce his commands in spite of the repeated
tergiversations of the Suprema.[365]

       *       *       *       *       *

As the eighteenth century advanced, the hostility of ecclesiastics and
laymen towards the tribunal continued unabated, while respect for it
rapidly decreased and its functions dwindled, except in the matter of
censorship. A curious manifestation of the feeling entertained for it is
to be found in the attitude of the parish priests with regard to the
sanbenitos of the heretics hung in their churches. A report on the
subject called for by the Suprema, in 1788, elicited the statement that
for many years there had been no culprits of the class requiring
sanbenitos. In 1756, when the walls of the parish church of Los Remedios
de La Laguna were whitened, the incumbents resisted the replacement of
the sanbenitos, or at least wished to hang them where they should not be
seen, but the tribunal ordered them to be renovated and hung
conspicuously. In the Dominican church of Las Palmas, there used to be
sanbenitos, but they had disappeared and the inquisitors could not
explain the cause of their removal. Eight years ago the parish church of
Telde was whitened and the incumbents would not replace them; Inquisitor
Padilla was informed of this, but he took no action. The only ones then
to be seen in Las Palmas were in the cathedral; the building was
undergoing alterations and the walls would be whitened, which the
inquisitors expected would be alleged as a reason for removing
them.[366] Equally suggestive of the feeling of the laity is the fact
that, when the position of alguazil mayor fell vacant, it was offered in
vain to representatives of the principal families, who all declined
under various pretexts.[367]

The sentiment of the population was duly represented by the eloquent
priest Ruiz de Padron in the debates of the Córtes of Cádiz, in 1813,
and the suppression of the Inquisition was greeted by the ecclesiastics
of the Canaries in a temper very different from that manifested in the
Peninsula. The bishop, Manuel Verdugo, a native of Las Palmas, was an
enlightened man, who had had frequent differences with the tribunal. The
decree of suppression was received by him March 31st; it was his duty to
take charge of the archives and to close the building, and he lost no
time in communicating it to the inquisitors, José Francisco Borbujo y
Riba and Antonio Fernando de Echanove. The chapter was overjoyed and, at
a session on April 3d, it addressed the Córtes, characterizing the
decree as manifestly the work of God and as removing from the Church of
Christ a blemish which rendered religion odious. The same afternoon the
sanbenitos in the cathedral were solemnly burnt in the patio. The bishop
also reported to the Córtes that their manifesto, which had excited the
canons of Cádiz to such extremity of opposition, had been duly read that
morning, and that he had been greatly pleased to see that the acts of
the Córtes had been received throughout his diocese with universal
satisfaction. He lost no time in taking possession of the archives, but
the inquisitors had already taken the precaution to remove, from the
volume of their correspondence with the Suprema, two leaves in which
they had spoken ill of him. The financial officials at the same time
assumed charge of the landed property and censos, or ground-rents, of
the tribunal, which we are told were large and numerous. Inquisitor
Borbujo remained at his post, awaiting the reaction. The poets of the
island were prompt in expressing the exuberance of their joy in verses,
for which action was subsequently taken against the priest, Mariano
Romero, Don Rafael Bento and Don Francisco Guerra y Bethencourt.[368]

When the Restoration swiftly followed, Inquisitor Borbujo received, on
August 17, 1814, the decree re-establishing the Inquisition and called
on the bishop to surrender the building, but the latter declared that he
must await orders from competent authority. On September 29th there
came an order for the re-installation of the tribunal and Borbujo made
another effort to gain possession of the building and property, but it
was not until a royal mandate of November 28th was received that he
succeeded in doing so. The tribunal was thus fairly put on its feet
again, but such was the abhorrence in which it was held that its edicts
were torn down, its jurisdiction was everywhere contested, and its
offices of alguazil and familiars could not be filled.[369]

Thus resuscitated, it diligently collected the pamphlets and periodicals
and verses of the revolutionary period, and molested their authors as
far as it could. In fact, under the Restoration, except the occasional
prosecution of a wise-woman, its functions, as in Spain, were mainly
political, liberalism being equivalent to heresy and, except when it had
some political end in view, its efforts were ridiculed by both the civil
and military authorities, which regarded it with no respect and
encroached upon it from all sides. When the Revolution of 1820 broke
out, news of Fernando VII’s oath to the Constitution and decree of March
9th suppressing the Holy Office reached Santa Cruz de Tenerife April
29th and Las Palmas some days later. Amid popular rejoicings, the
Inquisition closed its doors, delivered up its archives and the
inquisitors sailed for Spain. No care was taken of the archives, which
were pillaged by curiosity hunters and those whose interests led them to
acquire documents concerning limpieza or old law-suits. What remained
were stored in a damp, unventilated place; when removed, they were
carried off by cartloads, without keeping them in any order and, in
1874, Millares describes them as forming a pile of chaotic, mutilated
and illegible papers in a room of the City Hall.[370]

The reader may reasonably ask what, in its labor of three centuries, the
tribunal of the Canaries accomplished to justify its existence.




CHAPTER VI.

MEXICO.


The ostensible object of the Spanish conquests in the New World was the
propagation of the faith. This was the sole motive alleged by Alexander
VI, in the celebrated bull of 1493, conferring on the Spanish sovereigns
domination over the territories discovered by Columbus; it was asserted
in the codicil to Queen Isabella’s will, urging her husband and children
to keep it ever in view, and it was put forward in all the commissions
and instructions issued to the adventurers who converted the shores of
the Caribbean into scenes of oppression and carnage.[371] If Philip II
was solicitous to preserve the purity of the faith in his own dominions,
he was no less anxious to spread it beyond the seas; he prescribed this
as one of the chief duties of his officers, describing it as the
principal object of Spanish rule, to which all questions of profit and
advantage were to be regarded as subordinate.[372]

It must be admitted, however, that the effort to spread the gospel
lagged behind those directed to the acquisition of the precious metals.
It is true that, on the second voyage of Columbus, in 1493, the
sovereigns sent Fray Buil, with a dozen clerics and full papal
faculties, but he busied himself more in quarrelling with the admiral
than in converting the heathen.[373] The first regular missionaries of
whom we have knowledge were two Franciscans who, in 1500, accompanied
Bobadilla to the West Indies and, in a letter of October 12th of that
year, reported to the Observantine Vicar-general, Olivier Maillard, that
they found the natives eager for conversion and that they had baptized
three thousand in the first port which they reached in Hispañola.[374]
They were followed, in 1502, by a few more Franciscans under Fray Alonso
del Espinal, a worthy man, according to Las Casas, but who could think
of nothing but the _Summa Angelica_ of his brother Franciscan, Angelo da
Chivasso.[375] The first earnest effort to instruct the natives was made
by Fray Pedro de Córdova, who came in 1510 with two Dominicans and was
soon followed by ten or twelve more; during the succeeding years he and
the Franciscans founded some missionary stations on the coast of Tierra
Firme, but they were broken up by the Indians in 1523.[376] As, however,
we are told that none of the missionaries took the trouble to learn the
Indian languages, their evangelizing success may be doubted.[377]

The efforts to organize a church establishment proceeded but slowly at
first. Hispañola was divided into two bishoprics, San Domingo and la
Vega. For the former, at a date not definitely stated, the Franciscan,
García de Padilla, was appointed, but he died before setting out to take
possession. For the latter, Pero Suárez Deza, nephew of
Inquisitor-general Deza, was chosen and we are told that he governed his
see for some years[378] but, as he figures in the Lucero troubles of
Córdova, in 1506, as the “archbishop-elect of the Indies” the period of
his episcopate is not easily definable. However this may be, the first
bishop who appears in the episcopal lists of Hispañola is Alessandro
Geraldino, with the date of 1520.[379] Cortés, who had asked to have
bishoprics organized in his new conquests, speedily changed his mind and
requested Charles V to send out only friars. The priests of the Indians,
he said, were so rigidly held to modesty and chastity that, if the
people were to witness the pomp and disorderly lives of the Spanish
clergy, they would regard Christianity as a farce and their conversion
would be impracticable. Charles heeded the warning and, during the rest
of his reign, he appointed as bishops only members of the religious
Orders, while the secular clergy were but sparingly allowed to emigrate
and those who succeeded in going earned as a body a most unenviable
reputation.[380] The Church thus started grew rapidly and, towards the
close of the century, Padre Mendieta informs us that New Spain
(comprising Mexico and Central America) had ten bishoprics, besides the
metropolitan see of the capital, four hundred convents and as many
clerical districts, and that each of these eight hundred had numerous
churches in its charge.[381]

It seems strange that the Spanish monarchs, combining earnest desire for
the propagation of the faith with intense zeal for its purity, should
have so long postponed the extension of the Holy Office over their new
dominions, while thus active in building up the Church. The Indian
neophytes, it is true, were not in need of its ministrations, but the
colonists might well be a subject of concern. Manasseh ben Israel
(_circa_ 1644) tells us that, after the expulsion in 1492, many Jews and
Judaizing New Christians sought an asylum in the New World and that
Antonio Montesinos, a Spanish Jew who had long lived there, reported
that he found the Jewish rites carefully preserved, especially in
certain valleys of South America.[382] It is true that there were
repeated efforts to prohibit New Christians and those who had been
penanced by the Inquisition, with their descendants, from emigrating to
the Indies, but this was a provision difficult to enforce, and relief
from it was a financial expedient tempting to the chronically empty
treasury of Spain. In the great composition of Seville, in 1509, there
was a provision that, for twenty thousand ducats, the disability should
be in so far removed that such persons could go to the colonies and
trade there for two years, on each voyage. After Ferdinand’s death, this
was confirmed by Charles V, but he soon afterwards, September 24, 1518,
ordered the Casa de Contratacion of Seville not to permit them to
embark. They complained loudly of this violation of faith and, on
January 23, 1519, he ordered the Inquisition of Seville to examine the
agreement and, if it was found to contain such a clause, the prohibition
should be withdrawn. Six months later, on July 16th, it was renewed,
exciting fresh remonstrances that they were compelled to pay the money
while the privilege was denied. The matter was then referred to the
Suprema, which decided that the complaints were justified, whereupon
Charles, on December 13th, ordered the inquisitors of Seville to permit
them to go, provided the whole amount of the composition, eighty
thousand ducats, had been fully paid.[383] Thus, in one way or another,
the enterprising New Christians sought successfully to share in the
lucrative exploitation of the colonies, and it illustrates the
ineffectiveness of Spanish administration that, in 1537, it felt obliged
to call in papal assistance to supplement its deficiencies. Accordingly
Paul III, in his bull _Altitudo divini consilii_, forbade all apostates
from going to the Indies and commanded the colonial bishops to expel any
who might come.[384] Prince Philip followed this by a decree of August
14, 1543, ordering all viceroys, governors and courts to investigate
what Moorish slaves or freemen, recently converted, or sons of Jews
resided in the Indies and to banish all whom they might discover,
sending them to Spain in the first ships, for in no case were they to be
allowed to remain.[385]

It is evident that the persevering New Christians evaded these
regulations and that their success in this was a subject of solicitude,
yet there was long delay in providing effectual means to preserve the
faith from their contamination. It is true that, when bishoprics were
erected, the jurisdiction over heresy, inherent in the episcopal office,
might have been exercised on them, had not the Inquisition arrogated to
itself the exclusive cognizance over all matters of faith and regarded
with extreme jealousy all episcopal invasions of its province. This is
illustrated by a case in 1515 which shows how indisposed it was even to
delegate its power. Pedro de Leon, with his wife and daughter, had
sought refuge in Hispañola, where the episcopal provisor arrested them
and obtained confessions inculpating them and others. In place of
authorizing him to complete the trial and punish them, the Suprema
notified him that the inquisitor-general was sending a special messenger
to bring them back to Seville, together with any other fugitives whom
the provisor may have arrested, and he is commanded to deliver them
without delay or prevarication, under penalty of forfeiture of
temporalities and citizenship; moreover, the Admiral Diego Colon is
commanded to render aid and favor and the Contratacion of Seville is
required to furnish the messenger with a good ship to take him to the
Indies and to see that on his return he has a vessel with a captain
beyond suspicion and a place where the prisoners can be confined and
kept secluded from all communication.[386]

This was evidently a very cumbrous and costly method of dealing with
heretics, but it does not appear that the Holy Office consented to
delegate its powers until 1519, when Charles V, by a cédula of May 20th,
confirmed the appointment by Cardinal Adrian the inquisitor-general, of
Alfonso Manso, Bishop of Puertorico and the Dominican Pedro de Córdova,
as inquisitors of the Indies, and ordered all officials to render them
obedience and assistance.[387] On the death of Pedro, the appointing
power is said to have vested in the Audiencia of San Domingo which, in
1524, appointed Martin de Valencia as commissioner. He was a Franciscan
of high repute for holiness who in that year reached Mexico at the head
of a dozen of his brethren and was received by the Conquistadores on
their knees. We are told that he burnt a heretic and reconciled two
others, which if true would show that he was clothed with the full
powers of an inquisitor. He soon afterwards returned to Spain and we
hear of Fray Tomás Ortiz, Fray Domingo de Betanzos and Fray Vicente de
Santa María as succeeding him in 1526 and 1528, but the references to
these shadowy personalities are conflicting and there are no records of
their activity.[388]

With the appointment of bishops in New Spain, in 1527, and the gradual
systematic organization of the hierarchy, it would seem that special
inquisitoral powers were delegated to them, of the results of which we
have traces in the _sanbenitos_ or _tablillas_ of those burnt or
reconciled which were hung in the cathedrals. Early in the nineteenth
century Padre José Pichardo made a list of those remaining in the
cathedral of Mexico, which has recently been printed and from this we
learn that an auto de fe was celebrated in 1536, at which Andreas Morvan
was reconciled for Lutheranism, and another in 1539, when Francisco
Millan was reconciled for Judaism and a cacique of Tezcoco was burnt for
offering human sacrifices.[389] This latter stretch of authority by
Archbishop Zumárraga was contrary to the policy of the government and,
in 1543, Inquisitor-general Tavera superseded him by sending Francisco
Tello de Sandoval, inquisitor of Toledo, to Mexico to perform the same
office. His commission, dated July 18th of that year, empowers him to
take up and prosecute to the end all cases commenced by previous
inquisitors, and a letter of Prince Philip, July 24th, to the royal
officials of New Spain, commands them to give him all requisite
assistance.[390] It does not appear, however, that he was furnished with
officials to organize a tribunal and, as his principal charge was that
of a _visitador_ or inspector of the ecclesiastical establishment, it is
not probable that he accomplished much as inquisitor. The list of
sanbenitos shows no more autos de fe until 1555, by which time the work
had fallen back into the hands of Archbishop Montúfar, for the home
Government was evidently unwilling to assume the heavy cost of a fully
organized tribunal, and the bishops were ready to perform its duties.
When, in 1545, Las Casas, as Bishop of Chiapa, asked the royal Audiencia
of Gracia á Dios to sustain him in his episcopal jurisdiction against
his recalcitrant flock, he makes special reference to cases of the
Inquisition as included in it and, soon after this, in Peru, Juan
Matienzo says that the bishops exercised inquisitorial jurisdiction and
that, when any attempt was made to appeal from them, they would elude it
by claiming that they were acting as inquisitors.[391] That this was
recognized at home is manifested by Prince Philip, in 1553, extending to
the Indies the Concordia of Castile regulating the _fuero_ of familiars,
as though there was a regularly organized Inquisition throughout the
colonies.[392]

In the auto of 1555, Gerónimo Venzon, an Italian, was reconciled for
Lutheranism and it was followed by one in 1558, when María de Ocampo was
reconciled for pact with the demon.[393] There was also an Englishman
named Robert Thompson, condemned for Lutheranism to wear the sanbenito
for three years, and a Genoese, Agostino Boacio, for the same crime, to
perpetual prison and sanbenito. These two latter were shipped to Seville
to perform their penance, but Boacio managed to escape at the Azores. In
1560 there were seven Lutherans reconciled, concerning whom we have no
details; in 1561 a French Calvinist and a Greek schismatist and in 1562
two French Calvinists.[394] This shows that the episcopal Inquisition
was by no means inert, and a sentence rendered by the Ordinary of
Mexico, in 1568, indicates that its severity might cause the
installation of the regular Holy Office to be regarded rather as a
relief. A Flemish painter, Simon Pereyns, who had drifted to Mexico, in
a talk with a brother artist, Francisco Morales, chanced to utter the
common remark that simple fornication was not a sin and persisted in it
after remonstrance. That the episcopal Inquisition was thoroughly
established is indicated by his considering it prudent to denounce
himself to the Officiality, which he did on September 10, 1568. In Spain
this particular heresy, especially in _espontaneados_, was not severely
treated, but the provisor, Esteban de Portillo, took it seriously and
threw him in prison. During the trial Morales testified that Pereyns had
said that he preferred to paint portraits rather than images, which he
explained was because they paid better. This did not satisfy the
provisor who proceeded to torture him when he endured, without further
confession, three turns of the _cordeles_ and three jars of water
trickled down his throat on a linen cloth. This ought to have earned his
dismissal but, on December 4th, he was condemned to pay the costs of his
trial and to give security that he would not leave the city until he
should have painted a picture of Our Lady of Merced, as an altar-piece
for the church. He complied and it was duly hung in the cathedral.[395]
A still more forcible example of the abuse of episcopal inquisitorial
authority was the case of Don Pedro Juárez de Toledo, alcalde mayor of
Trinidad in Guatemala, arrested with sequestration of property by his
bishop, Bernardino de Villalpando, on a charge of heresy. He died in
September, 1569, with his trial unfinished; it was transferred to the
Inquisition on its establishment and, in the auto de fe of February 28,
1574, a sentence was rendered clearing his memory of all infamy, which
we are told gave much satisfaction for he was a man much honored and the
vindictiveness of the prosecution was notorious.[396]

These inquisitorial powers, however, were only enjoyed temporarily by
the bishops and when, in 1570, a tribunal was finally established in
Mexico, a circular was addressed to them formally warning them against
allowing their provisors or officials to exercise jurisdiction in
matters of faith and ordering them to transmit to the inquisitors any
evidence which they might have or might obtain in cases of heresy. The
bishops apparently were unwilling to surrender the jurisdiction to which
they had grown accustomed, for the command had to be repeated, May 26,
1585.[397]

It is worthy of remark that there seems to have been no pressure from
Rome to extend the Inquisition over the New World. St. Pius V,
notwithstanding his fierce inquisitorial activity in Italy, could give
Philip II the sanest and most temperate advice about the colonies. On
learning that the king proposed to send thither officials selected with
the utmost care, he wrote, August 18, 1568, to Inquisitor-general
Espinosa to encourage him in the good work. The surest way, he says, to
propagate the faith is to remove all unnecessary burdens and to so treat
the people that they may rejoice more and more to throw off the bonds of
idolatry and submit themselves to the sweet yoke of Christ; the
Christians who go thither should be such as to edify the people by their
lives and morals, so as to confirm the converts and to allure the
heathen to conversion.[398] To do Philip justice, he earnestly strove
to follow in the path thus wisely indicated, but Spanish
maladministration was too firmly rooted for him to succeed. If he could
not thus render the faith attractive he could at least preserve its
purity; the colonists were becoming too numerous for their aberrations
to be left to episcopal provisors, overburdened with a multiplicity of
other duties, and the only safety lay in extending to the colonies the
Inquisition whose tribunals would have no other function.

The incentive to this, however, was not so much the danger anticipated
from Judaizing New Christians as from the propaganda of the Reformers,
who were regarded as zealously engaged in sending to the New World their
heretical books and versions of Scripture and even as venturing there
personally in hopes of combining missionary work with the profits of
trade. This is the motive alleged by Philip II, in his cédulas of
January 25, 1569, and August 16, 1570, confirming the action of
Inquisitor-general Espinosa in founding the Mexican tribunal.[399]
Leonardo Donato, the Venetian envoy, in his report of 1573, assents to
this as the cause, not only of the establishment of the Mexican
Inquisition but also of the prohibition of intercourse with the colonies
to Germans and Flemings, although the latter were Spanish subjects.[400]
The Protestant missionary spirit in fact was, at this time, by no means
as ardent as the Inquisition sought to make the faithful believe, yet it
could reasonably point in justification to the number of Protestants who
furnished the material for the earlier inquisitorial activity.

Although the decision to establish colonial tribunals was reached and
made known in the cédula of January, 1569, Philip proceeded with his
usual dilatory caution. It was not until January 3, 1570, that Espinosa
notified Doctor Moya de Contreras, then Inquisitor of Murcia, that he
had been selected as senior inquisitor of the projected tribunal; he
was to enjoy a salary of three thousand pesos and the fruits of a
prebend in the cathedral; he was to have a colleague, a fiscal and a
notary or secretary, while such other officials as might be necessary
would be appointed on the spot, in accordance with instructions to be
given to him.[401] Contreras declined the appointment on the ground of
his health, which would not endure the voyage, and his poverty, for he
was endeavoring to place his sister in a convent. Espinosa insisted,
pointing out that the position would be but temporary and would lead to
promotion, which was verified for, in 1573, Contreras became Archbishop
of Mexico, served for a time as viceroy, and, on his return to Spain,
was made president of the Council of Indies.[402] The junior inquisitor
was the Licenciado Pascual de Cervantes, canon of Canaries, who was
instructed to learn the duties of his office from his experienced
senior. Their commissions bore date August 18, 1570, and empowered them
to evoke and continue all cases that might be in the hands of
inquisitors or episcopal officials. It was not until November 13th that
they set sail from San Lucar for the Canaries, where they hoped to take
passage on the fleet. In this they were disappointed, as it did not call
at the islands, and they were detained in Tenerife until June 2, 1571.
Cervantes died on the voyage July 26th and Contreras was wrecked on the
coast of Cuba, August 11th, but he found refuge on another vessel and
reached San Juan de Ulua August 18th. He entered the city of Mexico
September 12th, but the ceremonies of reception and installation were
delayed until November 4th.[403] These were of the most impressive
character. A proclamation, two days before, to sound of drum and
trumpet, had summoned to be present in the cathedral, under pain of
major excommunication, the whole population over twelve years of age.
From the building assigned to the tribunal, the viceroy and senior judge
of the royal court, followed by all the officials, conducted the
inquisitor to the church, where, after the sermon and before the
elevation of the host, the secretary of the Inquisition read the royal
letters addressed to the viceroy and all other officials, reciting at
great length the dangers of the heretic propaganda and commanding every
one to render all aid and service to the inquisitors and their
officials, arresting all whom they should designate and punishing with
the legal penalties those whom they should relax as heretics or
relapsed. Moreover the king took under his protection all those
connected with the Holy Office and warned his subjects that any injury
inflicted on them would be visited with the punishment due to violation
of the royal safeguard. Then an edict was read, embodying the oath of
obedience and pledging every one, under fearful maledictions, spiritual
and temporal, to aid the Inquisition in every way and to denounce and
persecute heretics as wolves and mad dogs. On this the viceroy arose
and, placing his hand on the gospels which lay on a table, took the oath
and all the officials present advanced in procession and followed his
example.

The Inquisition thus was fairly established in the city of Mexico; it
issued its Edict of Faith and, on November 10th, it published letters
addressed to all the inhabitants of its enormous district, stretching
from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from Darien to the unknown regions
to the North, commanding them and their officials to take the same
portentous oath of obedience. In an age of faith, it is easy to see how
profound was the impression made when the population of every parish and
mission was assembled in its church and listened to such utterances in
the name of Christ and the pope, with their reduplication of threats and
promises, and each one was required to raise his right hand and solemnly
swear on the cross and the gospels to accept it all and obey it to the
letter.[404]

As communication between the tribunal and the Supreme Council in Madrid
was slow and irregular, there was necessity that it should have greater
independent authority than that allowed to the provincial Inquisitions
in Spain, which at this period were constantly becoming more and more
subject to the central head. Accordingly it was furnished not only with
the general Instructions current everywhere but with special elaborate
ones, providing among other matters that in the _consulta de fe_, or
meeting to decide upon a sentence, if there should be _discordia_ or
lack of unanimity among the inquisitors and the episcopal Ordinary (who
always took part in such matters) the case was not referred to the
Suprema, as in Spain, unless the question was as to relaxation to the
secular arm; if this was involved, the accused was to be sent to the
Suprema, which decided his fate. If the sentence was to torture or
reconciliation, or a milder penance, then the opinion prevailed of the
two inquisitors, or of the Ordinary and one of the inquisitors, while if
all three were discordant, then the consultors decided as to which of
the three opinions should be adopted. Appeals to the Suprema against
sentences of torture, or of extraordinary punishments, were similarly
replaced by giving the prisoner another hearing, allowing the fiscal to
argue against him and reconsidering the sentence in the consulta de
fe.[405] These instructions also prescribed the enforcement of the Index
of prohibited books, both as to the suppression of those existing in the
colony and the watchful supervision of imports, all of which Doctor
Contreras hastened to execute by requiring every owner of books to
present a sworn list of those in his possession. It would not be easy,
however, to define whence he derived his authority for his next step,
which was to forbid the departure from the land of any one without a
special licence from the Inquisition--a stretch of power which we are
told met with the hearty concurrence of the viceroy, Martin Enríquez,
who had not otherwise manifested much prepossession in favor of the new
jurisdiction thus established in his territories.[406]

The inquisitor evidently magnified his office and the result soon showed
how much more efficient was a tribunal of which the energies were
concentrated on a single object, than the desultory action of the
episcopal provisors. He had, on his arrival, lost no time in filling up
his staff by appointing an alguazil mayor, an alcaide of the secret
prisons, a _portero_ or apparitor and a messenger, as well as a receiver
of confiscations, to whom he assigned the handsome salary of six hundred
ducats, not anticipating how slender, for some time, were to be the
receipts from that source. His efforts were seconded at home for, by a
_carta orden_ of the Suprema, January 5, 1573, the Spanish tribunals
were instructed to give precedence over all other business to requests
from colonial Inquisitions for evidence to be taken and furnished,
experience having already shown the great benefit arising from their
establishment there.[407] The publication of the Edict of Faith had
brought in many denunciations; arrests were frequent and the number of
prisoners soon exceeded the capacity of the improvised prison--among
them some thirty-six Englishmen, the remnant of the hundred of Sir John
Hawkins’s men who had taken their chances on shore after the disaster at
San Juan de Ulua, in 1568.[408] The fruits of this energy were seen when
the first great auto de fe was celebrated February 28, 1574, with a
solemnity declared by eyewitnesses to be equal in everything, save the
presence of royalty, to that of Valladolid, May 21, 1559, when the
Spanish Lutherans suffered. A fortnight in advance it was announced
throughout the city with drums and trumpets, the Inquisition commenced
to erect its staging and the city authorities did the like for
themselves and their wives, and invited the judges and their wives to
seats on it. A week later, on learning that prominent officials from all
parts of the country were coming, the invitation was extended to them.
The population poured in from all quarters, crowding the streets and
occupying every spot from which the spectacle could be witnessed. The
night before was occupied in drilling, in the courtyard of the
Inquisition, the unfortunates who were to appear and at daylight they
were breakfasted on wine and slices of bread fried in honey.

The accounts of the auto as given by Señor Medina are somewhat confused,
but from them we gather that there were seventy-four sufferers in all.
Of these, three were for asserting that simple fornication between the
unmarried was no sin; twenty-seven were for bigamy; two for blasphemy;
one for wearing prohibited articles although his grandfather had been
burnt; two for “propositions;” one because he had made his wife confess
to him and thirty-six for Lutheranism, of whom two, George Ripley and
Marin Cornu were burnt. These Lutherans were all foreigners of various
nationalities, but mostly English, consisting of Hawkins’s men. One of
these, named Miles Phillips has left an account of the affair, in which
he says that his compatriots George Ripley, Peter Momfrie and Cornelius
the Irishman were burnt, sixty or sixty-one were scourged and sent to
the galleys and seven, of whom he was one, were condemned to serve in
convents; the wholesale scourging was performed the next day, through
the accustomed streets, the culprits being preceded by a crier calling
out “See these English Lutheran dogs, enemies of God!” while inquisitors
and familiars shouted to the executioners “Harder, harder, on these
English Lutherans!” Páramo, who doubtless had access to official
records, tells us that there were about eighty penitents in all, of whom
an Englishman and a Frenchman were burnt, some Judaizers were
reconciled, together with several bigamists and practitioners of
sorcery. One of these latter, he says, was a woman who had made her
husband come in two days to Mexico from Guatemala, two hundred leagues
away and, when asked by the inquisitor why she had done this, she
replied that it was in order to enjoy the sight of his beauty, the fact
being that he was the foulest of men. Bigamy, he adds, was a very
frequent crime, for men thought that, at so great a distance from Spain,
there was little chance of detection.[409]

Miles Phillips says that at the conclusion of the auto the victims
relaxed were burnt on the plaza, near the staging. This shows that no
proper preparation had been made for these solemnities and in fact, it
was not until 1596 that the municipality, at a cost of four hundred
pesos, constructed a _quemadero_ or burning place, where concremation
could be performed decently and in order. It was a ghastly adjunct to a
pleasure-ground, for it was situated at the east end of the Alameda.
There it remained until the stake was growing obsolete and was removed
in 1771 to enlarge the promenade.[410]

This was the last inquisitorial act of Doctor Contreras, whose
promotion to the archbishopric had already taken place. He had been
provided with a colleague by the promotion of the fiscal Bonilla in
1572, and the vacancy caused by his retirement was filled by the
appointment of Alonso Granero de Avalos. These held an auto March 6,
1575, in which there were thirty-one culprits, twenty-five of them for
bigamy and but one Protestant, the Irishman William Cornelius, who was
burnt. Less important was an auto celebrated February 19, 1576, with
thirteen culprits, all for minor offences, except an Englishman named
Thomas Farrar, a shoemaker long resident in Mexico, who was reconciled
for Protestantism. Another auto followed December 15, 1577, in which,
besides the customary minor offenders, three Englishmen, Paul Hawkins,
John Stone and Robert Cook, were reconciled for Protestantism and the
first Judaizer, Alvarez Pliego, abjured de vehementi and was fined in
500 pesos.[411] The Judaism which thus commenced to show itself speedily
furnished further victims for, in 1578, two Spaniards were burnt for it
and, in 1579, another, García González Bermejero, while a Frenchman,
Guillaume Potier, who escaped, was burnt in effigy for Calvinism. After
this, until 1590, the tribunal seems to have become indolent; but few
autos were celebrated and the culprits consisted of the miscellaneous
bigamists, blasphemers, sorcerers and soliciting confessors, whose cases
present no especial interest. With 1590 the yearly autos were resumed.
In that year nine Judaizers at least were reconciled, one was burnt in
person and one in effigy. With the advent of Alonso de Peralta as
inquisitor, in 1594, the tribunal seems to have been aroused to
increased activity and the auto of December 8, 1596, was a memorable one
in which there were sixty-six penitents, including twenty-two Judaizers
reconciled, nine burnt in person and ten in effigy. Even this was
exceeded by the great auto of March 26, 1601, also celebrated by
Peralta, in which there were one hundred and twenty four penitents, of
whom four were burnt in person and sixteen in effigy. There would seem
to have been a recrudescence of Protestantism, for among these were
twenty-three Lutherans and Calvinists.[412]

The Inquisition thus vindicated the necessity of its existence if the
land was to be purified of heresy and apostasy, for some of the
Judaizers had been practising their unhallowed rites for an incredible
length of time. García González Bermejero, who was burnt in 1579, had
been thus outraging the faith in Mexico for twenty years; Juan
Castellanos, who repented and was reconciled in 1590, had done so for
forty-eight years. Although their Judaism was almost public, for they
ate the paschal lamb and smeared their houses with blood, they were only
discovered through the confession of an accomplice tried in Spain, who
denounced González. Of a family of Portuguese Jews who suffered in 1592,
and the following years, we are told that the father, Francisco
Rodríguez Mattos, was a rabbi and a dogmatizer, or teacher. Fortunately
for him he was dead and was only burnt in effigy, as was likewise his
son, who escaped by flight. His four daughters repented and were
reconciled. They were in high social position and a cultured race, for
it is said that the youngest, a girl of seventeen, could recite all the
psalms of David and could repeat the prayer of Esther and other Hebrew
songs backwards. A brother of these girls, Luis de Carvajal, was
governor of the province of New Leon and a man who had rendered
essential service to the crown; for the crime of not denouncing them, he
was prosecuted, publicly penanced as a fautor of heresy and deprived of
his office; he relapsed, was tried and tortured in 1595 and was burnt in
the auto of December 8, 1596, together with his mother and three
sisters.[413] The men who founded the Mexican Inquisition knew their
duty and were resolute in its performance. They were kept busy for,
between 1574 and 1600, they despatched no less than 879 cases, or an
average of about thirty-four per annum.[414] Considering the complex
character of inquisitorial procedure, with its inevitable delays and
consumption of time, this represents a creditable degree of industry,
equal to that of the great tribunal of Toledo which, at the same period,
was averaging thirty-five cases per annum.

It will be observed that no Indians figure among the victims on these
occasions, since the zeal of Bishop Zumárraga, in 1536, burned the
cacique of Tezcoco. In fact, the native population was exempt from the
jurisdiction of the Inquisition. This exemption was originally
attributable to the theory held by the Conquistadores that the Indians
were too low in the scale of humanity to be capable of the faith--a
theory largely relied upon to excuse the cruelties inflicted upon them.
In 1517, when Las Casas was laboring in their behalf at the Spanish
court, this proposition was advanced by a member of the royal council to
Fray Reginaldo Montesino, who was assisting Las Casas and who promptly
declared it to be heretical. To settle the question, he asked one of the
foremost theologians of the time, Fray Juan Hurtado, to assemble the
doctors of the University of Salamanca to decide the matter; thirteen of
them debated it and drew up a series of conclusions which they all
signed, the final one being that whoever defended with pertinacity such
a proposition must be put to death by fire as a heretic.[415]
Notwithstanding this decision, the theory was so generally asserted in
the New World that Fray Julian Garcés, the first Bishop of Tlaxcala,
wrote to Paul III on the subject and elicited a brief of June 2, 1537,
condemning those who, to gratify their greed, asserted that the Indians
were like brutes to be reduced to servitude, and declaring them
competent to receive the faith and enjoy the sacraments.[416] Bishop
Zumárraga had already acted on this presumption when he burnt the
cacique and this suggested an obstacle, almost as damaging as the
popular theory, to the conversion which was the ostensible object of the
conquest, for it was evident that the _doctrineros_, or missionaries,
would find their labors nugatory if the Indians realized that, in
embracing the new faith, they would be liable to death by fire for
aberrations from it. To remove this impediment, Charles V, by a decree
of October 15, 1538, ordered that they should not be subject to the
inquisitorial process but that, in all matters of faith, they should be
relegated to the ordinary jurisdiction of their bishops. As the papal
delegation of power to the inquisitors gave them exclusive faculties in
all cases of faith, this imperial rescript would have been invalid
without papal sanction, but this had already been procured in the brief
_Altitudo divini consilii_ of Paul III, June 1, 1537.[417]

It was probably through an oversight that the commissions issued to
Francisco Tello de Sandoval in 1543 and to Dr. Contreras in 1570 granted
them jurisdiction without exception over every one, of whatever
condition, quality or state; possibly the latter may have commenced to
exercise it on the Indians, but the error was rectified by Philip II, in
a decree of December 30, 1571, ordering the inquisitors to observe their
instructions and the previous law, and the injunction had to be repeated
in 1575. Moreover, to silence any objections as to the episcopal power,
he procured from Gregory XIII a brief granting full faculties to the
bishops to absolve the Indians for heresy and all other reserved
cases.[418] The Indians thus remained exempt from prosecution by the
Inquisition--an exemption popularly attributed to their not being _gente
de razon_, or not rational enough to be responsible--which libel on
their intellect Las Casas considers as perhaps the worst of the many
offences committed upon them.[419] They could, however, endure this
philosophically so long as it exempted them from the Holy Office and
confided them to the more temperate zeal of the bishops.[420]

While the Inquisition, as we have seen, maintained its awful dignity
before the people, by the solemnity of its public functions and its
severity towards the evil-minded, all was not entirely serene within its
walls. In fact, its financial history illustrates so vividly some of the
aspects of Spanish colonial administration that it is worth recounting
in some detail. We have seen that Inquisitor Contreras was promised a
salary of three thousand pesos and a prebend in the cathedral, but he
was confronted with a decree of January 25, 1569, prescribing that the
income of all benefices enjoyed by inquisitors and fiscals in the Indies
was to be deducted from their salaries, and the retention of this
provision in the Recopilacion shows that it was not of mere temporary
validity.[421] It was doubtless however waived in favor of the
Inquisition, as was likewise another question which speedily arose.

The tribunal was expected to become self-supporting, from confiscations,
fines and pecuniary penances, but this required time and meanwhile
Philip granted it a subvention from the royal treasury, to continue
during his pleasure, of 10,000 pesos per annum, being 3000 each for two
inquisitors and a fiscal and 1000 for a notary. Although the tribunal
started with but one inquisitor, the thrifty receiver, or treasurer,
collected the salaries of two and, when called to account, claimed that
he spent the money on the maintenance of poor prisoners. The treasury
officials had no authority to allow this and refused further
disbursements till the amount was made good but, when Philip was
appealed to, he ordered, by a cédula of December 23, 1574, the
receiver’s claim to be allowed.[422] Thus early began the long-continued
bickering between the Holy Office and the treasury, which Philip had
already, in 1572, endeavored to quiet by instructing the inquisitors to
obtain their salaries direct from the viceroy and not from
subordinates, whom he forbade them to prosecute or excommunicate for the
purpose of enforcing their demands.[423]

While Philip had provided liberally for the superior officials, he had
taken no thought of the minor positions and, in spite of the solemnity
of the autos de fe and the successful persecution of heresy, the
internal working of the tribunal was pursued under difficulties, in the
absence of resources from confiscations. A curious insight into these
troubles is afforded by some correspondence of 1583 with
Inquisitor-general Quiroga by the two inquisitors, Santos García and
Bonilla. It seems that their _portero_ or apparitor, Pedro de Fonseca,
had exhibited to them a commission, which he had secretly obtained from
Quiroga, promoting him to the post of notary of sequestrations. They met
this piece of jobbery with the favorite inquisitorial formula--_obedecer
y no cumplir_, obeying without executing--for they say they obeyed it
without admitting him to the office until they could consult the
cardinal. This notariate, they say, is the least necessary of offices,
as there are no sequestrations or confiscations, and they have no other
portero and no money wherewith to pay a substitute: besides, Pedro is
destitute of all qualifications for the position. If a good salary could
be assured, proper persons would apply for the position but, in the
absence of salaries, the offices have not a good reputation and people
say they are bestowed on any one who will accept them. In view of the
poverty of the tribunal and small prospect of improvement they repeat
what they had previously said that, if the king will not provide for it,
it had better be abolished rather than maintained precariously, with the
officers relying on the hope of confiscations that never come, so that
one resigns today and another tomorrow, leaving only the alcaide and
portero, who are so poor that they would also have gone if they saw
other means of escaping their creditors. It is therefore suggested that,
in addition to the two inquisitors, the fiscal and the notary, salaries
be furnished of 600 ducats for an alguazil, 500 for an alcaide or
gaoler and 400 for a messenger--or otherwise that, as in Spain, a
canonry be suppressed for the benefit of the Inquisition, in each of the
eleven bishoprics of the district, though this would have its
disadvantages in view of the poverty of the churches and paucity of
ministers. Then, in another letter the inquisitors announce that they
have filled the vacant post of alguazil by appointing Don Pedro de
Villegas, for whom they ask Quiroga to send a commission; it is true,
they say, that he is too young, but then both he and his wife are
_limpio_--free from any taint of heretic blood--and he has the
indispensable qualification of possessing means to live on without a
salary and that, in the present condition of the Inquisition, is the
main thing to be considered.[424]

It is an emphatic testimony to the exhaustion of the royal treasury that
so pious a monarch as Philip II should have shown indifference to this
deplorable condition of a tribunal which had already given evidence so
conspicuous of its services to the faith, but he remained deaf to all
appeals and it was left to struggle on as best it could. As the number
of its reconciled penitents increased it felt the need of a _carcel
perpetua_ or penitential prison, for their confinement and, having no
funds wherewith to purchase a building, it besieged the Marquis of
Monterey, the viceroy, for an appropriation. In 1596 he yielded in so
far as to authorize the treasurer to lend the tribunal 2000 pesos, on
its giving security to return the money in case the royal approbation
should not be had within two years. The term elapsed without it, but
Philip III, September 13, 1599, graciously approved the expenditure, at
the same time warning the viceroy not to repeat such liberality without
previous permission.[425] Even though the monarchs were thus niggardly,
there were advantages in serving the Inquisition which in many cases
answered in lieu of salary, for official position conferred the _fuero_
or right to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition as well as substantial
exemptions. As early as 1572, Philip II decreed that, during the royal
pleasure, the inquisitors, the fiscal, the judge of confiscations, one
secretary, one receiver, one messenger and the alcaide of the secret
prison should be exempt from taxation and the royal officials were
ordered, under penalty of a thousand ducats and punishment at the king’s
pleasure, to observe this and protect them in all the honors and
exemptions which such officials enjoyed in Spain.[426]

A further, although illegal, relief was found by sharing in the
_repartimientos_ under which the Indians were allotted to Spaniards who
lived upon their enforced labor. It is to this cruel system that Las
Casas, Mendieta and Torquemada attribute the rapid wasting away of the
natives and the hatred which they bore to the Spaniards. Among other
attempts to diminish the evils arising from the system, repeated laws of
1530, 1532, 1542, 1551 and 1563 prohibited the allotment of Indians to
any officials or to prelates, clerics, religious houses, hospitals,
fraternities, etc. In spite of this, as soon as the Inquisition was
established, it claimed and was allowed its quota in the allotments. It
watched vigilantly, moreover, to see that it was not defrauded in any
way, for one of its earliest recorded acts, in 1572, was the prosecution
of Diego de Molina, the _repartidor de los Indios_ of San Juan, because,
in allotting the Indians of that place, the twelve assigned to the
Inquisition proved to be boys and incapables, while the useful ones, who
could be hired out advantageously, such as carpenters and masons, he
gave for bribes to others. He was mercifully let off with five days’
imprisonment and a forcible warning and doubtless served as a wholesome
example to other partitioners.[427] Like most of the salutary
legislation of Spain, it seems to have been impossible to enforce the
prohibition, and that the Inquisition continued to enjoy the unpaid
service of Indian serfs is manifested by its being specifically
included in subsequent repetitions of the law in 1609, 1627 and
1635.[428]

When, as we have seen, the Judaizers commenced to appear among the
penitents in the autos de fe, the longed-for relief derivable from
confiscations, fines and penances was at hand. Spanish finance was
already suffering the distress which was to become so acute and the
treasury naturally looked to find its burden lightened by the income
from these sources. It looked in vain, for whatever the tribunal
acquired from its victims it retained and it persisted, with incredible
audacity, in refusing even to render an account, although the
confiscations belonged to the crown which never renounced its claim to
them. In 1618 a royal cédula required the receiver to render itemized
statements of all receipts and expenditures; in 1621 Philip IV sought to
enforce this by ordering his viceroys in the Indies not to pay salaries
until proof should be furnished that the confiscations were insufficient
to meet them in whole or in part, and this was to be observed
inviolably, no matter what urgency there might be, but repetitions of
the decree, in 1624 and 1629, show how completely it was ignored.[429]
Not the slightest attention was paid to these repeated royal commands
and, to the last, the Inquisition never permitted either the king or the
Council of Indies to know what it acquired in this manner, although the
sums were large and the tribunal became wealthy through investments of
the surplus, besides making, with more or less regularity, very
considerable remittances to the Suprema.

Finding himself thus baffled by the immovable resistance of the Holy
Office, Philip, in 1627, sought to relieve his treasury by despoiling
the Church. He reported to Urban VIII that he expended 32,000 ducats a
year on the tribunals of Mexico, Lima and Cartagena, wherefore he prayed
that the bull of Paul IV, January 7, 1559, suppressing a prebend in
every cathedral and collegial church in Spain, for the benefit of the
Inquisition, might be extended to the Indies. Urban complied in a brief
of March 10, 1627, whereupon Philip ordered the archbishop and bishops
to remit to the senior inquisitors of their respective tribunals the
fruits of the prebends as they should fall in, furnishing, at the same
time, to the royal officials a statement of the sums thus paid, so that
the amount should be deducted from the salaries.[430] Receipts from this
source commenced at once and went on increasing as vacancies occurred,
amounting, according to the estimate of the Council of Indies, to 30,000
pesos per annum for the three tribunals, while the Suprema admitted that
those of Mexico and Lima produced about 11,000 pesos each, but those of
Cartagena, it said, yielded only about 5000.[431]

During this time there had been frequent collisions between the
inquisitors and the treasury officials, arising from the refusal of the
former to reveal the amount of the confiscations and penances and the
obedience, more or less persistent, of the latter to the royal commands
to require such statements as a condition precedent to paying the royal
subvention. In these collisions the inquisitors enforced their demands
as usual by prosecution and excommunication, giving rise to unseemly
controversies and, when the Suprema forbade their use of such measures,
they were reduced to impotence. In a letter of February 13, 1634, they
complained bitterly of this; during 1633, they said, in spite of all
their efforts, they received no money until October, after all the royal
officials had been paid and, as they had no other means of support, they
were exposed to the deepest humiliations.[432] The suppressed canonries,
however, introduced an element of pacification and, in the Concordia of
1633, between the Suprema and the Council of Indies, a plan to harmonize
differences was agreed upon which was a practical surrender to the
Inquisition. It provided that every year, before the first _tercios_
(four months’ instalments in advance) were paid, the receivers should
render a sworn itemized statement of all receipts and expenditures,
including confiscations, fines and penances, in accordance with the
royal cédulas and, when this was delivered to the viceroy, the tercios
should be paid in advance without delay. If the treasury officials
should take exception to any portion of the statement, they were to
forward it with their comments to the Council of Indies, but this was
not to interfere with the prompt payment of the salaries and the
inquisitors were to furnish the Suprema with their explanations. If the
statement should show a surplus applicable to the salaries, this was, if
agreed to by both parties, to be deducted from the second tercio; but if
the inquisitors presented any reasons why this tercio should be paid in
full, the treasury should pay it and the question be referred for
settlement to the two Councils. The inquisitors were not to proceed
against the treasury officials with censures or fines or other
penalties, but were to apply to the viceroy, to whom positive
instructions were sent to pay them punctually, both the arrearages then
unpaid and the current salaries, while any fines or penalties that had
been imposed were to be withdrawn or, if collected, to be refunded.[433]

This elaborate arrangement is only of importance as showing that, in
spite of the suppressed canonries, the treasury was still required to
support the tribunal and that the latter could be bound by no agreements
however solemnly entered into. Except at Cartagena it was never carried
into effect. No statement of receipts was ever rendered. In 1651, Count
Alva de Aliste, the viceroy, reported to Philip IV that he had no means
of learning what the confiscations amounted to but, on cautiously
sounding the inquisitors, they told him that they reported them to the
Suprema and would obey its instructions. They might well keep the facts
secret. In the exterminating persecution of the wealthy New Christians,
during the decade 1640-50, of which more hereafter, the confiscations
were very large, placing the tribunal at its ease for all future time,
besides what was embezzled by the inquisitors. The auto of 1646 yielded
38,732 pesos; that of 1647, 148,562. What was gathered in two autos held
in 1648 does not appear, but between November 20, 1646, and April 24,
1648, the inquisitors remitted 234,000 pesos in bills of exchange while
the crowning auto of 1649 furnished three millions more.[434] In spite
of this enormous influx of wealth, the Inquisition still maintained its
grip on the royal subvention of 10,000 pesos per annum, though for how
long it is impossible to determine with positiveness. In the prolonged
controversy which raged between the Suprema and the Council of Indies
over the relations of the colonial tribunals, the former, in 1667,
positively declared that, after 1633, there had been no subvention paid
in Mexico or Lima and this assertion was repeated in 1676, but the
statements of the Suprema are so full of duplicity that no reliance can
be reposed in them.[435] On the other hand, in 1668, we find the Council
of Indies earnestly advising the king to withdraw the subvention on the
ground that the tribunals were rich and could support themselves, as
they do in Castile; in 1675 it speaks of the payments as still
continuing and urges their discontinuance without consulting the
Suprema, as it is a matter wholly within the control of the treasury
and, in 1676, Carlos II answered the Suprema by demanding a prompt
decision as to a proposition made by the Council of Indies to
discontinue the subventions enjoyed by the three tribunals for the
salaries of their officials.[436] When they were definitely discontinued
it would be impossible to assert, but it is probable that those of
Mexico and Lima were stopped in 1677, while that of Cartagena was
prolonged even later. In 1683 Inquisitor Valera of that tribunal
complained that, owing to the exhaustion of the public treasury through
wars and piratical attacks, an arrearage had accumulated of thirty-three
_tercios_. He claimed that the king was indebted to the tribunal in the
sum of 58,000 pesos and he urged its transfer to Santa Fe, where the
royal treasury was in better condition to meet the obligation. The
transfer was not made, payments of the subvention became more and more
irregular and we shall see that in 1706 the tribunal was still
unavailingly endeavoring to enforce them.[437]

In a letter to the king, July 31, 1651, the viceroy, Alva de Aliste,
took the ground that the subvention had been merely a loan, to be repaid
when confiscations should come in, and as, within the last few years,
these had been large enough to settle the debt, he had had the accounts
examined and had found that, since the beginning, there had been
advanced for salaries 559,189 pesos, 6 tomines and 5 granos and, for
other purposes, 6837 pesos, 5 granos, wherefore he suggested that the
king should compel restitution of this amount.[438] To a treasury so
desperately embarrassed as that of Spain the prospect of such relief was
most welcome. Philip referred the viceroy’s letter to the Council of
Indies, which delayed its reply till December 12, 1652, when it advised
the king that examination showed that the salaries were to be defrayed
by the confiscations, which were to be reported to the treasury. The
only light that could be thrown upon the subject was to be sought in the
registration, by the Contratacion of Seville, of the amounts of silver
passing through it from Mexico and Peru and from these registers it
appeared that the colonial tribunals had remitted to the Suprema the
aggregate of 76,965 _pesos de ensayados_ and 85,454 _pesos de á ocho_,
thus showing that those tribunals had revenues largely in advance of
their needs. In view of the magnitude of the sums furnished by the
treasury, the extensive confiscations, the income of the suppressed
canonries and the dire necessities of the royal finances, it therefore
advised the king to call upon the Suprema for restitution and to furnish
statements of the amount of the confiscations from the beginning. To
this the king replied, in the ordinary formula of approval “It is well
and so have I ordered.”[439] When the Suprema was concerned, however,
obedience by no means followed royal orders and so it proved in this
case.

Philip’s weakness was shown in his next despatch to the viceroy,
February 1, 1653, in which he said that he had determined that the
Suprema should arrange to make restitution and that, to facilitate a
proper adjustment of the matter, it should furnish a statement of all
confiscations from the beginning, “for neither my Council of Indies nor
my viceroys have been able to obtain this, but only the records of the
shipments of silver from the Indies.”[440] There is no evidence that the
Suprema made any attempt to obey the royal commands or that it paid any
attention to a reiterated demand made on August 12, 1655. Then the
effort seems to have been abandoned and the matter was allowed to
slumber until attention was called to it again in 1666. Philip had
written, August 12, 1665, to the Marquis of Mansera, then Mexican
viceroy, urging him to extinguish the debt of 1,333,264 pesos, by which
amount the Mexican treasury was in arrears with its payments. The
viceroy replied, September 5, 1666, pointing out the difficulty of
accomplishing this and, at the same time, keeping up the remittances by
the fleet, which were imperatively required by the absolute needs of the
monarchy. He added that one of the chief causes of the indebtedness was
the large sums withdrawn from it by the salaries and expenses of the
Inquisition since its foundation in 1570; this had been intended as a
loan, until it could be repaid from the confiscations, fines and
penances but, although these had been large, restitution had never been
made. The cédula of 1653 had inferred that the matter would be settled
between the two councils and therefore the viceroys were powerless, but
he suggested that the tribunal was rich and held large amounts of
property; it had the disposition, which it might not have in future, to
commence making this just and long overdue payment. This despatch the
Council of Indies reported to the queen-regent, together with copies of
the royal cédulas of 1653 and 1655, in order that she might compel the
Suprema to make restitution, not only of the sums reported by Count Alva
de Aliste, but of what had since been paid to the tribunal, seeing that
it had the means to do so and was remitting such large amounts to the
Suprema.[441]

It is scarce worth while to follow in detail the discussion which
ensued, lasting, with true Spanish procrastination, until 1677, when the
effort to make the Inquisition refund seems to have been abandoned out
of sheer weariness. Of course the feeble queen-regent and the feebler
boy-king, Carlos II, failed in the attempt and the only importance to us
of the debate lies in the falsehoods and prevarications of the Suprema’s
defence. It was notorious that there had been heavy confiscations, for
persecution, as we have seen, had become active and exceedingly
profitable as the half-century had drawn to a close. The tribunal had
grown rich and had made large investments, besides the enormous
remittances to the Suprema, and these had been derived almost
exclusively from the confiscations and penances. Yet the Suprema
endeavored to make it appear that financially confiscation had been a
failure. There had been some confiscations, it admitted, in Mexico and
Lima; there was the one of Diego López de Fonseca, amounting to 79,965
pesos, but Jorje de Paz of Madrid and Simon Rodriguez Bueno of Seville
had come forward with claims amounting to more. They had asked to have
the money sent to the receiver of Seville for adjudication and, on its
arrival, the king had seized it and, by a cédula of July 14, 1652, had
bound himself to satisfy the claimants, which he did by assigning to
them certain matters. It was true that, in 1642, a number of Judaizing
Portuguese had been discovered in Mexico, of whom some had moderate
fortunes and one was reputed to be rich, but on the outbreak of the
Portuguese rebellion, for fear that the viceroy would embargo their
property, they had concealed it, and although the Inquisition had
published censures, only a little had been discovered, while there came
forward creditors with evidences of claims amounting to 400,000 pesos,
so that it was difficult to make the confiscations meet them, to say
nothing of the heavy expenses of feeding the prisoners, hiring houses to
serve as prisons and the increased number of officials required. Besides
this, there was protracted and costly litigation in investigating the
claims and detecting suspected frauds. For this, Archbishop Mañozca was
appointed visitador; on his death Medina Rico was sent out for the same
purpose and, when he died, the matter had not been settled, nor has it
yet.[442] If the Suprema was to be believed, confiscation cost more
than it came to.

In the same way it sought by garbled statements to conceal the fact that
it was secretly deriving a considerable revenue from the colonial
tribunals, thus proving that they were possessed of superabundant means.
In its private accounts for the year 1657, there is an item of 10,000
ducats from those of Mexico and Lima, with the remark that this is
always in arrears and is now two years overdue[443]--for the tribunals
were as anxious as the Suprema to conceal their gains. Yet it could not
hide the fact that it was in receipt of large remittances through the
Contratacion of Seville and the Government, in its extremity, had an
awkward habit of seizing what took its fancy and possibly paying for
silver in vellon, for we chance to hear of such an occurrence in 1639
and again in 1644.[444] The Council of Indies, as we have seen, did not
fail to call attention to the large amounts which it was thus receiving,
but it airily replied, in its consulta of November 16, 1667, that the
three tribunals had, at various times, remitted the aggregate of 130,803
pesos, 3 reales, as the proceeds of sales of _varas_ or offices of
alguazil, and that this and much more, from the home tribunals,
amounting in all to over 700,000 pesos, had been contributed to the
necessities of the State. It repeated this, May 11, 1676, with the
addition that the colonial tribunals had sent about 8000 pesos to the
fund for the attempted canonization of Pedro Arbués and that there were
also remittances for the _media añata_ of the officials and for the
deposits of aspirants to office to defray the expenses of the
investigations into _limpieza_--the whole manifesting extreme desire to
divert attention from the confiscations.[445] In spite of these
subterfuges there can be no question that the tribunals of Mexico and
Lima accumulated vast amounts of property. The magnificence of the
palace of the Mexican tribunal, rebuilt from 1732 to 1736, shows that it
could gratify its vanity with the most profuse expenditure.[446] That it
was fully able to do this without impairing its revenues may be assumed
from the assertion, in 1767, of the royal fiscal, when arguing a case of
competencia before the Audiencia, that if its accumulations were not
checked, the king would have but a small portion of territory in which
to exercise his jurisdiction.[447] Certain it is that the tribunal
continued to be able to render large pecuniary support to the home
institution. In 1693 we hear of a remittance of 93,705 pesos and in 1702
of 19,898 in spite of heavy defalcations by the receivers. This was
followed by remittances of 40,000 pesos in 1706, of 16,500 in 1720, and
of 31,500 in 1727. In 1771 the tribunal lent to the viceroy, for the
emergencies of the war with England, 60,000 pesos, which were repaid,
and, in 1795, a further loan was made of 40,000 to aid in the war then
raging.[448] As late as 1809 the Government seized a remittance from it
to the Suprema of 60,131-1/2 pesos and gave a receipt for the proceeds,
being 915,886 reales, for which, after the Restoration, we find the
Suprema claiming restitution.[449] In spite of these reiterated drains
we shall see hereafter what wealth the tribunal possessed when
suppressed.

       *       *       *       *       *

If we are to trust the list of sanbenitos hung in the cathedral of
Mexico, after the great auto of 1601, there ensued a period of
comparative inaction for nearly half a century, in which Protestants
almost disappeared and were replaced by comparatively few
Judaizers.[450] The sanbenitos however represent only the serious cases
and the tribunal continued to gather its customary harvest of bigamists,
blasphemers, sorcerers, solicitors and other minor offenders, some of
whom yielded a liberal amount of fines.[451] In fact, a report of the
cases pending in 1625 amounts to the very considerable number of
sixty-three, showing that there was ample business on hand, receiving
attention with more or less diligence.[452] After this however the
activity of the tribunal diminished so greatly that, on July 12, 1638,
it reported that it had not a single case pending, and a year later that
it had but one, which was against a priest charged with solicitation in
the confessional.[453] This is a singular tribute to the efficacy of the
Edict of Faith--a proclamation requiring, under pain of excommunication,
the denunciation of all offences enumerated under it, of which any one
might be cognizant or have heard of in any way. According to rule, this
should be solemnly published every year in all parish and conventual
churches; it kept the faithful on the watch for all aberrations and
rendered every one a spy and an informer. It had, however, at this time,
fallen into desuetude. In a letter of February 13, 1634, the inquisitors
say that for ten years the publications had been suspended in
consequence of the indecency which attended it after the viceroys
refused to be present, owing to quarrels as to ceremonial, and they ask
that a royal order should be issued through the Council of Indies
requiring the attendance of the civil magistracy in the procession and
publication.[454]

Nearly ten years more, however, were to elapse, before the questions of
etiquette and precedence were settled, and at last, on March 1, 1643,
the Edict was read with all solemnity in the cathedral of Mexico and was
followed by an abundant harvest of denunciations.[455] How numerous
these habitually were may be gathered from partial statistics of those
received after a publication of the Edict in 1650. These were recorded
in eight books, of which four, representing presumably one-half, have
been preserved, containing altogether two hundred and fifty-four cases
of the most varied character, as may be seen by the summarized
classification below.[456]

The most significant feature in this mass of so-called testimony is the
manner in which the most trivial acts inferring suspicion were watched
and denounced, so that every man lived under a universal spy-system
stimulated by the readiness of the Inquisition to listen to and make
record of the veriest gossip passing from mouth to mouth. Thus one
informer relates how in 1642, eight years before, he saw Simon de
Paredes quietly put to one side on his plate a piece of pork that came
to him from among the miscellaneous contents of the olla. Another
gravely deposes how a man had casually told him that he had heard how a
miner named Blas Garcés, of the mines of Los Papagayos, now dead, had
once taken some of the herb Peyote to find some mines of which he had
chanced to see specimens, and the marvels which thence ensued.[457] From
the book of _Membretes_ kept by the tribunal it would appear that when
this kind of evidence did not lead to a prosecution it was carefully
preserved and indexed for reference in case of subsequent testimony
against an individual. Such was the training of the population and such
was the shadow of terror under which every man lived.

Meanwhile, during the quiescent period of the tribunal, the class of New
Christians, who secretly adhered to the ancient faith, increased and
prospered, accumulating wealth through the opportunities of the colonial
trade which they virtually monopolized. Their fancied security, however,
was approaching its end. The vigorous measures taken in Spain, between
1625 and 1640, to exterminate the Portuguese Judaizers, revealed the
names of many accomplices who had found refuge in the New World; these
were carefully noted and sent to the colonial tribunals.[458] Moreover,
from 1634 to 1639, the Lima Inquisition was busy in detecting and
punishing a large number of its most prominent merchants guilty of the
same apostasy, who had relations with their Mexican brethren, revealed
during the trials. The tribunal seems to have been somewhat slow in
realizing the opportunities thus afforded, but in 1642 there opened an
era of active and relentless persecution which was equally effective in
enriching its treasury and in purifying the faith. To prevent the escape
of its victims, on July 9th it sent orders to Vera Cruz prohibiting the
embarkation of any Portuguese who could not show a special licence from
it. A wealthy merchant named Manuel Alvarez de Arrellano had already
sailed for Spain, but his ship was wrecked on Santo Domingo and he was
compelled to return to Havana. The tribunal was on his track and, on
December 1st, it sent orders to its commissioner at Havana to arrest
him, seize all his property, sell it at auction and send him in chains
with the proceeds to Vera Cruz. This was successfully accomplished and,
in acknowledging his arrival, the tribunal gave further instructions as
to some cases of cochineal, which it understood to have been saved from
the wreck.[459]

There was small chance of escape for any culprit. The New Christians
were closely connected by family, religious and business ties, and each
new prisoner was forced to implicate his friends and kindred. Gabriel de
Granada, a child of 13, arrested in July, 1642, was made to give
evidence against 108 persons, including his entire family.[460] There
were then three inquisitors, Francisco de Estrada y Escobedo, Bernabé de
la Higuera y Amarilla and Juan Saenz de Mañozca, whose names became a
terror to the innocent as well as to the guilty. Their cruel zeal is
manifested in a letter to the Suprema virtually asking authority to
relax ten persons, although they had confessed and professed repentance
in time to entitle them, by the rules of the Inquisition, to
reconciliation.[461] It was a wild revel of prosecutions and
condemnations. Medina Rico, the _visitador_ or inspector who came in
1654, reported that, in reviewing the proceedings, he found that no
attention had been paid to the defences presented by the accused,
although in many cases they were just. A single case will indicate the
heartlessness of the tribunal. September 24, 1646, Doña Catalina de
Campos sought an audience to say that she was very sick and near unto
death and that she would die in the Catholic faith in which she had
lived. She was sent back to her cell, no attention was paid to her and
some days later she was found dead and gnawed by rats.[462]

The result of this method of administering justice was a succession of
_autos particulares_, in 1646, 1647 and 1648, followed by an _auto
general_ in 1649.

In 1646 there were thirty-eight Judaizers reconciled and, as
reconciliation, in addition to prison and sanbenito, inferred
confiscation, the harvest as we have seen was large. In 1647 the number
was twenty-one.[463] In 1648 there were two autos--a public one on March
29th and an _auto particular_ in the Jesuit church on March 30th. In the
former there were eleven penitents for various offences, eight Judaizers
penanced and eight reconciled, two reconciliations for Mahometanism,
twenty-one effigies of Judaizers burnt and one burning in person. In the
latter there was one penitent brought from the Philippines for suspicion
of Mahometanism, who escaped with abjuration _de levi_ and servitude for
life in a convent for instruction; there were two for personating
priesthood and administering sacraments without orders, who received 300
and 200 lashes respectively and were sent to the galleys; one for
marrying in orders, who abjured _de vehementi_ and was sent to serve in
a hospital for five years; a bigamist who had 200 lashes and the
galleys; a _curandera_, who employed charms to cure disease and was
visited with 200 lashes and perpetual exile from Puebla, and finally
there were twenty-one Judaizers. Of these, two escaped with fines of
2000 and 3000 ducats respectively and perpetual exile from Mexico, one
was only exiled and eighteen were reconciled with confiscation and
various terms of imprisonment, in addition to which five of them were
scourged and, of these latter, two were also sent to the galleys.[464]

The great _auto general_ of April 11, 1649, marks the apogee of the
Mexican Inquisition and of this we have a very florid account, written
by an official.[465] A month in advance the solemn proclamation
announcing it was made in Mexico, March 11th, with a gorgeous
procession, to the sound of trumpet and drum, and this had previously
been sent to every town in New Spain, so that it was published
everywhere at the same hour. Consequently, for a fortnight in advance of
the appointed day, crowds began to pour in, some of them from a distance
of a hundred or two hundred leagues, till, as we are told, it looked as
though the country had been depopulated. The reporter exhausts his
eloquence in describing the magnificence of the procession of the Green
Cross, on the afternoon preceding the auto, when all the nobles and
gentlemen of the city, in splendid holiday attire, took part, and the
standard of the Inquisition was borne by the Count of Santiago, whose
grandfather had done the same in the great auto of 1574 and his father
in that of 1601. A double line of coaches extended through the streets,
from the Inquisition to the plazuela del Volador, where the ceremonies
were to be performed, and so anxious were their occupants not to lose
their positions that they remained in them all night and until the show
was over. It might seem that all Mexico, from the highest to the lowest,
was assembled to demonstrate the ardor of its faith and to gain the
indulgence which the Vicar of Christ bestowed on those who were present
at these crowning exhibitions of the triumph of the Church Militant.
Inside of the Inquisition the night was spent in notifying of their
approaching fate those who were about to die and in preparing them for
death.

Of the one hundred and nine convicts there was but one Protestant, a
Frenchman named François Razin, condemned to abjure for vehement
suspicion of heresy and to two years’ service in a convent for
instructions; as he was penniless, we are told that he was not fined.
There were nine Judaizers who abjured for vehement suspicion and were
banished to Spain; three of them, being impoverished, were not fined but
on the other six were imposed mulcts, ranging from 1000 to 6000 ducats,
amounting in all to 15,000 ducats and one in addition had 200 lashes.
There were nineteen reconciled, whose estates of course were
confiscated, as also were those of the relaxed, seventy-eight in number.
Of these, fifty-seven were effigies of the dead, of whom ten had died in
prison, two of the latter being suicides, in addition to which were
eight effigies of fugitives. Thirteen were relaxed in person, but of
these twelve were garroted before burning, having professed repentance
and conversion in time. Only one was burnt alive--the hero of the
occasion, Tomás Treviño of Sobremonte. His mother had been burnt at
Valladolid, and nearly all of his kindred, as well as those of his wife,
had been inmates of the Inquisition. He had been reconciled in the auto
of 1625 and there could be no mercy for a relapsed apostate, though he
could have escaped the fiery death by professing conversion again. He
had lain in prison for five years during his trial, always denying his
guilt, but when notified of his conviction, the night before the auto,
he proclaimed himself a Jew, declaring that he would die as such, nor
could the combined efforts of all the assembled confessors shake his
resolution. To silence what were styled his blasphemies, he was taken to
the auto gagged, in spite of which he made audible assertion of his
faith and of his contempt for Christianity. It is related that, after
his sentence, when he was mounted to be taken to the quemadero, the
patient mule assigned to him refused to carry so great a sinner; six
others were tried with the same result and he was obliged to walk until
a broken-down horse was brought, which had not spirit enough to dislodge
its unholy burden. An Indian was mounted behind him, who sought to
convert him and, enraged at his failure, beat him about the mouth to
check his blasphemies. Undaunted to the last, he drew the blazing brands
towards him with his feet and his last audible words were--“Pile on the
wood; how much my money costs me!”[466]

The inquisitor-general, Arce y Reynoso, on October 15, 1649,
congratulated Philip IV on this triumph of the faith, which had been the
source of joy and consolation and universal applause, whereat the pious
monarch expressed his gratification and desired the inquisitors to be
thanked in his name. As summarized by Arce y Reynoso the results of the
four autos were two hundred and seven penitents of whom a hundred and
ninety were Jews, nearly all Portuguese. There was one drawback to his
satisfaction. The penitents sentenced to banishment were directed to be
sent to Spain, and repeated royal orders required that they should be
transported free of charge, but the captains of all vessels, both naval
and commercial, refused to carry them without pay and, as they had been
stripped of all their possessions, they could not defray the
passage-money themselves, while the Inquisition made no offer to supply
the funds. Consequently they remained in Vera Cruz or wandered through
the land, throwing off their sanbenitos and infecting the population
with their errors. Arce y Reynoso suggested to the king that he should
give them rations while on board ship so as to help to bring them over.
It never seemed to occur to him that the Inquisition, which was
enriching itself with their confiscations, could spare the trifle
requisite for the execution of its sentences on these homeless and
penniless wretches.[467]

After this supreme manifestation of its authority, the Inquisition
became again somewhat inert, for its attention was largely absorbed in
settling the details of the confiscations which involved the greater
portion of Mexican commerce.[468] The tribunal had its routine business
of bigamists, soliciting confessors and women guilty of so-called
sorcery--cases usually despatched in the audience-chamber--though there
was an _auto particular_ celebrated October 29, 1656. In 1659, however,
there was a public auto on November 19th which, though not large, merits
attention by its severity and the peculiarity of some of the
delinquents. Of these there were thirty-two in all--twelve blasphemers,
two bigamists, one forger, one false witness, one for violating the
secrecy of the prison, one who had been reconciled for Judaism in 1649
and had thrown off the sanbenito, a woman for suspicion of Judaism, an
alumbrado, or mystic, with visions and revelations. Then there were two
sisters Romero, prosecuted for fraudulent visions and revelations, of
whom one was acquitted and the other had 200 lashes and ten years’
service in a hospital--a third sister having been penanced in the auto
particular of 1656. There was also Manuel Méndez, a Portuguese,
suspected of Judaism, who had died in prison and was now acquitted.
Another Portuguese, Diego Díaz, was not so fortunate; he had been
condemned in 1649 to abjuration _de vehementi_ and perpetual banishment,
but he did not leave Mexico; arrested February 26, 1652, he had lain in
prison awaiting an auto and was now sentenced to be burnt alive as
pertinaciously impenitent; by mistake the executioner commenced to
garrote him, but was stopped by the alguazil mayor, who ordered the fire
lighted, so that he had both punishments. Similar was the case of
Francisco Botello, arrested in 1642, sentenced in 1649 to 200 lashes and
banishment, remaining in Mexico, arrested again in 1650 and now garroted
and burnt. These two cases indicate the treatment accorded to those
alluded to above, who, after being stripped of their property, were
ordered to leave the country, but were not furnished with means to do
so.

Another convict, Francisco López de Aponte, was accused of pact with the
demon and of heresies. He gave signs of insanity, but on examination by
physicians was pronounced sane. Under severe torture he remained
perfectly quiescent and insensible to pain, which could only be
explained by diabolical aid, so he was shaved all over and inspected
carefully for charms or for the devil’s mark, but in vain. A second
torture was endured with the same indifference and he was condemned to
relaxation as an apostate heretic. On the night before the auto he said
to the confessor who endeavored to convert him “There is no God, nor
hell, nor glory; it is all a lie; there is birth and death and that is
all.” During the auto he manifested no emotion and was burnt alive as an
impenitent.

Juan Gomez had been arrested, May 28, 1658, as an Illuminist and
_herége sacramentario_, for teaching many opinions contrary to the
Catholic faith. Condemned to relaxation, he maintained his heresies
until, during the auto, he weakened and professed repentance,
notwithstanding which he was burnt alive.

Pedro García de Arias was a wandering hermit who, although uneducated,
had written three mystic books containing erroneous doctrine. When on
trial he claimed that he had never committed sin, and he abused the
Inquisition, for which he was scourged through the streets with 200
lashes. When notified of his condemnation to relaxation he protested
that he would not beg for mercy, but on the staging he asked for an
audience, in which he insisted that there were no errors in what he had
written. Nevertheless he was garroted before burning, when his books,
hung around his neck, were consumed with him.

Sebastian Alvárez was an old man who claimed to be Jesus Christ, but was
pronounced to be sane by the experts who examined him. He persisted in
his delusion and was sentenced to relaxation. On the staging he asked
for an audience and was remanded to the Inquisition, where two days
later he had an audience and, as he still asserted himself to be Christ,
he was sentenced to burning alive if he did not retract. On the way to
the quemadero he retracted and was garroted before burning.

In this curious assemblage of eccentric humanity, the most remarkable of
all was an Irishman named variously William Lamport or Guillen Lombardo
de Guzman. He had lain in prison since his arrest as far back as October
25, 1642, on a denunciation that he was plotting to sever Mexico from
Spain and make himself an independent sovereign, for he claimed to be
the son of Philip III by an Irish woman, and thus half-brother to Philip
IV. This was his real offence, but the Inquisition claimed jurisdiction
because he had consulted an Indian sorcerer and certain astrologers to
assure the success of his enterprise. The details of his scheme show
that it was suggested by the success with which, in June, 1642, Bishop
Palafox, acting under secret orders from Philip, had ousted from the
viceroyalty the Marquis of Escalona, who was suspected of treasonable
leanings towards João of Braganza and the revolted Portuguese. With the
aid of an Indian singularly skilled in forgery, Lamport had drawn up all
the necessary royal decrees which would enable him to seize control, on
the arrival of the expected new viceroy, the Count of Salvatierra. Yet
he was no common adventurer, but a man of wide and various learning,
thoroughly familiar with English, French, Spanish, Italian, Latin and
Greek, with the classical poets and philosophers, with the Scriptures
and the fathers and with theology and mathematics. This was proved by
the memorials which he drew up in prison, without the aid of books, yet
full of citations and extracts in all languages and of scripture texts.
These were scrutinized by the calificador who verified the citations and
found them all correct and who moreover certified that there were no
errors of faith.

In the account of his life, which all prisoners of the Inquisition were
required to give, he stated that he had been born in England, from which
he had fled in his twelfth year because of a pamphlet entitled _Defensio
Fidei_ which he had written against the king. After marvellous
adventures in many regions, in which he had rendered services to Spain,
Philip IV had summoned him to Madrid, where Olivares patronized him. He
was then sent to Flanders to aid the Cardinal Infante, to whose success
he largely contributed, especially at the battle of Nördlingen (1634).
After much other service, Philip gave him the title of Marquis of
Cropani and the viceroyalty of Mexico, from which he was to eject the
occupant--and for this he held forged royal cédulas. That there was some
residuum of truth at the bottom of his story would appear from his
familiarity with details of persons and events, and there is no doubt
that he was an object of interest in Madrid, for a royal cédula of May
13, 1643, ordered the case to be expedited and that after his punishment
all his papers should be given to the judge, Andrés Gomez de Mora. Why
the case should then have been protracted for seventeen years is
inexplicable, unless it was designed to keep him imprisoned for life,
but, however that may be, he continued to be a source of solicitude,
not unkindly, for the Suprema, under royal orders, wrote June 21, 1550,
that he should be given a cell-companion to alleviate his confinement if
he so desired and that every care should be taken of his life. Again, on
July 7, 1660, when the Suprema received the account of his relaxation,
it wrote to ask why this had been done against its express orders.
Altogether the case is a mystery to which the clue is lost.

Diego Pinto, the companion given to share his confinement, was soon won
over to join him in a plan of escape, which was executed December 26,
1650, with remarkable skill and perseverance. In place of flying to some
safe retreat Lamport spent the night in affixing in various prominent
places certain writings which he had prepared, and in persuading a
sentinel at the palace to convey one to the viceroy urging him to arrest
the inquisitors as traitors. Towards dawn he induced a householder to
take him in and awaited the result of his papers, besides writing
others, when the host became apprehensive and made him remove to another
house. No time was lost by the tribunal in issuing a proclamation,
describing his person and ordering his capture under severe penalties;
his host promptly reported him and he was carried back to the
Inquisition, when he was lodged in an exceptionally strong cell, his
feet in stocks and his hands in fetters. In January, 1654, he asked for
writing materials, with which he composed a tremendous attack on the
Inquisition, and during the winter he utilized the sheets of his bed to
write a book, which when transcribed proved to be a treatise in Latin
verse which filled 270 closely written pages. He had now lain twelve
years in prison without trial; his overwrought brain was giving way and
his insanity became more and more manifest. At last the time for the
auto approached and, on October 8, 1659, without further audience, the
accusation was presented; the trial proceeded swiftly and on November
6th sentence was pronounced, condemning him to relaxation for divination
and superstitious cures showing express or implicit pact with the
demon, besides which he had plotted rebellion and was a heretic sectary
of Calvin, Pelagius, Huss, Luther and other heresiarchs and an inventor
and dogmatizer of new heresies. As a special punishment for his
defamatory libels and forgery of royal decrees, he was to listen to his
sentence on the scaffold with a gag and hanging by his right arm
fastened to an iron ring. During the night before the auto he assailed
with opprobrious epithets the holy men who sought to save his soul; he
exclaimed that a hundred legions of devils had entered his cell with
them and finally he covered his head with the bed-clothes and refused to
speak. At the auto on the staging he was like a statue and at the stake
he escaped burning alive by throwing himself against the iron ring
encircling his throat with such force that it killed him.[469]

The last act of the tragedy was the burning of the effigy of Joseph
Bruñon de Vertiz, a priest whose offence was that he had been the dupe
of the imposture of the Romero sisters and had reduced to writing their
visions and revelations. Arrested September 9, 1649, he speedily
admitted that he had been deceived and cast himself on the mercy of the
inquisitors, vainly endeavoring to ascertain what was the nature of the
charge against him so that he could confess and retract whatever errors
were imputed to him. It was not, however, the _estilo_ of the
Inquisition to do more than to tell the accused to search his memory and
clear his conscience and after eighteen months of this suspense Bruñon’s
mind commenced to give way. He was left in his cell apparently
forgotten, except when he would seek an audience to ask for writing
materials with which, in 1652 and 1654, he drew up and presented attacks
upon the tribunal of a character to show that he was becoming insane
through despair. No notice was taken of these ebullitions and on April
30, 1656, he died without the sacraments, after six years and a half of
incarceration, during which he had never been informed of the charges
against him. His body was thrust into unconsecrated ground and the trial
was continued against his fame and memory as an alumbrado heretic, in
an accusation presented May 11, 1657. There was no defence possible by
his kindred; he was duly condemned and in this auto of November 19,
1659, his effigy was brought forward, clad in priestly garments, the
impressive ceremony of degradation was performed and it was cast into
the flames with his bones exhumed for the purpose.[470]

Cruel as all this performance may seem to us, it was in strict
conformity with the convictions of the age and, when Philip IV received
the report of the auto, he warmly congratulated the inquisitor-general
on the vigilance which preserved the purity of the faith by inflicting
merited chastisement.[471]

With this auto the murderous activity of the tribunal may be said
virtually to end. Until the end of the century its business consisted
almost exclusively in the commonplace routine of bigamists, blasphemers,
petty sorcerers, soliciting confessors, clerics administering the
sacraments without priest’s orders and the like. Thus in an auto
celebrated January 15, 1696, out of twenty-six penitents, there was but
one heretic with a sanbenito; there was a Greek schismatic reconciled
and the rest were sixteen bigamists, one Franciscan tertiary for
Illuminism, a woman for imposture and four men and two women for the
superstitious practices conveniently classed as sorcery with explicit or
implicit pact with the demon.[472] Yet during this half-century there
were a couple of cases showing that a nearly bloodless career was not
due to any surcease of fanatic zeal. In November, 1673, was arrested a
wandering hermit named Juan Bautista de Cardenas, charged with being
_iluso y alumbrado_, with grave suspicion of sacramentarian heresy.
After giving the customary account of his life he took refuge in
absolute silence, which suggested that he was possessed by a demon, but
exorcism proved unavailing. Sharp torture was then tried, but it
elicited only the usual shrieks of pain. The conclusion drawn from this
was that he was a contumacious heretic and in July, 1675, he was
condemned to relaxation, when, on being notified of it, he only said
that if he was carried to the quemadero he would die for God. The
tribunal however did not dare to execute its own sentence and sent the
papers to the Suprema which, June 22, 1676, altered it to abjuration _de
levi_, deprivation of the habit he wore and exile from the cities of
Mexico and Puebla, adding that the torture had been abusive seeing that
he had not been formally testified against for heresy. The other case
was that of Fray Francisco Manuel de Cuadros, who had left his Order and
practised as a _curandero_, or curer of disease by charms. He was thrown
in prison, November 14, 1663, and during his trial, which was protracted
for nearly fifteen years, he confessed to being an agnostic, except as
to the existence of God, but he admitted that he was ignorant and
half-crazy. At the auto of March 20, 1679, he was condemned to
relaxation after degradation, but at the quemadero he showed signs of
repentance, in virtue of which he was admitted to the sacraments and was
strangled before burning.[473]

       *       *       *       *       *

In the public autos there is no trace of one of the principal duties of
the Inquisition in the repression of the prevalent crime of the
seduction of women by their confessors, euphemistically known as
solicitation in the confessional. Even as bigamy had been brought under
inquisitorial jurisdiction by the somewhat forced assumption that it
implied erroneous belief in the sacrament of matrimony, so solicitation
was held to infer in the confessor error as to the sacrament of
penitence. At least this was the reason alleged when, recognizing that
the spiritual courts were useless to check the practice, Paul IV, in
1561 entrusted its suppression in the Spanish dominions to the
Inquisition, and Gregory XV, in 1622, extended this to other lands in
which the Holy Office existed. Priests, however, for the avoidance of
scandal, were never paraded in public autos, unless they were to be
deprived of their orders; their sentences were read in the
audience-chamber with closed doors and in the presence only of a
selected number of their brethren, to whom the fate of the culprit
should serve as a wholesome warning.[474] While, therefore, the
knowledge of this offence was sedulously kept from the public, it gave
the tribunal considerable occupation. The morals of the Colonial clergy,
for the most part, were notoriously loose and, in the solitary missions
and parishes among the natives, evil passions had free rein.[475] This
was enhanced by the almost assured prospect of immunity, for the women
seduced were the only possible accusers and it has always proved
exceedingly difficult to induce them to denounce their seducers.
Naturally therefore the Inquisition, on its establishment, was speedily
called upon to prosecute such culprits and, up to 1577, it already had
five cases.[476] It seems however not to have enforced its exclusive
jurisdiction over the offence if we may judge from the proceedings in
the case of Fray Juan de Saldaña, in 1583, for when it assumed the
prosecution he was undergoing six months’ imprisonment by his superiors
because at Tequitatlan he had violated an Indian girl and, when she
refused to continue the connection, he had her arrested and flogged,
after which she submitted. Though only 34 years of age he was a person
of consideration in his Franciscan Order, he had occupied various
positions of importance and at this time was guardian of the convent of
Suchipila, where he seduced three sisters, his penitents, the daughters
of Diego Flores, the _encomendero_ of Suchipila and a person of
distinction. There seems to have been little or no concealment about it;
he boasted openly of the women he had seduced, Spanish as well as
Indian, not only in Suchipila but in his visitations, and he evidently
had no idea that he was incurring risk of the Inquisition, for when
remonstrated with he asked what his prelates could do to him--it was
only a dozen strokes of the discipline and a year’s suspension from his
guardianship. When brought to trial he was frank in his admissions; two
years before he had been deprived of confessing Spanish women, but as
guardian he had licence to do so; he mentioned seven Indian women whom
he had seduced in confession besides a mestizo and several Spaniards. In
these cases, the accusation of the fiscal and the exordium of the
sentence are eloquently rhetorical as to the heinous guilt in one,
clothed with the awful power of the priesthood, using that power to lead
astray the souls seeking salvation through him, but when it came to
defining the penalty there is a tenderness which suggests that in
reality the offence was regarded as much less important than aberration
on some minute point of faith. When his sentence was read, May 5, 1584,
he was subjected to the discipline for the space of a _miserere_; he was
deprived of the faculty of confessing, was suspended from orders for six
years, was recluded for two years in a convent with the customary
disabilities and was banished for six years from the see of
Guadalajara.[477]

Such treatment was not adapted to strengthen the carnal-minded against
temptation so severe and the vice flourished accordingly. As the
inquisitors stated in a letter to the Suprema of May 22, 1619, it was a
very frequent offence in those parts and many confessors regarded it as
trivial,[478] and the list of cases of solicitation for the years 1622-4
contains fifty-six names, of which seven were from Manila, for the
Philippines were a dependency of the Mexican tribunal. That leniency
increased with time may be assumed from the case, in 1721, of Fray
Francisco Diego de Zarate, President of the Mission of Santa María de
los Angeles of Rio Blanca, a Franciscan entrusted with many important
positions. The summary in his trial states that the evidence collected
proved a hundred and twenty-six acts of solicitation with fifty-six
women and that it was his habit to solicit every one who came to him to
confess. It is impossible to conceive anything more brutal than some of
the details of the evidence; the offence in many cases was almost public
and might have continued indefinitely had he not banished from Rio
Blanco a woman and her family because she resisted him, whereupon she
talked and created a scandal that rendered action necessary. Of the
women, twenty-one were Indians, eight were Spaniards (one of them his
near relative), eight Mulattos, four Mestizos and fifteen whose race is
not specified. When the accusation, detailing all the cases, was read to
him, he admitted its correctness and indeed he had previously made a
written confession which contained a large number that had escaped the
investigations of the prosecution. Aggravated as was this case Fray
Francisco escaped with a second reading of his sentence in the
Franciscan convent, where a circular discipline was administered,
perpetual deprivation of confessing and of active and passive voice in
his Order, six months’ suspension from celebrating mass and two years’
reclusion in a convent, of which the first was to be passed in a cell
with fasting on bread and water on Fridays and Saturdays, and the last
place in choir and refectory.[479] Yet inadequate as was the habitual
treatment of the offence by the Inquisition, it was regarded as unduly
harsh by the clerical authorities. The inquisitors, in a letter of 1666
to the Suprema, by way of illustrating the prevalent laxity of the
Religious Orders, mention that after they had penanced four frailes for
solicitation, they were applied to to remove the restrictions which
prevented the culprits from being promoted to prelacies.[480]
Self-denunciation, as in Spain, was tolerably certain to win virtual
immunity. In 1712, Luis Marin, vicar of Nativitas, accused himself by
letter, to which the tribunal promptly responded by summoning him to
appear within thirty days, but that only a reprimand was intended is
evident from the summons being accompanied with a faculty to absolve him
from the excommunication incurred, sent to Padre Fernández de Córdova,
S. J., who was instructed to counsel him to abstain for the present from
confessing women.[481]

The very miscellaneous functions assumed by the Inquisition in extending
its jurisdiction over a variety of matters foreign to its original
purpose is illustrated by a fortuitous collection of 397 cases between
its commencement in 1572 and the year 1800. In these the offences
alleged are[482]--

Bigamy                             76
Judaism                            71
Offences against the Inquisition   49
Solicitation                       44
Blasphemy                          39
Sorcery and superstitions          29
Heresy                             20
Propositions                       13
Illuminism                         12
False witness                      10
Personating priesthood              7
Miscellaneous                      27

The considerable proportion of offences against the Inquisition arose
from the perpetual troubles caused by what was known as its temporal
jurisdiction, apart from its spiritual sphere of action. Every one
connected with it in an official capacity, however insignificant, with
his family, servants and slaves, was entitled, in a greater or less
degree, to the _fuero_, or jurisdiction of the Holy Office, and to
exemption from pleading or prosecution in the secular court if a layman,
or the episcopal court if an ecclesiastic. As favoritism rendered this
privilege virtually an immunity for crime it was eagerly sought and, as
it was the source of influence and of profitable business, the tribunal
endeavored to extend its jurisdiction in every way, with little regard
to the limits imposed by law. This led to constant conflicts between the
rival jurisdictions, in which the tribunal used without scruple its
faculties of excommunication and of treating any opposition as an
attempt to impede its freedom of action, a crime to be prosecuted and
severely punished. In Spain these irreconcilable pretensions were the
cause of constant troubles, the settlement of which was through the
process known as _competencia_, carrying them up to the Supreme Council
of the Inquisition on the one hand and to the Council of Castile or of
Aragon on the other, with the monarch as the final arbiter. In the
Colonies, however, as we shall see, this system was practically eluded,
and the tribunals became even more arbitrarily lawless than those of the
home country, sometimes abusing their power after a fashion that
involved the whole land in confusion, for in matters of faith they had
no superior, short of the inquisitor-general, and it rested with
themselves to define what was, directly or indirectly, a matter of
faith.

There were two classes of officials whose claims to the _fuero_
were different. Those known as _titulados y asalariados_ were
directly employed in the tribunal, holding commissions from the
inquisitor-general, enjoying salaries and understood to devote
themselves exclusively to its service. For them and their families and
dependants the fuero was complete, in both civil and criminal matters,
and both active and passive--that is, whether as plaintiff or defendant.
They were comparatively few in number, their position was unchallenged
and, whatever may have been the injustice and oppression thence arising,
there was little occasion for dispute. Beyond these were the unsalaried
officials--commissioners and their notaries and alguazils, stationed at
all important centres, consultors, _calificadores_ or censors and, above
all, familiars numerously scattered throughout the land. All these
pursued their regular avocations and only acted when called on for
special service; they received no salary, but the positions were eagerly
sought, chiefly on account of the privileges and immunities which they
conferred. Of these the familiars were by far the most numerous and
troublesome. In Spain the definition of their privileges had been the
subject of numerous settlements known as Concordias and, when Philip II
established the colonial tribunals, he endeavored to forestall trouble
by extending to them the Castilian Concordia of 1553, which was much
less favorable to the familiars than those of the kingdoms of Aragon
and, at the same time, he sought to limit the number of appointees.

Among the documents issued in 1570 is a cédula addressed to the colonial
authorities, in which Philip conveys to them the regulations adopted by
the inquisitor-general. In the city of Mexico there are allowed twelve
familiars, in the cathedral towns four, in other towns one. Lists of
these and of all changes are to be furnished to the local magistracy, so
that they may see that the number is not exceeded and, in case of
improper appointments, they are to report to the tribunal or, if
necessary, to the inquisitor-general. In civil suits the familiars are
not entitled to the fuero, whether as plaintiffs or defendants. In
criminal matters not as plaintiffs while, as defendants, they are to
enjoy it except in cases of treason, unnatural crime, raising popular
commotions, forging letters of safe-conduct, resistance to royal
commands, abduction or violation of women, highway robbery, house or
church breaking, arson of houses or harvests and “other crimes greater
than these” and also in resistance or disrespect to the royal judges.
Excepted also is official malfeasance in those holding public office.
Arrest by secular judges is permitted, in cases entitled to the fuero,
provided the culprit is handed over to the Inquisition, together with
the evidence, which is to be at his expense. If the offence is committed
outside of the city of Mexico, the offender cannot return to his place
of residence without exhibiting a copy of the inquisitorial sentence,
with evidence of its fulfilment. By a cédula of May 13, 1572, moreover,
offences committed against Indians were added to the excepted
cases.[483]

This all appears definite enough, but it was easily evaded. At first
there seems to have been a disposition to conform to its intent. In
1575 a familiar named Rodrigo de Yepes, who had given the lie to, and
repeatedly struck in the face, the alcalde of Valladola, was arrested by
the civil magistrate and claimed by the tribunal but, after a
competencia, or discussion of the case by the civil and inquisitorial
authorities, the latter admitted that it was excepted and surrendered
him. On the other hand, in 1615, Diego de Carmona Jamariz, a familiar of
Puebla, was arrested for the murder of his enemy, Joan de Olivárez, and
was surrendered to the Inquisition without a competencia, although
murder would seem to be a greater crime than highway robbery or
burglary. The widow prosecuted him before the tribunal, but it was
useless and the case was dropped. In Spain, the Inquisition had devised
the ingenious argument that, until a crime was proved, it could not be
classed as excepted and therefore the affair was under its jurisdiction
until conviction, which enabled it to protect its familiars, and this
plea was used, in 1616, in the case of Gonzalo Antúnez Yáñez, a
familiar, prosecuted by order of the viceroy.[484]

It was not only the familiars who gave trouble, but the numerous other
unsalaried officials. The commissioners with their notaries and
alguazils formed little groups in the provincial towns, of which the
members supported each other and set the magistrates and courts at
defiance. In the original instructions issued to the inquisitors they
were admonished to be careful in the selection of commissioners, who
were not to interfere with the constituted authorities or to provoke
quarrels, but were merely to execute the mandates of the tribunal and to
report on such matters as should present themselves.[485] Distance and
the difficulty of communication, however, rendered them prone to abuse
their position, and in this they were emboldened by the unwavering
support of the tribunal. Throughout all the Spanish Colonies the
commissioner was an object of dread and the subject of perpetual
complaint on the part of the secular and ecclesiastical powers. The
general sentiment is expressed, as late as 1777, by Santiago Joseph,
Bishop of Cuba, in a letter to Inquisitor-general Bertran. All the
commissioners whom he had known, he said, had been ignorant persons,
with the exception of one whose term of service was brief. There was no
salary to attract competent men and the place was taken only to serve as
an excuse for neglecting all clerical functions and duties. The commerce
of Havana brought numerous heretics who scattered their poison and he
dared not interpose for fear of the consequences of invading
inquisitorial jurisdiction. The existing incumbent paid no attention to
this and, when not absent, was wholly occupied in stirring up quarrels
with the civil authorities.[486]

The commissioners of Mexico fully justified this characterization by the
good bishop. In the great majority of cases the hopelessness of
resistance to their arbitrary acts caused submission, but occasionally
one emerges to light which illustrates the spirit animating the
Inquisition and its officials. In 1699, Father Pistoya, S. J., the
ecclesiastical judge of Sinaloa, prosecuted Martin de Verastegui for
incestuous adultery with Maria García. Thereupon his intimate friend,
Pérez de Ribera, the commissioner, to protect him, promptly appointed
him notary, an act for which he had no authority. Pistoya sent the
evidence in the case to the royal court of Guadalajara (Jalisco), which
ordered the Governor of Sinaloa, Don Jacinto de Fuensaldaña, to arrest
the guilty pair, embargo their property and send them to the royal
prison of Guadalajara. Ribera claimed him as an official of the
Inquisition and, on refusal, excommunicated the governor and the
military officers who had executed his orders and posted them as such on
the tablillas of the church. The tribunal sustained its commissioner;
the governor was obliged to appear before it and beg for absolution; the
commissioner was empowered to take testimony in the case and report it
to the tribunal, which naturally found the parties innocent and
Verastegui was rewarded with a genuine notary’s commission in lieu of
the fictitious one which had protected him from justice. It is no wonder
that, in replying to their report of another outrageous case in 1695,
the Suprema had sharply rebuked the inquisitors, ordering them to act
with justice and moderation and prevent the complaints of their
proceedings, which came daily to the king from the Council of Indies,
but the case of Verastegui shows how little respect they paid to the
admonition.[487]

Yet, with all this, there were comparatively few of the bitter
struggles, so frequent in Spain during this period, between the royal
and inquisitorial jurisdictions. It was not that the inquisitors were
less arbitrary and audacious than at home, for their distance from the
court rendered them even more independent, but that the secular
magistracy felt its weakness and offered less resolute resistance. Spain
was far off and the viceroy, though representing the royal autocracy,
was under strict orders to show every favor to the Inquisition. There
was kept in the royal chancellery the formula of a letter to all
viceroys, emphasizing the great services of the Inquisition to religion
and to the king and ordering it to be favored and guarded in all its
privileges, exemptions and liberties, including those of its officials
and familiars. Adherence to this would be regarded as most acceptable
service and the contrary would not be permitted.[488] This portentous
document was sent to the Viceroys of Mexico and Peru in 1603 and was
doubtless repeated to them whenever necessary, as it was to other royal
representatives at subsequent periods. As a rule however the viceroys
and the tribunal were at odds and their quarrels were not conducive to
popular tranquillity or edification. More than once we find viceroys
like Mancera, Cerralbo and Gelvez threatening the inquisitors with
banishment.[489]

As a matter of course, under such auspices, colonial inquisitors could
never be restrained within the limit of their rightful prerogatives,
great as these were. A royal cédula of January 20, 1587, scolds those of
Lima for illegal protection of their familiars and for vexing the local
magistrates by summoning them from long distances before the tribunal.
Another of March 8, 1589, rebukes them for creating too many familiars
and other officials. Another of August 23, 1595, reprimands those of
Mexico for supporting a familiar in refusing to render an account to the
royal chancery of his functions as custom-house officer at Vera
Cruz.[490] These complaints were of almost daily occurrence until at
length Philip III sought to cut them off at the root by forming a junta
of two members from each of the Councils of the Inquisition and of
Indies to advise him. After mature deliberation they did so and the
result is what is known as the Concordia of 1610. The prohibitions
embodied in this are eloquent of the audacity of the inquisitors in
exceeding their functions, abusing their authority in matters wholly
outside of their jurisdiction and exercising an insufferably vexatious
petty tyranny, the exasperating effect of which was intensified by the
immunity enjoyed by the servants and slaves of the officials. These were
justiciable only by the tribunal, which invariably protected them, so
that the community was exposed without redress to the insolence of a
class peculiarly apt to abuse its privileges.

Under pain of forfeiture of office the inquisitors were forbidden,
directly or indirectly, by themselves or their kindred, to farm the
public revenues or to prevent their being farmed to the highest bidder.
Neither they nor the salaried officials were to engage in any kind of
trade, under the same penalty. They were not to claim the right of
seizing articles at an appraised price, except under urgent necessity
for the support of the prisoners or buildings of the Inquisition. Their
negroes were not to carry arms except when accompanying their masters.
They were not to defend commissioners or familiars in frauds on the
revenue nor in refusing to render an account of deposits made with them
by order of court. They were not to detain the couriers and messengers
who served as a rudimentary post-office and were to remove the
prohibition against vessels leaving port or passengers departing without
their licence. They were not to arrest the royal alguazils except for
grave and notorious excess against the Inquisition. They were to be
allowed one alguazil in Vera Cruz and were to dismiss all those
appointed elsewhere.[491] They were not to protect familiars, who held
public office, when prosecuted for official malfeasance, nor
commissioners who held benefices for offences committed in their
character of incumbents. They were not to order universities to grant
degrees in contravention of their statutes, nor were they to interfere
in matters of government apart from their functions. They were not to
excommunicate a viceroy in cases of competencia, nor was the viceroy to
evoke to himself a case that might lead to a competencia. A provision
was also made for the settlement of competencias without the tedious
resort to the councils in Spain. If the senior judge and senior
inquisitor could not agree in their conference, the inquisitors were to
name three ecclesiastical dignitaries to the viceroy, who was to select
one; he was to be adjoined to the judge and inquisitor and the majority
was to decide or, if there were three discordant opinions, the viceroy
was to choose between them.[492]

This project for the settlement of competencias was ineffective. A
cédula of February 7, 1569, had extended to the colonies the system in
force at home, and under it there had been in Mexico, during the
remainder of the century, seven cases; there was one in 1601 and another
in 1602, after which they ceased.[493] Solorzano tells us that they were
not revived by the new regulations, which omitted to specify the place
where the conferences were to be held, and the judges and inquisitors
each summoned the others to come to them. The judges had old custom and
royal cédulas on their side, but the inquisitors refused compliance
because the orders had not been transmitted to them through the Suprema
which they claimed was requisite to their validity, and thus important
cases, both civil and criminal, remained undecided, to the great injury
of individuals and the public. Moved by the complaints thus occasioned,
Philip III, in a cédula of November 19, 1618, ordered that the
conferences be held in the vice-regal palace, where the senior judge was
to have precedence over the inquisitor, and this was repeated in a
cédula to the court of Lima, May 28, 1621, but again the inquisitors of
both Mexico and Peru refused obedience on the same pretext as before.
Thus cases continued undecided until the urgency of the Council of
Indies led Philip IV to consult both councils and, in 1636, he ordered
that the judge and inquisitor should meet before the viceroy, the one
who was senior in office taking the right hand.[494] This compromise did
not suit the pretensions of the Holy Office for precedence and it gained
the victory in a cédula of May 30, 1640, which recites that, after many
conferences, it was determined that the senior judge must go to the
Inquisition, where the senior inquisitor was to have precedence, when
the competencia was to be settled under the provisions of the Concordia
of 1610.[495] Apparently this assumption of their inferiority was
insufferable to the judges, for no formal competencia occurred between
1602 and 1711. Matters in dispute were occasionally referred to the
councils in Spain, but this was of little benefit for it was usually
the last heard of the case.[496] To appreciate fully the cruelty of all
this, we must reflect that perhaps some accused person or unlucky
alguazil, arrested for executing the orders of his superiors, might be
languishing in gaol for a life-time, awaiting the settlement of a
conflict of jurisdiction which could never be settled.

Whether or not the other prescriptions of the Concordia of 1610 were
better observed than those concerning competencias it would be difficult
to determine, but the presumption is adverse. At all events,
inquisitorial ingenuity was constantly devising new methods of
aggression and further complaints led Philip IV to assemble a junta of
two members of each council, whose conferences resulted in the enactment
of another Concordia, published April 11, 1633. Many of its clauses
relate to the ever-present question of precedence, which need not detain
us here, except the suggestive one that, at bull-fights in the plaza,
the first courses are to be performed before the secular authorities,
unless the latter, of their own accord, desire that honor to be paid to
the inquisitors. Equally suggestive in another way are the prescriptions
that commissioners shall treat the public courteously and that
inquisitors shall treat the judges with respect and shall cease
molesting the officers of the royal courts with censures and summoning
and detaining them. They are again forbidden to engage in trade and are
told not to interfere with the elections of secular officials nor, in
times of scarcity, are they to persecute with excommunications the
guards in charge of boats bringing grain, but are to apply to the
viceroy, who will promptly supply their wants. The prohibition of
detaining ships is repeated, but they are allowed to grant licences for
sailing and for individuals to depart, which practically amounted to the
same thing. The inquisitors seem to have gained their point as to the
right of seizing goods and materials at a “just price,” for this is
allowed, subject to some limitations. The inviolability of the domicile
of inquisitors is admitted in the provision that it is not to be abused
by secreting goods to the prejudice of third parties; and, in the case
of salaried officials, it is limited by a clause that when it is
necessary for officers of justice to enter the house of such official,
or of the widow of one during her widowhood, notice shall first be given
to the tribunal, which shall appoint one of its ministers to be present,
with an appointee of the viceroy or court and, if such an appointment is
not made within two or three hours, the entry can be made without longer
waiting. One of the petty privileges which gave rise to constant
exacerbation is indicated in the provision that, of the cattle
slaughtered in the public shambles, there shall be given weekly the
chine and chitterlings of ten oxen--two to each of the inquisitors, one
to the alguazil and secretaries, one to the receiver and notary of
sequestrations, and the rest to the poor prisoners; this is said to be
all that the tribunal is entitled to and anything more must be paid for,
nor shall its servants take the chitterlings and sell them.[497]

Concordias were only attempts to restrain existing abuses and they could
not provide for the perpetual new aggressions suggested by the facile
weapon of excommunication through which the Inquisition could overcome
the resistance of the secular authorities. The distribution of
quicksilver, for instance, to the miners was a matter jealously reserved
to the viceroy and the junta of the treasury but, when the Inquisition
wanted it for some mines belonging to it in Zacatecas, it forced, by
threats of excommunication, the royal officials to supply its demands.
Viceroy Mancera, in a letter of December 8, 1666, complains of this and
of a case in which the royal treasurer of Guadalajara owed a personal
debt to the tribunal of 980 pesos and the commissioner there, by order
of the acting inquisitor and visitador, Medina Rico, forced the auditor
of the treasury to pay it out of the royal funds, by threats of
excommunication and of a fine of 500 pesos. Mancera endeavored by
courteous remonstrance to obtain restitution but, after the inquisitors
had insulted him, he only succeeded in getting 600 pesos returned. In
reporting these matters to the king, the Council of Indies pointed out
forcibly how incompatible with subordination and good government were
these arbitrary extensions of inquisitorial jurisdiction over matters
wholly foreign to the objects of its institution.[498]

Indeed, the existence of so uncontrollable and disturbing an element
goes far to explain the ill-success of Spanish colonial administration.
In 1615, Fray Isidro Ordoñez, commissioner in San Francisco del Nuevo
Mexico, under pretext of a fictitious order from the tribunal, gathered
a band of soldiers and citizens, to whom inquisitorial orders were
supreme, and seized Don Pedro de Peralta, Governor of New Mexico, and
held him in irons for nine months. Peralta managed to complain to the
tribunal, which summoned Ordoñez to the capital and assigned to him his
convent for a prison, but Peralta obtained no satisfaction beyond a
declaration that there had been no cause for his arrest, while Ordoñez,
in place of the severe punishment which he merited, was permitted to
attend the general chapter of his Order in Rome, as procurator of the
province of Mexico.[499] Another Governor of New Mexico, Diego de
Peñalosa, fared even worse when, for indiscreet words about priests and
inquisitors and expressions verging on blasphemy, he was exposed to the
humiliation of appearing as a penitent in the auto de fe of February 3,
1668--thus virtually incapacitating him for further service.[500] It was
not without grounds that the Council of Indies, in 1696, addressed a
formal remonstrance to Carlos II, recapitulating a long array of abuses
and violences, showing the impossibility of enforcing observance of the
Concordias or obedience to the royal commands. Prelates and governors
were alike sufferers from the irrepressible audacity which admitted no
responsibility to any one, so long as it was upheld and justified by the
Suprema at home, and the council supplicated the king, if not for the
total extinction of the tribunal, at least for the dismissal of the
officials. Without some thorough change the retention of the colonies
could scarce be hoped for, as all the population was inspired with a
common hatred arising from its violence.[501]

As the council says, prelates were as liable as royal officials to be
subjected to the lawless action of the tribunal. There never were
lacking pretexts for quarrel. In 1617 Archbishop Pedro de Villareal
fared badly in a rupture caused by his inserting in an edict some
matters which the tribunal claimed to belong to its jurisdiction. In
1623 Bishop Bohorques of Oaxaca had the same experience because he
styled himself Inquisidor Ordinario. The episcopate of Archbishop Matheo
Sagade Bugueiro, from 1655 to 1662, was a succession of bitter
dissensions, during which Bernardino de Amezaga, chief notary of the
court of testaments, was arrested by the tribunal, deprived of his
office and banished, while Francisco de Bermeo, contador of the Santa
Cruzada, was kept long in prison, fined 200 pesos and a negro slave of
his was sold to defray it. In 1658 the archbishop made a demand that all
edicts read in his cathedral must first be shown to him in order to
satisfy him that they contained nothing that invaded his jurisdiction,
and his action in enforcing this claim led the tribunal to publish a
manifesto declaring that, under the bull _Si de protegendis_, he had
incurred degradation and relaxation to the secular arm.[502]

There was one case, however, in which the tribunal and the Archbishop of
Mexico combined for the persecution of a bishop, for Juan de Mañozca,
the archbishop from 1643 to 1653, was cousin of the inquisitor of the
same name. The saintly Bishop Juan de Palafox of Puebla, in his capacity
of visitador and protector of the Indians, incurred the enmity of the
archbishop and of the Viceroy Salvatierra, and an occasion of gratifying
it occurred when he undertook to guard his episcopal jurisdiction
against the encroachments of the Jesuits. They appointed _jueces
conservadores_ to protect their interests and the tribunal rushed
eagerly into the fray, with which it had absolutely no right to
intervene.[503] It ordered the suppression of the writings and edicts of
Palafox and forbade any interference with those of the conservators; it
sent a commissioner to Puebla who terrorized the community by arresting
prominent priests and citizens of the bishop’s party, parading them
through the streets in chains and sending them to Mexico, where they
were thrown into the secret prison, thus inflicting indelible disgrace
on them and their posterity. In spite of the exemption of Indians from
inquisitorial jurisdiction, he flogged nearly to death, with four
hundred lashes, an unfortunate Indian who, at the command of a citizen,
had taken down one of the conservators’ edicts. Palafox was advised that
he too would be arrested and fled to the mountains, where he lay
concealed for several months.[504] When, in 1647, he appealed to the
Suprema, powers were sent to the Bishop of Oaxaca to investigate and
report, but Archbishop Mañozca threw every impediment in his way and, in
his capacity of visitador of the Inquisition, assumed to annul his
commission. He appealed to the Bishop of Yucatan, then Governor of New
Spain, and to the Audiencia for support, but the archbishop threatened
to excommunicate them all and they prudently declined the conflict.
Palafox represents to the Suprema that his life was in danger and he
begs to be allowed to return to Spain.[505] The combination of the
archbishopric and Inquisition, under the two Mañozcas, evidently held
the whole land in its grasp, and no one was hardy enough to oppose it.
Palafox was obliged to abandon Mexico, but he eventually secured a
decision in his favor on an appeal to Rome.

An episode of this case is worth recounting in some detail, not only as
illustrating inquisitorial methods but as a rare instance of a victim
obtaining a measure of satisfaction. Doctor Juan de la Camara, a canon
of the cathedral, was a man of noble birth, proud of his unblemished
_limpieza_, and his appointment as visitador of the see of Guadalajara
indicates the estimation in which he was held by his superiors.
Unfortunately he was a friend and correspondent of Palafox. When, in
1646, a bitter libel was circulated against the latter, one of the
judges of the Audiencia, Alonso González de Villalba, was included in
it. Palafox endured the attack in silence and endeavored to make
Villalba follow his example, but the latter was so incensed that he
wrote a reply in which he handled roughly the inquisitor Mañozca. He
showed it to his neighbor Camara, who returned it without comment and
said nothing about it except to Don Antonio Urrutía de Vergara, to whom
he mentioned it in order that he might tell the archbishop, and to a
Doña Catalina de Diosdado, to whom he merely said that he had seen two
scandalous papers and that, if the author confessed to him, he would not
absolve him.

There was a chance that among his papers something might be found to
compromise Palafox, so an order of arrest with sequestration of property
was made out, February 7, 1647. At eight o’clock in the morning Camara
was roused from his bed and taken in his own carriage to the secret
prison, where he was confined in a cell of which the window had been
blocked up, so that the single candle to which he was restricted was his
only light by day and night. Here he was kept _incomunicado_ for twenty
days. After the tenth day, however, on which he was examined, the
obstructions were removed from the window and, after the twentieth, his
brother, Fray Diego, and some other friends were permitted to see him on
obtaining a special licence for each visit. Meanwhile his papers had
been carried off to the tribunal, without being inventoried as required
by the Instructions; on the day after his arrest his household effects
were inventoried and placed in the hands of the receiver, Juan González
de Castro, as depository, but they were not removed from the house and
no care was taken to ensure their safety.

At nightfall of March 15th he was taken back to his house and told that
it was henceforth to be his prison, under pain of excommunication and a
thousand ducats. On April 1st his prison was enlarged to the city, under
the same penalties, and he was enabled to resume his duties at the
cathedral. Of course the immurement in the secret prison, with
sequestration of property, of so prominent an ecclesiastic, caused a
general sensation; it was at the height of the prosecution of the
Judaizers and the inevitable conclusion was that they had implicated
him, so that a stain was cast upon his honor which no subsequent
exculpation could wholly efface. His papers were withheld from him; his
house had been richly furnished, with abundance of silver plate and
linen, much of which had disappeared, and he seems to have deplored
especially the loss of eighteen ounces of amber. His trial remained
unconcluded and his repeated applications for a decision and for the
restoration of missing property were filed away without action. His only
hope of escape from prolonged and intolerable suspense lay in appealing
to the Suprema. The inquisitors had already sought to prejudice it
against him for, in a letter of May 20th, they spoke of the incredible
efforts and diabolical means employed to intimidate them from the
performance of their duty in the matter of Palafox; Camara was an
accomplice of Villalba in publishing the libel; he had perjured himself
in his confessions and might be assumed to be the author of the worst
passages in it. In spite of this the Suprema, by a decree of September
28, 1647, ordered his release, on the security of his oath, and the
sequestration of his property to be removed.

Camara succeeded in secretly obtaining from the king an order, November
16, 1647, permitting him to go to Spain, but he was impoverished and
sent his brother, Fray Diego, to act for him. The mission occupied Diego
for several years, but he finally procured from the Suprema a commission
to the Inquisitor Higuera to try the case promptly for, during all this
time, it had been held suspended over Camara’s head. This was presented,
February 15, 1650, and, on the following July 12th, Higuera, who was at
odds with Mañozca, rendered a sentence acquitting him and restoring him
to his previous good fame, so that his arrest should work no prejudice
to him or to his kindred and their descendants; also that the chapter
should pay him all the accrued fruits of his prebend and that his papers
and property should be returned to him. From this Camara appealed to the
Suprema, which confirmed it, July 7, 1651; then the fiscal of the
Suprema appealed and it was again confirmed, July 31st. The whole
prosecution was thus stamped as being malicious and groundless, but
nevertheless Camara in vain endeavored to regain possession of his
papers and of his missing effects.

Archbishop Mañozca died in 1653; the affair of Palafox had created no
little scandal in Spain and, in 1654, a new visitador, Pedro de Medina
Rico, was sent out with instructions especially to investigate it.
Camara promptly set forth his grievances, in September, in a complaint
against Estrada and Higuera--for apparently Mañozca, as the subject of
the libel, had not sat in the trial. On December 1st he made his formal
charges in a criminal action against them, laying his damages at 12,000
pesos, which he claimed to be the amount which the affair had cost him
in losses and expenses. It was a bold undertaking and probably
unexampled, and he found it impossible to secure the necessary legal
assistance for, on January 20, 1655, he represented that none of the
procurators of the Audiencia would serve him, wherefore he prayed for an
order on Juan de Escobar to appear for him. It was granted and enforced
with a penalty of fifty pesos, under pressure of which Escobar took
charge of the case. In the same way his witnesses refused to appear
until he procured orders on them, with censures for disobedience. The
action went slowly on through its various stages; the inquisitors made
no effort to justify what they had done and confined their defence to
alleging that the affair was a _cosa juzgada_, which could not be
reopened, and to interjecting appeals to the Suprema at every adverse
interlocutory decree. It was not until May 31, 1656, that Medina Rico
pronounced sentence to the effect that Camara had proved his case
completely and that Estrada and Higuera had alleged nothing to palliate
their grave offence, the punishment of which he reserved for future
decision. As to what affected the interest of the plaintiff, he
condemned them jointly and severally to pay him two thousand pesos. The
receiver, or depository, was ordered to restore to him everything shown
in the inventory and, if it appeared that articles were not deposited
with him, the inquisitors must make them good under penalty of a
thousand pesos. From this the inquisitors appealed and, after protracted
argument, Rico suspended the order to pay the two thousand pesos until
the Suprema should decide the appeal, but that the rest of the sentence
should be executed without awaiting its action. Then followed a long and
confused litigation with the executor of the receiver de Castro, who had
been dead for many years and his estate distributed. The documents
preserved end with November 14, 1657, at which time they were made up
for transmission to the Suprema and what was its final decision cannot
be told.[506] It is evident that Camara obtained little compensation for
his sufferings, but at least he had the satisfaction of seeing his
persecutors punished, although inadequately, for official offenders were
always treated tenderly by the Inquisition. Medina Rico, as the result
of his visitation, formulated hundreds of charges against them,
collectively and individually, and rendered sentence, May 17, 1662, in
the audience-chamber, where all the officials were assembled. Estrada
was condemned to severe reprimand, to a fine of 1500 pesos and to four
years’ suspension, though, as he had died October 26, 1661, the penalty
fell only on his heirs. Higuera was sentenced to a fine of a hundred
pesos and two years’ suspension, which he endured until May 16, 1664.
Mañozca was visited more heavily with a fine of 1300 pesos and nine
years of suspension.[507] This he could afford to disregard for, in the
autumn of 1661, he had been provided with the bishopric of Santiago de
Cuba whence, in 1666, he was transferred to that of Guatemala and
finally, in 1675, he obtained the wealthy see of Puebla, from which he
had driven Palafox. Retributive justice, however, at last overtook him,
for he died before he could take possession.[508] Such were the men who
largely filled the tribunals and episcopates of the Colonies.

       *       *       *       *       *

Among the privileges claimed by the Inquisition was exemption from
military service. This was strictly limited by the Concordia of 1633.
Officials holding commissions from the inquisitor-general were exempted
from appearing in the general musters, but familiars were not, unless
actually on duty for the tribunal and, if the enemy was in sight, all
were liable to service, save those necessary to guard the papers and
records of the tribunal, to whom certificates were to be given. As might
be expected, however, little respect was paid to these provisions. In
1685, the alcalde of Puebla called a muster of the citizens to march to
the succor of Campeachy. Hipolito del Castillo, alguazil and familiar,
claimed exemption, to which he was clearly not entitled. The alcalde
threatened to send him on a mule to Campeachy and in effect threw him
into prison, placed his head in the pillory and made him pay a fine of
120 pesos. The commissioner at Puebla defended Castillo and, on appeal
to the Inquisition, it ordered the money to be returned. Again, in 1718,
when eight companies of merchants were formed in Puebla, by order of the
viceroy, to make the rounds of the city and drive out malefactors,
Martínez de Castro, a familiar and trader, was enrolled; he protested
and appealed to the Inquisition, which ordered his discharge, in which
the authorities immediately acquiesced.[509]

       *       *       *       *       *

The inquisitorial function of censorship was by no means neglected. Even
before the establishment of the tribunal, it was felt necessary to guard
the faithful from the infection of heretical books and, in 1561,
Inquisitor-general Valdés sent to Archbishop Montufar a commission
empowering him to examine the book-shops for that purpose.[510] This
conveyed no censorial power, but Páramo proudly asserts that, almost at
the inception of the Holy Office, calificadores were appointed who
exercised a most vigilant supervision over all books introduced into the
colony, even over those which had passed the examination of the Suprema
itself, and who occasionally had the satisfaction of showing that books
widely circulated in Spain required expurgation. In fact, a letter of
the Suprema respecting the Index then in preparation shows that, as
early as 1573, censures of books were received from Mexico. The position
of calificador, like that of inquisitor, seems to have been a
stepping-stone to the bishop’s chair, for the first one was Domingo de
Salazar, promoted, in 1581, to the archiepiscopate of the Philippines;
the second was Bartolomé de Ledesma, who in 1581 became Bishop of
Oaxaca, and the third was Pedro de Ribera, who in 1594 was elected
Bishop of Panama, but died on the road to take possession.[511]
Apparently the office was one not always easy to fill. In a letter of
September 1, 1655, the tribunal informed the Suprema that it was in need
of correctors of books and calificadores and it sent the genealogy of
Padre Juan Hortiz, Rector of the Jesuit College, as a fit person, though
he had not studied theology; the tribunal of Logroño thereupon reported
favorably as to his _limpieza_ and, on November 11, 1659, after four
years of delay, the commission for him was sent.[512] It will be seen
from all this that the Mexican Inquisition exercised an independent
function of censorship; the earliest printing-press in the New World was
established in the city of Mexico and its products were supervised by
the tribunal, which condemned them, when necessary, without awaiting a
reference to distant Spain. Prohibitory edicts, moreover, emanating from
the home censorship, were duly published from every parish pulpit
between the Caribbean and the Pacific.[513]

As was the case in Spain, censorship was not confined to literature but
extended to works of art which might offend sensitiveness either of
modesty or of veneration. The degree to which this might interfere with
affairs of daily life depended upon the discretion of the tribunal, as
was instanced by an edict of March 2, 1600. This prohibited all crosses,
heads of Christ, the Virgin and the saints and scenes from sacred
history carved or engraved or painted or embroidered on furniture,
bed-clothing, napery, utensils of all kinds, or other places where these
sacred symbols might be exposed to disrespect, and everything of the
kind was to be surrendered for the erasure of the images. As Spanish
piety had luxuriated in the use of such emblems wherever possible, this
raised a cloud of questions, which Fray Diego Múñoz, commissioner at
Mechoacan, endeavored to settle in instructions issued to his delegate
at Querétaro. Thus branding-irons for cattle and horses, that had a
cross on them, were to be surrendered; as for beasts already so branded,
the marks were to be erased where possible. Men tattooed with crosses or
the name of Jesus were to efface them within fifteen days. Thimbles so
adorned, if of gold or silver, were to be returned after filing off the
symbols. Moulds for pastry with sacred heads were allowable, because the
pastry was eaten and not treated with indecency, and it was the same
with tapestries and wall-hangings. That the opportunities afforded by
this decree were not neglected is indicated in a complaint to the
tribunal from Juan Rodríguez of Querétaro, who relates that Fray
Francisco de Parra, Guardian of the Franciscan convent, under orders
from Múñoz, had seized and carried off to the convent a bedstead of gilt
wood, costing 500 pesos, because it had some carved heads, which were
not of Christ or angels; also counterpanes, pillows, curtains, towels,
etc., because they had crosses or the word Jesus embroidered on them,
and finger-rings with five stones set as a cross. Others had suffered in
the same way, and Rodríguez prayed for the restoration of the
articles.[514]

Incident to the censorship was the _visita de navíos_, or search of all
vessels on their arrival, regarded as an indispensable duty to prevent
the importation of forbidden books and the immigration of suspected
heretics and Judaizers, as well as to ascertain whether, during the
voyage, any one on board had committed acts subjecting him to
inquisitorial jurisdiction. As in Spain, this performance inevitably led
to friction with the secular authorities of the sea-ports. As early as
1584 there is a prosecution of Hernando de Moxica, alcalde mayor, and of
Diego de Yepes, regidor of Vera Cruz, for impeding the commissioner in
this work and speaking disrespectfully of it, resulting in a fine of
five hundred pieces each, with excommunication until they should
withdraw their opposition.[515] Of course it was difficult to control
the officials of the tribunal in the matter of fees and to keep the
peace between them and the royal representatives as to questions of
precedence, points which the Concordia of 1633 endeavored to regulate by
fixing the fee at four pesos, of which two accrued to the commissioner
and one each to the alguazil and notary, an amount never to be exceeded,
no matter how many assistants might be employed, while existing orders
were to be strictly observed as to their concurrence with the royal
officials.[516] Of course it was not easy for the Inquisition to
maintain supervision over so extended a coast. In a consulta of February
15, 1620, the Suprema informed Philip III that there had recently been
printed in Holland large numbers of Spanish Bibles to be sent to the
colonies and, as the Inquisition was unable to prevent their
introduction unaided, the king was asked to instruct the royal officials
to exercise greater vigilance. To this he assented and the request was
renewed, June 28, 1629. It was probably to meet this that, in 1633, an
agreement between the Suprema and the Council of Indies permitted the
appointment of an alguazil in Yucatan to aid in searching the ships
arriving at the ports.[517]

       *       *       *       *       *

With the advent of the Bourbon dynasty, there occurs, in Mexico as in
Spain, a disposition on the part of the secular authorities to restrain
the overbearing petulance and audacity of the Holy Office. It is true
that the tribunal obtained a victory in 1712, in a quarrel with the
Royal Audiencia which had prosecuted its notary, and it was so overjoyed
that it hastened to communicate the fact to the tribunal of Lima so that
it might serve as a precedent. It related how the royal cédula of 1640,
repeated in 1667 and 1701, had been strictly observed, when the senior
judge came to the competencia and occupied the lowest seat and the
decision was that the notary was entitled to the _fuero_ of the Holy
Office.[518] Though competencias thus commenced to reappear they did not
always end so satisfactorily. In 1722, Joseph Freire de Somorostro,
commissioner in Zacatapan, was fined 500 pesos and suspended for six
years from his functions as an advocate by the royal court, for an
offence against its authority. He appealed to the tribunal which, in its
customary threatening methods, demanded that the papers in the case be
delivered to it within fifteen days, but they were withheld. It
succeeded better in the case of Alonso Diaz de la Vega, alguazil of
Goamantla who, in 1723, was concerned with his son in a quarrel, in
which a man was killed. They were arrested and prosecuted, but the
tribunal interfered vigorously, obtained possession of both father and
son, gave notice that prosecutors must present themselves within eight
days and, as none appeared, discharged the accused--thus affording
convincing proof of the advantage of the fuero to criminals. It showed,
however, a juster sense of the limitations of its jurisdiction in
another case of the same year which illustrates the tendency of its
officials to obstruct the secular authorities. The Castellan of Vera
Cruz complained to the viceroy of the commissioner, Gregorio de Salinas,
who had assisted the mutineers of the fleet in demanding their pay and
had defended the asylum of the convent of San Francisco, in which they
had taken refuge. The viceroy forwarded the statement to the tribunal,
which forthwith ordered the commissioner to desist; the Inquisition had
nothing to do with the matter; if he had assembled the officials of the
Inquisition with their badges and had taken them to the convent to
defend its right of asylum, he had done very wrong and must instruct
each of them, before a notary, to keep aloof and he must, in the same
way, withdraw the delegated power given to the superior of the convent.
It does not appear however that the peccant commissioner was punished in
any way for this inexcusable prostitution of the authority of the Holy
Office. Another case, in the same year, illustrates the multifarious
ways in which these petty local officials abused the mysterious
attributes with which they were invested. Valdés la Vandera,
commissioner of Valle de Santa Barbara, claimed fees for all interments
to which he was invited, even when he did not wear surplice and cap as
ordered by the Constitucion Sinodal and, not content with this, charged
double fees; he also demanded that, in the assemblies of Corpus, San
Pedro and other feasts of obligation, he should have the highest place,
in virtue of being commissioner. The clergy complained to the tribunal,
which condemned his pretensions and ordered him to desist.[519]

The enlightened despotism of Carlos III brought increased tendency to
curtail the privileges of the Inquisition and to curb its audacity. A
cédula of February 29, 1760, declares that the titular and salaried
officials shall enjoy the fuero only as defendants, in both civil and
criminal matters, and wholly withdraws that of the familiars. Also that
in clear and notorious cases there shall be no competencia, but that the
viceroy, as the personal representative of the sovereign, shall decide
what is fitting to prevent invasion of the royal jurisdiction.[520] The
transitory liberalism of the period greatly diminished the traditional
awe inspired by the Inquisition. About the year 1767, it had a serious
conflict with the Audiencia, over the case of a Doctor Bechi, in which
the royal fiscal, during his argument, treated it with scant respect,
reciting how Charles V had been obliged to limit its jurisdiction in
Sicily, how the reigning monarch had exiled from court the
Inquisitor-general Quintano Bonifaz, and hinting not obscurely that, if
it was abolished, substitutes for it could be found--all of which was
made the subject of bitter, and apparently fruitless, remonstrance to
the king by the Suprema, in a consulta of February 29, 1768. This
unprecedented freedom of speech reveals the existence of a belief in
some impending change, and this was stimulated by the startling
expulsion of the Jesuits, skilfully managed by the viceroy, the Marquis
de Croix, June 25, 1767. The foundations of the ecclesiastical structure
seemed to be crumbling and there arose a universally accredited rumor
that the Inquisition would be the next to suffer. So definite did this
become that the day was fixed for September 3d and the precaution taken
by the viceroy, in anticipation of disturbance, by keeping troops under
arms all that night, especially in the quarter where the Inquisition was
situated, only strengthened the delusion. So firmly rooted was this
that, when the night passed away without the expected event, the
archbishop called upon the viceroy to learn for himself the truth of the
belief that the suppression had only been postponed until certain
pending trials should be completed.[521]

       *       *       *       *       *

During this period of decadence the functions of the tribunal, in its
proper sphere of action, amounted to little more than punishing a few
bigamists, so-called sorcerers and soliciting confessors. In 1702 it
reported only four cases pending--three for bigamy and a Jesuit, Padre
Francisco de Figueroa, for what was known as flagellation, or stripping
female penitents and using the discipline on them, an offence akin to
solicitation.[522] Yet in an auto of 1704 it exhibited eight bigamists
and two sorcerers and, in one of 1708, it had thirteen penitents of whom
five were bigamists. There was an exception in 1712 when it had the
fortune to present a Judaizer who had denounced himself and begged for
mercy, notwithstanding which he was condemned to appear in an auto with
a gag and to irremissible prison and sanbenito for life. In 1712-13
there were eleven convictions for solicitation and in 1722 an auto with
twelve penitents, of whom nine were bigamists, followed soon afterwards
with five cases of solicitation. So it went on, gradually diminishing
and affording less and less justification for the existence of the
tribunal with its large revenues, though when it had an opportunity it
demonstrated that it retained its capacity for evil, as in the case of a
naval lieutenant, Manuel Germa de Bahamonde, arrested February 24, 1735,
for heretical propositions and, after nine years of incarceration,
pronounced insane in 1744, when he was sent to the castle of San Juan de
Ulua pending transmission to Spain.[523]

After 1750 there was some increase in business, arising from the
prevalence of blasphemy and irreligion in the army, especially in the
regiments of foreigners, and cases became more numerous among foreign
residents accused of heresy and free-thinking. It was doubtless owing to
this that Fernando VI, in a decree of December 31, 1756, imposed the
death penalty on recruits who pretended Catholicism in order to
enlistment--a severity modified in 1765 by Carlos III to expulsion from
the kingdom.[524] In spite of these measures, the tribunal, in a letter
of April 28, 1766, complained of the number of foreigners sent to Mexico
among the troops--their disseminating the heresies of Luther and Calvin
and of total irreligion, and their justification of England, thus
diminishing the horror and detestation felt by the natives for the
English, which it was so desirable to maintain. The Suprema represented
this to Carlos, who thereupon ordered that no soldiers should be sent to
the Indies who were not assuredly Catholics.[525]

The increasing discredit into which the tribunal had fallen and the
widely spread rumors, as we have seen, of its approaching suppression,
seem to have stimulated it to a recrudescence of activity in an effort
to assert its continued existence. It celebrated an auto, September 6,
1767, with four culprits--one of them, María Josefa Pineda Morales, for
bigamy, who had been arrested as long before as in 1760. Then on March
13, 1768, it held another with seventeen penitents. Cases of
solicitation also became more frequent as the century drew to its
close.[526] A new field of activity, moreover, was opened to it by the
outbreak of the French Revolution, when the propaganda of the rights of
man increased the importance of the Inquisition as an agency of
repression. Already, in 1770, an edict ordered the denunciation within
six days of confessors who should use the confessional to encourage
ideas contrary to the submission due to the sovereign. The accession of
the reactionary Carlos IV and the dread of revolutionary principles
began to afford a harvest of cases in which politics had more to do than
religion. There were many Frenchmen in Mexico following their trades;
they were naturally partizans of the new order of things; their
influence was dreaded for they spread their opinions among the people
and the organization and methods of the Inquisition rendered it the most
efficient instrument for the detection and punishment of
liberalism.[527]

A typical example was that of two Frenchmen, the Capitan Jean Marie
Murgier and Doctor Joseph François Morel, accused of a conspiracy to
cause a revolution and arrested in 1794. Murgier feigned sickness and,
when visited by Dr. José Francisco Rada, he asked the gaoler for a glass
of water and during his absence blocked the door with his trunk. Then he
seized Rada’s sword and declared that he would kill both him and
himself unless the tribunal would liberate him with a full acquittal and
furnish him with a pair of loaded pistols. The confusion of the tribunal
was great; parleying went on from 10.15 A.M. to 4.30 P.M., when it was
decided to break down the door. Guards with hatchets attacked it and
Murgier ran himself through with the sword. His comrade Morel cut his
throat with a pair of snuffers February 11, 1795. They were prosecuted
after death and furnished occasion for the last public auto, August 9th
of that year, where their effigies and bones were burnt as those of
heretics, deists and materialists. At the same auto there figured the
first Judaizer for many years--Rafael Gil Rodríguez, a cleric in the
lower orders, who had been arrested October 9, 1788. He proved
exceedingly obstinate and was sentenced to relaxation on February 9,
1792, after which he was held awaiting an auto. His resolution failed on
the morning of the fatal day, he professed repentance, was reconciled,
and thus saved the Inquisition the shame of burning a fellow-creature
alive at the close of the eighteenth century. The other penitents were
Jean Langouran of Bordeaux, who was reconciled for Lutheranism and
atheism, and Jean Lausel of Montpellier who abjured de levi for
suspicion of Free-Masonry.[528]

It was not however Frenchmen alone who suffered for their political
opinions. José Antonio Rojas was denounced by two ladies, in
correspondence with whom he had expressed his liberalism too freely. In
September, 1804, he was condemned, as a formal heretic and materialist,
to reclusion in the College of the Propaganda Fide at Pachuca, but he
escaped to the United States where he relieved his feelings in a
tremendous pamphlet against the Holy Office, which was duly prohibited
in an edict of March 6, 1807. The distinguished publicists, Juan
Wenceslao Bosquera and José Joaquin Fernández de Lizardi, known as _El
Pensador Mexicano_, were also prosecuted for writings that evinced too
ardent a spirit of patriotism. It was also doubtless for offences of
the same nature that Fray Juan Antonio de Olabarrieta was reconciled for
atheism in 1803, and his sanbenito was suspended in the cathedral, for
the charge of atheism or any kindred form of speculation was, as we have
seen, a convenient one to bring political liberalism under inquisitorial
jurisdiction.[529]

Under the pressure of the time the censorship was sharpened with special
rigor and severity. A curious instance of the strictness with which the
laws against prohibited books were enforced is afforded by an episode,
in 1806, of the Louisiana Purchase. As this rendered necessary a
delimitation of the boundary between Mexico and the United States,
Carlos IV ordered an investigation and report from the viceroy, who
employed Fray Melchor de Talamantes to make it. He found it necessary to
consult the works of Robertson and Raynal, but these were in the Index
and he applied to the Inquisition, through the viceroy, for the
requisite licence, saying that, although the books were detestable, the
information they contained, and especially their maps, were important
for the public service. The request was refused and, as a compromise, a
formal commission was given to two _calificadores_, Fray José Paredo and
Fray José Pichardo, to examine the dangerous books and report to
Talamantes such information on the subject as they might find.[530] When
Spanish diplomacy was thus hampered by such scruples it is no cause of
surprise that the eminent historian of Mexico, Lucas Alaman, was
prosecuted for reading prohibited books and even the episcopal dignity
of Manuel Abad y Queipo, Bishop-elect of Valladolid (Mechoacan) did not
save him from trouble for the same offence.[531]

Yet this reactionary tendency was accompanied with an increasing
disposition to enforce the subordination of the Inquisition and to
render it an instrument of the Government. A royal cédula of December
12, 1807, takes additional precautions to prevent illegal increase in
the number of familiars and officials and to give the secular authority
a closer supervision over them. When secular assistance, moreover, was
called for, it could no longer be commanded as a right, except in
matters of faith; if the temporal jurisdiction was concerned, the
Inquisition was put on a level with other ecclesiastical courts, and the
magistrate was instructed to examine the merits of the case and to give
or withhold his aid accordingly.[532] As agitation in Mexico increased
with the news of the abdication of Carlos IV and the Napoleonic
usurpation, foreshadowing the Revolution, the political importance of
the Inquisition, as an agency of repression, became greater and its
so-called sacred functions were more and more subordinated. Successive
edicts of August 27, 1808, and April 28, June 16 and September 28, 1809,
were directed against all proclamations and emissaries seeking to
pervert the loyalty of the colonists in favor of the ambitious schemes
of the French, and the doctrine of popular sovereignty was denounced as
manifest heresy[533]--a doctrinal definition which was effectively used
during the debate on the suppression of the Holy Office, in the Córtes
of Cádiz, which had affirmed that sovereignty. Even in a matter so
foreign to politics as solicitation in the confessional, it is
suggestive to observe that, in the trial for that offence of Dr. Pedro
Mendizabal, cura of the parish of Santa Ana (1809-1819) his correct
political conduct is urged upon the inquisitors as a matter for their
favorable consideration--which may possibly have conduced to his escape
in the face of convincing evidence.[534]

The political functions assumed by the Inquisition become especially
manifest in its trials of the two chief martyrs of the war of
independence--Hidalgo and Morelos. The former of these, Miguel Hidalgo y
Castilla, the parish priest of los Dolores, who first raised the
standard of revolt, in conjunction with Allende, Aldama and Abasolo, and
who was elected generalissimo of the insurgent army, was a singularly
interesting character.[535] Born in 1753, he received his education at
the royal university of San Nicolás at Mechoacan, where he became rector
and theological professor. In the formal accusation during his trial it
is asserted that he was known while there as _el zorro_, or the fox, on
account of his cunning, and that he was finally expelled because of a
scandalous adventure, in the course of which he was obliged to escape at
night through a window of the chapel. Taking orders, he finally settled
as _cura_ at los Dolores where, in spite of a large revenue, he
encumbered himself with debts. He loved music and dancing and gaming and
his relations with women were of a character common enough with the
clergy of the period. His abounding energy led him to establish
potteries and to introduce silk-culture, which may doubtless account for
his indebtedness. He was regarded as a prodigy of learning and kept up
his intellectual pursuits, translating tragedies of Racine and comedies
of Molière, the latter of which he caused to be acted in his house, his
favorite being Tartufe. The priest, García de Carrasqueda, who enjoyed
his intimacy for twelve or thirteen years, when on trial by the
Inquisition, deposed that they used to read together Cicero, Serri,
Fleury’s Ecclesiastical History, Rollings Ancient History and an Italian
work on commerce by Genovesi and that he praised highly the orations of
Æschines and Demosthenes, Bossuet, Buffon’s Natural History, Pitavak’s
Causes Célèbres and various historical works. He was fond of debating
questionable points in theology, emitting opinions not wholly orthodox
on such subjects as the stigmata of St. Francis, the House of Loreto,
the Veronica, whether St. Didymas or Gestas was the penitent thief, the
inheritance of original sin, the identity of the three kings and the
like, while his high reputation for learning caused him to be regarded
as an authority. Altogether he presents himself to us as a man of
unusual physical and intellectual energy, not over nice as to the
employment of those energies, of wide culture, of vigorous and enquiring
mind and of small reverence for formulas or for authority.

Such a character was not likely to escape the attention of the Holy
Office. On July 16, 1800, Fray Joaquin Huesca, a teacher of philosophy
in the Order of Merced, denounced him to the commissioner of Mechoacan
for various unorthodox utterances, at which Fray Manuel Estrada, of the
same Order, had been present, and Estrada, on being summoned, confirmed
and amplified the accusation. In transmitting these depositions to the
tribunal, July 19th, the commissioner reported that Hidalgo was a most
learned man, who had ruined himself with gambling and women, that he
read prohibited books and, while professor of theology, had taught from
Jansenist works. The tribunal necessarily started an investigation,
which lasted for more than a year and included the testimony of some
thirteen witnesses, resulting in proof of a wide variety of most
heretical utterances, any one of which, if pertinaciously maintained,
would have sufficed to consign him to the stake. Moreover, he was
described as revolutionary in his tendencies, speaking of monarchs as
tyrants and cherishing aspirations for liberty; he was well-read in
current French literature and had little respect for the censorship--in
short he was what was subsequently termed an _afrancesado_. The
commissioner of San Miguel el Grande reported, March 11, 1801, much
about Hidalgo’s disorderly life and that he carried about with him an
Alcoran but, in a second report of April 13th, he stated that in the
recent Easter, Hidalgo had reformed, a matter which was widely discussed
and seems to have aroused general attention. In due time, on October 2,
1801, the fiscal reported on this accumulated testimony that, if Hidalgo
had uttered the propositions ascribed to him, he should be arrested with
sequestration of property, but the witnesses were contradictory and
Estrada had the reputation of an habitual liar. He therefore recommended
that the case be suspended and the papers be filed for future reference,
to which the tribunal assented.

The case rested until July 22, 1807, when a priest named José María
Castilblane came forward to say that, in 1801, Estrada had told him
scandalous and heretical things about Hidalgo. More serious was a
denunciation made, May 4, 1808, by María Manuela Herrera, described as a
woman of good character who frequented the sacraments. By command of her
confessor she deposed that she had once lived with Hidalgo as his
concubine, when he told her that Christ had not died on the cross, but
that it was another man; also that there was no hell--this latter she
supposed being to quiet her conscience, as they had an agreement that
she was to provide him with women and he was to provide her with men.
This was again laid before the fiscal who reported, June 8th, in favor
of awaiting further proof. Then, on March 15, 1809, Fray Diego Manuel
Bringas deposed that he had found Hidalgo in possession of prohibited
books, such as Serry’s History of the Congregations _De Auxiliis_, under
his own name and that of Augustin Leblanc, also his Dissertations on
Christ and the Virgin, in which he speaks without measure of María de
Agreda; that Hidalgo praised this work and called María a deluded old
woman.[536] Still, with singular moderation, no action was taken to
restrain Hidalgo’s audacity and, had he been content to let politics
alone, it is safe to say that the Inquisition would not have troubled
him, so inert had it become in the exercise of its ostensible functions.

When, however, he started the revolution, September 16, 1810, this
lethargy gave place to the utmost activity. The official Gazette of
September 28th asserted that he was disseminating among the people the
doctrine that there is neither hell, purgatory nor glory; an extract
from this was sent to the commissioner at Querétaro, with instructions
to obtain its verification, which he had no trouble in doing, although
the evidence was hearsay. Without awaiting this, however, the testimony
which had been so long slumbering in the _secreto_ was laid before
_calificadores_, October 9th, with orders to report at once. This they
did the next day, to the effect that, as he was a sectary of French
liberty, they pronounced him a libertine, seditious, schismatic, a
formal heretic, a Judaizer, a Lutheran, a Calvinist, and strongly
suspect of atheism and materialism. The same day the tribunal resolved
that, as he was surrounded by his army of insurgents and could not be
arrested, he should be summoned by edict to appear within thirty days.
On the 13th the edict was printed, on the 14th it was posted in the
churches and was circulated as rapidly as possible throughout the land.

The edict is a singular medley of politics and religion, illustrating
the dual character of the Inquisition of the period and the enormous
advantage to the Government of possessing control over the
ecclesiastical establishment, whereby an attack on the civil power could
be made to assume the appearance of an assault on the faith. All the
heretical utterances, discredited nine years before by the action of the
tribunal, are put forward as absolute facts. It is impiety that has led
him to raise the standard of revolt and to seduce numbers of unhappy
dupes to follow him. In the inability to reach him personally, he is
summoned, under pain of excommunication, to appear for trial within
thirty days, in default of which he will be prosecuted _in rebeldía_ to
definitive sentence and burning in effigy if necessary. All who support
him or have converse with him and all those who do not denounce those
who favor his revolutionary projects are declared guilty of the crime of
fautorship of heresy and subject to the penalties decreed for it by the
canons. When to this are added the proclamations of excommunication
issued against the insurgents by the Archbishop of Mexico and the
bishops of the disturbed districts, it will be seen how powerful was the
restraining influence exercised by the Church over a population trained
to submission, and how intense were the passions that braved its
anathema.[537]

In fact, the hatred of the creoles and the Indians for the _Gachupines_,
or Spaniards, was so bitter that four-fifths of the native clergy
espoused the cause of the insurgents, in spite of the censures of the
Church, and questions of faith became inextricably involved in the
contest between the factions. To the loyalists, Hidalgo became a heretic
or indeed a heresiarch, and the confessional was so largely used by them
that the insurgents became guilty of a new heresy, by asserting that
confession to a Gachupin priest was invalid. They found great comfort,
moreover, through their belief in the protection of Our Lady of
Guadalupe, who was universally revered, and especially by the Indians,
as the sovereign patroness of Mexico. On the fateful 16th of September,
when Hidalgo was marching on San Miguel el Grande at the head of his
little band of insurgents, in passing through Atolonila, he chanced to
take an image on linen of the Guadalupe Virgin and give it to one of his
men to carry as a banner. It was adopted by the other bands as they rose
and it became the standard of the insurrection, usually accompanied with
an image of Fernando VII and of the eagle of Mexico, and the inscription
“_Viva nuestra Señora de Guadalupe! Viva Fernando VII! Viva la America y
muere el mal gobierno!_” Second in rank as a tutelary power of the
insurrection was Our Lady of Puebla and against these the loyalists
pitted a new-comer, Our Lady of los Remedios, who was denounced as a
Gachupina by the natives. There is a subject of study for the student of
mythology in this modernization of the triform Hecate and in the revival
of Homeric divinities presiding over the two sides of the battlefield.

The Inquisition labored earnestly to get evidence of sacrilegious acts
on the part of the insurgents and, as they were beaten back, it had its
emissaries in the territory from which they had been driven, collecting
testimony as to individuals who had sympathized with them or had opposed
the posting of its edict. The most active of these was Fray Simon de la
Mora, who accompanied the royal army in its advance. He reported that it
was useless to attempt to enumerate the common people, but he sent the
names of fifty-nine persons of standing, many of them ecclesiastics,
with the evidence against them, and the notes on the margin of the MS.
show that they were forthwith entered for prosecution.

The edict was duly posted in the towns occupied by the army but, in the
course of a night or two, it was generally torn down or defaced with
paint, in spite of the heavy penalties incurred for thus impeding the
Inquisition. Hidalgo felt it necessary to issue a manifesto in defence,
protesting that he had never departed from the faith and pointing out
the contradictory character of the heresies imputed to him. To this the
Inquisition replied with another edict, January 26, 1811, reiterating
its charges, stigmatizing him as a cruel atheist and prohibiting certain
proclamations issued by the insurgents.[538]

Meanwhile his trial, _in absentia_, was proceeding through its several
stages as deliberately as though he were an ordinary heretic in time of
peace. On November 24, 1810, the tribunal declared that, having evidence
that, on October 27th, he had knowledge of the edict, the thirty days’
term should run from October 28th. On November 28th, therefore, the
fiscal demanded that he should be treated as _rebelde_, or contumacious,
and that ten days, as usual, should be allowed him to appear in person.
The prescribed three terms of ten days each, with two days additional,
were scrupulously observed. Then further delay followed and it was not
until February 7, 1811, that the formal trial began with the
presentation by the fiscal of the accusation. This was in the ordinary
form, reciting that Hidalgo was a Christian, baptized and confirmed, and
as such enjoying the privileges and exemptions accorded to good
Catholics, “yet had he left the bosom of holy Church for the filthy,
impure and abominable faith of the heretic Gnostics, Sergius, Berengar,
Cerinthus, Carpocrates, Nestorius, Marcion, Socinus, the Ebionites,
Lutherans, Calvinists and other pestilential writers, Deists,
Materialists and Atheists, whose works he has read and endeavored to
revive and to persuade his sect to adopt their errors and heresies,
believing wrongly, like them, as to various articles and dogmas of our
holy religion and revolutionizing the whole bishoprics of Mechoacan and
Guadalajara and great part of the arch-diocese of Mexico, being moreover
the chief cause of the great abominations and sins, which have been and
still are committed. All this and more, which I shall set forth,
constitute him a formal heretic, apostate from our holy religion, an
atheist, materialist and deist, a libertine, seditious, schismatic,
Judaizer, Lutheran and Calvinist, guilty of divine and human high
treason, a blasphemer, an implacable enemy of Christianity and the
State, a wicked seducer, lascivious, hypocrite, a cunning traitor to
king and country, pertinacious, contumacious and rebellious to the Holy
Office, of all of which I accuse him in general and in particular.” The
fiscal then proceeds to recite the evidence taken since 1800, followed
by a long statement of Hidalgo’s share in the insurrection and winding
up with the customary petition that, without requiring further proof,
the accused shall be condemned to confiscation and relaxation, in person
if he can be had and, if not, in effigy; or, if the evidence be deemed
insufficient, he shall be tortured if attainable.

The inquisitors received the accusation and gravely ordered, according
to form, that a copy be given to Hidalgo and, in view of his
contumacious absence, that due notification be made in the halls, which
was accordingly done and record made. Then, on February 19th, the fiscal
accused the contumacy of the absent and fugitive Hidalgo in not
answering and asked that the case be concluded and received to proof.
The inquisitors assented and the proof was presented. May 20th, the
fiscal demanded the publication of evidence, which was duly ordered to
be made, with the ordinary suppression of their names. A large portion
of this consisted of evidence taken during the insurrection, showing
acts of sacrilege, contempt for the Inquisition and its edicts and the
like, on the part of Hidalgo and his followers. A copy of this was
ordered to be given to him and that he answer it in the next audience,
of which announcement was made in the halls and duly recorded. It was
not until June 14th that the next step was taken, in ordering a copy of
both accusation and testimony to be given to him and that by the third
day he put in his answer, with the assent of his advocate, an advocate
being provided for him in the person of the Licenciado José María Rosas.
Then another witness was found in the priest García de Carrasquedo, a
prisoner on trial, to whom allusion has been made above. His evidence
was taken June 21st and, on the 27th, was submitted to calificadores
who, on August 12th, presented a long and learnedly argumentative
report, in which they characterized the several propositions with the
customary choice selection of objurgatory epithets, as _falsa_, _impia_,
_temeraria_, _blasfema_, _malsonante_, _sapiens hæresim_, _llena de
escandalo_, _erronea_, _sapiens errorem Lutheranorum_, _Judaica y
formalmente hæretica_, _injuriosa al espiritú de la S. M. Iglesia_, and
they concluded that, if he who uttered them did so with full knowledge
of their import, he was a formal heretic. This was practically the last
act of the long drawn-out comedy, although some additional testimony
concerning Hidalgo was taken and recorded, February 10 and 20, 1812, in
the trial of the habitual liar, Fray Manuel Estrada. Events had moved
faster than the Inquisition. After the disastrous day of the Bridge of
Calderon, Hidalgo in his flight had been captured, March 21, 1811, at
Bajan, and carried two hundred leagues farther north to Chihuahua, where
he was executed, July 31st, before the calificadores had finished their
formulation of his heresies. No notice of this was given to the
Inquisition, which was treated with a singular discourtesy, savoring of
contempt. The explanation of this probably is that, if it had been
apprised of the capture, it could rightly have claimed the prisoner as a
heretic, primarily subject to its supreme and exclusive jurisdiction;
there might have been danger in escorting him back through the recently
disturbed provinces; the processes of the Inquisition were notoriously
slow and, after it had tried the culprit and he had abjured and been
penanced in an auto de fe, he would still have to be condemned in a
military court. It was in every way wiser to try him and despatch him in
far-off Chihuahua, and the local military and ecclesiastical authorities
coöperated to this result, leaving the Inquisition to find out what it
could, and not even forwarding a supplication which Hidalgo addressed to
it, on June 10th.

The tribunal waited patiently for eleven months after the catastrophe
and then, on June 25, 1812, it wrote, with much solemnity, to its two
commissioners in Chihuahua, reminding them that the edict of October 13,
1810, rendered it their duty to keep it advised of the capture of
Hidalgo and of all subsequent occurrences. They should have gone to him
in prison and exhorted him to make a declaration on all points contained
in the edict and whatever else weighed upon his conscience. All signs of
repentance should have been observed and reported, and at least his
confession to his judges, in so far as the Inquisition was concerned,
should have been sent to it. The alcaide, the ecclesiastics and the
military officers must now be examined as to his state of mind during
his imprisonment, so that the tribunal may be informed as to his
repentance or impenitence and thus be enabled to render justice. The two
commissioners are to work in harmony, with power of subdelegation, and
they are made responsible, before God and the king, for the due
discharge of their duties.

The Holy Office evidently took itself seriously and considered that
judgement as to Hidalgo’s heresies still lay in its hands. There must
have been a flush of indignation and wounded pride when, on January 2,
1813, the inquisitors received from Sánchez Alvarez, one of the
commissioners, an answer dated October 27, 1812, reporting that he had
applied to Nemesio Salcedo, the commandant-general, who had ordered him
to suspend all action and that he, Salcedo, would explain the absolute
necessity for this. The tribunal had to wait until February 27th before
it received Salcedo’s explanation, dated October 22d, showing how its
supreme jurisdiction had been overslaughed with as little ceremony as
that of a pie-powder court. With profuse expressions of respect, Salcedo
stated that the peace and prosperity of the provinces required that the
matter should not be agitated. Hidalgo was not a heretic and would not
have been permitted to receive the sacraments and ecclesiastical burial,
had he not been duly absolved and reconciled to the Church. A royal
order, he said, of May 12, 1810, had conveyed papal inquisitorial
faculties to the bishops, and the Bishop of Durango had subdelegated
Doctor Francisco Fernández Valetin, the doctoral canon of his church,
thus constituting him a papal inquisitor.[539] To him, as such, were
communicated the answers of Hidalgo on his trial, who ratified them in
his presence; he also verified the manifesto of Hidalgo, which was
published, and he absolved him. In addition he saw the supplication of
Hidalgo to the Inquisition, which would have been forwarded sooner but
for the danger of its being intercepted and which was now enclosed,
together with the other necessary papers. These were extracts from
Hidalgo’s examination, his manifesto to the insurgents and the
supplication in question.

It was somewhat brutal to have kept the tribunal so long in the dark on
a matter touching its highest privilege and to have detained for sixteen
months, on a frivolous pretext, a supplication addressed directly to it,
but its position was becoming precarious and it dared not complain.
Napoleon’s suppression of the Inquisition of Spain, in 1808, did not
count for much, but the Córtes of Cádiz had enacted a liberal
Constitution in 1812 and simultaneously the preliminary skirmishing for
the abrogation of the Inquisition preoccupied all minds. It was enacted
February 22, 1813, and, though the news had not as yet reached Mexico,
the result could scarce have been doubted when the tribunal took action
on March 13th. It evidently placed no faith in the story of a papal
inquisitor, suddenly created in the wilds of Chihuahua, for it wholly
ignored his action. The fiscal reported to the tribunal that, in spite
of Hidalgo’s supplication for pardon and endeavors to satisfy the
charges against him, there were not merits enough to absolve his memory
and fame nor, at the same time, to condemn him, as it appeared that he
had made a general confession and had been reconciled, whereupon the
tribunal ordered the case to be suspended and the papers to be filed in
their proper place--an expression of dissatisfaction and an admission of
powerlessness. On March 29th it acknowledged Salcedo’s letter and drily
thanked him.

Hidalgo’s supplication to the Inquisition, written in his prison on June
10, 1811, is a long and dignified declaration of submission, calmly and
clearly reasoned and manifesting full command of his theological
learning. But for his confinement, he said, he would hasten to throw
himself at the feet of the tribunal, not only to seek pardon for his
insubordination, but to vindicate himself from the charge of heresy and
apostasy, which was insufferable to him. He answered the various
accusations of the edict, denying that he had led an immoral life and
exculpating himself with much dexterity from the heresies imputed to
him, but if, he added, the Inquisition deemed his utterances heretical,
although he had not hitherto so considered them, he now retracted,
abjured and detested them. He concluded by begging to be relieved from
the disgrace of heresy and apostasy; the tribunal could repose entire
faith in his statements for, if he had committed those crimes, the
circumstances in which he now found himself would impel him to confess
them freely, in order to gain the pardon and absolution that would open
to him the gates of heaven and would close them, if withheld, in
consequence of his denial.

The frame of mind revealed in this document, which is unquestionably
genuine, serves to refute the imputation of forgery so generally
ascribed to Hidalgo’s manifesto of May 18th, addressed “A Todo el Mundo”
and published in order to quiet the population. Its effusiveness and
extravagance of repentance, and the earnestness of its exhortations to
his followers to submit, have not unnaturally created suspicion, from
their violent contrast to the deep convictions and reckless energy with
which he precipitated and sustained the insurrection, but it can be
accepted as authentic without impugning his good faith. He was impulsive
and enthusiastic and was liable to the revulsions incident to his
temperament. His cause had been disowned by God; he had been captured as
a fugitive within a few months after he had been at the head of eighty
thousand men. The grave was yawning for him, as the portal to the
hereafter, in which there was, in his belief, no escape from eternal
torment for one who died as a rebel to the Church. He was a fervent
Catholic, whose excommunication cut him off from the sacraments
essential to salvation, unless he could prove himself worthy of them by
earnest repentance and by the amendment which could only be manifested
through zeal in undoing that which had brought upon him the anathema.
That under such pressure he should seek to avert the endless doom by
heart-felt contrition was natural, however strange it may seem to those
brought up in a different faith, who can sympathize with his aspirations
for liberty but cannot realize the emotions enkindled by his religious
convictions.

       *       *       *       *       *

The decree of the Córtes of Cádiz, February 22, 1813, suppressing the
Inquisition was published in Mexico June 8th. Under it the property of
the tribunal was applicable to the treasury for the reduction of the
public debt and was forthwith sequestrated; there were no prisoners, the
few political ones having been transferred to various convents some days
in advance. We have an authentic account of the transaction, made
December 20, 1814, after the Restoration, by the alcaide of the secret
prison. He says that the decree had been eagerly expected; the tribunal
and its ministers were regarded with contempt and its privileges were
set at defiance. Immediately after the publication, Viceroy Calleja
announced to the senior inquisitor the cessation of its functions; the
next day the official commissioned for the purpose came to take
possession and commenced an inventory. The building was thrown open to
gaping crowds, who gave free vent to their detestation of the
institution. On the 11th, the money in the chest was removed; the
records concerning the faith were delivered to the Archbishop Bergosa y
Jordan, while the papers connected with property were taken by the
Intendente of the Government, who confided them to the writer and
allotted to him offices in which to keep them. In the Inquisition
building was established the lottery, and the adjacent houses of the
inquisitors served to lodge its officials, while the main building was
used as a barracks and the prisons were turned into shops for tailors,
shoemakers and other workers for the army. The total amount sequestrated
was 1,775,656 pesos, 5-1/2 reales, consisting of--

Money in the coffers                         66,566 pesos, 2-1/2 reales.
Capital invested                          1,394,628  “     1-1/2   “
Due on income of censos                     181,482  “     1.7 gr.
Fifteen rented houses                       125,000  “
Furniture, etc., sold at auction, July 19     8,000  “
                                          ---------        -----
                                          1,775,676  “     5-1/2 reales.

The alcaide proceeds to give us details as to the organization and
finances of the tribunal. Besides the inquisitors and fiscal there were
seven secretaries, a messenger, a treasurer, a contador, a purveyor of
the prison, an alcaide and his assistant, a notary of the
sequestrations, two officials of the _secreto_, an advocate of the fisc
and an advocate of prisoners--a largely superfluous force for the
trivial work to be performed. The pay-rolls amounted to 33,000 pesos per
annum, the subvention to the Suprema was 10,000, and the expenditure for
maintaining prisoners, repairs, church functions, etc., brought the
annual outlay to 55,000 or 60,000, while the income was 85,000, to which
was added 32,000 from the canonries, amounting in all to 117,000--about
double the expenses, showing how profitable had proved the purification
of the faith.[540]

On August 31st the archbishop reported to the Government that the decree
of suppression had been read in the cathedral on the three Sundays
following its receipt. The sanbenitos were at once removed from the
places where they were hung; the Prior of the Hospital of San José asked
for them to clothe the insane, but the viceroy took them for the troops.
The Archbishop requested to have the prohibited books, which were stored
in four rooms of his palace, and they were given to him. He was an old
inquisitor and lost no time in assuming the jurisdiction over heresy
restored to the episcopate by the decree of suppression. As early as
June 10th, he issued a pastoral ordering denunciation to him of all
persons suspect of heresy and, on September 27th, he published another
calling for the surrender of all prohibited books by those who did not
hold licences.[541]

The decree of suppression provided for the continued salaries of the
officials and after this the two senior inquisitors disappear--Bernardo
de Prado y Obejero and Isidoro Sainz de Alfaro y Beaumont--probably
returning to Spain, where refugees from the American tribunals were
taken care of. The junior, Manuel de Flores, remained and was ready to
resume his functions whenever the “suspension,” as he called it, was
removed. His foresight was speedily rewarded, for one of the first acts
of Fernando VII on his restoration was the decree of May 4, 1814,
abrogating the Constitution of Cádiz, declaring invalid all laws enacted
under it and even menacing with the death-penalty all who should keep
copies of them. This of itself virtually revived the Inquisition, but
legislation was required to reorganize it and this was effected by a
decree of July 21.[542] Inquisitor Flores had not waited for this, as we
find that he had already for some time been gathering evidence against
Manuel Abad y Queipo, Bishop-elect of Mechoacan, which he transmitted,
August 31st, to the Suprema for its action.[543]

It was not until December 23d that Viceroy Calleja notified him to
re-establish the tribunal, in execution of the royal decree of July
21st; this he followed on January 4, 1815, with a proclamation embodying
the decree and announcing that the tribunal had been restored to its
jurisdiction and that its property had been returned to it. The
archbishop also issued a pastoral requiring all denunciations to be made
to it and Flores, on January 21st, published an Edict of Faith ordering
the denunciation, within six days, of all heresies, prohibited books and
all words of disrespect towards the Holy Office that might subsequently
be uttered.[544] The tribunal however, was in a sadly dilapidated
condition. The alcaide in a letter of December 30, 1814, reports that
the restoration of property consisted in the written securities and the
real estate, but only 773 pesos of the money had been returned. Notice
had been given that the fruits of the canonries and interest on the
censos were to be paid as formerly to the tribunal. The purchaser of the
furniture, which had been sold at auction in July, was nominally a
merchant but in reality the Count of la Cortina, from whom they were
endeavoring to get it back at the price which it had brought, but much
had been resold; the building had to be refitted for their use and
altogether they were in great distress.[545] To add to their troubles,
the tribunal was so thoroughly discredited that its jurisdiction was
invaded on all sides in a manner indicating the contempt in which it was
held. Viceroy Calleja issued a proclamation condemning to the flames the
Constitution adopted by the insurgents October 22, 1814, at Apatzingan,
together with various of their sermons, addresses, etc., and ordering
them to be denounced to him under pain of death. Then, on May 24, 1815,
he sent a copy of this to the tribunal, inviting it to take action and
use all rigor for their suppression. This provoked the liveliest
resentment of Flores who complained bitterly to the Suprema, June 29th,
of the intrusion on his jurisdiction and of the discourtesy manifested
in not previously submitting to him the offending papers. He also
enlarged on the harshness with which the decree of suppression had been
enforced in 1813 and of the imperfect restitution of property which
Calleja had publicly asserted to have been made. He had also endeavored
to compel the officials to render military service, but this had been
successfully resisted. In spite of all this indignation, however, the
insurgent documents were duly censured by the calificadores and, on July
9th, Flores issued an edict condemning them and specifying their errors.
The chapter of the cathedral (_sede vacante_) had also on May 26th
published an edict requiring the surrender of these documents to it
under pain of excommunication and threatening all priests and
beneficiaries who should not exert themselves against the rebels. This
was a palpable intrusion on inquisitorial jurisdiction which was deeply
resented, and there was also a quarrel with the royal Audiencia which
the tribunal accused of invading its jurisdiction and disregarding its
_fueros_ in the matter of a pasquinade of which the Audiencia had taken
cognizance.[546]

Under these circumstances it is easy to understand how eagerly Flores
seized the opportunity of asserting himself afforded by the capture,
November 15, 1815, of the insurgent chief José María Morelos, who
shares with Hidalgo the foremost place in the Mexican Valhalla.[547]

Born in 1764 of humble parents, he was an agricultural laborer up to the
age of 25, when he returned to his native Mechoacan and applied himself
to the study of grammar, philosophy and morals. Entering the Church, he
took full orders and, after serving temporarily the cure of Choromuco,
he obtained that of Caraguaro, which was under the rectorship of
Hidalgo. It must have been a slender benefice for, in his examination,
he explained his not having taken the indulgence of the Santa Cruzada by
the plea that before the insurrection he was too poor to pay for it and
afterwards the insurgents regarded it as invalid and as merely a device
to raise money for the war against them. His morals were those of his
class; he admitted to having three children, born of different mothers
during his priesthood, but he added that his habits, though not
edifying, had not been scandalous, and the tribunal seemed to think so,
for little attention was paid to this during his trial and, in the
_calificacion_ which preceded his sentence, it is not even alluded to.
He joined Hidalgo, October 28, 1810, and must have quickly distinguished
himself, for that chief gave him a commission to raise the Pacific coast
provinces and, after the rout of the Bridge of Calderon, the burden of
maintaining the unequal war fell mainly on Morelos, who was raised
successively to the grades of lieutenant-general and captain-general,
with the title of Most Serene Highness.

Unlike Hidalgo, who was hurried off to Chihuahua, Morelos when captured
was brought to the city of Mexico for trial and execution, arriving
there on November 21st. He was carried to the Inquisition, not as its
prisoner, but for safe-keeping “on deposit” and Flores, to preserve the
secrecy of the Holy Office, made it a condition that the guard
accompanying him should not go up stairs or penetrate beyond the first
court-yard. It was not until 1.30 A.M. of the 22d that he was lodged in
the secret prison, in a cell so dark that he could not read the
breviary, which was given to him on his request. The 22d was occupied
with an effort to get permission to try him--a competencia carried on in
a spirit very different from the masterful audacity of old. Viceroy
Calleja desired that Morelos should be degraded from the priesthood,
within three days, by the episcopal jurisdiction, in order that his
execution should be prompt, and testimony for that purpose was already
being taken by the secular and spiritual courts acting in unison. Flores
therefore had no time to lose in putting forward the claim of the
tribunal, and the fiscal drew up an elaborate paper showing that there
were points in the case which came within its jurisdiction. On the 23d a
_consulta de fe_ was assembled, consisting of the episcopal Ordinary of
Mechoacan, and the consultores of the Inquisition, which represented to
the viceroy that, although Morelos was subject to both the secular and
spiritual courts, it was persuaded that for other crimes he was
justiciable by the Inquisition and that his trial by that tribunal would
redound to the honor and glory of God as well as to the service of the
State and the king and be efficacious in undeceiving the rebels.
Moreover, it promised that the trial should be concluded within four
days. Somewhat unwillingly, Calleja granted the request and no time was
lost in commencing the most expeditious trial in the annals of the Holy
Office--a grim enough comedy to gratify the vanity of the actors, for it
could have no influence on the fate of the prisoner, save perhaps in
removing the excommunication under which he inferentially lay. Flores,
in boasting of this activity, adds that they were much embarrassed by
Morelos being frequently taken from them for examination in the other
courts, which indicates that the authorities regarded the Inquisition as
merely a side-show.

Hurried as were the proceedings, there was due observance of all the
formalities required by the cumbrous methods of the Holy Office. That
same day, November 23d, the fiscal presented his _clamosa_, basing it on
Morelos having signed the constitutional decree of November 22, 1814,
as well as various proclamations condemned as heretical by the
Inquisition;[548] also on his celebrating mass while under
excommunication, and his reply to the Bishop of Puebla, when reproached
for so doing, that it would be easier to get a dispensation after the
war than to survive the guillotine; also on an edict of Bishop Abad y
Queipo of Mechoacan, July 22, 1814, declaring him to be an
excommunicated heretic. There was still time for a morning audience and
the prisoner was brought before the tribunal, where he was subjected to
the customary examination as to his genealogy and whole career, and the
first monition was given to save his soul by confessing the truth. In
the afternoon he had his second audience and monition. On the morning of
the 24th came the third audience and monition, during which he admitted
that, at Teypan, he had captured a package of the edicts against Hidalgo
and had utilized them to make cartridges. The pompous formulas, urging
him to discharge his conscience so that the Inquisition might show him
its customary mercy, must have seemed a ghastly jest to a man who knew
that his captors would shortly have him shot, and they contrast
grotesquely with the feverish anxiety of the tribunal to have a share in
the performance.

That same afternoon the fiscal presented the accusation and, considering
the haste in which it was prepared, its long accumulation of rhetoric is
creditable to the industry of the draughtsman. He describes Morelos as
abandoning the Church for the filthy and abominable heresies of Hobbes,
Helvetius, Voltaire, Luther and other pestilent writers, rendering him a
formal heretic, an apostate from the holy faith, an atheist,
materialist, deist, libertine, seditious, guilty of divine and human
high treason, an implacable enemy of Christianity and the state, a vile
seducer, hypocrite, traitor to king and country, cunning, lascivious,
pertinacious and rebellious to the Holy Office. He shows how rebellion
is heresy and all rebellious acts are directly or indirectly heretical.
To Morelos, in the bottom of his heart, Christ and Belial are equal; he
is even suspect of toleration and, as usual, the accusation concludes by
asking for confiscation and relaxation. The remainder of the afternoon
and the morning audience of the 25th were occupied with the defendant’s
answers to the twenty-four articles of the accusation. From what he said
it appears that insurgents claimed to be opposing the French domination
in Spain, and that Ferdinand’s restoration in 1814 was largely
disbelieved or was assumed to be only another phase of Napoleon’s
supremacy, showing that Ferdinand could not be a sincere Catholic.

That same morning the publication of evidence was made, consisting
wholly of documents, such as the Constitution of October 22, 1814,
sundry proclamations signed by Morelos and his printed letter to the
Bishop of Puebla, together with the letter of the Bishop of Mechoacan
declaring him to be an excommunicated heretic. He was ordered to answer
with the advice of his counsel and the three advocates of prisoners were
named to him, of whom he selected Don José María Gutiérrez de Rosas. He
was sent to his cell to be brought back directly for an interview with
his counsel, who was sworn in as customary. There was no time to make
copies of the papers, so the unusual course was adopted of entrusting
the originals to Rosas, with instructions to return them and present the
defence within three hours. In the afternoon he did so and the result
showed him to be a ready writer, but he was more occupied in justifying
himself for undertaking the defence than in making a plea for Morelos.
He savagely denounced the insurrection and the Córtes of Cádiz, whose
principles it represented, and he concluded abruptly with a few lines,
alleging the repentance of the defendant, from which he hoped for
absolution. The inquisitor thereupon ordered the fiscal to be notified
and the case to be concluded.

The next morning, November 26th, Flores assembled his calificadores and
exhibited to them the proceedings and the condemnations of the
insurgent Constitution and proclamations. Fray Domingo Barreda opined
that the accused savored of heresy, but the rest were unanimous that he
was a formal heretic, who denied his guilt and was not only suspect of
atheism but an atheist outright. In the afternoon was held the _consulta
de fe_ to decide upon the sentence. Without a dissentient voice it
agreed that a public auto should be held at 8 o’clock the next morning
in the audience chamber, in the presence of a hundred prominent persons
to be designated by Flores. That Morelos should there be declared guilty
of malicious and pertinacious imperfect confession, a formal heretic who
denied his guilt, a disturber and persecutor of the hierarchy and a
profaner of the sacraments; that he was guilty of high treason, divine
and human, pontifical and royal, and that he should be present at the
mass in the guise of a penitent, in short cassock without collar or
girdle and holding a green candle, which, as a heretic and fautor of
heretics, he should offer to the priest. As a cruel persecutor of the
Holy Office, his property should be confiscated to the king. Although
deserving of degradation and relaxation, for the crimes subject to the
Inquisition, yet, as he was ready to abjure he was, in the unlikely case
of the viceroy sparing his life, condemned to perpetual banishment from
America and from all royal residences and to imprisonment for life in
the African presidios, with deprivation of all preferment and perpetual
irregularity. His three children were declared subject to infamy and the
legal disabilities of descendants of heretics. He was to abjure
formally, and be absolved from the excommunications reserved to the Holy
Office; he was to make a general confession and through life to recite
the seven penitential psalms on Fridays and a part of the rosary on
Saturdays. Moreover a tablet was to be hung in the cathedral, inscribed
with his name and offences.[549]

The next morning, November 27th, as Flores reports, the auto was duly
celebrated in the most imposing scene ever witnessed in the audience
chamber, which was crowded with five hundred of the most important
personages of the capital. The mass was followed by the impressive
ceremony of degradation from the priesthood, performed by the Bishop of
Oaxaca. Morelos was delivered to the royal judge and returned to the
secret prison whence, at 1.30 of the following night, he was transferred
to the citadel. Flores might proudly claim to have vindicated the
jurisdiction of the Holy Office, at some sacrifice of its dignity, in
the shortest trial of a formal heretic to be found in its records. The
object of the indecent haste required by Calleja is scarce apparent, for
Morelos was not executed until December 22d.

The tribunal continued to perform its functions. In 1817, the
prosecution of Don José Xavier de Tribarren, for reading prohibited
books, revealed that Don Cayetano Romero of Guetaria in Guipúzcoa was
equally guilty, and the Suprema in Madrid forthwith ordered the tribunal
of Logroño to take action against him.[550] The latest notable victim
was Fray Servando Teresa de Mier Noriega y Guerra. After holding him for
some time in prison, the tribunal, in anticipation of its extinction,
sent him to the viceroy as an important offender against the State, with
a paper describing him as hating, from the bottom of his heart, the
king, the Córtes and all legitimate government, and even as lacking
respect for the Holy See and the councils of the Church, his dominant
passion being revolutionary independence, which he had vigorously
promoted in both North and South America, by his writings full of
passion and venom.[551]

This useless prolongation of existence was soon to end. One of the first
measures of the revolution of 1820, which restored the Constitution of
1812, was the royal decree of March 9th, suppressing the Inquisition.
Before this reached Mexico officially, the Viceroy Count of Venadita
had seen it in the _Gaceta de Madrid_ and had arranged for the
extinction of the tribunal. The officials ceased their functions on May
31st; as before, they had transferred their political prisoners to the
public prison and those for matters of faith to various convents, the
archives were delivered to the custody of the archbishop and the
officials hastened to find other homes. Then, on June 14th, the viceroy
sent orders for compliance with the decree and, on the 16th, the
Inquisitor Antonio de Pereda reported that the tribunal had ceased in
all its functions and remained in a condition of absolute extinction.
The papers of pending trials were distributed among the appropriate
diocesans and the Intendente took possession of the property.[552] The
officials straggled back to Spain, where they were provided for in
common with those of the Peninsula. In the accounts of 1833 there still
appear as in receipt of salaries the senior inquisitor, Antonio de
Pereda, the secretaries Venancio de Pereda y Cassolla and José María
Briergo, and the _nuncio y portero_, Tomás del Perojo.[553]

Thus forlorn and discredited passed away the tribunal which had in its
prime cast terror over all the provinces between the two oceans, but the
impression which it had produced did not disappear with it. In 1821 Don
Celestino de la Torre reprinted a savage attack issued in Spain, under
the title of “Memorial de la Santa Inquisicion,” which he says, in a
prefatory note, is for the disillusionment of the _serviles_ who sigh
for the restoration of the Holy Office. It is still more significant
that, in the agitation caused, in 1833, by the effort of the Government
to reduce the Church to acquiescence in the new order of things, there
appeared a little anonymous tract entitled “Mientras no haya Inquisicion
se acaba la Religion”--“Without the Inquisition, Religion is
destroyed”--arguing that heresy can never be suppressed without the use
of force; excommunication, censures and argument are of no avail and the
faith of Christ can only be preserved by arming the bishops with all
the powers and methods of the Inquisition and enforcing their penal
sentences by the State. The bishops, in fact, were quite ready to assume
its functions as far as they could for, as late as 1850, on the
appearance of a translation of Féréal’s _Mystères de l’Inquisition_,
with notes by Don Manuel de Cuendias, a diocesan _junta de censura_ was
held which, without hearing the accused, passed a sentence of
excommunication on the editor and on all who should read the book, all
of which was publicly proclaimed by edict. This was based on a consulta
presented to the junta by Doctor Sollano, who lamented the abolition of
the Inquisition and proved satisfactorily that heresy merits the
death-penalty.[554]


THE PHILIPPINES.

When Spain, in 1566, undertook the conquest of the Philippines, they
were not erected into a separate government but were placed under the
vice-royalty of New Spain or Mexico, with a governor or captain-general
in command. When, in 1581, the bishopric of Manila was founded, it was
suffragan to the archbishopric of Mexico and was not erected into a
metropolitan see until 1595. The islands therefore were included in the
district of the Mexican Inquisition, but they were too sparsely occupied
by Europeans for the tribunal to think it necessary to establish an
organization there. When, however, the first bishop, the Dominican
Domingo de Salazar, reached his see in 1572, his zeal led him at once to
establish an episcopal Inquisition with a fiscal and other officials,
and the regular inquisitorial procedure; he soon found culprits and held
a formal auto de fe, exercising his assumed authority with excessive
severity. Don Francisco de Zuñiga, a youth of 20, in a discussion, had
thoughtlessly declared fornication to be no sin; then on reflection he
denounced himself, but notwithstanding this he was obliged to appear in
an auto with a gag, and was banished for ten years, with a threat of two
hundred lashes if he returned. Canon Francisco de Pareja, suspected of
being one of the Alumbrados of Llerena, when arrested for solicitation,
hanged himself in prison. Some of Salazar’s penitents on reaching Mexico
complained to the tribunal and thus aroused its attention to this
invasion of its jurisdiction, when it lost no time in vindicating its
rights. March 1, 1583, it sent a commission as commissioner to the
Augustinian Fray Francisco Manrique, a man of prominence in his Order,
which was the most influential in the islands, and at the same time it
notified Salazar that it had done so in consequence of his having
assumed to act as inquisitor.[555]

Bishop Salazar, who was on the point of celebrating an auto de fe, was
by no means disposed to abandon the authority which he had assumed. He
refused to recognize the commission of Manrique and threatened with
excommunication all who should do so. The Licenciado Juan Convergel
Maldonado, who supported Manrique, was thrown into prison so harsh that
he became insane, when Salazar sent him to Mexico, and Benito de
Mendiola, who had served as Maldonado’s messenger, was likewise
imprisoned. The traditional rivalry between the seculars and regulars
and between the different Orders brought to the bishop ample support
from the clergy, the Franciscans and the Jesuits--a high authority among
the latter, Padre Alonso Sánchez, even declared that those who
recognized the commissioner committed mortal sin. For six months Fray
Manrique kept up the struggle and then abandoned it, writing to the
tribunal, April 1, 1584, that, to avoid scandal he would do nothing more
until it should have provided a competent remedy. The tribunal took
prompt and effective steps. It wrote to Manila revoking all the acts of
the bishop and to the Suprema, January 17, 1585, reciting the
circumstances and pointing out the grave consequences that would follow
when Salazar’s success should lead other bishops to follow his example.
Through the Suprema it also addressed a letter to Philip II, who
responded, May 26th, with a cédula to the bishop, telling him that he
had invaded the jurisdiction of the Inquisition and ordering him to
abstain from interfering in any way in affairs pertaining to it or with
the duties of its commissioners. This was decisive but it was uncalled
for. Salazar had already seen his error, had recognized Manrique and had
handed over to him the papers in all the cases--seven in number--then
pending before him. Thus the jurisdiction of the Mexican tribunal was
permanently established over the islands, although subsequently there
were one or two attempts made to organize an independent Inquisition
there.[556]

In this the tribunal regarded rather its own ambition to extend its
jurisdiction than the interests of the faith, for the whole career of
the Philippine commissionership manifests the impossibility of
conducting such a business at the distance of a hundred and forty
degrees of longitude, when perhaps a year or two might pass without a
vessel reaching Acapulco from Manila. The duties and powers of a
commissioner were strictly limited and defined. As a rule he could do
nothing except in execution of orders from the inquisitors; without such
orders he could not make arrests, unless there was immediate danger of
the escape of the accused; he could only gather information, report it
and await instructions, and it was the same with regard to
sequestration; if involved in a competencia he could issue inhibitions
on the rival judges, but he could not put into execution the censures
and penalties threatened in the formulas unless authorized by the
tribunal.[557] In the detailed instructions sent to Manrique along with
his commission there is little concession made to the difficulties of
distance and communication by enlarging his powers. Although he is not
allowed to sequestrate property, he is to inventory it and see that it
is left in charge of a proper person, but this must be an arrangement
between the accused and the depository in which the Inquisition assumes
no responsibility. He is expressly told that he can make no arrests
without orders, but an exception is made in the case of bigamy, on
account of its frequency, when, if he obtains positive evidence against
a culprit, he can arrest him and send him to Mexico, confining him in
the royal gaol at the public expense, while awaiting a vessel. On the
other hand, he is not to interfere with the secular or spiritual courts
when they prosecute for bigamy and, if they offer to surrender an
offender, he is to tell them to send him to Mexico, but not at the
expense of the Inquisition.[558] Subsequently, in 1611, another
exception was made, in the crime of solicitation in the confessional.
The tribunal wrote to the Suprema that, in consequence of the number of
denunciations, and in view of the need of the culprits’ presence in the
Philippines, whither they had been sent at the royal expense, it had
ordered that only two who seemed most guilty should be shipped to Mexico
for trial and sentence. It further suggested that in future the
commissioner should have power, in conjunction with a judge or other
qualified person, to try the cases and send merely the papers to Mexico
where the sentence should be rendered. To this the Suprema assented,
adding that, in view of the distance and delay, the prisoner should
meanwhile be discharged on bail--which indicates that in these cases the
commissioner could arrest.[559] This does not seem to have been strictly
carried out for, in 1613, we chance to hear of three culprits of this
kind, sent from Manila to Mexico, with the papers, for sentence. One of
these, Francisco Sánchez de Santa María, was accused by twenty-three
native women, and another, Don Luis de Salinas, had been shipwrecked on
the coast of Japan and the papers had been lost; he succeeded in getting
back to Manila, where the commissioner tried him again and despatched
him to Mexico.[560]

Another exception to the prohibition of arrest was made in the case of
soldiers who deserted to the Dutch or to Moros and embraced their faith.
What to do with these cases presented a problem concerning which the
Mexican tribunal consulted the Suprema, as burning them in effigy might
prevent their coming back. The Suprema thereupon submitted the matter to
Philip III, representing that the soldiers were exposed to such
privations that they were forced to fly and find refuge wherever they
could, and meanwhile it advised the tribunal to await the action of the
royal councils. To this the tribunal replied at much length, May 20,
1620, stating that no action had as yet been taken in such cases, but
that the commissioner was ordered to proceed against the culprits and,
on convicting them, to send them to Mexico for sentence. The whole
discussion, however, was purely academical; there is no trace of such
culprits being forwarded to the tribunal and this, possibly, for the
very good reason that the military authorities punished the offence with
death, when they could lay hands on the delinquents.[561] There was
another class of cases in which the commissioners seem to have exercised
the power of arrest. In 1666 we find the tribunal complaining to the
Suprema that soldiers, to escape the rigor of military law, sought
prosecution by the Inquisition in order to be arrested and sent to
Mexico and to this end would blaspheme or utter heretical propositions.
Many of them died on the passage and the expense of this bore heavily on
the tribunal. For this the Suprema had no remedy to suggest except the
plan adopted with soliciting confessors.[562] With these exceptions and
the _visitas de navios_, or searching vessels for prohibited books, the
duties of the commissioner were restricted to receiving denunciations,
taking testimony, reporting to Mexico and executing such orders as he
might receive from there. Still, they were personages of importance;
although frailes living in their convent cells, they organized an
imperfect kind of court; they had their assessors, notaries, treasurers,
consultors and calificadores, their alguazil mayor and familiars and
deputized their powers to sub-commissioners in the various parts of the
islands.

Of real inquisitorial work for the purity of the faith we hear little.
During the sixteenth century the only evidences of activity are three
cases of Judaizers--Jorje and Domingo Rodríguez of Manila, reconciled in
the Mexican auto of March 28, 1593, and Diego Hernández, regidor of
Vitoria, accused by his cook of ordering her to cut chickens’ throats
instead of strangling them; his property was sequestrated and evidence
against him was sought in Oporto from whence he came, but he died during
these prolonged preliminaries.[563] The seventeenth century is similarly
barren, affording few instances except the occasional bigamists and
soliciting confessors, military culprits and sometimes a few Dutch
prisoners of war. In the Mexican auto of 1648 there appeared Alejo de
Castro, an octogenarian sent from Manila on suspicion of Mahometanism,
sentenced to perpetual exile from the Philippines and to servitude for
life in a convent for instruction in the faith.[564] A more noteworthy
culprit was Padre Francisco Manuel Fernández, S. J., a devotee of Luisa
de los Reyes, a Tagal beata who had ecstasies. He declared that she had
died many times and that God had resuscitated her so that she should
suffer for the souls in purgatory; he compared her for sanctity to St.
Teresa, St. Catherine and St. Inez and insisted that when he kissed her,
embraced her and handled her indecently, he had no sensual feeling. It
was a clear case of Illuminism against which the Inquisition waged
unsparing war, nor was Fernández the only culprit, for another Jesuit,
Padre Javier Riquelme was also compromised. Luisa was prosecuted in 1665
and testimony was taken against the Jesuits, but the Mexican tribunal
reported, July 17, 1770, to the Suprema that the case had been suspended
owing to the activity of the Jesuits in the islands, who always made the
cause of their members their own. It complained bitterly of the way in
which they impeded the Inquisition and frustrated its labors, when any
Jesuit was concerned, whether for solicitation or other offence. They
were not to be believed, for there was the case of the French Father
Pierre Peleprat, whose detention was ordered, when they asserted that he
was dead, but subsequently it was reported that this was not so but that
he had been sent to France.[565]

The eighteenth century offers a similarly eventless record. So great was
the inertness that the Edict of Faith, which was the chief source of
denunciations and which should be published yearly in all parish
churches, became virtually obsolete. From the time of Commissioner
Paternina, who published it in 1669, forty-nine years elapsed before it
was again published, in 1718, by Commissioner Juan de Arechederra; and
Fray Juan de la Concepcion, writing in 1790, tells us that it had never
been published since then.[566] It was a somewhat remarkable and
uncalled-for burst of energy on the part of Commissioner Bernardo de
Ustáriz, in 1752, when a score of Moro sailors of an English ship
performed some pagan rites with songs and incense and he applied to the
archbishop and then to the governor for aid to punish the scandal. Both
declined, when he got General Antonio Romero, who was a familiar, to
undertake an investigation. Then force was needed to arrest the culprits
and a prison to confine them, and Romero sought the Marquis of Ovando,
the governor for this, but Ovando replied that the matter was under his
exclusive jurisdiction, an assertion which he repeated to Ustáriz,
adding that he intended to punish the guilty. Ustáriz complained of this
to the tribunal, which declared, February 19, 1754, that the governor
had failed in his duty; that his assertion of cognizance of such cases
should be expunged from any instrument in which it appeared, and that
the commissioner and notary should notify him of this in person. The
Suprema, however, took a cooler view of the matter, pointing out that,
by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, English subjects could not be
prosecuted for practising their religion in Spanish territory, but at
the same time it approved of the action of the tribunal and promised to
ask the king to make due provision for the future.[567] Seeing that
baptism was necessary to give jurisdiction to the Inquisition and that
natives, even when converted, were not subject to it, this sudden access
of zeal on the part of Ustáriz would appear somewhat supererogatory.

Ustáriz also showed his energy, in 1750, by arresting Pierre Fallet, a
Swiss of Neuchâtel and a convert from Calvinism. In 1742 Commissioner
Arechederra had taken from him two indecent prints; in 1748 Commissioner
Juan Alvárez had deprived him of another and denounced him to the
Mexican tribunal as suspect of heresy. The tribunal, on March 14, 1748,
ordered his arrest with sequestration, at the same time dismissing
Alvárez for his indiscretions and replacing him with Ustáriz. The
sequestration showed that Fallet’s property consisted of some
uncollectable credits and many debts but, among his books on history,
voyages and mathematics, in English, French, Flemish, Spanish, Latin and
Greek, were found two prohibited ones--Rapin’s History of England and a
“Historia publica y secreta de la corte de Madrid.” He was duly sent to
Mexico, where he entered the secret prison, January 17, 1752, with
broken health. An accusation of seventy-six articles was accumulated
against him, but his sentence on August 8th consisted merely of
abjuration for light suspicion, three months’ reclusion in the Jesuit
College for instruction and some spiritual penances. This laborious
trifling, so ruinous to the unfortunate subject, was crowned by the
Suprema, which pondered over the case until March 7, 1772, when it
ordered its suspension. Fallet, meanwhile, had been allowed to return to
the Philippines, where his conduct was reported as exemplary.[568]

Censorship of a similarly futile kind was exercised in the denunciation
of objectionable books or passages, which had to be forwarded to Mexico
for action. Of this a single example will suffice. At the end of the
sixteenth century, the Dominican Fray Francisco de San José was one of
the most zealous and successful missionaries. He left a number of works
in Tagal, some of which were printed, while others reposed in MS. Among
the latter was a volume of sermons that had considerable repute, and in
this the Augustinian Fray Juan Eusebio Polo, in 1772, discovered a
passage conveying the Dominican view entertained at the period, as to
the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. Not daring to denounce it to
the Dominican commissioner, he did so directly to the Mexican tribunal,
adding that he could not send the MS., because it was borrowed, but he
furnished certificates of two of his Augustinian brethren as to the
accuracy of his translation. This was forwarded to the Suprema which, on
January 27, 1774, ordered a copy of the book to be searched for in
Mexico and Manila, the translation to be examined by experts, the matter
to be voted on and then referred back to Madrid. Apparently this ended
the case.[569]

If the natives were exempt from inquisitorial jurisdiction, they were
subject to that of the missionary fathers and it may be questioned
whether in this they were to be envied. About 1756 an obstinate revolt
in the Island of Bonol throws some light on the relations between the
converts and their spiritual guides. A district belonging to the
Jesuits was placed under the control of Padre Morales who, observing
that one of his subjects did not attend mass or frequent the sacraments,
ordered him to be arrested. The man was known to be a desperate
character and it was not until Morales laid explicit commands on the
alguazil mayor of the village that the attempt was made, which resulted
in the killing of the alguazil and the flight of the culprit. Francisco
Dagohoy, brother of the slain, brought the corpse to Morales for
Christian burial, which the padre refused, unless the regular fees were
paid, intimating moreover that the alguazil had died under
excommunication as a duellist. Naturally exasperated, Dagohoy, who was a
leader among his people, assembled them, set forth their wrongs
eloquently and had little difficulty in persuading them to follow him to
the mountains, to the number of some three thousand. Entrenching
themselves, they kept up a predatory warfare, in which Morales was
killed and also an Augustinian Fray Lamberti. The rigor with which the
taxes were exacted by the Spaniards drove many to join them and the
rebellion was still flourishing in 1792, in spite of repeated overtures
and offers of pardon--indeed, it may be doubted whether it was ever
completely pacified under Spanish domination.[570]

       *       *       *       *       *

While this Philippine branch of the Inquisition accomplished so little
for the faith, it was eminently successful in the function of
contributing to the disorder and confusion which so disastrously
affected Spanish colonial administration. As everywhere else, the
immunity of the officials was a fruitful source of trouble. In 1601,
Benito de Mendiola, a familiar, was prosecuted in the secular court for
the murder of Roque Espina de Cáceres, secretary of the governor, but
the commissioner interposed and a long competencia followed, at the end
of which, after a delay of ten years, the papers in the case were
ordered to be surrendered to him by a decree of the Suprema of November
28, 1611. In consideration of the distance and delay, Mendiola was
liberated on bail; the widow of his victim desisted from the prosecution
and finally, after further postponement caused by the difficulties of
communication, the Mexican tribunal sentenced him to four months’
banishment, two months’ suspension from his office as notary and a fine
of fifty pesos--a punishment sufficient to show his guilt and his escape
from justice.[571]

The same question came up, in 1635, under Governor Sebastian Hurtado de
Corcuera, whose stormy term of office was a continuous succession of
broils with the several ecclesiastical jurisdictions. The Archbishop
Hernando Guerrero was engaged in a mortal struggle, first with the
governor and then with the Jesuits, in which his experience singularly
resembled that of Bishop Palafox of Puebla. He was twice excommunicated,
his temporalities were seized and he was relegated for a time to
Corregidor Island. Compelled to a humiliating submission, he took the
precaution of making a preliminary protest before the notary Diego de
Rueda, whereupon the governor seized Rueda and threw him into the castle
of Santiago. It chanced that he was a familiar; the commissioner, Fray
Francisco de Herrera, claimed him and excommunicated the _juez
conservador_ of the Jesuits, who had excommunicated the archbishop. The
juez yielded to the superior jurisdiction of the Inquisition and ordered
Rueda released, but the Governor stood firm and when Herrera sent two
frailes of his order with a demand for the prisoner, Corcuera seized
them and sent them to Cavite with orders to confine them in their
convent.[572] This was probably but a small part of Herrera’s contests
with the civil power for, in 1636, Corcuera applied to the Mexican
tribunal asking that frailes be no longer appointed as commissioners, on
account of the disturbances which they excited; if clerics of prudence
were selected, peace would be preserved and the scandals caused by the
Dominicans would be averted. In 1638 the Council of Indies renewed the
request to Philip IV, asking that prebendaries of the churches should be
chosen; Philip sent corresponding instructions to the Suprema but, on
its remonstrating, he referred the matter back to the Council and
nothing was done.[573]

Corcuera’s successor, Diego Fajardo, had an opportunity of learning the
extent to which the audacity of a commissioner could reach, and the
utter disregard of all considerations of public policy. About 1650, an
order came to the commissioner to seize, with the utmost secrecy, the
governor of one of the provinces, who was also commandant of a fortified
post. The commissioner quietly summoned his alguazil mayor and a
sufficient number of familiars, sailed for the province, surprised the
governor in his bed, carried him off and imprisoned him in a convent
until there should be a vessel sailing for Acapulco. Fajardo was an
irritable and passionate soldier, whose governorship was a continuous
broil with the warring jurisdictions of the colony, and who could
appreciate the risk of depriving a fortified place of its commander, at
a time of perpetual warfare with the Dutch and the natives. His wrath
was expected to be extreme at the contempt thus shown for his office and
for the safety of the colony, but his reverential fear of the
Inquisition overcame all other considerations and, when informed of the
matter, he gently rebuked the commissioner for not having afforded him
the opportunity of earning the graces and indulgences granted for
participation in so pious a work, as he would have eagerly served as an
alguazil in making the arrest.[574]

Yet perhaps the most troublesome of the commissioners with whom the
Inquisition afflicted the islands was the Augustinian Fray José de
Paternina Samaniego. He was grossly ignorant and had led a disorderly
life in both Spain and Mexico. His fellow Augustinian, Fray Cristóbal de
Leon, told him that he was unworthy to occupy so high an office, for he
was an apostate whom the General of the Order had condemned to the
galleys when visiting the convents of Old Castile, whereupon he accused
Cristóbal to the provincial as a Jew and a usurer, causing his
imprisonment with such harshness that it cost him his life. Yet this was
the man whom the inquisitor-general sent to the Philippines, in 1663, as
commissioner. His unfitness soon manifested itself, and his prelates
wrote to the Mexican tribunal recommending his replacement; other
remonstrances were sent to the Suprema, which ordered the collection of
material against him, and nothing further was done.[575]

On board the ship which carried Paternina to Manila there was another
passenger, Don Diego Salcedo, a Fleming who, as _maese de campo_, had
rendered distinguished service in the Flemish wars, and who was coming
to the Philippines as governor. The two men conceived a mutual dislike
which was heightened when Salcedo dismissed from command of the fleet
Don Andrés de Medina, who was a close friend of the commissioner, and
refused employment to his nephew, González Samaniego. Still bitterer
grew his hatred when Salcedo succeeded him in the favors of a married
woman, whose paramour he had been, and he openly declared that he would
be revenged.

Salcedo was arbitrary and covetous; he must have made full use of the
opportunities afforded by his position, for at his death his fortune was
reckoned at 700,000 pesos--much of which he had the prudence to remit to
Mexico. He was not popular; he was speedily involved in the dissensions
which seemed inevitable, with Archbishop Poblete, and a faction was
formed against him at the head of which stood the commissioner. A
conspiracy for his ruin was organized and in February, 1666, there came
to the Mexican tribunal letters from Paternina, from the archiepiscopal
notary and from the Castellan of Manila accusing him of indifference to
the service of God and the king and of his communication with Dutch
heretics. Then the archbishop, in a letter of June 20, 1666, to the
inquisitor-general, represented that Salcedo surrounded himself with
Flemings and Dutchmen, one of whom was a Calvinist; that he never
attended mass on feast-days or heard sermons; it was not known that he
confessed or took communion except at Easter; that he created scandal by
his relations with a married woman and that his cupidity was insatiable.
This brought from the queen-regent a letter of November 11, 1666, to
Salcedo, reprimanding him for his disregard of church observances, but
nothing more. Paternina sent fresh accusations to the tribunal, and the
archbishop and the Bishop of Cebu wrote to the Viceroy of Mexico; then
the tribunal ordered its commissioner at Acapulco to examine secretly
the passengers and crews of vessels arriving from the Philippines and
all the accumulation was sent to the Suprema which, on November 22,
1667, ordered the case to be suspended; Paternina must act with caution
and, if he obtained further information, he was to forward it.

The failure of his plans thus far showed Paternina that he must assume
the responsibility. Archbishop Poblete died December 8, 1667, and it was
not until September, 1668, that the commissioner was ready to take
vigorous action, assured of the support of two judges of the Audiencia
who hoped to succeed to power, of high officials with whom Salcedo had
quarrelled, and of individuals to whom promises were made of offices,
_encomiendas_ and other advantages, while there was the enticing
prospect of plunder in the sequestration of the governor’s fortune. It
was not difficult to obtain from his enemies evidence such as it
was--evidence which the Mexican tribunal subsequently pronounced not
only to be factitious on its face, but to amount at most only to a
presumption _plusquam leve_. This was submitted, September 28th, to
nine frailes as calificadores, some of whom pronounced the accused to be
vehemently suspect of the errors of Luther and Calvin. Then three
consultors were called together--the Dean José Millan de Poblete, nephew
of the archbishop, the archiepiscopal provisor, Francisco Pizarro de
Orellano, and the Licenciado Manuel Suárez de Olivera, from whom Salcedo
had taken 12,000 pesos and who was soon afterwards prosecuted for
Judaism. These worthies on October 6th decided that the commissioner
could proceed to arrest, seeing that the three prescribed conditions
were more than fulfilled. Of these conditions the most important, in the
present case, was the danger of immediate escape of the accused, for
which, as an afterthought, there was subsequently collected testimony so
transparently futile that the Mexican tribunal described the danger of
flight as a mere baseless pretext.

The forms having thus been observed, Paternina, on October 8th, issued
the warrant of arrest addressed to the Admiral Vizcarra y Leiva as
alguazil mayor--Vizcarra having been one of the principal witnesses. It
ordered him to seize Salcedo wherever he could be found, to sequestrate
his property and deliver it to Fray Mateo Ballon, guardian of the
Franciscan convent. Salcedo was aware of the machinations against him,
but imagined himself in full security and took no precautions. The
warrant was delivered to the admiral at 9 P.M. on October 9th and
between 12 and 1 A.M. he entered the palace with a band of Franciscan
frailes armed with pikes, swords and bucklers. They seized Salcedo in
bed, fettered him and, without allowing him to dress, carried him as he
was in a hammock to the Franciscan convent and threw him into a narrow
cell. After a few days he was removed to the house of the Capitan Diego
de Palencia, his declared enemy, and then to the Augustinian convent of
San Pablo, where Paternina kept him _incomunicado_ and chained to the
wall. The day of the arrest the judges ordered the bells of the
cathedral to be rung as a sign of rejoicing that they had assumed the
government. In fact, one of the judges, Juan Manuel de la Peña Bonifaz,
an accomplice in the conspiracy, assumed the nominal government and
there ensued a period of terror for all who were not of their faction.
Paternina became the virtual ruler and he inspired general fear by
banishing ten or twelve of the principal citizens, by forbidding any one
to speak of the affair under heavy penalties and excommunication, and by
bringing charges against a number of persons of being hostile to the
Inquisition. The rich sequestration became an object of plunder. A
nephew of Bonifaz profited largely from it, nor was Paternina neglectful
of the chance, for we happen to hear of his entrusting 20,000 pesos to
the Capitan Pedro Quintero, to be used for his benefit, and also of his
extorting bribes from shipmasters for delivering to them goods embargoed
with those of the governor. In short, as the Mexican tribunal reported
to the Suprema, they committed a thousand iniquities.

How long Salcedo lay in his chains does not appear, but it must have
been more than eighteen months, for he was probably shipped to Mexico
during the summer of 1670. He died at sea November 24 of that year,
making a most Christian end, for he confessed three times. A further
proof of his orthodoxy may be found in the fact that he appointed as his
executor the Mexican Inquisitor Ortega Montañes--a position which the
Suprema forbade him to accept--and the estate was handed over, when the
sequestration was lifted, October 31, 1671, to Don Gerónimo Pardo,
Auditor of the Audiencia, who held powers from Salcedo’s sister and
three brothers.

The vessel by which Salcedo was shipped did not reach Acapulco until
January 7, 1671, being the first that had come for two years. It brought
the earliest direct intelligence of the events at Manila and the report
of Paternina, but the news had already arrived there by way of Batavia,
Holland and Madrid. In Madrid it had naturally aroused the Council of
Indies which presented to the queen-regent a consulta embracing three
propositions: I. If the commissioner made the arrest without orders from
the tribunal, he should be severely punished for exposing the colony to
risks so great. II. If the arrest was by order of the tribunal, it
should have notified the Viceroy of Mexico in order that he might make
provision for simultaneously filling the vacancy. III. That precise
instructions for the future should be given for the arrest of persons of
that rank, in conformity with the royal cédulas and concordias providing
for such cases. To this the Suprema, still completely in the dark as to
the circumstances of the case, replied somewhat superciliously that, if
the commissioner had exceeded his duty, he would be punished
appropriately; that the arrest was not ordered by the tribunal but, if
it had been, no notice was due to the viceroy in matters of faith; the
cédula of April 2, 1664, provided for the government of the Philippines
in cases of vacancy, which is all that human foresight can anticipate.
No new instructions were necessary, as such cases were already provided
for in the existing regulations; sentences on persons of the rank of Don
Diego Salcedo were not executed without consulting the Suprema, except
when irremediable injury might be anticipated from delay, and it was an
accepted rule that, in important cases of faith, all such personages
were subjected to the Inquisition. To this the Council of Indies
rejoined by insisting that it should not be left to the discretion of a
commissioner to determine whether the danger of delay justified
arresting a governor and imperilling the safety of the colony; the
tribunal should give notice to the viceroy, without violating the
secrecy of the Inquisition, and it concluded by asking that definite
instructions be given to the inquisitor-general and Suprema that in
matters of such importance such action should be taken as would avoid
the danger of a recurrence of similar proceedings. Even the Council of
Indies did not venture to hint that the governor of an important colony,
if suspected of heresy, could not be suddenly arrested, and it only
objected to this being done without preliminary precautions.

In June, 1670, the news of Salcedo’s arrest filtered through Madrid to
Mexico but it was not until January 7, 1671, that the official report
from Paternina reached Acapulco. The tribunal, in forwarding, January
18th, an abstract of this to the Suprema, made haste to exculpate itself
from all responsibility, pronouncing the whole affair to be the greatest
abuse ever committed by an official, especially by one of the
Inquisition, a trampling on justice, with grievous discredit to the
prudence and equitable procedure of the Holy Office, arising from hatred
of Salcedo and carried out by a conspiracy between Paternina and the
judges who desired to seize the government. This rendered necessary
exemplary punishment, so that all might understand that the tribunal did
not undertake to punish crimes that did not pertain to it, nor serve as
an instrument for the gratification of passion, and this demonstration
should be made in Manila, in order that the honor and fame of Salcedo
might be restored, although he had lost life and fortune. The tribunal
therefore, while awaiting instructions, proposed to suspend Paternina
and give his office to another, with orders to shut him up in a convent
and also to raise the sequestration. This it did and appointed as his
successor Fray Felipe Pardo, though when the Suprema, June 4, 1671,
confirmed the suspension, with incredible blindness, it replaced him
with the Dean José Millan de Poblete, who had been his active
accomplice. Pardo however probably retained the office, as the dean had
been promoted to the bishopric of Canaries, and one of the results of
the affair was to transfer the commissionership from the Augustinians to
the Dominicans.

Paternina escaped the punishment which he merited for he died, January
18, 1674, like his victim, on the voyage to Acapulco. The Suprema had
ordered his imprisonment and trial, but the sentence was not to be
executed without its confirmation. Despite its assurance to the Council
of Indies that nothing more was necessary to regulate arrests of
governors, it issued, under pressure from the queen-regent, June 30,
1671, a carta acordada prescribing special rules for such occasions.
Meanwhile in Manila there had been a natural revulsion. The new
governor, Manuel de Leon y Saravia, took full advantage of the
opportunity to emancipate the secular power from the predominance of the
ecclesiastical. He withdrew the sequestrated property out of the hands
of the treasurer of the Inquisition; he released Juan de Berestain who
had been imprisoned as an accomplice of Salcedo; he prosecuted and
banished the Franciscan provincial and the guardian of the Franciscan
convent, and the good frailes complained that they were persecuted as by
an enemy; and we are assured that he reduced the power of the Holy
Office until its officials were so despised that if they had to arrest
the vilest individual no one would help them.[576]

There is nothing more connected with the Philippine commissionership
that is worth relating, except to explain the disappearance of its
records. When the British captured Manila, October 5, 1762, these were
not removed from the city. No attention was paid to them at first but,
on March 12, 1763, an English Catholic and Don César Fallet, who had
been penanced by the Inquisition, informed the commissioner, Fray Pedro
Luis de Serra, that he was about to be arrested and the archives to be
seized, whereupon he burnt them all and when the English came they found
nothing. He was taken before the authorities where he told what he had
done; the tribunal approved of his action and sent him renewed
instructions.[577]

       *       *       *       *       *

Although not directly connected with our subject, there is interest in
observing the zeal with which the purity of the faith was conserved in
the Far East. The commissioner, Juan de Arechederra, in a letter of July
6, 1724, from Manila to Francisco de Garzeron, inquisitor and inspector
of Mexico, encloses a sentence rendered in Canton by Fra Giovanni
Bonaventura de Roma, as delegate judge and commissioner of Giovanni de
Cazal, Bishop of Macao, on Antoine Guigue, a French missionary convicted
of Jansenism. Guigue, it appears, had obeyed orders in publishing the
appeal of his archbishop, Cardinal Noailles, to a future council against
the bull _Unigenitus_, he had maintained that councils are superior to
popes, that popes sometimes erred and other Jansenist heresies, besides
receiving and circulating Jansenist books. Moreover it was asserted that
he had been guilty of solicitation when on missions in the interior. He
had not obeyed the citations and had allowed the trial to go by default,
wherefore his sentence was publicly read, March 1, 1724, in the church
Siaò Nân Muen of Canton. He was suspended from all priestly functions,
he was ordered to leave the province and betake himself to a convent in
which he was to remain, performing certain spiritual exercises, until he
had satisfied the pope, and all this under penalty of perpetual
imprisonment for disobedience.[578] The Emperor of China at the time was
ordering all Christian missionaries to leave his dominions, but the
common danger was insufficient to allay the strife arising from Pasquier
Quesnel’s speculations on sufficing attrition.




CHAPTER VII.

PERU.


When, on January 9, 1570, Servan de Cerezuela arrived at Lima to open a
tribunal of the Inquisition, the condition of Spanish South America was
such as to call for energetic action if the colony was to respond to the
hopes of those who had so earnestly urged the Christianization of the
New World. The establishment there of the Holy Office had been asked for
by many who viewed with dismay the prevailing demoralization, and we
shall see whether its influence proved to be for good or for evil. Peru
had been conquered by adventurers inflamed with the thirst of gold, who
in the eager search for wealth had thrown off the restraints of
civilized life. The Church exercised little or no moral power for, as
the existing Viceroy, Francisco de Toledo, reported, he found on his
arrival that the clerics and frailes, bishops and prelates, were lords
of the spiritual and acknowledged no superior in the temporal. The king
was exposed to constant outlay in granting free passage by every fleet
to great numbers of clerics and frailes who came under the pretext of
converting and teaching the Indians, but, in reality, many devoted
themselves to accumulating wealth, plucking the Indians in the endeavor
to return to Spain with fortunes. These priests kept prisons, alguaziles
and chains, seizing and punishing all who offended them and there was no
one to call them to account. The bishops pretended to have royal
licences to return to Spain, laden with the silver which they had not
already gathered and despatched in advance, and it was the same with the
frailes.[579] This deplorable statement is confirmed and strengthened
by Toledo’s successor in the vice-royalty, the Count del Villar, in
1588. The secular clergy, he says, from the bishops to the lower grades,
have come to Peru, not to save the souls of the Indians but to gain
money in any manner and return to Spain, while those who are ordained in
the country are mostly soldiers discharged for ill-conduct or men of bad
character. The regular Orders are no better, except to some extent, the
Franciscans and more especially the Jesuits. The royal officials use
their positions to make money and oppress the people. Few immigrants
seem to come with the intention of honest labor, but are mostly vagrants
living on the hospitality of those who will receive them. The
descendants of the _conquistadores_ claim positions in virtue of the
services of their ancestors and, as they increase in number with each
generation, it is impossible to satisfy them or the impostors who
pretend to be descendants. With all this the Christianization of the
Indians makes little or no progress. Altogether he assumes that the
immigration, both lay and clerical, is thoroughly vicious, while the
creoles, or native whites, are no better.[580] It is a community living
in idle self-indulgence on the Indians and the Government.

As regards matters of faith, in the absence of the Inquisition, the
jurisdiction over heresy, inherent in the episcopal office, had
reasserted itself and was exercised by the bishops. As early as May 15,
1539, the Dominican Provincial, Gaspar de Carvajal, is found acting as
inquisitor for the Bishop Fray Vicente de Valverde and, on October 23 of
the same year, the secular magistrates honored a demand from the bishop
for the process against Captain Mercadillo, in order that, as
inquisitor, he should take cognizance of certain ebullitions of
blasphemy. This inquisitorial power was exercised to its highest
expression, for, in 1548, the first Archbishop, Gerónimo de Loaisa, held
an auto de fe in Lima, wherein Jan Millar, a Fleming, was burnt for
Protestantism. In 1560 the episcopal Provisor of Cuzco held an auto in
which were relaxed the Morisco Alvaro González and the mulatto Luis
Solano as dogmatizing Mahometans; in 1564 he celebrated another in which
Vasco Suárez, Antonio Hernández and Alonso de Cieza were penanced, while
Lope de la Peña was reconciled for Islam. In 1565 the Dean of la Plata
reconciled Juan Bautista for Protestantism and condemned him to
confiscation and perpetual prison and sanbenito.[581] Evidently the
episcopal Inquisition was active; in 1567 the synod of Lima adopted
regulations to govern its functions and when, in 1583, the provincial
council, under St. Toribio, confirmed the acts of that synod, it was
obliged, doubtless on representation by the tribunal, to except those
regulations as matters which had passed beyond its control.[582] The
bishops, however, did not surrender their jurisdiction without
impulsion, for, as we have seen (Mexico, p. 199), the Suprema was
obliged to order them, in 1570, to transfer all cases to the tribunal
and it was found necessary to repeat this in 1586.

When the transfer was made there were four cases pending in Lima and
ninety-seven in Cuzco, concerning which the fiscal reported that the
Ordinaries had prosecuted many that were not matters of faith and were
habitually settled for a trivial payment in oil. Inquisitor Cerezuela
set a good example by suspending three and ordering the rest to be filed
for reference in case of relapse.[583] One of the cases thus inherited
by the tribunal may be briefly sketched as affording a vivid picture of
the methods in vogue and the use made of the Inquisition, whether
episcopal or Spanish.

Francisco de Aguirre was one of the prominent conquistadores. He had
come well equipped to Peru in 1533, he had borne an active share in the
conquest of Chile and then in that of the extensive interior province
known as Tucuman, of which he became governor. Of this he was deprived,
but about 1566 he was reappointed on the occasion of an Indian revolt,
in which the Spaniards were murdered and only a handful of soldiers held
out in the town of Santiago del Estero. With his customary energy
Aguirre collected a force, defeated the Indians in a battle, in which he
lost one of his sons, and re-established the Spanish dominion. Then he
headed an expedition in search of a port on the Atlantic to afford
easier access to the territory, but when near his destination his troops
mutinied and carried him back as a prisoner to Santiago del Estero. To
justify this the mutineers claimed to have acted under orders of the
Inquisition of the Bishop of la Plata, with whom Aguirre had quarrelled
on the subject of tithes. There were witnesses in plenty to hasty and
irreverent speeches by the veteran soldier; for two or three years he
was kept in prison, at a cost to him, as he declared, of thirty thousand
pesos, and on October 15, 1568, by judges acting under commission of
Bishop Navarrete “inquisidor ordinario y general” he was sentenced. His
imprisonment was accepted as a punishment; he was fined in fifteen
hundred pesos and costs and was required to appear as a penitent in the
church of Santiago del Estero and make formal abjuration of his
objectionable speeches. This he performed, but on the pretext of
informality he was obliged to undergo the humiliation a second time,
April 1, 1569, in la Plata. Of this a notarial act was sent to the
Council of Indies to show that he was unfitted to be Governor of
Tucuman, but it was too late, for in August of that year he received the
royal confirmation of his appointment with orders to proceed at once to
his seat of government. On the march a cleric with an order from the
bishop sought to stop him, but he disobeyed and paralyzed the
unfortunate messenger by sternly asking him “If I should kill a cleric,
what would be the penalty?”

So far he had had to deal with the episcopal Inquisition in the hands of
an opposing faction; even severer experiences were in store for him from
the Holy Office, used as an instrument by the Viceroy Toledo who desired
to get rid of him. One of the earliest acts of the Lima tribunal was to
entertain a denunciation of him, in which his intemperate utterances
were again brought forward, together with the further accusation that he
had banished from Tucuman all who had been concerned in his prosecution
and that he had said that he had been forced to confess to what he had
not done. March 14, 1570, Cerezuela ordered his arrest with
sequestration of property; Toledo undertook to execute the mandate and
in reporting to the king stated that Aguirre’s government was such that
most of the inhabitants were leaving the province. To arrest such a man
was not an easy matter, but it was effected and he was brought three
hundred leagues to Lima. Delays were unavoidable in obtaining and
ratifying testimony at such a distance, through a hostile Indian country
which, as the tribunal stated, was entered only once a year. Aguirre
offered to waive the formality of ratifying the testimony in order to
expedite the process, but the fiscal insisted on regularity and the
trial dragged wearily on, as new evidence came in, mostly as to his
arbitrary government and other matters with which the tribunal properly
had no concern. Aguirre fell dangerously ill and was transferred, July
19, 1572, to the house of a familiar, where he was kept strictly
_incomunicado_ and from which he was brought back, April 24, 1574, to
listen to the publication of evidence. It was not until late in 1575 or
early in 1576 that sentence was rendered condemning him to hear mass as
a penitent on a feast-day when no services were allowed in any other
church; he abjured _de vehementi_, was cast in all costs, was recluded
for four months in a convent and was banished perpetually from Tucuman.
The trivial character of the charges is seen in the special stress laid
on his having used charms to cure wounds and toothache, which he was
forbidden to do in future--innocent charms, as he explained, employed
only because no physician was at hand and surely pardonable in the wild
warfare in which he had worn out his life. He retired to the city of
Serena which he had founded, old, sick and penniless. He had spent
thirty-six years and some three hundred thousand pesos in the king’s
service; three of his sons, his brother and three nephews had died in
the same service, and he was too poor and oppressed with debts to make
his way to court and ask reward for his labors. To complete the
destruction of his influence his two remaining sons were prosecuted on
frivolous charges, but the cases seem to have been suspended after the
desired result had been attained. His son-in-law, Francisco de Matienzo,
who had endeavored to prevent his arrest, was prosecuted and fined in
three hundred pesos. There were also seven other prosecutions against
his followers, resulting in the imposition of fines.[584] Had all
viceroys, like Francisco de Toledo, known how to control the Inquisition
it might have been made a useful political instrument but, as we shall
see, succeeding inquisitors preferred to follow their own ends and it
became a perpetually disturbing influence.

The bishops did not willingly acquiesce in the surrender of a
jurisdiction which could be so profitably employed. That Archbishop
Loaiza showed a recalcitrating temper is manifested by a letter of the
Suprema directing that he should not style himself “inquisidor
ordinario” in his pastorals and edicts. Another letter permits him to
inspect the commissions of the inquisitors and their instructions if he
desires, but it must be in the audience-chamber as they are not to be
removed from there, except the printed instructions, of which a copy may
be given to him on condition of his allowing no one to see it. There was
evident friction despite the injunctions of the Suprema that a good
understanding should be maintained.[585] This was increased when, in
1574, a royal cédula addressed to the bishops ordered them to exercise
special vigilance and make secret inquiry about disguised Lutheran
preachers who were said to be on their way to Peru. The prelates assumed
this to be a grant of renewed inquisitorial power and undertook to
exercise it, giving rise to no little trouble. Sebastian de Lartaun,
Bishop of Cuzco, not only published edicts trespassing on inquisitorial
jurisdiction but boasted that, if the inquisitors came into his diocese,
he could punish them, and he arrested and imprisoned in chains their
commissioner Pedro de Quiroga, a canon of his cathedral, publicly and
under circumstances creating great scandal. The tribunal retaliated by
summoning to Lima the bishop’s provisor Albornoz and throwing him in the
secret prison; furthermore it imprisoned the priest Luis de Arma, who
had assisted in chaining Quiroga, as well as the episcopal fiscal Alonso
Duran and a cleric named Bejerano for the same offence, to which the
bishop responded by seizing Quiroga’s temporalities and forbidding him
to enter the church. The tribunal, in 1581, reported the situation to
the Suprema, which replied that nothing was to be conceded to the
Ordinaries save what was allowed by the laws and the royal cédulas;
from the Bishop of Cuzco’s edict the matter pertaining to the
Inquisition was to be struck out and he was to be duly warned. A second
notice was to be given to the Bishop of Panamá of the cédulas forbidding
his interference in matters of faith and, if he continued to disobey,
the Suprema was to be advised. The same was to be done with other
bishops similarly offending, and special attention was directed to the
acts of the Bishops of Popayan and Tucuman. If we may believe the
reports made by the tribunal to the Suprema the episcopate was filled
with most unworthy wearers of the mitre and the Archbishop of New
Granada was the only one who had fully obeyed the orders to hand over
all inquisitorial cases. The officials of the Inquisition, it said, were
hated equally by the bishops and by the royal judges, who lost no
opportunity of oppressing and humiliating them.[586]

Thus early commenced the antagonism between the Inquisition and the
episcopate which continued during its whole career to be a disturbing
element in the Spanish possessions. In 1584 we find Inquisitor Ulloa
complaining to the Suprema of the action of the recent provincial
council of Lima in secretly writing to the king about the evil character
of the commissioners selected. This, he asserts, arose from his refusal
of the request of the Bishops of Cuzco, la Plata and Tucuman to make
them commissioners in their respective dioceses. The bishops, he adds,
were opposed to the introduction of the Inquisition, because it limited
their jurisdiction, and they and the royal courts were constantly
causing trouble in spite of the extreme modesty and deference shown by
his officials.[587]

       *       *       *       *       *

Such was the soil in which the Inquisition was to be planted when Philip
II resolved to confer upon the New World the blessing of the
institution. Its inception bore a marked resemblance to that of Mexico.
January 28, 1569, Inquisitor-general Espinosa wrote to the Licentiate
Servan de Cerezuela, in Oropesa, that the king proposed to establish a
tribunal in Peru and that he was selected as an inquisitor, with a
salary of three thousand pesos, each of four hundred maravedís, a part
of which would be drawn from the fruits of a prebend in Lima. He was
ordered to start without delay for Seville, whence he would sail with a
colleague, a fiscal and a notary, in the fleet carrying the Viceroy
Francisco de Toledo, who would deliver to him his commission and
instructions. Similar orders were sent to the other inquisitor, Dr.
Andrés de Bustamente, and five hundred ducats were given to each to
defray their expenses. Commands were issued to the bishops to surrender
all cases pertaining to the tribunal; to the courts not to interfere
with the confiscations; to the viceroy to render it all favor and
support and to provide a proper building for its occupancy and prisons;
to all officials to take the oath of obedience and to lend whatever aid
might be required.[588]

The fleet sailed March 19, 1569; Dominica was reached April 28th,
Cartagena May 8th and Nombre de Dios, June 1st. There their funds ran
out and no one would lend them a real without interest until Judge
Barros of Panamá furnished them two thousand pesos out of moneys
deposited in his court. While thus delayed they heard several cases and
rendered sentences. Bustamente with the notary Arrieta left Nombre de
Dios on June 23d, but he was so affected by the escape of two of his
slaves, as we are told, that he fell sick and died on June 30th.
Cerezuela and the fiscal Alcedo remained to attend to a case which
developed itself on the day fixed for their departure. Six witnesses
testified that a Portuguese named Salvador Méndez Hernández had been
burnt in effigy in Seville; they arrested him and wrote to Seville for
the process, but as they had no arrangements for detaining him, he was
released under oath, which he naturally forfeited. Cerezuela reached
Panamá on July 18th, when he summoned the viceroy and the judges of the
Audiencia to take the oath of obedience to the Inquisition. On the 22d
there was a solemn ceremony, with a procession to the church of San
Francisco, where his commission was read, he issued a mandate and the
viceroy and officials and the people all took the oath. Sail was made
from Panamá, August 15th, and Lima was reached November 28th. A house
was selected and the viceroy was called upon to give it to them; another
adjoining was rented for the officials and, on January 29, 1570, there
was a solemn function in the cathedral, such as we have seen in Mexico,
when the tribunal was officially acknowledged, its authority asserted
and the Edict of Faith was published, calling upon every one to denounce
all offenders of whom he was cognizant, directly or indirectly.[589]

Although Cerezuela was accused to the Suprema, by his notary Arrieta, as
wholly ignorant of inquisitorial practice, of allowing himself to be
easily influenced, and of neglecting to appoint familiars, he speedily
manifested an energy inspiring all classes with fear of a tribunal which
was superior to all distinctions of station, and whose jurisdiction was
limited only by its own definitions. Scarce had the edict been published
when arrests began of bigamists, blasphemers and persons whose
utterances were not cautiously restrained--Alcedo, the fiscal, reports
three in one day. Two canons of the cathedral and their advocate were
prosecuted for some false swearing before the ecclesiastical court,
which the theologians managed to find heretical, and, in spite of the
intervention of the archbishop, Cerezuela tried them and amerced them in
eight hundred pesos for the benefit of the tribunal. Then he prosecuted
two royal officials, for raising difficulties in supplying his demands
for the maintenance of poor prisoners, and fined them in eighty
ducats.[590] Presumably he desired to produce a profound impression upon
the public and for this the solemnity of a public auto de fe was
essential. This rendered inadvisable the customary prolonged delays of
inquisitorial action and already, on November 15, 1573, it was held in
the principal plaza, with the usual oaths administered to all present
and the preaching of a sermon. The different bodies of dignitaries of
course quarreled as to the places assigned to them, but Cerezuela
settled their conflicting pretensions and the awful ceremony was
performed effectively. The penitents were not numerous. The Corsican,
Joan Bautista, had been penanced for Protestantism by the archbishop and
again had been sentenced to perpetual prison by the Bishop of los
Charcas; now as an impenitent, he was condemned to two hundred lashes
through the streets and to lifelong galley-service. The Frenchman, Jean
de Lion, for the same heresy abjured _de vehementi_, was confined for
ten years to the city of Lima, and contributed a thousand pesos towards
the cost of erecting the staging at the auto. Ynes de los Angeles
received a hundred lashes for bigamy, and Andrés de Campos the same for
violating the secrecy of the Inquisition. The crowning attraction of the
spectacle, however, was another Frenchman, Mathieu Salado, who was
generally reputed to be insane. He had been denounced for “Lutheranism”
in May, 1570, but after arrest and examination had been discharged as
irresponsible. New evidence was received however and, in November, 1571,
he was again put on trial. He held that Erasmus and Luther were saints
enlightened by God; he denounced the popes, the clergy and the whole
establishment; he denied purgatory and indulgences, images and the mass.
He was decided to be of sound mind and, as he was pertinacious, he was
sentenced to relaxation after a preliminary torture _in caput alienum_,
all of which was duly executed, but whether he was burnt alive or after
strangulation we are not informed.[591]

       *       *       *       *       *

The tribunal which had thus asserted its power was necessarily organized
on the Castilian pattern, with normally two inquisitors, a fiscal (or,
as he was termed in later times, an inquisitor-fiscal), a notary or
secretary, a receiver of confiscations or treasurer, an ornamental
alguazil mayor and another for work, an alcaide or gaoler with
assistants, a nuncio, a portero or apparitor, an advocate of prisoners,
a barber, a physician and a surgeon. These were the salaried officials
and in addition there were commissioners at distant points, familiars,
consultores and calificadores. There seems to have been an effort from
the first to restrict the lists of unsalaried officials, whose overgrown
numbers in Spain were the source of constant trouble, owing to their
exemption from the secular courts and being justiciable only by the
tribunal. Thus the consultores were limited to six and the familiars to
twelve in the city of Lima, four in each cathedral city and one in each
town inhabited by Spaniards, and their _fuero_ was defined, as in
Mexico, to be that of the Castilian concordia of 1553, which limited, to
a considerable extent, their exemption in criminal cases.[592]

Distance and delay in communication necessarily rendered the tribunal
more independent in action than was permitted in Spain at this time, but
the Suprema endeavored to maintain supervision and subordination as far
as it could. It was unavoidable that the tribunal should be allowed to
appoint to the minor and unsalaried positions, but its appointments were
reported to the Suprema, which thereupon issued the commissions and
sometimes, at least, made appointments itself. In the original
instructions of 1570 power was granted to create commissioners and
familiars; in 1576 this was extended to notaries and other officials,
while in 1589 it appears to be restricted to cases of necessity in the
city of Lima.[593] Yet when the Suprema chose to exercise the appointing
power it had no hesitation, as when, in 1615, it ordered Don Gil de
Amoraga to be received as commissioner of Panamá and Don Fernando
Francisco de Ribadeneira as commissioner of Tucuman, if the place was
vacant, and if not, as soon as it should become so. As time went on,
cases of this kind became more frequent. As regards commissions, a
letter of May 26, 1620, orders that the physician, the barber and the
surgeon are to furnish their proofs of _limpieza_, or purity of blood,
when their names can be forwarded and the inquisitor-general will issue
their commissions. When, in 1584, the tribunal granted to a familiar of
Panamá the title of alguazil, with a _vara alta de justicia_, or the
privilege of carrying a tall wand as the symbol of his office, the
audiencia of Panamá complained to the king and the Suprema called upon
the tribunal for an explanation, pending which the _vara_ was not to be
carried.[594]

The provisions for cases which in Spain were referred to or appealed to
the Suprema and inquisitor-general have already been detailed in the
chapter on Mexico and need not be repeated here. It will be recalled
that they conferred on the colonial tribunals almost complete
independence, so that they escaped the encroachments which at home
eventually rendered the provincial Inquisitions scarce more than bureaus
for the collection of evidence and for the execution of the decrees of
the Council. The Suprema, it is true, occasionally made its power felt
by sending out a _visitador_ or inspector, with faculties more or less
extensive and by removing or transferring an inquisitor against whom
complaints were too vigorous to be disregarded, but the only regular
supervision that could be exercised lay in the requirement of full
semi-annual reports of the business of the tribunal and the condition of
pending cases. It may be questioned, however, whether this could have
been performed with regularity during the earlier periods for, as late
as 1680, the tribunal was notified that an arrangement had been made
with the king by the consulado of Seville whereby despatches could be
sent twice a year.[595]

The Edict of Faith was ordered to be published regularly in all parish
and conventual churches, a command which was doubtless obeyed with
reasonable regularity, but there was a curious ignorance displayed
of the vastness of South America and its lack of means of
intercommunication, when the inquisitors were required to perform an
annual visitation of their district. Of course this instruction received
no attention; indeed the only attempt recorded is that of Inquisitor
Ulloa, who found it convenient, in 1594, to be absent from Lima and
employed his time, until his death in 1597, in wandering over the land
and harassing the people.[596]

As in Mexico, Indians were excepted from inquisitorial jurisdiction and,
in matters of faith, were subject to the bishops. This was not relished.
Fray Juan de Vivero wrote to Philip that the Inquisition should punish
them, though not as severely as Spaniards. The notary Arrieta advised
Cerezuela to disregard the instructions and to prosecute them, just as
he had seen in Seville unbaptized slaves punished for perverting their
Christian comrades. Cerezuela reported that baptized Indians publicly
persuaded their fellows that what the missionaries told them was false,
but the Suprema was firm and ordered him not to interfere even with
dogmatizers who told their people not to believe the missionaries.[597]

Cerezuela’s zeal was also rebuked when he represented that foreigners
who came to Peru usually sought at once to penetrate into the interior,
wherefore he proposed that the commissioners at Cartagena and Panamá
should turn them back and not permit them to enter, but the Suprema
replied that their entrance was not to be impeded nor were they to be
prosecuted unless they committed offences coming within the jurisdiction
of the Holy Office, or were detected in bringing prohibited books. At
the same time it ordered a careful inquest as to all strangers scattered
through the land and, when this should be verified with due secrecy, the
commissioners were to be instructed to admit to reconciliation those
found transgressing and, if they refused conversion, they were to be
prosecuted with the full severity of the canons.[598] If the tribunal
thus was prevented from regulating ingress, it assumed full control over
egress, for in June, 1584, it issued a proclamation that no one should
leave the kingdom without its licence, under pain of excommunication and
fines, and shipmasters were ordered to take no passengers without it--an
assumption of power which won the approbation of the Suprema, with the
suggestive warning that the licences must be issued without charge. This
arbitrary exercise of authority was even extended to prohibiting any
vessel from leaving port without a licence, and the abuse became so
intolerable that, as we have seen (Mexico, p. 252), its removal formed
part of the Concordia of 1610. The tribunal chafed under this and, when
it was busy in arresting nearly all the Portuguese merchants in 1636, it
complained to the Suprema that its hands had been tied; to prevent the
escape of those who might be guilty it had applied to the Viceroy
Chinchon who, as a governmental act, ordered that for a year no one
should be given passage without a licence from the Inquisition; he would
willingly have done more, but he had to pay some regard to the
Concordia. The Suprema was impressively asked to see that this matter
should be corrected, as otherwise the faith and the fisc would suffer.
It was probably on this occasion that occurred a detention of the fleet
when ready to sail, to which I have met with an allusion, because
licences had not been procured for the passengers.[599]

       *       *       *       *       *

The chief obstacle to the thorough organization of the Inquisition was
the immense extent of the territory subjected to a single tribunal.
Until the kingdom of New Granada was cut off, in 1610, by the
establishment of a tribunal at Cartagena, this comprised the West India
Islands and the whole of South America, save the undefined limits of
Portuguese Brazil.[600] The three centres of Lima, Santiago de Chile and
Buenos Ayres were far apart in distance and still farther in the
character of the intervening territory, much of as yet scarce explored,
the Indians but partially subdued and the Spanish settlements few and
far between. Chile, indeed, could be reached by sea, in a voyage usually
of two or three weeks, but the difficulties of communication with the
interior provinces and those of the River Plate were embarrassing. When
the tribunal consulted the Suprema about them it could only reply that
cases arising in Paraguay and la Plata must be dealt with as best they
could; the accused at a distance should be ordered to present themselves
to the tribunal and not be arrested unless there were manifest heresy or
evidence justifying sequestration[601]--a suggestion dictated rather by
thrift than mercy.

The device which was effective in Spain, of commissioners in all centres
of population and familiars scattered everywhere, was only a partial
remedy for the difficulty. The power of the commissioner, as we have
seen, was jealously limited; he could execute orders, take testimony and
report, but he was forbidden to arrest unless there was imminent danger
that a culprit might fly; in no case could he conduct a trial; his
functions were purely executive and in no sense judicial. A vast
proportion of the cases tried by the Inquisition were for offences
comparatively trivial--blasphemy, careless or irreverent remarks, or the
more or less harmful superstitions classed as sorcery--and the
transmission of denunciations for such matters, over hundreds of leagues
of forest and mountain, and awaiting a reply with instructions, was
manifestly too cumbrous a process to be practical; the half-breed crone,
the vagrant soldier or the wandering pedlar, who were the usual culprits
in such cases, would be dead or vanished before an order of arrest could
be received.

Peru was no more exempt than Mexico from the troubles caused by these
outlying officials who felt themselves virtually independent and became
intolerable pests in their districts. The object of acquiring the
position was to obtain exemption from justice. They were answerable only
to the tribunal, hundreds of leagues away; if laymen, the secular
courts, and if ecclesiastics, the spiritual judges, could not touch
them. They were above all local law; they could indulge with impunity
all evil passions, they could tyrannize at will over their neighbors,
and even in civil matters they could set justice at defiance. It was
idle for the Suprema to urge great care in their selection and strict
investigation into their conduct when visitations were made, with
rigorous punishment for their excesses. The material to select from was
not abundant and was mostly evil; visitations never took place as
planned, and punishment was rare. The repeated orders not to appoint
frailes except in case of necessity and, when it was obligatory, to
prefer Dominicans, is not to be regarded as a reflection on the regular
Orders, but as arising from the desire to maintain discipline in the
Orders, because, when a fraile obtained a position in the Inquisition,
he threw off subjection to his prelate, and the injunction not to
support them in disobedience was rarely observed.[602]

A memorial presented, in 1592, to the inquisitor-general, in the name of
the clergy of Peru, complains of the appointment as commissioners of
vicious, dishonest and turbulent persons, and confirms it by statements
in detail concerning those of Cuzco, Potosí, Popayan, Camana, Arequipa,
Guaymanga and Payta, while the familiars were no better. Successive
inquisitors, from Cerezuela to Juan de Mañozca, admitted the fact but
justified themselves by the argument that they had to take what they
could get; the material to select from was too scarce to admit of
selection, with the result that the officials abused their power in
innumerable ways.[603] The only serious effort made to repress these
evils was when Juan Ruiz de Prado was sent, in 1587, to Lima as
_visitador_, clothed with full power to correct the abuses which had
excited general complaint. He reported that much of his time was
occupied in prosecuting commissioners and their notaries, who had
committed the gravest excesses; the tribunal, while cognizant of their
evil ways, had only taken action in so far as to deprive two of them of
their commissions, giving as an excuse that if it punished them it could
find no others to take their places. Among those whom Prado disciplined
was the priest Martin Barco de Centinera, commissioner of Cochachamba,
well known as the author of _La Argentina_. The charges against him were
grave but Prado did not wish to bring him three hundred leagues to
answer them, so they were sent to him with orders to return them with
his defence. It was proved that he treated the people of his district
like Jews and Moors, that he revenged himself on all who offended him,
and that he usurped the royal jurisdiction. At public banquets he drank
to intoxication, he talked openly of his successful amours, he kept a
married woman as a mistress and was generally scandalous in conversation
and mode of life. Prado fined him in two hundred and fifty pesos and
incapacitated him from holding office in the Inquisition.[604]

A single spasmodic effort such as that of Prado could effect no
permanent result and, if it was difficult for the people, oppressed by
these petty local despots, to make their wrongs known, it was equally
difficult for the Lima tribunal to exercise its authority over such vast
distances. The cruelty and injustice to which this exposed the accused
were also extreme. On a simple denunciation, possibly for a trivial
offence, and without proper preliminary investigation, he might be sent,
perhaps in chains, from Buenos Ayres to Lima, exhausting in expenses
whatever fortune he possessed. A practical illustration is furnished by
the case of Francisco de Benavente, denounced in 1582, to the
Commissioner of Tucuman because, when some one remarked that the Church
was permanent, he had replied that it was not well said. The
commissioner commenced to take testimony which so alarmed Benavente that
he travelled six hundred leagues to present himself to the tribunal in
Lima, which suspended the case and he travelled home again.[605] To a
great extent this explains the inordinate procrastination in many of the
trials, while the victim languished in his cell, for the evidence might
have to be sent back for ratification, or fresh testimony might be
sought and when, after years had been consumed in these preliminaries,
he put in his defence, the interrogatories for his witnesses would be
despatched over the same distance and their return would be awaited.
These causes of delay were aggravated by the habitual negligence and
indifference of all the officials concerned, so that a large portion of
a man’s life was often consumed in prison for an offence which
ultimately might only merit a reprimand, or for which he might be
acquitted.

Some relief was afforded when, in 1611, the tribunal of Cartagena was
founded for the northern coastal territory and the islands. This was
probably intended as the commencement of a systematic subdivision of the
vast district for, a few years later, in anticipation of the erection of
the bishopric of Buenos Ayres in 1620, the Suprema presented to Philip
III an elaborate consulta strongly urging the establishment there of a
tribunal. It pointed out that the arrests made in Lima showed the
country to be full of Portuguese Judaizers, who had every facility of
entrance and departure at Buenos Ayres. From there to Lima there were
seven hundred leagues; the roads were good, the country populous and the
Portuguese drove a thriving trade, enriching themselves and perverting
the Indian converts. A commissioner would not answer, for he had to send
seven hundred leagues to Lima, with as many in return, before he could
act, while a tribunal could take note of every passenger landing or
departing, and not only defend the faith but avert the political dangers
threatened by the correspondence of these foreigners with the enemy.
Besides, it was a great hardship when a man, for a slight offence such
as blasphemy, had to be taken under guard for seven hundred leagues, at
great cost, to be sentenced perhaps to abjure _de levi_ and to hear a
mass. If the projected cathedral were founded a prebend could be taken
to diminish the expense and a single inquisitor would suffice, as in
Majorca.[606]

Given the necessity for the Inquisition, the arguments were
unanswerable, but they elicited no response for the crown was
impoverished and shrank from having to support another tribunal. About
1620 another effort was made by the procurator of the Atlantic
provinces, in a memorial repeating the same arguments and suggesting
that a district be formed of Rio de la Plata, Paraguay and Tucuman up to
the boundaries of los Charcas, thus extending some three hundred leagues
and leaving four hundred for the Lima tribunal.[607] This was referred
to the Suprema which presented a consulta urging favorable action
February 1, 1621, but the illness and speedy death of Philip III
intervened and on March 31, 1623, it applied again to Philip IV,
supporting its arguments with letters from the tribunal of Lima and the
commissioner at Buenos Ayres, but to no effect. The next move came from
the king, who, on April 12, 1630, communicated to the Suprema a paper
describing how the Dutch lost no opportunity of introducing heretical
books and perverting the natives of those regions. He thought it would
be well to found an Inquisition in Buenos Ayres and, if the expenses
were too great, there might be an inquisitor and a fiscal, while the
other offices could be filled by wealthy men who would gladly serve
gratuitously. Or, if this were too costly, a Dominican fraile could fill
the post of inquisitor as in Naples and other parts of Italy, and he
ordered the Suprema to arrange the matter accordingly. We shall see that
in Peru, as in Mexico, the tribunal and Suprema evaded all efforts to
relieve the royal treasury of the burden and can scarce wonder that
Philip, with all his fanaticism, was economically disposed, but this did
not suit the ideas of the Suprema. It replied in a consulta of April
17th, insisting that an inquisitor, fiscal, notary, alcaide and portero,
with salaries and expenses aggregating at least six thousand ducats a
year, were indispensable. The other officials, whose time would not be
exclusively occupied, might be selected from among opulent persons, and
that by aiding to suppress the contraband trade of the Dutch the royal
revenues could be correspondingly increased. The prospect of this outlay
refrigerated Philip’s zeal, and he returned the consulta with the
endorsement that the disadvantages prevented the execution of the
project; the Lima tribunal must appoint a commissioner of special
ability and the governor would be ordered to assist him.[608]

This rebuff silenced the Suprema for the time but, on September 19,
1630, it returned to the charge. The Lima tribunal, in a letter of June
28, 1629, had related how a soldier in the port of Buenos Ayres, on the
look-out for a vessel, had picked up on the shore a sealed package
addressed “A las justicias del Perú” and on opening found it full of
attacks on the papal and monarchical authority. This showed, it said,
the audacity with which the heretics were disseminating their doctrines
in those regions. They were also circulating tracts which had been
seized, one of which was enclosed to prove to the king the necessity of
ordering efficacious support to the Inquisition by the royal officials,
and how desirable ii would be to establish a tribunal at Buenos
Ayres.[609] This appeal likewise fell on deaf ears and, on November 26,
1636, the Suprema forwarded to Lima the king’s reply with corresponding
instructions.[610]

The suggestion was renewed, March 1, 1636, by the fiscal of the
Audiencia of la Plata, but this time the proposed seat of the tribunal
was in Tucuman. This led the king, November 2, 1638, to ask for
information from the audiencia, the viceroy and other authorities. To
this the President of Charcas replied, warmly approving of the project,
but for a wholly different reason, saying that during his years of
service he had observed the great oppression of the people by the
commissioners, maltreating them on trivial pretexts, ordering them to
appear at Lima with excessive cost and irreparable disgrace and
molesting them in many ways, for which they dared not seek redress, for
it lay at such a distance and the remedy was to them so horrible. The
audiencia answered, March 10, 1640, recommending Córdoba de Tucuman as
the most desirable seat. Two inquisitors and a fiscal, with salaries of
two thousand pesos and a secretary with one thousand would suffice and
would be largely defrayed by the fines and confiscations. Viceroy
Chinchon delayed responding until September 29, 1641, when he said that
it would be advantageous but costly; the salaries would have to be
large, for living was dear, and the confiscations would be insufficient;
in the last auto, although the culprits were many and of much reputed
wealth, the property had almost wholly disappeared. Chinchon’s
successor, the Marquis of Mancera, had already written, June 8, 1641,
that Chinchon had handed the matter over to him; he had referred it to
the President of Chuquisaca, whose report he enclosed, and he dwelt upon
the evil of the Portuguese who entered Paraguay by San Pablo and spread
over the land.[611]

By this time the Portuguese and Catalan revolts gave Philip ample
occupation, and the absolute exhaustion of the treasury forbade all
thoughts of incurring avoidable expenses. When these pressing
necessities diminished, the suggestion was renewed in 1662; the erection
of an audiencia in the growing city of Buenos Ayres led the Lima
tribunal to urge the establishment of an Inquisition there or in Córdoba
de Tucuman. Communication with Spain was easy from there and two
inquisitors would suffice, or one and a fiscal. The Suprema warmly
advocated the measure, but favored Córdoba, which was only eight days’
journey, or even only five, from Buenos Ayres. The failure of this
effort seems to have discouraged further official attempts and we hear
nothing more of the matter for nearly a century. In 1754 the Jesuit
Pedro de Arroyo wrote to the procurador of his province in Spain,
calling attention to the necessities of an additional tribunal. That of
Lima was so far off--a thousand leagues, he said--that it was of no use
to them. In the twenty years spent in those provinces, he had never
heard of an arrest by the Inquisition except one in Buenos Ayres, and
then the prisoner escaped before reaching Lima; there was, however, a
case of a cleric of Paraguay who spontaneously obeyed a summons to Lima.
A commissioner had told him that, in ten or eleven years, he had had ten
or eleven cases, which he had investigated and reported to Lima, but had
never had a reply, except in the first case and this was not until two
years had elapsed, by which time the culprit had disappeared. A second
tribunal was now more necessary than ever, as the Portuguese were
inundating the land. In the jurisdiction of Buenos Ayres they were said
to number six thousand, and there was the same proportion in other
districts; in that of Córdoba, the audiencia banished them some years
ago, but they merely moved their residence and their places were taken
by other Portuguese. About the same time Pedro de Logu, a calificador in
Buenos Ayres, called attention to the mischief to religion arising from
the scum collected there and subjected to no supervision; the powers of
the commissioner were limited, he had no profit from his work and the
introduction of prohibited books was frequent. These unofficial
representations seem to have elicited no attention, but more
authoritative was the memorial, in 1765, of Pedro Miguel, Archbishop of
la Plata, whose residence there for twenty years had shown to him the
necessity of a tribunal in Buenos Ayres. To this the fiscal of the
Council of Indies replied, December 13, 1766, with an indifference which
forms the measure of inquisitorial decadence. The rarity, he says, of
cases of faith, attributable to the care exercised in preventing the
immigration of descendants of infected persons, rendered it unnecessary
to burden the fisc with the expenses of another tribunal; besides, the
difficulty of reaching Lima restored to the bishops their inherent
jurisdiction in such matters and they could sufficiently protect the
faith.[612] It may be hoped, for the good archbishop’s peace of mind,
that he did not avail himself of this unofficial authorization to set up
an episcopal Inquisition.

       *       *       *       *       *

It may be gathered from these ineffectual efforts to multiply tribunals
that the financial question was as important in South America as we have
seen it in Mexico. The experiences of the two Inquisitions were similar.
When Cerezuela and his colleague went to Lima, they bore instructions to
the royal officials to disburse to the receiver of confiscations ten
thousand pesos a year for the salaries of the two inquisitors, the
fiscal and the notary.[613] This made no provision for other inevitable
expenses. The theory on which the Holy Office was based was that it
should be self-sustaining--supported by the fines and confiscations
which it inflicted--and that when these were in excess the surplus
should enure to the royal fisc. In Lima, more clearly than in Mexico,
Philip defined repeatedly that this royal subvention should continue
only as long as there was deficiency from other sources of income. In
the quarrels which speedily arose between the tribunal and the viceroy,
Toledo kept it in some sort of subjection by making the inquisitors
apply to him personally for their salaries. This was highly distasteful,
and they seem to have endeavored to escape from it by excommunicating
the royal officials who declined to honor their demands, for cédulas of
July 17 and 27, 1572, addressed to the viceroy and inquisitors,
prohibited them from drawing on the royal treasury and enforcing payment
with censures; they were to hand in their accounts which were to be
promptly paid, until the fines and penances and confiscations should
suffice. If this meant that they should render accounts of these other
sources of income, it received no attention. In Lima as in Mexico no
effort on the part of the government could obtain an insight into the
finances of the tribunal and the royal subvention was indefinitely
prolonged.[614]

Still this did not provide for the salaries of the minor officials and
the other unavoidable expenses. For awhile doubtless the tribunal felt
the pinch of poverty. We find the Suprema suggesting that, if the
prisons are insufficient, they can be made good out of the fines and
penances; the alguacil is to be dismissed and, if another is appointed,
he must serve without salary; possibly the viceroy may be induced to
grant pensions on some of the vacant _repartimientos_ of Indians. The
tribunal astutely raised the question of the _ayuda de costa_, or
supplementary payment to meet the expenses of the visitations, which it
had no intention of making, and it was told to consult the viceroy and
report, after which the Suprema would consult the king. In this it
doubtless failed, but we chance to hear of an ayuda de costa paid as a
reward for the auto de fe of 1578. Philip was by no means disposed to be
liberal. In 1593 a question arose as to the salary of a fiscal _ad
interim_ and he rather grudgingly, by a cédula of February 7, 1594,
ordered that one-half might be paid, until the confiscations should
suffice.[615]

Meanwhile the activity of the tribunal was rapidly enabling it to emerge
from its penury. Its correspondence with the Suprema between 1570 and
1594 shows that confiscations were continually decreed and were
apparently profitable. Frequent references occur to the estate of a Dr.
Quiñones, who owned a mine which was to be rented until sentence was
pronounced and then was to be sold; he also had a library which seems to
have been of value and was to be disposed of either in bulk or at
retail. Up to 1583 the total receipts from confiscations amounted to
thirty-eight thousand pesos, or an average of nearly three thousand per
annum.[616] Fines were also lucrative. Between 1571 and 1573 there were
twenty-seven cases sentenced in the audience-chamber, yielding in all
twenty-six hundred pesos of which a thousand were levied on Rodrigo de
Arcas, parish priest of Ribera, for solicitation in the confessional.
Between 1581 and 1585 fifty-seven cases, similarly sentenced in private,
furnished eighty-three hundred pesos. In 1583 there came a piece of good
fortune in a legacy of Pedro de la Peña, Bishop of Quito, who left to
the tribunal twenty thousand pesos to build a chapel for his interment.
The house and prison thus far occupied were unfitted for the growing
activity of the tribunal; with the legacy and the proceeds of sale of
the existing building, a much finer structure was erected, including a
prison with twelve cells. With increasing business came increasing
income and, while the pretext of poverty continued to be put forward to
the king, the tribunal soon began to accumulate capital and place it at
interest. In 1596, Inquisitor Ordoñez, while blaming the receiver Juan
de Saracho, admitted that he had succeeded in amassing twenty thousand
pesos, part of which sum was invested in censos or ground-rents. To this
Ordoñez, by a happy stroke, added seven thousand more from the estate of
Pedro González de Montalban, whose property had been sequestrated. He
was very sick and obtained his liberation by making a will in favor of
the tribunal.[617] The Portuguese Judaizers now began to occupy a
constantly increasing share of the tribunal’s attention, opening up a
most prosperous field of operations. The time had come when the
temporary subvention should be withdrawn, but the tribunal continued
quietly to demand and receive it.

It was impossible to keep wholly secret the absorption of large estates
and the investments of accumulating capital. The attention of Philip III
was called to the matter and, in a letter of June 4, 1614, to the
viceroy, he recited the conditions on which the grant had been made; he
had learned that the salaries continued to be paid by the treasury, in
spite of the receipt from these sources of amounts sufficient to defray
them in whole or in part, and he therefore ordered that, when the
salaries were paid, the viceroy should inform himself of the receipts
from other sources and deduct them from the charge on the treasury,
making full reports to the king. This was evaded by the receiver giving
a certificate such as he saw fit, of what moneys he had on hand, which
naturally was found to be a worthless safe-guard, and the viceroy was
ordered to require from the receiver a statement of all receipts every
year. It was found impossible to procure this and Philip, in a letter to
the Viceroy Squillace, April 26, 1618, after recalling all the previous
attempts, ordered him to appoint from the treasury two experienced
accountants to audit the receiver’s accounts and report the result to
the king. The accountants were duly appointed, but the receiver refused
absolutely to exhibit his accounts--he had sent them to the
inquisitor-general as he was required to do by his instructions. This
exhausted the royal patience and one of the first acts of Philip IV was
a letter to the viceroy, June 11, 1621, ordering the suspension of
payments until the inquisitors should furnish authentic evidence that
the confiscations had not sufficed to meet them. This went on for two
years, the inquisitors preferring to forego the subvention rather than
to expose the flourishing condition of their finances. They brought
incessant pressure to bear, however, and finally induced Viceroy
Guadalsacar, under a resolution of the treasury officials, to resume
payments on the presentation of certain certificates of the contador,
the scrivener of sequestrations and the receiver. On learning this the
Council of Indies made a thorough investigation of the whole matter and
reported that, in view of the exhaustion of the royal treasury, and that
since the foundation of the tribunal, up to 1625, it had consumed six
hundred and sixty-two thousand ducats without having returned anything
from the fines and confiscations, it was wholly wrong that the money
should have been used by the officials in buying lands and censos which
they were now enjoying. To put an end to this the king, April 20, 1629,
issued a cédula ordering that the conditions expressed in 1621 should
be inviolably observed, no matter what might be the exigency, under
pain not only of the royal displeasure but that all such disbursements
should be charged to the viceroy and be deducted from his salary. To
insure observance this cédula was to be entered on the books of the
treasury and all auditors were to be governed by it.[618]

These were brave words but it is probable that the Inquisition found
means to render them nugatory, while an apparent compromise was sought
at the expense of a third party--the Church. We have seen (Mexico, p.
216) how a prebend in each cathedral was suppressed at the first vacancy
and the fruits were paid to the tribunal. The process was necessarily
slow, commencing with the brief of Urban VIII, March 10, 1627, and
delayed by waiting for the successive vacancies and also by resistance,
in some cases, of the cathedral chapters.[619] It was virtually
completed in 1635, when Philip wrote to the treasury officials,
September 26th, that the senior Inquisitor, Juan de Mañozca, had advised
him that the suppression of the prebends for the payment of salaries had
been effected. The orders with regard to this are to be executed and, as
he supposes that the arrearages of salaries have been paid, he writes to
Mañozca that in future the prebends are to be applied to the salaries as
the treasury is in urgent need of relief--which shows that up to that
time the king had continued to pay them and even to make good the
arrearages, in spite of the decisive provisions of 1629.[620] The
prebends thus obtained were eight in number, in the cathedrals of Lima,
Quito, Trugillo, Arequipa, Cuzco, Paz, Chuquisaca and Santiago de Chile.
They produced, as we have seen, eleven thousand pesos a year, thus more
than replacing the subvention. Further documents fail us here but, from
the experience of Mexico and Cartagena, it is fairly to be assumed that,
in spite of the prebends and of the large confiscations now coming in,
the tribunal managed to continue drawing the subvention and, in 1677,
there was still discussion of the subject.[621]

The time, in fact, had come when the finances of the tribunal were to be
placed on an enduring foundation. We shall see hereafter the details of
the _complicidad grande_, when nearly all the leading merchants in Lima,
of Portuguese extraction, were arrested on charges of Judaism and their
property was sequestrated. Arrests had commenced in 1634 and the tragedy
culminated in the great auto of January 23, 1639. What was the amount
acquired by the tribunal can never be known, but popular report
estimated it as a million of pesos, and we have seen that Viceroy
Chinchon reported that it virtually disappeared without any one knowing
where it went. Philip IV, whose necessities were daily becoming
greater, was led by the report of the enormous sequestrations to seek an
explanation of the Suprema, which replied to him, December 19, 1636,
that the sequestrations had been large but they shrank to almost nothing
from the claims of creditors, some of which came from Spain.[622]
Disappointed in this he wrote, March 30, 1637, congratulating the
inquisitors on their zeal and suggesting that it appeared to him just
that out of them the fisc should be reimbursed for its outlays on their
salaries, and that enough should be set aside to provide for the future
in case the prebends did not suffice. The inquisitors replied, with
outward demonstrations of respect, that they would report to the Suprema
to which the funds belonged; that as yet there had only been
sequestrations, while innumerable claims on the property had been
presented, and that many prisoners had been found innocent and their
estates had been restored to them--to five of these, Pedro de Soria,
Andrés Muñoz, Francisco Sotelo, Antonio de los Santos and Jorje Danila
there had thus been returned a hundred and seventy-four thousand pesos.
Philip made an attempt to investigate the matter by appointing, in 1643,
with the assent of the Suprema, Dr. Martin Real as visitador to examine
into the finances of the tribunals of Lima and Cartagena, but, as we
shall see, he was baffled in Cartagena and, after stormy experiences,
returned to Spain without reaching Lima.[623] Repulsed thus at every
point, Philip resorted to somewhat arbitrary measures. In 1644 we find
the Suprema complaining of the seizure at Seville of two or three large
sequestrations sent there from Lima for settlement with creditors, and
again of twenty thousand ducats’ worth of wool taken by him, of which
Alfonso Cardosso & Co. were demanding the surrender as owners.[624]

What share of the spoils the Suprema obtained it would be impossible to
say. We happen to hear, in 1640, of twelve thousand pesos brought to it
from Lima by Juan de Arostegui, which is doubtless only a portion of the
amount doled out to it by the tribunal.[625] The latter, in fact, in
its reports habitually belittled the results obtained or anticipated; it
treated the Suprema as the Suprema treated the king. In reporting the
arrests, in 1636, it was careful to point out that, although the
prisoners were reputed to be wealthy and lived with ostentation, it was
a deception, for in reality they were trading on borrowed money and had
little of their own. This was a repetition of what it had said in 1631,
when persecution of the Portuguese had already been going on for some
years--the sequestrations made much show but with slender results; the
real estate of the accused was held in order to gain the reputation of
wealth, while in reality it was so encumbered as to be valueless, and
the personal property was so concealed as to be undiscoverable.[626]

There were other productive sources of income besides the confiscations.
One of these which was especially profitable was the “quebrantamientos
de escrituras de juego.” Gambling was almost universal and disgusted
gamesters would frequently swear off under a penalty, attested by a
notarial act; the pledge would inevitably be broken and the forfeit was
usually contributed to the pious uses of the Inquisition. A statement of
the deposits in the _arca de tres llaves_, or money-chest of the
tribunal, from May 4, 1630, to August 31, 1634, shows 1449 pesos from
fines, 4909 from donations and 35,829 from the _quebrantamientos_, or in
all 42,187, representing an annual income of nearly nine thousand pesos
from these sources alone.[627] When to this we add the confiscations,
the prebends and the constantly increasing returns from accumulating
investments, it will be seen that the tribunal was rapidly growing in
wealth and how factitious were the pleas on which it maintained its grip
on the royal subvention.

When, in 1631, the office of alguazil was made saleable considerable
sums were collected from this source. In 1641 the position of alguazil
mayor of Santiago de Chile--a purely ornamental office, unsalaried but
with contingent privileges--was bid up to 6500 pesos.[628] As these
commissions, however, were issued by the inquisitor-general it is
probable that they were duly accounted for. Indeed, we have seen (p.
224) that the Suprema endeavored in this way to explain the remittances
which it could not conceal.

Increasing wealth naturally led to multiplication of offices and
generally careless expenditure. In 1674 the receiver or treasurer
lamented that he had striven in vain to reduce the affairs of the
tribunal to order. The revenues had fallen to 35,951 pesos and the
expenses exceeded them. Still, he held that, in spite of the
considerable remittances to the Suprema and the overgrown payroll, the
income could be made to suffice if it were not for the expenditures of
the inquisitors on their houses and their frequent elevation to
bishoprics, after which they persisted in drawing their salaries.[629]

The investments of the tribunal were principally in censos--rent-charges
on real estate. When these fell into arrears the property was put up and
sold at auction, apparently still subject to the rent, the arrearages
being collected from the purchase-money, and the numerous references to
these transactions show that they were by no means infrequent. Still,
the Inquisition assumed that it was an indulgent creditor. When, about
1705, several successive bad harvests had rendered the farmers unable to
pay their rents, they petitioned the viceroy for a reduction of the
principal. In transmitting this request to the king, the viceroy asked
the opinion of the various tribunals, to which the Inquisition replied
that the principal should remain intact as the deficient harvests were
temporary and the land retained its value: that it was different in
Chile, where the censos on urban property were reduced in principal
after the earthquake which ruined the buildings. The tribunal therefore
recommended a postponement of arrears and reduction of interest until
the bad season should pass; this was what it had done with its debtors;
it had not thrown them in prison or put up the farms at auction, even
though the arrears were large, proceeding with benignity and equity and
treating each case on its merits.[630]

Under a succession of venal and unprincipled inquisitors, the finances
of the tribunal became involved in confusion and the magnitude of the
amounts at stake shows how successful it had been in accumulation. In
1733 the two inquisitors were Gaspar Ibañez de Peralta and Christóbal
Sánchez Calderon. The former was old and failing and the latter was
engaged, under the name of his chaplain, in mercantile operations with
the funds of the tribunal with such success that, in 1739, he remitted
eighty thousand pesos to Spain and had purchased a valuable property
near Lima. He also spent five thousand in decorating his house, and when
the security of the temporary receiver Juan Estéban Peña expired he
opposed its renewal, resulting in heavy loss when Peña became bankrupt.
The new receiver, Manuel de Ilarduy speedily fell into default for more
than two hundred and thirty thousand pesos and there were other
deficiencies. In 1735 Diego de Unda was sent from Spain as fiscal with
special orders to investigate the finances. In 1736 he reported that he
found everything right except that when Calderon insisted that Ilarduy
should render his accounts and deposit all funds in the chest and on the
receiver’s refusal, had embargoed his property, Ibañez verbally
suspended the embargo, so that when, on the next day, the embargo was
renewed, it was found that large amounts of silver and merchandise had
been removed and there only remained a little silver dish and some
vessels in his oratory. Still Ilarduy was forced to pay fifty thousand
pesos and furnish securities amounting to a hundred and ten thousand
more.

It seemed impossible to secure honest officials. Unda had brought with
him as secretary of the tribunal Ignacio de Irazábal, who was made
auditor. He was detected in passing false accounts for Ilarduy and was
dismissed, as likewise was another secretary, Gerónimo de la Torre. The
struggle between Calderon and Ilarduy became mortal, and the amounts at
stake must have been large for the latter sent emissaries to Spain with
a hundred thousand pesos with which to bribe the Suprema to dismiss the
inquisitor. He succeeded in having a visitador sent with full powers to
investigate and punish, with results that we shall see hereafter. It is
only necessary here to say that Calderon’s and Unda’s property was
sequestrated, to be released in 1747 by orders of the Suprema. A new
factor had appeared on the scene when, in 1737, Mateo de Amusquíbar came
as fiscal, to be not long afterwards promoted to the inquisitorship. He
formed an alliance with Ilarduy; they were both Biscayans and the
Biscayan faction became supreme. Unda died, May 27, 1748, and Calderon
was living in retirement on his plantation. The vacancy was filled, in
1751 by Diego Rodríguez Delgado who came with special orders to
investigate the finances. He promptly reported that it was impossible to
examine the accounts of the receiver, which were in a state too confused
to admit of verification. He had learned that the cost of maintaining
the prisoners did not amount to more than a thousand pesos per annum,
while it was charged at four thousand. There were seventy thousand due
on the rents of farms and fruits of prebends and, by the reduction of
exorbitant salaries this amount when collected could readily be
increased to a hundred thousand, more than enough to rebuild the
inquisition and its chapel, which had lain in ruins since the earthquake
of 1746. Under the preceding receiver, the confiscation of Pedro Uban,
condemned in 1736, had amounted to more than sixty thousand pesos, but
no trace could be found of the existence or the expenditure of this sum.
No reform however was possible in view of the alliance between
Amusquíbar and Ilarduy. No reform, in fact, followed, although after all
the actors had passed away, Calderon’s property was seized to make good
the deficit of Antonio Morante, an administrador whom he had appointed
and kept in office without requiring security and, in 1773, a suit was
in progress with the executor of his estate for over thirty thousand
pesos, the outcome of which the records fail to inform us. Altogether,
through these quarrels we obtain an inside view of venality and
corruption which probably were not confined to this period. In 1751 we
learn that Amusquíbar, on entering office in 1744, had remitted nineteen
thousand pesos to the Suprema, since when nothing had been sent. The
income had fallen to thirty thousand and there was little more than
forty thousand in the chest.[631]

The inevitable results of dishonesty and disorder were heightened by
external causes and, in 1777, we find the resources of the tribunal
materially reduced. After the earthquake of 1746 the rate of interest on
the censos had been lowered from five per cent. to three. There were few
profitable confiscations to make good the deficit, the fruits of the
prebends were falling off and their collection was becoming difficult.
In 1777 that of Quito owed about ten thousand pesos, that of Trujillo
eleven thousand, that of Arequipa, owing to the decline in prices was
greatly diminished in value. Salaries were in arrears to the extent of
twenty thousand pesos and the efforts of the receiver to make
collections were fruitless. The houses of the inquisitors were
unfinished and Inquisitor Lopez Grillo was obliged to rent one, at the
distance of a block from the tribunal. In 1784 the earthquake in Cuzco
caused a further decline in the canonries of la Paz, Arequipa and Cuzco;
an urgent request was made for the suppression of the office of the
third inquisitor, and authority was asked to sell property in order to
pay salaries.[632] All this betokens real distress and yet, although the
administration of affairs can scarce be thought to have improved in the
following years, when, in 1813, the decree of suppression was received
in Lima and the property of the tribunal was inventoried for the benefit
of the royal treasury, there were found in its chests ready money to the
amount of 68,834 pesos, 3-1/4 reales, besides 2400 pesos of jewels
confiscated on Inquisitor Unda and 2500, the valuation of the furniture
of the chapel. From the statement of the auditor it appeared that the
capital of the censos and value of the plantations belonging to the
tribunal amounted to 1,508,518 pesos. A portion of this, however, was
not its property but was held in trust for special purposes. Of the
money on hand, 47,433 pesos were funds of the tribunal, while 13,325
pesos, 2 reales appertained to the Colegio de Santa Cruz, founded by
Mateo Pastor de Velasco and Bernardino Olave for female foundlings, and
placed under the charge of the Inquisition, also 8076 pesos, 1-1/4
reales was the balance on hand of a foundation known as of Zelayeta and
Nuñez de Santiago. The capital of the Colegio de Santa Cruz amounted to
394,502 pesos, 6-1/2 reales; that of the other foundation is not stated
but, assuming them together to be 500,000 pesos, it would leave about a
million for the accumulations of the tribunal.[633]

       *       *       *       *       *

The men who were at the head of the tribunal, whatever may have been
their reputation at home, were not, as a rule, able to resist the
demoralizing influences around them, intensified by the irresponsible
autocratic power conferred by their position. The only effective control
possible to the Suprema lay in the appointment of a visitador or
inspector, clothed with superior authority, and this was an expedient
rarely resorted to, especially as the inspector was exposed to the same
temptations and was apt to yield to them. The Suprema was not kept in
ignorance of the derelictions of its appointees, for the inquisitors
rarely worked in harmony. Deadly quarrels arose between them and they
abused each other without stint in their communications to headquarters,
while their subordinates were equally free in exposing the malfeasance
of their superiors. The publication of much of this secret
correspondence and of complaints of aggrieved parties by Señor Medina
thus gives us an exceptional opportunity to gain an insight into the
interior life of a tribunal and into its use of the enormous power which
it enjoyed.

We have seen that the second inquisitor, Bustamente, died at Panamá, and
that Cerezuela was alone in opening the tribunal. The fiscal, Alcedo,
and the notary, Arrieta, were quarrelling mortally with each other, and
both were writing to the Suprema, criticizing Cerezuela’s inexperience
and lack of self-assertion, and asking that the new inquisitor to be
sent should be a man of greater force. Their wishes were gratified when
Antonio Gutiérrez de Ulloa arrived, March 31, 1571. It was not long
before his arbitrary and scandalous conduct aroused indignation, but
those who dared to complain were made to suffer. Secret information,
however, was conveyed to the Suprema and the viceroy, the Count del
Villar, was unreserved in his communications to the king, representing
that Ulloa kept spies in the viceregal palace, who carried off papers
and documents and that he had indirectly farmed the quicksilver mines
of Guancavelica, making large sums to the detriment of the royal
interests. A cleric named Gaspar Zapata de Mendoza, as representative of
the clergy of Peru, after several vain attempts, managed to escape to
Brazil; he was captured by the French and carried to Dieppe, whence he
made his way to Spain, but it was not until 1592 that he was able to
present in Toledo a memorial to Inquisitor-general Quiroga in which the
conduct of Ulloa was set forth in detail. His promiscuous amours with
maids and married women were notorious; he publicly kept as a concubine
Catalina Morejon, a married woman, who used her influence to dictate
appointments and modify sentences until, after repeated efforts, Villar
succeeded in banishing her. On one occasion a husband found him in bed
with his wife; Ulloa threatened him as inquisitor and he slunk away;
another husband was less timid, he killed the wife and chased the
adulterer through the streets. He was in the habit of walking the
streets at night dressed as a cavalier, brawling and fighting, and on
one Holy Thursday he supped with a number of strumpets. He and the
Dominican Provincial, Fray Francisco de Valderrama, each had as mistress
a relative of the other; when the three years of the provincialate
ended, Valderrama aspired to be prior of the Lima convent, but the new
Provincial, Agustin Montes, refused to appoint him because he was a
bastard, whereupon Ulloa went to the convent, thrust a dagger to the
provincial’s breast and swore he would kill him, when Montes yielded. He
was involved in perpetual contests with the judges and royal officials,
whom he treated without ceremony or justice, interfering with their
functions, of which a number of cases were given which, if not
exaggerated, show that the land was at the mercy of the inquisitorial
officials, who murdered, robbed and took women at their pleasure, and
any who complained were fined or kept chained in prison. The limitations
of the fuero enjoyed by the ministers of the Holy Office were
disregarded and no one could obtain justice against them.[634]

Before this black catalogue of crime reached the Suprema, the complaints
had shown that some interference was necessary, and it had sent as
visitador Juan Ruiz de Prado, who reached Lima February 11, 1587. He had
full authority to prosecute any members of the tribunal and to send them
with the evidence to Spain for judgement, but those who anticipated
relief were disappointed. As Villar writes, he took up his residence
with Ulloa, and his officials were lodged with those of the tribunal,
who made much of them. He made no secret that he came to take care of
Ulloa’s honor, so that all complainants were frightened off. Villar had
his special grievances which show how impossible was efficient
government, when a power existed within the state superior to the state
itself. News was received that two ships had sailed from England for the
Pacific; two Englishmen, John Drake, cousin of the famous Sir Francis,
and Richard Farrel, who had been wrecked in the River Plate, had been
sent to the Inquisition, as was the fashion with heretic prisoners; the
viceroy desired to examine them to learn, if possible, something about
the threatened corsairs and he asked the inquisitors to send the men to
him or, if that was not possible, to allow one of his officers to
examine them, or again, if that was impossible, to examine them
themselves and communicate to him what they could learn; Ulloa was
willing but Prado refused, saying that he would communicate with the
Suprema who could inform the king, thus postponing for a year the
information wanted at the moment. Then there came an alarm about some
English ships on the coast, and Villar ordered all who were liable to
military service to be in readiness to defend Callao. Ulloa and Prado
assumed that their officials and familiars would fulfil their duty by
guarding the buildings of the Inquisition, and gave instructions not to
obey the viceroy’s orders, who vainly pointed out to them that, in
defending the city, their men would be defending the Inquisition. At the
auto of 1587 they virtually took possession of the city, treated the
viceroy as a private person subject to their orders, and grossly
humiliated him, to all of which he submitted for the sake of peace.
They meddled in everything, and with their unlimited power of
excommunication and fines, no one dared to resist them. They summoned
his secretaries before them and forced them to reveal everything, even
of the most confidential character, and to produce official papers, of
which they retained copies. They appointed royal officials as familiars,
thus releasing them from all responsibility to the viceroy, to the
courts and to their superiors. Villar declared himself helpless to
remedy all this unless the king would interfere.[635]

The memorial of Mendoza tells the same story of the alliance between the
visitador and the inquisitor, and mentions a case of a priest named
Hernan Gutiérrez de Ulloa, who had lent a considerable sum to Inquisitor
Ulloa and being unable to obtain repayment had procured a papal brief
against him. Prado took the brief from him, fined him heavily, suspended
him for a year from his benefice and sentenced him to four years’
reclusion, the result being that he died under the persecution.[636]

The evil friendship between these men did not last long and, in January,
1588, Prado commenced the real duties of his office. He overhauled all
the proceedings of the tribunal since its foundation, examining 1265
documents, his notes on which covered 1650 pages and fully substantiated
his conclusions as to its irregular methods, its cruel delays, and its
inflicting public penances for matters not of faith and beyond its
jurisdiction. He reported that he had drawn up 216 charges against
Ulloa, many of them applicable also to Cerezuela. There were six about
his relations with women, involving much publicity and scandal, and
there would have been more had he cared to investigate further in this
direction. He said that Ulloa had accumulated considerable sums which he
sent to Spain; he was virtually the farmer of the quicksilver mines of
Guancavelica, for when bids were invited he frightened off all bidders
except his brother and an accomplice, who obtained the contract for
twenty or thirty thousand pesos less than others were ready to offer. He
kept around him a band of disreputable creatures, who ministered to his
vices and were above the law. No one could collect debts of them, for
when suit was brought he would order it discontinued and he was obeyed.
When he was sole inquisitor he used to go hunting for a fortnight at a
time, leaving the accused in prison and delaying their cases. Sometimes
he took with him a certain mestizo who had a quarrel with another
mestizo and was prosecuted in the royal court. Ulloa demanded the case,
claiming that the defendant was his servant; the court demurred as the
man was not _de familia_ but only an occasional employee, whereupon he
excommunicated the judge and all the alcaldes; they surrendered the case
which was settled before him for eight pesos.[637]

When Prado presented the 216 charges, Ulloa quietly allowed a year to
elapse before undertaking to answer them. Prado seems to have been in no
hurry. Four years had been spent in the visit and the Suprema had
repeatedly ordered his return, which he answered by alleging Ulloa’s
repeated absences, sometimes for months together, during which he could
not leave the tribunal; then he gave sickness as an excuse, or that he
had not a real with which to pay for the voyage. Finally he sent the
papers by the secretary, Martínez de Marcolaeta, who started from Callao
May 6, 1592, and reached Spain the same year. After this Ulloa no longer
kept terms with him and ordered him to leave the tribunal, which he
refused to do. Ulloa then denounced him to the Suprema, pointing out
that he could have sailed at any departure of the fleets but that he
desired to remain because he was in partnership with an Augustinian
fraile, Francisco de Figueroa, whom he appointed commissioner at
Trujillo and then at Potosí, where they made twenty-five thousand pesos.
Ulloa publicly spoke of him in terms too opprobrious for any lackey to
endure, and the fiscal, Arpide, joined in accusing him of unlawful
gains, in granting licences to leave the country, and of protecting
unworthy persons by appointing them as familiars. The Suprema attributed
the quarrel to the close friendship which Prado had formed for a Dr.
Salinas, a man of notoriously bad character, whom he had made advocate
of prisoners and then of the fisc, in which capacity he had his suits
brought before the tribunal, to the wronging of third parties.[638]

Finally the orders of the Suprema became so pressing that Prado was
obliged to leave Lima, April 14, 1594, Ulloa managing so that he
received no salary for his return. From Havana he sent a report of his
visit, which was approved, not without some rebuke. Of the 216 charges
against Ulloa, 118 were accepted and, by sentence of December 15, 1594,
he was suspended for five years, fined and ordered to present himself
before the inquisitor-general for reprimand--a sentence suggestive of
the customary indulgence shown to official malfeasance. Prado also
proposed thirty-one articles of reform, the most important of which was
the deprivation of the fuero, in criminal cases, of familiars and
servants of commissioners; subordinates of the tribunal were to have
regular salaries so as to remove the temptation of accepting bribes, and
there were many other suggestions for improving the operation of the
tribunal, diminishing injustice and relieving the people from abusive
extortions. The Suprema approved of all this and directed Prado to
return to Lima and put the reform into execution, but, when these orders
reached Havana, Prado had sailed for Spain; he did not get back to Lima
until 1596, by which time Ulloa had escaped his sentence by dying and
there is little trace of any reform by Prado, who died January 18,
1599.[639]

Meanwhile the vacant inquisitorship had been filled by the arrival,
February 4, 1594, of the Licentiate Antonio Ordóñez y Flóres. Ulloa at
once announced his intention of visiting the district, which he carried
out in spite of his colleague’s protest to delay until he should have
familiarized himself with the business of the tribunal. Ulloa traversed
the land spreading terror wherever he went by the indulgence of his
passions. A memorial to the inquisitor-general, from a gentleman named
Diego Vanegas, son of a judge of the Contratacion of Seville, affords an
illustration of the reckless abuses possible under such institutions.
When Ulloa, on his way to Charcas, stopped at Cuzco and lodged in the
house of Francisco de Loaysa, a servant of the latter came where Vanegas
and some friends were talking in the public square, and began boasting
of the powers of the inquisitor which were the greatest on earth; there
was, he said, the Licentiate Parra who had some words with a servant of
Ulloa, in consequence of which he was arrested; Ulloa called him a dog
of a Jew, an _ensambenitado_, with other insults and threw him in
prison. Vanegas remarked that they did not wish to hear anything more
about it, and for this he was seized and carried before Ulloa who called
him a scoundrel, an Indian, a dog and other opprobrious epithets. Then
summoning his servants, about twenty persons rushed in whom he told to
kill the rascal. One of them gave him a severe cut on the head while the
rest pummelled him. Doña Mariana, wife of the host, entered and
interceded for him; Ulloa declared that he was going to give him five
hundred lashes, but on her entreaty he diminished it to three hundred,
then to two hundred and finally consented to send him to the corregidor
with orders to banish him. Ulloa left Cuzco the next day but, hearing on
the road that Vanegas had said that he would go to Spain to complain, he
sent back orders to seize him. Vanegas was taken from his bed where he
was recovering from his wounds, was thrown in prison in chains and the
next day was carried to Siguana where Ulloa swore him on the cross, made
him sign a paper without reading it and carried him to Potosí, where he
lay chained in prison for four months. Thence he was sent two hundred
leagues to Santa Cruz de la Sierra, as a soldier condemned to serve for
three years on the frontier or in the galleys. Then he was returned in
chains through Potosí to Misque, being wounded in an attempt to escape.
Carried fifty leagues farther, still in chains, he effected his escape
and, after many perils in four hundred leagues of travel, he reached
Lima, where he reported to the viceroy and with his permission and that
of Ordóñez he was allowed to sail for Spain to present his
complaint.[640]

Ulloa continued his so-called visitation in this fashion until orders
came in October, 1596, to Cepeda, President of the Audiencia of la
Plata, to notify him that his commission would terminate in four months.
He appealed to the viceroy who told him that he must obey it, and Cepeda
ordered him to leave Potosí. He refused, alleging his health, but the
corregidor, Alonso Osorio, communicated to him a further order of the
Audiencia, requiring him to do so in ten days. He still pleaded
sickness, but Osorio arrested him and all his servants and, after three
days, ejected him from the city. He reached Lima, July 7, 1597, and died
six days later at the age of 63. He attributed his disgrace to the
report of a visitador of the Audiencia of Lima that he and his brother,
whom he had made alguazil of the tribunal, had embezzled some three
hundred thousand pesos.[641] If there were even partial truth in the
statement the plea of the poverty of the tribunal can be understood.

Meanwhile Ordóñez had commenced his official career by letting it be
known that all who had claims to collect within the district of the
Inquisition could assign them to him, and they would divide the
proceeds. This was an open invitation to the commission of fraud,
resulting, as the secretary reported, in converting the Holy Office into
a business office. He also took money from the chest--at one time as
much as ten thousand pesos--which he confided to a merchant to trade for
him in Mexico. Before the year was out, the receiver and the secretary
were making bitter complaints of him to the Suprema--he was young,
inexperienced, violent tempered and abusive. Those who came voluntarily
to the tribunal to discharge their consciences were so ill-treated that
they declared they would rather go to hell. He would order the secretary
to alter the evidence and, if a witness remonstrated, he would be
abused and threatened. On his part he wrote equally unfavorable accounts
of his subordinates; he knew that they assailed him but he ascribed this
to the friends of Ulloa and Prado.[642]

Whether the Suprema believed these accusations or not, Ordóñez was not
disturbed and continued to be sole inquisitor, with the exception of the
brief second term of Prado from 1596 to 1599, until the arrival of
Francisco Verdugo, a new inquisitor, towards the close of 1601. He was a
man of different type, who had been advocate in the tribunal of Seville
and fiscal in that of Murcia. While a strenuous persecutor of heresy, he
was not inclined to abuse his office and he shortly reported to the
Suprema that they had suspended a hundred _informaciones_--cases in
preparation--which were without sufficient proof or were matters that
did not concern the Holy Office. Ordóñez continued in office until 1612,
when he became Archbishop of the Nuevo Reino de Granada, a promotion
that was not to his taste, as he complained that the revenues of the see
were insufficient for his decent support. Doubtless it afforded fewer
opportunities than the inquisitorship.[643]

His successor, Andrés Juan Gaitan reached Lima, October 12, 1611; he had
been fiscal of the tribunals of Cuenca and Seville and was therefore
experienced in the work. About the same time Panamá, New Granada and the
Antilles were detached from the tribunal of Lima on the founding of that
of Cartagena.[644] In October, 1623, Verdugo left Lima to occupy the see
of Guamanga, to which he had been promoted. For several years he and
Gaitan had been on such bad terms that they would not speak to each
other, and Gaitan had moreover quarrelled with the Viceroy Guadalcázar,
who had resumed a certain repartimiento of Indians that he had granted
to the inquisitor. His enforcement, moreover, of the royal orders about
the payment of salaries was bitterly resented by the officials and
intensified the embroilment. The vacancy left by Verdugo was soon filled
by Juan de Mañozca who, after founding the tribunal of Cartagena, was
sent as visitador of the Audiencia of Quito and, in place of going
there directly, came to Lima and occupied the position of inquisitor _ad
interim_ much to Gaitan’s disgust. He reported to the Suprema that the
condition of the tribunal was deplorable; unless some action was taken
there would be no Inquisition, but only a gang of men obeying a will the
most obdurate and most terrible that he had ever met, under which the
tribunal was diverted from its proper functions to serve Gaitan’s
interest or caprices, for good or for ill. There was nothing with which
he did not interfere, and that with such violence that he offended all
good men, and even his own faction followed him rather through force
than willingly. The fiscal was a coward; it was a pity to pay their
salaries for they did nothing but impair the authority of the Holy
Office.[645]

In October, 1625, Juan Gutiérrez Flóres arrived to take Verdugo’s place.
In consequence of Mañozca’s representations he was ordered to make a
secret report, which was equally unfavorable. Gaitan, he said,
controlled the tribunal absolutely and supported all the claims of the
officials without regard to justice. This was thoroughly understood by
the people, and we can readily imagine the oppression and terrorism
which afflicted the community. Flóres died, September 22, 1631; and the
tribunal was reinforced by the appointment of Juan de Mañozca and
Antonio de Castro y del Castillo. Gaitan continued to serve for some
years, though infirm with age and sickness, accused to the last of
abusing his position for gain.[646] There soon followed the Portuguese
_complicidad grande_, of which more hereafter, and this, with the
complications of the resultant confiscations, for years afforded the
tribunal abundant occupation more or less legitimate. With its
consequent enrichment there came torpidity and for many years it did
little work and its annals are bare. In June, 1688, there came as
inquisitor Francisco de Valera, transferred from the tribunal of
Cartagena, in order to restore peace to that city, disturbed, as we
shall see hereafter, by a prolonged conflict between him and the bishop,
Benavides y Piedrola. This transfer [Greek:]had been arranged for 1685,
but he had delayed obedience, awaiting the arrival of a successor and,
on reaching Lima, he was met with a command from the Suprema to return
to Spain, which he evaded on the ground that this would leave but a
single inquisitor. He paid no attention to a royal cédula of April 1,
1691, ordering Viceroy Monclova to send him at once to Spain without
listening to excuses, but this was to be expected, for royal commands
were not obeyed by inquisitors unless they were transmitted by the
Suprema. Finally the latter ordered his jubilation or retirement on
half-pay--the usual punishment of inquisitors whose offences were too
flagrant to be overlooked. This reached Lima in 1703, when the tribunal
submissively answered that it would obey the command with due
exactitude, but that Valera had died on the previous second day of
August.[647]

Valera had imparted some vigor to the tribunal and had held public autos
in 1693 and 1694, but there was not another until 1733. His death had
seriously crippled the tribunal, for his colleague Burrelo had died in
1701, the third inquisitor Suárez was old and disabled by asthma, and
the fiscal, Ponte y Andrade, was so prostrated with gout that, for
twenty-two months prior to November, 1704, he could not venture out of
doors. By this time the civil business of the tribunal was greater than
that of the royal Audiencia and it necessarily fell into confusion,
while matters of faith were neglected. Suárez asked the Suprema for help
and it was rendered after the customary fashion, for the fiscal Ponte
was appointed inquisitor and an old professor of law, who had sought the
priesthood, Gaspar Ibañez, was made fiscal. Quarrels arose immediately,
for Ibañez received his commission by private hand and was sworn in
immediately, while that of Ponte came by the galleons. Suárez, who was a
friend of Ibañez, endeavored to enforce the latter’s seniority, which
carried with it considerable emoluments, and this was resisted by Ponte.
By this time there was no distinction of grade between inquisitor and
fiscal; the latter had the title of inquisitor-fiscal, and the
functions were interchangeable, although no one could perform both--that
is of prosecutor and judge--in any given case. Ponte, in 1707, exhaled
his griefs to the Suprema; his colleagues, he said, acted irregularly;
Ibañez assumed to be both fiscal and inquisitor in the same case; the
situation was desperate and the civil business was at a standstill.[648]

For more than a quarter of a century there was no improvement. Slender
as was the business of the tribunal in matters of faith, it was greatly
in arrears. Ibañez, who had become senior inquisitor, was sometimes
unable to sit for three months at a time. Holidays, beyond those on the
register, were taken until they amounted to half the days in the year.
Gutiérrez de Cevallos, one of the inquisitors, on being made Bishop of
Tucuman, in 1730, reported to the Suprema that he had been unable to
expedite matters; there were prisoners who had been confined for
thirteen years, of which eleven had passed since he had, as fiscal,
presented the formal accusations--and we shall see that six more were to
elapse before these dreary trials came to an end in the
_quemadero_.[649]

Ibañez finally fell into dotage. Sánchez Calderon had become his
colleague and Diego de Unda came as fiscal in 1735, to be rated as
inquisitor when Mateo de Amusquíbar, in 1737, assumed the former
position, to be in turn made inquisitor, in 1744, when he had attained
the age of thirty, which was the minimum for that office. Allusion has
been made above to the quarrels over the mismanagement of the finances
by the receiver Ilarduy, with whom Amusquíbar formed an alliance.
Amusquíbar wrote to the Suprema most damaging reports as to his
colleagues; the irregularities committed in serious trials for heresy
and the monstrous contradictions in civil cases. Unda, he said, acceded
to all that Calderon did, and Calderon followed his own whims in
opposition to the precise orders of the Suprema, while the same
disregard of instructions was shown in appointments and in dismissals
from office. There had, indeed, been gross irregularities in the trial
culminating in the great auto of December 23, 1736, in which a woman
and two effigies had been relaxed. One of the effigies was that of a
Jesuit Padre, Juan Francisco de Ulloa, who had died in 1710 with a
reputation of sanctity; the Jesuits had made great efforts to avert it
and were deeply incensed at the disgrace inflicted on the Society. This
may perhaps aid to explain why, when Calderon and Unda sent their
official relation of the cases, the Suprema had replied that it felt the
greatest sorrow and scandal in seeing how the affairs of religion were
treated, in offence both of religion and justice, and of the honor of
the Holy Office, with the threat that, if in future the laws were not
observed, the inquisitors would be dismissed. Calderon and Unda,
moreover, were greatly discredited by their amours. They kept as
concubines two sisters, Magdalena and Bartola Romo, the daughters of the
alcaide of the prison. Magdalena had three daughters whom Calderon
educated in the monastery of las Catalinas, where they were known as
_las inquisidoras_. Romo was an accomplice of Ilarduy, but when Calderon
and Unda dismissed others who were compromised, they retained him on
account of their relations with his daughters.[650]

These scandals and Calderon’s commercial enterprises were weapons used
by Ilarduy who, as we have seen, sent to Spain emissaries with a hundred
thousand pesos to accomplish Calderon’s downfall. One of these, Felipe
de Altolaguirre, Ilarduy’s son-in-law, before his departure, openly
boasted that he would not return without securing Calderon’s dismissal,
and after he came back he publicly spoke of having bribed the
inquisitor-general and Suprema, while Ilarduy said that it had cost him
forty thousand pesos.[651] What was attained was the appointment of a
visitador, armed with supreme powers. The person selected was Pedro
Antonio de Arenaza, inquisitor of Valencia, who was promised a salary of
fourteen thousand pesos and perquisites. If Calderon is to be believed,
Altolaguirre, the envoy of Ilarduy, told him that there were rich
pickings to be had from the fines to be imposed on the inquisitors; that
he could make large profits from merchandise which he could carry with
him; that he would have the appointment of corregidores in Piura and el
Cercado, yielding him thirty-six thousand pesos; that his travelling
expenses would be paid and that, on his return to Spain, he could not
get a seat in the Suprema unless he took with him a hundred thousand
pesos.[652] His experience in Madrid had evidently familiarized him with
the depth of corruption existing there.

The impression conveyed by this is confirmed by the commercial aspect of
the visitador’s voyage, strangely at variance with its object of
reforming abuses. To escape the risk of English cruisers, Altolaguirre
and Arenaza sailed from Lisbon to Rio, the visitador taking with him a
large assortment of goods and some negro slaves for sale. Rio was
reached in the middle of 1744 and Buenos Ayres in November, whence they
passed to Santiago and arrived in Lima early in March, 1745. On March
15th Arenaza presented his credentials and at once examined the funds in
the chest. Two weeks later, when Unda went to the chapel as usual to
hear mass, Arenaza’s notary told him to go to Amusquíbar’s house. As he
was about to enter, the notary made him get into a carriage standing at
the door, when, accompanied by a secretary, he was carried to the
Franciscan convent in the neighboring village of la Magdalena, with
orders to speak to no one. His property was at once embargoed, his house
locked up and placed under guard.

Calderon was arrested in even more unceremonious fashion. He had been
sick in bed for three days when Yrazabal, the alguazil mayor, who had
been reinstated, penetrated to his apartments. His physician and
chaplain, who were with him, were dismissed and an order was read
suspending him from office, embargoing his property and ordering his
departure for Limatamba. Yrazabal collected all the keys, and at once
commenced an inventory which consumed two days. Calderon remained in bed
under guard, with orders to speak to no one and no one was allowed to
leave the premises. The next day he was sent, in Amusquíbar’s coach, to
Limatamba, where two Dominicans were ready to guard him and, on May 3,
he was carried to Guaura. For a month there was busy search for the
sequestrated property. Calderon declared that it consisted mostly of
deposits confided to him, and he says that he was offered reinstatement
and the withdrawal of the visitation, if he would give security for
fifty thousand pesos and Unda for twenty thousand.[653]

Meanwhile Arenaza was openly retailing his negroes and his goods,
through his secretary Gabiria, in rooms obligingly placed at his
disposal by the Jesuits in their college. Ilarduy collected for him the
proceeds and the traffic was so successful that Arenaza was speedily
able to remit to Spain forty thousand four hundred pesos. The friendly
assistance of the Jesuits was due not only to their rancor against
Calderon, but also to their desire to shield one of their members, whose
arrest had been ordered and evaded by hurrying him away and procuring
the arrest of another party in his place. They were Arenaza’s advisers
and Calderon’s transfer to the secret prison had been determined
when an unlooked-for event changed the aspect of affairs. The
Inquisitor-general, Manrique de Lara, died January 10, 1746, and was
succeeded, July 26th, by Pardo y Cuesta. Calderon received the news by
way of Potosí and claimed that Arenaza’s commission expired with the
grantor. He hastened to Lima where he recused Arenaza as his judge,
threatened to shoot him and asked the Count of Superunda, then viceroy,
to give him no support. Superunda was strongly in favor of Arenaza and
ordered Calderon to leave the city within ten hours, nor does it need
Calderon’s accusation that he was bribed to this by the Jesuits.
Arenaza, in a letter to his brother, asserts that Calderon attempted to
buy him off and, when this failed, threatened him, but he would gain
nothing by this “for I am resolved rather to be fried in a frying-pan in
the public plaza.”[654]

Calderon’s faction in the city had been active in discrediting Arenaza
with pamphlets, lampoons and caricatures. The viceroy stood by him,
holding that his commission emanated from the Suprema and had not
lapsed, but still he sought to effect a settlement. At one time it was
agreed that the inquisitors should resume their offices and the
sequestrations be lifted, on their giving security in fifty thousand
pesos to answer judicially to the charges but, from some cause, the
arrangement fell through. Then came the great earthquake of October 28,
1746, followed by pestilence, which, for a time, suspended all action.
Calderon had his agents at work with the Suprema, which resolved, in
April, 1747, that the inquisitors should be restored and the
sequestration be lifted; that Arenaza’s functions should be limited to
the subordinate officials, and that the viceroy should select some one
to replace him as respected the inquisitors. It was nearly a year before
these orders reached Peru, but, on March 4, 1748, Calderon and Unda
entered the city triumphantly, in coaches escorted by a crowd of negroes
and mulattos, with bands of music and scattering of flowers, while the
bells of the convents of which they were patrons sounded a joyous peal,
the demonstration continuing for two days.

Arenaza was humiliated and, when Superunda received a commission in
blank for a new visitador, the warning was quite sufficient to deter any
competent person from accepting the perilous position. All to whom it
was offered declined, pointing out the fate of Arenaza and the danger of
arousing enmities that would blast their honor and reputation. Superunda
therefore brought Arenaza and the inquisitors together and, after a long
conference, it was agreed that the sequestration should be lifted and
that they would sit with Arenaza in the tribunal, but they failed to
comply with their promise and the business was carried on by Arenaza and
Amusquíbar. Unda died, May 27, 1748, of apoplexy following a visit paid
to a house where he had illicit relations with the daughters. His
funeral was dismal, even Calderon refusing to be present, saying that he
had died as he had lived.

Superunda reported to the inquisitor-general that affairs were beyond
remedy by a continuance of the visitation, and Arenaza was ordered to
return to Spain. This order reached Lima at the close of 1750 and he
sailed from Callao August 11, 1751, complaining bitterly that his salary
of fourteen thousand pesos had been cut down to fifty-nine hundred.
Amusquíbar, however, states that he was paid in addition eighteen
thousand five hundred for his outward expenses and living and eight
thousand for those of his return, which conflicts with the statement of
Viceroy Superunda that he embarked wholly destitute of money. He died on
the passage at Cartagena, but his secretary went on to Spain with the
papers of the visitation.

The decision of the Suprema had suspended Calderon until he should
answer judicially the charges made against him, and he consequently
lived in retirement, while the tribunal was carried on by Amusquíbar and
Rodríguez Delgado, who had been sent out to replace Unda. As usual they
quarrelled and, in 1754, Amusquíbar formally demanded that his colleague
should be removed by promotion to the episcopate, for he was inquisitor
only in name, being utterly inefficient and incapable. Rodríguez, on his
side, described Amusquíbar as arbitrary and impenetrably obstinate; a
case had been ready for final sentence for a year, yet he could not be
brought to agree as to its settlement. The sudden death of Rodríguez,
however, October 31, 1756, restored peace and José de Salazar y
Cevallos, who was appointed in his place, died in November, 1757, before
he could assume possession, so that Amusquíbar remained sole inquisitor.
He paid so little attention to his duties that in five months he was
only three times in the audience-chamber and, on the plea of illness, he
absented himself from Lima and appointed as his representative the
fiscal, Bartolomé Lopez Grillo, an act which excited much adverse
comment.

Meanwhile nothing was heard as to the dealings of the Suprema with the
papers of the visitation. They seem to have been gone over with even
more than customary deliberation and we chance to learn that, in 1762,
Calderon was charged with improper conduct of the cases of Bartolomé
Cortez de Umansoro and Andrés de Muguruza. In 1763 the Suprema adopted
the expedient of sending to the Viceroy Armat y Yuniant blank
commissions by which to appoint two competent ecclesiastics who with
Amusquíbar should form the court to try the charges. The instructions
reached Lima in 1764, by which time both Calderon and Amusquíbar had
passed away and thus, some twenty years after its inception, the
visitation died a natural death, every one concerned in it having passed
to a higher jurisdiction.[655]

A paralysis had fallen on the tribunal and from this time its functions
almost ceased, although its organization was kept complete and its
pay-roll suffered no diminution. One of its last autos was held in 1773,
in which only eight penitents appeared. Possibly this torpidity only
rendered its official positions more attractive, for they came to be a
matter of almost open bargain and sale. In 1789, Cristóbal de Cos, chief
clerk in the secretariat of the Suprema, commenced to traffic in them
through his agent, Fernando Piélago, one of the secretaries of the Lima
tribunal. To save the expense of transportation, the Suprema had for
some time adopted the practice of appointing natives or residents of
Peru, which may have given rise to the sale of offices or may, perhaps,
only have rendered it notorious, for Cos could not have transacted the
business without the connivance and participation of his superiors.
Piélago himself had paid three thousand pesos for his position, and
Manuel de Vado Calderon the same, for the office of secretary of
sequestrations. Narciso de Aragon gave six hundred for a minor position
and three cases are mentioned in which sums were paid for jubilation, or
retirement on half-pay, with the privilege of appointing a successor.
The culmination was reached in the career of Pedro Zalduegui, who
commenced as sweeper and sacristan of the chapel of the tribunal. He was
wholly illiterate, but he was a shrewd trader and he paid the capellan
mayor of the tribunal a thousand pesos to surrender his place to him.
Finally, through Piélago and Cos, he bought the position of inquisitor
for the sum of fourteen thousand ducats; there was little concealment in
the transaction and the scandal was great. The Suprema was obliged to
order an investigation which it confided to the Inquisitors Abarca and
Matienzo. In a letter of November 8, 1794, they confirmed the reports as
to the sale of offices and the incompetence of those who bought them.
Against this Zalduegui, in 1796, defended himself, by asserting that the
trouble arose from his refusal to join with his colleagues in their
mismanagement of the affairs of the tribunal for their private
interests. At length he manifested his gross ignorance in a controversy
with Bartolomé Guerrero on the intricate question of sanctifying grace;
they obliged him to define his position and, on the strength of the
doctrinal error involved, they prosecuted him and suspended him from
office. That the Suprema restored him is fairly suggestive of another
payment and he retained his office till the last.[656]

       *       *       *       *       *

Inquisitors of the character thus indicated, owning no superior save the
distant inquisitor-general and Suprema, armed with the terrible power of
excommunication which none but themselves could remove, judging all and
judged by none, could not fail to be a disturbing element in the
colonial administration. They were at the head of a body of officials
and familiars, scattered over the land, who enjoyed exemption from all
other jurisdiction, secular and ecclesiastical, and who were sure,
whatever crimes they might commit, to find protection and mercy in the
tribunal. Even their servants and slaves had the benefit of this _fuero_
and formed a peculiarly obnoxious class in the community. The
maintenance and extension of these privileges involved the tribunal in
constant strife with the authorities, lay and spiritual, quarrels which
were carried on with a violence frequently destructive to the public
peace. The governmental officials, however high-placed, who sought to
curb inquisitorial arrogance, could have slender hope of support from
their royal master. As we have seen in the chapter on Mexico, there was
preserved in the Madrid archives the formula of a letter addressed to
viceroys, insisting on their subservience to the Inquisition. This in
1603 was duly sent to the Marquis of Monterey, Viceroy of Peru.[657] How
often this was repeated it would be impossible to say, but in 1655, at
least, it was sent to the Count of Alba by Philip IV, as a warning in
consequence of some squabbles in which he came to be involved with the
tribunal.[658] When the colonial Inquisitions were founded, Philip II,
by a cédula of August 16, 1570, took the inquisitors and all the
officials under the royal protection and decreed that any one, no matter
of what rank, who disturbed or injured them should incur the penalty of
violating the safeguard, and this was repeated by Philip III in
1610.[659]

Francisco de Toledo, the first viceroy who had to deal with the
Inquisition, was a man of decided character who, by holding the
purse-strings, managed to keep within bounds Cerezuela, who was of a
yielding disposition. There was dissension however, for which Alonso de
Arceo, canon of la Plata, decried him as a heretic and a forger, whom
the tribunal dared not accuse, but when Toledo asked it to prosecute
him, it evaded the request.[660] The next viceroy, the Count del Villar,
was weaker, while Ulloa, as we have seen, enforced the prerogatives of
the Holy Office with a masterful hand. The quarrels which arose were
long and intricate and were conducted in a way to abase thoroughly the
vice-regal authority. We have seen that Villar banished Catalina Morejon
to put an end to the scandal of her relations with Inquisitor Ulloa;
this may have been either the cause or a result of the ill-feeling
between them, but motives for dissension could not be lacking, when the
domineering spirit of the tribunal refused obedience to all constituted
authority, and could always frame some excuse for asserting its superior
jurisdiction.

May 30, 1587, the English made a descent on Payta, where they burnt some
churches and convents and desecrated some images. They had been piloted
into the port by Gerónimo de Rivas, an inhabitant of Payta, whom they
had captured at sea and who remained after their departure. The deputy
corregidor naturally arrested him and Villar ordered him to be sent by
land to Lima for examination. In some way the inquisitorial
commissioner, the Mercenarian Fray Pedro Martínez, was interested in him
and to save him claimed and obtained him from the corregidor as a fautor
of heretics, justiciable by the Inquisition. He was forwarded by sea to
Lima and was withheld from the viceroy. In August Fray Martínez came to
Lima to attend a chapter of his Order, which made him comendador of his
ruined convent so that he could rebuild it. Villar, who felt much
aggrieved, forbade the Provincial, Fray Thomas de Valdez, to issue the
commission, but the tribunal interposed and by threats of
excommunication compelled its delivery. Soon after this, at the auto of
November 30, 1587, there arose a quarrel, probably about the
distribution of seats, which resulted in the excommunication of the
viceroy, who was compelled to seek absolution.

Villar sustained an even more humiliating defeat in another encounter
which exhibits the elasticity of inquisitorial jurisdiction. A young man
named Antonio de Arpide y Ulloa (possibly of kin to Inquisitor Ulloa)
came to Lima, with orders to admit him to a “lance” in the lancers of
the guard, which was accordingly done. Ulloa appointed him fiscal of the
tribunal, although, according to the Visitador Prado, he was naturally
ill-conditioned, a youth in all things, careless in his office, and it
was a scandal to see a fiscal wearing the garments of a layman. Villar
thereupon discharged him from the guard, replacing him with Don Luis de
Nevares, for the sufficient reason that the two positions were
incompatible and that no one could enjoy two salaries. Arpide petitioned
the tribunal for relief; as its official he was entitled to its fuero
and the viceroy had no authority over him. The tribunal confirmed this
view; the viceroy had no right to dismiss him, and it ordered, under a
penalty of a thousand pesos, the officers of the guard to strike from
the rolls the name of Nevares and replace that of Arpide, to whom the
salary must be paid. The officers represented that they were under the
viceroy’s orders, when they were told that they had thus incurred
excommunication and the penalty. The affair was put into the shape of a
suit between Arpide and Nevares, in which the tribunal of course gave a
decision in favor of the former and, when the latter appealed the
Suprema, it refused to allow the appeal.

There was another source of trouble in the case of Dr. Salinas, a man of
evil reputation, who was appointed advocate of prisoners. Previous to
this appointment he had uttered disparaging remarks about the viceroy,
and had a quarrel with his secretary Juan Bello. Villar procured the
assent of Ruiz de Prado and arrested Salinas, prosecuted him and
subjected him to severe torture in the course of the trial. Then the
tribunal interfered and Villar surrendered him and all the papers. This
did not satisfy Ulloa and Prado, who forgot their mutual strife and
united to give the viceroy a final blow, as his five years’ term of
service was drawing to an end. Formal proceedings were commenced against
him. September 26, 1589, Arpide as fiscal presented his _clamosa_ or
indictment, representing that Villar had always been disaffected to the
Inquisition, had talked against it, had impeded it and had diminished
its authority as far as he could. In the case of his secretary, Juan
Bello, he had sent a threatening message; at the auto of November 30,
1587, he had invented means to deprive it of the services of its
officials; as soon as Dr. Salinas received an appointment, he had
prosecuted him for trifling words uttered long before; in the case of
Gabriel Martínez de Esquivel, familiar in Huanuco, he had ordered him to
report forthwith in Spain to the Council of Indies and, when asked by
the tribunal for his reasons, he had made an offensive reply; he had
even made investigations against the persons and reputations of the
inquisitors themselves. From all this, which was notorious, it followed
that he had incurred the pains and censures provided by the bull _Si de
protegendis_ of Pius V (April 1, 1569), against all who offend or
despise the officials of the Inquisition, wherefore the tribunal was
asked to declare him to have incurred these censures, notwithstanding
any absolution _ad cautelam_ which he might have obtained, so that he
might serve as an example to all Christian people of their obligation to
respect and reverence everything connected with the Holy Office.

Without going through the prescribed formalities of submitting the
matter to calificadores and assembling consultores and, without hearing
the accused, the tribunal that same morning decreed that Villar had
incurred the censures of the bull of Pius V, while for the other
penalties prescribed in it he was remitted to the Suprema. To this the
viceroy replied, October 3d, that he had only sought to perform the
duties of his office, but seeing that they had declared him to be under
the excommunication of the bull, as an obedient son of the Church he
begged for absolution and asked that it be speedy, as he was under
orders to sail for Spain. For an answer to this he waited until the
16th, when he sent a judge and alcalde de corte, both consultors of the
Inquisition, to the tribunal to enquire about his petition. There was
read to them a reply, dated on the 14th, to the effect that the
inquisitors had repeatedly intimated to him that he had incurred these
censures and, in fact, it was so self-evident that every one could have
known it, for every one knows that all incur them who impede the
Inquisition directly or indirectly, or who ill-treat, in word or deed,
the inquisitors or officials to the injury of their reputation and
authority, and that good intentions are powerless to avert it. The
viceroy’s acts had been so notorious that it was needless to recite them
and, before absolution could be granted, condign satisfaction must be
rendered for them, especially to Dr. Diego de Salinas, while, as
regarded the injuries to the Holy Office, he was referred to the
Suprema. As it had long been evident that he was under these censures,
without seeking their removal, and as he was about to undertake a long
and perilous voyage, the inquisitors had been moved by loving charity to
bring him to a recognition of the condition of his soul. They were ready
to absolve him as soon as he should do what was requisite and, in
consideration of his station, he should be spared the solemnities
required by law.

After some parleying this portentous document was delivered to Villar on
the 19th and on the 27th he replied at much length. He had never been
told that he was under excommunication, or he would at once have applied
for absolution. He had always favored and enriched the Inquisition; he
had not proceeded against Dr. Salinas till assured by Prado that he
could do so, and he had surrendered him and the papers, January 11,
1589, as soon as he was summoned. Then Prado, after consulting Ulloa,
had given to Fray Pedro de Molina a commission to absolve him _ad
cautelam_, in case he had incurred excommunication for that or anything
else, and he had received the absolution with great satisfaction, but
the certificate had been withdrawn more than a month ago, and since then
he had abstained from hearing mass or taking the sacraments, except on
the feast of San Francisco (October 4th) when he had special licence
from the inquisitors. He did not know how he was to give satisfaction to
Dr. Salinas, as the matter had been remitted to the Suprema which, with
the king, would do as they might see fit. Meanwhile, as a gentleman and
an humble and obedient son of the Church, he again prayed for
absolution.

The victory of the tribunal and the humiliation of the viceroy were
complete. When the inquisitors read his petition, October 27th, they
issued to Antonio de Balcázar, provisor of the archdiocese, a commission
to absolve him, at the same time admonishing him to present himself to
the Suprema as early as possible. They also gave him the papers of the
suit brought against him by Dr. Salinas, in order to enable him to make
his defence before the Suprema. Villar received the absolution with much
humility and satisfaction, as a great favor from the inquisitors, and on
the 28th the provisor was summoned, who solemnly absolved him in the
chapel of the palace.[661]

Yet Villar was so little reassured that, on his voyage home, he wrote
from Havana to implore the protection of the king from the enmity of
Salinas. He rehearsed the services of his ancestors to the monarchy,
while of his children five sons had been killed and one crippled in the
king’s wars with heretics and infidels, two more were then serving and
two were in training for service, while two had died in the priesthood.
His fears were probably groundless for the Suprema, in a letter to
Prado, blamed him for the dissensions in the tribunal which it
attributed to his favor for Salinas, a man of such evil life and
tortuous methods that he alone would throw any republic into discord.
Apparently it did not as yet know that the secret of the influence of
Salinas was the relations of his sister-in-law with Prado, a scandal
which continued until Prado’s recall.[662]

It has seemed worth while to give somewhat in detail the particulars of
this obscure quarrel to illustrate the position adopted by the tribunal
towards the highest authorities, its arrogant assumption of superiority,
and the readiness with which its jurisdiction could be extended in any
desired direction. It can easily be perceived how difficult was the task
of the viceroys to maintain an efficient government, and to keep the
peace with so independent and so unruly a factor in the land. But few of
them escaped collisions, although it does not appear that in any
subsequent case the quarrel went so far as the institution of a formal
prosecution against the personal representative of the king. It is not
surprising therefore that, however pious were the viceroys, they were
almost unanimous in deprecating the acts and the influence of the Holy
Office. The Count del Villar naturally exhaled his woes in long and
lugubrious epistles to the king. His successor, the Count of Cañete, as
early in his term as 1589, complained bitterly of the exemptions through
which all connected with the Holy Office admitted responsibility to no
one. This gave rise to endless trouble, for every one who was summoned
to have his accounts examined, or who refused to pay his dues to the
royal treasury, procured a familiarship or some office and with it
secured exemption. Even Alvaro Ruiz de Navamuel, the government
secretary, had himself made a familiar and auditor, and assumed that he
was not subject to investigation. The royal officials were familiars-one
of them at Arequipa, when called upon for his accounts, refused because
he was a familiar.[663] Government conducted after this fashion seems
like _opéra bouffe_.

In like manner the Viceroy Luis de Velasco, in 1604, represented
strongly to Philip III the intrusion of the tribunal on other
jurisdictions and its overbearing methods, so that the superior royal
officials, on whom rested the peace and quiet of the land, had to
abandon their rights to avoid scandals. As for himself, sometimes he
temporized, sometimes he yielded, and sometimes he pretended not to see,
in order to avoid dissension, for, when the tribunal was opposed, it
made public demonstrations, which degraded the authority of the
vice-regal office and of the Royal Audiencia. So, in 1609, the Viceroy
Marquis of Montesclaros, in representing some scandalous ill-treatment
of the alcaldes of the city, declared that the inquisitors were
arbitrary and assumed that there was no power superior to them to
restrain or even to resist them.[664] It was probably representations
such as these which led to the concordias of 1610 and 1633. In these
some of the more flagrant usurpations of authority were forbidden, but
the underlying principles were unchanged and we have seen how, in
Mexico, the attempted reform was frustrated.

The Viceroy Count of Alba de Aliste was involved in many encounters with
the tribunal, for which, as noted above, in 1655, Philip IV sent him a
copy of the circular letter of 1603 commanding respect and obedience.
This did not prevent him, in 1657, from writing that the reiteration and
multiplication of its excesses of jurisdiction might render it necessary
for him to break with it altogether, as the only way of maintaining the
authority of the Government.[665] With the advent of the Bourbon
dynasty, the consequent infusion of Gallicanism in Spain, and the
resolute assertion of the regalías, the authority of the viceroys was
more fully recognized, and we hear less, in the eighteenth century, of
their struggles to maintain it against the tribunal. Yet the latter did
not cease to assert the superiority of its jurisdiction and to extend it
as far as possible, giving rise to a perpetual succession of embittered
contests with the other judicial organizations, to the detriment of the
public peace and the weakening of the functions of government. Even
after its decadence had fairly set in, as late as 1773, the Viceroy
Manuel Amat y Yunient writes that the Inquisition, so necessary for the
purity of the faith, would be more useful and respected if it would
confine itself to its proper functions, for its cognizance of civil
cases has always led to collisions with the royal courts, which are
particularly prejudicial at this distance from the king and, though
there have been concordias and royal cédulas to prevent them, there are
never lacking occasions to revive the contention to the great disquiet
of the people.[666]

The eighteenth century, in fact, presents an almost continuous series of
quarrels with all the different jurisdictions, the existence of which so
greatly weakened the organization of the Spanish colonial system, and
these quarrels were fought out with a persistent bitterness, sometimes
degenerating into violence, which taxed to the utmost the efforts of the
viceroys as peacemakers. Into the trivial details of these dreary
conflicts it is not worth while to enter at length, but a single case
may be briefly described, to illustrate the ferocity displayed by all
parties and the confusion arising from the complexity of the multiplied
judicial systems which influenced Spanish development so unfortunately.

On November 11, 1723, two brothers, the Licentiates Juan and Martin
Lobaton, presented themselves before the tribunal to claim its
protection. Juan was cura or parish priest of Soras and commissioner of
the Inquisition in Guancabelica; Martin was cura of Viñao and “persona
honesta” or cleric called in to be present when witnesses ratified their
evidence. Both parishes were in the see of Guamanga, then _sede vacante_
and governed by the chapter, which had required Juan to account for the
property of an Indian woman, a parishioner who had died some two years
previous, and it had ordered him not to leave Guamanga, under penalty of
excommunication, whereupon he had promptly fled to Lima. In his case,
the fiscal reported that the matter did not concern the Inquisition and
the papers were returned to the episcopal Ordinary. Martin had assisted
his brother’s flight and for this he was confined to his house by the
episcopal authorities and a coadjutor appointed, to the great scandal
and destruction, we are told, of the parish. In this case the tribunal
assumed jurisdiction; it ordered him, June 2, 1724, to be restored and
his property released, on his giving security, and the chapter was
ordered to prosecute before the Inquisition whatever charges it had to
bring against him.

Martin meanwhile had the town of Guamanga as a prison. On the afternoon
of April 30th, as he was standing in the street, the dean of the
chapter, who was also commissioner of the Inquisition, passed in his
carriage, then got out and scolded him roundly for not taking off his
hat. Martin withdrew, but the dean, still unsatisfied, went to his house
with the alcalde, broke open the door and embargoed all his goods--even
to his clothes and breviary--then summoned the chapter and by 5 o’clock
had him excommunicated and fined twenty pesos, as the papers stated,
for not removing his hat to the dean an hour before, and notices of the
excommunication were duly affixed to the doors of the churches.

When the inquisitorial sentence of June 2d was served upon the chapter
it said that it had nothing against Martin, but when his embargoed
property came to be restored much of it was found to have been stolen by
the depositaries to whom it had been confided. The tribunal held the
chapter responsible and ordered the loss to be made good, under threat
of excommunication. The chapter replied, September 29th, that the case
belonged to the bishop and chapter and its previous surrender of the
papers had been without prejudice. Then Fray Luis de Cabrera, prior of
the Augustinian convent, to whom the sentence had been sent as executor,
excommunicated the chapter. The archdeacon as Commissioner of the
Cruzada, declared the excommunication void, ordered the notices to be
removed, and replaced them with others excommunicating Cabrera as a
disturber of the Bull of the Cruzada. Cabrera responded by
excommunicating the alguazil and notary of the Cruzada and, on October
2d, the archdeacon pronounced these excommunications to be null.

When the tribunal heard of this, by orders of October 18th and 27th it
declared the excommunications on both sides to be null; it put the
matter of the chapter in the hands of Luis de Mendoza, rector of the
Jesuit college, and it ordered Cabrera to push the restitution of
Martin’s property, but not to employ censures without instructions. This
was the situation when the new bishop, Alfonso Roldan, arrived at Lima
and, on its being stated to him, he expressed himself as satisfied. Then
Martin came before the tribunal asserting that one of the depositaries,
Juan Joseph Lasco, who had stolen most of the goods, had pawned some
silverware of his with a merchant named Joseph de Villanueva, and asking
their restoration on his proving property. Consequently on March 14,
1725, orders were sent to Cabrera that, if the silver were proved to be
Martin’s, it should be deposited in safe hands. This was done on April
5th, when Villanueva deposed that Lasco had pawned with him
ninety-three marks of silver plate. He was ordered to deposit it and
promised to do so but, on the 7th, he testified that the day before the
bishop had ordered him not to surrender the silver but to tell Cabrera
to throw up the commission of the Inquisition and any other that he
might hold. This was followed by the archdeacon notifying Martin to go
to his parish in sixteen hours and, on his representing the
impossibility of this, as he had been a prisoner for a year and was
deprived of his property, he was posted as an excommunicate. After
considerable delay he was absolved and was told to stay in the city, but
on falling sick and unable to assist in the church, he was
excommunicated again and recluded in his house.

All this is a one-sided relation, furnished by the tribunal to the
Suprema. It evidently omits much that would show the tribunal in a less
favorable light, as the outcome indicates, for in it there is nothing to
justify the intervention of the viceroy and Audiencia. Yet we learn from
another source that Cabrera had arbitrarily excommunicated and fined the
alcalde of Guamanga who complained to the Audiencia, and on October 30,
1724, the viceroy notified the tribunal that the Audiencia, after
considering the evidence, had resolved that the Inquisition should
restrain its officials. A correspondence ensued, continued until the
summer of 1725, in which the tribunal complained that the viceroy and
Audiencia were assuming to be the superiors of the Inquisition, in
violation of the laws and the royal cédulas. The affair finally took the
shape of a competencia referred for settlement to the Suprema and the
Council of Indies. The Suprema took high ground; it alone could review
the acts of the tribunal or entertain appeals, and no other authority
had power to intervene. This might have answered under Philip IV, but
times had changed. A decree of Philip V, February 1, 1729, ordered it to
correct the excesses of the tribunal by such means as it deemed
requisite, and to this it replied, April 16th, that it had revoked the
acts of the tribunal in the affair of Martin Lobaton, ordering the
surrender of all papers to the Ordinary and judge of Cruzada before
whom he must plead; that it had entirely disapproved the proceedings of
the tribunal and that it had instructed the inquisitors hereafter to
observe the provisions of the law.[667]

The Cruzada jurisdiction which emerges in this case was another of the
subdivisions of judicial authority, which so fatally complicated the
administration of justice in the Spanish dominions and furnished an
abundant source of quarrels. The indulgence known as the Santa Cruzada
supplied a large revenue to the crown and the organization for its sale
was elaborate. At its head was a chief commissioner who held exclusive
jurisdiction, civil and criminal, over his subordinates and, although
this was by law confined to their official acts, yet it was, as we have
just seen, extended to protect them in every way.[668] While the case
just mentioned was in progress, another prolonged quarrel arose,
similarly involving all three jurisdictions. Don Antonio de Marcategui,
the priest of Quiquixana, was also a commissioner of the Inquisition. As
such he was already engaged in a contest with the episcopal provisor of
Cuzco, in which the Suprema decided against him and ordered all his acts
to be revoked. While this was pending he celebrated mass in the
chapter’s chapel of the Virgin, on a feast-day, without first settling
with the Cruzada for the indulgences gained there by the worshippers
under some old concessions. For this Don Juan de Ugarte, commissioner of
the Cruzada in Cuzco, on January 8, 1724, notified him that he was fined
in three hundred pesos, and also excommunicated him without trial.
Marcategui went to Cuzco and laid the matter before Bishop Arregui, who
sided with Ugarte. After some further trouble the corregidor was sent to
arrest him and sequestrate his property; he gathered together some
Indians and Spaniards for resistance but thought better of it and
escaped to Lima when, on appealing to the Inquisition, it declared all
the proceedings to be invalid and ordered the surrender to it of all
the papers. The bishop however sent his papers to the viceroy and Ugarte
his to the Cruzada tribunal of Lima. The inquisitors demanded the former
from the viceroy and asked him to compel the Cruzada to surrender the
latter, but the viceroy refused, alleging that what he held concerned
the royal _patronato_ and that he had no control over the Cruzada, whose
jurisdiction was ecclesiastical, exempt and privileged. To a second
demand, he expressed the wise determination not to get entangled in
ecclesiastical matters and jurisdictions, and he further claimed
cognizance of the case of the corregidor, whom the Inquisition was
prosecuting for sequestrating Marcategui’s property and attempting his
arrest. He stubbornly rejected repeated requests and he finally ordered
the tribunal to suspend its summons to Ugarte to appear before it. The
case was carried to Spain to vex the souls of the Suprema, the Council
of Indies and the Commissioner of the Cruzada. In 1729 the king decided
against the Inquisition and ordered the case to be surrendered to the
Cruzada and the episcopal court, but it still dragged on and, in 1733, a
royal decree ordered the Inquisition to obey the Concordias and the
laws, but even this was not the end, how it was finally settled matters
little; its only interest lies in illustrating the hopelessly
impracticable character of Spanish colonial organization and
administration.[669]

These defeats of the Inquisition were followed soon afterwards by a
still greater invasion of the privileges of the inquisitorial employees.
A citizen of Lima pursued a slave into the house of a salaried official,
whereupon the tribunal forthwith ordered his arrest. The royal Audiencia
intervened, representing to the viceroy, the Marquis of Castel-Fuerte,
that the officials enjoyed only the passive and not the active fuero;
that the pretensions of the Inquisition, if admitted, would destroy the
royal jurisdiction, and that an order should be issued requiring the
aggrieved party to plead in the Audiencia. This opinion the viceroy
sent to the tribunal with a request that it should abstain. It replied
that the official had withdrawn his complaint on account of the
apologies made to him, but that the tribunal could not assent to the
position of the Audiencia without committing the grave fault of
crippling its powers. A considerable correspondence ensued in which the
Audiencia asserted decisively that, in matters not connected with faith,
the officials of the Inquisition did not enjoy the fuero and much less
the active fuero; that there were no laws or customs to contravene the
settled principle that the plaintiff or prosecutor must seek the court
of the defendant. To this the tribunal replied that the Audiencia had no
authority to frame general rules in contravention of laws and customs,
and that the matter must be settled by the Suprema. Castel-Fuerte
rejoined that the competence of the royal court was not to be impugned,
that the Suprema had cognizance only of matters of faith and that to
admit the contrary was to place the whole administration of justice at
the mercy of the tribunal.[670]

These were brave words which a century earlier would have consigned the
utterer to disgrace. They were the denial of the privileges and
exemptions which the Inquisition had enjoyed for nearly two centuries
and a half, and their significance lies in their expression of the
tendencies of the period. In time those tendencies brought about their
inevitable development. In 1744 there was a contest over the will of D.
Felix Antonio de Vargas, in the consulado or commercial court. A
secretary of the tribunal claimed to have an interest in the estate, and
it consequently asserted jurisdiction over the whole affair. This was
resisted by the consulado, and Viceroy Villagarcia ordered a _sala de
competencia_ to decide between the conflicting claims, according to
established rule. The tribunal refused, on the ground that its rights
were too clear to be called in question. While this was pending,
Superunda succeeded to Villagarcia and, after no little trouble, he
induced the visitador Arenaza to agree to a _sala reflexa_, to
determine whether a _sala de competencia_ should be held. Then there
came fresh trouble on the side of the senior judge of the Consulado, but
finally the decision was reached that the officials of the Inquisition
were entitled to the active fuero. When Superunda reported the matter to
Fernando VI there resulted the royal cédula of June 20, 1751, declaring
that the officials should enjoy only the passive fuero, and this in both
civil cases and those criminal ones not excepted by the concordias,
while their servants and the familiars were wholly deprived of it. In
the case in question, the papers were to be surrendered to the
Consulado; in future no sala reflexa was to be held and, when the matter
was so clear as in this one, the viceroy should decide it, as the effort
was manifestly an assault on the regalías.

By this time Arenaza had departed and the inquisitors were Amusquíbar
and Rodríguez. The latter was disposed to accept the royal cédula
without dispute, but Amusquíbar refused to obey it on the ground that it
had not come with the confirmation of the Suprema. A long wrangle
ensued, but at length another cédula of February 29, 1760, was received,
ordering the observance of the previous one, and this time it was
accompanied by a corresponding decree of the Suprema. These were
communicated to the tribunal, March 24, 1761, which, seeing that further
resistance was useless, promptly promised obedience. This was followed
by a demand for the papers of the estate of Vargas, which, after an
interval of seventeen years, was at length placed in train for
adjudication.[671]

This settled the question as to the civil jurisdiction of the tribunal
and simultaneously another case put an end to conflicts over criminal
matters. A negro slave of the alguazil mayor had been arrested for some
offence; the tribunal demanded the prisoner with its customary threats
of fines and excommunications. The affair was pending when the cédula of
1760 was received; the Audiencia thereupon served on the tribunal an
inhibition to issue letters of excommunication and fine against the
alcaldes del crimen and proceeded to try the slave. The cédula was sent
to all the judicial officers of the vice-royalty and they were ordered
to defend the royal jurisdiction in all cases covered by it. To the
arrogant temper of Amusquíbar this limitation of the traditional
jurisdiction of the Inquisition must have been gall and wormwood, but it
was worth much to the peace of the land. In 1796, the Viceroy, Frey
Francisco Gil de Taboado y Lemos, tells us that it had put an end to the
former conflicts between the jurisdictions.[672]

We have seen how neglectful was Amusquíbar of the real duties of his
office, but he found time and energy to keep Barroeta y Angel, the
Archbishop of Lima, in a condition of exasperation for years, and in
this he seems to have had the support not only of the Suprema but of
Fernando VI. What was the origin of the dissension between them does not
appear, but Barroeta lost no opportunity of exercising his authority for
Amusquíbar’s annoyance and always to his own discomfiture. The rupture
must already have been pronounced when, October 4, 1752, Barroeta wrote
calling his attention to the fact that his licence as confessor had not
been renewed, while in spite of this he continued his visits to the
nunneries of the Recollects, which was unfitting his position and was
prohibited; his ceasing these visits would relieve the Archbishop from
further proceedings. This sharp provocation was disarmed by cool
insolence. Amusquíbar delayed a reply until November 14th, when he
simply said that he had postponed acknowledging the note in order to be
temperate, and he now omitted answering it in order not to fail in the
respect due to his own office and the dignity of the archbishop.
Barroeta transmitted the correspondence to the Suprema for redress and
obtained none. Amusquíbar, however, ceased his visits but kept up a
correspondence. So it was, in 1756, when Barroeta called upon Amusquíbar
and Rodríguez for a statement of settlements with creditors and sales of
farms belonging to chaplaincies, in order that he might see that the
souls of the founders were reaping the benefits designed in the
foundations. The inquisitors replied that it was impossible and, on his
asking why, replied that it was on account of the mode of his demand;
the archbishop could send his fiscal and any special question about any
special foundation would be answered. Again he forwarded the letters to
the Suprema but its only action was to file them away. He had equal
ill-luck in all the questions that he raised. In 1751 the Suprema sent
to Amusquíbar its approval and that of the king, as to his conduct in an
encounter with Barroeta over jubilee faculties for absolving for heresy.
Then Barroeta claimed that the inquisitors should submit to him their
licences to celebrate and hear confessions, but the king decided against
him. Barroeta transferred the delegation of his inquisitorial
jurisdiction from his Ordinary to another person; the tribunal disputed
it and the king decided in its favor. He undertook to deprive the
inquisitors of their faculties as confessors, and only provoked fresh
rebukes from Spain. He issued an edict on fasting which the tribunal
prohibited; then he printed it at the end of his Synodal Constitutions
only to have the prohibition confirmed and the decision approved by the
Suprema. There was a question about the notary of the episcopal court
going to the tribunal to report certain acts, in which the Suprema
sustained its action, and the visits of ceremony between them was a
fruitful source of controversy.[673] Barroeta died, December 10, 1757,
his whole episcopate marred with these little squabbles. It is all very
petty, but it illustrates how the relations of the Inquisition with the
spiritual authorities were as unfriendly as with the temporal.

       *       *       *       *       *

Thus far we have considered the activity of the tribunal in matters
foreign to its original purpose, which, indeed, were the most important
portion of its record. As regards its proper function, that of
maintaining the purity of the faith, its chief business in Peru, as in
Spain, was with a class of cases which could only by forced construction
be considered as heretical. Bigamists furnished a large proportion of
penitents--the adventurer who left a wife in Andalusian Córdoba was apt
to take a new one in Córdova de Tucuman and chance might at any time
bring detection, while, even in Peru itself, distances were so great and
intercommunication so difficult, that the seeker after fortune was
easily tempted in his wanderings to duplicate the sacrament of
matrimony. Blasphemy was another prolific source of prosecution, for the
gambling habit was universal and lost none of its provocative character
in crossing the ocean. Sorcery moreover, including the innumerable
superstitions for creating love or hatred, curing or causing disease,
bringing fortune or averting misfortune, and foretelling the future,
which were technically held to include implicit or explicit pact with
the demon, brought an ample store of culprits before the tribunal. To
the mass of superstitious beliefs carried from home by the Spaniards
were speedily superadded those of the native wise-women and a sprinkling
taught by Guinea negro slaves. We find but few whites among these
offenders, but every other caste is represented--negro, mulatto,
quadroon, mestizo and sambo and sometimes Indian, for in this crime the
jurisdiction of the Inquisition over the Indians seems to have been
admitted. One feature of Indian sorcery which constantly meets us is the
use of the drug coca, owing to the marvellous properties attributed to
it, akin to the _peyote_ which, in Mexico, was employed to produce
fatidical dreams and revelations. Both of these were strictly prohibited
by the respective Inquisitions.[674]

No specific cases of witchcraft occur in the autos de fe, but, in 1629,
a special Edict of Faith directed against the occult arts and sorcery
was published, enumerating all the forbidden practices in minute detail
and forming a curious body of superstitions and folk-lore, much more
extensive than anything of the kind issued in Spain. It brought in, we
are told, numerous denunciations, but the practices were ineradicable
and continued to flourish until the end. The virtual paralysis of the
tribunal in the later years of Amusquíbar caused many complaints, among
which was one from Córdova de Tucuman to the Suprema, representing that,
in the interior provinces, sorcery was universal; there was no case of
sickness that was not attributed to it, but denunciations and testimony
sent to the tribunal received no attention and, as the civil magistrates
were precluded from acting, it flourished unrepressed.[675]

Propositions, which furnished so large a portion of the work of the
Spanish tribunals, afforded a much smaller percentage in Peru. This is
probably attributable to lack of intellectual activity, for some of the
cases tried indicate that the susceptibility of the Inquisition was as
delicate as in Spain, and that there was the same readiness to denounce
any careless speech or ill-sounding remark uttered in vexation or anger.
Thus, in 1592, Felipe de Lujan was tried because, when looking at a
picture of the Last Judgement, he said it was not well painted, for
Christ was not with the Apostles. Juan de Arianza had the indelible
disgrace of appearing in the auto of February 27, 1631, because, when
reading the Scriptures, he exclaimed “Ea! there is nothing but living
and dying,” which sounded ill to those who heard it. A case, which came
near to ending in tragedy, was that of Antonio de Campos who, for
uttering certain heretical propositions and adhering to them
pertinaciously, was condemned to relaxation. Fortunately for him the
expense of a public auto was too great to be incurred for him and the
Suprema was consulted, in 1672. During the delay thus caused it was
found that his real name was Fray Teodoro de Ribera and that his brain
had been turned by a potion given to him by a woman. This afforded a
solution and he was handed over as insane to his Provincial. A case in
1721 is noteworthy as illustrating the dangers which environed all
speculations connected with the Church. A Frenchman, known as Juan de
Ullos, was denounced for saying that neither the pope nor a general
council was the head of the Church. In due course this proposition was
submitted to two calificadores, Padre Luis de Andrade, S. J., and the
Mercenarian Fray Francisco Galiano. It was probably through some vague
reference to Gallicanism that they reported that the qualification was
difficult because the accused was a Frenchman, and for this they were
imprisoned, with sequestration of their property.[676]

As we have already seen in Mexico (p. 241), one of the most frequent
offences, not strictly heretical, with which the Inquisition had to
deal, was that of so-called solicitation--the seduction of women by
priests in the confessional, but as these offenders never appear in the
relations of the autos, they are only to be gathered from more or less
imperfect records. Prior to 1578 there had been various cases, about one
of which, that of Antonio Hernández de Villaroel, the tribunal reported
that it could not diminish the penalty of perpetual deprivation of
confessing women, because this had been ordered by the Suprema in the
case of Rodrigo de Arcos, and this was construed as a general law. If
so, it was not long in force for, about 1580, we find Juan de Alarcon
deprived for only three years. In a collection of cases between 1578 and
1581 there are seven of solicitation and between 1581 and 1585 there are
eight. Thus they are constantly appearing and, in 1595, we are told that
there were twenty-four priests in prison awaiting sentence, one of whom,
Juan de Figueroa, was testified against by forty-three women. In 1597
seven priests were prosecuted from the province of Tucuman alone, where,
among the Indian converts, few confessors seem to have had
scruples.[677]

In view of the heinousness of the offence the treatment of culprits in
Spain was remarkably lenient, but this was surpassed by the tenderness
shown to them in Peru. Another fraile from Tucuman, the Dominican
Francisco Vázquez, was sentenced, in 1599, for this and for twenty-four
scandalous propositions, but for this cumulation of offences he escaped
with deprivation of confessing women and reclusion for a year in a
convent. At the same time the Franciscan Bartolomé de la Cruz, Guardian
of the convent at Santiago de Estero, against whom fifteen women
testified, was deprived of confessing and had some spiritual penances.
Fray Andrés Corral, Guardian of the convent at las Juntas, testified
against by twenty-eight women, had aggravated the offence by committing
rape in the church and for this he was banished from Tucuman and
subjected to a discipline. On the other hand Rodrigo Ortiz Melgarejo,
the only priest in Asuncion, denounced himself to the commissioner in
1594, to the delegate in Asuncion and to the tribunal in 1596, for guilt
with seven women. He was obliged to go to Lima, where he presented
himself in 1600. He was regarded as excessively scrupulous, he had
performed a journey of over a thousand miles and this seems to have been
thought an ample punishment. The fact that there was no evidence against
him shows that the commissioner and his delegate regarded the matter as
too trivial to gather testimony about it.[678]

In some of these cases the customary reading of the sentences before
colleagues of the culprits was omitted because, as the tribunal
explained, there were so many of them of various Orders that the
omission seemed best to spare the honor of the religious bodies; the
character of the Indian female witnesses was doubtful, but experience
showed that they spoke truth, for most of the accused confessed and this
was confirmed by the evil lives and example of all the frailes summoned
from Tucuman. This had led the tribunal to deprive them perpetually of
confessing women, even when the witnesses were Indians and few in
number, especially as all those priests and frailes were very ignorant
and profligate.[679]

Inquisitor Ordóñez, as we have seen, was not especially sensitive or
straight-laced, but he felt compelled, in a letter of April 20, 1599, to
call the attention of the Suprema to the frequency of solicitation,
especially in Tucuman, where, as he said, it appeared that there was
scarce a priest not guilty of it, and the worst feature was that some of
them told the Indian women that the sin was no sin when committed with
them, and it was consummated in the churches. He therefore asked
authority to increase the punishment indicated in the Instructions and
the Suprema accordingly gave permission to add service in the galleys--a
permission, however, of which the tribunal seems never to have availed
itself. So far from there being an improvement, the tribunal was led to
issue, in 1630, a special edict to the effect that, notwithstanding the
clauses in the annual Edict of Faith, the crime continued to prevail;
that confessors ignored that it was strictly reserved to the
Inquisition, and absolved the guilty as well as the penitents, without
requiring the latter to denounce their seducers as prescribed by the
papal decrees; further, that learned persons when consulted furnished
opinions that these cases did not come within inquisitorial
jurisdiction; wherefore all persons were required, within six days after
notice, to denounce these offenders under pain of excommunication _latæ
sententiæ_.[680]

It was all in vain and solicitation continued until the end to furnish a
notable portion of the dwindling business of the tribunal. As late as
1806 the fiscal Sobrino reported to the Suprema that the worst criminals
were to be found in the vice-royalty of Buenos Ayres, which was
hastening to its ruin, especially through irreligious propositions and
solicitation. Possibly wholesome severity might have placed some check
on the persistency of the crime, but the same inexplicable tenderness
continued to be shown to culprits. In 1737, Pedro de Zubieta, canon of
Lima, denounced himself for soliciting Doña Lorenza de Fuentes, a nun in
the convent of la Concepcion--a confession which she confirmed to some
extent. Then Sor Eugenia Evangelista, of the convent del Prado,
denounced him with details of the filthiest and most corrupting talk.
As, however, he was a person of consideration, the tribunal, before
taking action, consulted the Suprema, with the result that, in 1743, he
was merely reprimanded and advised to give up hearing confessions.
Almost equal leniency was shown, in 1793, to the priest Fermin de
Aguirre, whose sentence was read in the presence of twelve priests, when
he abjured _de levi_ and had some spiritual penances.[681]

       *       *       *       *       *

More nearly akin to the real business of the Inquisition was its dealing
with the class known as _beatas revelanderas_--women professing a holy
life, specially favored by heaven with trances, revelations and visions,
and gifted with spiritual attributes and powers. Popular superstition
rendered this a profitable trade in Spain, where the Holy Office was
perpetually engaged in exposing and punishing their impostures; Peru was
equally afflicted; indeed, the boldness and grossness of their demands
upon the credulity of the people exceeded even that displayed in the
mother country.

Almost the first occupation of the new tribunal was a case of this kind.
About 1568, in Lima, a young _endemoniada_, named María Pizarro, had
visitations from the angel Gabriel, in which many things were revealed
to her, including the Immaculate Conception. She was exorcised by
numerous frailes, who accepted these revelations and carried them out to
their ultimate conclusions. Conspicuous among these were the Padres Luis
López and Gerónimo Ruiz Portillo, two of the three Jesuits selected by
S. Francisco de Borja as the first missionaries of the Society sent to
Peru, where they were received as angels of light. There were also
several Dominicans--Fray Francisco de la Cruz, professor of theology and
a man of such high repute that the Archbishop of Lima had proposed him
as coadjutor--Fray Pedro de Toro, Fray Alonso Gasco, prior of the
convent of Quito, and others of minor importance. Early in 1571 Gasco
denounced himself to the Bishop of Quito and surrendered sundry objects
which had been blessed by the demon, among them a copy-book of blank
paper, two pens and a cloth. The paper had the faculty that whatever was
written on it was true, even in doubtful matters, and the cloth was a
cure for disease. The bishop sent Gasco to the tribunal, where he was
imprisoned, May 8, 1572; the others and María Pizarro were arrested at
different times.

None of them seem to have denied their belief in the revelations. María
fell sick, after making a full confession, in which she accused herself
of having served as a succubus to the demon, and Padre Luis López of
having corrupted her, of which she gave full details. She was several
times thought to be dying, when her confessions were read over to her,
which she altered several times, finally disculpating López and
asserting herself to be a virgin--all of which was disproved. She died,
December 11, 1573, and was secretly interred in the convent of la
Merced.

The most conspicuous figure in the affair was Francisco de la Cruz; he
stoutly maintained his belief that the revelations came from the angel,
and he persistently asserted the doctrines deduced from them. The
calificadores pronounced them to be heretical in the highest degree and
him to be a heretic more dangerous than Luther, for under his teachings
priests would be permitted to marry, laymen to practise polygamy,
confession would be abolished and excommunication be disregarded, duels
be allowed and soldiers permitted to enslave the Indians. Such a man
teaching such principles could cause a revolution and overthrow the
Spanish sovereignty. Moreover, by Doña Leonor de Valenzuela, a married
woman, he had a child named Gravelico who was to be another Job and John
the Baptist; he was now beginning to talk and to say that God was his
father and the Virgin his mother. He was too dangerous an imp to be at
large; the tribunal prudently seized him, secretly shipped him to Panamá
and had him forwarded to Trujillo and placed with Don Juan de Sandoval.
The fraile himself on trial was stubbornly pertinacious; his advocate
and a _patron theológico_ abandoned his defence, whereat he expressed
his satisfaction; his sanity was called in question, but he defended
his opinions with such dexterity that this excuse was abandoned; four
theologians were let loose upon him to strive for his conversion, but
his convictions were unalterable. There was no alternative but to
condemn him to relaxation as a pertinacious and impenitent heretic,
which was duly agreed to, July 14, 1576, after his trial had lasted for
nearly five years. Then, on May 18, 1577, he was tortured without
success to discover his intention in his heresies, and he waited for
nearly a year more until the final act of the tragedy in the auto of
April 1, 1578. As he was said to have repented at the last, he was
probably strangled before burning.

The trial of Fray Pedro de Toro was approaching its conclusion, after
more than three years of incarceration, when, in September, 1575, he was
reported to be dangerously ill. A sentence of reconciliation was adopted
and he was allowed to be sacramentally absolved. Early in January, 1576,
he was nearing his end and on the 13th he was transferred to the house
of a familiar, where he died on the 16th. He was secretly buried in the
church of San Domingo and was reconciled in effigy in the auto of 1578.

Fray Alonso Gasco, although self-denounced, was moderately tortured on
intention. He was sentenced to appear in the auto, to abjure _de
vehementi_, to six years’ reclusion in a monastery, he was deprived of
celebrating for one year and perpetually of active and passive voice,
teaching, preaching and confessing, and was to be sent to Spain to
perform his penance. After the auto he was duly shipped by the fleet,
April 20th, but on the voyage he talked about his case, which was
forbidden by the Inquisition, and the tribunal asked the Suprema to
prosecute him again. His place of reclusion was the convent of Jerez de
la Frontera.

The Mercenarian, Fray Gaspar de la Huerta, was the _profeta oculto_ of
the revelations, and was mixed up in the affair; besides, he had
administered sacraments without being in full orders and had managed
communications in prison between the accomplices. He appeared in the
auto, was degraded from his orders, received two hundred lashes and was
sent to the galleys for life.

Then there was a poor man named Diego Vaca, who could neither read nor
write, but who had some dreams which Cruz and Toro regarded as
revelations. He was put on trial, but acknowledged his errors and the
case was dropped. The Dominican Provincial, Fray Andres Velez, was
brought into the affair because the prisoners had written to him and he
had replied that efforts were making in Spain, with influence and money,
to obtain relief from the tyranny of the inquisitors. Proceedings were
commenced against him but he got wind of them and escaped to Spain early
in 1575. The tribunal asked the Suprema to have him returned but he
succeeded in averting this.

In all this affair some mysterious influence protected the Jesuits, who
escaped prosecution with their accomplices. After the auto, however,
Padre López was imprudent enough to say that Cruz had been insane, in
spite of which the inquisitors had made a heretic of him and that he
would not wish to have Cerezuela’s conscience. The tribunal thereupon
referred to its records which proved him to have been the principal
exorciser of María Pizarro and to have corrupted her. It further
gathered testimony showing him to be an habitual solicitor in confession
and among his papers was found a tract impugning the rightful possession
of Peru by Philip II--a document so treasonable that the viceroy sent a
copy of it to the king, for such action as he might deem fit, seeing
that López was one of the most prominent and influential of the Jesuits.
On his trial, López admitted the evidence as to solicitation and
confessed to other cases, although he argued that they were not
technically _in actu confessionis_. He was spared appearance in an auto.
His sentence was privately read in presence of eight Jesuit confessors
and then again in the Jesuit college in presence of all the Jesuits,
where a discipline was administered lasting the space of two
_Misereres_. It bore that he was to be sent to Spain by the first fleet,
being strictly, during the interval, confined in the college,
_incomunicado_. In Spain he was to be recluded for two years in the
Jesuit house of Triguera, after which for four years he was to be
confined in some designated place and ten leagues around it; he was
deprived perpetually of confessing women and for two years of confessing
men. He was duly forwarded in the next fleet.[682]

Doña Luisa Melgarejo was a bolder practitioner than María Pizarro. She
had been the mistress of Dr. Juan de Soto, who had been compelled to
marry her. For twelve years she carried on a profitable trade in
ecstasies, revelations and other manifestations, and was largely
consulted about marriages, undertaking voyages, obtaining positions and
other similar matters, which brought in corresponding fees. Unbelievers
compared her to the image of a saint and Dr. Soto to the basin under it
for receiving offerings. When she was arrested, November 14, 1623, her
writings, consisting of fifty-seven _cuadernos_, were seized in the
hands of two Jesuits, Padres Contreras and Torres, and were found to be
full of alterations and erasures by them to eliminate numerous heresies.
Apparently the collusion of Jesuits indicated caution, and Inquisitor
Gaitan, May 1, 1624, reported the matter to the Suprema and asked for
instructions, with what result the records fail to inform us.[683] She
did not appear in the auto of December 21, 1625, in which there figured
four similar _embusteras_, who had traded on ecstasies and revelations.
Three of these, María de Santo Domingo of Trujillo, Isabel de Ormaza and
Isabel de Jesus of Lima, had given proof of exuberant imaginations in
speculating upon the inexhaustible appetite for marvels.[684]

In the auto of March 16, 1693, there appeared Angela de Olivitos y
Esquivel as an _embustera hipocrita_. She was a sempstress by trade and
had not lived a moral life, as she had borne a child to one of her
devotees. She was sentenced to reclusion for five years in a designated
place and not to talk or write about revelations.[685] She was probably
an humble imitator of the queen of impostors, Angela Carranza. This
remarkable woman was born in Tucuman about 1638. In 1665 she came to
Lima and commenced to have trances which she took care to be in public
and mostly in the churches. In 1673 she began to write out her
revelations, and learned men became her amanuenses till the product
amounted to fifteen volumes of a thousand pages each, in a small and
close handwriting. Her only qualifications were an exhaustless
imagination and amazing audacity. In her youth her unchastity had been
notorious and she confessed it in her trial; she was self-indulgent in
eating and sleeping, foul and indecent in her talk and had no shame in
exposing her person. Such was the impostor who for fifteen years, by
mere dint of self-assertion, made herself feared and revered not only in
Lima but throughout Peru. As Inquisitor Valera says, in his report of
the case, “She, who was the common sewer of errors, was regarded as a
paradise of perfections. In the mistaken apprehensions of men she was
the saint of the age, the wonder of the world, the mistress of
mysticism, the advocate of the people; so frequent were the accepted
miracles, ecstasies, trances, intelligences and revelations that heaven
was regarded as condensed in her.... Rosaries and beads were taken to
her house not one by one but in whole chests and they passed to Spain
and even to Rome with her renown.... In the common belief of the
kingdom, naught was lacking to her but canonization and the altar.
Fragments of what she had touched were cherished with the belief that
they would soon become relics.... She deceived the human race in this
kingdom--viceroys, archbishops, bishops and prelates.” She threatened
and prophesied death to those who displeased her, and few there were who
could resist the superstitious terror that came over them when she
uttered her evil forecasts. Those who did not believe in her she
maligned, and we are told that it greatly injured their prospects on
account of her repute, not only among the vulgar but among the learned
and wise, who regarded her words as oracles from heaven. The profound
faith which she inspired is illustrated by the incident that when, after
the earthquake of 1687, there was an inundation, and at night the report
was spread that the sea was engulfing the land, there was a panic in
which all who could fled to the mountains. A man in charge of the chest
in which her writings were kept said to his assistant that there was no
danger of the sea rising to the writings of the angel, even if it
covered the whole earth, so the two mounted the chest and stood there
until the terror passed.[686]

It argues a surprisingly low level of intelligence that men of the
highest station in State and Church, of presumable culture in the
learned professions, and of common-sense in the business walks of life,
should have accepted without question the vulgar absurdities, poured
forth in a constant stream, which reduced the awful mysteries of the
spiritual world to the basest condition of common life, and represented
the vituperative, coarse, grasping, self-indulgent woman, whom they saw
leading an animal existence, as the one human being selected by God to
be the repository of his powers over heaven, purgatory and hell, so that
the Holy Ghost had told her that she was the daughter of the Father, the
mother of the Son, the spouse of the Holy Ghost and the _sagrario_ of
the Trinity, and once, in presence of the Trinity, the Son made her take
his seat for he wished her to form the Trinity with the Father and Holy
Ghost. She threatened that she would wake up the pope and cardinals and
knock them on the head to make them define the mystery of the Immaculate
Conception. Once on entering the church of the Incarnation she met the
Virgin, who offered her the breast; on sucking she complained that the
milk was salt, and the Virgin replied that it had become so in waiting
for her. Christ, with the Virgin, angels and saints, once entered her
chamber; he asked for a chair and wanted to know whether he had to sit
on the bench with the rest, after which the bench was greatly prized by
her devotees as a relic. It would be endless to repeat all these
absurdities which met with such devout credence and a single one of her
stories will suffice. In a field of straw she saw Christ walking hand in
hand with a young girl dressed as a beata. Filled with jealousy she set
fire to the straw and left Christ burning, and when the angels
remonstrated she said she was going to purgatory to release souls and
then to hell to do the same. She went to purgatory and released many
souls, but some would not go, among them her father, who said that his
time would not come until she was dead, when she replied that he would
have to wait, for she was still a young girl.[687]

She did a thriving business in many ways. She carried to heaven beads,
rosaries, candles, bells, swords and rosemary, which were blessed on
various saints’ days and possessed special virtues accordingly. They
were brought to her for the purpose by the basketful and, on one
occasion, Christ was vexed and said “This is a huckster business.” When
she was condemned and they were brought in they filled a room in the
Inquisition. Once she lent her shoes to the Virgin, whereupon Christ
gave to her shoes the same virtue as that of the rosaries, which made a
great demand for her old shoes. This kept her in foot-gear, for new
shoes were constantly brought to exchange for her old ones. Her
intervention was continually invoked in cases of sickness and
difficulty, and her prophetic power was sought in marriages, voyages and
enterprises of all kinds. These she sold at a round price and she had a
cashier who kept an itemized account of her receipts--so much for a case
of mumps, so much for fever, so much for the miracle of the ingots--and
some of the entries were of one and two thousand pesos.[688]

After fifteen years of success, there would seem no reason why this
career might not have continued until her death, to be followed with a
demand for her canonization supported by ample store of miracles.
Possibly there may be truth in the story that, on a rainy day in the
calle del Rastro, she disputed the sidewalk with a Franciscan fraile,
who rudely elbowed her into the mud. This caused such indignation that
the offender expiated his clownishness with two months in the convent
prison, when, to satisfy his rancor, he kept close watch on her and
obtained proof that she was a sinner, whereupon he denounced her to the
Inquisition.[689] If so, the denunciation came to one ready to act upon
it in spite of the shock given to public opinion. Inquisitor Valera,
whose resolute aggressiveness had rendered his career in Cartagena one
of perpetual turbulence, had just been transferred to Lima, and
doubtless eagerly seized the occasion to make an impression in his new
post. Angela de Dios, as she called herself, was arrested December 21,
1688. The trial lasted for six years, owing doubtless to the immense
mass of her writings to be examined, and her numerous heresies to be
characterized and condemned, for she had ventured upon dangerous
theological ground and had constructed a grotesque theogony to prove the
Immaculate Conception. In her prolonged incarceration she professed to
be still comforted by visits from Christ and the Virgin; she bore her
confinement cheerfully, was eager for her three meals a day, and was
generally found snoring when her cell was entered.[690]

Her system of defence was shrewd. She denied having given assent or
belief to what was expressed in her writings; she had merely recited
what she had seen and heard in her trances and submitted it to the
learned men who were her confessors. Finally on June 2, 1694, she asked
for an audience in which she said that, enlightened by God through this
holy tribunal, she had been illuminated to detest the doctrines and
propositions in her writings, which she now saw were heretical and
blasphemous and defamatory. There had been, she said, no deception on
her part as to her visions, and she had referred them to those whose
virtue and religion enabled them to counsel her. Under their command she
had reduced them to writing; she had wanted to burn the writings, but
had been forbidden to do so and had never seen them after they left her
hands. Now that the tribunal had condemned them she asked pardon of God
and of his judges and ministers, for she saw that she had been deceived.
Nothing more could be required and her sentence soon followed, which
bore that she was to appear in a public auto, to abjure _de vehementi_,
to be confined in a monastery for four years, to be deprived of pen and
ink, and never to treat of revelations, together with sundry spiritual
exercises and ten years’ exile from Lima and Tucuman, while a public
edict ordered the surrender of all beads, rosaries, nail-parings and
other objects treasured as relics.[691]

A public auto was arranged for December 20, 1694, but, so great was the
popular revulsion of feeling against her, that it was not deemed safe to
let her appear in the procession from the Inquisition to the church of
San Domingo. She was secretly conveyed thither in a closed carriage two
hours before day-break, and after the ceremonies she was not returned to
the tribunal with the other penitents. She was kept until late in the
afternoon and then, by a back door, was placed in the carriage with two
persons of rank. In spite of these precautions some boys divined the
truth and commenced stoning the carriage. Crowds gathered and a guard of
soldiers was brought, but to little purpose, for the stones flew thicker
and thicker; one of the occupants was seriously injured and it was as
though by miracle that the carriage reached the Inquisition without
being wrecked. Similar caution was observed in keeping her there for a
month and conveying her to her place of reclusion. Meanwhile all over
Lima boys were celebrating mock autos, carrying her effigies in
procession and scourging and burning them.[692] It was probably the
number and high station of her devotees that prevented a general
prosecution, for only her three confessors, Ignacio Ixar, priest of San
Marcelo, and the Augustinians, Fray José de Prado and Fray Agustin
Roman, were arrested and tried.[693]

Among her revelations were some concerning an Indian tailor, Nicolás de
Aillon known as Nicolás de Dios, who died November 7, 1677, with the
reputation of a servant of God, and was represented as having been
carried immediately to heaven by Christ, taking with him a crowd of
souls from purgatory. His widow sought to establish his sanctity and the
Jesuit, Bernardo Sartolo, wrote a book, published in Madrid in 1684, in
which he accepted Angela’s story as true and praised without stint the
tailor’s confessor, Fray Pedro de Avila Tamayo, who had been punished
by the Inquisition as a scandalous corrupter of women in the
confessional. When the book reached Lima it excited a lively discussion
and was prohibited by the tribunal. The efforts to canonize Aillon,
however, were not relinquished, for, in 1711, papal letters were
received by the archbishop, ordering him to collect information as to
the life and virtues of the candidate. What was done is not recorded,
but we may assume that the response caused the affair to be
dropped.[694]

The popular detestation excited by Angela Carranza seems to have served
as a deterrent on impostures of the kind, for no other cases are on
record until about 1720, when a quadroon named María Josepha de la
Encarnacion was prosecuted for visions and revelations. She was not
treated as leniently as Angela for, although she was perfectly harmless
and had attempted no speculations on her devotees, and although, during
her trial, she was so ill that she had to be transferred to a hospital,
she was visited with the cruel punishment of two hundred lashes through
the streets of Lima.[695] If subsequent cases occurred, their records
have failed to reach us.

       *       *       *       *       *

Mystic Illuminism and Quietism, which called for such energetic
repression by the Spanish tribunals, seem to have had little currency in
the more stagnant spiritual life of Peru. There is only one group of
cases in the records, but these cast so much light on inquisitorial
methods that they deserve treatment in some detail.

In November, 1709, there died at Santiago de Chile the Jesuit Padre
Francisco de Ulloa, a man of little education but of high spiritual
gifts, nourished on the mysticism of Tauler. He had devoted himself to
the direction of consciences and had a circle of about thirty devotees,
many of them nuns, who reverenced him as a saint. On his death-bed he
committed his flock to another Jesuit, Padre Manuel de Ovalle, who found
on assuming charge that, although they confessed freely, he could not
penetrate into the spiritual recesses of their souls. Suspecting that
there lay concealed the doctrines forbidden in Molinos, Madame Guyon and
Fénelon, he pretended to be himself in search of the higher spiritual
experiences; he drew up a series of propositions, among which were some
of those condemned, and submitted it to a few of the leading spirits who
accepted it, thus committing themselves to the dangerous doctrines of
the absolute abandonment of the soul to God, the non-resistance to
temptation, the idleness of exterior observances, and the impeccability
of the confirmed adept. After six months spent in this pious treachery,
and having secured written evidence of these heresies as entertained by
José Solis and Pedro Ubau, he denounced them, June 14, 1710, to the
tribunal of Lima, with all others whose names he had ascertained. He
admitted that Solis and Ubau, Doña Petronilla Covarrúbias, José
González, Doña Josefa Maturano and others, who were leaders among them,
were persons of pure life, and that some whose careers had been evil,
after practising the exercises prescribed by Ulloa, became virtuous and
deeply religious, but this had no bearing on their heresy. At Concepcion
there was another proselyte, Fray Felipe Chavarri, whose errors were
shown by a letter which he enclosed. Still another leading spirit was
Juan Francisco Velazco, an expelled Jesuit, who resisted Ovalle’s
advances. Some extravagances on his part attracted public attention and
finally became so marked that he was confined in the public prison.

Anything akin to Molinism was regarded as dangerous in the highest
degree, but the Lima tribunal was so inert that it was not until
December 10, 1712, that the Commissioner Manuel de Barona summoned
Ovalle to confirm his denunciation. On this same December 10th, another
Jesuit, Antonio María Fanelli, wrote to the tribunal enclosing some
writings of Solis and reciting the obstructions placed in the way of his
attempts to have the affair investigated at Santiago, where all were
connected by intermarriages and friendships. The writings of Solis were
submitted to a calificador, Maestro Dionisio Granado, who reported,
December 22d, that they contained the heresies of Molinos, Luther and
Calvin. After this there was a pause until February, 1714, when
Commissioner Barona received further denunciations of Solis from the
Jesuit Claudio Cruzat and the Mercenarian Nicolás Nolasco. These were
soon followed by a deposition of Mariana González showing that Solis’s
teachings were pure Illuminism of the Quietist school. She had been
under Ulloa’s direction for two years before his death, and he taught
the same doctrines. Altogether her testimony was of the most damaging
character, and she added the names of eighteen of Ulloa’s disciples.
Stirred by this Barona procured evidence from others of the group and
sent the whole to the tribunal. On the strength of it the fiscal, August
27th, presented a _clamosa_ against Solis as a follower of Molinos and
demanded his arrest with sequestration. Ibañez, who was sole inquisitor
at the time, on September 1st signed a decree for the prosecution of all
the disciples of Ulloa, but on November 9th, in view of the importance
of the case, he ordered a fresh _calificacion_ and inquiries to be made
as to the standing of Ovalle. Fray Antonio Urraca was sent as a special
commissioner _ad hoc_ to Santiago to verify the evidence and gather
fresh testimony.

Urraca lost no time in proceeding to Santiago where he remained until
1718 employed on the work, and it was not until February 10, 1719, that
he presented himself to the tribunal to report. Solis, Ubau and Velazco
had already been received as prisoners in November, 1718. In sending
them, Commissioner Barona stated that Solis, through poverty, had gone
to the mines, where he had been arrested. Velazco had been crazy for two
years and was found on a ranch with no property but a poor bed. Ubau had
four thousand pesos in his possession; his arrest had caused great
excitement, for he was accountant for nuns and frailes, for the cabildo
of the city and for merchants, universally respected for uprightness and
punctual in his religious duties.

Thus far, although dilatory in action, the proceedings of the tribunal
had been unexceptionable. Molinism was an aberration that had excited
too much abhorrence for any substantial accusation of it to be
neglected. All reasonable effort had been made to obtain and to verify
evidence; there seems to have been no desire to persecute the bulk of
the disciples of Ulloa and attention was concentrated on three who were
regarded as leaders and dogmatizers. After this, however, there is much
to criticize in the prosecutions. Ubau, who was perfectly sane when
incarcerated, began to manifest symptoms of mental alienation which
developed into complete insanity. In February, 1733, he was transferred
to the convent of the Recollects and finally to the insane department of
the hospital of San Andrés. Velazco pleaded that he had been insane for
nine years, with lucid intervals; his health speedily broke down,
consumption set in and he was transferred, March 15, 1719, to the
hospital of San Andrés where he died on the 19th and his body was
returned to the tribunal to be thrust into the ground. Proceedings were
continued against his memory and fame, the advocate of prisoners arguing
that irresponsibility precluded his condemnation for formal heresy. As
for Solis, the accusation against him consisted of eighty articles and
assumed that he was wholly an apostate from the faith. He protested that
he had persuaded himself that God had revealed to him the spiritual way;
this had been his fault, for which he begged mercy and was ready to
accept any penance that might be imposed. His advocate defended him by
pointing out the deceitful way in which Ovalle had beguiled him into
error, by submitting to him propositions of Molinos which he had
admitted under examination that he did not understand. He had never even
heard the name of Miguel de Molinos, so he could not be termed his
disciple and, if he had erred, it had been in following his confessor
Ulloa. As for Ulloa, the prosecution of his memory and fame was carried
through its regular course. The accusation represented him as a
dogmatizer of the heresies of Luther, Calvin, Molinos and Ubicler
(Wickliffe). There were a hundred and sixty articles and twenty
witnesses to prove them. When a defender was called for, by command of
the Jesuit Provincial the procurador-general of the province of Chile
presented himself and the most strenuous efforts were made to protect
the honor of the Society. Padre Firmin de Irisarri, who conducted the
defence, says that there was no proof that Ulloa had ever taught the
worst of the propositions ascribed to him, and he throws the whole blame
on the artifice of Ovalle betraying three unlettered laymen into
accepting doctrines which they were led to believe were entertained by
him to whom the dying Ulloa had entrusted them.

As far as the living were concerned, the cases were concluded and ready
for sentence in 1725. Then ensued an inexplicable delay until 1736, when
Calderon and Unda were in control of the tribunal. The last _auto
general_ celebrated in Peru was announced for December 23d and was
solemnized in the public plaza, with exceptionally imposing ceremonies,
in the presence of the viceroy, the Marquis of Villagarcía, and of all
the magnates. The effigies of Ulloa and Velazco were brought forward,
condemned and burnt; that of Solis was reconciled in view of his
submission. The unfortunate Ubau, in spite of his insanity, had been
condemned, December 1st, to be relaxed as an impenitent heretic who
denied his guilt, and, as his mental condition would have precluded
repentance, he would have been burnt alive, but for some reason he was
not brought forward and was allowed to linger in the hospital until he
died in 1747. The sentence, however, confiscated his property which, as
we have seen (p. 353) amounted to more than sixty thousand pesos and
disappeared without leaving a trace. It would scarce be doing injustice
to Calderon and Unda to suggest that the taking up of these cases, after
ten years’ interval, may have been to conceal the abstraction of the
sequestration.[696]

When the Visitador Arenaza and the Inquisitor Amusquíbar, in 1746,
arraigned their predecessors they laid special stress on the
irregularities and excesses which characterized the conduct of these
cases. In that of Ulloa, the consulta de fe voted _in discordia_;
another consulta was called, from which the two consultors who had voted
in favor of the accused were excluded; another Ordinary, who had as
consultor condemned Ulloa’s papers, was substituted for the previous
one, and two new consultors were summoned, who were only allowed a
morning in which to examine the voluminous documents, and the consulta
was held on a feast-day when Ibañez refused to act.

Even before this, however, the Suprema had commenced action. The Jesuits
had been profoundly stirred by the condemnation of Ulloa and the
suspension in the churches of the sanbenito of a member of their Order.
It was doubtless owing to their influence that the Suprema, March 10,
1738, ordered all the papers in the case of the Molinists to be sent to
Spain and the sanbenitos of Ulloa to be removed from the churches of
Lima and Santiago. This last command was unwillingly obeyed and, in
reporting its execution, January 10, 1739, the tribunal remonstrated
bitterly as to the disastrous results to the authority of the
Inquisition and to the faith. The papers were duly forwarded, but were
detained in Panamá until 1746, when they were despatched by way of
Brazil. It was not, however, until 1762 that the Suprema delivered its
judgement. It called attention to the many irregularities and
inexcusable delays in the case of Solis, but did not modify the
judgement. In that of Velazco, it revoked the sentence as unjust,
absolved his memory and fame, ordered his property to be restored to his
heirs, less the expenses of maintenance, and that a certificate
rehabilitating them be given and the sanbenitos be removed from the
churches. The review of the trial of Ulloa was long and minute, pointing
out its innumerable irregularities and denials of justice; there was no
proof that he ever held the doctrines imputed to him and no effort to
ascertain the truth; a false and imperfect report of the case, moreover,
had been made to the Suprema.[697]

There were six other disciples of Ulloa who were treated in the same
inexcusable fashion. Two or three of them had appeared before the
Santiago commissioner, in 1710 and 1718. Nothing more was done with them
until the affair was revived for the auto of 1736, when they were
arrested and brought to Lima and tried. It is scarce worth while to
detail the cases. It suffices to say that two of them died in
consequence, and that in at least two of the cases the Suprema, in 1762,
set aside the sentences as unjustifiable. The auto of 1736 had not
escaped severe criticism in Lima, which the tribunal repressed by trying
two of the critics and fining them in five hundred pesos each. A third
was a Jesuit, Padre Gabriel de Orduña, whom Calderon and Unda apparently
were afraid to handle. The evidence was sent to the Suprema, which
replied that Ibañez should summon him and warn him to treat the Holy
Office with due respect. This became known in Lima to the mortification
of the inquisitors who suspended the case.[698]

       *       *       *       *       *

In the chief matter for which the tribunal was founded--the protection
of the colony from the presumable missionary efforts of the
Protestants--it found little to do. No case of proselytism has been
found among the records thus far and those of voluntary Protestant
residents are few and far between. The archbishop, as we have seen, had
disposed of Jan Miller in 1548, and in the first auto de fe, in 1573,
there appeared Joan Bautista and Mateo Salado. In 1581 there was a
courageous martyr in the person of Jan Bernal, a Flemish tailor who had
been arrested and forwarded by the Commissioner of Panamá. At first he
professed conversion and begged mercy, but he regained his fortitude and
declared that it was better to burn in this world than the next. To this
he adhered in spite of strenuous efforts to convert him. He was tortured
_in caput alienum_ without success and was sentenced to relaxation. He
was pertinacious to the last and must therefore undoubtedly have been
burnt alive. In the auto of November 30, 1587, there appeared Miguel
del Pilar, a Fleming, whose constancy was punished by relaxation and
burning.[699] Then a long interval occurs until 1625, when a man called
Adrian Rodríguez of Leyden was induced to profess conversion and was
reconciled with eight years of galleys and a sanbenito for life. A
century elapses when, in 1730, there was an _autillo_ for Robert Shaw, a
Nova Scotian, who deserted from Clipperton’s expedition and penetrated
to Cuzco, where he was arrested as a heretic and sent to Lima. He
professed readiness for conversion and was confided for instruction to
Dr. Thomas Correy but soon ran away, carrying with him 160 pesos and
some jewels. He took service with a butcher in Puno, was discovered and
taken back to Lima, where he escaped with some spiritual penances. About
ten years later, James Haden of Boston was prosecuted as a heretic and
was converted.[700] The extreme sensitiveness which would not permit
Spanish soil to be polluted by a Protestant foot is seen in the case of
Pierre Fos, a French Protestant of Protestant descent, who was cook to
Viceroy Superunda. He attended mass and passed for a Catholic, but
betrayed himself and was arrested in 1758. He confessed at once and said
he would become a Catholic if he could obtain his parents’ consent;
then, after three days of prison, he announced his conversion to save
his soul. Instructors were given to him and his trial dragged on through
all its cumbrous forms until his sentence was read in an auto of May 18,
1763. It condemned him to abjure _de vehementi_, to be paraded in
_virgüenza_ through the streets, to confiscation of half his property,
reclusion for instruction during two years, after which he was to be
shipped to Spain, consigned to the commissioner at Cádiz. The last
papers in the case are the receipt for his person by the captain of the
good ship los Placeres, Callao, April 2, 1765, and the receipt from the
receiver, April 22d, for the documents concerning his property. It was
doubtless his pretended Catholicism that justified this severity.[701]

It is a curious illustration of the Spanish theories concerning heresy
and its cognizance by the Inquisition that even heretics, whose presence
was involuntary as prisoners of war, were held to come within its
jurisdiction, and the Lima tribunal had much more to do with such
subjects than with those who ventured intentionally within its grasp. In
1578 it wrote to Juan Constantino, its commissioner at Panamá, that it
understood that the English corsairs who appeared there were heretics
and that it would proceed as such against any who were captured. They
robbed the commissioner and left him in his shirt, they broke the
chalice and patena and cast into the sea the altar and missal. The
commissioner on his part denounced the General of the armada del Mar de
Norte for keeping in his service two or three Englishmen as trumpeters
and an artilleryman, whom he ought to have delivered to the Inquisition
of Seville.[702] Sometimes the secular authorities maintained a
cumulative jurisdiction with a result grotesquely horrible. Thus, in
1581 there were four English prisoners surrendered to the tribunal which
tortured them severely for intention and sentenced John Oxenham,
“captain of the robbers at Ballano,” to reconciliation, confiscation and
the galleys for life; Thomas Xervel (Harvey?), master of the ship, to
reconciliation, ten years of galleys and subsequent perpetual prison;
John Butler, pilot of the ship, to abjure _de vehementi_ and six years
of galleys; the fourth, Henry Butler, a young brother of the last, was
not tried. It sounds like a ghastly jest to learn that the alcaldes had
already sentenced the first three to be hanged and the last one to
perpetual galleys; they were all returned to the secular court and the
sentences were duly executed. As they had evidently all been converted,
the tribunal at least had the pious satisfaction of saving their
souls.[703] About 1585 there is a brief entry of a dozen or so of
Englishmen captured at Guayaquil and taken to Lima. The Viceroy Count
del Villar asked them whether they were baptized and on learning that
they were thus answerable to the Inquisition, he handed them over to the
tribunal. What were their sentences and whether the secular court
reclaimed them does not appear.[704]

The next adventurers who suffered appeared in the auto of November 30,
1587. John Drake, a cousin of Sir Francis, passed the Straits of
Magellan and was lost on the Pacific coast. Thirteen of the crew saved
themselves and fell among cannibal Indians with whom they lived for
about a year. Drake and two others fled in a canoe down the River Plate
to Buenos Ayres, one of them being lost in the Paraguay. Drake and his
comrade Richard Ferrel were seized, sent across the continent to Arica
and thence to Lima, where they were tried by the tribunal. They
professed conversion; Drake was sentenced to reconciliation and
seclusion for three years in a monastery with prohibition to leave the
country. Ferrel must have been somewhat more stubborn, for he was
tortured and condemned to reconciliation, four years of galleys and
perpetual prison.[705]

The auto of April 5, 1592, was graced with two groups of English
prisoners. Four of these had been captured on the island of Puná and had
lain in prison for five years. The secular authorities seem to have
abandoned jurisdiction by this time and left them wholly to the
Inquisition. Walter and Edward Tillert, brothers, were relaxed as
persistent heretics, but weakened at the last moment and were strangled
before burning. Henry Axli (Oxley?) was pertinacious to the end and was
burnt alive. The fourth, Andrew Marle (Morley?), a youth of eighteen,
professed conversion and was reconciled, with two years reclusion among
the Jesuits for instruction.[706]

The other group consisted of three “pirates,” from the expedition of
Thomas Cavendish, who sailed from Plymouth July 21, 1586. He reached the
Straits of Magellan January 3, 1587, emerged March 15th and on April 9th
anchored in the roadstead of Quintero, a little north of Valparaiso. At
Santiago a force had been raised in anticipation of their coming, and
when the English, in need of wood and water, had landed a party, they
surrounded twelve men, who had straggled to a ravine, and carried them
to Santiago. There nine of them were summarily hanged, to the great
benefit of their souls, for they professed conversion. The other three
were shipped to Lima, and delivered to the Inquisition where their
trials lasted for three years. Of these William Stephens said his
parents were both Catholics, and his mother had died in gaol for
possessing beads and images; he had observed the religion of his country
but was in heart a Catholic; he was reconciled with four years prison
and sanbenito. Thomas Lucas had a Protestant father and Catholic mother;
he had always been a Protestant but was now a Catholic; he was
reconciled, with four years of galleys, six years of prison and
sanbenito, and was never to leave Lima. William Hilles was but 17 years
old; he had been a Protestant but was now a Catholic; he was reconciled,
with six years of galleys and perpetual prison and sanbenito.[707]
Cavendish, it may be added, captured a treasure-ship, imitated Drake in
circumnavigating the globe and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth.

More disastrous was the expedition under Richard Hawkins, which sailed
from Plymouth in July, 1593, with three vessels, of which one was
wrecked and one returned. Hawkins cast anchor at Valparaiso, April 24,
1594, where he captured four little vessels and ransomed a larger one.
When he sailed, the corregidor manned one of the abandoned barks and
despatched it to Callao with news of the corsairs. It made the voyage in
fifteen days, enabling the Viceroy, Hurtado de Mendoza, to fit out a
squadron under his nephew Beltran de Castro, who encountered Hawkins,
July 2, in the Bay of Atacames, near Quito. After a desperate fight,
Hawkins surrendered under promise of treatment as prisoners of war, and
the extraordinary rejoicings with which the news of the victory were
received in Lima are a measure of the terror excited by these dauntless
sea-rovers. The terms of capitulation were scandalously violated; of the
seventy-five prisoners taken, sixty-two were sent to the galleys at
Cartagena, and thirteen were brought to Lima, where the Inquisition
claimed them, on information that they were heretics, and they entered
the secret prison, December 4, 1594. Possibly it may have been the
irregularity attaching to the infraction of the terms of surrender that
hastened the trials, for eight of the prisoners appeared in the auto of
December 17, 1595, together with seven other Englishmen, captured at la
Yaguana and forwarded from Santo Domingo. There were no martyrs among
them. All professed conversion and were reconciled with various terms of
reclusion except one, William Leigh, who was sentenced to six years of
galleys and perpetual irremissible prison.[708]

Richard Hawkins, whose trial ended July 17, 1595, was too sick to appear
in the auto and was transferred to the Jesuit college. His chivalrous
bearing won for him general good will, and on his recovery he was placed
at the disposition of the viceroy who was earnestly desirous that the
terms of surrender should be observed. There was correspondence on the
subject. The Suprema wrote, October 5, 1595, to suspend the
sequestrations of the Englishmen, and in future not to sequestrate in
such cases, for soldiers ought not to be deprived of the spoils won from
their enemies. The tribunal, it said, was not to interfere in the cases
of those sent to the galleys at Cartagena, but, as to Hawkins and his
comrades, they were to be delivered to the viceroy, without proceeding
further in their cases and, when they were fully instructed in the
faith, it was to do justice, proceeding in their cases with much care
and consideration. These instructions were of course too late, and in
reply the tribunal asked whether their sanbenitos should be removed from
the churches and whether, in case they relapsed, they should be subject
to relaxation. The conclusion reached was that the sanbenitos were to be
removed, the reclusion revoked, the sequestrations restored and that
they were not subject to the penalties of relapse for reincidence. The
succeeding viceroy, Velasco, desired to send them all to Spain, but this
was opposed by the tribunal because their penances had not been
completed; Hawkins ought also to be kept on account of his knowledge of
the navigation of those seas. The last information concerning them
occurs in a letter of the Royal Audiencia, May 21, 1607, showing that
they had passed out of the hands of the tribunal. It says that the
Viceroys Cañete and Velasco had sent to Spain all those captured in 1594
except Richard Hawkins, Captain John Ellis, Hugh Carnix (Charnock?) and
Richard Davis, who were kept because they were experienced seamen and
Davis was useful in the position assigned to him. Now permission has
been given to them to sail in the outgoing fleet, consigned to the
Contratacion of Seville.[709] We know that Hawkins eventually reached
England and was knighted.

In time there came a recognition of the rights of prisoners of war, even
though they were heretics and were claimed by the Inquisition. In the
auto of December 21, 1625, there appeared Pieter Jan of Delft, who had
been captured and condemned to death as a pirate, though the sentence
was not executed. He refused to be converted and was sent to the
galleys, but was subsequently liberated under a royal cédula as a
prisoner of war. Fanaticism, however, was difficult to extinguish. When,
about 1650, the Dutch endeavored to establish themselves at Valdivia,
Viceroy Mancera sent a well-equipped fleet and army to drive them out.
The captain of the first vessel that reached there, on learning that the
Dutch commander had died and been buried, caused the corpse to be dug up
and burnt. From the absence in the subsequent records of cases of
prisoners of war, however, it is safe to assume that by this time the
barbarity of giving them the alternative of conversion or the stake had
been abandoned. There was, it is true, an intervention of the tribunal
in the case of the Dutch ship St. Louis, captured at Coquimbo in 1725,
but it was not unreasonable. The fiscal Calderon, learning that among
the prisoners there were French Huguenots and Dutch heretics and Jews,
and that the Viceroy Castelfuerte thought of utilizing the sailors on
his own ships, represented to the tribunal the grave dangers of such a
course, when the Inquisitor Gutiérrez de Cevallos, induced the viceroy
to abandon the plan and to bring to Lima about a hundred who had been
left sick at Coquimbo.[710] As none of them appeared in the succeeding
auto it is inferable that they were not subjected to prosecution for
heresy.

       *       *       *       *       *

The most serious business of the tribunal, in the line of its proper
functions, was with the apostasy of the Jewish New Christians. From the
very foundation of the colonies, as we have seen in the preceding
chapter, restrictions were laid on the emigration of Conversos and a law
of 1543, preserved in the Recopilacion, orders that search be made for
all descendants of Jews who were to be rigorously expelled.[711] In
spite, however, of the jealous care observed to preserve the colonies
from all danger of Jewish infection, the commercial attractions were so
powerful that the New Christians eluded all precautions. At first,
however, they occupied but a small portion of the energies of the
tribunal. It is true that among the earliest denunciations received, in
1570, were those of the Licenciate Juan Alvarez, a physician, and of his
brother-in-law Alonso Alvarez with his wife, children and servants, for
Judaism, but as their names are absent from the subsequent auto it is
presumable that they were found innocent.[712] The first appearance of
Jews is in the auto of October 29, 1581, when Manuel López, a
Portuguese, was reconciled with confiscation and perpetual prison, and
Diego de la Rosa, described as a native of Quito, was required to abjure
_de levi_ and was exiled--showing that the evidence against him was very
dubious.[713] After this there are none until the great auto of April 5,
1592, in which there were two, Nicholas Morin, a Frenchman, and
Francisco Díaz, a Portuguese, the former required to abjure _de levi_
and the latter reconciled.[714]

The conquest of Portugal, in 1580, had led to a large emigration to
Castile, where Portuguese soon became synonymous with Judaizer, and this
was beginning to make itself manifest in the colonies. The auto of
December 17, 1595, gave impressive evidence of this. Five
Portuguese--Juan Méndez, Antonio Núñez, Juan López, Francisco Báez and
Manuel Rodríguez--were reconciled. Another, Herman Jorje, had died
during trial and his memory was not prosecuted. There were also four
martyrs. Jorje Núñez denied until he was tied upon the rack; he then
confessed and refused to be converted, but after his sentence of
relaxation was read he weakened and was strangled before burning.
Francisco Rodríguez endured torture without confessing; when threatened
with repetition he endeavored unsuccessfully to commit suicide; he was
voted to relaxation with torture _in caput alienum_, and under it he
accused several persons but revoked at ratification. He was pertinacious
to the last and was burnt alive. Juan Fernández was relaxed, although
insane; the Suprema expressed doubts whether he had intelligence enough
to render him responsible. Pedro de Contreras had been tortured for
confession and again _in caput alienum_; he denied Judaism throughout
and was relaxed as a _negativo_; at the auto he manifested great
devotion to a crucifix and presumably was strangled; in all probability
he was really a Christian.[715]

This bloody work affords a foretaste of what was to come. At the auto of
December 10, 1600, there were fourteen Portuguese Judaizers. Twelve of
them had professed conversion and were reconciled; with two, convictions
were too strong and they were burnt alive--Duarte Núñez de Cea and
Baltasar Lucena, whose last words were that he denied Christ.[716] The
auto of March 13, 1605, exhibited sixteen Judaizers reconciled in person
and one in effigy. Six who had fled were burnt in effigy and three less
fortunate were burnt in person. Besides these was Antonio Corrca who,
during his trial, was converted by the inspiration of God; he was
reconciled with three years in prison, which he served in the convent of
la Merced and then was sent to Spain, dying, in 1622, as a fraile in
Ossuna, in the odor of sanctity, which has rendered him the subject of
several biographies.[717]

The auto of June 1, 1608, afforded but one case, and that an unusual
one--Domingo López, tried for Judaism and acquitted. This may be
explained by the fact that the Portuguese New Christians had purchased,
in 1604, a general pardon in Spain, which reached Peru in 1605 and for a
time repressed inquisitorial activity in this direction. In 1610 there
was a noteworthy case of Manuel Ramos, one of the fugitives who had been
burnt in effigy in 1605. He had been captured and on being tried was now
acquitted.[718] In an auto of June 17, 1612, there were five
reconciliations for Judaism.[719] From this time for some years there
were only scattering cases. Possibly the terrible energy manifested by
the tribunal had served as a deterrent and checked the Portuguese
influx, but if so the impression was but temporary. We have seen (p.
337) the complaints that arose about this time concerning the Portuguese
immigration by way of Brazil and Buenos Ayres. This increased greatly
when, in 1618, a Portuguese inquisitor came to Rio de Janeiro, published
an Edict of Faith and then in a few days made many arrests and
sequestrated property to the amount of more than 200,000 pesos. The
frightened Judaizers sought refuge in Spanish territory and kept the
commissioner at Buenos Ayres, Francisco de Trejo, in a state of
continual anxiety. He reported, January 15, 1619, that since the new
governor, Diego Martin, had come the _visitas de navíos_ had been
interrupted and he asked for such positive instructions that the
authorities should understand that no foreigners could land until he had
inspected the ship. His protests were unavailing. By the middle of April
there had arrived eight ships bringing Portuguese passengers, who had
paid Castilians to take them as servants so that they might enter.
Governor Martin was alert and threw them in prison, in order to send
them back, but many managed to get through. Some of them were married in
prison to Buenos Ayres women, so as to give them a standing in the
community; others broke gaol and took refuge in convents, when the
frailes refused to surrender them, giving security to the governor that
they would prove themselves to be not of the prohibited class, whereupon
they scattered to the interior and the man who had furnished the
security calmly paid the forfeit. It is true that forty of them were
sent back, but it was evidently impossible to exclude these proscribed
and hunted beings who were so persistent and resourceful. The tribunal,
in fact, was apparently not averse to obtaining fresh material for
condemnation and confiscation, for it did not authorize the commissioner
to arrest suspects and send them back, but only to compile information
about them and forward it to Lima, keeping advised as to their
destinations so that they could be seized when wanted.[720] The
immigration continued and, in 1623, the tribunal called the attention of
the Suprema to the increasing numbers of Portuguese, who were spreading
throughout the interior provinces. This continued and, in 1635, the
fiscal of the Audiencia of Charcas represented forcibly to the king the
evil of the innumerable Jews who had entered and were constantly
coming.[721]

The tribunal resumed its labors and, by December 21, 1625, it was ready
with an auto in which ten Judaizers were reconciled. Two had committed
suicide in prison and were burnt with their bones. Two more were
relaxed--Juan Acuña de Noroña, who was described as impenitent and must
have been burnt alive, and Diego de Andrada who gave signs of repentance
at the last and was probably strangled before burning.[722]

In 1626 there commenced a trial which illustrates forcibly the
inexorable discipline of the Church, rendering it the supreme duty of
the Christian to persecute and destroy all heresy. Francisco Maldonado
de Silva was a surgeon of high repute in Concepcion de Chile. He was of
Portuguese descent. His father had suffered in the Inquisition, had been
reconciled and brought up his children, two girls and a boy, as
Christians. Francisco was a good Catholic until, at the age of 18, he
chanced to read the _Scrutinium Scripturarum_ of Pablo de Santa María,
Bishop of Búrgos--a controversial work written for the conversion of
Jews.[723] So far from confirming him in the faith it raised doubts
leading him to consult his father, who told him to study the Bible and
instructed him in the Law of Moses. He became an ardent convert to
Judaism, but kept his secret from his mother and two sisters and from
his wife, for he was married and had a child, and his wife was pregnant
when he was arrested. During her absence, a year or two before, he had
circumcised himself. At the age of 35, considering that his sister
Isabel who was about 33, was mature enough for religious independence,
he revealed his secret to her and endeavored to convert her, but in
vain, and he was impervious to her entreaties to abandon his faith. They
seem to have been tenderly attached to each other; he was her sole
support as well as that of her mother and sister, but she could not
escape the necessity of communicating the facts in confession to her
confessor. The prescriptions of the Church were absolute; no family ties
relieved one from the obligation of denouncing heresy, and she could not
hope for sacramental absolution without discharging the duty. We can
picture to ourselves the torment of that agonized soul as she nerved
herself to the awful duty which would cost her a lifetime of remorse and
misery when she obeyed her confessor’s commands and denounced her
brother to the Inquisition.

The warrant for his arrest was issued December 12, 1626, and executed at
Concepcion April 29, 1627. His friend, the Dominican Fray Diego de
Ureña, visited him in his place of confinement, May 2, and sought to
convert him, but he was resolved to die in the faith in which his father
had died. So when transferred to Santiago, the Augustinian Fray Alonso
de Almeida made similar efforts with like ill-success; he knew that he
should die for the faith, he had never spoken to any one but his sister
and she had betrayed him. He was received in Lima July 23d and was
admitted to an audience the same day. When required to swear on the
cross he refused, saying that he was a Jew and would live and die as
such; if he had to swear it would be by the living God, the God of
Israel. His trial went on through all the customary formalities,
protracted by the repeated conferences held with theologians who
endeavored to convince him of his errors. Eleven of these were held
without weakening his pertinacity until, on January 26, 1633, the
consulta de fe unanimously condemned him to relaxation.

A long sickness followed, caused by a fast of eighty days which had
reduced him almost to a skeleton covered with sores. On convalescing, he
asked for another conference, to solve the doubts which he had drawn up
in writing. It was held June 26, 1634, and left him as pertinacious as
ever. Meanwhile the prison was filling with Judaizers, of whom a number
had been discovered in Lima. He asked for maize husks in place of his
ration of bread, and with them made a rope by which he escaped through a
window and visited two neighboring cells, urging the prisoners to be
steadfast in their law; they denounced him and he made no secret of it,
confessing freely what he had done. It was a mercy of God, we are told,
that his prolonged fast had rendered him deaf, or he would have learned
much from them of what had been going on.

The tribunal was so preoccupied, with the numerous trials on foot at
the time, that Maldonado was left undisturbed, awaiting the general auto
that was to follow. We hear nothing more until, after an interval of
four years, a thirteenth conference was held at his request, November
12, 1638. It was as fruitless as its predecessors and, at its
conclusion, he produced two books (each of them of more than a hundred
leaves), made with marvellous ingenuity out of scraps of paper and
written with ink made of charcoal and pens cut out of egg-shells with a
knife fashioned from a nail, which he said he delivered up for the
discharge of his conscience. Then on December 9th and 10th were held two
more conferences in which his pertinacity remained unshaken. The long
tragedy was now drawing to an end after an imprisonment which had lasted
for nearly thirteen years. He was brought out in the great auto of
January 23, 1639, where, when the sentences of relaxation were read, a
sudden whirlwind tore away the awning and, looking up, he exclaimed “The
God of Israel does this to look upon me face to face!” He was
unshrinking to the last and was burnt alive a true martyr to his faith.
His two paper books were hung around his neck to burn with him and
assist in burning him.[724]

This auto of 1639, the greatest that had as yet been held in the New
World, was the culmination of the “complicidad grande”--the name given
by the inquisitors to a number of Judaizers whom they had discovered. As
they described the situation, in a report of 1636, large numbers of
Portuguese had entered the kingdom by way of Buenos Ayres, Brazil,
Mexico, Granada and Puerto Bello, thus increasing the already numerous
bands of their compatriots. They became masters of the commerce of the
kingdom; from brocade to sack-cloth, from diamonds to cumin-seed,
everything passed through their hands; the Castilian who had not a
Portuguese partner could look for no success in trade. They would buy
the cargoes of whole fleets with the fictitious credits which they
exchanged, thus rendering capital unnecessary, and would distribute the
merchandise throughout the land by their agents, who were likewise
Portuguese, and their capacity developed until, in 1634, they negotiated
for the farming of the royal customs.

In August, 1634, Joan de Salazar, a merchant, denounced to the
Inquisition Antonio Cordero, clerk of a trader from Seville, because he
refused to make a sale on a Saturday. On another occasion, going to his
store on a Friday morning, he found Cordero breakfasting on a piece of
bread and an apple and, on asking him whether he had not better take a
rasher of bacon, Cordero replied “Must I eat what my father and
grandfather never ate?” The evidence was weak and no immediate action
was taken, but, in October, the commissioners were instructed secretly
to ascertain and report the number of Portuguese in their several
districts. The matter rested and, as nothing new was developed, in
March, 1635, the evidence against Cordero was laid before a consulta de
fe and it was resolved to arrest him secretly, without sequestration, so
that the hand of the Inquisition might not be apparent. Bartolomé de
Larrea, a familiar, called on him, April 2d, under pretence of settling
an account, and locked him in a room; a sedan-chair was brought, and he
was conveyed to the secret prison. His disappearance excited much talk
and he was supposed to have fled, for the supposition of arrest by the
Inquisition was scouted, seeing that there had not been sequestration.

Cordero confessed at once that he was a Jew and, under torture,
implicated his employer and two others. These were arrested on May 11th
and the free employment of torture obtained the names of numerous
accomplices. The prisons were full and to empty them an auto in the
chapel was hurriedly arranged and preparations were made for the hasty
construction of additional cells. On August 11th, between 12.30 and 2
o’clock, seventeen arrests were made, so quietly and simultaneously that
it was all effected before the people were conscious of it. These were
among the most prominent citizens and greatest merchants of Lima, and
we are told that the impression produced on the community was like the
Day of Judgement. Torture and inquisitorial methods elicited further
information resulting in additional arrests; the affrighted Portuguese
began to scatter and, at the request of the tribunal, the Viceroy
Chinchon prohibited for a year any one to leave Peru without its
licence.

Up to May 16, 1636, the date of a report made to the Suprema, there had
been eighty-one arrests; there was evidence against eighty more but, for
lack of prison accommodation, their seizure was postponed. The old
prison had sixteen cells, nineteen new ones had been constructed, then
an adjoining house was bought and seventeen more were fitted up in it.
This influx of wealthy prisoners put the fidelity of the gaolers to a
strain which it could not stand. The old alcaide, Bartolomé de Pradeda,
excited suspicion by buying property beyond his legitimate means; he was
investigated and found to be selling favors to those under his charge,
revealing secrets, permitting communications and the like. He deserved
severe punishment but, in view of his twenty years of service, his seven
children and his infirm health, he was allowed to ask permission to
retire to his country place. He was replaced by Diego de Vargas, who
soon had to be dismissed for the same reasons. Joseph Freile was
appointed assistant, but was soon found guilty of similar offences and
was sent to the galleys. His successor was Benito Rodríguez, who
likewise succumbed to temptation, but he was a familiar and was only
dropped. Another was Francisco Hurtado de Valcázar, who subsequently
appeared in an auto for the same reasons.

One matter which vexed the souls of the inquisitors was the effort made
by the threatened Portuguese to hide their property from sequestration.
A proclamation was issued, ordering all who knew of such matters to
reveal them within nine days under pain of excommunication and other
penalties. This was successful to some extent, but the difficulties in
the way were illustrated in the case of Enrique de Paz, for whom Melchor
de los Reies secreted much silver, jewels and merchandise. Among other
things he deposited with his friend Don Dionisio Manrique, Knight of
Santiago, senior alcalde de corte and a consultor of the tribunal, a
quantity of silver and some fifty or sixty pieces of rich silks.
Manrique did not deny receiving them, but said that the same night
Melchor ordered them taken away by a young man who was a stranger to
him. The inquisitors evidently disbelieved the story; they reported that
they had unsuccessfully tried friendly methods with Manrique and asked
the Suprema for instructions.

The sequestration of so much property brought all trade to a stand-still
and produced indescribable confusion, aggravated, in 1635, by the
consequent failure of the bank. The men arrested had nearly all the
trade of the colony in their hands; they were involved in an infinity of
complicated transactions and suits sprang up on all sides. Creditors and
suitors pressed their claims desperately, fearing that with delay
witnesses might disappear, in the widening circle of arrests. There were
many suits pending already in the Audiencia which were claimed by the
tribunal and surrendered to it. It was puzzled by the new business thus
thrown upon it; to a suit there had to be two parties, but the prisoners
could not plead, so it appointed Manuel de Monte Alegre as their
“defensor” to appear for them, and it went on hearing and deciding
complicated civil suits while conducting the prosecutions for heresy.
Mondays and Thursdays were assigned for civil business, and every
afternoon, from 3 P.M. until dark, was devoted to examination of
documents. The inquisitors claimed that they pushed forward strenuously
in settling accounts and paying debts, for otherwise all commerce would
be destroyed to the irreparable damage of the Republic, which was
already exhausted in so many ways. This did not suit the Suprema, which,
by letters of October 22d and November 9, 1635, forbade the surrender of
any sequestrated or confiscated property, no matter what evidence was
produced of ownership or claims, without first consulting it. This
exacting payment of all debts and postponing payment of claims
threatened general bankruptcy when the rich merchants were arrested, for
their aggregate liabilities amounted to eight hundred thousand pesos,
which was estimated as equal to the whole capital of Lima. To avert
this, some payments were made, but only on the strength of competent
security being furnished.

In the excitement of the hour and the mad rush for arresting everybody
who might be an apostate, much injustice was committed which aggravated
the confusion. Thus on May 8, 1636, Santiago del Castillo, was arrested,
a merchant whose licence to sail for Spain was to be signed that
afternoon. With him were seized fifty-five bars of silver and ten
thousand pesos in coin; he was administrator of customs and it was
reckoned fortunate that over thirty thousand pesos belonging to the king
had been handed over so that it could be sent by the fleet. He was
receiver in the bankruptcy of Joan de la Queba, and as such held about
seven thousand pesos which were given to Judge Martin de Arriola to be
apportioned among eight hundred creditors. Castillo’s estate was large
but he was involved in suits, besides holding considerable property
belonging to others, and claims began at once to be presented. All this
was wholly superfluous, for on October 23, 1637, he was discharged as
innocent and the sequestration was lifted. Alonso Sánchez Chaparro was
liberated, February 9, 1637, and more than sixty thousand pesos were
returned to him. There were several other acquittals, and a number of
cases were suspended involving the release of large sums which ought
never to have been tied up.

Meanwhile the trials of the accused were pushed forward as rapidly as
the perplexities of the situation admitted. Torture was not spared.
Murcia de Luna, a woman of 27, died under it. Antonio de Acuña was
subjected to it for three hours and, when he was carried out, Alcaide
Pradeda described his arms as being torn to pieces. Progress was
impeded, however, by the devices of the prisoners, who were in hopes
that influences at work in Spain would secure a general pardon like that
of 1604. With this object they revoked their confessions and their
accusations of each other, giving rise to endless complications. Some of
the latter revocations, however, were genuine and were adhered to, even
through the torture which was freely used in these cases. Besides this,
to cast doubt on the whole affair, they accused the innocent and even
Old Christians, which accounts for the acquittals mentioned above. The
inquisitors add that they abstained in many cases from making arrests,
when the testimony was insufficient and the parties were not Portuguese.

The tribunal was manned with four inquisitors, who struggled resolutely
through this complicated mass of business, and at length were ready to
make public the results of their labors in the auto of January 23, 1639.
This was celebrated with unexampled pomp and ostentation, for now money
was abundant and the opportunity of making an impression on the popular
mind was not to be lost. During the previous night, when their sentences
were made known to those who were to be relaxed, two of them, Enrique de
Paz and Manuel de Espinosa, professed conversion; the inquisitors came
and examined them, a consulta was assembled and they were admitted to
reconciliation. There was great rivalry among men of position for the
honor of accompanying the penitents and Don Salvadoro Velázquez, one of
the principal Indians, _sargento mayor_ of the Indian militia, begged to
be allowed to carry one of the effigies, which he did in resplendent
uniform. Conspicuous in a place of honor in the procession were the
seven who had been acquitted, richly dressed, mounted on white horses
and carrying palms of victory.

Besides the Judaizers there were a bigamist and five women penanced for
sorcery. There was also the alcaide’s assistant Valcázar, who was
deprived of his familiarship and was exiled for four years. Juan de
Canelas Albarran, the occupant of a house adjoining the prison, who had
permitted an opening through the walls for communications, received a
hundred lashes and five years of exile, and Ana María González, who was
concerned in the matter, had also a hundred lashes and four years of
exile.

Of the Judaizers there were seven who escaped with abjuration _de
vehementi_, various penalties and fines aggregating eight hundred pesos.
There were forty-four reconciled with punishments varied according to
their deserts. Those who had confessed readily as to themselves and
others were let off with confiscation and deportation to Spain. Those
who prevaricated or gave trouble had, in addition, lashes or galleys or
both. Of these there were twenty-one, the aggregate lashes amounting to
four thousand and the years of galleys to a hundred and six, besides two
condemnations for life. In addition to these were the mother of the
Murcia de Luna who died under torture, Doña Mayor de Luna, a woman of
high social position, and her daughter Doña Isabel de Luna, a girl of
18, who, for endeavoring to communicate with each other in prison, were
sentenced to a hundred lashes through the streets, naked from the waist
up. There was also one reconciliation in effigy of a culprit who had
died in prison.

There were eleven relaxations in person and the effigy of one who had
committed suicide during trial. Of the eleven, seven are said to have
died pertinacious and impenitent and therefore presumably were burnt
alive, true martyrs to their belief. Of these there were two especially
notable--Maldonado whose case has been mentioned above, and Manuel
Bautista Pérez. The latter was the leader and chief among the
Portuguese, who styled him the _capitan grande_. He was the greatest
merchant in Lima and his fortune was popularly estimated at half a
million pesos. It was in his house that were held the secret meetings in
which he joined in the learned theological discussions, but outwardly he
was a zealous Christian and had priests to educate his children; he was
greatly esteemed by the clergy who dedicated to him their literary
effusions in terms of the warmest adulation. He owned rich silver mines
in Huarochiri and two extensive plantations; his confiscated house has
since been known as the _casa de Pilatos_, and his ostentatious mode of
life may be judged by the fact that when his carriage was sold by the
tribunal it fetched thirty-four hundred pesos. He had endeavored to
commit suicide by stabbing himself, but he never faltered at the end.
He listened proudly to his sentence and died impenitent, telling the
executioner to do his duty. There was one other prisoner who did not
appear. Enrique Jorje Tavares, a youth of 18, was among those arrested
in August, 1635. He denied under torture and after various alternations
became permanently insane, for which reason his case was suspended in
1639.

The next day the mob of Lima enjoyed the further sensation of the
scourging through the streets. These exhibitions always attracted a
large crowd, in which there were many horsemen who thus had a better
view, while boys commonly pelted the bigamists and sorceresses who were
the usual patients. On this occasion the tribunal issued a proclamation
forbidding horses or carriages in the streets through which the
procession passed, and any pelting of the penitents under pain, for
Spaniards, of banishment to Chile, and for Indians and negroes, of a
hundred lashes. There were twenty-nine sufferers in all; they were
marched in squads of ten, guarded by soldiers and familiars, while the
executioners plied the scourges, and the brutalizing spectacle passed
off without disturbance, and with the pious wish of the tribunal that it
would please God to make it serve as a warning.[725]

The holocaust had been duly offered to a Savior of love and mercy; the
martyrs had sealed in flame and torment their adherence to the Ancient
Faith, and the mob had had its spectacle. Satisfied with the results of
their pious labors for the greater glory of God, the inquisitors calmly
went forward to gather in the gleanings from the ruined commerce and
industry of the kingdom, to retain what they could for themselves and to
account for as little as they might to their superiors. The process was
long and complex and it was years before all the tangled skeins were
ravelled out, and the clamorous creditors of the victims had their
claims satisfied or rejected.

There were still some remnants of the hated Portuguese to be dealt with.
After the auto, seven cases, which had been pending for three years or
more, were suspended, followed, in 1639 and 1640, by others of
reconciliation or suspension. In 1641 there was an auto, November 17th,
in which three Judaizers were reconciled and seven others sentenced to
confiscation and a hundred lashes apiece. There still remained of the
“complicidad grande” Manuel Henríquez, who had been arrested in
December, 1635, and had confessed under torture, after which he revoked,
and several extravagances led to his being thought crazy, but in 1647 he
was condemned to the stake. The tribunal however waited for other
victims to justify the expense of an auto and, in 1656, he was still
lingering in prison; he was not burnt until 1664 in company with the
effigy of Murcia de Luna, the victim of torture. The Inquisition, in
fact, had passed its apogee and had become inert as its wealth
increased. In 1648 it reported that its only prisoner was Manuel
Henríquez, who was awaiting the execution of his sentence.[726]

This was not because the Portuguese had been exterminated. They were
still numerous, although the revolt of Portugal, in 1640, had rendered
them, if not as yet foreigners, at least citizens whose loyalty might
well be suspect. Political as well as religious motives may therefore be
ascribed to the action of the Viceroy Pedro de Toledo, Marquis of
Mancera, at the instance of the Audiencia, under impulsion of the
tribunal, when, in 1646, he issued an edict that all Portuguese should
present themselves with their arms and should leave the country. More
than six thousand are said to have come forward and by payment of a
large sum to have obtained a revocation of the measure--a venal
transaction which formed the basis of one of the accusations brought
against Mancera in the _residencia_ or customary investigation at the
close of his term of office.[727]

Either the tribunal had become too indolent for active work, or the
Portuguese population had been cowed into sincere acceptance of
Catholicism, for we hear little subsequently of Judaism. It was not that
sensitiveness to Jewish observances had decreased, for in 1666 Juan Leon
Cisneros was accused of buying scaleless fish on Fridays and of not
sending his children to school on the Sabbath, for which suspicious
actions he was sentenced to abjuration.[728] From that time there is a
long interval and even the ferocious recrudescence of persecution in
Spain, during the first third of the eighteenth century, awoke but a
feeble echo in Peru.

The next two cases that present themselves are highly significant of
inquisitorial methods. About 1720 Alvaro Rodríguez was prosecuted for
Judaism but died in prison and his case was never concluded. Still his
sequestrated property, amounting to fourteen thousand pesos, was
remitted to the Suprema, although the Inquisition had no claim on it,
for he had left no relatives in Peru and Philip V had ordered the
seizure of all Portuguese property as a measure of retaliation in the
relations between the two countries. The other case was that of Don
Teodoro Candioti, a Levantine Christian, who had married in Lima. He was
arrested, probably somewhat before 1722, on suspicion of Judaism arising
from his keeping the day before Christmas as a fast, according to the
custom of his country. He had also said that St. Moses was a great saint
and as such was venerated in his land. There was some talk of his being
circumcised, but this was unfounded. He died in prison, May 19, 1726,
making a most Christian end and saying that salvation was to be had by
keeping the law of God, through the grace of Jesus Christ. His body was
thrust into one of the graves of the tribunal but the Suprema ordered,
November 24, 1728, that his bones should be secretly transferred and
buried with Christian rites in the parish church and that an entry be
made in the parish register of his burial as of the day of his death,
without stating that he had died in prison, and further that a
certificate of no disability be given to his widow and children,
including capacity to hold offices in the Inquisition. Evidently the
falsification of church records was a matter of course when the
injustice of the Inquisition was to be concealed. The tribunal itself
had still less scruple. It replied, August 26, 1729, that it had
already, on December 23, 1727, reported the translation of the remains
to the church of the Dominican college of St. Thomas; another exhumation
seemed unnecessary, but it had had the required entry made in the parish
register. The widow had presented the genealogies of her two sons, Don
Antonio and Don Juan Candioti, asking that they be made familiars and,
as the viceroy was much interested in the family, the request had been
granted.[729] This case brings before us one of the deplorable results
of the system of secrecy; a husband and father disappears into the
prison; he dies, and his family only learn his fate after seven years of
suspense.

A more flagrant case was that of Doña Ana de Castro, a married woman of
good social position but of dubious character, as she was reported to
have sold her favors to one of the viceroys and to many of the rich
colonial nobles. Accused of Judaism, she persistently denied; when, in
1731, her case was reported to the Suprema, she had been voted to
relaxation with preliminary torture, to which the Suprema replied,
February 4, 1732, that if the torture and efforts of the theologians did
not bring repentance, the sentence was to be executed, but, if she
confessed and gave signs of repentance, she was to be reconciled. She
was held until the solemn public auto of December 23, 1736, when she was
relaxed to the secular arm as a Judaizing Jew, convicted, negative and
pertinacious. On her way to the brasero she is said to have shed tears,
but the alguazil mayor paid no attention to them and she was duly
burnt--probably without preliminary strangulation. All, apparently, was
in accordance with routine procedure but, when the records came to be
investigated in the visitation of Arenaza, Amusquíbar reported that the
day before the auto she sought two audiences; no record was made of
what occurred, but there could be no doubt that she confessed more than
enough to entitle her to reconciliation; even if she did not entirely
satisfy the evidence, what more could be expected of a poor woman in
such agitation of mind and ignorant of the trap laid for her by
Calderon, who acted as fiscal? The printed official account of the auto
rather superfluously recites how she was notified of her sentence at ten
o’clock of December 21st, after which two theologians, relieved every
hour until 6 A.M. of December 23d, labored vainly to induce her to
confess and to return to the faith. Amusquíbar, on the contrary, states
that there was no record that she was notified of the sentence; that the
book of votes did not contain such a sentence and that, even if there
was one, it was invalid in consequence of the absence of the Ordinary;
moreover that, in spite of her confessions, no new consulta de fe was
summoned to consider them. Altogether, if Amusquíbar is to be believed,
it was a cold-blooded judicial murder contrived, like the burning of
Ulloa in effigy, for the purpose of rendering more impressive the
spectacle of the auto de fe. In the same auto there was a reconciliation
in effigy of Pedro Núñez de la Haba, a Judaizer of Valdivia, who had
escaped from prison after his case was finished. If recaptured he was to
be confined in the castle of Chagre, until he could be sent to the
penitential prison of Seville, and was to have two hundred lashes for
his flight. A small _auto particular_ followed, November 11, 1737, in
which Juan Antonio Pereyra, a Portuguese, was sentenced to abjure _de
vehementi_, two hundred lashes, ten years of presidio at Valdivia and
half confiscation.[730]

These are the only cases of Judaism recorded at this period and if the
number is so scanty this must be attributed to the lack of Judaizers and
not to indifference of the tribunal. How ready it was to prosecute is
exhibited in the next case, that of Don Juan de Loyola y Haro, a scion
of the family of St. Ignatius and an elderly gentleman of high
consideration. He was arrested, July 9, 1743, on a charge of Judaism
based on the flimsiest testimony of a negro slave. Other evidence was
gathered, but with it the commissioner of Ica wrote that the current
belief regarded it as a conspiracy on the part of his slaves, and that
this had been confessed by one of the witnesses when dying. In spite of
this his trial continued, nor was he released when, in February, 1745,
the four false witnesses were arrested. He fell sick; in July he was
transferred to a convent, where he died, December 27th of the same year,
and was secretly buried in the chapel of S. María Magdalena. Evidently
his family were kept in ignorance until an auto was held October 19,
1749, when the witnesses were punished and a great parade was made of
the equity of the tribunal. His effigy was carried in procession,
bearing in one hand a palm-branch and in the other a gold baton
symbolical of his military rank as maestre de campo. His acquittal was
read, empowering his brothers to carry the effigy around the town on a
white horse, to exhume the remains and bury them where he had indicated
on his death-bed, and certificates were granted to them that his
imprisonment inflicted no disabilities on his kindred. On the next day
the procession of the white horse took place with much pomp and
circumstance. The Suprema, on reviewing the report, pronounced the whole
proceedings to be vicious from the start and destitute of all the
safeguards provided against injustice.[731] It is perhaps worth noting
that most of it occurred after Calderon and Unda had been superseded by
Arenaza and Amusquíbar. With this the formal persecution of Judaism in
Peru comes to an end, except that, in 1774, the tribunal wrote to the
Suprema that the only cases then pending were thirteen for Judaizing,
but that they had no basis.[732]

       *       *       *       *       *

With regard to the general character of the punishments inflicted it may
be remarked that they vary capriciously, in accordance doubtless with
the temper of the inquisitors, whose discretion had few limits. In the
earlier days there would seem to be a tendency to greater rigor than
that customary in Spain. In the auto of 1578 the sentences, as a rule,
are exceedingly severe.[733] When Judaism came to be conspicuous, the
penalties which we have seen inflicted were very similar to those
imposed for the same offence by the home tribunals. As the galleys went
out of fashion and were replaced by forced labor in the presidios, the
principal destination to which culprits were sent was Valdivia, though
occasionally they were assigned to Callao, Chagre or other ports where
fortifications were under construction. Scourging, as in Spain, was a
favorite resort, without distinction of sex. We have seen how ruthlessly
it was employed in the great auto of 1639 and this continued as long as
the tribunal was active. In the auto of 1736 there were sixteen
sentences of two hundred lashes, half of them on women, for bigamy,
sorcery and other similar offences. In that of 1737 there were only nine
penitents, five of them being women; all of them were sentenced to two
hundred lashes apiece, but this was remitted in the case of one of the
men.[734] In addition to the suffering, there was the severest of
humiliations for those sensitive to shame. The so-called penitents were
marched in procession through the streets, naked from the waist up, with
insignia or inscriptions denoting their offences, while the executioner
plied the lash. The assembled mob was in the habit of manifesting its
piety by stoning the poor wretches, to repress which the tribunal
occasionally issued a proclamation, such as we have seen in 1639.
Similarly, before the auto of October 19, 1749, it forbade the throwing
of stones, apples, oranges or other missiles at the penitents, under
pain of a hundred pesos for Spaniards and ten pesos with four days of
prison for others.[735] Although there are frequent sentences to
imprisonment for longer or shorter terms, there is no allusion anywhere
to a _casa de la misericordia_ or _de la penitencia_, as it was called
in Spain, in which the penitents could perform their penance.
Occasional instances in which they are ordered to be shipped to the home
country renders it probable that this was the usual recourse in such
cases. Exile was a frequent penalty, sometimes to a designated place,
but more frequently from certain cities or districts, where the culprit
had committed offences; when this happened to be his native home, where
his trade or profession was established, it might be a most severe
infliction, depriving him of his means of livelihood; when the culprit
was a vagrant or an old sorceress it mattered little.

The inexplicable inconsistency in the adjudgement of penalties, when
gauged by any rational standard, can best be understood by the contrast
in a few cases. The tenderness displayed towards the abuse of the
confessional has already been alluded to. The same is seen in some of
the sentences for crimes of a still more serious character. Thus in the
auto of July 12, 1733, Sebastiana de Figueroa, a mestiza aged 60, for
sorceries including adoration of the demon and causing sickness and
deaths, offences for which in a secular tribunal she would have been
executed without mercy, yet escaped with abjuration _de vehementi_, half
confiscation, two hundred lashes (which were remitted) and four years of
exile to a designated place.[736] In the auto of 1736, María Josepha
Canga, a free negress, who had made her husband insane with sorceries
and herbs, so as to have freedom for adultery, merely abjured _de levi_,
with four years’ service in the hospital of San Bartolomé. In the same
auto, Juan González de Ribera, a mestizo, had gone to the Indians,
adopted their ways, professed their religion and, worst of all, had
induced several Spaniards to do the same, in addition to which he had
taken three wives. He was thus a dogmatizer and was condemned as a
bigamist, idolater, sorcerer and diviner, and yet he merely abjured _de
vehementi_ and had three years hard labor on an island off Callao.[737]

With this ill-judged mercy may be contrasted the case of François Moyen,
a Frenchman of varied talents and wide culture, skilled as an artist
and musician, whose evil fortune threw him upon the tender mercies of
Amusquíbar. Born in 1720, he led a somewhat adventurous life; that he
was a believing Catholic is seen in a vow of pilgrimage to Compostela,
made during danger in a voyage--a vow which he duly performed in 1739,
during a residence in Lisbon. In 1746 he sailed from there to Rio de
Janeiro, with the Count de las Torres, who had important business in
Chile. At Buenos Ayres they parted, the count hastening across the
Pampas, while Moyen tarried there for awhile, his vivacity and his
accomplishments rendering him a general favorite. During his stay he
again manifested his devoutness by performing the spiritual exercises of
St. Ignatius. About the middle of 1748, at the request of the count, who
had gone to Lima, he started to rejoin him by way of Potosí, in company
of a band of traders. With light-hearted carelessness, he talked freely,
in the confidence of the road and the bivouac; as a Frenchman of the
Gallican school and accustomed to the freedom of speech in Paris, he
said much that he had better have left unsaid, with a singular
imprudence in view of his acquaintance with the methods of the
Portuguese Inquisition, his criticism of which formed one of the counts
in his indictment.

He became an object of suspicion to his companions, especially to a
Gallego named José Antonio Soto. Potosí was reached March 27, 1749,
where a considerable stay was made, during which Moyen expended four
pesos in masses. Two days after arrival, Soto denounced him to the
commissioner José de Ligaraza Beaumont y Navarra, who secretly summoned
the other travellers and muleteers, and gathered testimony swelling the
_sumaria_ to some two hundred pages. It was loose and thoughtless talk
capable in the hands of the inquisitorial theologians of deductions most
damaging--predestination in its most absolute form, polygamy
justifiable, marriage not a sacrament; masses, prayers and indulgences
were useless to souls in purgatory; limbo and purgatory were doubtful;
the pope was not the head of the Church and had no power to bind or to
loose; councils were superior to popes; it was wrong to condemn people
for lack of knowledge of the son of a carpenter, and much more of the
same kind. The ingenuity of the calificadores, in fact, injected heresy
into the simplest remarks. When he reproved a muleteer for abusing a
mule and said that it was a creature of God, this was held to prove that
he was a Manichean. One brilliant night, looking at the stars, he
observed that their multitude was superfluous, thus assuming that God
had erred in creation, which was heretical blasphemy, constituting him
an heretical blasphemer. A criticism of the luxury of the clergy, with a
reference to the poverty of the Apostles, showed him to be a
Wickliffite.

Commissioner Ligaraza assembled a consulta, which voted for the arrest
of so dangerous a heretic. It was executed May 14th and he was
imprisoned in chains. At first he was kept _incomunicado_, but
subsequently visitors were admitted who provoked him to risky
discussions and then gave evidence against him, in which, among other
matters, a debate on the Eucharist told heavily against him. He became
an epileptic and suffered frightfully from his chains and the cold
climate. The commissioner had no funds for his maintenance; he
endeavored to support himself by painting, but this was insufficient and
his only solace, his violin, was taken and sold, reducing him to such
despair that he attempted suicide. The commissioner was in no haste and
did not report the arrest until June 9th nor transmit the evidence until
December. On May 9, 11 and 12, 1750, the tribunal extracted from it
forty-four heretical propositions and ordered Moyen’s transfer to Lima.

This journey, which commenced July 12th, consumed two years. Moyen’s
health had been wrecked in his confinement and his epileptic fits
recurred almost daily. Several times he nearly died; at Chuquito he
received the viaticum. It was not until April, 1751, that Cuzco was
reached, when he chanced to interest a lawyer named Tomas de Lecaros,
who entered security for him and carried him to Arequipa, in vain search
for improvement. There he met an English hatter named William--a good
Catholic who attended mass daily--who counselled hypocrisy and silence
about religious matters in a land where there was an Inquisition. Moyen
chanced to mention this in his examinations; the Englishman was arrested
and ruined.

On the return to Cuzco; a halt was made at Urcos, eight leagues distant.
Amusquíbar, on September 14, 1751, called for his appearance within two
months; the commissioner of Cuzco sent his notary, when Moyen drew a
dagger and attempted resistance but was overpowered. Some three months
later Fray Juan de San Miguel wrote to the tribunal that Moyen was
hardened in his heresies and scattered them freely around Cuzco. That
place was left, January 29, 1752, fortunately prior to the reception of
an order from Amusquíbar to forward him in chains. March 26th he was
delivered to the tribunal, broken and prematurely old with the
sufferings of these three preliminary years of his trial.

Proceedings dragged on with the customary delays. The accusation,
presented October 13th, represented him as a formal and pertinacious
heretic and a follower of the sects of Luther, Calvin, Jansen, Quesnel,
Manichee and Mahomet, besides being strongly suspect of Judaism.
Discussion over these articles lasted until May 18, 1753, when he
professed profound repentance for having discussed religious matters and
begged for mercy. During the prolonged delays which ensued his
sufferings in the prison were severe--in themselves an excessive
punishment for reckless speech. Besides his continual epileptic fits,
his feet were eaten up by chigoes; his chains chafed his ankles into
sores, which threatened gangrene of one leg, and when, to avert this, on
November 13th, the alcaide was directed to remove one of the shackles,
the other was left on. In spite of this he made several attempts to
escape--once by endeavoring to set fire to the door of his cell with the
candle allowed to him at night, whereupon he was deprived of it. Again
he succeeded in reaching the house of the Count of las Torres, only to
be remanded, and on a third effort his plans were betrayed by a prisoner
in an adjoining cell.

Two years were consumed in sending the evidence to Potosí for
ratification and awaiting its return, although at first it had been
ratified _ad perpetuam_. It was not received until April, 1755, and then
its publication was delayed until September 3d. After this followed the
customary examinations on the evidence, which were prolonged until March
14, 1758--a delay largely caused by Moyen’s constant epileptic attacks.
His counsel did not present the defence until November 8, 1759, and then
the consulta de fe was not assembled until January 15, 1761. It
considered the case until February 14th, when the definitive vote was
taken, under a protest that torture was not ordered in view of the
weakened condition of the accused. The sentence finally was published in
the auto of the following April 5th. It condemned him to abjure _de
vehementi_, to ten years’ forced labor in an African presidio (Oran,
Ceuta or Melilla), or in the penitential prison of Seville, as the
inquisitor-general might prefer, and to two hundred lashes, which were
commuted to vergüenza in consideration of his infirmities. The
humiliating parade of the vergüenza through the streets of Lima was duly
performed the next day; on the 11th he was shipped in irons by the
galleon San Juan Bautista, reaching Cádiz in November; in December he
was sent to Seville to which the African presidio was commuted. No
consideration seems to have been given to the sufferings of the thirteen
years of imprisonment since his arrest, nor to the wreck of a joyous and
promising life for a few inconsiderate utterances.

Amusquíbar sought to justify the excessive delays of the trial by the
quarrels in which he was involved, by his own sickness and that of the
accused, but the Suprema did not accept these excuses and replied that
the ten years intervening between the receipt of the prisoner and the
sentence was an excessive delay and grave omission of the tribunal.[738]
There was in all this no special malignity; it was simply the habitual
application of the system with callous indifference as to the results to
the accused.

Not the least important function of the Inquisition was the censorship
of the press. Although in Spain this was reserved to the Suprema, and
the tribunals could only refer to it books which they regarded as
suspect, distance rendered independent action necessary in the colonies.
From an early period the Lima tribunal examined books and prohibited
such as it saw fit. The importation of printed matter was also, as in
Spain, subject to its supervision. The original instructions, borne by
Cerezuela, enjoined special watchfulness by the commissioners at the
seaports, to prevent the introduction of all works that were on the
Index. To insure this, at first no books were admitted except through
Callao, and the commissioner at Panamá was required to keep a close
watch on everything destined for that point. Nothing could be shipped
from there without his licence, nor could any package be opened except
in his presence. The same vigilance was exercised at Callao, and all
books were sent to Fray Juan de Almaraz, Prior of San Agustin, for
examination. As the settlement and commerce of Buenos Ayres developed,
similar precautions were observed there. There was always a haunting
dread of the efforts attributed to the Protestants to smuggle heretic
books into the land. In 1605 there was a scare of this kind, based on
rumors that ships from Lisbon manned by Flemings were bringing such
works in casks purporting to contain wine or salt, and special orders
were issued to the commissioner to be doubly watchful.[739] As in Spain,
this system was a serious impediment to trade, and led not infrequently
to collisions with the secular authorities. It required that all ships
on arrival should be visited by the commissioner before any passenger or
merchandise was landed, and that the latter, when brought on shore,
should be opened in his presence and be minutely inspected.

Even so high an ecclesiastical dignitary as the Archbishop of Lima was
not exempt from the censorship of the tribunal. We have seen how
Amusquíbar used this power for the humiliation of Archbishop Barroeta,
nor was this the only instance. Juan de Almoguera, who was archbishop
from 1674 to 1676, while yet Bishop of Arequipa, had been strongly
impressed with the dissolute lives of the priests among the Indians and,
in 1671, he published in Madrid a series of Instructions, which the
inquisitors held to be not only defamatory to the priests, but to
contain propositions adverse to the Holy See. The archbishop defended
himself by asserting that his doctrines were approved by the most
learned men of Peru, and that the facts which he cited were perfectly
true, for which he appealed to the testimony of the inquisitors
themselves. They admitted this, but nevertheless they caused the edict
of prohibition to be published everywhere.[740]

The reformatory legislation of Carlos III, from 1762 to 1768, limiting
the unrestricted control of the Inquisition over the prohibition of
books, was long in reaching Peru. In 1773 Viceroy Amat y Yunient says
that although he had not yet received the cédula of 1768 officially
through the Council of Indies, yet he defines its provisions as a guide.
It put in force the Constitution _Sollicita ac provida_ of Benedict XIV,
entitling authors to be heard in defence of their books; it prevented
the prohibition of books _ad interim_ until a final decision was
reached; where expurgations were ordered they were to be made known so
that owners could delete the objectionable passages, and all edicts were
to be submitted to the viceroy before publication.[741] The demand for
literature must have been greater than would be anticipated, for, in
1772, there was a discussion between the viceroy and the tribunal over
the proceedings in opening and examining 165 cases of books.[742]

At this period the censorship was exercised largely through the civil
authorities. February 28, 1787, the Viceroy Count de Croix reported to
the king the execution of his orders of 1785 in the suppression and
burning of certain books, the seizure of all copies that could be traced
to the possession of booksellers or of individuals, and the issue of an
edict prohibiting the printing of anything without a licence, even the
University not being permitted to publish the eulogies and addresses
customary on the arrival of a viceroy, or the Latin orations with which
the studies were annually opened. The Inquisition is only alluded to in
connection with the examination of importations, none being delivered
from the custom-house without preliminary inspection by the commissioner
of the tribunal, in connection with an appointee of the government.[743]
As in Spain, this censorship extended over morals as well as over
religion and politics. In 1796, Antonio Ortiz, the commissioner at
Buenos Ayres, was much exercised over certain wall-papers received from
Barcelona. Some of them had mythological figures, such as Hercules,
Venus and the like, which he considered intolerable. There was another
one representing the globe adorned with flowers and presided over by
Cupid with a lighted torch, as though to burn it with his impure fires,
all of which he was impelled to cut up into small pieces.[744] As we
have seen in Mexico, even ill-advised symbols of devotion were
prohibited. When, at the suppression in 1813, the building of the
Inquisition was entered, Stevenson describes seeing there among the mass
of prohibited books, a quantity of cotton handkerchiefs on which was
printed a figure of Religion with a chalice in one hand and a cross in
the other--a device which the manufacturer had fondly believed would
render them popular, without reflecting upon the desecration inseparable
from their use.[745]

From this time the principal work of the tribunal was in the enforcement
of the prohibition of literature regarded as dangerous to State or
Church. Camilo Henríquez, priest of the Padres Crucíferos de la Buena
Muerte, was a prominent object of persecution. In 1809 he was denounced
for reading prohibited books; his cell was searched without success, but
the accuser insisted and on a more minute investigation his mattress was
found to be stuffed with the dangerous material. He was arrested and, in
1810, was banished to Quito, but instead of obeying he joined the
insurgents of Chile and distinguished himself by supporting the
revolution in _La Aurora_, the periodical which he founded. Under the
Restoration, the tribunal had little real work to do except to issue
edicts prohibiting European periodicals, political pamphlets and other
productions in which it could discover opinions inimical to the
established order in politics and religion.[746]

       *       *       *       *       *

In the turbulent atmosphere of the early nineteenth century, the
authority of the Inquisition naturally declined, especially as the
character of the inquisitors was so unfitted to inspire respect. Its
suppression by the decree of the Córtes of Cádiz, February 22, 1813, was
evidently seen in advance to be inevitable and was fatal to its
influence. Shortly before that decree was received Stevenson relates
that he was summoned before the tribunal, in consequence of a discussion
in a coffee-house with a Fray Bustamante, respecting the image of the
Madonna of the Rosary. If we may believe his story of the audience, he
treated the inquisitors with slender reverence and escaped with an
admonition to avoid religious disputes, and to bear in mind that in the
dominions of his Catholic Majesty all men were subject to the
Inquisition.[747] When the decree of suppression was published, he had
an opportunity of accompanying the first party that entered the
building, so long an object of universal dread. The prison cells were
all open and empty; he describes them as small but not uncomfortable. In
the audience-chamber, back of the judges’ dais, there hung on high a
life-sized image of Christ; its head was so arranged as to be movable by
a person secreted behind, on a signal from the inquisitor, producing a
profound impression on the awestruck culprit, who was denying his guilt.
From his description of the torture-room it would seem that the tortures
employed, though cruel enough, were less severe than those formerly in
use--the _cordeles_ and _jarras de agua_, the _mancuerda_, the
_trampazo_ and the _garrucha_. There was a rack on which the arms and
legs could be stretched; a kind of pillory for scourging with scourges,
some of which were of wire chains with sharp points; “tormentors” of
netted wire with points, arranged to fit the wrists or waists, the legs
or arms, and thumb-screws--a grisly collection, but less likely to
endanger life and limb than the older atrocities. The crowd which found
admittance carried off some of these as mementos and also some of the
records, but the archbishop the next day published an excommunication
against all who should not return what they had taken, and most of the
documents were restored.[748]

We have seen that the money found in the chest was taken by the
authorities and this of course was retained, but the salaries of the
officials were continued. The suspension was short-lived, ending with
the decree of July 21, 1814, re-establishing the Inquisition, when the
three inquisitors, Abarca, Zalduegui and Sobrino, resumed their places,
but the old awful authority could not be revived. They complained
bitterly of the viceroy, who showed himself, they said, hostile to the
re-establishment. He delayed issuing the decree, treated them with
discourtesy and refused to refund the money. They depicted the
deplorable condition of the tribunal, destitute of means to pay salaries
in arrears, or even to make arrests that had been resolved upon prior to
the suppression, while the buildings were dirty and out of repair.[749]
We can readily imagine that the progress of the War of Independence left
little leisure or disposition on the part of the authorities to listen
to their complaints. How completely decadent was their authority, is
seen in a letter from the Suprema ordering them to summon an Englishman
named John Robinson and point out to him that he had been admitted to
residence on condition of not talking about religion, or dogmatizing
against Catholicism, and they were moreover to seek an interview with
the viceroy, to ask his aid in restraining the man and to report the
result.[750] Times had changed since François Moyen was so inhumanly
persecuted for his loquacity.

Still, they were not without some remnants of authority. The University
of Lima had sent an address to the Córtes of Cádiz, congratulating it on
the decree of suppression. This was an offence not to be overlooked and,
April 7, 1815, the Suprema sent an order to dismiss all the signers of
the paper who held office under the tribunal. Accordingly, on October
29th, Fray Josef Recalde was summoned to surrender his vestment and
badge as a calificador. To this he replied, November 3d, with a
supplication not to expose him to such a dishonor; the paper had been
presented to him for signature by the beadle of the University, saying
that it was an act of obedience to the Córtes and he, being busy, had
signed it without reading it, as he was accustomed to do with the
numerous papers requiring his signature. On this Inquisitor-fiscal
Sobrino reported that Recalde only intensified his offence, and he
proceeded to accuse the University of misleading youth and allowing them
to read prohibited books, while Recalde’s statement only showed how
recklessly its members joined in anything resolved upon by the leaders.
Both papers were forwarded, December 13th, to the Suprema for its
judgement, but whether Recalde was reinstated does not appear from the
documents at hand.[751]

The officials continued to draw their salaries, but there is little
trace of their activity. The latest indication I have met of their
performance of duty is a letter from the Suprema, July 11, 1817, to the
tribunal of Logroño, asking for information to guide the tribunal of
Lima in a case of alleged bigamy on the part of Don Fernando Díaz, then
a resident of Cuzco.[752] In that same year a “voluntary” subscription
in aid of the government was organized, to which the contribution of
Inquisitor-fiscal Sobrino was niggardly, leading to his being
reprimanded from Madrid.[753] In 1819 the tribunal was reorganized. The
senior inquisitor Abarca was dead and Zalduegui was dean; he and Sobrino
were jubilated on one-quarter of their salaries and the tribunal
consisted of Cristóval de Ortegon as senior, Anselmo Pérez de la Canal
as junior and José Mariano de Larrea as fiscal.

Their term of office was short. The final decree of suppression, March
9, 1820, was long in reaching Peru, where it was not promulgated until
September 9th, with orders to communicate it to all the archbishops of
the district and to take the necessary steps for assuming possession of
the property. This was done decently and in order. On September 18th
Viceroy Pezuela ordered the intendant of the province, in concert with
the two regidores of Lima, to proceed in accordance with the decree of
February 22, 1813, to occupy the property, including its patronage and
pious foundations, and to make an exact inventory. This was followed,
September 20th, with instructions that at 8.30 A.M. of Friday, September
22d, possession should be taken, and the ex-dean was notified to be
ready in order that it should be executed with promptitude. At nine
o’clock on Saturday the intendant and the regidores met in the
Inquisition and made an inventory of all property found there. In
pursuance of Article 10 of the decree of 1813, the commission of three,
on September 28th, issued an order calling on the ex-receiver-general,
Carlos Lizon, for an authentic list of all the officials with their
salaries, so that the latter might be paid. This was superfluous; from
time immemorial the custom had been to pay all salaries in advance, in
instalments of four months. The inquisitors had providently taken care
of themselves and their subordinates and, on August 29th and September
1st, had issued orders on Receiver Lizon for the _tercio adelantado_,
commencing September 1st, so that he was able to exhibit the
corresponding receipts, amounting to 9472 pesos and a fraction,
indicating on annual pay-roll of 28,417 pesos.

That the inventory only showed a few items of volumes of records is
testimony of the completeness with which everything had been
appropriated. Although the work of the tribunal had shrunk almost to
nothingness, all the offices had been kept filled and the roster was as
complete as it had been in the period of the greatest activity.[754] It
is presumable that, as in Mexico, they went to Spain and were provided
for there.

       *       *       *       *       *

The total amount of work accomplished is estimated by Medina as three
thousand cases tried, but this is probably too liberal an allowance. His
exhaustive researches have resulted only in an enumeration of 1474
cases.

These consist of--

Laymen            1126
Women              180
Secular clergy     101
Franciscans         49
Dominicans          34
Mercenarians        36
Augustinians        26
Jesuits             12

The offences prosecuted were

Propositions                       140
Judaism                            243
Moors                                5
Protestants                         65
Solicitation                       109
Blasphemy                           97
Sexual errors                       40
Bigamy                             297
Sorcery                            172
Miscellaneous and not specified    306

For the 250 years of existence, the estimate of a total of 3000 cases
would make 12 per annum, or 1 per month, but in the first 20 years of
the tribunal the cases amounted to 1265, which would reduce the average
of the other 230 years to about 7-1/2, and it would be safe to assume
for the last century an average of not more than 3 or 4 a year.[755]

For this slender result, to say nothing of the large expenditure, the
colony was kept in a constant state of disquiet, the orderly course of
government was well-nigh impossible, intellectual, commercial and
industrial development were impeded, universal distrust of one’s
neighbor was commanded by ordinary prudence, and the population lived
with the sense of evil ever impending over the head of every one. That
there was any real danger to the faith in Peru is absurd. Possibly the
tribunal may have been of some service in repressing the prevalence of
bigamy among laymen and of solicitation among the clergy, but the fact
that these two offences remained to the last so prominent in its
calendar would show that it accomplished little. As regards sorcery and
superstitions, which pervaded all classes, in the mixed population of
Europeans, Indians, negroes and half-breeds, with an accumulation of
superstitious beliefs drawn from so many sources, the number of cases is
surprisingly small, especially as the exemption of Indians from
inquisitorial jurisdiction seems to have been disregarded in this
offence. In the repression of the practices which were regarded as
implying pact with the demon the Inquisition may be said to have
virtually accomplished nothing. It would be difficult to find, in the
annals of human misgovernment, a parallel case in which so little was
accomplished at so great a cost as by the Inquisition under Spanish
institutions.




CHAPTER VIII.

NEW GRANADA.


Although the _Nuevo Reino de Granada_ originally formed part of the
Viceroyalty of Peru, it was the earliest settlement on the continent of
South America. When Balboa, in 1514, reported his rich discoveries in
Darien, no time was lost in sending out Pedro Arias Dávila as governor,
who landed at Santa Marta. He took with him as bishop Fray Juan de
Quevedo, who formed one of his council with a right to vote, thus
founding at the start that curious complication of jurisdictions which
exercised so unhappy an influence on the development of the Spanish
colonies. The see of Santa Marta, however, was not founded until 1531
and, as settlements were pushed into the interior, Santa Fe de Bogotá
was established as the capital, where the Audiencia, or high court, was
organized in 1547 and governed the colony until 1564, when Andrés Díaz
Venero de Leiva was sent out as president.[756] It was not erected into
a viceroyalty until 1719, from which it was reduced to its former state
in a few years, to be restored again in 1740.[757]

In 1532 the see of Cartagena was founded and, in 1547, that of Popayan.
In 1553 came the Franciscan Fray Juan Barrios with a bull of Julius III
by which the see of Santa Marta was transferred to Santa Fe and erected
into an archbishopric, thus sundering it from the metropolis of Lima.
Santa Marta was reduced to an abbacy, to be subsequently re-erected.
Cartagena was dismembered from Santo Domingo and the archiepiscopal
province included it with Popayan and Santa Marta. In the absence of the
Inquisition, Archbishop Barrios exercised its functions and, in a series
of Synodal Constitutions, issued in 1556, he ordered that no books
should be possessed or sold without being first examined by the bishop
or his deputies, under the penalty of fifty pesos.[758]

When, in 1570, the tribunal of Lima was established, its authority
extended over all the Spanish possessions from Panamá to the south. The
organization of so extended a territory was a work of time and the
material at hand for it was of the worst description, as we have seen in
the preceding chapter. It was not until 1577 that Inquisitor Cerezuela
appointed a commissioner for Santa Fe, when his choice fell upon D. Lope
Clavijo, dean of the metropolitan chapter. In the exercise of his new
authority, Clavijo naturally became involved in bitter quarrels with the
archbishop, Luis Zapata de Cardenas. His character reflected no credit
on the Holy Office, if it be true as reported that his official
apartments became a receptacle for women, on some of whom he committed
violence, and that the nuns of Tunja were obliged to forbid his entrance
into their parlor, in order to escape his licentious conversation. The
Commissioner of Popayan, Gonzalo de Torres, was no better and was the
source of infinite trouble to the bishop, until the visitador, Juan Ruiz
de Prado, summoned him to trial in Lima, on a prosecution containing
twenty charges. He seems, in 1589, to have been deprived of his office,
which, as Archbishop Lobo Guerrero said to the Suprema, he used only as
a means of committing offences against God. We hear also of Juan García,
Commissioner of Cumaná, appointed by Inquisitor Ulloa, as a reward for
committing perjury against an enemy of the latter. His adulteries and
incests with maids, wives and widows, mothers, daughters and sisters,
were notorious and he had caused the death of more than a hundred Indian
laborers without baptism or confession. Like the others, he only sought
the place for the protection afforded from punishment for his
crimes.[759]

Under worthies such as these, it is easy to understand that little
attention was paid to the purification of the faith among the colonists.
The cases sent to Lima for trial were few and unimportant. There were no
Protestants among them; the only accusation of Judaism was that of Juan
de Herrera, in 1592, of which he was absolved in 1595, after undergoing
torture; the rest were the ordinary run of inquisitorial
business--sorcery, bigamy, blasphemy and propositions, more or less
innocent. That the commissioners, however, did not neglect opportunities
that presented themselves may be assumed from the case of Juan
Fernández, a merchant who, in 1588, denounced himself to the
Commissioner of Cartagena because, on hearing that a man had hanged
himself he had exclaimed “May God forgive him!” This proposition was
decided to be heretical; Fernández was arrested, with sequestration of
property, and was sentenced to abjure _de levi_, to hear mass as a
penitent, and to pay a fine of a hundred pesos.[760]

It was evident that, if the faith was to be properly guarded, some
authoritative tribunal nearer than Lima or Mexico was necessary for the
vast territory which included the whole sweep of the Antilles and the
coast of Tierra Firme from Panamá to Guiana. As early as April 8, 1580,
Inquisitor Cerezuela wrote that the people of New Granada were asking
for one, in view of their distance from Lima; this was great--fully six
hundred leagues--and there would be no inconvenience in such a step
except that he has understood that there were no suitable persons there
to serve as consultors and calificadores.[761] Again, in 1600,
Inquisitor Ordóñez y Flores represented to the Suprema the enormous
extent of the territory assigned to the Lima tribunal and suggested two
new ones--one at La Plata and the other at Santa Fe. The latter should
include the sees of Popayan, Cartagena, Santa Marta and Venezuela,
making a district four hundred leagues in length, in which it was
impossible to provide commissioners; at present there was but one, with
whom communication was so difficult that sometimes two years passed
without hearing from him. A year earlier, in 1599, Archbishop Lobo
Guerrero had written to the king to the same effect. He described the
land as the most vicious and sinful in the Spanish dominions, and the
faith as on the point of destruction; the distance to Lima was so great
that offenders either died or escaped on the road and there was no money
to meet the cost of sending them.[762]

The same cry went up from the islands. In 1594 the Council of Indies
suggested to the king that, in view of the failure of all efforts to
suppress the dealings of the people of Santo Domingo with the English
and French corsairs, and with pirates of all nations, the
inquisitor-general should commission the Archbishop of Santo Domingo as
an inquisitor. On this being submitted to the Suprema it replied that
there were disadvantages in the plan and the true remedy would be to
establish a tribunal on the island, which could be done on the most
economical basis. Philip II ordered a junta of a member of each council
to consider a grant of inquisitorial power to the archbishop for a term
of three or four years.[763] Nothing was done. The king shrank from the
expense of a new tribunal and the Suprema was too jealous of the
episcopate to delegate its power to the archbishop. A similar fate
awaited a complaint of Bishop Martin of Puerto Rico, in 1606, as to the
influx of heretic traders and sailors with their books, to remedy which
he urged that a tribunal be established in Santo Domingo, or that
delegated power be granted to the bishops, including authority to
appoint alguaziles and familiars with the recognized privileges and
exemptions.[764]

There can be no doubt that many representations of the same import
poured in upon the court and finally, in 1608, the Council of Indies
formally urged the erection of a tribunal in Santo Domingo. After due
discussion, it was resolved to include in the district all the lands
surrounding the Caribbean, except Central America, and, as its
inquisitors subsequently boasted, it enjoyed the most extensive
territories of any tribunal, embracing the archbishoprics of both Santa
Fe and Santo Domingo and the bishoprics of Cartagena, Panamá, Santa
Marta, Popayan, Venezuela, Puerto Rico and Santiago de Cuba.[765] Its
seat was fixed at Cartagena, as a central point and leading port of
entry, which had had time to recover from its devastation by Drake in
1585. Its position and its safe and capacious harbor, easily defensible
by fortifications, rendered it the entrepôt of the trade with the
Pacific, and the place where the treasures of the colonies were gathered
for transhipment to Spain, while the pearl fishery of Margarita and the
productions of a province rich in mineral and agricultural wealth gave
it a large and lucrative commerce. As the seat of a tribunal it had the
advantage that, unlike Lima and Mexico, it was not a capital where the
humors of inquisitors could be in some slight degree controlled by a
viceroy and a royal Audiencia. They had only to deal directly with a
local governor and municipal authorities on the one side, and with a
simple bishop on the other; there was little to restrain them, short of
the Suprema beyond the Atlantic, and we shall see that they took full
advantage of their position in the endless embroilments which formed
their chief occupation. The history of the tribunal is to be found not
so much in its autos de fe as in the guerrilla war which for a century
it maintained with the authorities, civil and ecclesiastical, rendering
decent and orderly government impossible and going far to explain the
decadence and decrepitude of the colony.

Extensive as was the district of the tribunal, it sought to extend its
authority still farther over Florida. As early as 1606 there is a
curious letter from Fray Juan Cabezas, Bishop of Cuba, reciting that the
tribunal of Mexico had appointed Fray Francisco Carranco as commissioner
in Havana--under what authority does not appear. On the news of his
coming the good bishop fled from Havana and took refuge in St.
Augustine, whence he despatched his provisor to Spain to protest against
the announced intentions of Carranco to include Florida within his
jurisdiction. This had caused lively anxiety among the garrison, some
three hundred in number, who with the friars were the only Spaniards
there. The Indians as yet were so little rooted in the faith that
recently in the missions they had slain four or five of the
missionaries. There were, he adds, many women and children, for most of
the soldiers were married and the effort was made to induce all to
marry, for the hardships of the place were such that, without these
ties, the governor would not venture to send any one away with the
expectation of his return.[766] In 1621 there was some discussion as to
sending a commissioner there, but nothing was done. Then, in 1630,
Inquisitor Agustin Ugarte y Saravia reported from Cartagena that he had
sent to the Governor of St. Augustine, Luis de Rojas y Borja,
commissions in blank for a commissioner and familiar, fearing that, if
appointees were sent, he would not receive them, as the settlement was
wholly military, even the Franciscan missionaries being rated as
soldiers.[767] It is not likely that the governor filled out the
commissions, for Florida remained deprived of the blessing of the Holy
Office. In 1692 another attempt was made. The Cartagena tribunal
appointed Fray Pedro de Lima as commissioner with power to nominate
subordinates, without requiring proofs of limpieza. Of this he availed
himself to create a notary, an alguazil mayor and four familiars, thus
establishing a tribunal of his own. The governor, Don Diego de Quiroga y
Lanada, took the alarm and wrote earnestly to the Council of Indies. All
this, he said, was simply to escape the royal jurisdiction; Fray Pedro,
as a friar, was ineligible to the post of commissioner; the tribunal of
Cartagena had no jurisdiction over Florida, where, by the Concordias,
there was to be no Inquisition and, if cases of faith arose, they were
to be treated by the cura or the ecclesiastical Vicariate. The Council
of Indies, December 9, 1695, reported this to the king, asking that the
Suprema be told to order the Cartagena tribunal to desist; to this
Carlos II assented and the attempt to establish an Inquisition in
Florida seems to have ended here.[768]

On June 29, 1610, Mateo de Salcedo and Juan de Mañozca--the latter a
name of evil import to the Spanish colonies--the newly appointed
inquisitors for Cartagena, set sail from Cádiz, with a fiscal, alguazil,
notary and messenger, and power to appoint all necessary subordinates,
whose commissions would be issued by the Suprema. On August 9th they
arrived at Santo Domingo, where they were received with all honor and
published the Edict of Faith; they received some self-denunciations,
they appointed the Dominican Provincial as temporary commissioner, and
the archbishop surrendered the papers of all cases heard by him and his
predecessors. Sailing on September 4th, they reached Cartagena on the
21st, where their reception by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities
was conducted with great pomp. On the 26th the royal letters were read
and the oaths of obedience taken; three houses were rented for their
occupation until a suitable building could be rented. The king allowed
them 8000 pesos for their installation, with which they bought the
houses in which they were lodged, paying half in cash and, with the
remainder of the money, building a prison with thirteen cells.[769] For
the support of the officials, as in the case of Mexico and Lima, the
king provided a subvention of 8400 ducats a year, until the fines and
confiscations should suffice to defray expenses; but, profiting by
experience, he endeavored to guard against the habitual deceit of the
tribunals. In his cédula of March 8, 1610, to the treasury officials of
Cartagena, he ordered that sum to be paid out of any funds in the
treasury or, if those were not sufficient, then out of what came in from
the province, but, in order to know how much of this subvention should
be paid, the receiver of the tribunal was required to furnish every year
a statement of the confiscations and of all moneys applicable to the
salaries, which were to be duly deducted from the treasury
payments.[770] We shall see, as in Mexico and Peru, how fruitless was
the precaution against audacious inquisitorial mendacity.

The tribunal found little to do in justification of its existence. It
was not until February 2, 1614, that it held its first auto de fe, in
which it presented about thirty penitents, whose offences consisted of
trivial propositions, blasphemies, superstitious arts and the like.
Nevertheless the ceremonies were conducted with all solemnity to impress
the population, and a long and grandiloquent report was sent to the
Suprema. Four readers of the sentences were employed, so that the
reading could be continuous, yet such was the verbosity that the
ceremonies lasted from half-past nine in the morning until after sunset
and the auto had to be finished by torch-light. There were about a dozen
sentences of scourging through the streets and when, on the next
afternoon, the infliction was to commence, a motley crowd of negroes,
mestizos, mulattos and Spaniards, estimated at four thousand, assembled,
armed with oranges and other fruits wherewith to pelt the victims. The
escort provided for them was afraid to venture forth until the
inquisitors made proclamation threatening a hundred lashes for any such
manifestation of pious zeal, when every one dropped his missile and the
punishment was carried out in peace.[771]

Besides these there had been despatched in the audience-chamber sixteen
cases, one of which is worth mentioning as an example of the spirit in
which the inquisitors commenced their duties. For some matter of slight
importance, Doña Lorenza de Acereto, a noble married woman, had been
penanced by the episcopal provisor Almanso, prior to the founding of the
tribunal. Probably stimulated by the Edict of Faith she was impelled to
denounce herself to it and Mañozca, who had some private grudge to
satisfy, imprisoned her for eight months and then sentenced her to a
fine of 4000 ducats and exile for two years. When the sentence was read,
she appealed to the inquisitor-general but, as she was leaving the room,
she was warned that she would be immured for life in the secret prison
and, in dread of this, she withdrew the appeal. It chanced that Almanso
was soon afterwards sent to Madrid by his bishop to complain of the
tribunal; he represented this matter to the Suprema, which sent for the
papers of the trial and, on examining them, suspended the case as
groundless.[772]

It was in unimportant routine work of this kind that the inquisitors
employed the intervals of their quarrels with the civil and
ecclesiastical authorities. Cartagena numbered a population of only five
hundred Spaniards; the rest were negro slaves, Indians and the
half-castes so numerous in the Spanish colonies. The Indians were not
subject to inquisitorial jurisdiction and among the whites there was not
intellectual energy sufficient to produce serious heresy. Mañozca, in
fact, in a letter of March 17, 1622, to the Suprema describes them as
wholly devoted to the pursuit of gain and utterly regardless of honor
and reputation, from the Governor down. There is no one, he says, who
will trouble himself with useful works, and virtue and honor are
contraband, for they are only prized where there are virtuous and
honorable men.[773] There were left the negroes and mixed races,
ignorant and superstitious. The slaves had brought from the Guinea coast
the mysteries of Obeah and dark practices of sorcery. The native Indians
had ample store of superstitions, to cure or to injure, to provoke love
or hatred; the colonists had their own credulous beliefs, to which they
added implicit faith in those of the inferior races. The land was
overrun with this combination of the occult arts of three continents,
all of which were regarded by the Inquisition, not as idle fancies, but
as the exercise of supernatural powers, involving express or implicit
pact with the demon. Had the tribunal seriously labored to eradicate
them, it would have had ample work for its energies, but the offenders
were slaves or paupers; there was neither honor nor profit in their
prosecution, and consequently no energy. Indeed Mañozca, in the letter
just quoted, endeavored to be released from the task--perhaps the only
instance on record of an inquisitor desiring to abandon a portion of
the jurisdiction for which the Holy Office was wont to struggle so
desperately.

He gives a fearful account of the witchcraft practised by the negro
slaves in the mines of Saragossa, in Antioquia, who kill, cripple and
maim men and women and suffocate children and destroy the fruits of the
earth. There are about four thousand of them, brought from Guinea, who,
though baptized, are wholly untaught in the faith, and are more like
brutes than men. The missionaries among them pay no heed to their
instruction but are wholly absorbed in the search for gold. The district
is remote and mountainous and only to be reached by footpaths; the
smallest coin there is gold and to arrest a culprit costs more than his
value as a slave. The tribunal has no funds to bring them hither for
trial and their maintenance in gaol is a heavy burden on the owners.
Four have been tried and condemned to reconciliation and perpetual
prison, but the Inquisition has no penitential prison and, if there was
one, they would starve to death, as they could not earn their support
and the alms of the pious would not reach so miserable a set of beings.
They have therefore been put into the Hospital General, where they can
be employed and hear mass and perform their penance. As for the great
mass of the culprits, it would be impossible for the tribunal to arrest
and try them--the cost would be enormous and the result, according to
law, would be to set them free, which would fill the land with demons,
nor would the owners permit their capture, in the certainty of losing
them. To meet these difficulties Mañozca therefore suggests a general
pardon, after which the civil authorities shall have cognizance of their
crimes and punish them otherwise than with the benignity habitual with
the Inquisition. The Suprema was hardly prepared thus to surrender even
so unprofitable a portion of its jurisdiction and, in forwarding this
letter to the king, urged that an Edict of Grace should be proclaimed;
that he should assist the tribunal with the funds necessary for the
support of the officials and the expense of its functions, and that the
Council of Indies should order the royal officials to inflict severe
punishment, in so far as they had jurisdiction, and should assist the
Inquisition in making arrests and other acts. To this Philip IV drily
replied that the Council of Indies would order the governors to apply
such remedies as they deemed advisable.[774] All parties thus sought to
wash their hands of this troublesome and costly affair, and witchcraft
and sorcery continued to flourish.

They were not confined to the slaves in the mines of Antioquia and, some
ten years later, there was an outburst which offered fairer inducements
to repay prosecution. A great assembly of witches was discovered among
the negroes of the town of Tolú--an accessible sea-port, about
sixty-five miles from Cartagena--where the witnesses testified to all
the classical features of the Sabbat--flying through the air, dancing
around a goat, kissing him _retro_ and all the customary performances.
Since the great auto de fe of witches at Logroño in 1610, the Suprema
had grown skeptical and cautious as to these superstitions, and had
impressed on the tribunals the necessity of acting with great reserve in
all such cases. In reporting this matter therefore, September 25, 1632,
the inquisitors said that they had observed these instructions and had
arrested only a mulatto woman and a mestiza, who had persistently denied
the charges. Still the testimony continued to pour in, spreading the
epidemic to Cartagena and implicating Spaniards of consideration and
property, for witnesses who confessed to having been at the Sabbat were
free to designate whomsoever they chose as having been present--a fact
which explains the rapid multiplication of accomplices, whenever a
persecution commenced. Animated by the prospect thus opened, the
inquisitors threw aside their caution; they accepted the most absurd
stories and attributed to witchcraft many cases of ordinary sickness
occurring in the town. They erected additional prisons to receive the
culprits and sentenced to burning two of those accused as
leaders--negresses named Elena de Vitoria and Paula de Eguiluz, but the
sentence of the former was revoked by the Suprema and, when that of the
latter was received, it sent orders that no sentence of relaxation
should be executed until a copy of the process was submitted to it.

Torture was freely employed, resulting in an auto de fe held, March 26,
1634, where twenty-one witches were exhibited, whose punishment mostly
consisted of scourging, although one, Ana de Avila, a mestiza widow, who
had overcome seven turns of the _mancuerda_ in her torture, was fined
1000 pesos. A sentence of absolution was read of Ana Beltran, who had
been tortured without confession for an hour and a half and had died of
its effects. This was followed, June 1, 1636, by another auto with
sixteen penitents, among whom was Elena de Vitoria. Another was Guiomar
de Anaya, who had overcome the torture and was sentenced to exile and a
fine of 200 ducats. Paula de Eguiluz was reconciled in an auto of March
25, 1638, after six years of imprisonment, and was condemned to two
hundred lashes and irremissible prison. It seems that she enjoyed a high
reputation as a physician and was allowed to leave the prison in the
practice of her profession, numbering among her patients even the
inquisitors and the bishop, Cristóbal de Lazárraga. She was permitted to
cast off the sanbenito and appeared in a mantle bordered with gold and
in a sedan chair; she earned much money and was charitable in relieving
the necessities of her fellow-prisoners.[775]

In the other chief source of inquisitorial business--blasphemy--the
mercifulness of the Suprema brought about a curious and unexpected
result. The most usual expletive, _reniego á Dios_--I renounce God--was
reckoned as heretical and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the
Holy Office, but it was so frequent that the Suprema ordered it to be
punished only with a reprimand. As the inquisitors complained, in a
letter of June 28, 1619, the effect of this was that, when a master
flogged a slave, at the first lash the latter promptly renounced God; he
thus became, on the spot, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
tribunal; the flogging ceased and he was handed over to it, to go
through the formality of a trial, at the end of which he was discharged
with a scolding. This was a process which might be repeated
indefinitely, to the manifest detriment of the discipline indispensable
to slavery.[776]

It was not till the tribunal had been established for more than ten
years that it had any serious business in vindicating the faith. In an
auto de fe celebrated March 16, 1622, there were four negro witches
reconciled, two negro sorceresses punished and one bigamist banished
from the Indies. In addition to these there was a Protestant burnt
alive--an Englishman named Adam Edon (Haydon?). He had been sent, in
1618, by an English merchant, to purchase tobacco in Cumaná, where he
was arrested in 1619 and sent to Cartagena. For two years the most
earnest endeavors to wean him from his errors were fruitless, and his
fate was inevitable. Mañozca, in his report, described him as a most
engaging person; at the _quemadero_ he was not chained as usual to the
stake, but he calmly sat on a faggot and remained motionless till life
was extinct, a veritable martyr to his convictions.[777]

After this auspicious beginning there opened a prospect of greater
usefulness. At an auto de fe of June 17, 1626, solemnized with great
magnificence, there were twenty-two penitents, of whom one was a
Calvinist and seven were Judaizers. Of the latter, Juan Vicente had
already been reconciled in Coimbra and again in Lima. Under the canon
law, a single relapse entailed relaxation; this he had been spared in
Lima, and his persistent backsliding left no hope of ultimate
conversion, so he was duly consigned to the flames.[778] After this
there was an interval during which inquisitorial energy had to be
content with witches, blasphemers and the like, until the raid made on
the Portuguese merchants in Lima gave occasion for similar action in
Cartagena. One of the accused, in the former city, gave evidence against
a compatriot in the latter; it was duly forwarded and the arrest was
made March 15, 1636. The circle spread until there were twenty-one in
prison. Torture was savagely employed and one of the prisoners, Paz
Pinto, a man widely esteemed, died from its effects. Most of the cases
were ready for an auto held March 25, 1638, at which eight were
reconciled and nine were absolved. There were no relaxations, but the
confiscations, as we shall see, put the tribunal in possession of ample
funds.[779]

Little remains to be said as to the activity of the tribunal in its
appropriate sphere, although its contributions from time to time to the
Suprema show that it occasionally obtained some wealthy penitent to
strip, among the inconspicuous mass of blasphemers, bigamists and
sorceresses. Its energies became more and more devoted, during the
remainder of the century, to internal dissensions and quarrels with the
secular and ecclesiastical authorities, leaving small leisure for its
proper functions. Such was its inertia in this respect that we are told
that there was no publication of the annual Edict of Faith between 1656
and 1818.[780] Then it was dealt a heavy blow in the capture of
Cartagena, in 1697, by the French adventurers under the Baron de Pointis
and his buccaneer allies, after which it was sacked by the latter. A few
days after the commencement of the bombardment April 10th, the tribunal
abandoned the city, carrying some of its prisoners to Majates, about
fourteen leagues distant, where an auto de fe was held, with three
penitents, and those whose cases were not ready were sent further inland
to Mompox. When the fort of Bocachica was taken, the French found there
nine prisoners accused of bigamy; eight of these joined the enemy and
the ninth, Pedro Sarmiento, voluntarily went to Mompox and surrendered
himself. The town capitulated May 6th and, when the French entered, they
promptly sought the Inquisition, where they took the vestments of the
officials and the sanbenitos and mitres of the penitents and held in the
plaza a mock auto de fe, reading sentences and parodying the
solemnities. Inquisitor Lazaeta was anxious to obtain possession of
certain papers and employed the good offices of Don Sancho Jimeno, the
castellan of Bocachica, whose gallant defence had earned the respect of
the enemy. He had been rereleased but returned to Cartagena to defend
himself against certain charges, after which he requested of the leaders
permission to get the papers; the mere mention of the Inquisition
provoked a tempest of passion, but after it had cooled off he asked
leave to get some papers of his own and, while collecting them, he
succeeded in including those desired by the inquisitor. After the
invaders had sailed, Lazaeta returned to Cartagena, June 22d. He found
the building much damaged by the bombardment; it had been sacked and the
chests broken open and left empty, but the records were untouched. With
a donation which he begged and 12,000 pesos obtained from the governor,
he had everything in order by the end of August, but this proved the
turning-point of the tribunal which thenceforth declined rapidly.[781]

Repairs to its habitation became necessary in 1704, but these were
inefficiently performed and, in 1715, the tribunal was obliged to shift
its quarters to the house of the senior inquisitor and even this had
been so maltreated in the bombardment that it threatened to fall. The
trouble culminated in 1741 when Admiral Vernon bombarded Cartagena; a
bomb dismantled the Inquisition and it had to be torn down, though the
records escaped as they had prudently been transferred in advance to
Tenerife, near Santa Marta. It was a quarter of a century before Carlos
III, in 1766, granted for the rebuilding 12,600 pesos from the revenues
of the vacant archbishopric.[782]

All this was but a symptom of the general decadence of the tribunal. In
1747 the Inquisitor, Francisco Antonio de Ilarduy, wrote that the only
consultor he had was also the advocate of the fisc and of the accused;
for three years there had been but one calificador, and the provincial
at Seville had been vainly urged to send out frailes; there were but two
familiars, who were engrossed in earning their living and no one cared
to accept the position; for seven years the Suprema had not taken the
trouble to reply to the applications for advice and instructions.
Ilarduy vainly tendered his resignation, but it was not accepted until
at length he obtained a transfer to Córdova and left Cartagena in 1754.
Under such conditions there was little done and the Inquisition lost its
terrors. The royal permission to draw articles of necessity from foreign
sources brought to Cartagena Danish, Dutch and other heretic ships, in
which there came Jews whom the governor, in spite of the reclamations of
the tribunal, allowed to establish themselves and to walk the streets
like natives. The tribunal appealed to the Archbishop-viceroy, Antonio
Caballero y Góngora, who contented himself with ordering that the
limitation of importations to articles of necessity should be
enforced.[783]

A typical case was that of Don David de la Mota, who came in 1783, and
who made no secret of being a Jew. The tribunal summoned him and swore
him in the Jewish fashion, when he said that he was born in
Velez-Malaga; his parents had been penanced and his grandfather had been
burnt by the tribunal of Granada; he had married a Jewess in the Danish
island of Santa Cruz and had been circumcised fifty years before in
Santa Eustacia. It indicates the altered situation when this case, which
formerly would have been treated with little ceremony, was the subject
of doubt and discussion. The inquisitors forbore to arrest him, for he
represented foreign interests, which would have complained to the consul
and he to the ambassador. They accordingly shrank from the
responsibility and let him go. In Spain the exclusion of Jews was still
rigidly enforced and, when they reported their action to the Suprema, it
censured their timidity and ordered them always to arrest such parties
when the evidence sufficed. It was the same in other parts of the
district. In Santo Domingo the governor was liberally inclined and, in
1783, the Archbishop complained to the Suprema that, during the previous
year, a Jew named José Obediente had come and was allowed to go about
freely, to entertain persons of distinction and even to be present in
the solemnities of Holy Week. The commissioner had vainly appealed to
the authorities, and the archbishop was afraid to say anything, for fear
of public disturbance. This year he had come again, bringing six or
seven others, who kept house and lived like any other residents.[784] It
was not the Jews alone whom the tribunal, in its weakened state, was
afraid to attack. In 1784, the royal auditor at Mompox, Don Francisco
Antonio Antona, was denounced for having, at a banquet given by a
priest, proposed for discussion some manifestly heretical propositions.
In place of prosecuting him, the inquisitors consulted the Suprema
alleging, as a reason for their timidity, the character of the accused,
the relations of his wife with the best families, and the protection
given to him by the viceroys in the conduct of his office.[785] A
tribunal thus shorn of its audacity could only be an object of contempt.

There was, however, a little recrudescence of activity as the progress
of free-thought and the approach of the Revolution called for the
exercise of the functions of censorship. This has been well-nigh in
abeyance. The edicts prohibiting books, as sent out by the Suprema, were
regularly published as matters of routine, but they were regarded by no
one. In fact, the intellectual torpor of the colony was so profound that
there was little danger of the spread of dangerous literature. In 1777
Cartagena could not even support a small printing-office, and the
inquisitors complained that they had to copy the edicts by hand; there
had been a printer, but the poor man had sold his stock elsewhere and no
one had ventured to replace him.[786] Seizures of prohibited books had
been exceedingly rare. In 1661 some copies had been suppressed of “Horas
y oraciones devotas,” printed in Paris in 1664. In 1668 there was a
little flurry when, on one of the affluents of the Orinoco, a Dutchman
was found in possession of copies of a work in Spanish, apparently
printed in Holland, entitled “Epistola á los Peruleros,” consisting of a
Calvinistic catechism and exhorting the colonists to withdraw their
allegiance from Spain and ally themselves with the Dutch, whose colony
of Guiana was dangerously near. In 1732 a little book called “Paraiso
del alma” was seized in Santa Fe and, in 1757, some copies of Bishop
Palafox’s “Ejercicios devotos.” The moral phase of censorship had
manifested itself in 1736, when the commissioner at Panamá took from the
French astronomers, on their way to the equator to measure an arc of the
earth’s surface, an engraving of a woman which he regarded as indecent,
but when he sought to get possession of another, said to be even worse,
they assured him that it had been burnt and threatened to complain to
the king of the insult offered to them. So, in 1807, there were
denounced to the tribunal some watches brought by a Danish vessel, of
which the cases were enamelled with indecent pictures; the enamels were
destroyed and the watches were restored to the owner.[787]

In 1774 a more difficult question was forced upon the tribunal. José
Celestino Mutis, distinguished both as priest and physician and
professor in the Colegio Mayor of Santa Fe, in 1773, presided over some
conclusions in which the Copernican theory of the solar system was
defended. In June, 1774, the Dominicans of the Universidad Tomistica
resolved to celebrate other conclusions to prove the contrary by
Scripture and St. Augustin and St. Thomas, and that the Copernican
theory was intolerable for Catholics, indefensible and prohibited by the
Inquisition. Mutis addressed a defence of Copernicus to the viceroy, who
sent a copy to the commissioner; he transmitted it to the tribunal,
which submitted it to two calificadores. One of these reported that the
propositions were not subject to theological censure; the other held
that the Copernican system was opposed to Scripture and no Catholic
could defend it. The matter then passed into the hands of the
inquisitor-fiscal, who argued that all authors of greatest repute
detested the system as absolutely contrary to Scripture, repeatedly
condemned by the Roman Inquisition and, as some say, by Urban VIII. He
was especially shocked by an assertion of Mutis that the king had
ordered all Spanish universities to teach the works of Newton which were
based on Copernicus. Dr. Mutis, he added, was the first and only one
who, in this kingdom and perhaps in all America, had publicly declared
himself in favor of this system. Thereupon the tribunal, at a loss what
to do in a matter beyond its comprehension, sent all the papers to the
Suprema for instructions, and the latter discreetly filed them away
without answering.[788]

Of more practical importance was the manifesto of the French Constituent
Assembly on the rights of man, of which a Spanish version appeared under
the title of _Derechos del Hombre_. This was condemned in Cartagena by
edict published December 13, 1789. Then, in 1794, there was a sudden
command for its vigorous suppression. In almost identical phrase the
Viceroys of New Granada and Peru wrote to their respective tribunals,
describing it as a work destructive of social order and advocating
toleration. Every pains, they said, must be taken to hunt up every copy
and to ascertain when and how and from whom they came. The tribunals
accordingly exerted their utmost diligence, but were not rewarded by
finding a single copy.[789] Probably equal ill-success attended their
efforts to obey the orders of the Suprema to suppress _Gli Animali
parlanti_ of Giambattista Casti and to spare no pains in ascertaining
the possessors of the poem which, as a clever satire directed against
the vices and follies of kings and courts, was especially distasteful to
an autocratic monarch. The work had appeared in Paris in 1802 and these
orders came from the Suprema under date of May 23, 1803, although the
formal decree suppressing it was not issued until June 23, 1805, to be
followed, August 6th, by a similar papal prohibition.[790]

If the results of the labors of the tribunal in defence of the faith
were thus meagre, it was far more successful in its true vocation of
creating scandal, by incessant quarrels with the civil and
ecclesiastical authorities, and by its internal discords. Hardly had it
been organized when the Easter solemnities of 1611 offered occasion for
dissension, over questions of etiquette and precedence, with the secular
and spiritual powers, giving rise to antagonism throughout the district,
especially on the part of the bishops, who grudged the deprivation of
the jurisdiction which they had been accustomed to exercise in matters
of faith. They continued to disregard the exclusive functions of the
inquisitors, who complained bitterly of them as ignorant prelates, with
officials whose ignorance was equalled by their turbulence; they had few
duties to occupy them and they desired to retain this jurisdiction
because of the hold which it gave them over their subjects. It probably
would be unjust to estimate them by one of their number, Fray Juan
González de Mendoza, Bishop of Popayan, who, on his arrival at Cartagena
in 1610, introduced the practice of divination with sticks, which he
asserted to be allowed by the Inquisition and to be used by the queen
and the Duke of Lerma. It spread rapidly among all classes and, as all
divination was held to imply pact with the demon, the inquisitors were
greatly exercised and inquired anxiously of the Suprema, January 31,
1611, what they should do about it, to which apparently they received no
answer.[791]

Mañozca, arrogant, unscrupulous and ambitious, was the leading spirit of
the tribunal. He speedily made it apparent that, under his guidance, it
was to be the dominant power in the community, and that its awful
authority was to be restrained by no considerations of law or justice.
The governor, Diego Fernández de Velasco, was good-natured and made
every effort to keep on good terms with the inquisitors, but his
moderation only encouraged their insolence and at length, in a letter of
July 4, 1613, to the king, he poured forth his grievances. The tribunal,
he said, sought to render itself the supreme master and had become so
feared that the whole province was terrorized, so that, not only for the
inquisitors but for their servants and slaves, there was no law but
their own will. They were accustomed to arrest butchers, fishermen,
bakers and other dealers in provisions; to seize with violence the goods
of merchants and to summon and scold them for objecting. In two cases
Mañozca forced parties who imported cargoes of slaves to give him some
of them, whom he sold. They took, without notice, prisoners from the
public prisons and, on one occasion, when the gaoler asked for a
voucher, as requisite for his justification, the messenger wounded him
on the head with his sword and was not punished. The governor added
numerous instances of outrages on all classes, winding up with himself,
as having been publicly proclaimed as excommunicated in all the
churches.[792]

The regular Orders had equal cause of complaint and managed, with some
trouble, to send to Spain a procurator to represent that everything in
the convents was regulated by Mañozca’s powerful hand, whence it
resulted that many estimable frailes were unjustly punished, while those
were untouched who deserved to be castigated and reformed. This brought
upon Mañozca, from the Suprema, a severe reprimand with orders to
abstain from such interference.[793] Apparently the warning was
disregarded if we may believe a memorial addressed by a fraile, May 12,
1619, to the king, representing that to leave Mañozca at his post was to
keep a monster in the seat of an angel of light. This was substantiated
with ample details of his scandalous mode of life, his nocturnal sallies
in disguise and the general terror which he inspired, for terrorism was
the means by which he had become the ruler of all. When the secular
authorities sought to banish the courtezans and concubines he prevented
it and, when the preachers preached against them, he issued what he
called an _instruccion de predicadores_ in which he called them
dishonoring names and covered them with ridicule. The writer relates a
number of cases by which it appears that Mañozca controlled the local
courts and officials, dictating sentences and procuring that his
supporters escaped justice and won their suits, however unrighteous.
Moreover he gave occasion for an indefinite amount of smuggling;
arrivals were reported to him in advance of the custom officials, and he
received bribes--negro slaves and other things of value--to enable the
owners to defraud the customs--a matter presumably easy of
accomplishment through the supervision of all arrivals, by which the
Inquisition was empowered to prevent the intrusion of heretics and the
importation of heretic books.[794]

Quarrels with the bishops were incessant and only the bishop of Cuba,
Alfonso Henríquez de Almendáriz, who was old and self-willed and prompt
in quarrel, held his own, leading to numerous complaints of him by the
tribunal.[795] Then, towards the middle of 1619, there came a new
governor, García Giron, with whom there was speedily trouble. A negro
slave of Inquisitor Salcedo was refused meat by a negro in the market;
he complained to his master who gave him a paper requiring the dealer to
supply it. Armed with this, he struck the negro several times with the
flat of a _machete_, took what meat he wanted and told the man that, if
he wanted pay, he could send for the money. Thereupon Giron ordered a
prosecution; the inquisitors sent for the notary employed in it and
ordered him to surrender the papers under the customary threat of fine
and excommunication; the governor ordered him not to obey, but he was
finally obliged to pay the fine and deliver the papers.[796]

Complaints against Mañozca came pouring in upon the Suprema, especially
from members of the regular Orders, including whole convents, until it
found itself obliged to have an investigation made into his life and
morals. The result justified the accusations and it ordered him to
present himself in Madrid. He had no trouble in gathering
certificates--which no one dared to refuse--as to his good character and
conduct, with which he sailed for Spain, towards the end of July, 1620.
There he succeeded so completely in exonerating himself that, in April,
1621, the inquisitor-general wrote that his presence in the court being
no longer necessary, for the business on which he had been summoned, he
had been ordered to return to his post. Thus, after a year’s absence, he
reoccupied his seat in the tribunal, but only for a short time. With the
customary policy of the Holy Office, he was promoted to the more
important tribunal of Lima, to be elevated, in 1643, as we have seen, to
the archbishopric of Mexico. He remained, however, in Cartagena, until
the arrival of his successor, Agustin de Ugarte y Saravia, in the middle
of 1623.[797]

During his absence at the court, his colleague Salcedo had become
involved in a furious quarrel with the bishop, Diego de Torris
Altamirano, by forcibly taking from his prison a priest named Pedro de
Quesada, condemned to degradation and death for robbery and murder.
Quesada, through his confessor, informed the tribunal that he had a
deposition to make; Salcedo sent a message informally to the provisor to
send the culprit, who would be returned, but when the messenger went for
him, he was found fast in the stocks and the key carried off. The bishop
declared that he should not be delivered without a written demand, but
Salcedo sent a party of familiars, who carried him off by force and then
returned him within an hour--the object being simply to humiliate the
bishop and demonstrate the superior authority of the Inquisition.[798]
Salcedo and Altamirano both died in 1621, but the new bishop, Francisco
de Sotomayor, who arrived in 1622, became immediately involved in a
serious quarrel with Mañozca, which had to be referred to Spain for
settlement.[799]

In 1630 the Council of Indies presented to Philip IV a formal complaint
in thirty-four articles against the tribunal of Cartagena, which very
probably contributed to the enactment of the Concordia of 1633.[800]
Meanwhile a new governor, Francisco de Murga, had resolutely undertaken
to abate the insolence of the inquisitors and had become involved in
specially bitter quarrels with the inquisitor Vélez de Asas y Argos, who
had been promoted, in 1626, from the position of fiscal. In a letter of
December 12, 1632, the inquisitors describe him as the most dangerous
man on earth, for he daily framed a thousand devices to trip them up
and, if this could not be stopped, there would be no living in the city.
He was certainly audacious for one day he took from the executioner a
negro who was being scourged through the streets for heresy. For this
they excommunicated him, but when they sent officials and familiars to
notify him, he clapped them all into gaol and held them there under
heavy guard for twenty-four hours. Then he called a junta in the house
of the bishop and, by its advice, asked for absolution, which was
administered in a manner so humiliating that the Council of Indies
presented a formal complaint to the king. This did not tend to harmony
and the quarrel went on, to the discomfiture of the tribunal, showing
what a determined man could do, when supported by the universal
detestation in which the Inquisition was held. In fact, as the
inquisitors complained, in a letter of August 8, 1633, the mass of the
people held them in mortal hatred, which they could explain only by the
wiles of the devil seeking to obstruct their pious work.[801]

Meanwhile the home authorities were leisurely engaged in endeavoring to
reconcile the irreconcileable. A consulta of the Suprema, March 23,
1633, suggested measures to that effect but in vain. Philip IV adopted a
more practical course in ordering the Suprema to summon Vélez to Spain,
but it disobeyed and, when he repeated the order, it replied, May 3,
1635, that it was ready to obey but had deferred in expectation of his
replying to its consulta of May 26, 1634; besides, it had not yet
received the papers containing the inquisitors’ side of the matter. To
this the king replied by curtly commanding immediate compliance, but it
still dallied and it was not until 1636 that Vélez was compelled to
sail for Spain. At the same time the Suprema admitted the fault of the
tribunal by ordering the inquisitors, March 15, 1636, not to plot and
conspire against Murga nor, after his retirement, against his deputy and
officials. The sincerity of this was soon put to the test. Murga had
died before Vélez left Cartagena and, in April, 1636, the tribunal was
delighted to receive orders to arrest his deputy, Francisco de Llano
Valdés, who was asserted to be the cause of all the troubles. The order
was joyfully obeyed, but to little effect. In prison Llano Valdés became
intimate with Inquisitor Cortázar, for both were Biscayans; a false
certificate of illness was procured from the physician and he was given
his house as a prison; he was soon seen on the streets again and was
even called in frequently to administer torture, as the tribunal had no
official skilled in the art.[802]

The death of Murga did not end the debate, which was transferred to
Spain, where Vélez arrived in December, 1636. It dragged on with
customary procrastination. The Suprema urged his return to Cartagena,
declaring that his service had been most satisfactory, and that he had
been dishonored by being summoned to Spain without cause, which could
only be repaired by his restoration. The Council of Indies insisted that
he had exposed Cartagena to destruction and that he should be provided
for with a post in Spain. Philip IV sought to compromise the matter by
deciding against his return and that he should have one of the best
Spanish tribunals--it being the ordinary policy of the Inquisition that
when a man had proved his unfitness in one position, he should be
promoted to a higher station in which to exercise his powers of evil.
Finally it was settled that he should have the great tribunal of Mexico,
but the commander of the fleet, Don Carlos de Ibarra, ordered him to
take ship direct to Honduras and made public proclamation that no one
should receive him on board or carry him to Cartagena, under pain of
treason and confiscation. Then the Suprema, September 30, 1639, made a
final effort to obtain his restoration to Cartagena, but this failed and
he at last took his seat in the Mexican tribunal.[803]

Vélez had been on terms not much better with his colleague, Martin de
Cortázar y Ascarate, who accused him of endeavoring to encompass the
death of Llano Valdés in prison and of seeking to rule the tribunal with
a faction of the officials, consisting of the fiscal Juan Ortiz, his
son, the secretary Luis Blanco and the other secretary, Juan de Uriarte,
father-in-law of Blanco. As for Cortázar himself, two of the consultors,
Juan de Cuadros Peña and Rodrigo de Oviedo, wrote to the Suprema, August
10, 1635, representing his utter ignorance; he knew no Latin and his
Castilian was so imperfect as to be unintelligible; he was proud and
haughty and his cruelty was evinced by the savage tortures which he
inflicted on the accused. Then, on November 16, 1640, Ortiz was promoted
to the inquisitorship and his family had complete control.[804]

They used their power for their own enrichment, dividing among
themselves the moneys in the coffer and paying no debts unless they were
bribed. That they should soon be involved in strife with the
municipality, was inevitable. In 1641 an excessive scarcity caused by
the ravages of locusts led the cabildo, or city authorities, to
prescribe maximum prices for provisions and to order an examination into
the quantities of produce in the several plantations, so as to prevent
exportation. Ortiz and his officials claimed exemption from these
regulations; he ordered the secretary of the cabildo to furnish him with
its proceedings, that he might see which of the regidores voted for
them, so that he might imprison them, as was done with Don Cristóval de
Bermúdez and Don Baltasar de Escovar, on complaint of the servants of
the officials, for distributing provisions equally--arbitrary
imprisonment without observing any formalities or opportunity for
defence. Then, as the secretary did not comply with the demand, he was
similarly thrown in prison. When meat was brought into the city for
distribution the servants of the officials claimed whole carcasses,
which they cut up and retailed at excessive prices. Driven to
extremities, the city complained to the king of the violence of the
tribunal and the excesses of its officials, when Ortiz again demanded a
copy of the proceedings of the cabildo, leading to further intolerable
vexations, which caused it to send the regidor, Nicolás Heras Pantoja as
procurator to ask for a visitador.[805]

This imprisonment in the secret prison, we may remark, was an inveterate
abuse; it was in itself the severest punishment, as it implied heresy
and inflicted indelible infamy on the individual and his posterity. It
was the subject of repeated complaints and, at last, a consulta of the
Council of Indies, June 14, 1646, led the king to order the Suprema to
instruct the Cartagena tribunal not to molest the people; when any one
was arrested for matters not of faith, he must be placed in a decent
prison, outside of the Inquisition. The Suprema had already taken such
action in letters of April 28, 1645, and it repeated this July 28, 1646.
Yet a letter from Cartagena of June 10, 1649, represented that, in spite
of these orders, the inquisitors continued to throw many people into the
secret prison, for causes not of faith, till at length three citizens
who had been thus dishonored supplicated the king to remedy the great
injuries thus inflicted. The Council of Indies, in a consulta of
February 21, 1650, represented strongly to the king the disorders
arising from the disregard of his commands and urged that positive
orders to obey be given to the inquisitors. This he sent with his
endorsement to the Suprema, which, on April 8th, wrote to the tribunal
to observe its previous instructions--but without producing permanent
effect.[806]

Meanwhile the prayer of the city for a visitador had been answered after
a fashion, though not in consequence of its supplication. According to a
statement of the Suprema in 1646, it had, at the close of 1642,
determined to send an inspector to Lima and Cartagena, as those
tribunals had not been visited since their foundation. There had
recently been great sequestrations and confiscations, giving rise in
Lima to over two thousand lawsuits, while in Cartagena it was necessary
to investigate the settlements made with the claimants and the net
collections secured. There were no charges, it said, against the
inquisitors and it was only the financial matters that were concerned.
There was hesitation as to the selection of a visitor; he had to be an
old inquisitor and no one would accept the position without the
assurance of a good benefice in the Indies or of a place in the Suprema
itself. To give him more authority it was resolved to make him a member
of the Suprema and to swear him in before his departure. Unfortunately
the choice fell upon Dr. Martin Real, then serving in the tribunal of
Toledo, a man of learning and imbued with the highest conceptions of
inquisitorial authority, who had acted as visitor in Sicily, where he
earned the reputation of a breeder of troubles, through his ungovernable
temper and headstrong character. This was known to the Suprema, but it
was thought that what he had suffered in consequence of it and the
warnings that would be given would render him cautious. Philip IV
objected, in view of what had occurred in Sicily, and suggested other
names, but yielded on condition that he should not take the oath as
councillor until the day of his departure. Then the Council of Indies
protested against the appointment as dangerous to the peace of the
colonies, but the Suprema represented that the matter had gone too far
to be reconsidered without disgracing Real; that the opposition came
from those who desired to prevent the visitation and that it did not
concern the inquisitors but only the confiscations. The king made no
further objection and Real was duly commissioned and departed early in
1643.[807]

The result justified fully the apprehensions of Philip and the Council
of Indies, but it may be doubted whether the most even-tempered visitor,
honestly bent on performing his duty, could have averted an explosion.
The object of the mission was the investigation of the finances; there
can be little question that, as in the other tribunals, false reports
had been made as to the results of the enormous confiscations accruing
from the prosecution of the Judaizing New Christians, and an inspection
of the accounts was to be prevented at all hazards. The city was in a
state of combustion with the chronic quarrels between the tribunal and
the civil and military authorities. Real’s temper would not allow him to
be neutral and it was easy to create a situation which should preclude
the dreaded investigation. Such, at least, is the most rational
explanation of the events as they can be disentangled from the somewhat
conflicting accounts that have reached us.

Towards the end of July, 1643, Real arrived in Cartagena and with him
came a new inquisitor, Juan Bautista de Villadiego, a man nearly seventy
years of age, and a fiscal, Pedro Triunfo de Socaya. Real’s first act
was to forbid Ortiz and Uriarte from entrance to the secreto, evidently
with a view of examinating their accounts without interference, at the
same time handing them appointments to equivalent positions in Llerena
and Logroño--the favorite method used by the Suprema when officials had
destroyed their usefulness where they were. Villadiego however refused
to let Real have the keys of the money-chest, so the object of his
visitation was frustrated and he revenged himself by exceeding the
powers of his commission and assuming control of the tribunal. To obtain
the keys of the coffer he led a disorderly crowd to Villadiego’s house,
broke it open, personally assaulted him, seized the furniture and sold
it at auction to pay the fine which he had imposed on him. Real further
espoused the cause of the governor and cabildo and interfered by
liberating a secretary whom Villadiego had arrested in order to learn
who had voted against him. Then Villadiego endeavored to establish a
rival tribunal in his own house and appointed officials to run it, a
schism which lasted for two months, until Real judicially sentenced him
to consider his house as a prison. Villadiego thereupon, on the night of
February 11, 1644, with his own hands, posted notices that Real was
excommunicated and Real retorted by arresting him.

He was replaced by Juan Pereira Castro, who took possession as
inquisitor, August 22, 1644, and lost no time in organizing a faction
among the officials and the clergy against Real and was concerned in
libels upon him which were posted on the night of September 3d. For
this, on insufficient evidence, Real arrested Ortiz de la Masa, an
ecclesiastic of high standing, and proposed to torture him, which
created an immense scandal among both clergy and laity. Pereira in vain
endeavored to release him and, on January 25, 1645, he and Real
exchanged excommunications, resulting in an interdict under which the
city lay for many months. A few days later, on January 28th, Pereira,
the fiscal Socaya and the notary, Tomás de Vega, locked themselves up in
the tribunal for fear of arrest, and there they remained for seven
months, solacing their self-inflicted captivity with feasting and
gambling, while Real could neither get his salary nor the papers which
were necessary for the business of his visitation. Many of those whom he
had treated harshly hurried to Spain and brought suits against him in
the Suprema, and we hear of Socaya sending with them forty bars of
silver to substantiate their complaints.

The Suprema was not a little perplexed by the turn which affairs had
taken. It ordered Villadiego to be restored to his place in the
tribunal, an order received February 17, 1645, but it was accompanied
with a summons to present himself at court within four months. This he
disobeyed and recommenced to hold a tribunal in his own house, with the
object, as Pereira wrote in February, 1646, of diverting attention from
the scandals of his licentious life. To this Villadiego retorted by
accusing Pereira of defending the gaoler in his crimes with female
prisoners and of holding indecent banquets with him and the fiscal. The
only immediate solution to the troubles seemed to lie in the recall of
Real; he was ordered home and left Cartagena at the end of October,
1645. As the time of his arrival in Spain approached, the Suprema grew
uneasy at the prospect of receiving him as a member and, February 16,
1646, it presented a consulta to Philip IV containing a condensed
narrative of his doings and representing that his seat in the Council
was intended, not as a reward for past services but as an incentive to
those he was to render; his visitation had cost 20,000 pesos and had
brought no results, nor was it held advisable that he should be allowed
to repeat his performances in Lima. Besides, it would be indecent for
him to sit in judgement on the numerous suits brought against him in the
Suprema so that, all things being considered, it was suggested that his
membership should be suspended until those suits were settled--a
suggestion to which the king cordially assented.[808]

The inquisitors were not so busy quarrelling among themselves but that
they had leisure to keep up dissensions with the secular authorities. A
bitter struggle with the governor was occupying the court in 1644 and
1645, leading the Junta de Guerra de Indias, on November 9th of the
latter year, to urge that instructions be sent to the tribunal not to
excommunicate the governor and captain-general on account of the evils
that would result.[809] Then a consulta of the Council of Indies, March
7, 1647, complained of the invasions of secular jurisdiction, in
violation of the Concordia of 1610, causing regrettable disturbances. It
alluded especially to a competencia with the royal Audiencia of Santa Fe
over a civil case of the familiar Rodrigo de Oviedo y Luron, in which
1500 pesos were deposited with Capitan Francisco Beltran de Cairedo to
await the adjudication of the claims of his creditors, when the tribunal
stepped in and seized the money, although it had no jurisdiction over
the civil cases of familiars. The Council therefore asked that the
tribunal be ordered to abstain from civil cases and that its
competencias with the Audiencias of Santa Fe, Panamá and Santo Domingo
be settled--an appeal to which the king returned no answer, as he
doubtless transmitted it to the Suprema, where it probably lay
buried.[810]

As long as Real was on the ground, Villadiego and Pereira united in
efforts to destroy him, but as soon as he departed they quarrelled and,
in February 1646, Pereira commenced a prosecution against his colleague
for holding a tribunal in his own house. The only hope of restoring the
Inquisition to decency and usefulness seemed to lie in another
visitation. This time the choice fell upon Pedro de Medina Rico,
Inquisitor of Seville, whom we have already met in his subsequent
discharge of similar duties in Mexico. He arrived in Cartagena, December
11, 1648, and found everything in disorder. As he wrote, May 19, 1649,
the prisoners were rotting in the dungeons, some of whom had been lying
there for eight years. He set vigorously at work with the cases, but it
was difficult to make progress. There was no clock in the city; the
hours were announced by the soldiers of the guard in the streets with a
bell, but they were irregular and little attention was paid to them. The
officials came late to their duties and left early; Pereira was
especially brief in his attendance and, when he came, thought of nothing
but getting away. Medina Rico therefore begged the Suprema to send out a
fitting person to serve as secretary and also two inquisitors of
learning and probity; Pereira was worthy of severe punishment and ought
on no account to be allowed to remain.[811]

Medina Rico of course was at once involved in bitter antagonism with the
officials whom he had come to reform; his powers however were limited
and he was unable to use censures or arrest, which put him at a
disadvantage, and there were no such exhibitions of violence as
characterized the visitation of his predecessor. The Governor Pedro
Zapata, moreover, took sides with the incumbents and wrote to the
Council of Indies complaining that the city had been kept in a turmoil
for ten years, attributable to the delay of the visitadors in completing
their visitations. Real had been there for two years and returned,
leaving the task incomplete and now Medina Rico has been at work for a
year, with no prospect of completion, on account of which the city is in
great affliction, dreading a renewal of former disturbances. Philip
transmitted this to the Suprema, March 13, 1649, ordering, for the sake
of peace, that Medina Rico be instructed to finish as speedily as
possible. To this the Suprema replied that the illness of Pereira had
thrown the unfinished business of the tribunal on Medina Rico, but that
orders had already been despatched to him to complete his task without
loss of time. Zapata continued his complaints and the Marquis of Miranda
de Auta, President of the Audiencia of Santa Fe, joined in condemning
his arbitrary acts; in civil cases he had arrested the procurators of
pleaders and he had issued letters to the judges of the Audiencia
threatening that in three days they would be posted as excommunicates.[812]

Medina Rico’s task was difficult for the abuses of the tribunal were so
inveterate that the sharpest measures were necessary. Real’s report,
based on 231 witnesses, brought sixty-eight charges against Villadiego
and a hundred and thirteen against Pereira, but his hurried departure
had prevented his submitting it to the accused for their defence and it
therefore could not be acted upon. Fresh evidence was naturally hard to
obtain. The people knew the power of Pereira and Uriarte and that they
were favored by the governor and the Bishop of Santa Marta; they had
seen the failure of Real’s visitation and anticipated the same result
from the present one, when vengeance would follow on all who deposed
against them. Medina Rico was therefore obliged to proceed cautiously.
He states that he had to take precautions against attempts on his life
by Uriarte and that such fears were not groundless for there was
evidence in his hands that the former notary, Luis Blanco del Salcedo,
was poisoned by his wife and the Inquisitor Juan Ortiz, then receiver,
who subsequently married her; Inquisitor Cortázar was poisoned by Ortiz
and Uriarte, who intercepted his letters accusing them to the Suprema.
Rodrigo de Oviedo was killed by order of Uriarte, whose accomplice he
had been. There was, he said, every facility for such crimes in this
land filled with evil negroes; it was held for certain that in this way
perished Bishop Cristóbal de Lazárraga and all his family; to poison was
attributable the death of Juan de Lorrigui, acting fiscal, and also that
of the governor who was in office at the time of his arrival.[813]

In spite of these apprehensions he gathered evidence, confirmatory of
Real’s charges and of subsequent misdeeds and, under pressing orders to
betake himself to Mexico, towards the summer of 1650 he drew up
accusations against the inquisitors and the chief officials. Those
against Pereira were virtually the same as Martin Real’s. Villadiego he
accused of friendship with Jews who had been penanced, of receiving
gifts and loans from them and using them as agents to sell goods for
him; he was continually exacting gifts and abused those who refused them
and there was also his general licentiousness with women. The fiscal,
Bernardo de Eyzaguirre, was charged with embezzling the money of the
prisoners. Secretary Uriarte he accused of selling his influence to the
kindred of those on trial, giving them information and advice and
arranging to bribe the consultors and episcopal Ordinary; of
encompassing the death of his accomplice Rodrigo de Oviedo, who
threatened to denounce him; of falsifying the accounts and robbing the
tribunal to the amount of 200,000 pesos; after the death of Cortázar, he
had a secret door made by which he entered the secreto to commit these
thefts and he embezzled the property of the accused by bribing those in
charge of it, in addition to all which his life was scandalously
incontinent. Against Juan Ortiz he reproduced the sixty general charges
made by Real and added seventy-nine special ones of the same
character--bribery, receiving presents, appropriating the property of
prisoners, falsified accounts, subornation and violence--when a butcher
did not give him the best meat, he summoned him to the tribunal and
struck him a blow on the head that left him senseless.[814]

In July, 1650, there arrived a new fiscal, Juan de Mesa, who was to be
associated with Medina Rico, in case Uriarte recused him, as in fact he
did. Pereira had become so apprehensive as to the results of the
visitation that Mesa, on August 4th, in handing him the charges, told
him that they would kill him. It so turned out. Pereira took them and
pondered over them until midnight. In the morning he sent for a
physician who at once told him that his case was hopeless and, on the
13th, he was dead. Uriarte followed him to the grave, on February 1,
1651, and Medina Rico’s task was accomplished. He was under orders to
start for Mexico, but was detained by prolonged illness and did not
leave Cartagena until June 8, 1654.[815]

The perennial quarrels with the authorities continued, of which the
Council of Indies complained in a consulta to Philip IV, May 14,
1652.[816] Matters were not improved when, about this time, there came a
new inquisitor, Diego del Corro Carrascal, followed shortly by Pedro de
Salas y Pedroso as fiscal, who was soon promoted to the inquisitorship.
He was so completely dominated by his senior that the Suprema took him
to task, after which he manifested his independence by perpetual
_discordias_, which left the accused perishing in the prison, awaiting
the slow decisions in Spain. Corro Carrascal moreover was rebuked by the
Suprema for cruelty and for speculating on the operations of the
tribunal by having the confiscations bought in for him at the auctions
at low prices. His dissolute life was so notorious that Governor Zapata
said that his going out at night in disguise and having amours with
married women passed into a proverb.[817] The dissension between the
inquisitors grew bitterer until, in 1658, they had a common object of
dislike in a new fiscal, Guerra de Latrás, a man who had had a somewhat
distinguished career as doctor of laws, professor and author, and who
had served in various important positions. The Suprema had often
reproved the tribunal for its disregard of established procedure and
Guerra sought to reduce it to order, bringing upon himself the
hostility of the inquisitors, who characterized his representations as
childish. Early in 1660 he had a fall from his mule and broke his arm,
which incapacitated him from writing; the inquisitors refused to allow
him to employ an assistant and the business of the tribunal was
paralyzed. In 1665 Corro Carrascal was made President of New Granada,
Salas fell sick and was absent for weeks at a time and, in this atrophy,
the Inquisition ceased to inspire awe or even respect. The opportunity
was propitious for the secular power to reassert itself, and the
Governor, Benito de Figueroa y Barrantes, availed himself of it. August
23, 1666, meeting the executioner who was scourging two penitents
through the accustomed streets, he sent three of his soldiers to release
them. The tribunal prosecuted the soldiers and, on the 29th, had two of
them arrested by its secretary, Gonzalo de Carvajal, who, in the
process, fired a shot and had a struggle with one of the soldiers.
Figueroa thereupon surrounded the Inquisition with guards to starve out
the inmates; Guerra sought an interview and agreed to surrender the
prisoners but, four days later, the governor arrested Carvajal, threw
him fettered into the public prison, sequestrating his property and
taking his confession in the torture-chamber. Guerra and Salas proceeded
to prosecute the governor and proclaimed a _cessatio a divinis_. The
bishop intervened and Carvajal was relieved of his chains, but remained
in prison. The affair completely discredited the Inquisition; as the new
fiscal, Montoyo y Angulo, reported, April 16, 1669, there was no petty
official who did not think himself able to give orders to those of the
tribunal.[818]

It had not, however, as yet reached the depth of its degradation. Salas
had died, December 28, 1667; Guerra had been promoted some months
earlier to the inquisitorship and he too died March 21, 1671, leaving
the fiscal Luis de Bruna Rico alone. Then, August 19, 1673, there came a
new inquisitor, Juan Gómez de Mier, followed, in 1674, by a colleague,
Alvaro Bernardo de Quirós, and a new fiscal, José de Padilla, Bruna Rico
having been transferred to Lima. The colleagues speedily quarrelled and
Padilla joined Mier to oppose Quirós. The latter, on his arrival, had
observed the abuses current in the importation of merchandise and slaves
and wrote on the subject to the Council of Indies. The governor, who was
compromised, succeeded in winning him over, so that he spent most of his
time in the governor’s house card-playing and wrote to the Council,
withdrawing his charges. It was too late, however, for Juan de Mier y
Salinas, a judge at Santa Fe, was commissioned to investigate and came
to Cartagena, where he lodged in the house of his uncle, the Inquisitor
Mier. The two commenced making arrests and the inculpated took asylum in
the churches. Among them was a friend of Quirós, who exerted himself in
vain to protect him, and in failing to do so broke definitely with his
colleague. He allied himself closely with the governor, for whom he drew
up edicts, notably one in 1678 which, under pretext of a threatened
attack by the French, discharged all the prisoners and put an end to the
prosecutions. He is described as wandering around at all hours of the
day and night, mingling with every body, even dancing in public and
universally despised. Mier’s association with his nephew the judge
brought upon him a shower of denunciations; he held relations with the
English of Jamaica, who sent him negroes; these he entered at night as
prisoners of the Inquisition, guarded by the alguazil mayor, through
whom, moreover, he sold positions--commissionerships and the like--to
all who would pay for them. The fiscal Padilla shut himself up in his
house and would see no one. The master spirit of the tribunal was the
secretary, Miguel de Echarri, to whom were attributed all the evil deeds
of Mier. Every one went to him for the distribution of favors; his
anteroom was like that of a viceroy and presents were showered upon him;
he was assiduous in the gambling-houses and, as Fray Juan Cabeza de Vaca
had written, January 30, 1670, “while he is in this city there will
neither be peace in the tribunal nor will the people be without a demon
to disturb everybody and keep them in open war.”[819]

This state of affairs continued for years. Mier was transferred to
Mexico and Quirós to Lima in December, 1681, leaving as sole inquisitor
Padilla, who died March 31, 1682, appointing as successor ad interim the
Archdeacon Andrés de Torres. Matters took a new aspect with the arrival,
March 27, 1683, of a new inquisitor, Francisco Valera, who had filled
important offices in Lima. He dismissed Torres and made Echarri fiscal;
he gave five hours a day, in the tribunal, to cases of faith and three
hours in his house to affairs of property. He pushed the pending trials
to conclusion and in five months, August 29th, he celebrated an auto de
fe.[820] Under such a man the tribunal was speedily lifted from its
degradation, but he had the defects of his qualities, and his imperious
temper speedily involved him in a struggle of which the scandal was
greater than that of any previous one.[821]

In 1681, two years before Valera’s arrival, there had come to Cartagena
a new bishop, Manuel de Benavides y Piedrola, who seems to have been
impulsive and inconsiderate. Almost at once he fell into trouble by
listening to the prayer of the nuns of Santa Clara, who desired to
transfer their obedience from the Franciscans to the episcopal provisor,
leading to a contest which was envenomed by the bishop’s endeavor to
restrain the disorderly intercourse between friars and nuns. Castillo de
la Concha, the President of New Granada, ranged himself against the
bishop, on whom a sentence of banishment was pronounced, to which he
replied by casting an interdict on the city and leaving it. The populace
took sides with a vehemence which led to frequent riots and almost to
civil war, during which the nuns sustained a siege of six months.

Valera, on seeing the condition of affairs, endeavored to make peace and
sought the bishop in his retreat, but was unsuccessful and his
disappointment was aggravated by the bishop’s refusal to allow him to
celebrate mass in his own house during the interdict. On his return to
Cartagena he boldly celebrated mass, which greatly encouraged the
anti-episcopal faction. Matters however seemed to be settling down,
when, by order of President Castillo, Diego de Baños, Bishop of Santa
Marta, came to Cartagena and removed the interdict. The two bishops
exchanged excommunications and the quarrel became fiercer and more
intricate than ever. Castillo ordered Benavides to leave the diocese,
but he refused and excommunicated the governor and all the authorities;
in fact, his enemies said that he had a mania for such censures and once
excommunicated an object which he saw through the blinds of a balcony,
without knowing whether it was a bag of cocoa or a sack of wool.

Valera was not long in being involved in the conflict. The authorities
had armed the citizens and broke by force into the cathedral, seizing
three ecclesiastics, whom the governor threw into the fort of Bocachica;
one of them, Baltasar de la Fuente, was a commissioner of the tribunal
and claimed the fuero, but Valera refused to come to his assistance.
When, however, the governor ordered Benavides to withdraw the censures,
the latter excommunicated Gerónimo Isabal, the advocate who signed the
letter, and it chanced that he was also acting advocate of prisoners in
the tribunal, though without a commission, and Valera sprang to his
assistance and demanded the papers. Benavides retorted with an edict
declaring that Isabal was not entitled to the fuero for defect of title,
that Valera had incurred censures for not protecting la Fuente and that
he, as episcopal inquisitor, would supply any deficiencies in the
tribunal. One account states that as Valera kept himself housed, the
bishop went there personally and affixed the edict to his door; another
asserts that he led a mob of negroes and mulattos to seize the
inquisitor, who barely escaped by a back door and took refuge in the
tribunal.

The edict was printed and posted throughout the town, when the alguazil
mayor of the Inquisition tore it down and arrested the ecclesiastics who
were concerned in it. Benavides went to the tribunal to rescue them and
was contumeliously refused admittance; the governor came and a scene
ensued, the accounts of which are irreconcileable, but which served
still further to scandalize the people and inflame the passions of both
sides. The unlucky clerics, after two years of prison, were fined and
exiled. Benavides meanwhile had the cathedral bells tolled for an
interdict, when all the other bells in the city were rung to drown
them--a brazen warfare to which the people had become accustomed. Then
he ordered a _cessatio a divinis_, but the convents refused to observe
it; the Bishop of Santa Marta pronounced it null and Valera posted a
declaration that he raised it. The Audiencia of Santa Fe had ordered the
expulsion of Benavides and now it fined him 4000 pesos for delay in
executing the decree. The cathedral was surrounded with guards; the
chapter fortified it, but the Bishop of Santa Marta had the doors broken
open and ordered the chapter, to declare the see vacant. On their
refusal, the provisor, treasurer and _maestre-escuela_ were arrested and
the cathedral was handed over to priests of his faction. A certain Don
Gómez de Atienza declared that he wished Benavides had come forward to
resist this desecration, for he would have finished him. The vengeance
of heaven was not long delayed, for that night a tempest of unexampled
violence burst over Cartagena; the lightning sought out Atienza in the
midst of his family and slew him, while another bolt struck his farm in
the country, burnt his granaries and killed his mules. He was buried
with much pomp by the Bishop of Santa Marta and his dead mules were
hidden, to keep the people in ignorance.

A new governor, Juan Martínez Pando, on his arrival was ordered by the
Audiencia to remove Benavides, but it was impossible to ship him away,
for the buccaneers commanded the sea. He was confined in his house under
strict guard and his temporalities were seized. The clergy and people
who were faithful to him were arrested, banished and their properties
confiscated. The nuns of Santa Clara refused to recognize the confessors
appointed for them, when the convent was broken open and in spite of
their resistance they were beaten and confined on bread and water, while
some of them were put in irons. The Archbishop of Santa Fe had ordered
the Bishop of Santa Marta to retire and leave Benavides in possession,
but the mandate was taken from the messenger, was pronounced to be
forged, and prosecutions were brought against all who professed
obedience to it.

Matters took a sudden turn when there came a royal cédula of May 16,
1683, addressed to Valera ordering him to replace Benavides in his see,
which he accordingly did with extraordinary pomp. That he was master of
the situation was generally recognized and peace for a time was
restored, although he refused the bishop’s demand for the return of the
clergy and domestics whom he had exiled. Then Benavides’ position was
further strengthened by a papal brief of November 3, 1683, based wholly
on the adverse representations of the Audiencia, ordering the nuns of
Santa Clara to be remitted to his care. Thus the original cause of
quarrel was settled and the troubles which followed were a simple trial
of strength between the episcopacy and the Inquisition.

Passions had not yet exhausted themselves and the struggle for supremacy
had not been decided. A new element of discord came with the arrival in
November, 1684, of another inquisitor, Juan Ortiz de Zárate, who
regarded Valera as having been timid and irresolute in the quarrel and
boasted of his own unyielding firmness. Causes of dissension were not
lacking and open war broke out when Benavides removed, perhaps with
unnecessary violence, seats which the inquisitors had placed in the
church, giving as a reason the “tertulia” or talkative crowd thus
attracted. Thereupon they excommunicated the bishop and ordered his name
to be omitted from the mass, to enforce which they excommunicated, fined
and banished the dean and the Prior of San Agustin for including it. The
bishop had torn down the edicts of his excommunication, had
ostentatiously celebrated mass and had ordered the arrest of the clergy
who would not assist him, which led the tribunal to order him to keep
his house as a prison, an order enforced by obtaining from the governor
a guard which rendered him practically a prisoner. During this turmoil
it is easy to imagine the condition of the community, terrorized by the
Inquisition. The majority of the people, we are told, favored the
bishop, but were afraid of the absolute power exercised by the tribunal,
with the support of the governor. The better part of the clergy saved
themselves by flight and there was general demoralization. To render
their victory complete the inquisitors assembled the chapter in order to
have the see declared vacant. All but two voted in the negative and left
the room, when the remaining two declared the vacancy and elected
provisors to govern the diocese.

Then three vessels arrived from Spain which it was hoped would bring
despatches putting an end to the troubles. Nothing was given out as to
their nature, but it was observed that each night the guard at the
bishop’s palace was reduced until it was entirely withdrawn and
Benavides was released after a confinement that had lasted from April 13
to August 22, 1687. At the same time there arrived Gómez Suárez de
Figueroa as inquisitor to replace Valera, who had been transferred to
Lima early in 1685 but who had awaited the arrival of his successor; he
sailed September 2, 1687, reaching Panamá on the 23d and Lima in June,
1688.

Suárez at first seemed inclined to deprecate the excesses of his
predecessor, but the traditions and interest of the Inquisition were too
strong and he soon yielded to them. The tribunal still held the bishop
to be excommunicated. The news of the terrible earthquake of Lima, March
9, 1687, improved by the preachers, caused a wave of religious fervor in
which many persons abandoned their scandalous lives and applied to
Benavides for licences to marry but, when the banns were published, the
inquisitors excommunicated the officiating priests. They also gave
notice that all who communicated with the bishop must seek absolution at
their hands--an absolution which they ostentatiously administered.
Seeing them thus determined to carry on war to the knife, he resolved to
publish a papal brief of January 15, 1687, which he had received. This
treated the matter as exclusively a quarrel between him and Valera; it
recognized fully the justice of his side and stated that the nuncio at
Madrid had been ordered to prevail with the king that all his rights
should be restored to him and that he should have public satisfaction
for injuries endured. Although this brief had passed the Royal Council,
when he applied to the civil authorities for aid in its publication this
was refused and when he circulated copies the inquisitors stigmatized it
as a forgery. They filled their prison with the bishop’s supporters and
they garrotted in the plaza a Franciscan named Francisco Ramírez,
without observing any formalities or even degrading him from holy
orders--a tragedy in which the governor, Francisco de Castro, acted the
part of executioner.

A new governor, Don Martin de Ceballos y la Cerda, brought with him a
royal cédula, ordering the restitution of the bishop to his full rights
and jurisdiction. This was received with rejoicings, which showed how
few had been really opposed to him, although terrorism had forced men to
dissemble. One article of the cédula, however, commanding the
restitution of all fines and confiscated property, was not obeyed,
because the judge commissioned to enforce it belonged to the
inquisitorial faction and had the support of Ceballos, with whom the
bishop had speedily quarrelled. This encouraged the tribunal to a
renewal of molestation. When the bishop ordered the prosecution of
Doctor Francisco Javier de Cárdenas, for abuses committed in a
visitation, the inquisitors threatened the provisor that, if he did not
release Cárdenas, he should be imprisoned as the bishop had been. During
the troubles the tribunal had been conducted without the necessary
concurrence of an episcopal Ordinary. To remedy this, Benavides
appointed Don José Pedro Medrano to act, but the inquisitors took away
his commission and refused to allow him to serve. Seeing that the
contest was endless, the bishop resolved to present himself at the court
and embarked in an English vessel for London, but hearing in Jamaica of
the expulsion of James II, he returned to Cartagena to await the
arrival of the Spanish galleons. When they came, they brought a despatch
calling him to Madrid and he accompanied them on their return.

At this point the narrative in both Groot and Medina fails us and we
know nothing of his reception at court, except that it was not wholly to
his satisfaction. We learn from a consulta of the Council of Indies, in
1696, that Innocent XI had rendered a decision invalidating the
excommunications uttered by the inquisitors and affirming those
proclaimed by the bishop and that all comprised under the latter must
obtain absolution. To do this would be so unexampled a humiliation that
the Suprema had not enforced it, and Benavides had, without asking the
royal permission, gone to Rome to accomplish its execution. This placed
him in antagonism with all Spanish traditions and, in 1695, the
ambassador was endeavoring to obtain papal authority to carry him back
to Spain, but apparently without success, for in 1696 he was still
there. The indomitable old man died in Cádiz, but in what year is not
known and the see remained vacant until 1713.[822]

However the Suprema may have interposed to prevent the humiliation of
the inquisitors, it set its seal of disapprobation on Valera. His
transfer to Lima indicates that it considered, early in the quarrel,
that his usefulness in Cartagena was ended. His action during the
interval between 1685 and 1688 evidently confirmed the unfavorable
impression and, as we have seen, he was met, on his arrival at Lima,
with orders from the Suprema to return to Spain--orders which he
evaded--and in 1691 the Viceroy Moncada was instructed by the king to
ship him home. As this was merely a royal command, it received no
attention, and he continued to exercise his functions; apparently he had
profited by experience for we hear of no controversies with either the
spiritual or temporal power. With the advent of the Bourbon dynasty,
however, there came a determination to curb inquisitorial exuberance and
his Cartagena performances were not forgotten. In 1703 there came
orders from both the king and inquisitor-general to jubilate him on half
his salary, the other half being applied to the Church of Cartagena, in
consideration of the controversy which he had with it, thus condemning
him to make to it such reparation as he could. The sentence came too
late, however, as he had died on August 2, 1702.[823]

Governor Ceballos had no reason to congratulate himself on siding with
the tribunal against Bishop Benavides. Its excesses had convinced the
court that some thorough change was necessary if peace and harmony were
to be restored in the colony and a Junta of two members each, of the
Suprema and of the Council of Indies, was ordered to carry it into
effect, but these intentions were balked by the members of the Suprema
never meeting their colleagues.[824] Nothing was done and the absence of
the bishop left the tribunal in absolute command of the city. How
despotically it exercised its authority is shown in a plaintive despatch
of Governor Ceballos, January, 1693, reciting how the butcher of the
public shambles having refused to give the preference to a negro of
Inquisitor Suárez, the latter sent the gaoler of the secret prison to
bring the butcher bound to the prison or, if he could not be found, then
one of the regidores of the city in his place. The butcher was found and
thrown into the prison, where he was still lying. The governor says that
he was afraid to take the proper steps and contented himself with
addressing a civil request to Suárez, which was disregarded. He found it
impossible to get legal evidence as to the affair, for witnesses were in
such terror that they would make no formal depositions. On January 13th,
after drawing up a despatch on the subject, he went to his residence,
whither came Secretary Luna of the tribunal, accompanied by a mob of
followers and, with much disturbance, required him under threat of major
excommunication and other censures to sign letters declaring that the
case belonged to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition and that he
abandoned it; also that all references to the matter be erased from the
books of the municipality and all the papers be delivered to the
tribunal. In this strait he consulted with Don Francisco Gorrechategui,
President of the Royal Audiencia of Santa Fe, and Don Fernando de la
Riva Aguero, Judge of the Audiencia of Panamá, but they could render him
no assistance; he was helpless and, for the sake of peace, he submitted
to the demands of the Inquisition.[825] When such was the condition to
which the tribunal had reduced the civil and military power in
Cartagena, we need no further explanation of the ease with which the
French adventurers captured it in 1697.

That catastrophe, as we have seen, was the turning-point in the history
of the tribunal, which thenceforth rapidly declined. In 1705, Pablo de
Ozaeta took possession as fiscal and found himself alone, in consequence
of the severe illness of Inquisitor Lazaeta, until the arrival of Manuel
de Verdeja y Cosio as his colleague. There was a lively quarrel on foot
with the governor, Juan Díaz Pimienta, to whom the tribunal had imputed
the concealment of the property of a person deceased. The two
secretaries, Echarri and Ventura de Urtecho, took his part and were
excommunicated and arrested, Urtecho being banished for eight years and
Echarri ordered to leave the city within twenty-four hours, while his
son was thrown into the secret prison. On the other hand, Pimienta
seized Luis de Cabrera, the notary of sequestrations, and threw him into
the fort of Bocachica, where he died in the course of eight months, and,
on another occasion, acting on a royal order, he took, from Lazaeta’s
house, Julian Antonio de Tejada, who had been sent out to report on the
capture. To avenge these insults, the tribunal commenced twenty-four
prosecutions against the governor, but it was in no position to assert
itself. In a letter of February 27, 1706, it exhaled its griefs. Ozaeta
and Verdeja were ailing--one wanted to go to Spain and the other to be
transferred to Mexico. Everything was in ruin; the money coffer was
empty; for ten years no galleons had arrived; Pimienta slighted Lazaeta
at every turn, so that for eighteen months he had been obliged to shut
himself up in his house. As for Ozaeta, Verdeja, in a letter of
September 13th, accused him of devoting himself wholly to trade. He had
brought merchandise with him and was the agent of foreign merchants,
whose goods he introduced without paying duties, and there was no
business of this kind, throughout the extensive district of the
tribunal, that was not under his control. He was allowed to enjoy this
profitable commerce until 1716, when he returned to Spain and was
rewarded with an appointment to the tribunal of Llerena.[826]

He was replaced in Cartagena by Tomás Gutiérrez Escalante who did as
little honor as his predecessor to the Holy Office, though he retained
his position until his death, in 1738. He was involved in bitter
quarrels with the governor, Francisco Baloco, of which the details are
lacking, though we may assume that he was in fault, for constant
complaints of him were sent to the Suprema, and the Bishop Molleda y
Clerque (1734-41) accused him of interfering in matters beyond his
jurisdiction and that in his house there was nothing but banquets and
gambling. One of these feasts was given in honor of the saint’s day of a
young mulatto girl whom he kept and whom his guests had to honor.[827]
After this we cease to hear of troubles with the civil authorities, but
the dissensions between the officials of the tribunal continued to the
end of the century and the exhortations and commands of the Suprema were
fruitless in maintaining harmony.[828]

       *       *       *       *       *

The financial history of the tribunal, at least during the seventeenth
century, is similar to that which we have already traced in Mexico and
Peru. As we have seen, when Philip III established it in 1610 he was
careful to specify that the royal subvention of 8400 ducats was to
continue only as long as the confiscations and fines and penalties were
insufficient; the receiver was ordered to furnish a yearly statement of
his receipts which were to be deducted from the payments to be made by
the treasury. Clearly as this program was laid out, it is perhaps
needless to say that it never received the slightest attention from the
tribunal. It had not been long in operation when the fruits of its
industry began to pour in. A letter of July 22, 1621, conveyed the
pleasing information that it had secured the handsome sum of 149,000
pesos from the confiscated estate of the Judaizer Francisco Gómez de
Leon.[829] Windfalls such as this were of course exceptional, but a more
or less steady stream of smaller amounts can scarce have failed to
reward its activity. Still this brought no relief to the royal treasury,
which was regularly called upon for the subvention and, in 1630, we
chance to hear of the complaints of the treasury officials, who were
summoned before the tribunal and scolded when they had not funds
wherewith to meet the demands promptly.[830] In 1633 there duly came the
suppression of a canonry in every cathedral of the district for the
benefit of the tribunal--a measure designed for the relief of the royal
treasury--but the revenues of the prebends were quietly absorbed without
relaxing hold on the subvention.

Wealth flowed in with the discovery of Judaizers in 1636, whose
confiscations were announced in the auto de fe of March 25, 1638. That
of Juan Rodriguez Mesa amounted to 65,000 pesos; that of Blas de Paz
Pinto to 50,000; of Francisco Rodríguez Pinto to 40,000, while the
smaller ones brought the aggregate up to 200,000, as reported, June,
1638, by Andrés de Castro the receiver who assuredly did not exaggerate,
and besides this there were confiscations in Havana amounting to
150,000.[831] In 1639 there came orders to sell at auction three _varas_
of alguaziles, one each in Santa Fe, Caracas and Popayan, but
competition was not eager and we do not know the amount realized.[832]
The tribunal was evidently accumulating abundant capital, although it
was obliged to contribute a part of its gains to the Suprema. In 1644
the latter alludes to a remittance shortly expected from Cartagena of
about 10,000 ducats; by a letter of September 24, 1650, it appears that
the tribunal admitted to having on hand 187,677 pesos; according to a
certificate of June 30, 1659, there had been deposited in the money
coffer 430,414 pesos and, although there had been more than 100,000
remitted to the Suprema, there was ample left. In addition there were
houses and lands; there were 95,332 invested in censos, yielding about
4000 a year but the royal subvention was still regularly collected, the
8400 ducats being reckoned at 11,500 pesos.[833]

The subvention continued to be paid though, with the increasing penury
of the Spanish treasury, it was apt to be in arrears. In 1670 we find
the Suprema ordering the tribunal to use gentle methods; it learns that
the garrison is unpaid and therefore the fault may be with the governor;
the last payment collected was for the _tercio_ (four months) of
November, 1668, and the annual amount alluded to is 8400 ducats. The
tribunal was not satisfied and, in its replies of May 6 and October 8,
1671, it asks for permission to apply pressure; the governor excuses
himself by the expenditures necessary to provide for the safety of the
place, but these pretexts will never be lacking, the civil salaries are
regularly paid and the garrison is partially so. Yet the arrearage to
the tribunal had been diminished and was reduced to only three tercios,
showing that at least two years’ subvention had been collected during
the past twelvemonth.[834] Then the arrearage increased and on April 17,
1674, the tribunal reported it at nearly eighteen months, whereupon the
Suprema, February 3, 1675, addressed a strong remonstrance to the
queen-regent, threatening that if the officials were not paid regularly
they would be obliged to desert their posts; it recapitulated the
financial history of the tribunal; the royal grant, in 1610, of 8400
ducats per annum, until the confiscations and fines and penances should
suffice, followed by the suppression of the prebends in 1633, and it had
the effrontery to assert that since then the prebends and fines and
penances had been deducted from the subvention; the royal officials
asserted that there were no moneys appropriated for the purpose, and
that they could not pay without special orders, wherefore the queen was
asked to make the subvention a first charge on the treasury. Against
this the Council of Indies protested vigorously on March 9th, going over
the whole history of the matter and pointing out that whatever was paid
to the Inquisition must be withdrawn from the protection of the coasts,
ravaged constantly by the buccaneers, and especially of Cartagena, which
was the object of their special cupidity. In fact, large expenditures
were made on the defences of the city, which was the entrepôt of the
shipments of the precious metals to Spain; as the Council stated, the
royal treasuries of Santa Fe and Quito had already been drawn upon to
the amount of 17,390,300 mrs. for that purpose.[835]

The debate went on, without either side abandoning its position. The
Suprema, on May 11, 1676, insisted that the subvention was a necessity
for the tribunal. Five of the canonries produced a total of only 2535
pesos and the sixth, of Puerto Rico, only about 100; the revenues from
investments were 5491 pesos while the expenses were 18,770, so that even
with the subvention there was a deficit. It is evident that not much
faith was felt in these figures, for the Count of Peñaranda, in a
consulta of December 10, 1677, pointed out that there never had been any
statement furnished as to the amount of the confiscations and fines and
penances, nor had any effort been made to obtain from Cartagena and
Peru, as there had been from Mexico, restitution of the sums improperly
obtained from the treasury, to which they were evidently large enough to
afford sensible relief.[836]

In some Cartagena documents of 1684 we find the first evidence that the
treasury had the benefit of other receipts of the tribunal. On June 2d
the receiver presented to Inquisitor Valera a dolorous complaint as to
the financial condition. In the failure to collect the royal subvention
it had been impossible to pay the salaries and other expenses without
drawing upon the funds held for creditors of confiscated estates
awaiting settlement. The buildings of the Inquisition and its houses
were out of repair and threatening ruin; the last payment obtained from
the treasury was up to the end of October, 1678, since when there had
accrued 61,764 pesos, 5 reales, 22 mrs. from which was to be deducted,
of collections from the canonries, 8221 pesos, 3 quartellos, leaving a
balance due of 53,543 pesos, 4 reales, 31 mrs., which Valera was urged
to collect in order that the fund held for creditors might be reimbursed
and the necessary repairs made to the buildings. Thereupon Valera
addressed to the governor, Don Juan Pando de Estrada, a vigorous appeal,
embodying the receiver’s statement of the account and asking at least
for a partial payment. The governor submitted this to the treasury
officials, who admitted the correctness of the statement, and from their
figures it appears that in the settlements from November 1, 1675, to
October 31, 1678, due allowance had been made for receipts from the
canonries--but they add that in 1680 a royal cédula had ordered the
archbishop and bishops to report to them all payments to the tribunal on
account of the canonries, an order which had been obeyed only by the
Bishop of Cartagena. They professed the utmost desire to pay the
Inquisition and deplored their inability, in view of the demands of the
home government for remittances and the indispensable outlays for the
maintenance and safety of the city.

This the governor transmitted to the tribunal with the assurance of his
deep regret and a request for a statement of its other receipts, in
order that an accurate balance could be reached. Valera met this last
demand by procuring from the receiver and his predecessor sworn
statements that nothing had been received from confiscations, fines and
penances, the truth of which may be doubted in view of the receiver’s
previous complaint as to the use made of the sums in litigation with
creditors of confiscated penitents--but he added that, if there had been
receipts from these sources, they were especially appropriated to the
secret and necessary expenses of the Inquisition, which was a manifest
falsehood. Moreover, as the tribunal was a creditor of the treasury, and
it appeared that there were no funds applicable to the discharge of the
debt, it had a right to have a detailed statement of receipts and
expenditures, to lay before the king, with a request for relief. What
reply the governor made to this impudent demand, we have no means of
knowing, but we may assume that the tribunal fared no better in the
future. It had appealed, October 1, 1683, to the Suprema, setting forth
its deplorable condition; as it was forbidden to use pressure, it was at
the mercy of the officials and it asked that the treasurers of Santa Fe
and Quito be instructed to remit directly to its receiver. For some
reason this appeal was not considered by the Suprema until April 10,
1685, and then it was simply ordered to be filed away with the other
papers.[837]

We may reasonably assume that much of the distress, thus movingly
represented, was fictitious, to parry the demands of the Suprema for the
contributions which it was accustomed to exact. Notwithstanding the
recalcitrancy of the royal officials, the tribunal by diligent siege
managed to extract an occasional payment and, though it unquestionably
suffered heavily at the capture of Cartagena, in 1697, what with the
prebends and the occasional fortunate capture of a wealthy penitent, it
would seem not to have suffered from the lack of means. At least so the
Suprema thought when, in a letter of June 15, 1705, it ordered the
tribunal to be prompt in remitting the contribution demanded of it. Thus
spurred, on February 27, 1706, it sent 6000 pesos, which it stated it
had been obliged to borrow, as it had no resources save to pledge
repayment out of the first moneys it should receive, and it expected to
do this out of the estate of Don Juan de Zavaleta, the settlement of
which was hourly expected. It went on to give a dolorous account of its
condition. The capture of the city had left it in a miserable state--all
the money in its coffers was taken and all its buildings and houses were
damaged. Its chief means of support, it says, is the royal subvention,
but for six years it had failed to receive any important assistance from
this; arrearages due amount to more than 140,000 pesos and its
applications to the treasury are met with enmity and ill-will. The
suppressed canonries produce less than 5000 pesos a year; as for the
houses, they have declined greatly in value; for more than ten years the
galleons have ceased to visit the port and commerce has so decreased
that the houses are generally untenanted and repairs consume most of the
rentals received.[838]

In this sombre description there is doubtless a large element of truth.
The kingdom of New Granada, though less than two centuries old, was
already decaying and the Inquisition necessarily suffered with the rest
of the community. Its poverty became so pressing that, in 1739, the
houses held by it were sold on ground-rents. To add to its misfortunes,
as we have seen, in 1741, during the bombardment by Admiral Vernon, a
bomb dismantled the Inquisition so that it had to be torn down and it
was not rebuilt until 1766. Still the tribunal managed to exist and
when, in 1811, it was expelled from Cartagena, it had 4000 pesos in its
coffer.[839]

       *       *       *       *       *

When came the Revolution the Inquisition evidently had lost all claim on
the respect of the people and was one of the early objects against which
popular detestation was directed, rendering its career in those
turbulent times different from that of its sister tribunals. Before
Hidalgo raised the banner of revolt, in September, 1810, already in July
insurrection had broken out in Santa Fe and, on August 13th, a
revolutionary Junta was established in Cartagena, although complete
independence of the Spanish crown was not yet contemplated. Matters
remained for a year in this uncertain condition, during which the
tribunal sought to ingratiate itself with the rising forces of
Revolution by acquitting and discharging a patriotic priest, Juan A.
Estévez sent to it by the Santa Fe Government to be imprisoned and
punished for a sermon characterized as seditious; and it furthermore
dismissed its commissioner, Doctor Lasso, who had started the
prosecution--a service warmly recognized by the Supreme Junta in a
manifesto of September 25, 1810.[840]

As in Spain, the Liberals were careful to proclaim their adhesion to the
principle of intolerance. The Constitution of Cádiz in 1812 declared
that the Catholic, Apostolic, Roman faith was the religion of the State
and that no other worship, public or private, would be permitted, while
the Articles of Federation of the Provinces of New Granada enumerated
among their duties that of maintaining the Catholic religion in its
purity and integrity.[841] Yet when the Revolution culminated for the
time in Cartagena, November 11, 1811, by an armed rising of the people,
one of the demands made on the Junta was that the Inquisition be
suppressed and the inquisitors be handed their passports. The Junta was
prompt in executing the popular wishes. The same day it issued a decree
that all who did not favor independence should leave the country within
eight days, and it summoned the various corporations to come forward and
take the oath of independence.[842] The next day, notice was sent to the
tribunal that its existence was incompatible with the new order of
affairs, and that the inquisitors, with such officials as desired to
follow them, must sail for Spain within fifteen days, while those who
remained must forthwith take the oath; all papers were to be transferred
to the bishops of the dioceses to which they referred and the property
was to be made over to the public treasury. To this the inquisitors
replied, on the following day, that the decision had been extorted by an
armed mob and, as soon as popular agitation should subside, they
expected to resume the august functions confided to them by Divine
Providence. Insistence, however, brought compliance and, on November
28th, they announced their readiness to go, though not to Spain; the
authorities took possession of all their property and the papers
connected therewith, but it was not until December 17th that their
passports were sent, and further delays postponed their departure until
January 1, 1812, when they sailed for Santa Marta. There they erected
their tribunal and remained for about a year, when the occupation of the
place by the revolutionary forces caused their transfer to Puertobelo.
When Santa Marta was regained by the royalists they returned there and
soon afterwards they received news of the suppression of the Inquisition
by the Córtes of Cádiz in February, 1813. This rendered their condition
more precarious than ever. In a report of July 8, 1815, they state that
on their ejection from Cartagena, they notified the various chapters to
preserve the fruits of their prebends for them; those of Santiago de
Cuba, Havana and Panamá came regularly, but were paid into the royal
treasury; those of Puertobelo and Santo Domingo were held back through
fear of pirates; that of Caracas by the revolution, so that they were in
arrears of their salaries by five tercios and had been living on
borrowed money.[843] If their salaries were but twenty months in
arrears, in July, 1815, it indicates that the previous complaints of
poverty had been exaggerated and it suggests that, in spite of the
seizure of property, they had succeeded in carrying from Cartagena a
fair supply of funds.

The triumph of the Spanish War of Independence and the restoration of
Fernando VII in the Spring of 1814 changed the face of affairs. The
whole power of the monarchy could be directed to the subjugation of the
revolted colonies and, in 1815, a heavy force was sent, under Don Pablo
Morillo, to effect that of New Granada. Although the Inquisition had
been revived in Spain by royal decree of July 21, 1814, it was not until
March 31, 1815, that the joyful news reached Santa Marta, where the
inquisitors celebrated it with a solemn mass and Te Deum and the
announcement that they resumed their duties, although, to keep up the
semblance of a tribunal, they had appointed as fiscal the alcaide of the
secret prison and as secretary the alcaide of the penitential prison.
Morillo reached Santa Marta on July 24th and on August 15th he advanced
to reduce Cartagena, accompanied by the senior inquisitor, José Oderiz,
whom he appointed as _teniente vicario general_ of his army. After a
siege of a hundred days, in which the inhabitants were almost destroyed
by famine and pestilence, Cartagena fell on December 6th and Oderiz at
once took measures to seize prohibited books and resume his authority.
The other inquisitor, Prudencio de Castro, deferred the transfer of the
tribunal until May, 1816, awaiting the restoration of sanitary
conditions in the unhappy city, and it could not fully commence
operations until January 21, 1817, the date at which the two
secretaries, who had remained behind, were reinstated in office, after
undergoing the process of “purification,” to remove all taint of
liberalism. Morillo himself had accepted the position of honorary
alguazil.[844]

On April 29, 1818, there was a solemn publication of the Edict of Faith
and of the Edict of Grace of the Suprema for heresies occasioned by the
war. This was followed in the afternoon by a procession through the
streets carrying the banner of the Inquisition; the standard-bearer was
Colonel Jiminez, accompanied by the principal officers of the army, to
whom the ceremonial was a farce, for we are told that they were nearly
all Free-Masons.[845] It was not until near the end of the year,
however, that the organization of the tribunal was completed, by the
arrival of the new fiscal, José Antonio de Aguirrezabal. Although thus
ready for business, it had little to do, in the disturbed condition of
the land, and it was in no condition to render active service. As it
reported, September 25, 1819, it was suffering acutely from poverty,
without means to repair its building which threatened ruin; it was
unable to imprison offenders because they could not be fed; the salaries
were unpaid and the officials had no means of livelihood, for there were
no charitable hands to solace their misery. In fact, its last case was
that of Don Rafael Barragan of Santa Fe, for propositions. His
accusation dated back to 1813; after infinite trouble he was thrown into
the secret prison and, in September, 1818, his sentence was read in the
audience chamber with closed doors; he abjured _de levi_ and was
absolved _ad cautelam_.[846]

The Revolution of 1820 in Spain revived the energies of the patriots who
felt that they had little to fear from further efforts of subjugation.
The suppression of the Inquisition by the royal decree of March 9, 1820,
seems to have attracted little attention in New Granada and, if the
tribunal continued to exist, it must have disappeared when Cartagena was
captured by the revolutionists in October, 1821. Still, on September 3d
of that year the Vice-president of the United States of Colombia, Doctor
José María Castillo, deemed it necessary to issue a decree declaring the
Inquisition abolished. No traces of it should be allowed to exist and
therefore the authorities of Cundinamarca were ordered not to permit the
commissioner in Santa Fe to exercise his office. In future no
inquisitorial edicts should be published, no books should be suppressed
except by the Government and no ecclesiastical authority should
supervise their importation. As the commissioner at Santa Fe, Doctor
Santiago Torres, had previously died in exile, the zeal of the
vice-president was somewhat superfluous except in so far as the edict
deprived the bishops of censorship.[847]

Shortly after this the Congress of the United States of Colombia adopted
a law declaring the Inquisition extinguished forever and never to be
re-established. All its properties were appropriated to the State. The
bishops were restored to their ancient jurisdiction over matters of
faith, but appeal from their decisions lay to the civil courts. This
however applied exclusively to Catholics. Foreigners of other faiths
were assured against molestation on account of religion, so long as they
observed due respect to the national one, and finally the civil power
assumed to regulate the external discipline of the Church, such as the
prohibition of books and similar matters.[848] As the United States of
Colombia then embraced the whole of the Spanish South American
possessions, north of Peru, these liberal principles were effective over
a wide expanse of territory and, when the victory of Ayacucho, December
10, 1824, finally destroyed the Spanish power in Peru and liberated the
colonies, the last chance disappeared that the reactionary government of
Spain might attempt to revive the Inquisition.

       *       *       *       *       *

Many causes contributed to the decay of the Spanish colonies, but among
them not the least was the impossibility of settled and orderly
administration occasioned by the multiplicity of rival jurisdictions,
inherited from the medieval conceptions of the relations of Church and
State. There were the military represented by the viceroy, and the civil
by the Audiencia; the spiritual, exercised by the bishops over the
secular clergy; the numerous Regular Orders, exempt from the bishops and
subjected each to its own provincial; the Cruzada, whose numerous
officials owed obedience only to the Commissioner General or his
representative, and finally the Inquisition which claimed supremacy over
all, in a sphere of action the limits of which it defined practically at
its pleasure. Of these the most disturbing element was the Inquisition,
armed with the irresistible weapon of excommunication, by which it could
paralyze its antagonists at will, and the arbitrary power of arrest,
which inspired general terror. We have seen what manner of men it was
that Spain habitually sent to the colonies to wield this irresponsible
authority, the use which they made of it and, when their abuse of it
became unbearable, how they were rewarded by transfer to better
tribunals or to episcopal seats. The commissioners whom they distributed
through the provinces aped their masters and carried oppression and
discord to every corner of the land, while the ægis of protection was
extended over every criminal who could claim any connection, however
illusory or fraudulent, with the tribunals.

Complaints to the Council of Indies came pouring in by every fleet from
bishops, governors, officials and individuals. These were duly laid
before the king, who referred them to the Suprema; it would promise to
call for a report from the tribunals and this would be the last of the
matter, for however severely it might berate its subordinates in secret,
it steadfastly defended them in public. In 1696 the Council submitted an
elaborate consulta to Carlos II, recapitulating a number of flagrant
cases, occurring from Mexico to Cumaná, and its fruitless efforts to
obtain redress; it pointed out how completely the tribunals disregarded
the provisions of the Concordias and the impossibility of securing their
observance; it suggested various reforms, the most radical of which was
depriving the Inquisition of its temporal jurisdiction; it declared the
matter to be of greater importance than any other that could arise in
the monarchy, and it concluded with an earnest and eloquent appeal for
immediate action. The Inquisition, it said, was founding a supreme
monarchy, superior to all others in the State. It was regarded with
universal hatred in all the regions of the Indies and with servile fear
by all, from the lowest to the greatest.[849]

Of course nothing was done and the condition of the colonies went on
steadily deteriorating. To this the Inquisition contributed not only as
a leading factor in internal misgovernment, but also by its hideous
system under which the affluence of the tribunals depended upon the
confiscations which they could levy. We have seen how large a part this
played in their financial vicissitudes and how it was regarded on all
hands with eager expectation, and it is doing no injustice to the kind
of men sent out as inquisitors to assume that it was a motive far more
potent than the desire to maintain the faith with exact justice. To say
nothing of the cruel wrongs inflicted on countless victims, commerce
could not flourish when the gains of the trader only served to render
him a tempting prey to such men, armed with irresponsible power
exercised through the inquisitorial process and shielded from criticism
by the secrecy of procedure and the stern punishment administered for
complaint. The Suprema was constantly calling for remittances and, to
satisfy its exigencies and their own wants, there could be small
hesitation in prosecuting any merchant whose success might excite
cupidity, especially when trade was so largely in the hands of
descendants of New Christians. The benumbing effect of this on the
withering prosperity of the colonies is self-evident.

How it fared with New Granada, under all the various depressing
influences of Spanish policy, is described in a report, made in 1772, by
Francisco Antonio Moreno y Escandon. The condition of the colony is
represented as most deplorable and the tone of the report is that of
utter hopelessness, in view of the universal decay and dilapidation. The
local officials everywhere were indifferent and neglectful of duty; the
people steeped in poverty; trade almost extinct; capital lacking and no
opportunities of its employment, for the only source of support was the
cultivation of little patches of land and the mining of the precious
metals. There were no manufactures and no means of retaining money in
the country, for, though it was bountiful in products, it was unable to
cultivate for export in consequence of the restrictions imposed by the
home Government; if freedom of export could be had for its cocoa,
tobacco, precious woods, etc., it would flourish. The mines were still
as rich as ever, but their product was greatly decreased; the province
of Chico, which had large mineral wealth, was approachable by the river
Atrato but, since 1730, the navigation of that stream was forbidden
under pain of death. It is true that, in 1772, Viceroy Mexia obtained
permission to send two vessels a year up the river, but the permits for
this were held at a prohibitory price. The commerce with Spain consisted
in one or two ships, with registered cargoes, annually from Cádiz to
Cartagena, whence the goods were conveyed into the interior, but so
burdened with duties and expenses that there was no profit in the trade.
In the consequent absence of all industry every one sought to obtain
support from the Government by procuring some little office. The
frontier territories were “Missions,” under charge of frailes, the
different Orders having charge of the various stations, while the
Government defrayed the expenses and furnished guards of soldiers, which
entailed heavy outlays with little result. They had all been established
for at least a century but had failed to advance the propagation of the
faith, for the Indians, when apparently converted and brought into
_pueblos_ or villages, would run away and take to the mountains. This
Moreno explains by the absence of the apostolic spirit on the part of
the missionaries, who undertook the career only to enjoy a life of ease
and sloth.[850] The spirit of the secular clergy was even more
reprehensible, if we may believe the relation drawn up by Viceroy Manuel
de Guirior, in 1776, for the guidance of his successor. The deplorable
condition of the Church he ascribes to its subordinating its spiritual
duties to the exaction of taxes and tithes, in illustration of which he
states that the parish priests omitted from their registers the records
of marriages, baptisms and interments, in order to evade payment of the
excessive fees levied by the bishops on their official functions.[851]
To appreciate the full import of this we must bear in mind that on the
completeness and accuracy of the parish registers depended the position
in the community of every individual.

This degrading secularization of the Church was not confined to New
Granada. When, in 1735, Don Jorje Juan and Don Antonio de Ulloa were
sent to Quito, in company of the French men of science, to measure an
equatorial degree of the earth’s surface, they were commissioned to
investigate and report as to the condition of the colony in all its
various aspects. The voluminous and detailed report which they
presented, some ten years later, to the Marquis of la Ensenada, under
Fernando VI, gives a vivid picture of the disorders of clerical life.
Public prostitutes were scarce known in the cities, for licence and
concubinage were so universal that there was no call for professionals.
Dissolute as were the laity the clergy were worse, and of the clergy the
regular Orders bore the palm for the effrontery of their scandalous mode
of life--excepting, indeed, the Jesuits who are highly praised for their
assiduity in their duties and the strictness with which the regulations
of the Society were enforced, by the expulsion of all unworthy members.
The disorders of the others are attributed to their wealth and idleness.
The position of a provincial of any of the larger Orders, for the
regular term of three years, was worth from 300,000 to 400,000 pesos,
derived from the patronage of guardianships, priories, parish churches
and plantations, which were distributed to those of his faction who
would pay proportionately for them--payments for which they recouped
themselves by grinding exactions on their parishioners and subjects. The
convents were dens of prostitution, occupied only by those who could not
afford separate establishments. The wealthier ones lived in their own
houses with the concubines whom they changed at will and the children in
whom they took no shame, and these houses were the scenes of gambling,
dancing and drinking, causing frequent scandalous disorders which the
police were unable to check, as the civil power had no jurisdiction over
the clergy. Notwithstanding this extravagance, their revenues were so
large that all the best lands in the colony were rapidly passing into
their possession, and this was especially the case with the Jesuits, who
husbanded their resources and managed their extensive properties with
businesslike precision. What plantations were left to the laity were
mostly burdened with heavy ground-rents and there was danger, if the
process were not checked, that eventually the whole land would pass into
_mainmorte_. As regards the missions, the report bears the same
testimony as we have seen in New Granada. With the exceptions of the
Jesuits, the Religious Orders, whose presence in the colony was based on
the pretext of spreading the faith, were too worldly and indolent to
devote themselves to that duty and the Jesuits were apt to find that
when they sought to civilize their converts, these interesting
neophytes would murder them and take to the mountains.[852]

All this frightful demoralization was beneath the attention of the
Inquisition. Its business was the salvation of souls by enforcing unity
of faith, and its duties as to morals were confined to destroying such
works of art as it considered to be improper. Yet Ensenada, if he took
the trouble to read the report so laboriously prepared, might reasonably
ask himself whether a system which led to such results was fitted either
for the spiritual or the material benefit of the populations subjected
to the Spanish monarchy.




APPENDIX.


I.

KING FERDINAND TO THE SICILIAN INQUISITION, OCTOBER 25, 1512,

(Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro III, fol. 202). (See p. 12).

EL REY.

Inquisidor entendido habemos que estos dias passados à causa de ciertos
robos que se facian en el feyo de femmy saluco (?) que es del doctor de
Julien por unos quatro esclavos del dicho doctor con otros ladrones e
bandidos que alli se recogen mando nuestro visorrey en esse Reyno al
Capitan de la dicha tierra que trabajase en prenderlos todos, y diz que
despues de haber prendido dos ò tres de ellos porque los otros siendo
avisados se le fueron vos procedeis con censuras cerca del dicho capitan
para que estos entreguen los dichos presos, diciendo que son del dicho
doctor de Julien que es Official asalariado de esse Sancto Officio de la
Inquisicion y que pertenece à vos el conoscimiento de los dichos
ladrones, y para que creyesemos que esto fuesse asi se nos embiara
traslado de las provisiones que vos disteis sobre esto. Tenemos no poco
sentimiento que esse Sancto Officio de la Inquisicion querais ponerlo en
defension de los ladrones lo que no procede de nuestra voluntad que si
el doctor de Julien interviene en el vocar de los processos no por esso
han de gozar de esempcion las personas que tiene en sus heredades de mal
bibir asi que nuestra voluntad es y vos mandamos que luego revoqueis las
dictas provisiones y mandamientos que el Sancto officio de la
Inquisicion no se ha de entremeter de tales personas. Tambien diz que
esto otro dia se echo un malfechor huyendo del Capitan de essa Ciudad en
la cassa de esse Sancto Officio de la Inquisicion y siguiendolo los
Officiales del dicho Capitan lo defendieron vuestros Officiales y
mynistros mano armada. Esto da ocassion de escandolo y porque algun dia
vos y vuestros Officiales seays poco acatados proveed que tales cossas
no se fagan que no se podrian tolerar con paciencia, pues lo que se dice
que se face en la Adduana por no pagar los derechos cossa es de muy mal
exemplo. Todo es menester que se enmiende y no se faga desorden sino
sera forcado que nuestro visorrey lo provea de una manera que assi gelo
escribimos que los Officiales de tan Sancto Officio de la Inquisicion
religiosamente han de bibir y quitarse de toda manera de escandalo y
incombenientes y assi sera el Officio de la Santa Inquisicion mas
honrrado y acatado.

Yo el Rey.--Calcena Secretario.


II.

SICILIAN INSTRUCTIONS OF INQUISITOR-GENERAL MANRIQUE, JANUARY 31, 1525.

(Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 933, p. 565). (See p. 20).

Don Alonso Manrique, por la divina miseracion arzobispo de Sevilla, del
consejo de sus Magestades, inquisidor apostolico general contra la
heretica pravedad y apostasia en todos los sus reinos y señorios. A vos
los reverendos inquisidores contra la heretica pravedad y apostasia en
el reino de Sicilia y à los oficiales y ministros del oficio de la
sancta inquisicion del dicho reino à quien lo de yuso en esta nuestra
carta contenido toca y atañe y à cada uno y qualquiera de vos salud y
bendicion. Sepades que ante nos en el consejo de la general inquisicion
se ha agora visto y examinado el proceso de la visita que el venerable
Benedicto Mercader maestro en sacra teologia hizo en este dicho sancto
oficio por mandado y comision de nuestro muy sancto Padre Adriano Sexto
de feliz recordacion siendo inquisidor general y ha parecido que por lo
que conviene al servicio de Dios y de sus magestades y à la buena
administracion de la justicia y por dar orden como el santo oficio se
ejercite y haga con todo rectitud y brevedad que se deben guardar y
cumplir las instrucciones siguientes por quanto por la dicha visita
parece que aquellas hasta aqui no se han guardado y es cosa justa y
debida que se guarden.

Primeramente la instruccion que manda que en las presiones de los que se
mandaren prender concurran el alguacil para hacer y ejecutar su oficio y
el notario de sequestros para hacer los inventarios de los bienes que se
sequestran y deudas y acciones y escrituras que se hallan y el receptor
para lo mismo por el interese que puede suceder al fisco y que con
asistencia de todos tres, alguacil, notario de sequestros y receptor se
hagan y firmen los inventarios y sequestros y firmados queden en poder
del dicho notario de sequestros para hacer cargo dellos al dicho
receptor en caso de condemnacion, la qual instruccion se guarde como en
ella se contiene so pena de privacion de sus oficios.

Item, la instruccion que dispone que en el vender de los bienes
confiscados concurran el receptor y notario de sequestros para que el
uno los venda con las solemnidades y pregones que la instruccion manda y
el otro haga cargo de los precios y plazos en que se venden so la dicha
pena y en caso que ocurrieren necesidad que hayan de enviar otras
personas en su lugar sea con parecer de los inquisidores y las tales
personas sean de mucha confianza.

Item, la instruccion que manda que el juez de bienes confiscados y
notario de su audiencia tengan libros en que asienten todas las
condemnaciones de bienes que se hacen à instancia del receptor y sus
procuradores para dar noticia dellos al notario de sequestros para que
haga cargo dello al receptor y que los jueces de bienes y notarios de
audiencias juran de ansi lo guardar y cumplir.

Item, la instruccion que manda que los bienes sequestrados, por las
presiones de los que se mandan prender queden en poder de personas
llanas y abonadas para acudir con ellos à quien los inquisidores
mandaren y que hasta la distincion de la causa criminal y principal y
condenacion del preso los receptores no tengan entrada en los bienes
sequestrados so la pena de privacion de oficio y que vuelvan lo que asi
entraren y ocuparen de los dichos bienes sequestrados con otro tanto
para el oficio de la santa inquisicion.

Item, la instruccion que manda que por evitar dilaciones superfluas
dentro de los quince dias de la presion de cada uno se hagan las tres
amonestaciones caritativas y siendo negativos se presenten los
acusaciones à los quince dias ò antes sobre lo qual se encarga la
conciencia à los inquisidores.

Item, la instruccion que dispone que de quince en quince dias se visiten
los presos para haber informacion de como son tractados y proveidos y
curados en sus enfermedades.

Item, la instruccion que manda que en la camara del secreto donde estan
las escrituras del crimen no entren sino solos los inquisidores y
oficiales del secreto so pena de excomunion.

Item, la instruccion que manda que trabajen tres horas en la audiencia
de mañana y otras tres à la tarde sobre lo qual se encarga la conciencia
à los inquisidores para que asi lo hagan guardar y cumplir.

Item, por quanto parece que la instruccion del arca que habla cerca del
depositarse el dinero confiscado que cobra el receptor no se guarda de
dos ò tres años à esta parte y es cosa justa y necesaria que se guarde,
mandamos que en todo caso sea guardada y cumplida so las penas en ella
contenidas.

Item, que se guarden y cumplan de aqui adelante todas las otras
Instrucciones del sancto oficio porque aquellas fueron hechas por los
señores inquisidores generales con mucho consejo y acuerdo de letrados y
en generales congregaciones para el bien y observacion de las
inquisiciones particulares y que para mejor observacion dellas se lean
aquellas dos veces en el año publicamente en el audiencia delante de
todos los oficiales, la una vez por pascua de resurrecion y la otra por
pascua de Navidad, y sobre esto encargamos las conciencias à los
inquisidores.

Item, por quanto parece por el dicho proceso de la visita que por el
receptor de los bienes confiscados se han vendido muchos esclavos
reputados por cristianos que hobieron sido de condemnados ò
reconciliados debiendo gozar de libertad y esto so color que no
mostraban fé y testimonio de su conversion y bautismo, vos los
inquisidores ò qualquiera de vos si asi es declarareis estos tales
esclavos por libres y proveereis que sean puestos en libertad.

Item, porque parece y somos informado que el inquisidor Melchior Cervera
ya defunto anduvo visitando por el reino y recibio muchas informaciones
y testificaciones y es cosa justa y debida que aquellas se pongan en la
camara del secreto para que se haya entera noticia de las penas de los
que quebraron las carcelerias y de los bienes confiscados y mal llevados
al tiempo de la inventariacion de los bienes hecha por los comisarios y
factores y de otras cosas asi civiles como criminales, vos los dichos
inquisidores ò qualquiera de vos proveereis que todas las dichas
informaciones y testificaciones se recojan y se pongan en la camara del
secreto, sino se hobiere ya cobrado para que se haya noticia de las
dichas cosas y se provea en ello todo lo que fuere necesario y las que
pertenecieren al oficio del receptor se le entreguen en presencia y por
ante el escribano de sequestros.

Item, por quanto parece que las provisiones y letras del inquisidor
general y del consejo que se embian à la dicha inquisicion no vienen
algunas veces al secretario ni se alcanza à saber lo que se envia à
mandar sino por discurso de tiempo mandamos que todas las dichas
provisiones y cartas que hasta aqui se han despachado del inquisidor
general y del consejo y de aqui adelante se despacharan se pongan en la
camara del secreto para que de ellas se haya entera noticia y sean mejor
guardadas y cumplidas.

Item, por quanto parece que hay algunos condenados à pena de galeras y
otras penas las quales nunca se han ejecutado mandamos que vos los
dichos inquisidores ò qualquiera de vos veais esto con diligencia y
hagais justicia sobre lo qual os encargamos la conciencia.

Item, por quanto somos informado quel notario de los sequestros ha
pedido muchas veces que se le de noticia de las penitencias impuestas y
de las que dende en adelante se hobieren de imponer para tener cuenta y
razon dellas y hacer cargo al receptor ò à quien las habia recebido ò
recibiere y que nunca se ha hecho, mandamos que al escribano de
sequestros se de noticia y razon de todas las penitencias pasadas.

Item, mandamos que todas las penitencias que de aqui adelante se
impusieren se den al doctor Tristan Calvete el qual tenga razon de las
dichas penitencias y mandamos à los inquisidores y à qualquiera dellos
que pongan diligencia en cobrar las dichas penitencias y ponerlas en el
arca del sancto oficio conforme à la justicia.

Item, porque parece que en la paga del quarto y quinto por las
manifestaciones de bienes ocultos ha habido y hay abuso por los
receptores no guardandose la provision que sobre esto està despachado,
mandamos que aquella se guarde y que el dicho quarto y quinto no se
pague à los denunciantes sino solo de bienes ocultos y que no hayan
venido à noticia del receptor ni de otros oficiales de esa inquisicion y
que los denunciantes no sean oficiales ò personas que por causa y razon
del oficio hayan sabido y manifestado los dichos bienes, y mandamos que
de aqui adelante no se de por manifestacion de bienes ocultos salvo la
quinta parte de los bienes que se cobraren por la tal manifestacion.

Item, por quanto parece que el despensero de los presos tiene un mozo al
qual se da de salario ocho tarines cada dia y de comer, vos los dichos
inquisidores ò qualquiera de vos proveereis en esto lo que convenga de
manera que no traya gastos superfluos.

Item, por quanto somos informado que el escribano de sequestros anduvo
con el inquisidor Cervera en la visita de ese reino catorce meses fuera
de la ciudad de Palermo y que en ese tiempo se han vendido muchos bienes
y cobrado muchas deudas en la dicha ciudad y que no ha podido hallar
razon cuenta de lo que se ha entrado y cobrado, mandamos que vos los
dichos inquisidores ò qualquiera de vos averigueis brevemente con
diligencia esto dando todo el favor que fuere menester al contador y
escribano de sequestros.

Item, porque somos informado que en ese oficio se hacen muchos gastos
que se podrian muy bien escusar y que los inquisidores dan los
mandamientos para ello con mucha facilidad y es cosa justa y debida se
provea esto, mandamos que vos los inquisidores ò qualquiera de vos os
informeis destos gastos extraordinarios y proveais que de aqui adelante
no se hagan gastos superfluos.

Item, porque parece que los presos de la carcel estan alguna vez mal
proveidos de ropa de cama porque à los que son fuera de la ciudad no les
curan de traer ropa y que seria bien que cuando el alguacil trae algun
preso trugese ropa con èl de sus bienes para su cama, vos los dichos
inquisidores ò qualquiera de vos provereis esto de manera que los presos
sean bien proveidos y tratados.

Item, mandamos que los familiares deste santo oficio sean personas
virtuosas, quietas, pacificas y abonadas y que el numero no sea
superfluo porque no haya justa causa de quejas que lo mesmo està
proveido en las otras inquisiciones.

Item, porque parece que por los notarios del secreto se han examinado
algunos testigos del crimen sin presencia de los inquisidores ò de
alguno dellos contra el tenor de la instruccion que esto prohibe
mandamos que la dicha instruccion se guarde como en ella se contiene
sobre lo qual encargamos la conciencia à los inquisidores y notarios del
secreto salvo que fuere dificultoso ir alguno de los inquisidores à
hacer el dicho examen en el qual caso el comisario juntamente con uno de
los dichos notarios lo pueda hacer el qual comisario entonce de
certificacion de la fe que se debe dar à los testigos que asi se
examinaren.

Item, porque consta por el proceso de la dicha visita que à los
oficiales y ministros dese sancto oficio le han hecho algunas
resistencias è injurias las quales no han sido castigadas mandamos que
el fiscal haga acerca desto sus instancias debidas y vos los
inquisidores ò qualquiera de vos hagais justicia porque à los
malhechores sea castigo y à los otros exemplo y los oficiales de aqui
adelante no sean injuriados ni maltratados.

Item, por quanto parece que algunas veces los inquisidores no entienden
personalmente en la ratificacion de los testigos y los comisarios no
guardan el secreto mandamos que la ratificacion de los testigos se haga
ante vos los inquisidores ò qualquiera de vos y que se guarde
enteramente la instruccion que cerca desto habla ansi en el examen
sumario como en las ratificaciones.

Item, porque parece que algunos llamandose comisarios sin tener comision
ni poder del receptor han exigido y cobrado deudas debidas al fisco real
en muchas partes asi en tiempo del receptor Obregon como de Garcia Cid y
aunque algunos dellos vinieron à dar cuenta à los receptores otros no la
han dado, mandamos que el inquisidor contador y escribano de sequestros
que agora van proveidos averiguen esto con mucha diligencia y en todo
provean mediante justicia.

Item, parece que al tiempo que vino en ese reino el ambajador moro de
los Gelves el inquisidor Calvete hizo traer à la inquisicion un
esclavito pequeño que los moros que vinieron con el dicho embajador le
tenian hurtado para se lo volver en Berberia porque no le llevasen à
pedimiento del dueño y tambien porque el mochacho diz que decia que
queria ser cristiano y que ido deste reino el dicho ambajador entrego el
dicho esclavito al fiscal de ese reino y no à la parte cuyo era aunque
lo vino à pedir diversas vices. Porende mandamos que vos los dichos
inquisidores ó qualquiera de vos proveais en esto lo que fuere de
justicia de manera que el dicho esclavo se vuelva y de y entregue à cuyo
es.

Item, parece que por parte de un Francisco Maynente preso por herege se
hobo allegado para su defensa que los testigos fueron conspirados y
conjurados contra èl por un Juan de Avisa y otros consortes suyos para
lo qual nombro testigos y allende aquellos pidio que tambien se
examinasen los nombrados por sus hijos y que yendo à entender uno de los
inquisidores en la probanza desta conspiracion recibio en contradiccion
del fiscal testigos nuevamento nombrados por los hijos è yernos del
preso ò à un suegro suyo è à otros que continuamente con las armas en
las manos han andado en defension del dicho Francisco Mainente, y que
en el examen los susodichos no fueron preguntados de deudos amistad ni
de otras circumstancias necesarias de lugar y tiempo de manera que por
esta via se ha embarazado esta causa y tornandose à desdecir algunos de
los testigos. Porende mandamos que el fiscal haga sus pedimentos cerca
desto ante los inquisidores y que ellos ò qualquiera dellos provean lo
que fuere de justicia.

Item, por quanto parece que los reconciliados traen los habitos
cubiertos por los ciudades y tierras donde moran, los inhabiles per
condemnacion de padres y de abuelos traen armas, seda, oro, plata y usan
de cosas que les son vedadas y prohibidas y que esto no se castiga y es
en mucho deservicio de Dios y menosprecio de justicia mandamos que el
fiscal haga sus pedimentos sobre esto y los inquisidores ò qualquiera
dellos lo castiguen y provean mediante justicia.

Item, porque parece que el receptor se queja que el inquisidor Cervera
en la visita que hizo por ese reino mando acudir con los aquileres de
una casa à un Nadal Valaguer contra toda justicia y razon, la qual casa
con otras bienes diz que estaban cedidos y traspasados à ese santo
oficio por alcances que se ovieron hecho al dicho Nadal de haciendas
cobradas en su tiempo y del receptor Obregon, mandamos que vos los
inquisidores ò qualquiera de vos hagais brevemente justicia.

Item, porque parece que ha habido comunicacion de presos unos con otros
por la mala guarda de las carceles y desto se siguen muchos
inconvenientes al sancto oficio, mandamos que los inquisidores ò
qualquiera de vos proveais cerca desto de remedio convenible.

Item, por quanto parece que al tiempo de la conmocion de ese reino
muchos de los reconciliados por ese sancto oficio se quitaron los
habitos penitenciales y despues aca no se los han vuelto los quales en
mucho deservicio de Dios y grande daño de las animas de los dichos
reconciliados, mandamos que vos los dichos inquisidores ò qualquiera de
vos proveais que todos los dichos habitos se vuelvan à los dichos
reconciliados para que los trayan publicamente y cumplan las sentencias
que contra ellos fueron dadas mirando mucho que esto se haga en tiempo y
de manera que por ello no se pueda seguir escandalo ni inconveniente
alguno, que despues de vueltos se usara con los que cumplieren como
deben sus penitencias de misericordia.

Item, por quanto parece que los inquisidores y otros oficiales de esa
inquisicion han llevado algunos presentes contra la instruccion que esto
prohibe, mandamos que de aqui adelante se guarde la dicha instruccion
como en ella se contiene y lo que se ha llevado hasta aqui de presentes
contra la dicha instruccion de confesos y litigantes se ha restituido à
las partes que dieron los dichos presentes.

Item, porque somos informado que el inquisidor Melchior Cervera por
descargo de su conciencia dejo en su ultimo testamento à ese santo
oficio docientos ducados de oro, y es cosa justa que se cobren, mandamos
que el receptor de los bienes confiscados no pague à el heredero del
dicho Melchior Cervera de lo que se le debiere de su salario los dichos
docientos ducados y si todo su salario fuese pagado se cobren por el
dicho receptor ò contador de los bienes del dicho inquisidor Cervera.

Por ende mandamos à vos los dichos inquisidores y oficiales que agora
sois ò por tiempo fueredes en el oficio de la santa inquisicion del
dicho reino de Sicilia que veades las instrucciones y ordinaciones y
cosas y capitulos susodichos y todas las otras instrucciones del dicho
sancto oficio y cada uno de vos en lo que toca y atañe las guardeis y
cumplais y hagais guardar y cumplir en todo y por todo segun que en
ellas se contiene y contra el tenor y forma de lo en ellas y cada una
dellas contenido no vayais ni paseis ni consintais ir ni pasar en tiempo
alguno so las penas en los dichos capitulos é instrucciones contenidas
sobre todo lo qual vos encargamos la conciencia, en testimonio de lo
qual mandamos hacer la presente firmada de nuestro nombre refrendada del
secretario y sellada con el sello deste sancto oficio.

Datum en la villa de Madrid à xxxi dias del mes de Enero del año del
nascimiento de nuestro señor mil quinientos y veinte y cinco

_Archiepiscopus Hispalensis_.

De mandato Rmi. D. Archiepiscopi Hispalensis inquisitoris generalis

_Joannes Garcia_, secretarius.

Registrata in sancte inquisitionis quinto, fº clv.


III.

COMMISSION FOR THE ARREST OF HERETICS, ISSUED BY VICEROY RIBAGORZA,
JANUARY 14, 1509.

(Chioccarello MSS., Tom. VIII).

(See p. 56).

Joannes de Aragonia Mag^{co} Viro, U. J. D. Antonio de Baldaxino regio
fideli nobis carissimo, gratiam regiam et bonam voluntatem. Perche
secondo avemo inteso ad esto si commette in aliquibus partibus Apuliæ
certa eresia che lo venerdi Santo gl’uomini e donne di questi luoghi
insieme con candele accese e dapoi di certa predica estinguono le
candele e gl’uomini con le donne usano carnalmente taliter che usano li
Padri colle figliuole ed altri colle sorelle, e questo en disservizio di
nuestro Sig^{re} Dio e contra la fede nostra Cattolica. E volendo noi
estirpare et radicitus abolire tal eresia e cose mal fatte e nefande ed
ancora punire e castigare li tali eretici delinquenti. Pertanto a voi
della fede, probità, perizia e scienza della quale molto confidamo,
dicemo, ordinamo e comandamo quod præsentibus acceptis personaliter vi
debbiate conferire in partibus Apuliæ vel in qualunque città, Terra,
castello e luoghi del presente Regno, tanto demaniali quanto de Baroni
ed Ecclesiastiche persone, dove parerà e sarà bisogno, e pigliar
informazione esattamente di tutte le cose predette, e quelli trovarete
colpabili pigliarete di persona e conducerete da noi, perche vista detta
informazione possano quelli punirsi e castigarsi giusta loro demeriti, e
se vi parerà dover annotare li beni di tali delinquenti, lo farete, e
quelli pro tuitione Regiæ Curiæ ponerete in loco tuto, adeo che volendo
quelli li possiamo avere, perche noi per tenore della presente circa
præmissa per voi agenda et complenda vi commettemo e conferimo voces et
vices Regias atque nostras plenumque posse et locum nostrum, e perche
meglio possiate eseguire questa presente nostra commissione ordinamo e
comandamo à tutti e singoli Prencipi, Duchi, Marchesi, Conti, Baroni,
Lou^{ri} Regii ed altri officiali maggiori e minori ed altri quai siano
sudditi della Cattolica Maiestà che circa l’eseguire per voi e complire
delle cose predette non vi debbiano ponere ostaculo ne dare impaccio seu
impedimento alcuno, immo vi dobbiano assistere e dare ogni ausilio,
consilio, aiuto e favore opportuno, sempre che da voi saranno ricercati,
e volemo vi debbiano provedere di stanza, letto e strama senza pagamento
alcuno, e d’ogni altra cosa e ragione sotto pena della Regia disgrazia e
di docati mille al Rº fisco applicandi. Datum in Castro novo civitatis
Neapolis, die 14 Januarii 1509. El Conde Lugart^{e} General. V^{t}
Montaltus R., V^{t} de Colle R., Dominus Locumtª Gen^{lis} mandavit mihi
Petro Lazaro de Exea. In Curiæ Locumtenentis 3º Comitis Ripacursiæ fol.
209 à tº.


IV.

PROMISE OF PHILIP II TO THE CITY OF NAPLES IN 1564.

(Chioccarello MSS., Tom. VIII). (See p. 87).

_Relazione fatta dal P. D. Paolo d’Arezzo alla Città di Napoli nel suo
ritorno._

Quel che S. M. nell’espedirmi da lei mi comandò à me D. Paolo d’Arezzo,
che Io dovessi far fede alla sua Fed^{ma} Città di Napoli della buona
voluntà sua verso della Città e di tutto quel suo Regno di Napoli é come
tutti l’ama grandemente e desidera ogni loro sodisfazione e la M. S. è
pronta farli sempre nuove grazie e nuovi beneficii et in ogni occasione
dimostrar l’amore e benignità sua, e la gratitudine dell’ animo suo per
la fedeltà la quale sempre hanno usata verso la M. S. e de suoi
predecessori e per li continui e grandi servizii tanto in guerra quanto
in pace, delli quali S. M. ne tiene memoria, aggradendoli e tenendoli in
quel conto che si deve. E per quanto al particolare delle grazie che si
hanno a S. M. domandate, quel che ha conosciuto esser utile benefizio e
quiete della Città e Regno di Napoli di liberarli per sempre
dall’Inquisizione ce l’ha concesso molto liberamente e benignamente,
sperando che si portaranno piamente e cristianamente nelle cose della
Religione e della S. Fede Catt^{ca} e cosi l’esorta tutti ad averne
buona cura e diligenza. Ma in quanto a gli altri capi perche S. M. non
vede che siano in beneficio loro, anzi potriano essere à loro stessi
dannosi non l’ha parso poterli concedere in buona coscienza, ne però
l’exclude del tutto ma si reserba ed averà buona e più matura
considerazione e provederli più di spazio. Mi commise ancora ch’Io lo
riferissi come desidera venire in questa città à visitare il Regno per
mostrare à tutti l’amore e buona volontà che li porta, e così come in
absenza ha conosciuto la fedeltà ed affezione di tutti per sua maggior
consolazione e contento fruirla con la presenza e dal canto suo ancora
dar tutta quella sodizfazione che può a così fedeli ed amorevoli
vassalli, il che S. M. tiene intenzione di farlo colla prima occasione
che dio benedetto gli darà.

Questo è quel tanto che S. M. mi comandò che da sua parte io dovesse
riferire alla Città in testimonio ed esplicazione della benignità ed
amor suo verso di questa Città e Regno di Napoli tutto il sopradetto
l’ho visto con gli occhi e toccato con mano esser la pura verità.


EL REY.

Por quanto haviendose nos suplicado por parte de la nuestra ciudad y
Regno de Napoles fuesemos servido declarar nuestra intencion cerca las
cosas de heresia que alli succediere. Por ende por tenor de la presente
deximos y declaramos no haver sido ni ser de nuestra mente ò intencion
que en la dicha ciudad y Reyno se ponga la Inquisicion en la forma de
España, sino que se proceda por la via ordinaria como esta aqui, y que
assi se observara y complira con efecto en lo adelante, sin que en ello
haya falta, en testimonio de lo qual mandamos dar la presente firmada de
nuestra mano y sellado con nuestro sello secreto. En Madrid à diez dias
de Marzo 1565. Yo el Rey.--V^{t} Figueroa R^{s}.--V^{t} Soto
R^{s}.--V^{t} Vargas Secretarius.--Locus Sigilli.--Declaracion de que no
se pondra en la Ciudad y Reyno de Napoles la Inquisicion en la forma de
España.

Il duplicato di questa lettera fù rimessa da S. M. al Duca d’Alcala.


V.

APPLICATION TO THE VICEROY OF NAPLES FOR EXTRADITION, MARCH 6, 1610.

(Chioccarello MSS., Tom. VIII).

(See p. 91).

Ill^{mo} ed Ecc^{mo} Signore.

D. Fabio Orzolino dice à V. E. come si è necessario far notificare una
citazione spedita in forma Bullæ dal S^{to} Officio contro l’Abbate
Angelo e Carlo della Rocca. Supplica perciò V. E. per il Regio suo
exequatur avendola da notificare in Regno ut Devotus et Reverendus
Regius cappelanus major videat et referat. Constantius Reg^{s}. Provisum
per S. Excª. Neapoli die 6 mensis Martii 1610. Vitalianus.

Ill^{mo} ed Ecc^{mo} Signore. Per parte del predetto supplicante mi è
stato presentato il predetto memoriale con regia decretazione di V. E.
di mia commissione. E volendo gl’ordini dell’ E. V. eseguire e dell’
esposto informarmi ho visto una provisione spedita da Monsignore
Crecenzo Auditor Generale della Rota seu Camera Apostolica nella quale
si narra che dovendo l’Abbate Angelo e Carlo della Rocca di Traetto,
Diocesi di Gaeta ad esso supplicante docati ottant’otto in virtù di
publico istrumento con l’obligazione camerale ed essendo per detto
debito stati per cedoloni declarati per publici scomunicati ed avendono
in detta scommunica persistito per un anno e più per il che si citano ad
personaliter comparendum in detta corte Romana ed avanti il detto
Auditore à dire la causa perchè non si devono dichiarare per
insordescenti, come questo ed altro appare per detta provisione spedita
in Roma per esecuzione publica della quale si suplica V. E. per il Regio
exequatur. Per tanto visto e considerato il tutto, adhibito in ciò il
parere del mº U. J. D. Gio. Geronimo Natale Avvogado Fiscale del R^{t}
Patrimonio della Regia Camera della Summaria mia Auditore, sono di voto
che l’E. V. puo restar servita per esecuzione della detta provisione di
concedere ad esso supplicante il Regio Exequatur quo ad personas
Ecclesiasticas tantum. E questo è quanto mi occorre riferire a V. E.--Da
Casa in Napoli à di 7 Maggio 1610. De V. E. Servidor y Cappellan D.
Gabriel Sanchez de Luna.--Jo. Hieronimus Natalis.


VI.

KING FERDINAND LIMITS SALARIES BY THE CONFISCATIONS, IN THE INQUISITION
OF SARDINIA.

(Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro III, fol. 308).

(See p. 114).

EL REY.

Bernardt Ros nuestro receptor de los bienes y facienda a nuestra camara
e fisco confiscados e pertenecientes e que se confiscaran por el crimen
de la heregia y apostasia en el Reino de Cerdeña, los salarios que en
cada un año habeis de pagar al inquisidor y otros oficiales y ministros
en el sancto oficio de la inquisicion en el dicho reino son los
siguientes:

Al reverendo obispo del Alguer inquisidor                100 libras
A Micer Pedro de Contreras abogado en el crimen
  y judicatura de bienes                                  40
A Luis de Torres alguacil                                 30
A un escribano del secreto y judicatura de bienes
  y secrestos                                             30
A un portero e nuncio                                     10
A vos mesmo por receptor                                 100
A mossen Alonso de Ximeno procurador fiscal y
  canonigo de Callar                                      30

Los quales salarios ordinarios facen suma en universo trescientas
quarenta libras barcelonesas las quales vos mandamos que les deis por
sus tercios del año de qualesquier bienes y pecunias que sean
confiscados y se confiscaren en la dicha inquisicion comenzando a contar
a cada uno de ellas dende el dia que comenzara a servir sus oficios y
dende adelante por tanto tiempo como cada uno servira su oficio y con
restitucion de sus apocas de pago tan solamente, mandamos a la persona
que vuestras cuentas oira y examinara que los dichos salarios segun
dicho es vos pasen y admitan en quenta y descargo toda duda dificultad
consulta y contradiccion cessantes. Queremos empero que si no hobiere
bienes confiscados para pagar los dichos salarios que nos ni nuestra
corte no seamos tenido ni obligado a los pagar antes queremos que no
habiendo cumplimiento las dichas quantias se repartan entre los
oficiales a sueldo por libra.

Datum en Valladolid a once de Septiembre de mil quinientos catorce.

Yo el Rey.--Calcena Secretario.


VII.

PHILIP II TO THE DUKE OF SESSA.

ABANDONING THE INTRODUCTION OF THE SPANISH INQUISITION IN MILAN.

(Archivio Civico Storico à S. Carpofaro in Milano. Armario A. Filza VII,
N. 40).

(See p. 128).

Ill^{mo} Duque, Primo nuestro, Governador y Capitan General. Hanse
rrecivido todas vuestras cartas hasta la ultima de xxiii del pasado y
dexando de satisfaser a ellas para con el primero esta servira solamente
para rresponder a lo de la Inquisicion, por ser negocio que no requiere
delacion, quedando ese estado de la manera que nos screvis y lo avemos
visto por las cartas que nos ha mostrado el obispo de Cuenca en
conformidad de las vuestras. La dexceridad y buena manera con que os
governastes para aquietar los animos de los desestado y estorvar que no
embiasen aca embaxadores fue como convenia y se deve esperar de vuestra
prudencia, y assi conformandonos con vuestro parecer damos orden al
electo de Salerno que no parta de Trento y a Roma que cese la instancia
y officio que se hazia con su Santidad para que mandase despachar la
facultad, y vos con el buen modo que lo aveis començado hablareis a los
desse estado dandoles a entender con las mejores palabras que vereis
convenir que nuestra Intencion nunca fué ni es de hazer novedad en la
forma de proceder del sancto officio sino solamente en la persona, para
que con mas autoridad y teniendo mejor de comer se hiziese lo que
convenia al servicio de Dios y bien de la Religion en tiempos tan
infectos y peligrosos por la vezindad, y que assi pueden ser ciertos que
en esto no avra novedad, quedando enteramente confiado que ellos por su
parte como tan catholicos y zelosos del servicio de Dios y nuestro,
siguiendose la forma y horden que hasta aqui se ha tenido haran lo que
deven. Y todo os lo rremitionos como persona que estara sobrel negocio,
os governeys en esto como mas vieredes convenir para escusar todo genero
de Inconviniente y mala satisfacion. Y conforme a ello embiarcio (_sic_)
luego essa carta al electo de Salerno y esotra despacho a Roma dando
juntamente con el aviso al embaxador de lo que cerca desto se hiziese
para que sepa como se avra de governar con su Santidad.--De Monçon a
viii de Noviembre de M. D. lxiii.

El Senado nos ha scripto una carta sobre estos negocios. Dales ese aviso
del Recivo y de lo que en ello se provee.--Yo el Rey.

J. Vargas.


VIII.

QUARANTINE AGAINST HERETICS.

(MSS. of Ambrosian Library, H. S. VI, 29). (See p. 131).

DECRETI DELLA SACRA CONGREGAZIONE DEL SANTO OFFICIO DI ROMA CONTRO GLI
HERETICI CHE VENGONO IN MILANO E SUO STATO.

Inquisitori Mediolani: Ut cum solitis conditionibus practicatis ante
Bullam Gregorii XV permittat Rhetis et Helvetiis per aliquod dies manere
Mediolani occasione mercaturæ et non aliter; invigilet tamen ne aliquid
in fidem Catholicam machinentur.--19 Julii, 1625.

Alios tamen Hæreticos non permittat ibidem manere, datur tamen ei
facultas concedendi Talibus licentias per aliquod breve tempus et
certioret.--24 Junii, 1627.

Inquisitoribus Mediolani et Comi: Non inducant gravamina et novitates
contra Helvetios et eorum Confœderatos Hæreticos Mediolanum accedentes,
sed observant capitulationes antiquas.--5 Augusti, 1599.

Inquisitori Mediolani: Curet cum participatione Eminent^{mi}
Archiepiscopi cum suavitate et paulatim tollere abusum commercii
Mercatorum Catholicorum dictæ civitatis cum Hæreticis et adhibeat
diligentiam ne denuo hujusmodi commercia introducantur.--10 Octobris,
1629.

Hæretici in Statu Mediolani non admittantur ab Inquisitoribus nisi sint
ex Rhetis vel Helvetiis qui in eo habent commercium mercaturæ vigore
Conventionum inter Regem Hispaniarum et ipsos factarum. Commercium
litterarum inter Catholicos et Hæreticos non permittant nisi inter
Confœderatos ratione mercaturæ. Mercium sarcinæ, vulgo _Balle_, si
remanent Mediolani visitentur ab ipso Inquisitore an adsint libri
Hæretici; si vero aliunde vehuntur fiat diligentia in loco ad quem
ducuntur; si vero sint dolia librorum videatur ipsorum librorum lista,
quæ si non exhibeatur non permittantur alio duci nisi visis libris et se
intelligat Inquisitor Mediolani cum aliis Inquisitoribus civitatum ad
quas deferuntur.--Inquisitori Mediolani 3 Julii, 1593.

Inquisitori Mediolani scriptum fuit ne permittat Ministros et
Prædicantes Hæreticos accedere in hunc statum, sed quod alios Hæreticos
Helvetios qui accedunt illuc pro Commercio observare faciat
Capitulationes et alia ordinata cum declarationibus et moderationibus
ultimo eis scriptis.--3 Decembris, 1599.


DECRETI CONTRO GL’ ERETICI DIMORANTI IN VENEZIA E SUO STATO.

Nuntio Venetiarum scriptum fuit die duodecima Januarii, 1591, ut tractet
cum Dominis Venetis quod nullo modo admitti debent in eorum Dominio
Hæretici et Apostatæ a fide etiam conniventibus oculis.

Nuntio Venetiarum scriptum fuit die 23 Februarii, 1591 circa Hæreticos
ultramontanos commorantes Venetiis in fundaco Germanorum habitum fuisse
sermonem de prædictis cum Sanctissimo et ita concludit Epistola--

E perchè il ritenere ivi i nemici della Santa Fede ridonda in diservizio
di Dio, e per esser quello un male contagiosissimo, bisogna che almeno
in progresso di tempo causi grand’ infezione in quell’ Anime: ed il
Commercio con quella nazione si puo conservare e continuare col mezzo
d’altri mercanti Catolici e confidenti à cotesta Signoria, la Santità
Sua ha ordinato che V. S. sempre le verra occasione, procuri colla sua
prudenza e destrezza d’insinuare tutto ciò e metterlo in considerazione
al Principe e a quei Signori acciocche si pensi di provedervi, e sua
Santità ne deve parlare coll’ Ambasciatore.


IX.

DECREE OF PIUS V, JUNE 6, 1566.

(Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Libro III, fol. 91.--Archivo historico
nacional de Madrid).

(See p. 132).

Die Jovis sexta mensis Junii, 1566, Sanctissimus in Christo pater D. N.
D. Pius divina providentia Pius Quintus, in Congregatione officii Sanctæ
Ro. universalis Inquisitionis, in throno majestatis suæ sedens, unacum
illustrissimis et reverendissimis dominis Dominis Cardinalibus
Inquisitoribus Generalibus, statuit, decrevit, ordinavit et mandavit ut
negotia fidei omnibus et singulis aliis præferantur, cum fides sit
substantia et fundamentum Christianæ religionis. Idcirco omnibus et
singulis almæ Urbis ejusque districtus Gubernatori, Senatori, Vicario,
Cameræ Apostolicæ auditoribus quibuscunque, Legatis, Vicelegatis,
Gubernatoribus Provinciarum et Terrarum suæ Sanctitati et Sanctæ Romanæ
Ecclesiæ mediate vel immediate subjectarum ac eorum locatenentibus,
officialibus, barissellis aliisque ministris, necnon aliis locorum
ordinariis cæterisque magistratibus, officialibus ac cujusvis
conditionis et status hominibus in omnibus et singulis terris, oppidis,
civitatibus ac in tota Republica Christiana existentibus, sub
excommunicationis latæ sententiæ ac indignationis suæ Sanctitatis
aliisque arbitrio suæ Sanctitatis ac illustriss, et reverendiss. D. D.
Cardinalium Inquisitorum Generalium imponendis et exequendis pœnis, ut
eisdem Cardinalibus Inquisitoribus hujusmodi ac eorum præceptis et
mandatis in quibuscunque officium sanctæ Inquisitionis hujusmodi
concernentibus pareant et obediant. Reges vero, Duces, Comites, Barones
et quosvis alios Principes sæculares in Dei nomine rogavit ut eisdem
Cardinalibus Inquisitoribus eorumque officialibus faveant auxiliumque
præbeant, a suis magnatibus subditis auxilium præberi faciant in
negotiis ad dictum officium spectantibus, necnon carceratos quoscunque
pro quibusvis delictis et debitis etiam atrocibus, apud dictum
Inquisitionis officium quomodolibet delatos vel denunciatos, suspensa
aliorum criminum inferiorum cognitione, ad eosdem Cardinales vel
Inquisitionis carceres, ibidemque ad criminis hæresis totaliter
cognitionem et expeditionem retinendos, postea ad eosdem officiales pro
aliorum criminum cognitione remittendos, sine mora transmittant.
Instante magnifico Domino Pedro Belo procuratore fiscali officii Sanctæ
Romanæ Universalis Inquisitionis.


X.

S. CARLO BORROMEO’S MEMORANDA FOR A VISITATION.

(MSS. of the Ambrosian Library, Tomo V, F. 41 ed. 177, Parte Inferiore,
No. 76).

(See p. 133).

RICORDO DI ALCUNE COSE DELLE QUALI PRINCIPALMENTE S’A DA FAR DILIGENTE
INQUISITIONE

Se nella patria sono heretici, sospetti di heresia, ricettatori et
fautori di heretici, scandalosi nel parlare et chi abusã le parole della
Scrittura.

Se si fanno conventicole ò ridotti di laici ne quali si parli delle cose
della fede; se predichi e si disputi senza autorità di superiori
Ecclesiastici.

Se vi è comertio di heretici ò sospetti et come si avertisse à quelle
famiglie che praticano ne i paesi heretici ò per mercantia ò altro
pretesto.

Se mandano i figlioli in Germania ò in altra provincia nelle parti
sospette per imperar la lingua ò trafico ò per viver in Corti di
Principi.

Di libri prohibiti ò scandalosi et che cura si tiene nel portare i libri
nella patria et se s’avertischi bene à mercanti et à chi pratica ne
paesi sospetti; se portano libri heretici ò sospetti dell’ Inquisitione
nelle librarie.

Come si governa l’offitio della S^{ta} Inquisitione cioè di Vescovi et
Inquisitori in quelle parti circa il tener ben purgato il paese da
quella peste.

Se hanno qualche impedimento nell’offitio.

Se hanno il debito aiuto circa la essecutione da principi secolari, così
gl’Inquisitori come li Vescovi nell’officio loro.

Di predicatori, che diligentia s’usi, acciò catholicamente predichino et
che non disputino le cose controverse ma solamente in ogni occasione
stabilischino la parte catholica, dichiarando bene et chiaramente il
senso delle Scritture, et lasciando da parte li fondamenti delli
heretici.

De Maestri di scuola come insegnano et che libri legono.

Se secondo il decreto del Consiglio Tridentino i Curati ammaestrano
fanciulli nella dottrina Christiana.

Se vi sono superstitioni, divinationi et incanti et altre cose tali che
vanno appresso all’heresie et molte volte sapiunt etiam manifestam
heresim.

Se con quel honore che si deve sono tenute le sante relique.

       *       *       *       *       *

Se vi sono pubblici peccatori, sprezzatori di commandamenti de la
Chiesa, delle ceremonie, riti et traditioni et contemptori delle censure
et giuditii Ecclesiastici.

       *       *       *       *       *

Delli hebrei, se portano il segno, se conversano con Christiani con
pericolo di corrutela dei costumi Christiani.


XI.

EXTRACT FROM EDICT OF NOVEMBER 10, 1571, ISSUED BY THE INQUISITION OF
MEXICO TO THE POPULATION OF NEW SPAIN EMBODYING THE OATH OF OBEDIENCE.

(From the MSS. of General Don Vicente Riva Palacio).

(See p. 203).

* * * Mandamos dar y dimos la presente por la cual vos ecshortamos,
amonestamos y mandamos en virtud de santa obediencia y so pena de
excomunion mayor, que del dia que esta nuestra carta fuere leida y
notificada ó de ella supieredes en cualquier manera en adelante vos los
susodichos y cada uno de vos como fieles y católicos cristianos,
celadores de nuestra santa fé, verdaderos miembros de la Yglesia
Católica cada y cuando y en cualquier lugar que os halláredes en cuanto
en vos fuere favorecereis al dicho Santo Oficio, Oficiales y ministros
de él, dandoles todo el favor y ayuda que os pidieren, y que no
ayudareis ni favorecereis á los hereges enemigos de nuestra santa fé
católica, antes como á lobos y perros rabiosos inficionadores de las
animas cristianas y destruidores de la esposa divina del Señor que es la
Yglesia católica, los perseguireis manifestandolos y no los encubrireis,
y si lo contrario hicieredes, lo que Dios no quiera ni permita,
incurrais y caigais en la ira é indignacion de Dios todo poderoso y de
la Virgen Santa Maria su madre, y de los bienaventurados apostolos S.
Pedro y S. Pablo y de todos los santos de la corte celestial, y venga
sobre los inobedientes á esto las plagas y maldiciones que vinieron y
descendieron sobre el Rey Faraon y los suyos por que resistieron á los
mandamientos de Dios y la destruccion que vino sobre los de Sodoma y
Gomorra que fueron abrasados, y la que vino sobre Coreb, Datan y Aviron
que sorbió la tierra vivos por su inobediencia, y siempre esten
endurecidos y en pecado y el diablo este á su mano derecha y su oracion
sia siempre en pecado delante el acatamiento de Dios, sus dias sean
pocos y su nombre y memoria se pierda en la tierra y sean arrojados de
sus moradas en manos de sus enemigos y cuando sean juzgados salgan
condenados del juicio divino con lucifer y Judas el traidor y sus hijos,
queden huerfanos y mendicantes y no hallen quien bien les haga, y
allende las otras penas y censuras en derechos establecidas contra los
tales inobedientes al Santo Oficio y á los mandamientos apostólicos
caegan é incurran en pena de escomunion mayor que nos por tales los
declaramos en estos escriptos y por ellos y para mayor vigor y fuerza de
lo susodicho mandamos que todas las personas que presentes estais de
qualquier estado y condicion que sean alzeis las manos y jureis á Dios y
á Santa Maria y á la señal de la Cruz y á las palabras de los cuatro
santos evangelios que ante vuestros ojos teneis que de aqui adelante
como verdaderos católicos y fieles cristianos y hijos de obediencia
sereis en favor ayuda y defensa de la santa fé de nuestro S. Jesucristo
y de su ley evangelica que tiene, predica, sigue y enseña la S. Madre
Yglesia Católica Romana y de la S. Inquisicion, Oficiales y ministros de
ella en cuanto en vos fuere con todas vuestras fuerzas y posibilidades
sin impedirles ni embargarles publica ni secretamente, directe ni
indirecte ni por cualquier exquisito color por vos ni por otra persona
en cosa alguna tocante al dicho S. Oficio y ejecucion de él y que no
favorecereis á los herejes, infamados y sospechosos del crimen de
herejia y apostasia, ni á sus creyentes, favorecedores, receptadores ni
defensores de ellos ni á los perturbadores ni impedidores del dicho
Santo Oficio y de su libre y recto ejercicio, antes sereis en los
perseguir, acusar, y denunciar á la S. Madre Yglesia y á nos los
Ynquisidores y á nuestros sucesores como á sus ministros á quien por su
Santidad y Sede Apostólica está reservado el conocimiento de las tales
causas y que no lo encubrireis recibireis ni admitireis entre vosotros
ni en vuestra familia, compañia servicio ni consejo, antes luego que de
ello algo supieredes lo direis y si por ventura alguno de vos por
ignorancia hiciere lo contrario cada y cuando que á vuestra noticia
viniere ser las tales personas de la condicion susodicha luego los
repelereis y alanzareis de vos y de cada uno de vos y nos dareis de
ellos noticia y que para ejecucion y cumplimiento de lo susodicho y de
cada una cosa y parte de ello dareis todo el favor y ayuda que os
pidieren y fuere menester y cumplireis todo lo demas que en esta nuestra
carta va dicho y declarado. Digan todos ansi lo prometemos y juramos. Si
ansi lo hicierdes Dios nuestro S. Jesucristo cuja es esta causa os ayude
en esto mundo en el cuerpo y en el otro en la alma donde mas habreis de
durar, y si lo contrario hicieredes, lo que Dios no quiera, el os lo
demande mal y caramente como á reveldes que á sabiendas juran su santo
nombre en vano. Digan todos amen. En testimonio de lo cual mandamos dar
y dimos la presente firmada de nuestro nombre, sellada con el sello del
dicho Santo Oficio y refrendada por el Secretario de él. En la Cuidad de
Mexico, 10 dias del mes de Noviembre de 1571. El Doctor Moya de
Contreras. Por mandado del S. Inquisidor, Pedro de los Rios,
Secretario.


XII.

CEDULA OF PHILIP II, AUGUST 16, 1570, REGULATING THE PRIVILEGES OF
FAMILIARS IN NEW SPAIN.

(Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid, Seccion de MSS. X, 159, fol. 240).

(See p. 247).

El Rey, Nuestro Virrey y Capitan General de la Nueva España y Presidente
de la Nuestra Audiencia Real que reside en la Ciudad de Mexico, Oidores
de la dicha Audiencia, Presidente y Oidores de la Nuestra Audiencia Real
que reside en la Ciudad de Santiago de la Provincia de Guatimala, é á
los Nuestros Oydores, Alcaldes Mayores de la Nuestra Audiencia Real de
la Nueva Galicia é qualesquier Nuestros Governadores, Corregidores y
Alcaldes mayores é á otras justicias de todas las Ciudades, Villas y
lugares de las Provincias de Nueva España, la Provincia de Nicaragua,
asi de los Españoles como de los Indios Naturales, que al presente sois
y por tiempo fueren, y á cada uno de vos á quien la presente ó su
traslado autentico fuere mostrado y lo en ello contenido toca ó pudiere
tocar en qualquiera manera, Salud y dileccion: Sabed que el
Reverendisimo in Christo Padre Cardenal de Siguenza, Presidente del
Nuestro Consejo é Inquisidor General Apostolico en Nuestros Reynos y
Señorios con acuerdo de los del Nuestro Consejo de la General
Inquisicion y consultado con Nos, entendiendo ser muy necesario y
conveniente para el aumento de Nuestra Santa Fé y su conservacion, poner
y asentar en esas dichas Provincias el Santo Oficio de la Inquisicion lo
ha ordenado y proveido asi; y porque demas de los Inquisidores y
Oficiales con su titulo y provision que han de residir y asistir en el
dicho Santo Oficio es necesario que haya familiares como los ay en las
otras Inquisiciones de estos Reynos de Castilla aviendose platicado
sobre el numero de ellos y ansi mismo de los privilegios y exempciones
que deven y han de gozar, consultado conmigo fue acordado que por ahora
y hasta que otra cosa se provea, aya en la dicha Ciudad de Mexico, donde
ha de residir y tener su asiento el dicho Santo Oficio, doze familiares,
y en las Cabezas de Arzobispados y Obispados en cada una de las Ciudades
dellos quatro familiares y en las demas Ciudades, Villas y Lugares de
Españoles del distrito de la dicha Inquisicion, un familiar, y que los
que hubieren de ser proveidos por tales familiares sean hombres
pacificos y quales conviene para ministerio de dicho Oficio tan santo, y
que los dichos familiares gozen de los privilegios de que gozan los
familiares del Reino de Castilla, y que cerca del privilegio del fuero,
en las causas criminales sean sus Juezes los Inquisidores quando los
dichos Familiares sean Reos, excepto el Crimen _lese maiestatis humane_
y en el Crimen nefando contra natura, y en el Crimen de levantamiento o
comocion del Pueblo, y en el Crimen de Cartas de seguros nuestras, é de
Revelion é inobediencia á Nuestros Mandamientos Reales, y en caso de
aleve ó de fuerza de Muger ó robo della, ó de robador publico, ó de
quebrantador de casa ó de Iglesia ó Monasterio, ó de quema de Campo ó de
casa con dolo, y en otros delitos mayores que estos. Y tener resistencia
ó desacato calificado contra Nuestras Justicias Reales, porque el
conocimiento destos ni de las causas Criminales en que fueren actores
los dichos familiares, ni en las Civiles en que fueren actores ó Reos no
se han de entremeter los dichos Inquisidores ni tener Jurisdiccion
alguna sobre los dichos familiares, sino que la Jurisdiccion en los
dichos casos queda en los Juezes seglares. Item que los que tubieren
oficios Reales publicos de los pueblos ó otros cargos seglares, y
delinquieren in cosas tocantes a los dichos Oficios y cargos sean
juzgados en los dichos delitos por las nuestras Justicias Seglares, pero
en todas las otras causas Criminales en que los dichos Familiares fueren
Reos que no sean de los dichos delitos y casos desuso exceptuados quede
á los Inquisidores sobre los dichos Familiares la Jurisdiccion Criminal
para que libremente procedan contra ellos y determinen sus causas como
Juezes, que para ello tienen Nuestra Jurisdiccion para agora y adelante,
y en los dichos casos en que los Inquisidores han de proceder pueda el
Juez Seglar prender al Familiar delinquente con que luego le remita á
los dichos Inquisidores que del delito hubieren de conocer, con la
Informacion que hubiere tomado, lo qual se haga á costa del delinquente.
Item, que cada y quando que algun familiar hubiere delinquido fuera de
la dicha Ciudad de Mexico, donde como esta dicho ha de residir el Santo
Oficio y fuese sentenciado por los Inquisidores, no pueda volver al
lugar donde delinquio sin llevar testimonio de la sentencia que en su
causa se dio y le presente ante la Justicia del lugar y la informacion
del cumplimiento della, y para que no se exceda del dicho numero de
Familiares que conforme á lo que declarado esta desuso ha de haver, los
dichos Inquisidores guardaran lo que circa desto el dicho Inquisidor
General y Consejo les han ordenado por sus instrucciones, y los dichos
Inquisidores ternan cuidado que en el dicho su distrito se de al
regimiento copia del numero de los Familiares que en cada una de las
dichas Ciudades, Villas y Lugares de el á de haver para que los
Governadores, Corregidores y las otras Justicias y regimientos lo
entiendan y puedan saber y reclamar quando los Inquisidores excedieren
del numero: y que asi mesmo se de la lista de los Familiares que en
qualquier Gobernacion y Corregimiento se proveen para que los unos y los
otros sepan como aquellos y no otros son los que han de tener por
familiares, y que al tiempo que en lugar de aquellos familiares se
proveyere otro los Inquisidores lo hagan saber al dicho Gobernador,
Corregidor ó Justicia seglar en cuyo distrito se proveiere para que
entienda que aquel ha de tener por familiar y no á otro en cuyo lugar se
proveyere y para que si se supiere que no concurren en el tal proveido
las dichas calidades puede advertir dello á los dichos Inquisidores y si
fuere necesario al dicho Inquisidor General y Consejo para que lo
provean. Por ende yo os mando que guardeis y hagais guardar y cumplir lo
suso dicho en todo y por todo y que contra el tenor y forma dello no
vayais, no paseis ni consentais ir ni pasar por ninguna causa, forma, ó
razon que aya, y que cada uno de vos Juzgue y conosca en los casos que
os quedan reservados y en los otros no os entremetais, que cese toda
competencia de Jurisdiccion porque asi conviene al servicio de Dios
Nuestro Señor y buena administracion de Justicia y esta mi voluntad, y
de lo contrario nos tendriamos por deservidos. Fecha en Madrid, á 16
dias de el mes de Agosto de 1570 años.--Yo el Rey.

Por mandado de su Magestad, Geronimo Zurita.


XIII.

SENTENCE IN CAMARA’S PROSECUTION OF THE INQUISITORS ESTRADA AND HIGUERA.

(MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.).

(See p. 263).

Ffallamos, attentos los autos y meritos de esta causa y lo demas que ver
combino que devemos declarar y declaramos haver havido y haver lugar
dicha querella y haverla probado el dicho Canonigo Doctor Don Juan de la
Camara vien y cumplidamente segun le probar le combino damosla y
pronunciamosla por bien probada, restituyendole en su antigua opinion y
credito conformandonos en todo y por todo con la sentencia difinitiba
dada y pronunciada á su favor en el quaderno segundo de estos auttos por
dicho S^{r} Inq^{r} Don Bernave de la Higuera y Amarilla. Y que dichos
Señores Inquisidores D^{r} Don Fran^{co} de Estrada y Escobedo y
Liz^{do} Don Bernave de la Higuera y Amarilla no an probado cossa alguna
que les pueda relebar de culpa grave. En cuia consecuencia devemos de
declarar y declaramos havir cometido dichos Señores Inq^{res} grave
culpa en dicha prision, secuestro y circunstancias de lo uno y otro cuia
punicion se reserva para la determinacion de la visita pressente y
cargos de ella. Y por lo que toca á la interesse de la parte querellante
devemos de condenar y condenamos á dichos S^{res} Inq^{res} y á cada uno
in solidum mancomunados en dos mill pesos de á ocho reales castellanos
que den y paguen al dicho Canonigo Don Juan de la Camara, á el qual
vuelva luego Don Juan Gonzalez de Castro vezino á el parezer de esta
ziudad depositorio secuestrador que parece haver sido de los bienes de
dicho Canonigo todos dichos vienes sin faltar cosa alguna segun el
imbentario que dellos se hizo, pena de apremio, y casso que dicho
depositario secuestrador deje de restituir dichos bienes ó parte de
ellos ó algunos otros no se ayan depositario en el y no conste haverse
buelto á dicho Canonigo todos los buelban y restituyan dichos Señores
Inquisidores luego sin dilacion alguna, pena de mil pesos de dicha ley,
en que assimismo les condenamos manconumados, y assimismo con la misma
calidad de mancomunidad les condenamos en las costas de este caussa cuia
thassacion en nos reserbamos. Y por esta nuestra sentencia difinitiba
juzgando assi pronunciamos y mandamos en estos scriptos y por ellos.

D^{r} D. Pº Medina Rico.


XIV.

INQUISITORIAL EDICT AGAINST HIDALGO. MEXICO, JANUARY 26, 1817.

(From an original in my possession).

(See pp. 275, 281).

     Nos los Inquisidores Apostolicos, contra la heretica Pravedad, y
     Apostasía en la Ciudad de México, Estados, y Provincias de esta
     Nueva España, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Islas Filipinas, sus Distritos,
     y Jurisdicciones, por Autoridad Apostolica, Real, y Ordinaria, &c.

A todas, y qualesquiera personas de qualquier Estado, grado, y
condicion, preeminencia, ó dignidad que sean, exêntos, ó no exêntos,
vecinos, y moradores, estantes, y habitantes en las Ciudades, Villas, y
Lugares de este nuestro distrito, y á cada uno de Vos, Salud en nuestro
Señor Jesucristo, que es verdadera salud, y á los nuestros mandamientos
firmemente obedecer, y cumplir.

       *       *       *       *       *

SABED: Que ha llegado á nuestras manos una Proclama del rebelde Cura de
Dolores, que se titula: “Manifiesto, que el Señor Don Miguel Hidalgo, y
Costilla::::” haze al Pueblo, y empieza: “Me veo en la triste necesidad
de satisfacer á las gentes; _y acaba_, sobre este basto Continente.” Sin
lugar de impresion; pero sin duda la imprimió en Guadalaxara, y la
publicó manuscrita en Valladolid en todas las Iglesias, y Conventos, aun
de Monjas, despues de la derrota, que sufrió por las armas del Rey en
Aculco. En ella vuelve á cubrirse con el velo de la vil hipocresia,
protestando, que jamás se há apartado de la fé Católica, y pone por
testigos á sus Feligreses de Dolores, y San Felipe, y al Exército, que
comanda: testigos que para el Pueblo fiel, deben hacer la misma fé, que
los ciegos citados para juzgar de los colores “¿Pero para qué, testigos,
_prosigue en su capciosa Proclama_, sobre un hecho, é imputacion, que
ella misma manifiesta su falsedad? Se me acusa, de que niego el
infierno, y de que asiento, que algun Pontifice de los Canonizados está
en este lugar; ¿como se puede concordar, que un Pontifice esté en el
infierno, y negar al mismo tiempo su exîstencia? Se me imputa, que sigo
los perversos Dogmas de Lutero, al mismo tiempo, que se me acusa, que
niego la autenticidad de los Santos Libros: ¿Si Lutero deduce sus
errores de estos mismos Libros, que cree inspirados por Dios, como he de
ser Luterano si niego la autenticidad de estos Libros? ¿Os
persuadiriais, Américanos, que un Tribunal tan respetable, y cuyo
instituto es el mas Santo, se dexase arrastrar del amor al Paisanage,
hasta prostituir su honor, y reputacion?” Mucho le escuece á este impío,
que el Santo Oficio le haya manifestado en su propia figura á todo el
Reyno, que por su fidelidad, y catolicismo llena de maldiciones á un
monstruo, que abrigaba sin conocerle: pero quando copia para instruccion
publica sus errores, no omite la contradiccion manifiesta entre ellos
mismos; porque este es el caracter, y propiedad de todos los hereges,
mientras no bajan à el último grado en la escala del precipicio, que es
el Ateismo, y Materialismo, como le ha sucedido á éste impío; y así la
contradiccion será suya, y respectiva á aquellos tiempos, en que fue
Luterano, comparados, ó contrahidos con los de su decidido Ateismo, y
Materialismo, como se manifestará en la lectura publica de su causa
fenecidos los terminos, que deben seguirse para condenarle en rebeldia.
Satisfaccion, que no dá este Tribunal á su Manifiesto por que la
merezca, síno para que este sofisma no alucine á los incautos, y vuelvan
sobre sí los que hayan llegado á debilitar su opínion en favor del Santo
Oficio, persuadiendose á que es capáz éste antemural de la Religion, y
del Estado de valerse de la impostura, como quiere persuadir este
Hipocrita, para degradar su opinion, y quitar por este medio, indigno de
nuestra probidad y caracter Sacerdotal, la energia á su voz rebelde, y
sediciosa, y para que conozcan de una vez, y teman todos los habitantes
de este Reyno la justicia de Dios por los pecados públicos, empezada á
manifestar en este azote, que han sufrido las Provincias, que este Atéo
cruel, y deshonesto ha infestado con sus consejos, alucinando á tantos
miserables, que ha hecho victimas del proyecto de trastonar el Trono, y
la Religion, y declarandose el mas feroz enemigo de los que llama sus
conciudadanos; pues parece que no quiere mas vidas que la suya
poniendola en salvo con la fuga, y mirando con frialdad inaudita la
mortandad de millares de infelices en las Cruces, en Aculco, Guanaxuato,
Zamora, y Puente de Calderon. Obstinacion caracteristica de un Atéo, que
no conoce, que el poder de Dios ha roto su arco tantas veces con una
especie de prodigio visible respecto de los pocos fieles, que han
perecido.

Son igualmente sediciosas y sanguinarias dos proclamas manuscritas; la
una empieza _Hemos llegado á la época_; y acaba: _De un Patriota de
Lagos_: La otra empieza, _¡Es posible Americanos!_ y acaba: _será
gratíficado con quinientos pesos_. El objeto de ambas es el mismo que la
del rebelde Hidalgo; y con ella se han quemado publicamente de orden del
superior Gobierno por mano de Berdugo en la Plaza pública, y se han
prohibido baxo de la pena de alta traicion por Bando publicado por el
Excelentisimo Señor Virey de este Reyno, que ha excitado nuestro zelo
para arrancarlas con las censuras correspondientes de vuestras manos. No
necesitaban en realidad de especial prohibicion por estár comprendidas
especificamente en nuestros anteriores Edictos particularmente en el de
citacion en rebeldia al infame Hidalgo, publicado en trece de Octubre
del año pasado como lo està igualmente el Bando que publicó el
Licenciado Don Ignacio Antonio Rayon, su fecha en Tlalpujagua á 24 de
Octubre proximo, en que convoca á todo Americano á la sedicion, llamando
causa santa, justa, y religiosa esta escandalosa, atróz, y sanguinaria
rebelion, proscribiendo á los Europeos, confiscando sus bienes, y dando
nueva forma á la recaudacion de impuestos. En dicho Edicto de 13 de
Octubre declaramos incursos en la pena de Excomunion mayor, de
quinientos pesos, y en el crimen de fautoria sin excepcion á quantas
personas aprueben la sedicion de Hidalgo, reciban sus Proclamas,
mantengan su trato, y correspondencia, y le presten qualquiera genero de
ayuda, ó favor, y á los que no denuncien, y obliguen á denunciar, á los
que favorezcan sus ideas revolucionarias, y de qualquier modo las
promuevan, y propaguen. En nuestro Edicto de 28 de Septiembre ultimo
prohibimos baxo de las mismas penas qualquiera proclama, ya fuese del
intruso Rey José, ó ya de qualquiera otro Español, ó Estrangero que
inspirase desobediencia, independencia, y trastorno del Gobierno,
renovando la fuerza de la regla 16 del Indice Expurgatorio, y de
nuestros Edictos de 13 de Marzo de 1790, 27 de Agosto de 1808, 22 de
Abril, y 16 de Junio de 1810: lo que se os hace presente por última y
perentoria vez para quitaros las escusas, de que por nuevos no estais
obligados á la denuncia, corriendo semejantes papeles incendiarios
impunemente de mano en mano con peligro de la Patria, y de la Religion
hasta que algun zeloso católico, y fiel vasallo los denuncia.

     Y para la mas exâcta obserbancia, y cumplimiento de lo contenido en
     el Edicto General de Fé, en los anteriormente citados, y de los
     respetables encargos del Gobierno: Por el tenor del presente os
     exhôrtamos, requerimos y mandamos en virtud de Santa Obediencia, y
     só la pena de Excomunion mayor _latæ sentenciæ_, y pecuniaria á
     nuestro arbitrio, que desde el dia, que este nuestro Edicto fuere
     leido, y publicado ó de él supieredes de qualquiera manera, hasta
     seis dias siguientes (los quales os damos por tres terminos, y el
     ultimo perentorio) trahigais, exhibais, y presenteis las
     sobredichas Proclamas, y Bando, y qualquiera otro Papel sedicioso
     impreso, ó manuscrito, ante Nos, ó ante los Comisarios del Santo
     Oficio fuera de esta Corte, denunciando à los que los tubieren, y
     ocultaren, y á las personas, que propaguen con proposiciones
     sediciosas, y seductivas el espiritu de Independencia, y Sedicion.
     En testimonio de lo qual mandamos dar, y dimos esta nuestra Carta
     firmada de nuestros nombres, sellada con el Sello del Santo Oficio,
     y refrendada de uno de los Secretarios del secreto de él. Dada en
     la Inquisicion de México á veinte y seis de Enero de mil
     ochocientos once.

_Dr. D. Bernardo de Prado,
y Obejero._

_Lic. D. Isidoro Sainz de Alfaro,
y Beaumont._

_Dr. D. Manuel de Flores._

Nadie le quite, pena de excomunion mayor.

Por mandado del Santo Oficio
_Dr. D. José Antonio Aguirrezabal_,
Secretario.


[Illustration]


XV.

SENTENCE OF JOSÉ MARÍA MORELOS BY THE INQUISITION OF MEXICO, NOVEMBER
26, 1815.

(Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Sala 39, Leg. 1473, fol. 30).

(See p. 296).

Dixeron conformes que se le haga auto publico de fé, en la sala de este
tribunal el dia de mañana á las ocho, á que asistan los ministros y cien
personas de las principales que señalará el señor Inquisidor decano. Que
se declara al precitado presbitero José María Morelos, confitente
diminuto malicioso y pertinaz: que se le declara herege formal negativo,
despreciador, perturbador y perseguidor de la gerarquía eclesiastica,
atentador y profanador de los santos sacramentos. Que es reo de Lesa
Magestad Divina y Humana, Pontificia y Real y que asista al auto en
forma de penitente inter misarum solemnia, con sotana corta, sin cuella
ni ceñidor y con vela verde en su mano que ofrecera al sacerdote,
concluida la misa, como tal herege y fautor de hereges desde que empezó
la insurreccion, y como á enemigo cruel del Santo Oficio se le confiscan
sus bienes con aplicacion á la Real camara y fisco de S. M. en los
terminos que declarara el Tribunal y aunque merecedor de la degradacion
y relajacion por los delitos cometidos del fuero y conocimiento del
Santo Oficio, sin embargo por estar pronto á abjurar sus crasos y
inveterados errores, se le condena, en el remoto é inesperado caso de
que se le perdone la vida por el Excmo. Señor Virrey, Capitan General de
esta Nueva España, á destierro perpetuo de ambas Americas, corte de
Madrid y sitios reales, y á reclusion en carcel perpetua en uno de los
Presidios de Africa, á disposicion del Excmo. é Ilustrisimo Señor
Inquisidor General, se le depone de todo oficio y beneficio eclesiastico
con inavilidad é irregularidad perpetua. Que á sus tres hijos aunque
sacrilegos se les declara incursos en las penas de infamia y demás que
imponen los canones y leyes á los descendientes de hereges, con arreglo
á las instrucciones de este Santo Oficio. Que abjure de formali y sea
absuelto de las excomuniones y censuras en que ha incurrido reservadas
al Santo Oficio. Que haga una confesion general y sin omitir el Oficio
Divino, rece los siete Psalmos Penitenciales los Viernes, y los Sabados
una parte del Rosario durante su vida. Y que se fige su nombre, patria,
religion y delitos en la Santa Iglesia Catedral de esta corte. Asi lo
acordaron mandaron y firmaron. Doctor Flores--Doctor
Monteagudo--Blaza--Campo--Madrid--D. Casiano de Chavarsi Secretario.


XVI.

VICEROY VILLAR’S PETITION FOR ABSOLUTION.

(Archivo nacional de Lima, Protocolo 228, Exp^{te} 5287[853]).

(See p. 379).

En la ciudad de los Reyes à 14 de Octubre de 1589 ante el Ynquisidor
Lisenciado Antº Gutierrez de Ulloa, estando en su audiencia de la mañana
se presentò y leyò esta peticion.

El Virrey de este Reyno del Peru, D. Fernando de Torres y Portugal Conde
del Villar, digo: que à mi noticia es venido que en este Santo Oficio se
ha declarado por V. Sª que yo incurrì en ciertas Censuras de Excomunion
por haber procedido criminalmente contra el Dr. Diego de Salinas y otras
causas, y aunque à lo que puedo entender he tenido siempre seguridad y
quietud de mi conciencia de no haber incurrido en ellas por no haber
sido de mi intencion en ninguna de las causas que se han ofrecido hacer
cosas por donde yo entendiese caia en la tal excomunion, creyendo que
para proceder en los negocios y cosas sucedidas me competia derecho por
razon de mi oficio y cargo y otras consideraciones. Pero entendido ahora
que por V. Sª se ha declarado haber incurrido en la dicha excomunion,
acudo à este Santo Oficio como obediente hijo de nuestra Santa Madre
Iglesia para que V. Sª me de la absolucion, la cual pido y suplico se me
conceda por aquella via y forma que hubiere lugar de derecho y mas y
mejor convenga à la seguridad de mi conciencia que es justo yo tenga en
todo tiempo, en especial habiendome de embarcar para España como con
lisencia y por mandado del Rey nuestro Señor estoy para lo hacer con
mucha brevedad.--El Virrey Conde del Villar.

       *       *       *       *       *

En la Ciudad de los Reyes à 14 de Octubre de 1589 los Inquisidores Dr.
Juan Ruiz de Prado y Lisenciado Antonio Gutierrez de Ulloa estando en su
Audiencia de la tarde, habiendo visto esta dicha peticion dijeron que
per cuanto por su parte de los dichos Ynquisidores se habia advertido
diversas veces, asi por terceras personas como por escrito à su Sª del
dicho S^{r} Virrey Conde del Villar que por las cosas que habia hecho
contra el Santo Oficio y sus Ministros habia incurrido en las Censuras
contenidas en el motupropio de nuestro muy Santo Padre Pio quinto y
estaba excomulgado, y que el haber incurrido en ellas y en otras es tan
claro que aunque no se hubiera advertido, estaba obligado à lo entender
asi, porque todos entienden que incurren en ellas las personas que ponen
impedimento directo ò indirecto al ejercicio del Santo Oficio de la
Ynquisicion y su Libertad, y tratan mal con obras ò palabras de los
Ynquisidores ù otros ministros de ella, en derogacion de su reputacion y
autoridad, sin que en esto escuse ni pueda escusar la intencion por
buena que sea, porque clara cosa es que no se atiende para incurrir en
las Censuras sino solo à los hechos ò dichos esteriores, porque la
Yglesia no juzga de las cosas asi ocultas, y habiendo sido las que el
dicho S^{r} Visorrey ha hecho tan manifiestamente en perjuicio de la
Ynquisicion y su libertad y autoridad en grande agravio y ofenza de las
personas del Santo Oficio, como se ha visto en muchos casos, que por ser
tan notorios no se refieren, las cuales cosas antes de la absolucion
requieren satisfaccion condigna, especialmente lo que toca al notorio
agravio que al dicho D^{r} Dionicio de Salinas Abogado de este Santo
Oficio hizo su Señoria, en el tormento que le diò, pidiendo como el
dicho D^{r} Salinas lo tiene pedido asi en este Santo Oficio.--Atento à
lo cual los dichos Señores Ynquisidores amonestan à su Señoria del dicho
S^{r} Visorrey que para que la absolucion por su Señoria pedida se le
pueda dar y conseguirse el fruto de ella, ante todas cosas satisfaga en
cuanto en si fuere al dicho D^{r} Salinas en la forma que mejor se
pudiere, atendiendo en todo à la autoridad de su oficio, à la cual no se
pretende derogar, sino hacerse lo que los dichos Ynquisidores estan
obligados de derecho por aver como hay parte lesa que insta. Porque à lo
que toca à la injuria y ofensa hecha al Santo Oficio, lo remiten (segun
que lo tienen remitido) al Yll^{mo} S^{r} Cardenal Ynquisidor General y
Señores del Consejo de la Santa general Ynquisicion, con todas las demas
causas à esto tocantes, y que por ser cosa llana que el dicho S^{r} Viso
Rey estando incurso en las dichas censuras por las dichas razones, y
constar à los dichos Ynquisidores que habiendo sido advertido su Señoria
no hacia diligencia alguna para salir de ellas, y que estaba à punto de
embarcarse para España (viage tan peligroso como se sabe, especialmente
en personas de edad) de nuevo se le enviò à advertir de palabra; y como
todavia no hacia diligencia alguna, estandose siempre en las dichas
Censuras, porque no fuese ligado en ellas, pareciò à los dichos
Ynquisidores, movidos con celo de caridad para obligar à su Señoria à la
seguridad de su conciencia, y que entendiese el peligro y riesgo de
ella, declarar como declararon (como Ministros del derecho à quien
competia el hacerlo) el haber su Señoria incurrido en las dichas
Censuras; y acatando el respeto que se debe à su persona y oficio, se
hizo la dicha declaracion en la sala de la Audiencia del Santo Oficio
sin otros testigos mas que el presente Secretario, y de ello se diò
noticia à su Señoria para el dicho efecto. En razon de lo cual como
parece por la dicha peticion, pide su Señoria el beneficio de la
absolucion en este Santo Oficio, la cual los dichos Señores Ynquisidores
estan prestos de le dar en la forma que pueden y deben, conforme à
derecho, haciendo su Señoria del S^{r} Virrey de su parte lo que esta
obligado, conforme à lo dicho, sin que por esto pretendan obligar al
dicho S^{r} Viso Rey à cumplir con las demas solemnidades que el derecho
requiere en semejantes casos, atendiendo à la calidad de su persona y
oficio como esta dicho; y asi lo proveyeron y firmaron.--El D^{r} Juan
Ruiz de Prado.--El Lisenciado Antonio Gutierrez de Ulloa.--Antemi,
Geronimo de Eugui Secretario.




INDEX.


Abuses of Inq. of Sicily, 10, 13, 18, 19, 21, 30, 37, 41, 518
  of Sardinia, 117
  of Mexico, 251, 254
  of Peru, 335, 356, 375, 387, 435
  of New Granada, 473, 479, 487, 498

Accounts, statements of, refused by Inq. of Mexico, 216
  by Inq. of Peru, 342
  by Inq. of New Granada, 501

Acereta, Lorenza, case of, 461

Acqui, Bp. of, as inqr., 131

Acquittal, honors rendered in, 430, 437

Adrian, Card., endeavors to reform the Inq., 18

Agliata, Marino, case of, 34

Aguirre, Fermin de, case of, 396

Aguirre, Francisco de, case of, 322

Aillon, Nicolás de, a mystic, 405

Alaman, Lucas, prosecution of, 274

Alba, Viceroy, of Sicily, 29, 33

Alba, Viceroy, of Naples, 95

Albonesi, Tullio, his report as to Milan, 127, 129

Alburquerque, Duke of, on papal jurisdiction, 135

_Alcavala_, inqrs. subjected to, 215

Aldegato, Ambrosio, inqr. of Mantua, 133

Alguazils, number of, in Mexico, 252, 267
  sale of office of, 349

Alguazil mayor, office of, refused, 188

Alguazils, royal, arrest of, 252

Alcalá, Viceroy of Naples, 80
  claims confiscations, 84
  his instructions to Reggio, 89
  insists on exequatur, 90

Alexander VI, his bull of 1493, 191

Alienations of real estate, 14

Almendáriz, Bp. of Cuba, 475

Almoguera, Abp., his Instructions, 445

Alonso, Bartolomé, case of, 184

Altolaguirre, Felipe de, 367

Alva de Aliste, Viceroy, on confiscations, 219
  warned to favor Inq., 374
  complains of Inq., 381

Alvarez de Arellano, case of, 229

Alvarez, Duarte, case of, 155

Alvarez, Sebastian, burnt, 236

Amat y Yunient, Viceroy, complains of Inq., 381

America, New Christians forbidden access to, 193

Amusquíbar, Inqr., his alliance with Ilarduy, 35
  denounces his colleagues, 366, 410, 435
  disputes royal cédula, 388
  quarrels with Abp. Barroeta, 389
  his treatment of François Moyen, 442, 443
  is sole inqr., 571

Angelo da Cremona, inqr. of Milan, 124

Aniello, Tommaso, 73

_Animali parlanti, gli_, suppressed, 472

Antilles under Lima tribunal, 455
  under Cartagena tribunal, 457

Antioquia, sorcery in, 463

Antona, Franc. Ant., case of, 470

Apostasy, light penalty for, 439

Appeals only to Inq.-general, 21
  in the colonies, 203

Appointment, power of, in Peru, 330

Apulia, Waldenses of, 85, 524

Archives of Canary tribunal, 190
  of Mexican Tribunal, 288, 298
  of Philippine Tribunal, 317
  of Lima Tribunal, 320

Arcimboldo, Abp., his Edict of Faith, 123

Arechederra, Philippine Commissioner, 305, 306, 317

Arianza, Juan de, case of, 392

Armas, Joseph de, fiscal of Canaries, 150

Arenaza, visitador, 367
  his trading enterprise, 368, 369
  his troubles, 369
  his return and death, 371
  his services in earthquake, 372
  on the trials of Quietists, 410

Arms, licences to bear, 13
  privilege restricted, 32, 42

Army, foreigners in, 271

Arpide, Ant. de, his career, 375

Arrests in Naples require royal exequatur, 56
  power of commissioners, 302, 303

Assassination excepted from fuero, 30

_Assistenti_ of Inq., 132

Asti, Bp. of, as inqr., 131

Asylum, right of, claimed, 11, 254, 386

Atienza, Gomez de, 493

Atrato, navigation of river, 513

Atto di fede, in Palermo, 1724, 30
  in Naples, 1746, 104

Audience-chamber in Lima, 447

Audiencia, quarrels with Inq., 187, 269, 384, 396

Auto de fe, Mexican, of 1574, 205
    of 1646-1649, 229
    of 1659, 234
  of 1573 in Lima, 328
    of 1639, 425, 430
    of 1694, 405
    of 1736, 366, 410, 435

Aventrot, Jan, case of, 150

Ayacucho, battle of, 511

_Ayuda de costa_ in Peru, 343

Azólares, Bp. of Canaries, 147, 162


Badajoz, Concordia of, 28

Badaran, inqr., his quarrel with bp., 185

Banishment as punishment, 439

Bank of Lima, failure of, 428

Bankruptcies, frauds in, 41

Baños, Bp. of Santa Marta, 492

Banqueresme, Jacob, case of, 170

Baptism, cost of, in Sicily, 4

Barco de Centinera, his excesses, 336

Barnaba Capograsso, inqr. of Naples, 55, 64

Barroeta, Abp., his quarrels with Amusquíbar, 389

_Beatas revelanderas_ in Canaries, 162
  in Mexico, 235
  in Peru, 396

Bedstead, censorship of, 266

Bello, Juan, his prosecution, 358

Belorado, Abp., appointed inqr. of Sicily, 6
  excommunicates magistrates, 8
  appointed inqr. of Naples, 54

Benavente, Francisco de, 336

Benavides, Bp. of Cartagena, 491, 493
  he goes to Rome, 497

Benedict XIV seeks to restore the Inq. in Naples, 107

Benevento, Jews of, persecuted, 53

Benjamin of Tudela on Neapolitan Jews, 49

Bernal, Alonso, inqr. of Sicily, 9

Bestiality, 244

Betanzos, Domingo de, inqr., 196

Bethencourt, Jean de, conquers Canaries, 139

Bibles, Spanish, sent to colonies, 267

Bigamy, frequency of, 206, 391
  powers of commissioner in, 302

Bishops, their quarrels with Inq., in Sicily, 35
    in Sardinia, 117
    in Mexico, 257
    in Peru, 325
    in New Granada, 473, 491
  their treatment by Inq., 182
  appointment of, for New World, 192
  their inquisitorial powers, 196
  their jurisdiction over Indians, 210
  their rapacity, 514
  (_See_ also Inquisition, Episcopal).

Blasphemy in Peru, 391
  in New Granada, 465

Bohorques, Bp. of Oaxarca, 257

Bonelli, Giacomo, burnt, 80

Bonol, insurrection in, 307

Books, heretical, burnt in Naples, 70
  lists of, required in Mexico, 204
  prohibited, sale of, 265
  importation of, in Peru, 444, 446

Borbujo y Riba, inqr. of Canaries, 189, 190

Borromeo, Giulio Cesare, 124

Borromeo, San Carlo, his persecuting zeal, 124, 130, 132, 135, 532
  as inqr. of Milan, 131
  his mission to Mantua, 133

Bovino, Bp. of, and Apulian Waldenses, 85

Bowes, Ellen, case of, 106

_Brasero_ in Mexico, 206

Brazil, influx of Portuguese from, 421

Brescia, Bp. of, as inqr., 131

Bribery of inqrs., 20, 487
  of Suprema, 367

_Brujas_, 167, 463

Bruñon de Vertiz, case of, 239

Bucchianico, Marquis of, 81, 82, 83

Buenos Ayres, bishopric erected, 337
  tribunal proposed, 339, 341
  solicitation in, 395
  influx of Portuguese, 421

Bugueiro, Abp. of Mexico, 257

Buil, Fray, as missionary, 191

Burnings in Canaries, 154

Bustamente, Andrés de, inqr. of Peru, 327


Cabezas, Juan, Bp. of Cuba, 458

Cáceres, Felipe de, case of, 324

Calabria, New Christians of, 52, 53
  persecution of Waldenses, 79

Calderon, inqr., his peculations, 351
  his property seized, 353

  his scandals, 366
  his arrest, 368
  his release, 370
  end of his trial, 372
  condemns Quietists, 410

Calificadores in Mexico, 264
  prosecuted in Peru, 393

Calleja, Viceroy, suppresses Mexican Inq., 288
  invades its jurisdiction, 291
  executes Morelos, 297

Calvete, Tristan, inqr. of Sicily, 17, 18

Camara, Juan de la, case of, 259, 538

Camera reginale, districts of, 7, 8

Camera di Santa Chiara, 105

Campagna, Perrucio, burnt, 24

Campanella, Tommaso, case of, 93

Campeggio, Camillo, inqr. of Mantua, 133

Campos, Ant. de, case of, 392

Canaries, their conquest, 139
  (_See_ Inquisition of Canaries).

Candioti, Teodoro, case of, 434

Cañete, Viceroy, complains of Inq., 380

Canonries for colonial tribunals, 216, 346, 501
  their value, 217, 506

Cantons, Catholic, relations with Milan, 129

Capasso, Niccolò, his report, 102

Caraccioli, Viceroy, on suppression of Inq., 44

Carafa, Abp., persecutes heretics, 87

Card tricks suspect of sorcery, 166

Cardenas, Bp. of Asuncion, 258

Cardona, Gabriel, inqr. of Sardinia, 109, 110, 111

Cardona, Ramon de, Viceroy of Naples, 58, 59

Cargoes, seizure of, 156, 169

Carlos II expels Inq. from Naples, 100
  on colonial subventions, 220

Carlos III controls the Inq. of Sicily, 42
  recovers Naples, 104
  suppresses its Inq., 107
  limits the _fuero_, 269, 388
  on pseudo-Catholic recruits, 271
  limits censorship, 445
  rebuilds Inq. of Cartagena, 468

Carmona, Jamariz, case of, 248

Carranza, Angela, case of, 400

Cartagena selected as seat of tribunal, 457
  bombarded in 1741, 468
  Jews allowed in, 469
  intellectual torpor, 470
  no clock there in 1648, 485
  its decline, 499
  expenditures on, 503
  revolutionary junta in 1810, 506
  tribunal expelled in 1812, 507

Cartagena, siege of 1815, 509
  recapture by revolutionists in 1821, 510
  its commerce in 1772, 513
  (_See_ Inq. of New Granada).

Carvajal, Luis de, case of, 208

_Casa de la misericordia_, 438

Casannova, Angelo, kidnaps Cellaria, 134

Castaldo, Ant., on tumult of 1547, 77

Castañeto, Governor, his fate, 81

Castel Fuerte, Viceroy, 270, 386

Casti, his _Animali parlanti_, 472

Castillo, Santiago del, case of, 429

Castro, Ana de, case of, 435

Castro, Ant. de, inqr. of Lima, 364

Catalina de San Mateo, a _beata_, 162

Catholicism, pretended, risk of, 175

Cattle-brands, censorship of, 266

Cavendish, Thomas, his expedition, 415

Ceballos y la Cerda, Governor of Cartagena, 496
  his humiliation, 498

Cellarìa, Francisco, burnt in Rome, 134

Censorship in Naples, 84
  early, in Milan, 123
  in Canaries, 176
  in Mexico, 204, 264, 274
  in Peru, 444
    by the State, 445
  in New Granada, 470, 510

Cerezuela, inqr. of Lima, 319, 327
  suspends cases in Cuzco, 322
  on Indians and foreigners, 332

Ceruti, canon, tried for heresy, 133

Cervantes, Gaspar, proposed as inqr. for Milan, 125, 128

Cervantes, Juan de, his chaplaincy, 151

Cervantes, Pascual de, inqr. of Mexico, 201

Cervera, Melchor, inqr. of Sicily, 14, 15, 17
  his conscientious bequest, 20, 523
  unable to hang sanbenitos, 24

Cevallos, Gutiérrez de, inqr. of Lima, 365, 366

Chapter of Canaries, quarrels with Inq., 183, 186, 187

Charles VIII (France) baptizes Neapolitan Jews, 50

Charles V (Emp.) orders Sicilian Inq. restored, 16
  insists on the _fuero_, 20, 22
  suspends the _fuero_, 22
  restores the _fuero_, 24
  refuses redress of grievances, 26
  gives Malta to Knights of St. John, 45
  orders Inq. introduced in Naples, 70
  orders Naples to submit, 76
  expels Jews from Naples, 66
  his edict against Lutherans, 69

  his good-nature, 177
  appoints friars as bishops, 193
  permits New Christians to go to America, 194
  exempts Indians from Inq., 210

Charles VI controls Inq. of Sicily, 40
  limits the _fuero_, 41
  orders episcopal Inq., 102
  refuses entrance to Roman Inq., 103

Cheevers, Sarah, in Maltese Inq., 47

Chickens, throat-cutting of, 304

Children, exemption from confiscation, 21
  of heretics seized, 106, 136

China, episcopal Inq. in, 317

Chinchon, Viceroy, issues licences to leave Peru, 333
  on subdivision of district, 340

Chitterlings, privilege of, 255

Christ, image of, in audience-chamber, 447

Church, its development in Mexico, 193

Churches, sanbenitos in, 24, 188

Cid, Garcí, receiver of Sicily, 12, 15

Cid, Nicholas, case of, 135

Citations to Rome, 89

Claims against sequestrations, 428

Clavijo, Lope, Comr. of Santa Fe, 454

Claysen, Gaspar, case of, 154

Clement VII restricts travel in heretic lands, 137

Clement XII appoints Inq.-genl. of Sicily, 43

Clergy, character of, in colonies, 192, 514, 515
  of Peru complain of inqrs., 335, 356

Clerics, jurisdiction over, 35

Coca, use of, in sorcery, 391

Colombia, U. S. of, abolish Inq., 510

Colonial system, Spanish, 513

Commerce of the Colonies in hands of Conversos, 229, 425
  affected by persecution, 234, 428, 512

Commissioner of Roman Inq. in Naples, 92, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100

Commissioners, quarrels over troubles caused by, in Sicily, 35, 522
  troubles caused by, in Mexico, 248, 252, 254
  their limited functions, 301
  their duties in Peru, 334
  their tyranny, 335, 339
  of New Granada, 454

Commissions on confiscations, 19, 521

Communications in prison, 427, 430

Como, heretical infection in, 122

_Competencias_, 29
  suppressed by Carlos III, 43, 269
  in Canaries, 181
  in Mexico, 252, 267

Complaints of Palermo, 16
  of Sicilian Parliament, 13, 21, 22, 26
  of Neapolitans, 95, 99, 102, 104, 107
  of Viceroys, 255, 355, 379, 380
  of Council of Indies, 220, 256, 314, 345, 476, 478, 481, 484, 488, 503, 512
  of the clergy of Peru, 335, 356
  of governors of Cartagena, 473, 498
  of the Regular Orders, 474
  of the city of Cartagena, 480
  of the Junta de Guerra, 484

_Complicidad grande_ of Peru, 426

Composition of Seville, 193

Concealment of resources, 216, 345, 501

Concordias, Sicilian, 28, 31, 37
  seven in Sardinia, 119
  of 1553 extended to Indies, 197, 247,330
  of 1610, for Indies, 251
  of 1633, 218, 254, 267

Confession, deprivation of, for solicitation, 393, 394

Confiscations commence in Sicily, 7
  profits of, 12
  of contracts, 13, 21
  disorders in, 19, 521
  division of, 53, 134
  abolished and restored in Naples, 79, 99
  of Waldenses, 84
  as practised in Naples, 85
  in Sardinia, 112
  regulate salaries, 114, 528
  in Canaries, 156
  in Mexico, 213, 216, 219, 223, 232
  in Peru, 343, 347, 429
  in New Granada, 467, 501
  of heretic prisoners of war, 418
  entailed by reconciliation, 421
  influence of, 512

Conflicts of jurisdiction in Sicily, 25, 29, 31, 34, 37
     in Malta, 46
     in Sardinia, 110, 117, 118, 119
     in Milan, 125
     in Canaries, 180
     in Mexico, 245, 267
     in Philippines, 308
     in Peru, 381
     in New Granada, 473

Constitution, Mexican, condemned, 291, 294

_Consulta de fe_, in colonies, 203

_Consulta magna_ on Sicilian Inq., 38

Contracts, confiscation of, 13, 21

Conversos, Jewish, in Sicily, 4
  forbidden to leave Sicily, 7, 26
  expelled from Naples, 62, 64
  forbidden to leave Canaries, 142
  not allowed in the Colonies, 193, 419

Conversos control commerce of Colonies, 229, 425

Copernican system in New Granada, 471

Coquimbo, Dutch captured at, 418

Corcuera, Governor of Philippines, 309

Cordero, Antonio, case of, 426

Cornelius, William, case of, 205, 206, 207

Corral, Andrés, case of, 394

Corro Carrascal, inqr. of Cartagena, 488, 489

Cortájar, inqr. of Cartagena, 478, 479, 486

Cortés, Hern., asks for friars, 192

Cosenza, burnings at, 83

Creditors, claims of, allowed, 14, 21

Crime, immunity for, 28
     abrogated, 388

Crimes excepted from _fuero_, 31

Crockery subjected to censorship, 178

Croix, Marquis de, story of, 270

Crosses prohibited on profane objects, 265

Cruz, Bart. de la, case of, 394

Cruz, Fran. de la, case of, 396

Cruzada, the Santa, its jurisdiction, 385

Cuadros, Fran. Manuel de, case of, 241

Cuba, early bps. of, 195
  under Cartagena tribunal, 457
  Bp. of, on commissioners, 249

Cubelles, Bp. of Malta, his Inq., 45

Cueva, Claudio de la, his visitation, 150

Curses for not denouncing heretics, 534

Cuzco, episcopal Inq. in, 321, 322
  earthquake of 1784, 354


Dagohoy, Francisco, his revolt, 308

Dealing with heretics raises suspicion, 130, 137

Debt, arbitrary collection of, 255

Debts, Inq. used to collect, 91, 362

Decadence of Inq. of Sicily, 42
     of Naples, 104
     of Sardinia, 119
     of Milan, 137
     of Canaries, 188
     of Mexico, 270
     of Lima, 447
     of Cartagena, 499

Defence disregarded, 230

Delation, training in, 160

Delays in trials, 237, 239, 410, 433, 443
  to be avoided, 519

Delgado, Rodríguez, inqr. of Lima, 352, 371

Demon, pact with, 166

Denunciations in Canaries, 142, 143, 147, 160
  caused by Edict of Faith, 227
  duty of, 202, 423

Denunciations, curses for neglecting, 534

Deputati of Naples, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107

_Derechos del Hombre_ suppressed, 471

Deserters, military, in Philippines, 303

Deza, Abp. of Indies, 192

Díaz, Diego, burnt, 235

_Discordia_, in the colonies, 203

Discords, intestine, in Cartagena, 485, 488

Divination with sticks, 473

Domicile, inviolability of, 11, 254

Dominicans, slain in Mantua, 133
  missionaries to Indies, 192
  refute Copernicus, 471

Doria, Andrea, bombards Naples, 75

Dowries not to be confiscated, 14, 21

Drake, John, in Peru, 357, 415

Dutch, the, their attempt on Valdivia, 418

Duties, evasion of, in Sicily, 12, 517

Duzzina, Pietro, inqr. of Malta, 46


Earthquake of 1746, in Lima, 353, 370

Echarri, Secretary of Cartagena, 490, 499

Edict of Faith in Sicily, 7
     in Naples, 1695, 101
     in Milan, 123
     in Lombardy, 135
     in Canaries, 142
     in Mexico, 203, 204, 227, 290
     in the Philippines, 305
     in Peru, 328, 331
     episcopal in Mexico, 211
     against occult arts, 391

Edict of Grace in Sicily, 7

Edon, Adam, case of, 466

Effigies, burning of, 144, 149, 152, 155

Eguiluz, Paula de, case of, 464, 465

Elections, interference with forbidden, 254

Embezzlement in Lima tribunal, 340, 351
  in Cartagena tribunal, 487

_Embusteras_ in Mexico, 235
  in Peru, 400

Emigration of conversos forbidden in Sicily, 7, 26

Encarnacion, María Josepha de la, 486

England, its treaty of 1604, 171

English factory in Sicily, its complaints, 41
  prisoners of war in Peru, 357, 414

Englishmen, treatment of, in Canaries, 153, 167, 172
  subject to censorship, 177
  in Mexican Inq., 205, 207
  changed treatment of, 448

Enmity, gratification of, 161

Episcopal jurisdiction restored in Sicily, 43

Episcopal Inq. _See_ Inq., episcopal.

Episcopate, inqrs. promoted to, 201

Erasmus on external observance, 69

Escalante, inqr. of Cartagena, 500

Esparza de Pantolosa, case of, 50

Espinal, Alonso de, a missionary, 192

_Espontaneados_, immunity for, 245

Estrada y Escobedo, inqr., 230, 263

Evans, Katharine, in Maltese Inq., 47

Evora, Rodrigo de, case of, 201

Excommunication of judges, 32, 34, 37
  of viceroys, 32, 377
  of inqrs., 185
  of insurgents _en masse_, 280
  restricted by Charles V, 42
  neglect of, is heresy, 91
  commissioners not empowered, 301

Exemptions of officials, 20, 22, 246
  from taxation, 215
  from military service, 263

Exequatur required for arrests, 90, 94
  formalities of, 91, 539
  Rome refuses to ask for it, 95, 99

Exile as punishment, 439

Expenses of Lima Inq., 350
  of Cartagena Inq., 503

Expulsion of Jews from Sicily, 3
     from Naples, 53, 62, 66

Extinction of Inq. of Sicily, 43
  of Naples, 106
  of Sardinia, 119
  of Milan, 137
  of Canaries, 190
  of Mexico, 298
  of Peru, 450
  of New Granada, 510

Extradition. _See_ Exequatur.


_Fabrica de Sevilla_, 225

Faith, propagation of, in New World, 191

Faith not to be kept as to heresy, 52

Fajardo, governor of Philippines, 310

Fallet, Pierre, case of, 306

False-witness punished in Rome, 91

Falsification of parish registers, 434

Familiars, their number in Sicily, 11, 13, 28, 31
     in Sardinia, 117
     in Canaries, 146
     in Mexico, 247, 536
     in Peru, 330
     in New Granada, 468
     their immunity, 27
  their excepted crimes, 31
  nobles not to serve as, 42
  regulations in Mexico, 247, 536

Familiars, illegal protection of, 251, 252
  their military service, 263
  deprived of _fuero_, 269, 388

Farmers of revenue, inqrs. as, 251

Fees in _visitas de navíos_, 267

Ferdinand of Aragon appoints Sicilian inqrs., 1
     expels Jews, 3
     reorganizes Sicilian Inq., 5
     enforces obedience to it, 8
     gift to Queen Germaine, 12
     explosion after his death, 14
     desires Inq. in Naples, 50
     orders payment of Pantolosa’s bills, 51
     disregards Gonsalvo’s pledge to Naples, 52
     expels Jews from Naples, 53
     commissions a papal inqr., 56
     attempts to introduce Spanish Inq., 57
     permits papal Inq., 64
     founds Inq. of Sardinia, 109
     supports its jurisdiction, 110
     his grants from confiscations, 112
     his kindliness, 113
     regulates salaries by confiscations, 114, 539

Ferdinando IV suppresses Sicilian Inq., 43
  allows no Inq. in Naples, 107

Feria, Viceroy, his struggle with Inq., 34

Fernando VI on pseudo-Catholic recruits, 271
  limits the fuero, 388
  sustains Amusquíbar, 389

Figueroa, Bp., his quarrel with Inq., 183

Figueroa, Governor of Cartagena, 489

Finances of Sicilian Inq., 9, 12, 19, 24, 26, 27, 39
  of Sardinian Inq., 109, 112, 114, 115, 116
  of Inq. of Canaries, 156
  of Inq. of Mexico, 212, 225, 288
  of Inq. of Peru, 342, 354
  of Inq. of New Granada, 460, 482, 487, 500

Fine inflicted on Naples, 76

Fines of officials, 28
  in Sicily, 8, 10, 19
  in Peru, 328, 329, 343
  in Cartagena, 461, 482, 493, 496

Finger-rings, censorship of, 266

Fishing-boat, selection of, by Inq., 184

Fiscal is equal of inquisitor, 365

Flemings, prosecution of, in Canaries, 171

Flores, Juan Gutiérrez, inqr. of Lima, 364

Flores, Manuel de, inqr. of Mexico, 289
  publishes Edict of Faith, 290
  tries José María Morelos, 291

Florida, attempts to establish Inq., 457

Fonseca, Pedro de, his office, 213

Fonte, Miguel, his assassination, 111

Foreigners, treatment of, in Canaries, 167
  in Peru, 332
  in army, danger from, 271

Fos, Pierre, case of, 413

_Fragata de la Inquisicion_, 92

Franciscan missionaries to Indies, 191

Francisco de San José, Fray, his sermons, 307

Frauds in bankruptcies, 41

Frederic II, his forged decree, 1

Free-Masonry in Mexico, 274

Frenchmen in Mexico, their influence, 272

Fuensaldaña, Governor of Sinaloa, 249

_Fuero_ of Inq. in Sicily, 10
  suspended and restored, 22, 24
  grants immunity to crime, 28, 30
  restricted by Charles VI, 41
  abuses of, in Naples, 100
  in the Colonies, 246
  abuses in Mexico, 248
     in Peru, 334, 382, 386
  limited by Carlos III, 269
     by Fernando VI, 388

Fúnez, Diego Ortiz, inqr. of Canaries, 145, 147, 149, 156, 162, 177, 181

Furniture, censorship of, 265


_Gachupines_, 280

Gage, Thomas, on Indian idolatry, 211

Gaitan, Andrés Juan, inqr. of Lima, 363, 364

Galleys, punishment of, 431
  for solicitation, 395

García de Arias, burnt, 236

García, Comr. of Cumaná, 454

Garfías, Isabel de, her convent, 151

Garza, Costanza, case of, 144

Gasco, Fray Alonso, case of, 396, 398

Gaspar, George, his burning, 153

Geltruda, burnt in 1724, 40

Germaine, Queen, gift to, 12

Gesuald, burnt for Lutheranism, 45

Ghislieri, Michele. _See_ Pius V.

Gianbattista da Cremona, Inq.-genl. of Milan, 123

Giberti, Bp., overrides the exequatur, 99
  expelled from Naples, 100

Girgenti, Bp. of, his quarrel with Inq., 37

Giron, Governor of Cartagena, 475

Girard, Jacques, case of, 93

Gomera, departure of Columbus, 139

Gómez, Juan, _alumbrado_, 235

Gonsalvo de Córdova, his pledge to Naples, 52

Gonzaga, Guillelmo, Duke of Mantua, 133

Gozo, inqr., appointed for, 1

Gran Corte, conflicts with Inq., 29

Granero, Alonso, inqr. of Mexico, 201

Granvelle, Card., Viceroy of Naples, 88

Gregory XIII grants bps. jurisdiction over Indians, 210

Greek Christians, trials of, 240, 434

Grisons, their relations with Milan, 122, 129
  their territory violated, 135

Grosero, inqr., complains of bps., 36

Guadalupe, Our Lady of, 280

Guancavelica, mines of, 356, 359

Guerra de Latrás, inqr. of Cartagena, 488, 489

Guerro, Abp., on New Granada, 456

Guerrero, Abp. of Philippines, 309

Guigue, François, case of, 317

Guirior, Viceroy, on the clergy, 514

Gutiérrez de la Rosa, Bp., his quarrels, 185


Habitello, 83

Handkerchiefs, censorship of, 446

Havana, commissioner of, 249
  confiscations in, 501

Hawkins, Sir John, his men, 205, 207

Hawkins, Richard, his expedition, 416

Henríquez, Camilo, case of, 446

Henríquez, Manuel, case of, 433

Heresy, prevalence of, in Lombardy, 122
  of Indians, subject to bps., 210
  of popular sovereignty, 275

Heretics, dealings with, unlawful, 50
  their children seized, 106, 136
  relations with forbidden, 129, 130, 137
  kidnapping them, 134, 136
  foreign, in Canaries, 167

Hidalgo, Miguel, case of, 276
  edicts against him, 279, 281, 539

Hieronimo da Verona, his sermons, 15

Higuera y Amarilla, inqr., 230, 263

Hispañola, bishoprics in, 192
  case of Pedro de Leon, 195

Hollanders, cases of, in Canaries, 167

Holy See, effect of Spanish Inq. on, 128

Huerta, Gaspar de la, case of, 398

Hurtado, Fray Juan, on Indians, 209


Ibanez, Gaspar, inqr. of Lima, 365, 366

Idolatry of Indians, 211

Ilarduy, receiver of Lima, 351, 352, 367

Ilarduy, inqr. of Cartagena, 468

Illuminism in Mexico, 235, 240
  in Philippines, 305
  in Peru, 406

Images, sacred, on profane objects, 265

Immaculate Conception in Philippines, 307

Immigration of Portuguese in Peru, 422

Immunity granted by _fuero_, 28, 30, 245, 249

Impostors, mystic, 235, 396

Independence of colonial tribunals, 203, 331
  oath of, required, 507

Index Librorum Prohibitorum in the colonies, 204

Indians, their readiness for conversion, 191
  their idolatry, 211
  exempt from Inq., 209, 332
  _repartimientos_ of, 215
  sorcery among, 228
  judiciable for sorcery, 391
  offences against, 247
  failure of missions, 458, 514, 515

Indies, New Christians forbidden access to, 193, 419
  Concordia of 1553 extended to, 197, 247, 330
  Concordias of 1610 and 1633, 218, 251, 254, 267
  Council of, its complaints, 220, 255, 314, 345, 476, 477,
      480, 484, 488, 503, 512
  inqrs. of, 195

Innocent XII defends Inq. of Naples, 100

Inquisition of Canaries, 139
  founded in 1505, 140
  dependent on Seville, 141
  activity of Inqr. Ximenes, 142
  prosecution of slaves, 144, 148, 149, 152, 159
  its suspension, 145
  its reorganization, 146
  its building, 146, 157
  visitations, 149
  active persecution, 152
  finances, 156
  Judaizers, 158
  trivial denunciations, 160
  _beatas revelanderas_, 162
  solicitation, 163
  sorcery, 165
  foreign heretics, 167
  censorship, 176
  conflicts of jurisdiction, 180
  suppression, 189, 190

Inquisition, episcopal, in Naples, 64, 66, 71, 78, 79, 84,
      86, 92, 100, 102, 103, 104, 107
     in Sardinia, 117
     in Lombardy, 131, 135
     in the Canaries, 140, 145
     in Mexico, 195, 199, 210, 211, 289
     in the Philippines, 299
     in China, 317
     in Peru, 321, 325, 412
     in New Granada, 454, 510

Inquisition of Malta, 44

Inquisition of Mexico, 191
  exercised by bishops, 196
  established in 1571, 200
  its installation, 202
  its organization, 204
  auto of 1574, 205
     of 1596 and 1601, 207
  its activity, 209
  Indians exempt from, 209
  finances, 212
     early poverty, 213
     Indian _repartimientos_, 215
     concealment of confiscations, 216
     grant of prebends, 217
     dispute over subvention, 217-219, 223
     large confiscations, 219
     its sequestrations, 223
     its wealth, 225, 288
  cases in 1626, 226
  inactivity, 227, 240
  persecution of Judaizers, 229
  autos of 1646-1649, 219, 230
     of 1659, 234
  solicitation, 241, 271, 272
  conflicts of jurisdiction, 245
  concordia of 1610, 251
  competencias, 252
  concordia of 1633, 254
  quarrels with bishops, 257
  visitation of Medina Rico, 261
  military service, 263
  censorship, 264
  influence of Bourbon dynasty, 267
  decadence in 18th century, 270
  political activity, 272, 275
  last public auto in 1795, 273
  subordination to State, 275
  case of Miguel Hidalgo, 276
  suppression in 1813, 288
  revived in 1815, 290
  case of José María Morelos, 291
  final extinction, 297
  survival of fanaticism, 298

Inquisition of Milan, 121
  its early difficulties, 122
  prevalence of heresy, 123
  San Carlo Borromeo becomes Abp., 123
  Philip II proposes Spanish Inq., 125
  popular opposition, 126
  project abandoned, 128, 529

  commerce with Switzerland, 129, 530
  episcopal Inq., 131
  suppressed by Maria Teresa, 137

Inquisition of Naples, 49
  Gonsalvo’s pledge regarding it, 52
  disregarded by Ferdinand, 54
  papal Inq. active, 56, 64
  attempt to introduce Spanish Inq., 57
  popular opposition successful, 58
  exemption from Inq. claimed, 63
  refugees from Sicily, 63, 65
  papal Inq. accepted, 64
  its inertness, 65
  Charles V orders Inq. introduced, 70
  censorship introduced, 70, 84
  Inq. attempted indirectly, 71
  remonstrance of Piazze, 72
  popular rising and slaughter, 73
  envoys sent to Charles V, 74
  unsuccessful fighting, 75
  resistance abandoned, 76
  Roman Inq. introduced, 78
  its prisoners sent to Rome, 79, 88
  persecution of Waldenses, 79
  mixture of jurisdictions, 86
  popular hatred, 88
  exequatur required, 90, 94, 527
  popular spirit broken, 92
  papal commissioners admitted, 92
     assume inquisitorial powers, 94, 96, 98
     refuse to ask for exequatur, 95
  Roman Inq. established, 96
     its procedure, 97
  Inqr. Piazza expelled, 99
  Roman Inq. expelled, 100
  Edict of Faith in 1695, 101
  Roman Inq. returns, 102
  episcopal Inq. developed, 103
  suppressed by Carlo VII, 107

Inquisition of New Granada, 453
  under commissioners, 454
  demand for tribunal, 455
  extent of its district, 457
  endeavors to include Florida, 458
  tribunal founded in 1610, 460
  its royal subvention, 460
  early operations, 461
  sorcery and witchcraft, 462
  blasphemy, 465
  autos of 1622 and 1626, 466
  sack of Cartagena in 1697, 467
  decadence in 18th century, 468
  censorship, 470
  quarrels with the authorities, 473, 484
  visitation of Martin Real, 481
     of Medina Rico, 485
  quarrels continue, 488
     intestine, 485, 488, 490
  degradation of tribunal, 489

  quarrel with Bp. Benavides, 491
  arrogance and decadence, 498, 504
  poverty, 506, 509
  moves to Santa Marta in 1812, 507
  returns to Cartagena in 1815, 509
  abolished by United States of Colombia in 1821, 510

Inquisition of Peru, 319
  episcopal Inq., 321, 325
  Inq. established, 326
  auto of 1573, 328
  organization, 329
  extent of district, 333
  commissioners, 334
  subdivision proposed, 337
  finances, 342
     quarrels over subvention, 342, 344
     concealment of receipts, 342, 345, 348
     increasing income, 343
     suppression of canonries, 346
     gains from auto of 1639, 347
       from other sources, 349
     revenue and expenses, 350
     mismanagement and peculation, 351
     property at suppression, 354
  character of inqrs.--Cerezuela, Ulloa, 355
     Prado sent as visitador, 357
        his charges against Ulloa, 358
     Ulloa’s sentence, 360
     he visits the district, 361
     Ordoñez, his greed, 362
     Verdugo, Gaitan, Mañozca, 363
     deplorable condition of tribunal, 364
     quarrels of inqrs., 366
     visitation of Arenaza, 368
  traffic in offices, 372
  quarrels with authorities, 373
  conflicts of jurisdiction, 381
  Fernando VI limits the _fuero_, 388
  quarrels with Abp. Barroeta, 389
  functions in matters of faith, 390
     bigamy, blasphemy, sorcery, 391
     propositions, 392
     solicitation, 393
     mystic impostors, 396
     Quietism, 406
     auto de fe of 1736, 410
     Protestantism, 412
     prisoners of war, 414
     Judaism, 419
          auto de fe of 1639, 425, 435, 438
  punishments, 437
  censorship, 444
  decadence and suppression, 447
  re-establishment, 448
  extinction, 450

  personnel and salaries, 451
  work accomplished, 451

Inquisition of Philippines, 299
  episcopal Inq., 299
  commissioner sent there, 300
     his functions, 301
  inactivity, 304
  censorship, 306
  conflicts of jurisdiction, 308
  imprisonment of Governor Salcedo, 311
  destruction of records, 317

Inquisition, Roman, organized, 70, 121
  burnings in Rome, 80, 88, 135
  introduced in Naples, 78
  sentences Waldenses, 83
  its prisoners sent to Rome, 87, 88, 91
  its arrests require exequatur, 89, 90
  used to collect debts, 91
  punishes false-witness, 91
  its regular service of vessels, 91
  commissioners established in Naples, 92
     assume to be inqrs., 94, 96, 98
  refuses to ask for exequatur, 95
  established in Naples, 96
  expelled in 1692, 100
  publishes Edict of Faith in 1695, 101
  is again introduced, 102
  Charles VI rejects it, 103
  objects to Spanish Inq., 125
  obstructs trade with heretics, 131

Inquisition of Sardinia, 109
  conflicts of jurisdiction, 110
  productive confiscations, 112
  two inqrs. tried, 114
  impoverishment, 114, 115, 116
  Charles V stimulates activity, 115
  its inefficiency, 116
  multiplication of officials, 117
  disappears under House of Savoy, 119

Inquisition of Sicily, 1
  its finances, 5, 9, 12, 19, 24, 27
  reorganized in 1500, 6
  a house provided, 7
  reorganized in 1510, 9
  activity in 1513, 12
  complaints of abuses, 13, 21, 22, 26
  reforms attempted, 13, 517
  suspended by rising in 1516, 15
  restored in 1519--its activity, 17
  Card. Adrian tries to reform it, 18
  Abp. Manrique also tries, 19, 518
  _fuero_ of officials suspended, 22
  resistance to sanbenitos, 24
  continued activity, 24, 26, 27
  contests with secular authorities, 25, 29, 31, 34, 37
  number of familiars, 28
  claims obedience of its subjects, 33

  quarrels with bishops, 35
  activity in 17th century, 39
  under Savoy and Austria, 40
  under Carlos III, 42
  suppressed in 1782, 43
  statistics, 44
  wants evidence from Calabria, 52
  refugees in Naples, 63
  makes arrests in Calabria, 89

Inquisitors acquire bishoprics, 201
  of Peru, their character, 355
     of Cartagena, 473, 479, 485

Insane, punishment of, 38, 235, 236, 238, 239, 329, 397, 410, 420

Insanity procures exemption, 392
  case suspended for, 432

Installation of Mexican Inq., 202
  of Peruvian, 328

Instructions, Sicilian, 13, 18, 518
  special, for colonies, 203

Insurgents excommunicated _en masse_, 280
  their documents condemned, 291

Inviolability of officials’ houses, 11, 254, 386, 517

Irazábal, auditor, his knavery, 352

Irregularities of procedure in Lima, 411, 436, 437

Irreverence, cases of, in Canaries, 161, 168, 178

Isabella of Castile conquers Canaries, 139
  her zeal for the faith in the Indies, 191


Jansenism in China, 318
  Jesuits, drowning of, 168
     persecute Bp. Palafox, 258
     their expulsion from Mexico, 270
     their precautions against solicitation, 303
     their immunity, 305, 399
     their rule in Bonol, 308
        in Paraguay, 258
     persecution of Abp. Corcuera, 309
     incensed against Inq., 367
     favor visitor Arenaza, 369
     resent the trial of Ulloa, 411
     their superiority, 515

Jew held for ransom, 143

Jewelry, censorship of, 265

Jews of Sicily, persecution in 1474, 2
     expulsion in 1492, 3
  number of, in Naples, 49
  their compulsory baptism, 50
  expulsion from Naples, 53, 62, 64, 66
  persecution in 1571, 87
  allowed in Cartagena, 469

Jimeno, Sancho, 468

Joanna II suppresses Jewish usury, 49

Juan Bautista de Cardenas, _alumbrado_, 240

Juan, Jorje, on Peruvian clergy, 514

Juana of Naples, her bills of exchange, 51

Juárez, Pedro, case of, 199

Judaism in Mexico, 207
  evidences of, 434

Judaizers in Sicily, 12, 22, 24, 27
  in Naples, 50, 64
  in Canaries, 142, 144, 158
  in the New World, 193
  in Mexico, 196, 226, 227, 228, 230, 235, 271
     one relaxed in 1792, 273
  in Philippines, 304
  in Peru, 327, 329, 337, 344, 419
  in New Granada, 455, 466, 469, 501

Judges, excommunication of, 32, 34, 37, 184, 187
  courtesy enjoined towards, 254

Julius II persecutes Jews of Benevento, 53
  opposes Spanish Inq. for Naples, 57, 61

Julius III, his bull on impeding Inq., 78
  abolishes confiscation in Naples, 79, 86

Jurisdiction over clerics, 36
  secular, over heresy in Naples, 66
  temporal, of Inq., 245
     profits of, 27
     restricted, 41, 269, 388
     suspended in Sicily, 22, 24
     in Mexico in 18th century, 268, 269

Jurisdictions, multiplied, in Spanish Colonies, 511


Labor, enforced, of Indians, 215

La Guardia, Waldenses of, 81, 82, 83

Lamport, William, case of, 236

Lanzarote, bishopric founded in, 140

Las Casas, his inql. jurisdiction, 197
  on capacity of Indians, 211

Las Palmas captured by Dutch, 146

Lazaeta, inqr. of Cartagena, 467, 499, 500

Leniency for solicitation, 164, 243, 393, 395
  for sorcery, 439, 463
  for blasphemy, 465

Leon, Colorado, case of, 169

Leon, Pedro de, case of, 195

Leon, Sancho de Herrera, case of, 160

Leon y Saravia, Governor of Philippines, 316

Leopoldo da S. Pasquale, case of, 107

_Libra_, value of, 6

Licences to bear arms, 13
  to read prohibited books, 178
  to visit heretic lands, 130, 136
  for sailing, 254
  to leave Canaries, 142
  to leave Mexico, 204
  to leave Peru, 333, 427

Lima, Inq. of, its records, 320
     council of 1583, 321
        (_See_ Inquisition of Peru).

_Limpieza_ required in Peru, 331

Lizardi, Fernández de, case of, 273

Llano Valdés, Francisco de, 478

Loaisa, Abp., holds auto de fe, 321

Lobaton, Juan and Martin, case of, 382

Loeb, Isidor, number of Sicilian Jews, 3

Lombardy, its relations with Switzerland, 121, 129
  precautions against foreign heretics, 129, 530

López de Aponte, case of, 235

López, Luis, S. J., case of, 396, 399

Los Tres Reyes, case of, 172

Louisiana Purchase, censorship in, 274
  Inq. attempted there, 459

Louis XII, his bargain with Ferdinand, 52

Loyola y Haro, Juan de, case of, 436

Lugardi, Enrico, revives Sicilian Inq., I

Lujan, Felipe de, his proposition, 392

Lutheranism persecuted in Sicily, 24
  in Naples, 69
  dread of, in Colonies, 200


Maldonado de Silva, case of, 423

Malta, inqr. appointed for, 1
  Inq. of, 44

Malvicino, Valerio, persecutes Waldenses, 81, 82, 84

Mancera, Viceroy, on expenses of Inq., 222
  complains of Inq., 255
  speculates on the Portuguese, 433

Mañozca, Juan de, inqr. of Lima, 364
     of Cartagena, 460
  his injustice, 461
  objects to prosecuting sorcery, 463
  complaints of him, 473
  transferred to Lima, 476
  is Abp. of Mexico, 257

Mañozca, Juan Saenz de, 230, 263

Manrique, Abp., his Sicilian Instructions, 19, 518

Manrique, Francisco, Comr. of Philippines, 300

Manso, Bp. Alfonso, as inqr., 195

Manso, Giacomo, inqr. of Sicily, 2

Mantua, Inq. enforced there, 133

Marcategui, Ant. de, case of, 385

Maria Teresa suppresses Inq. of Milan, 137

Marignano, Franciscan Guardian of, his escape, 124

Marin, Sancho, inqr. of Sardinia, 109
  transferred to Sicily, 5

Marinæus Siculus, his pension, 8

Martin, Diego, Governor of Buenos Ayres, 421

Martin de Valencia as inqr., 196

Matteo da Reggio, inqr. in Naples, 49

Mattos, Fran. Rodríguez, case of, 208

Mazza, Agostino, case of, 98

_Media añata_, 225

Medina, J. T., his works, 320

Medina Rico, his visitation in Cartagena, 485
  transferred to Mexico, 488
  his Mexican visitation, 230
  his arbitrary action, 255
  on persecution of Palafox, 258
  tries case of Juan de la Camara, 261

Melgarejo, Luisa, case of, 400

Melgarejo, Rodrigo Ortiz, case of, 394

_Membretes_, 228

Mendoza, Bp. of Popayan, 473

Mercader, Benito, visitor of Sicily, 19

Mercantile cases exempted from _fuero_, 41, 43

Merchants, heretic, residence of, 136

Messina receives the Inq., 17

Mexico, growth of the Church, 193
  sanbenitos in cathedral, 196
  apprehension of Protestants, 200
     (_See_ Inq. of Mexico).

Mier, Gómez de, inqr. of Cartagena, 489, 490, 491

Mier Noriega y Guerra, case of, 297

Milan. _See_ Inq. of Milan.

Military service of officials, 263, 357

Miró, Estevan, Governor of Louisiana, 459

Mission from Naples to Ferdinand, 60
  to Charles V, 74, 76

Missionaries to West Indies, 192
  character of, in Colonies, 319

Missions, unsuccess of, 514, 515

Modena, Bp. of, inqr. in Milan, 121

Moles, Antonio, as confiscator, 84

Molinism in Peru, 400

Moncada, Hugo de, Viceroy of Sicily, 14

Monge, D. Miguel, his book on Inq., 41

Monox, Edward, case of, 171

Montalto, Waldenses of, 81, 82

Monterey, Viceroy, defends the exequatur, 95

Monterey, Viceroy, warned to favor Inq., 374

Montesalto, Duchess of, 85

Montesclaros, Viceroy, complains of Inq., 380

Montoro, Bp., appointed inqr. of Sicily, 6
     of Naples, 57, 58

Montúfar, Abp., as inqr., 197
  his censorship, 264

Moorish slaves, cases of, 144, 145, 159
  forbidden to go to colonies, 194

Morals, censorship of, 446, 471

Morales, Padre, excites revolt, 308

Morejon, Catalina, 356

Morelos, José María, case of, 292

Moreno y Escandon, his report, 513

Moriscos in Canaries, 144, 145, 147, 160

Mormile, Cesare, 73, 74

Moro sailors, their pagan rites, 305

Mota, David de la, 469

Moya de Contreras, inqr. of Mexico, 200, 206

Moyen, François, case of, 439

Multiplicity of jurisdictions, 511

Múñoz, Diego, his censorship, 266

Murga, Bp. of Canaries, 146, 184

Murga, Governor of Cartagena, 476

Murgier, Jean Marie, case of, 272

Muros, Bp. of Canaries, as inqr., 140

Mussumelli, Count, case of, 29

Mutineers, naval, in Vera Cruz, 268

Mutis, José Celestino, case of, 471

Mystic impostors in Mexico, 235
     in Peru, 396


Naples, its conquest by Ferdinand, 53
  its municipal organization, 54
  tumult of 1547, 72
  English girl abducted in 1746, 106
     (_See_ Inquisition of Naples).

Nava, Antonio, case of, 104

Negro slaves in Canaries, 148, 159

New Christians banished from Naples, 62, 64
     forbidden to leave Canaries, 142
     not allowed in the Colonies, 193, 419

New Granada, the earliest Spanish settlement, 453
  description of its people, 461
  revolution of 1810, 506
  its condition in 1772, 513
     (_See_ Inquisition of New Granada).

New Mexico, Governor of, arrested, 256

Nicholas V sends inqr. to Naples, 49

Nobles as familiars, 28, 30, 32, 42

_Nuevo Reino de Granada_, 453

Number of Sicilian Jews, 3
  of familiars allowed, 13
     in Sicily, 28, 31
  in Sardinia, 117
  in Canaries, 146

Number of familiars in Mexico, 247, 536
     in Peru, 330
  in New Granada, 468


Oath of obedience to Inq., 11, 202,534
  of independence in New Granada, 507

Oaxaca, Bp. of, penances Indians, 211

Obregon, Diego de, receiver of Sicily, 6, 9, 12

Occult arts, Edict of Faith against, 391

Ochino, Bernardino, 69, 70

Officials, crimes of, 14
  engage in trade, 21
  their exemptions, 22, 380
  their _fuero_, 22, 24, 245
  hostility towards them, 23, 26
  their excepted crimes, 31, 247, 330
  their abuses in Naples, 100
     in the Colonies, 251, 498
  multiplication in Sardinia, 117, 119
  royal safeguard for, 202
  their immunities, 246
  subordinated to State, 275
  not to receive commissions, 521
  not to receive presents, 523

Offices, traffic in, 372

Olivares, Viceroy, rebukes the Inq., 33

Olivitos, Angela, case of, 400

_Onza_ of Sicily, 5

Opinions, political, prosecution for, 273

Orders, Religious, laxity in, 244, 515
     complain of Mañozca, 474

Ordóñez, Comr., arrests governor, 256

Ordóñez appointed inqr. of Lima, 360
  secures a legacy, 344
  his greed, 362
  made Abp. of Santafé, 363
  on solicitation, 394

Organization of Mexican Inq., 204, 289
  of Lima Inq., 350, 451
  of city of Naples, 54

Ortiz, Juan, inqr. of Cartagena, 479, 482, 486, 487

Ortíz, Tomas, as inqr., 196

Osuna, Viceroy, his obsequiousness, 93

_Ottine_ of Naples, 55

Ovalle, Manuel de, S. J., 407, 410

Oviedo, Rodrigo de, 479, 484, 486, 487

Ozaeta, Pablo de, inqr. of Cartagena, 499, 500


Pablo de Santa Maria, 423
     Pact with demon, 166

Padilla, José de, inqr. of Cartagena, 489, 490, 491

Padilla, Luis de, inqr. of Canaries, 144

Palacios, Andrés, 57, 60, 63

Palafox, Bp. Juan de, his persecution, 257
  his _Ejercicios devotos_ suppressed, 471

Palermo, rising in 1511, 11
  complaints of Inq., 13
  rising in 1516, 15
  auto de fe of 1724, 40

Panamá, alguazil in, 331
  under Cartagena tribunal, 457

Pantelaria, inqr. appointed for, 1

Pantolosa the Neapolitan banker, 50

Panza, commissioner, 82, 86

Paolo d’Arezzo, mission to Philip II, 86, 525

Paolo Sarpi, on trade with heretics, 137

Papal Inq. in Naples controlled by viceroy, 56

Paraguay, Jesuits in, 258

Parliament of Naples in 1536, 66
  Sicilian, complaints of, 13, 21, 22, 26

Pascale, Giovan Luigi, burnt, 80

Pastry, sacred heads in, 266

Paternina, Commissioner of Philippines, 311

Paul III organizes Roman Inq., 70
  his relations with Naples, 76
  stimulates Inq. of Sardinia, 117
  stimulates persecution in Milan, 121
  forbids New Christians to go to America, 194
  on capacity of Indians, 210

Paul IV introduces Roman Inq. in Naples, 78
  restores confiscation, 79
  coerces Abp. of Sassari, 117
  degrades Bp. of Brescia, 122
  stimulates persecution in Milan, 123

Paul V intervenes in Sardinia, 118

Pay-roll of Neapolitan Inq., 57
  of Sardinian, 114
  of Mexican, 289
  of Peruvian, 350, 451

Payta, English descent on, 375

Pearls, confiscated, sent to Ferdinand, 112

Peculation in Inq. of Sicily, 19, 521
  in Inq. of Peru, 340, 351
  in Inq. of Cartagena, 487

Pedro de Córdova, a missionary, 192, 195

Pelayo, Nofre, case of, 51

Penitents, labor required of, 19
  their transportation, 234, 235
  pelting of, prohibited, 432, 438

Peña, Antonio de la, inqr. of Sicily, 2

Peñaranda, Viceroy, expels Piazza, 99

Peralta, inqr. of Mexico, 207, 208

Peralta, Governor, his arrest, 256

Pereira Castro, inqr. of Cartagena, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488

Pereyns, Simon, case of, 198

Pérez, Manuel Bautista, case of, 431

Peru, episcopal inq. in, 197, 321
  royal rebuke of inqrs., 251
  irreverent use of crosses, 266
  its condition in 16th century, 319
     (_See_ Inquisition of Peru).

Pestilence, atonement for, 143

Petronila de San Esteban, a beata, 163

Petronio, Bp., calls himself inqr., 94

_Peyote_, use of, in Mexico, 228

Philip II orders officials protected, 23
  restores the _fuero_, 25
  humiliates Viceroy Terranova, 25
  orders the Inq. aided, 26
  rebukes Viceroy Alba, 29
  makes concession to justice, 30
  his assurance to Naples, 86, 525
  asks aid for Sardinian Inq., 116
  proposes Spanish Inq. for Milan, 125
  abandons the project, 128, 529
  sustains Inq. of Canaries, 180
  zeal for the faith in the New World, 191
  forbids New Christians access to colonies, 194
  regulates familiars in colonies, 197, 247, 536
  fears Protestantism in Colonies, 200
  founds Inq. in Mexico, 203
  exempts Indians from Inq., 210
  his grant to Inq. of Mexico, 212
  suppresses episcopal Inq. in Philippines, 301
  founds Inq. of Peru, 326
  royal protection for officials, 374
  refuses tribunal to New Granada, 456

Philip III, his instructions for Sicily, 33
  his circular letter to viceroys, 35
  efforts to learn receipts, 216, 344
  issues Concordia of 1610, 251
  regulates competencias, 253
  excludes Bibles from colonies, 267
  royal protection for officials, 374
  his subvention for Cartagena tribunal, 460, 500

Philip IV orders the _via ordinaria_, 99
  enforces the exequatur, 95
  subjects inqrs. to _alcavala_, 215
  claims return of subvention, 220
  demands accounts from tribunals, 216, 221, 345, 348
  his gratification at autos, 233, 240
  regulates competencias, 253
  issues Concordia of 1633, 254
  on Philippine commissioners, 310
  proposes subdivision of Peru, 338
  on secret prison of Cartagena, 480
  on visitation of Martin Real, 481, 484

Philip V abandons Naples, 102
  orders foreigners expelled, 176
  rebukes Inq. of Canaries, 187

  represses the Lima Inq., 384

Philippines, canonries in, 217
  solicitation in, 243, 302
     (_See_ Inq. of Philippines).

Phillips, Miles, his account of auto of 1574, 205

Piazza, Bp., establishes a tribunal, 98
  is expelled, 99

_Piazze_ of Naples, 54

Piélago, secretary, as office broker, 372

Pimienta, Governor of Cartagena, 499

Pinto, Paz, case of, 466

Piracy in Canaries, 168

Pius IV opposes Spanish Inq., 86
  agrees to it, for Milan, 125

Pius V objects to exequatur, 90
  as inqr. of Como, 122
  his decree as to Inq., 132, 531
  proposes Spanish Inq. for Venice, 132
  his quarrel with Mantua, 133
  his advice as to the Indies, 199

Pizarro, María, case of, 396

Placido di Sangro sent to Charles V, 74, 76, 77

Plata, Juan, case of, 242

Poblete, José Millan de, 313, 316

Pointis, Baron de, captures Cartagena, 467

Poisonings in Cartagena, 486

Political functions of Canary tribunal, 190
     of Mexican tribunal, 272, 275

Ponte y Andrade, inqr. of Lima, 365

Popular sovereignty a heresy, 275

Portorubio, Bp. of Malta, as inqr., 46

Portuguese Judaizers, 229
  complaints in Peru of, 337, 341, 421
  ordered to leave Peru, 433
  prosecuted in New Granada, 466

Poverty of Mexican Inq., 213

Prado sent as visitador to Peru, 357
  on commissioners, 335
  his charges against Ulloa, 358
  Ulloa’s charges against him, 359
  his proposed reforms, 360
  prosecutes viceroy, 376

Pragmatic sanction of 1732, 42

Pralboino, Claudio, escapes burning, 123

Prebends for colonial tribunals, 216, 347, 501, 503, 504, 508

Precautions against heretics in Lombardy, 135, 530

Precedence in competencias, 253, 267
  in bull-fights, 254

Pre-emption forbidden, 251, 254

Printing-office, none in Cartagena, 470

Prison, secret, in Canaries, 157, 158
     confinement in, 480
  penitential, in Mexico, 214

Prisoners, cost of maintenance, 353
  care for them, 519, 521

Prisoners, English, claimed by Inq., 357
  of war, trials of, in Peru, 414
     their rights respected, 418

Privileges of officials in Sicily, 10
  in the colonies, 245

Procedure of Roman Inq., 97
  of episcopal Inq., 105

Profits of jurisdiction, 28

Prohibited books, strictness as to, 274
     given to Archbishop, 289
     in Philippines, 306

Propagandism, Protestant, dread of, 200

Property, efforts to conceal, 427

Propositions, heretical, 392, 441, 455, 470

Protestantism, dread of, 200

Protestants, in Canaries, 167, 175
  in Mexico, 198, 205, 207, 208, 226
  in Peru, 321, 325
  in New Granada, 466

Punishment, capricious, in Lima, 437

Purchase of offices, 372


Quakeresses in Maltese Inq., 47

Quarantine against heretics in
  Lombardy, 530

Quarrels with bishops, 35, 182, 257, 476, 491
  of inqrs., 355, 359, 363, 366, 479, 485, 488, 490
  with authorities, 373, 473, 484, 488
  financial, in Mexico, 212, 217

_Quebrantamientos de escrituras de juego_, 349

Queipo, Bp. of Mechoacan, 275, 290

_Quemadero_ in Mexico, 206

Querétaro, censorship in, 266

Quevedo, Juan, Bp. of Cuba, 195

Quicksilver, distribution of, 255

Quietism of Juan de Valdés, 68

Quietists in Sardinia, 119
  in Peru, 406, 410

Quiñones, Dr., his confiscation, 343

Quiroga, Inq.-genl., his letter to Bp. Vera, 181

Quirós, Bernardo de, Inqr. of Cartagena, 489, 490, 491

Quito, Bp. Peña of, his legacy, 344


Ranzano, Bp., inqr. of Sicily, 2

Real, Martin, his visitation, 348, 481, 483

Real estate, alienations of, 14

_Rebeldía_, 182

Rebiba, Scipione, in Naples, 78

Recalde, Fray Joseph, case of, 449

Receipts, statements of, refused, 216, 219, 345, 504

Receivership, dangers of, 111, 114

Reconciliation entails confiscation, 421

Records of the tribunals, 190, 288, 298, 317, 320

Recruits pretending Catholicism, 271

Reforms attempted in Sicily, 13, 18, 518
  proposed, in Peru, 360

Refugees from Sicily in Naples, 64, 65

Reggio, persecution in, 86
  arrests by Sicilian Inq., 89

Registers, parish, falsified, 434
     imperfect, 514

Relaxations in Canaries, 154

Remittances from Mexico, 219, 221, 224, 225

Renegades in Canaries, 160

_Repartimientos_ of Indians, 215

Requisitions by Inq., 251, 252, 254

Resistance to sanbenitos, 24

Revolution, French, influence of, 272

Revolution of Mexico, its ferocity, 281
  of New Granada, 506

Reyes, Luisa de los, a _beata_, 304

Ribagorza, Viceroy, controls papal Inq., 56, 524

Ribera, Teodoro de, case of, 392

Riciullo, Bp., acts as inqr., 96

Rio de Janeiro, Portuguese arrested, 421

Rising of 1516 in Palermo, 15
  of 1547, in Naples, 72

Rivas, Gerónimo, case of, 375

Roda, Giacomo, inqr. of Sicily, 2

Rodríguez, Juan, his complaint, 266

Rodríguez, Rafael Gil, case of, 273

Roelas, Alonso de las, case of, 161

Rojas, José Ant., sentenced for liberalism, 273

Rome, citations to, 89
  prisoners sent there, 79
  burnings in, 80, 88, 135

Romero, the sisters, _embusteras_, 235, 239

Romo, Bartolo, alcaide, 367

Romualdo, Fra, burnt in 1724, 40


Safeguard, royal, for officials, 202

Sagro Monte della Pietà in Naples, 67

Sailors, foreign, prosecution of, 169

_Sala reflexa_, 387

Salaries of Sicilian tribunal, 6, 9
  of Sardinian tribunal, 109
  regulated by confiscations, 114, 528
  for Inq. of Naples, 57
  in Mexico, 212, 289
  in Peru, 350, 451

Salas y Pedroso, inqr. of Cartagena, 488, 489

Salar, Bp. of Manila, his Inq., 299

Salazar, Luis Rúiz de, case of, 152

Salcedo, Governor of Philippines, his imprisonment, 311

Salcedo, inqr. of Cartagena, 460, 476

Salerno, Prince of, sent to Charles V, 74

Saldaña, Fray Juan de, case of, 242

Salice, Hercole, a heretic, 129

Salinas, Dr., 360, 376, 379

Salinas, Gregorio de, comr. in Vera Cruz, 268

Sanbenitos, opposition to, in Sicily, 15, 24, 523
  for Waldenses, 83
  discarded from churches in Canaries, 188
  burnt, 189
  in Mexican cathedral, 196, 226
     use made of them, 289
  of Morelos, 296
  of prisoners of war, 417

Sánchez, Miguel, case of, 113

Sanders, John, case of, 145, 168

San Lorenzo, Tribunale de, 55

San Sisto, Waldenses of, 81, 82, 83

Santa Clara, nuns of, at Cartagena, 491, 493

Santa Cruz, Domingo de, case of, 110

Santa Marta, Diego de, case of, 166

Santa Marta, see of, 453
     bishop of, 492, 493, 494

Santangel, Luis de, refuses Pantolosa’s bills, 51

Santiago, commissioner of Chile, 346

Santo Domingo, subject to Lima, 333
     to Cartagena, 457
  Jews allowed in, 469

St. Augustine, attempts to found Inq. there, 458

St. John, Order of, in Malta, 45

Sardinia. _See_ Inq. of Sardinia.

Sartolo, Bernardo, S. J., 405

Savoy, Sicilian Inq. under, 40
  obtains Sardinia, 119

Scrutinium Scripturarum, 423

Scourging in Mexico, 206
  in Peru, 431, 438

Sebastian, Inqr., attacked, 23
     his activity, 26

Secretaries of Suprema, payments to, 350

Secular jurisdiction over heresy in Naples, 56, 66, 524

Sedella, Ant. de, inqr. of Louisiana, 459

_Seggi_ of Naples, 54

Sentence of Waldenses, 83
  of Morelos, 298
  of François Moyen, 443

Sentences not enforced, 20, 520

Sequestrations in Mexico, 223
  in Peru, 348, 429
  commerce destroyed by, 428
  not applied by commissioners, 301

Sequestrations not applicable to prisoners of war, 417

Servants of officials, their privileges, 31, 245, 474

Sessa, Duke of, Governor of Milan, 127, 128, 129

Seville, composition of, 193
  its jurisdiction over Canaries, 141

Sgalambro, Dr., inqr. of Sicily, 6, 8

Shaw, Robert, case of, 413

Sheep given to a Jew, 143

Ships, detention of, 252, 254, 333

Sickness, efforts to convert in, 175

Sinaloa, governor of, excommunicated, 249

Sixtus IV asks Inq. for Sicily, 1

Sixtus V places a commissioner in Naples, 92

Slavery, escape from, is apostasy, 149

Slaves, Christian, sold by Inq., 19, 520
  in Canaries, 144, 148, 149, 152, 159
  of officials, their immunity, 251, 474
  their exemption abrogated, 388
  false witness of, 437
  negro, in New Granada, 462

Snuff-boxes, censorship of, 178

Sobranis, Ana de, a beata, 183

Socaya, inqr. of Cartagena, 483

Solicitation in Canaries, 163
  in Mexico, 227, 228, 241, 271
  in Philippines, 302
  in Peru, 344, 393

Solis, José, case of, 407, 410

Soranzo Bp. of Brescia, case of, 122

Sorcery in Naples, 101
  in Canaries, 147, 148, 165
  in Mexico, 206, 228
  in Peru, 391, 439
  in New Granada, 462

Soto, Juan de, case of, 160

Spinelli, Abp., his Inq., 104
  forced to resign, 107

Spinello, lord of La Guardia, 80, 85

Stevenson, W. B., 373, 447

Stomeo, Giantonio, case of, 94

Stoning penitents prohibited, 432, 438

Suárez de Figueroa, inqr. of Cartagena, 495, 498

Subdivision of Peru proposed, 337

Subsidy, Sicilian, to Charles V, 22

Subvention, royal, of Mexican tribunal, 212, 216, 218, 220, 222
  of Lima tribunal, 342, 344, 347
  of Cartagena tribunal, 500, 501, 502

_Sueldo_, value of, 6

Superstitions in New Granada, 462

Superunda, Viceroy of Peru, 370, 387

Suppression of Sicilian Inq., 43
  of Neapolitan, 107
  of Sardinian, 119
  of Milanese, 137

Suppression of Canary Inq., 189
  of Mexican, 270, 288, 298
  of Peruvian, 354, 447
  of New Granadan, 507, 510

Suprema, its large receipts from Mexico, 219
  its duplicity and concealment, 219, 221, 223, 224, 348
  on Salcedo’s arrest, 315
  relations with colonial tribunals, 331
  urges subdivision of Peru, 337
  payments to its secretaries, 350
  contributions to, from Cartagena, 502 505
  its demands for remittances, 513

Swiss, their relations with Milan, 129

Symbols, sacred, prohibited, 265

Syndics, Jesuit, in solicitation, 303

Syracuse, Bp. of, his quarrel with Inq., 36


Tabaloro, Carlo, case of, 38

Tagal book, heresy in, 307

Tanner, John, case of, 173

Tanucci, Regent of Naples, 107

Tarragona, Abp. of, his bills of exchange, 51

Tattooing, censorship of, 266

Taxation, exemption from, in Mexico, 215

Tello de Sandoval, inqr. of Mexico, 197

Tenerife, foreigners in, 172, 175

Terracina, Domenico, 72

Terranova, Duke of, case of, 25

Terror aroused by Inq., 98

Tezcoco, cacique of, burnt, 196

Thimbles, crosses on, erased, 266

Toledo, Pedro de, Viceroy of Naples, 66
  urges introduction of Inq., 70
  bombards the city, 73
  his vindictive triumph, 76

Toledo, Viceroy of Peru, on condition of colony, 319
     gets rid of Aguirre, 323
  controls royal subvention, 342
  curbs the Inq., 374

Toleration proclaimed in Colombia, 510

Tormentors, 448

Toro, Pedro de, case of, 396, 398

Torquemada appoints inqr. for Sicily, 2

Torres, Comr. of Popayan, 454

Torture administered by physician, 142
  severity of, in Lima, 429
  implements of, 447

Trade forbidden to officials, 251, 254
  with heretics creates suspicion, 130, 136, 137
  danger of, in Canaries, 168

Traffic in offices, 372

Transportation of penitents, 234, 235

Travel in heretic lands, licence for, 130, 136, 137

Treaty of 1604 with England, 171

Trent, Council of, opposes Spanish Inq., 127
  on episcopal power over heresy, 211

Treviño, Tomás, his martyrdom, 233

Treviso, licences to travel required, 136

Tribaldos, Bart., first Canary inqr., 140

Tucuman, its conquest by Aguirre, 322
  solicitation in, 393, 394, 395

Tuscany, arrests require assent of ruler, 137

Tumult of 1516 in Palermo, 15
  of 1547 in Naples, 72


Ubau, Pedro, case of, 353, 407, 410

Ulloa, Ant. Gut., inqr. of Peru, 355
  complaints against him, 356
  Prado’s charges, 358
  his sentence, 360
  visits his district, 361
  his dismissal and death, 362
  prosecutes viceroy, 376, 544

Ulloa, Antonio de, on Peruvian clergy, 514

Ulloa, Francisco de, S. J., case of, 406, 410

Ulloa, Juan Fran, de, case of, 367

Ulloa, Juan de, case of, 393

Unda, Diego de, inqr. of Peru, 352
  his property sequestrated, 352
  his confiscated jewels, 354
  his scandals, 366
  his arrest, 368
  his release and death, 370
  condemns Quietists, 410

Universities, compulsory degrees of, 252

University of Lima favors suppression, 449

Unnatural crime, 244

Urban VII suppresses canonries in Peru, 346

Urban VIII defends Fra Petronio, 95
  grants prebends to colonial tribunals, 216

Uriarte, Juan de, secretary, 479, 482, 486, 487, 488

Utrecht, treaty of, 40

Uzstáriz, Commissioner, his zeal, 305


Valera, Francisco, inqr. of Cartagena, 491
  his quarrel with Bp. Benavides, 492
  is transferred to Lima, 495
  his actions condemned, 365, 498
  insists on royal subvention, 503, 504
  as inqr. of Lima, 364
  tries Angela Carranza, 400, 404
  his jubilation, 365

Valderrama, Francisco de, 356

Valdés la Vandera, 269

Valdés, Juan de, his influence, 67
  his disciples in Reggio, 86

Valdivia, Dutch attack on, 418
  as place of punishment, 438

Valtelline, foreign priests expelled, 136
  its territory violated, 135

Vandenbosch, Franz, case of, 170

Vanegas, Diego, case of, 361

Van Hoflaquen, Georg, case of, 170

_Varas_ of alguazil, sale of, 224, 225, 349, 501

Vargas, Ant. de, case of his will, 387

Vazquez, Francisco, case of, 394

Vega, Viceroy, relations with Inq., 25

Velazco, Governor of Cartagena, his complaints, 473

Velazco, Juan Francisco, case of, 407, 410

Velazco, Viceroy, complains of Inq., 380

Vélez, Fray Andrés, case of, 399

Vélez, inqr. of Cartagena, 477
  transferred to Mexico, 478

Venadita, Viceroy, suppresses Mexican Inq., 298

Vendeja, inqr. of Cartagena, 499

Venice, its regulation of Inq., 132
  residence of foreign heretics, 531

Vera, Bp., his quarrel with Canary Inq., 181

Vera Cruz, mutineer sailors in, 268

Verdugo, Bp., on suppression of Inq., 189

Verdugo, Francisco, inqr. of Lima, 363

Vessels, service of, for Roman Inq., 91
  seizure of, 156, 169

_Via ordinaria_, 87, 90, 97, 99, 100, 102, 106, 526

Vicente, Juan, case of, 466

Vicente de Santa María as inqr., 196

Viceroyalty of New Granada, 453

Viceroys ordered to favor Inq., 35, 250, 374
  excommunication of, 32, 375
  not to be excommunicated, 252

Vico, Marquis of, case of, 90

Vienna, Sicilian Inq. subject to, 40

Viera y Clavijo, his history of Canaries, 180

Villadiego, Inqr. of Cartagena, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487

Villar, Viceroy, on clergy of Peru, 320
  banishes Catalina Morejon, 356
  his complaints of tribunal, 357
  his troubles with Inq., 374
  is excommunicated, 375
  is prosecuted, 376
  Villar, his submission, 378, 544
  his appeal to Philip II, 379
  hands over prisoners of war, 414

Villareal, Abp. of Mexico, 257

Villaroel, Bp. of Chile, 346

Villaroel, Ant. Hernández, case of, 393

_Visitas de navíos_, in Canaries, 176, 179
  in Mexico, 266
  in Philippines, 304

Visitations of Canaries, 148, 149
  of Mexico, 261
  of Peru, 357, 367
  of Cartagena, 481, 485
  of districts of Peru, 332

Vitoria, Elena de, case of, 464, 465

_Voz activa_, officials deprived of, 14


Waldenses in Calabria, 49
     eradicated, 79
  in Apulia, their fate, 85, 524

Wall-papers, censorship of, 446

Watches undergo censorship, 471

Wealth of Peruvian clergy, 515

White horse, parade of, 430, 437

Widows of officials, their privileges, 31, 42

Will case, quarrel over, 387

Wine, exportation of from Canaries, 156

Witchcraft in Canaries, 167
  in New Granada, 464

Witnesses’ names, suppression of, 26, 97

Women, scourging of, 431, 438


Ximenes, Card., his appointment of colonial inqrs., 195

Ximenes, Martin, inqr. of Canaries, 141, 142, 180

Xuquil, Indians of, their idolatry, 211


Yáñez, Gonzalo, case of, 248

Yepes, Rodrigo de, case of, 248

Ynes de Tarifa, case of, 143

Yucatan, _visitas de navíos_ in, 267


Zalduegui, Pedro, inqr. of Lima, 372

Zapata, Governor of Cartagena, 485

Zarate, Fray Francisco de, case of, 243

Zarate, Ortiz de, Inqr. of Cartagena, 494

Zayas, Bravo de, visitor of Canaries, 148, 161

Zuazo, Alonso de, on New Christians, 194

Zubieta, Pedro de, case of, 395

Zumárraga, Bp., burns cacique of Tezcoco, 196

Zuñíga, Viceroy, his subservience, 94

Zurita on Sicilian finances, 24




“_The Greatest Historical Work yet Produced in America_”

A HISTORY OF THE

INQUISITION OF SPAIN

BY

HENRY CHARLES LEA, LL.D.

_In Four Volumes_


     “An achievement which places its author at the head of all American
     historical students now living. It makes him the peer of Motley,
     Prescott and Parkman, his only competitors in the past. To put the
     matter shortly Mr. Lea has produced a work on a subject of
     absorbing interest, which for many a long day to come must serve as
     an authority to European experts on the subject.”--_New York
     Times._

     _The New York Tribune_ describes the work as “an historical classic
     in which thoroughness, fairness and reserve are combined in a
     readable presentation of facts of universal interest.”

     “Dr. Lea has given the world of thoughtful students a work that
     will have a lasting place and a growing power in the right use of
     history. His works have found many readers in Europe, where the
     questions of Church and State are much more acute than in this
     country. Here scholars and the growing army of historical students
     and writers all unite to do honor to Doctor Lea as the foremost
     American historian, whose researches in an almost unknown field
     have shown how great a power he possesses of throwing new light on
     old facts and marshalling historical evidence so as to give the
     world a new picture of a far-distant past.”--_Philadelphia Ledger._

     “Rarely has so significant an institution been so sanely and
     comprehensively studied, and rarely has the reader been placed in
     so good a position to observe its workings and draw his own
     conclusions from the evidence presented.”--_The Nation._

It is one of the most interesting problems in human history that Spain,
whose brilliant achievements promised to make her as dominant in the
world of letters as in military and naval enterprise, should, within the
space of a couple of generations, have become the most uncultured land
in Christendom. For this there must have been a cause and no other
adequate one than the Inquisition has been discovered. In this work Dr.
Lea makes clear the progress of its influence.

_Complete in four 8vo volumes, cloth, gilt tops, the set, $10, net._


THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
PUBLISHERS
64-66 Fifth Avenue      New York




_BY THE SAME AUTHOR_




HISTORY OF THE

INQUISITION OF THE MIDDLE AGES

_In Three Volumes_


“To write of the Inquisition without bitterness, to bring the operations
to calm analysis, to seek out its origin and reason for being in the
conditions of the time, and to trace its influences--such is the task to
which Dr. Lea brings the experience of a born investigator and the poise
and dignity of a trained historian.”--_New York Tribune._

“There are some books which reveal the loftiest effort of a broad and
earnest life; such a book springs from the highest aims, and will
therefore be recognized not only as scientific, but as giving impulse to
the intellectual action and aspiration of its epoch. Such a book is the
‘History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages,’ by Henry Charles
Lea.”--_Frankfurter Zeitung._

_Cloth, the set, $7.50, net._




A HISTORY OF

SACERDOTAL CELIBACY IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

_In Two Volumes, Third Edition, Revised_


Of special interest to those who are watching a modern trend toward
clerical ascetic celibacy. It aims to be an impartial statement of facts
with references to the authority substantiating the statement.

_Cloth, the set, $5, net._


THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
PUBLISHERS
64-66 Fifth Avenue      New York




FOOTNOTES:

[1] Páramo de Origine S. Officii S. Inquisitionis, pp. 197-99.--Ripoll
Bullar. Ord. Fr. Prædic., III, 510.--La Mantia, L’Inquisizione in
Sicilia, pp. 16-18 (Torino, 1886).

[2] Pirri, Sicilia Sacra, p. 910 (Panormi, 1733).--Llorente, Hist.
crít. de la Inquisicion de España, Append. No. III.

[3] La Mantia, _op. cit._, pp. 20-1.--Franchina, Breve Rapporto del
Tribunale della SS. Inquisizione in Sicilia, pp. 23, 108-16 (Palermo,
1744).

If we may believe an inscription of 1631, Ranzano had been inquisitor
in 1482.--Jo. Mariæ Bertini Sacratissima Inquisitionis Rosa Virginea,
I, 385 (Panormi, 1662). He died in 1492.

[4] Zurita, Añales de Aragon, Lib. XIX, cap. xiv.--Giov.
di Giovanni, L’Ebraismo della Sicilia, pp. 190-1 (Palermo, 1748).

[5] Giovanni, pp. 21, 96.

Isidor Loeb considers the ordinary computations to be grossly
exaggerated and, from the statistics of several places, assumes the
total to have been not more than from twenty to thirty thousand.--Revue
des Etudes Juives, 1887, p. 172.

[6] Giovanni, p. 210.--This _celeste benefizio_, as the pious author
terms it, proved so destructive to the commercial prosperity of the
island that, in 1695, the Jews were invited to return, under certain
rigorous restrictions. As they manifested no readiness to avail
themselves of the permission, the invitation was repeated in a more
attractive form in 1727 and, this proving unavailing, still further
inducements were offered in 1740. Even this, however, did not produce
the desired effect and the edict was revoked in 1747.--Ibidem, pp.
239-42.

[7] Giovanni, pp. 233-5.

[8] The Sicilian _onza_ was nearly equivalent to 2-3/10 ducats.

[9] Archivo general de Simancas, Consejo de la Inquisicion, Libro 1.

[10] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 2, fol. 23, 24.

[11] Under the same date Obregon was ordered to pay salaries as follows:

Doctor Johan Sgalambro, inquisitor                      6000 sueldos jaquenses.
Martin de Vallejo, alguazil                             6000     “       “
Johan Crespo, portero                                    500     “       “
A notario del secreto       }                         { 2500     “       “
A notario de los secuestros } To be appointed by the  { 2500     “       “
A fiscal                    } inquisitors             { 2500     “       “
Diego de Obregon, receiver                              6000     “       “
                                                --Archivo de Simancas, _ubi sup_.

Although no salary is here provided for the Bishop of Cefalù, it does
not follow that bishops were expected to serve gratuitously. When Pedro
de Belorado was sent to Sicily as Archbishop of Messina and inquisitor,
Obregon was ordered, Sept. 10, 1501, to pay him the same salary as that
of Sgalambro whom he replaced.--Ibidem.

The _sueldo_ was one-twentieth of the _libra_, which was nearly
equivalent to the Castilian ducat.

[12] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 1.

[13] La Mantia, pp. 23, 25, 26, 28.

[14] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 1.

[15] Ibidem. Sgalambro managed to regain the royal favor, for a letter
of Ferdinand, April 23, 1506, gratifies him with the Cistercian abbey
of S. Maria di Terrana, burdened, however, with a pension of eighty
ducats to the official chronicler, Luca de Marinis, better known as L.
Marinæus Siculus.--Pirri Sicilia Sacra, I, 670.

[16] La Mantia, pp. 27, 28.

[17] Parecer de Martin Real (MSS. of Bodleian Library, Arch. Seld.,
130).

[18] La Mantia, p. 28.

[19] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 51, 52, 77, 81, 82,
83.

[20] Ibidem, fol. 127.

[21] La Mantia, p. 29.

[22] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 134, 148, 153.

[23] Portocarrero, Sobre la Competencia en Mallorca, n. 38 (Madrid,
1624).--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 30.

[24] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 116. In December,
however, Ferdinand increased the number of familiars to twenty in each
large city.--Ibidem, fol. 135.

[25] Ibidem, fol. 127.

[26] Parecer de Martin Real, _ubi sup._ Possibly this is too absolute
an attribution of the troubles of 1511 to the Inquisition, though
Doctor Real, as an official of the tribunal, ought to be good
authority, even though not a contemporary. Fazelli, who was a boy at
the time, says (De Rebus Siculis, Decad. II, Lib. ix,
cap. 11) that it was occasioned by the outrages committed by the unpaid
and starving Spanish troops.

[27] Llorente, Añales de la Inquisicion, II, 26.

[28] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 202 (see Appendix).

[29] La Mantia, pp. 30-32.

[30] Amabile, Il Santo Officio in Napoli, I, 109 (Città di Castello,
1892).

[31] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 239, 294, 296, 314.

[32] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, fol. 331.

[33] La Mantia, pp. 38, 39.

[34] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 311.

[35] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 918, fol. 379.--Martin
Real, _ubi sup._

[36] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 314; Lib. 933.

[37] Argensola, Añales de Aragon, Lib. I, cap. 5.--Caruso, Memorie
istoriche di Sicilia, T. VI, p. 119.

One of Moncada’s arbitrary acts concerned the Inquisition. In 1517,
when the receiver Garcí Cid was settling his accounts, he claimed
credit for 700 ounces which he had deposited with a banker in Messina,
where Moncada seized it. Cardinal Adrian the inquisitor-general
thereupon ordered Inquisitor Cervera to summon the banker to return
the money, for the viceroy had express orders from Ferdinand not to
meddle with the property of the tribunal. If, however, the banker
could prove that Moncada had taken it by force, then Garcí Cid could
proceed to collect it from the revenues of the Priorazgo of St. John
at Messina, which belonged to Moncada. If the banker could not prove
this, he must pay the money and have recourse against the property and
revenues of Moncada. Hereafter, Adrian concludes, no one shall dare to
take the property of the Inquisition, for the Catholic king ordered
that it should be used to purchase rents for the perpetuation of the
tribunal.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 933.

[38] Argensola, _op. cit._, Lib. I, cap. 5, 34.--Fazelli
de Rebus Siculis, Decad., Lib. 10.--La Mantia, pp. 40-42.--Dormer,
Añales de Aragon, cap. 2.--P. Mart. Angler. Epistt., 593, 594.--Carta
de D. Hugo de Moncada, 22 de Marzo, 1516 (Coleccion de Documentos
inéditos, XXIV, 136).

[39] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 74, fol. 16; Lib. 921, fol.
38.

[40] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 9, fol. 39.--Franchina,
_op. cit._, pp. 122, 127.

In 1630 Messina appealed to its fidelity on this occasion,
when resisting a proposition to divide the island into two
viceroyalties.--Razones apologéticas de la noble Ciudad de Mecina, fol.
48 (Madrid, 1630).

[41] La Mantia, p. 42.

[42] Ibidem, pp. 45-6. The autos were:

1519, June  11, 4 men burnt and 1 woman.
1520, July   8, 3  “    “       2   “
1521, June   9, 1  “    “
1524, Aug.   6, 4  “    “       1   “
1525, Sept. 29, 1  “    “       4   “
1526, Aug.   1, 3  “    “       1   “
      Sept. 16, 1  “    “

A letter of August 19, 1519, from the Suprema to Calvete expresses
the highest satisfaction with him and offers him, on his return to
Spain, one of the principal tribunals of Castile. In 1529 we find him
Inquisitor of Sarogossa.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 74,
fol. 165; Lib. 76, fol. 183.

Calvete’s earlier years of office were much harassed by a suit brought
against him in Rome by Juan de Leon, a canon of Córdova. Prior to
1516, Calvete as provisor of Córdova had prosecuted Leon and some
others for rescuing a culprit from an alguazil. Leon nursed his wrath
and when in Rome, in 1519, commenced an action against Calvete in the
papal courts which caused him so much vexation that he threatened to
abandon his post in Sicily and return to Spain. Charles V intervened,
writing repeatedly to his ambassadors, to cardinals and to Leon
himself, threatening him with the seizure of his temporalities, but
the vindictive canon held good and, in 1520, obtained a judgement
of 1000 ducats and costs, as Calvete could not go to Rome to defend
himself.--Archivo de Simancas, Inq., Lib. 6, fol. 74, 75, 78; Lib. 9,
fol. 52-54.

[43] La Mantia, p. 43.

[44] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 933. These instructions
were probably the result of the report of a _visitador_ or inspector,
Juan de Ariola, sent, towards the close of 1513, to investigate the
tribunals of Majorca, Sardinia and Sicily.--Ibidem, Lib. 3, fol. 251-4.

[45] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 933 (see Appendix).

[46] Salelles de Materiis Tribunalis S. Inquis., I, 30 (Romæ,
1651).--Franchina, pp. 131-7.

[47] La Mantia, pp. 44-5.--Parecer de Martin Real, _ubi sup._

[48] La Mantia, pp. 47-8.

[49] Páramo, p. 201.

[50] Montoiche, Voyage de Charles-Quint au Pays de Tunis (Gachard,
Voyages des Souverains des Pays-bas, III, 378).

[51] Franchina, p. 169.--“Havemos proveydo y mandado que los
inquisidores del dicho Reyno no hobiesen de conocer, dentro termino de
cinco años, de ninguna cosa que hoviere pena de muerte contra ningun
persona natural de dicho Reyno.”--A Latin version is printed by Páramo,
p. 204.

The phraseology of the decree would seem to suspend the spiritual as
well as the temporal jurisdiction of the tribunal and historians have
generally so regarded it. This however is impossible as the former
was a delegation from the pope over which the emperor had no control
and any attempt to do so would have been equivalent to abolishing the
Inquisition, while the auto of 1541 shows that it continued to exercise
its spiritual jurisdiction. It assumed however that its capacity to
suppress heresy was fatally crippled by depriving its officials of the
privilege of its exclusive forum, as expressed in a document quoted
by Franchina (p. 69)--“Notandum est quod quando in anno 1535 fuit
limitata seu suspensa jurisdictio temporalis hujus Sancti Officii in
aliquibus casibus per invictissimum imperatorem Carolum V felicis
memoriæ, jurisdictio spiritualis causarum fidei fuit in suspenso et
quasi mortua.” So a consulta of the Suprema to Philip III, October 2,
1609, refers to Charles having deprived the Sicilian Inquisition of its
temporal jurisdiction, resulting in such recrudescence of heresy that
he was obliged to restore it.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib.
927, fol. 323.

Inquisitor Páramo, in a letter of November 8, 1600, to Philip III,
states the case to be that Charles was misled by false accounts of the
misdeeds of the familiars and deprived them of their immunities but, on
being better informed, he restored them.--Ibidem, Lib. 41, fol. 258.

[52] Páramo, pp. 202-3.--Parecer de Martin Real, ubi sup.

[53] Franchina, pp. 149, 159, 163.

[54] Páramo, p. 43. I give the date of 1543 as stated by Páramo, but it
is evidently an error for 1516, when the tumult occurred under Cervera.

[55] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 136. The
financial mismanagement of the Sicilian tribunal was notorious. In
1560, the Contador-general Zurita states that he had finished auditing
its accounts with much labor, as they had not been examined for twenty
years and were in much disorder.--Ibidem, fol. 239.

[56] La Mantia, p. 50.

[57] Franchina, pp. 167, 183.--Páramo, p. 204.

[58] Llorente, Historia crítica, cap. XVI, art. ii, n.
5. The date of this affair is not unimportant and has curiously been
involved in doubt. As printed by Llorente, the letter of December 16,
1543, is duly signed Prince Philip and is doubtless correctly dated, as
Terranova was governor in 1544 (Gervasii Siculæ Sanctiones, I, 295).
It is somewhat remarkable that in the Simancas archives (Legajo 1465,
fol. 60) there are two letters of Philip II on this affair, one dated
from the Escorial, April 24, 1568, to the Sicilian inquisitors and the
other to Terranova, dated from Madrid, April 29, 1568. The dates are
evidently erroneous for in that year the Marquis of Pescara was viceroy
(Gervasii, III, 121). Portocarrero also blunders in the date (_op.
cit._, n. 105), placing the affair in 1608. La Mantia moreover says (p.
52) that a MS. copy of a letter of the inquisitors, April 10th, bears
a later date. A letter of the Suprema to the inquisitors, prescribing
the punishment, is dated December 15th, without indication of the year
(Simancas, Lib. 78, fol. 372). It speaks of two familiars tortured,
orders Terranova to hear mass in a monastery as a penitent and to pay
the sufferers 200 ducats, to which the officials concerned in the
affair were to add 100 more.

[59] Franchina, p. 174.

[60] La Mantia, pp. 52-4.--Franchina, p. 188.--Portocarrero, n. 77.

[61] Franchina, pp. 45-53.

[62] La Mantia, pp. 55-6.

[63] La Mantia, pp. 58-9.

[64] Páramo, p. 210.--MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Yc, 17.

[65] MSS. of Royal Library of Copenhagen, 214 fol.--Páramo, p. 212.

[66] Franchina, p. 78.

[67] MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Yc, 17.

[68] MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Yc, 17.

[69] Ibidem, _ubi sup._

[70] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 41, fol. 258, 263. In his
letter Páramo mentions that not long before two Calvinist missionaries
had been sent from Geneva to Sicily; the Inquisition arrested them
and their converts and one of the missionaries had been burnt alive,
showing the steadfastness of his faith.

[71] Gervasii Siculæ Sanctiones, II, 329 (Panormi, 1751).

[72] La Mantia, pp. 69-70. There is a very vivid account of this
affair in a letter to the Suprema from Páramo and his colleagues,
written on the evening of August 9th, when they were expecting further
ill treatment by the viceroy, whom they characterize in the most
unflattering terms.--Bibl. Nacional de Madrid, MSS., Cc, 58, p. 35.

Páramo, in a document of March 8, 1600, had already described him as a
declared enemy of the Inquisition.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion,
Lib. 41, fol. 249.

[73] Portocarrero, _op. cit._, n. 1.--Solorzani de Indiarum
Gubernatione, Lib. iii, cap. xxiv, n. 16.--A virtual duplicate of this
letter was sent, September 10, 1670, by the Queen-regent Maria Anna of
Austria, to the Prince de Ligne, then Viceroy of Sicily.--Mongitore,
L’Atto pubblico di Fede de 1724, p. v. (Palermo, 1724).

[74] Biblioteca nacional de Madrid, MSS., D, 118, fol. 134, n. 47.

[75] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 1465, fol. 35.

[76] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 38, fol. 298.

[77] Consulta Magna de 1696 (Bibl. nacional de Madrid, MSS., Q, 4).

[78] Alberghini, Manuale Qualificatorum, p. 171 (Cæsaraugustæ, 1671).

[79] La Mantia, pp. 79-86.

[80] Franchina, pp. 100, 101.

[81] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 21, fol. 252; Lib. 23, fol.
62, 119; Lib. 38, fol. 245, 298.

[82] Archivo hist. nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 13, n. 2,
fol. 157. Cozio’s salary in Valencia commenced with May 1st, as he had
received in Palermo the advanced _tercio_ of January 1st.

[83] La Mantia, p. 92.--Franchina, p. 38.--Mongitore, L’Atto pubblico
di Fede celebrato à 6 Aprile, 1724 (Palermo, 1724). This work of
Mongitore was reprinted in 1868, when the editor F. Guidicini mentions
in the Preface that on March 9th of that year a petition was presented
to the Italian Chamber of Deputies, from a Palermitan family, begging
the remission of a yearly payment to the royal domain, imposed on
them by the Inquisition to defray the expenses of the trial of their
kinswoman, the Sister Geltruda, burnt in 1724.

It was probably the celebration of this auto that inspired an anonymous
writer to denounce the inquisitorial procedure in a little work
entitled “Le prove praticate nelli tempi presenti dagl’ Inquisitori di
Fede sono manchevole.” This was answered by Doctor Don Miguel Monge,
a professor in the University of Huesca in “La verdadera Practica
Apostolica de el S. Tribunal de la Inquisicion” (Palermo, 1725). He
seems in this to consider all criticism sufficiently answered by
demonstrating that the practices complained of are in accordance with
the papal instructions. The work illustrates the anomalous position of
the Sicilian Inquisition at the period. It is written by a Spaniard,
printed in both Spanish and Italian, dated in Vienna and dedicated to
Don Ramon de Villana Perlas, a Catalan member of the Imperial Council
of State.

[84] Franchina, pp. 44, 55.

[85] Gervasii Siculæ Sanctiones, II, 333-50.

[86] Ibidem, I, 277-81.

[87] La Mantia, p. 103.--Franchina, pp. 201, 206.

[88] Gervasii, _op. cit._, I, 286; II, 352.

[89] La Mantia, pp. 108 sqq.

[90] Franchina, p. 43.

[91] Acta Historico-Ecclesiastica nostri temporis, T. IX, p. 74
(Weimar, 1783).

[92] Salelles de Materiis Tribunalium Inquisit., I, 43.

[93] Llorente, Hist. crit., cap. XIII, art. ii, n. 9.

[94] Salelles, I, 47-50.

[95] Salelles, I, 53-62.

[96] Parecer de Martin Real, _ubi sup._

[97] Llorente, Hist. crit., cap. XVII, art. ii, n. 10.

[98] A Brief History of the Voyage of Katharine Evans and Sarah
Cheevers to the Island of Malta and their Cruel Sufferings there for
near Four Years. London, 1715.

[99] History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, II, 268.

[100] Itinerarium Beniamini Tudelens., pp. 21-5 (Antverpiæ, 1575).

[101] Wadding, Annal. Minorum, T. III, Regesta, p. 392; ann. 1447, n.
10.

[102] Ripoll Bullar. Ord. FF. Prædic., II, 689.

[103] Zurita, Hist. del Rey Hernando, Lib. v, cap. lxx.

[104] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro I. An episode of this
business concerned one Nofre Pelayo, a merchant of Valencia, who was
arrested on the charge of concealing some of Pantolosa’s property. On
January 15, 1498, Ferdinand warmly praised the inquisitor for this
action but he speedily changed his mind and, on March 6th, scolded him
for keeping Pelayo in prison and refusing to admit him to bail. It
seems that he had in his hands two hundred and fifty ducats, supposed
to belong to Pantolosa, but the sum was claimed by Miguel de Fluto, who
luckily was a kinsman of the Neapolitan ambassador; the latter induced
his master to write on the subject to Ferdinand who, on March 19, 1499,
ordered the sum to be paid to the ambassador’s order.--Ibidem.

These transactions are worth noting as an illustration of the
destructive influence on commerce of the methods of confiscation.

[105] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. I.

[106] Amabile (Il Santo Officio in Napoli, I, 93) assures us that
there is no trace of such a condition expressed in the documents,
but undoubtedly some compact of the kind must have been made. This
is evident from the fact that when, in 1504, Ferdinand and Isabella
resolved to introduce the Inquisition they formally released Gonsalvo
from the obligation, giving as a reason that no Catholic was required
to observe obligations in derogation of the faith--“non obstantibus
in præmissis aut aliquo præmissorum quibusvis pactis, conventionibus
aut capitulationibus per vos præfatum illustrem ducem aut alium
quemcunque, nomine nostro vel vestro in deditione civitatis Neapolis
aut alias quandocunque factis, conventis aut juratis, cum ea quæ contra
fidem faciunt nullo pacto a Catholicis observanda sunt, quinimmo
easdem si tales sunt quæ prædictis aliquatenus obviare censeantur cum
præsentibus quoad hæc revocamus, taxamus, annullamus et irritamus, pro
cassisque, irritis ac nullis nulliusque roboris seu momenti haberi
volumus et habemus, cæteris autem ad hæc non tangentibus in suo robore
permanentibus.”--Páramo, De Origine Officii S. Inquisit., p. 192.

This is repeated more concisely in another personal letter to Gonsalvo
of the same date.--Ibidem, p. 193.

[107] Amabile, I, 101. When Charles of Anjou introduced the Inquisition
he took the confiscations, as was customary in France, and paid
the expenses, but in 1290 his son, Charles the Lame, divided the
proceeds into thirds, one for the fisc, one for the Inquisition and
one for the propagation of the faith, a rule which probably became
permanent.--Hist. of Inquisition of Middle Ages, I, 511-12.

[108] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII. This is a well-known collection of
documents from the Neapolitan archives, made in the seventeenth century
by Bartolommeo Chioccarello, which has never been printed. The eighth
volume is devoted to the Inquisition.

[109] Zurita, Hist. del Rey Hernando, Lib. v, cap. lxx. Benevento was a
papal enclave in Neapolitan territory.

[110] Páramo, pp. 191-4.

[111] Páramo, _loc. cit._

[112] Ferrarelli, Tiberio Caraffa e la Congiura di Macchia, p. 8
(Napoli, 1884).--MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Ye, T. XVII.

[113] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII.

[114] Amabile, I, 97.

[115] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII. (see Appendix).

[116] Zurita, _op. cit._, Lib. ix, cap. xxiv.

[117] A royal cédula of September 3, 1509, to Matheo de Morrano,
appointed as receiver, orders him to pay the following salaries, to
commence from the date of leaving home for the journey. The sums are in
gold ducats:

                                                                      Ayuda
                                                            Salary.  de costa.
The Bishop of Cefalù, inquisitor,                             300       200
Dr. Andrés de Palacios, inquisitor,                           300       100
Dr. Melchior, judge of confiscations,                         100
Matheo de Morrano, receiver,                                  300       150
Joan de Moros, alguazil,                                      200        60
Dr. Diego de Bonilla, procurador fiscal,                      200        50
Miguel de Asiz, notary of secreto and court of confiscations, 100        50
Joan de Villena, notary of secreto,                           100        50
abriel de Fet, notary of sequestrations,                      100
A gaoler,                                                      54        15
Johan de Vergara, messenger,                                   30        10
Juan Vazquez, messenger,                                       30        10
                                                             ----      ----
                                                             1814       695

Palacios was paid eight months’ salary in advance by the receiver of
Barcelona.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. III, fol. 1, 52.

[118] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. III, fol. 2-11.

[119] Tristani Caraccioli, Epist. de Inquisitione (Muratori, S. R. I.,
T. XXII, p. 97).--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 68,
74.--Amabile, I, 101-18.--Zurita, Hist. del Rey Hernando, Lib. ix, cap.
xxvi.--Spondani Annal. Eccles., ann. 1510, n. 13.

The formula withdrawing the Inquisition was “Havendo el Rey nostro
Signore cogniosciuto la antiqua observancia e religione de la
fidelissima Cita di napoli et de tucto questo regno verso la santa fe
catholica sua Altezza ha mandato et ordinato levarese la inquisicione
da dicta Cita et de tucto il regno predicto per lo bene vivere
universale de tucti; et ultra questo su Altezza ha mandato publicare le
infrascripte pragmatiche, dato in castello nova, napoli 22 novembre,
1510.”--Amabile, p. 118.

In Ferdinand’s letter books there is nothing further respecting the
Neapolitan troubles until May 27, 1511, he writes to Diego de Obregon,
the receiver of Sicily, that the Bishop of Cefalù returns there by
his orders and, in view of his sufferings for the Inquisition his
salary must be paid. Yet he died without receiving it and, on February
16, 1514, Ferdinand ordered Obregon to pay the arrears to Mariano de
Acardo, in reward for certain services rendered, but this was still
unpaid in January of the following year. As for Andrés Palacios, a
cédula of June 6, 1511, recognized him as inquisitor of Valencia, with
salary dating back to January 1st and an ayuda de costa of a hundred
ducats.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 145, 146, 280,
313.

[120] Ibidem, Lib. 3, fol. 238, 239.

[121] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 238, 239, 260,
261, 292, 295, 316, 317, 350.

[122] Amabile, I, 119-20.

[123] Giacinto de’ Mari, Riflessioni ... in difesa della Cittá e Regno
di Napoli (MS. _penes me_).

[124] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 78, fol. 39.

[125] Chronicle of Rabbi Joseph ben Joshua ben Meir (Bialloblotsky’s
Translation, II, 318-19).--Parrino, Teatro de’ Vicere, I, 175 (Napoli,
1730).

[126] Caballero, Alonso y Juan de Valdés, pp. 182 sqq. (Madrid, 1875).

[127] See Karl Benrath in _Historisches Taschenbuch_, 1885, p. 172;
also his _Bernardino Ochino von Siena_, Leipzig, 1875.--Manzoni,
Estratto del Processo di Pietro Carnesecchi, Torino, 1870.

[128] Le Cento e dieci divine Considerationi del S. Giovãni Valdesso:
nelle quali si ragiona delle cose piu utili, piu necessarie e piu
perfette, della Christiana professione. In Basilea, M.D.L.

“Ingannati principalmente della superstitione e falsa religione ci
fanno relatione che Dio è tanto delicato e sensitivo che per qualunque
cosa si offende: che è tanto vendicativo che tutte le offese castiga:
che è tanto crudele che le castiga con pena eterna: che è tanto
inhumano che si gode che trattiamo male nostre persone, in fino allo
sparger il nostro propio sangre, il quale egli ci ha dato: e che ci
priviamo delle nostre facoltà, le quale egli ci ha dato, accio che con
esse si manteniamo nella presente vita: che si gode che andiamo nudi e
scalzi, continuamente patendo; che è vano e li piacciono li presenti e
che gode di haver oro e belli parimenti, ed in somma che si diletta di
tutte le cose delle quali un Tiranno si diletta; e si gode di haver da
coloro che li sono soggetti.”--Consid. XXXVII.

This edition of Basle, 1550, is the original from which the numerous
translations have been made. For the bibliography, see Böhmer,
_Bibliotheca Wiffeniana_, I, 124-29 (Strassburg, 1874). Also, Wiffen
and Betts, “Life and Writings of Juan de Valdés,” London, 1865.

Antonio Caracciolo styles Valdés “capo e maestro” of the Neapolitan
heretics, who gave the Roman Inquisition early occasion to demonstrate
its usefulness.

[129] Manuel Serrano y Sanz (Revista de Archivos etc., Febrero, 1903,
p. 129).

[130] “Con questa risolutione condanna l’uomo il giudicio della
prudentia e della ragione humana e renuncia il suo lume naturale ed
entra nel regno di Dio, remettendosi al reggimento ed al governo di
Dio.”--Ibidem, Consid. XXV.

[131] Lac Spirituale Johannis de Valdés. Ed. Koldewey, Heilbronn, 1863.

[132] Trataditos de Juan de Valdés, p. 179 (Bonn, 1880).

The germ of much of this tract may be found in the _Militiæ Christianæ
Enchiridion_, Canon 5, in which Erasmus dwells on the worthlessness of
external observances and stigmatizes the importance attached to them as
a kind of new Judaism. Yet the _Enchiridion_ was repeatedly reprinted
after its first appearance, in 1502, and was approved by Adrian of
Utrecht, subsequently Adrian VI.

[133] Giannone, Istoria civile del Regno di Napoli, Lib.
XXII, cap. v, § 1 (Haya, 1753).

[134] Chioccarelli Antistitum Neapol. Eccles. Catalogus, p. 321
(Neapoli, 1642).

On the death of Carafa in 1544, Paul III gave the see to his own
nephew, Rainuccio Farnese, a boy of fifteen. It was then administered
through vicars, the one at the time of the troubles of 1547 being Fabio
Mirto, Bishop of Cajazzo.--Ibidem, p. 326.

[135] Bullar Roman. I, 762.

[136] Amabile, I, 193-6. It would seem that, at this time, the Holy
See claimed inquisitorial jurisdiction over Naples, for a papal brief
of June 2, 1544 orders the viceroy to arrest and send under sure guard
to Rome, Vespasiano di Agnone, a wandering Franciscan friar, guilty of
sacrilege and other enormous crimes.--Fontana, Documenti Vaticani, p.
131 (Roma, 1892).

[137] Antonio Caracciolo, in his MS. life of Paul IV, of which an
extract is printed by Bernino (Historia di tutte l’Heresie, IV, 496)
informs us that Cardinal Giovanni Piero Carafa, the head of the
Roman Inquisition and afterwards Paul IV, did not want the Spanish
Inquisition introduced in Naples because it was more subject to the
crown than to the Holy See and the king took the confiscations.

[138] For most of these details I am indebted to a MS. account by
Antonio Castaldo, a notary who was intimate with all the leaders in
these events. He was a devoted subject of Charles V and considered
himself most fortunate in having been born in his time. He warmly
praises the emperor’s clemency towards the city. Amabile’s elaborate
narrative (I, 196-211) furnishes additional facts and Döllinger
(Beiträge zur Polit.-, Kirch.-u. Cultur-Geschichte, I, 78-124) gives
Mendoza’s correspondence. See also Giannone, Ist. Civile, Lib. XXXII,
cap. v, § 1.--Páramo, pp. 194-5.--Natalis Comitis Historiar., Lib. II,
pp. 35, 52 (Argentorati, 1612).--Pallavicini, Hist. Concil. Trident.,
Lib. X, cap. i, n. 4.--Collenucio da Pesaro, Compendio dell’ Historia
del Regno di Napoli, II, 184 (Napoli, 1563).--Campana, La Vita di Don
Filippo Secondo, P. I, fol. 7 sqq. (Vicenza, 1608).

The narrative of Uberto Foglietta (Tumultus Neapolitani sub Petro
Toleto Prorege), though he was a contemporary who tells us that he
visited Naples for the purpose of ascertaining the facts, is a confused
and turgid piece of rhetoric, of no historical value.

[139] Julii PP. III, Bull _Licet a diversis_, 18 Mart., 1551 (Bullar.
Roman. I, 799).

[140] Chioccarello, Antistitum Eccles. Neap. Catalogus, pp. 331-2.
Carafa was hostile to Spain and, on his elevation to the papacy as Paul
IV, in 1555, he declared the throne of Naples vacant and fallen to the
Holy See. He made an alliance with France but, in the ensuing war,
he was speedily brought to terms by Alba. He retained the Neapolitan
archiepiscopate for some time, doubtless in the hope of causing trouble
there.

[141] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII.

[142] Amabile, I, 214. Rebiba was promoted to the cardinalate shortly
after the accession of Paul IV.

[143] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII.

[144] Amabile, I, 218.--Fontana, Documenti Vaticani contro l’Eresia
luterana in Italia, p. 178 (Roma, 1892).

[145] Perrin, Histoire des Vaudois, chap. VII (Genève,
1618).--Amabile, I, 236-9.--Lombard, Jean-Louis Paschale et les
Martyrs de Calabre (Paris, 1881).--Filippo de’ Boni, L’Inquisizone e i
Calabro-Valdese (Milano, 1864).

[146] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 79, fol. 135.

[147] Scipione Lentolo, Historia delle grandi e crudeli Persecutioni
fatte ai tempi nostri. Edita da Teofilo Gay, pp. 227, 314 (Torre
Pellice, 1906).

[148] Ibidem, pp. 251, 260

[149] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII.

[150] Lentolo, pp. 228-41.--Gerdes, Specimen Italiæ Reformatæ, p. 134
(Lugd. Bat., 1765).--Amabile, I, pp. 248-9.

[151] Amabile, I, 250, 253.--Lentolo, p. 245.

[152] Lentolo, p. 244. This rests wholly on the authority of Lentolo
and probably applied only to orphans. It was a practice derived from
Spain.

[153] Amabile, I, 256.

[154] Lombard, _op. cit._, p. 105.

[155] Amabile, I, 257.

[156] Chioccarello MSS., Tom. VIII.--Amabile, I, 256.

[157] Collenuccio, Historia del Regno de Napoli, II, 329^{b} (Napoli,
1563).

The process of confiscation seems to have been protracted. A vice-regal
letter of January 29, 1569, states that all the proceeds had not yet
been sold and orders that the matter be closed and the money be paid
into the treasury.--Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII.

From a transaction in 1572 it appears that when Neapolitans were burnt
in Rome, notice was sent to the viceroy in order that he might seize
their confiscated estates. At the same time a statement was presented
of their prison expenses, which were reimbursed to the Congregation of
the Inquisition out of the proceeds.--Ibidem.

[158] Lombard, _op. cit._, p. 107.

[159] Decret. Sac. Congr. S. Officii, p. 221 (R. Archivio di Stato in
Roma, Fondo Camerale, Congr. del S. Offizio, Vol. 3).

[160] Amabile I, 259.

[161] Ibidem, p. 258.

[162] Pallavicini, Hist. Concil. Trident., Lib. XXII,
cap. viii, § 2.--Al nostro Santissimo Padre Innocenzio XII intorno al
Procedimento nelle cause che si trattano nel Tribunale del S. Officio
(MS. _penes me_).--Discorso del Dottore Angelo Gioccatano (Gaetano
Agela), MS. _penes me_.--MSS. of Royal Library of Munich, Cod. Ital.,
209, fol. 117-18.--Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII (see Appendix).

[163] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII.

[164] “Delle sante dimostrazioni contro gli eretici ed Ebrei, e
supplicando che voglia esser servito di far intendere à sua Beatitudine
la commune sodisfazione che tiene tutta la città che questa sorte di
persone siano del tutto castigate ed estirpate per mano del nostro
ordinario come si conviene como sempre averno supplicato, giusta
la forma delli canoni e senza interposizione di corte secolare, ma
santamente procedano nelle cose della religione tantum.”--Giacinto de’
Mori, Scritture e Motivi dati a’ Signori Deputati di Napoli (MS. _penes
me_).

[165] Relazioni Venete, Serie II, T. II, p. 273.

[166] Amabile, I, 312-16.

[167] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII.

[168] In 1597 the Venetian envoy Girolamo Ramusio alludes to the
case of the Baron of Castellanetta, excommunicated by his bishop and
summoned to Rome; also to that of Mastrillo, fiscal of the Vicaria, who
sold a quantity of grain belonging to the Abbey of S. Leonardo which
was held by Cardinal Gaetano, in consequence of which he was cited to
Rome. In both cases the court intervened and prevented obedience for
the reason that, if a precedent was established of allowing those cited
by Rome to go, the principal royal ministers could be summoned and
forced to go.--Relazioni Venete, Appendice, p. 310.

[169] Relazioni Venete, Appendice, p. 312.

[170] Pii Quinti Epistt., Lib. I, Ep. vi (Antverpiæ,
1640).

[171] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII.

Failing in this Cardinal Ghislieri, then at the head of the Roman
Inquisition, wrote in November to Viceroy Alcalá asking that Vico be
sent or be placed under bonds to present himself. To this, in April,
1565, the viceroy assented, requiring Vico to give security in 10,000
ducats to that effect; he was already in prison and condemned to
banishment on complaint of his vassals; he duly went to Rome and was
sentenced to compurgation and penance.--Amabile, I, 286.

[172] Chioccarello, _ubi sup._

[173] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII (see Appendix).

[174] Ibidem.

[175] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII.

[176] Escritos de Santa Teresa, T. II, pp. 457, 463 (Madrid, 1869). Cf.
Amabile, I, 229-30.

In 1588 we find the Congregation of the Inquisition scolding the nuncio
at Naples for refusing to pay the expenses of this transportation, as
his predecessors had always done.--Decret. Sac. Congr. S. Officii, p.
192 (Bibl. del R. Archivio di Stato in Roma, Fondo Camerale, Congr. del
S. Offizio, Vol 3).

[177] Amabile, I, 332.--Relazioni Venete, Serie II, T. V, p. 471.

[178] Bibliothèque Nationale de France, fonds latin, 8994, fol. 252.

Possibly this may be partially explained by the fact that heresy was a
case reserved to the Holy See, the absolution for which in the _forum
internum_ required a special licence (cap. 3, Extrav. Commun., Lib. V,
Tit. ix). But in the _forum externum_ the episcopal jurisdiction over
heresy was in no way curtailed by the existence of the Inquisition
(Benedicti PP. XIV de Synodo diœcesana, Lib. IX, cap. iv, n. 3). This
was fully admitted by the Roman Inquisition (Decret. S. Congr. S.
Officii, pp. 174-5, 177, 266-8, 272-3 ap. R. Archivio di Stato in Roma,
Fondo Camerale, Congr. del S. Offizio, Vol. 3).

[179] Amabile, Fra Tommaso Campanella, II, 120-1 (Napoli, 1882).

[180] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII.

[181] Ibidem.

[182] Chioccarello MSS., T. VIII.--Amabile, Inquisizione in Napoli, II,
35.

[183] Amabile, II, 35-6.

[184] Ibidem, II, 37-9.

[185] These feelings are warmly but respectfully expressed in a
memorial addressed to Innocent XII (1691-1700), by Giuseppe Valletta,
an advocate of Naples, in support of envoys sent to negotiate with him
(MS. _penes me_).

It is difficult for us to estimate the horror which, as the inquisitors
boasted, the Holy Office cast over the population. They relate with
pride that in Spain men cited to appear, even on matters not pertaining
to the faith, but ignorant of the cause, were known to take to their
beds and die of sheer terror. How much greater, then, they ask, must
be the horror of those accused, suddenly arrested and cast into the
strictest and most secret prison, not to mention what followed?--“Sola
simplici vocatione alicujus inquisitoris in Hispania, ait Morillus
citatus, per aliquem ejus ministrum, ad negotium forte particulare
non pertinens ad Inquisitionem Fidei, absque eo quod vocati sciant ad
quid vocentur, adeo perterrefieri homines soleant, ut aliquibus statim
necessario decumbere et præ nimio dolore febri superveniente emori
contigerit. At quid in casibus ubi datur præventio per accusationem
aut denuntiationem et agitur de repentina captura et de carceratione
rigidissima ac secretissima, ut taceam de aliis quæ hanc consequuntur,
quanto magis perterrefiant capti et carcerati? quanto maiori horrore
afficientur?”--Salelles, De Materiis Tribunalium S. Inquisitionis,
Proleg. IV, n. 8 (Romæ, 1651).

[186] Capasso, Ragionamenti ad istanza degl’ Ecc^{mi} Sig^{ri} della
Città di Napoli (MS. _penes me_).

[187] Pietro de Fusco, Per la fidelissima Città di Napoli, negli
affari della Santa Inquisizione (MS. _penes me_).--Amabile, II,
41-52.--Giannone, Lib. XXXII, cap. 5.

Pietro de Fusco tells us that confiscations were not infrequently
released, as they were in 1587 to the children of Francesco di Aloes di
Caserta and to the heirs of Bernardino Gargano d’Aversa, although they
died as impenitent heretics.

[188] MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Yc, Tom. XVII.--Amabile, II,
54-58.--MSS. of Royal Library of Munich, Cod. Ital., 189, fol. 327;
209, fol. 111-138.

[189] Amabile, II, 59-72; Append., 68, 71.

[190] Acampora, Ragioni a pro della Fidelissima Città di Napoli
(Napoli, 1709).

[191] Amabile, II, 74-80.--Acampora, _op. cit._

[192] Ragionamenti del Sig. D. Niccolò Capasso colli quali ad istanza
degl’ Ecc^{mi} Sig^{ri} della Città di Napoli prova non doversi
ricevere in questo Religiosissimo Regno l’odioso Tribunale dell’
Inquisizione.

I am not aware that this work has ever been printed, but it must
have had a considerable circulation in MS. I have three copies, of
which one is a Latin version. In one of them the prefatory address to
the Deputati is dated December 3, 1711, which fixes the time of its
composition. The other copies were made respectively in 1715 and 1717,
indicating that it continued to be referred to.

[193] Amabile, II, 81-3.

[194] Amabile, II, 84-5.--Consulta dalla Real Camera de S. Chiara alla
Maestà del Re per il Santo Uffizio, Dec. 19, 1746 (MS. _penes me_).

[195] Consulta dalla Real Camera de S. Chiara alla Maestà del Re per il
Santo Uffizio (MS. _penes me_).

That the Neapolitan Government was not actuated by any tenderness
towards heresy is manifested in a singular transaction of the period
detailed in a letter of which I have copy, of July 11, 1746, from
Edward Allen, the British Consul, to the Marchese Fogliani--apparently
the foreign secretary. An English girl of 13, named Ellen Bowes, was
forcibly abducted from her father’s house, after surrounding it with
about a hundred armed men. Against this outrage the consul protested as
a violation of the privileges of the English nation, to which Fogliani
replied, explaining the reasons which had led the king to do this and
what was proposed to do with the child. Apparently she had expressed
an intention to join the Catholic Church and had been taken so as to
secure her conversion. Allen rejoined in a long argumentative letter
and, although he pointed out that a child of such tender age could have
no conception of the different religions, he felt himself obliged to
disavow asking her return to her parents and limited his request to
having her delivered to some one of the English nation, where she could
be examined as to her motives. What was the issue of the affair does
not appear from the paper in my possession, but evidently the king,
after taking such a step and justifying it, could not well retreat.

[196] Lettera circolare del Marchese Fraggiani, Napoli,
1761.--Beccatini, Istoria della Inquisizione, pp. 372-77, 382 (Milano,
1797).--Amabile, _op. cit._, II, 104-5; Appendice, 80.

[197] Supplica al Re nostro Signore de’ Deputati por opporsi ai
pregindizj del S. Officio. _Sine nota_ sed Napoli, 1764.--Le Bret,
Magazin zum Gebrauch der Staaten-und Kirchengeschichte, III, 160
(Frankfurt, 1773).

[198] Páramo, p. 219.

[199] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 1. The salaries are as
follows:

Gabriel de Cardona, inquisitor, from the date of his embarcation     150 ducats.
Bartolomé de Castro, assessor                                         50    “
An alguazil, with charge of prison, to be selected by Carmona         20    “
Bernat Ros, notario del secreto y de los secuestros } the salaries
Yourself                                            } heretofore paid.


[200] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 1.

[201] Páramo, pp. 220-222. For the Valencia experience of Domingo de
Santa Cruz, see History of the Inquisition of Spain, Vol. I, p. 242.

[202] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 1.

[203] Ibidem. Páramo (p. 223) calls the appointee Magister Farris,
subsequently created Bishop of Bonebolla--a see subsequently merged
into that of Cagliari. There is no reference in Gams’s _Series
Episcoporum_ to such a bishopric in Sardinia. Páramo interposes a
Nicolas Vaguer as inquisitor, from 1498 to 1500, which is evidently a
mistake.

[204] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 1.

[205] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 1; Lib. 2, fol. 1.

[206] Ibidem. Lib. 1.

[207] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 184, 185.

[208] Ibidem, fol. 306, 307, 308. The salaries ordered were:

The Bishop of Alghero, inquisitor                100 libras.
Micer Pedro de Contreras, advocate                30   “
Luis de Torres, alguazil                          30   “
An escribano for both secreto and secuestros      30   “
A portero and nuncio                              10   “
Bernat Ros, receiver                             100   “
Mossen Alonso de Ximeno, fiscal                   30   “

It is observable that no salary is provided for Canon Aragall, the
other inquisitor (see Appendix).

[209] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 3, fol. 321, 348, 349, 351.

[210] Ibidem, fol. 366; Lib. 75, fol. 40.

[211] Ibidem, Lib. 940; fol. 36.

[212] Ibidem, Lib. 78, fol. 304.

[213] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 136.

[214] Ibidem, Lib. 940, fol. 44.

[215] Ibidem, fol. 44, 45.

[216] Biblioteca nacional de Madrid, MSS., D, 118, fol. 179, n. 55.

[217] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 19, fol. 100.

[218] Biblioteca nacional, _loc. cit._, fol. 124, n. 44.

[219] Fontana, Documenti Vaticani, pp. 100, 110, 169.

[220] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 208.

[221] Manno, Storia di Sardegna, II, 189-90 (Milano, 1835).

[222] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. III, fol. 594 (Archivo
hist. nacional).

[223] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 13, fol. 28; Lib. 20, fol.
208; Lib. 21, fol. 240; Libros 56, 57, 918.

[224] La Martinière, Le Grand Dictionnaire Geographique et Critique,
IX, 237 (Venise, 1737).

[225] Sclopis, Antica Legislazione del Piemonte, p. 484 (Torino, 1833).

[226] Le Bret, Magazin zum Gebrauch der Staaten-und Kirchengeschichte,
5 Theil, p. 547 (Frankfurt, 1776).

[227] Fontana, Documenti Vaticani contro l’Eresia Luterana, p.
87.--Raynald. Annal., ann. 1536, n. 45.

The greed of the curia in grasping at all attainable rich preferment
was a fruitful source of neglect and gave opportunity for heresy
to flourish. Cardinal Ippolito d’Este, who was archbishop of Milan
from 1520 to 1550, during the whole of that time never entered the
city.--Gams, Series Episcoporum, p. 797.

[228] Catena, Vita del Papa Pio Quinto, pp. 6-8, 17 (Roma, 1587).

Two somewhat similar cases show that the Venetian territory was equally
infected and equally indifferent (Ibidem, pp. 9, 10). One of these
likewise exhibits Ghislieri’s implacable persistence. Vittore Soranzo,
Bishop of Brescia, was overcurious in reading heretic books. Ghislieri
was sent to make a secret investigation and, on his report, Soranzo was
summoned to Rome and confined in the castle of Sant’ Angelo for two
years. Nothing was proved against him; he was released and returned
to his see, where he continued to perform his functions until 1558.
In 1557 Ghislieri was promoted to the cardinalate and, in 1558, Paul
IV created for him the office of supreme inquisitor--an office which
he was careful not to perpetuate after he became Pius V. He had not
forgotten his failure to convict Soranzo. In April, 1558, Paul IV,
in public consistory, deprived of his office the unfortunate bishop,
who retired to Venice and speedily died of grief.--Catena, pp. 13,
15.--Ughelli, Italia Sacra, T. IV, pp. 695-701.

[229] Cesare Cantù, Eretici d’Italia, III, 34-7.

[230] Fontana, Documenti Vaticani, pp. 174, 184.

[231] MSS. of Ambrosian Library, Tom. 9, F. 45, Parte Inferiore,
Lettera 92.

[232] Ibidem, Tom. 51, F. 101, P. Inf., Lett. 107.

[233] MSS. of Ambrosian Library, Tom. 53, F. 103, P. Inf., Lett. 42,
43, 44, 45, 77, 97.

[234] Muratori, Annali d’Italia, ann. 1563.--De Thou, Hist., Lib.
XXXVI.

[235] Lettere del Archivescovo Calini (Baluz. et Mansi Miscell., IV,
329).

[236] Salomoni, Memorie Storico-Diplomatiche, p. 159 (Milano, 1806).

[237] MSS. of Ambrosian Library, Tom. 23, F. 73, P. Inf. Lett. 47.

[238] Ibidem, Tom. 53, F. 103, P. Inf. Lett. 176.

[239] Archivio civico-storico à S. Carpofaro, Armario A, Filza
VII, n. 43.

[240] Lettere del Nunzio Visconti, n. 67, 68 (Baluz. et Mansi,
Miscell., III, 491-2).--Pallavicini, Hist. Concil. Trident., Lib.
XXII, cap. viii, n. 2-4.

[241] Archivio civico-storico à S. Carpofaro, Armario A, Filza
VII, n. 40 (see Appendix).

[242] MSS. of Ambrosian Library, Tom. 54, F. 104, P. Inf. Lett. 48.

[243] MSS. of Ambrosian Library, Tom. 56, F. 106, P. Inf. Lett. 211.

[244] Beccatini, Istoria dell’ Inquisizione, p. 178.

[245] Acta Eccles. Mediolanens., I, 471 (Mediolani, 1843).

[246] MSS. of Ambrosian Library, H. S. VI, 29.--See Appendix.

[247] Ibidem, Tom. 54, Vol. 68, F, 104, P. Inf. Lett. 63, 147, 163;
Tom. 55, F, 105, Lett. 250.

[248] Ibidem, C. 185, P. Inf. Carta 14.

[249] MSS. of Ambrosian Library, Tom. 44, F, 94, P. Inf. Lett. 72; Tom.
56, F, 106, Lett. 51, 206, 211.

Brescia formed part of the Venitian territory, in which these weekly
conferences of the secular and inquisitorial powers were prescribed.
When the Inquisition was founded in the thirteenth century, Venice
refused it admission, but in 1249 it organized a kind of secular
tribunal against heresy, known as the _tre Savi dell’ eresia_ or
_Assistenti_. At length, in 1289 it admitted an inquisitor, but
adjoined to him the Assistenti, who were not to partake in the
judgements but to see that he did not overstep his proper functions
and to lend when necessary the aid of the secular arm. As the mainland
territory of the Republic increased and the reorganized papal
Inquisition appointed its delegates in the cities, the Signoria in
1548 provided that the _rettori_ or other magistrates in each place
should coöperate with the inquisitor and bishop as _assistenti_. Rome
took umbrage at this and a prolonged negotiation ensued, which ended
with the _assistenti_ being accepted, with the understanding that
they were to have a consultative but not a decisive vote. This gave
the Signoria power to curb excesses and to save the people from being
harassed with inquisitorial prosecutions for trifling cases of sorcery,
bigamy, etc., which were so bitterly complained of elsewhere. If we may
believe Páramo, when Philip failed to inflict the Spanish Inquisition
on Milan, Pius V sought to introduce one of the same kind in Venice,
but the proposition produced so alarming a popular excitement that
the Signoria prevailed upon him to abandon the attempt, promising at
the same time to exercise the greatest vigilance in the suppression
of heresy.--Vettor Sandi, Principj di Storia Civile della Repubblica
di Venezia, Lib. X, cap. iii, art. 3 (Venizia,
1756).--Albizzi, Riposta all’ Historia della Sacra Inquisitione del
R. P. Paolo Servita, pp. 40-58 (Ed. II, _s. l. e.
d._).--Páramo de Orig. Off. S. Inquis., p. 266.--Natalis Comitis
Historiar., Lib. XIV, ann. 1564.

[250] See Appendix for a decree of Pius V, issued within a few months
of his accession.

[251] See Appendix.

[252] Bzovii Annales, ann. 1566, n. 88. This may very probably have
been the occasion of the decree just referred to.

Yet the duke, in 1567, offered no opposition when Pius V ordered him to
send to Rome for trial the canon Ceruti, who, in 1569, was condemned to
the galleys for life. He could not have been a Protestant for his chief
heresy was the denial of immortality. The intercession of the duke
however, in 1572, procured his liberation and permission to keep his
house in Mantua as a prison.--Bertolotti, Martiri del Libero Pensiero,
pp. 43-5 (Roma, 1891).

[253] MSS. of Ambrosian Library, Tom. 5, F, 41, and F, 177, P. Inf.

Catena relates (Vita di Pio V, p. 157) that an heretical preacher of
Morbegno in the Valtelline, named Francesco Cellaria was accustomed
to visit Mantua secretly as a missionary, where he had relations with
some of the nobles. To put an end to this, Pius sent in disguise the
Dominican Piero Angelo Casannova to the Valtelline with instructions
for his capture. With a band of eight men Casannova kidnapped him at
Bocca d’Adda, as he was returning from Coire to Morbegno, hurried
him to Piacenza whence Duke Ottavio Farnese transmitted him to Rome.
There he was condemned to be burnt alive but at the last moment he
weakened and recanted, so that he was strangled before burning. He
had been forced to name his accomplices in Mantua and other cities,
and immediate steps were taken for securing them. The Grisons
complained loudly of this invasion of their territory, but the Duke of
Alburquerque, then Governor of Milan (1564-71), replied that the papal
jurisdiction over heresy was supreme in all lands.

[254] MSS. of Ambrosian Library, Tom. 56, F, 106, P. Inf. Lett. 140.

[255] Acta Eccles. Mediolanens. I, 67, 469.

[256] Decreta Sac. Congr. Sti. Officii, pp. 217-20 (R. Archivio di
Stato in Roma, Fondo Camerale, Congr. del S. Offizio, Vol. 3).

Under Venetian rule when, in 1579, the inquisitor at Treviso was about
to publish an edict prohibiting departure for heretic lands without his
licence, the podestà and captain of the city prevented it, for which
they were praised by the Signoria and similarly the rettore of Bergamo
was rebuked for permitting it.--Cecchetti, La República di Venezia e la
Corte di Roma, I, 23 (Venezia, 1874).

Fra Paolo tells us that in 1595 Clement VII issued a decree forbidding
any Italian to visit a place where there was not a Catholic church and
pastor, without a licence from the inquisitors. The result of this
was that traders returning from heretic lands were watched, reports
were sent to Rome and they were publicly cited to appear there.
The transalpine countries took offence at this and then the public
citations were made at the residence of the parties. Venice sought
to diminish the evil effect of this on commerce by forbidding public
citations in such cases.--Sarpi, Historia dell’ Inquisizione, p. 77
(Serravalle, 1638).

Simply trading with heretics, sending to or receiving from them
merchandise, money or letters constituted fautorship of heresy and
subjected the trader to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition.--Masini,
Sacro Arsenale overo Prattica dell’ Officio della S. Inquisizione,
Roma, 1639, p. 16.

[257] MSS. of Ambrosian Library, H. S. VI, 29.--Le Bret,
Magazin zum Gebrauch der Staaten-und Kirchengeschichte, Sechste Theil,
101 (Frankfurt, 1777).

During the 18th century the powers of the Inquisition were greatly
limited by the civil authorities. In Tuscany we learn, in 1746, that
in Florence and Siena no arrest or imprisonment could be made by it
without the assent of the Government.--Consulta fatta dalla Real Camera
di S. Chiara, in Napoli (MS. _penes me_).

[258] The tribunal of the Canaries was reckoned among those of Castile
and most of the new material in my possession concerning it has been
embodied in the “History of the Inquisition of Spain.” Its insular
position, however, and the consequent attraction of foreign merchants
and sea-faring men, rendered its career somewhat peculiar, and it has
seemed worth while to devote a chapter to it, based on two works--

Historia de la Inquisicion en las Islas Canarias, por Agustin Millares,
4 vols., Las Palmas de Gran-Canaria, 1874.

Catalogue of a Collection of Original Manuscripts formerly belonging to
the Holy Office of the Inquisition in the Canary Islands and now in the
possession of the Marquis of Bute. By W. De Gray Birch, LL.D., 2 vols.,
Edinburgh and London, 1903.

[259] Birch, I, 5, 7-8.

[260] Millares, I, 95-6--Birch, I, 160-7, 173.

[261] Birch, I, 6.--Millares, I, 71.

[262] Birch, I, 1, 67.

[263] Millares, I, 79.

[264] Millares, I, 75.

[265] Birch, I, 91, 92-4. In the record concerning Juan de Xeres, the
year is omitted, but as Wednesday fell on June 4 in 1511, 1516, 1533
and 1539, the probable date is 1516.

[266] Birch, I, 1-5.

[267] Millares, I, 82.

[268] Birch, I, 15-33.

[269] Birch, I, 33.

[270] Ibidem, 34-64.

[271] Millares, I, 87-92.

[272] Ibidem, 96-100.

[273] Ibidem, 103-7.--Birch, I, 90.

[274] Millares, I, 109-10.

[275] Ibidem, I, 125.

[276] Ibidem, I, 115-18.

[277] Birch, II, 1018-26.

[278] Millares, II, 7-20.

[279] Ibidem, pp. 15, 21-22.

[280] Murga, Constituciones sinodales del Obispado de la Gran Canaria,
fol. 333 (Madrid, 1634).

[281] Birch, I, 159-60.

[282] Millares, II, 23-30.

[283] Birch, I, 133-53.

[284] Millares, II, 43-44, 47, 51.

[285] Ibidem, pp. 57-61.

[286] Archivo de Simancas, Canarias, Expedientes de Visitas, Leg. 250,
Lib. III, Cuad. 3.

[287] Ibidem, fol. 10, 13.

[288] Millares, II, 105-6. The subsequent case of Aventrot and his
nephew Jan Cote is alluded to in my History of the Inquisition of
Spain, I, 300; II, 348; III, 102.

[289] Archivo de Simancas, Canarias, Exp. de Visitas, Leg. 250, Lib.
I, fol. 844, 849, 872.

[290] Ibidem, fol. 406, 407, 411, 417-22.

[291] Archivo de Simancas, Canarias, Exp. de Visitas, Leg. 250, Lib.
I, fol. 568, 1115-19.

[292] Birch, I, 297-300.

[293] Millares, II, 72-4.

[294] Millares, II, 80-94.

[295] Ibidem, III, 9-10.

[296] Millares, III, 12-24.

[297] Ibidem, 163-4. The figures of Millares are drawn from the
official list of _Quemados_. In 1526 there are 8; in 1587, 1; in 1614,
1; in 1615, 1.

[298] Millares, III, 26-31. The total relaxations in effigy amount to
107, as follows (Ibidem, III, 164-8):

1 in 1513   17 in 1557   16 in 1576   23 in 1591
7  “ 1530    3  “ 1569   30  “ 1581    3  “ 1608
2  “ 1534    1  “ 1574    3  “ 1587    1  “ 1659.


[299] Birch, II, 695.

[300] Birch, I, 383-4.

[301] Archivo de Simancas, Canarias, Visitas, Leg. 250, Lib.
III, Cuad. 3, fol. 20.

[302] Birch, II, 1007.

[303] Millares, III, 153-7; IV, 19-20.

The exportation of wine from the Canaries to the Indies was an
old subject of complaint in the home country. In 1573 the Córtes
represented that its profits had caused the abandonment of sugar
culture, which had formerly supplied the Spanish sugar market, greatly
enhancing its price and deteriorating its quality, while at the same
time the flourishing wine-trade was being ruined. In reply to this
Philip II only promised to look into the matter and evidently nothing
was done at the time.--Córtes de Madrid del año de setenta y tres,
Peticion 76 (Alcala, 1575).

[304] Millares, III, 85.

[305] Ibidem, 93-5.

[306] Archivo de Simancas, Canarias, Visitas, Leg. 250, Lib.
III, Cuad. 3, fol. 2, 8, 10.

[307] Birch, II, 534-6, 547, 548, 580, 626, 634, 646-61.

[308] Birch, I, 207.

[309] Millares, II, 102.

[310] Birch, I, 416-20.

[311] Ibidem, II, 726-8, 735, 750-72, 813, 832.

[312] Millares, II, 47-54, 112.

[313] Birch, II, 682.

[314] Archivo de Simancas, Canarias, Visitas, Leg. 250, Lib.
III, Cuad. 3, fol. 6, 16.

[315] Millares, III, 117-23, 125-37.

[316] Birch, I, 198.

[317] Millares, II, 37-9.

[318] Birch, I, 214-17.

[319] Millares, II, 98, 102.

[320] Birch, II, 512-17, 870, 931-5, 939, 973.

[321] Ibidem, 890-2.

[322] Birch, I, 482-4.

[323] Ibidem, II, 992-3.

[324] Ibidem, 819, 826.

[325] Millares, II, 152-62.

[326] Birch, I, 347, 350-2.

[327] Birch, II, 1018-26.

[328] Ibidem, I, 303-4, 377.

[329] Birch, I, 374-9; II, 1048-9.

[330] Millares, II, 148-50.

[331] Ibidem, 141-7.

[332] Coleccion de Tratados de Paz; Phelipe III, pp. 161-2, 198, 465.

[333] Birch, II, 1054.

[334] Birch, I, 414-16.

[335] Ibidem, II, 1069-70.

[336] Birch, II, 1065-70.

[337] Birch, II, 1055-63.

[338] Birch, II, 542, 555, 557.

[339] Millares, III, 83-4, 157.

[340] Birch, II, 592, 825-6.

[341] Ibidem, 1070.

[342] Millares, IV, 19-20.

[343] Birch, II, 948.

[344] Archivo de Simancas, Canarias, Visitas, Leg. 250, Lib.
III, Cuad. 3, fol. 20.

[345] Birch, II, 563-66.

[346] Ibidem, 640-2, 705.

[347] Ibidem, p. 716, 847-8.

[348] Birch II, 940-7.

[349] Millares, IV, 33-6.

[350] Ibidem, pp. 36-7.

[351] Millares, IV, 39, 42-44.

[352] Ibidem, I, 79-80.

[353] Millares, I, 130; II, 166.

[354] Archivo de Simancas, Canarias, Visitas, Leg. 250, Lib.
III, Cuad. 3, fol. 1.--Millares, II, 167-76.

[355] Millares, II, 32-36.

[356] Ibidem, II, 104.

[357] Ibidem, III, 25, 42-3.

[358] Ibidem, I, 125-6.

[359] Millares, III, 51-7.

[360] Millares, III, 58-68.

[361] Birch, II, 597-601.

[362] Millares, III, 69-70.

[363] Ibidem, 73-5.

[364] Millares, IV, 18-19.

[365] For details see History of the Inquisition of Spain, I, 348.

[366] Millares, IV, 23-29.

[367] Ibidem, p. 70.

[368] Millares, IV, 87, 97-100.

[369] Millares, IV, 105-6.

[370] Ibidem, pp. 106-9, 114-17.

[371] Alex. PP. VI Bull _Inter cætera_, 4 Maii, 1493 (Bullar. Rom.
I, 454).--Mariana, Hist. de España, T. IX, Append., p. xxvi (Ed.
1796).--Recopilacion de las Leyes de las Indias, Lib. I,
Tit. i, ley 2.

[372] Recop., Lib. I, Tit. i, ley 5; Lib.
II, Tit. ii, ley 8.

[373] Torquemada, De la Monarquía Indiana, Lib. XVIII,
cap. 8.

[374] Cron. Glassberger, ann. 1500 (Analecta Franciscana, Tom. II).

[375] Las Casas, Historia de las Indias, Lib. III, cap.
5, 14 (Coleccion de Documentos, LXIV, 372, 422).

[376] Las Casas, _op. cit._, Lib. II, cap. 54 (Col. de
Doc., LXV, 275; LXVI, 165, 180).

[377] Torquemada, _ubi sup._

[378] Ibidem.

[379] Gams, Series Episcoporum, p. 148.

[380] Torquemada, _op. cit._, Lib. XV, cap. 1, 10.--Col.
de Doc., Tom. XXVI, p. 286.

See also a letter of the Franciscan Custodian Fray Angel de Valencia,
to Charles V, May 8, 1552. If the description of his brother frailes
by Fray Pedro Duran, in a letter to Philip II, Feb. 2, 1583, be not
exaggerated, there was not much gained in restricting episcopal
appointments to the regular Orders.--J. T. Medina, Historia de la
Inquisicion en Mexico, pp. 11, 12 (Santiago de Chile, 1905).

[381] Mendieta, Hist. eccles. Indiana, p. 549 (Mexico, 1870).

[382] Amador de los Rios, Hist. de los Judíos, III, 378.

[383] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 9, fol. 71.

See also a letter from Alonzo de Zuazo to Chièvres, written from
Hispañola, January 29, 1519, urging that immigrants be invited from
all nations, except Moors and Jews and the reconciled New Christians
with their children and grandchildren, who were prohibited by the royal
ordinance.--Col. de Documentos, T. II, p. 371.

[384] Lorenzana, Concilios Provinciales de Mejico, p. 32 (Mexico, 1769).

[385] Recop. de las Indias, Lib. VII, Tit. v, ley 29.

[386] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 3, fol. 106, 107.

[387] Ibidem, Lib. 9, fol. 37.--Llorente (Añales, II, 91) states that
Ximenes, May 7, 1516, appointed Juan Quevedo, Bishop of Cuba, as
delegate inquisitor-general of the Indies, with power to appoint judges
and other officials, but I can find no trace of such action and, if
the appointment was made, it was ineffective. The first see erected
in Cuba was that of Santiago, in 1522 (Gams, p. 146), and there could
have been none as early as 1516, as the first expedition to the island
under Diego Velázquez did not occur until 1511. Hefele (Der Cardinal
Ximenes, p. 497) makes Ximenes appoint Alessandro Geraldino, Bishop of
San Domingo and his colleague of la Vega inquisitors-general but, as we
have seen, Geraldino was not appointed as bishop until 1522, four years
after the death of Ximenes.

[388] Remesal, Historia de la Provincia de S. Vicente de Chyapa y
Guatemala, Lib. II, cap. iii.--Obregon, Mexico viejo, 1ª
Serie, pp. 179-80; 2ª Serie, p. 390 (Mexico, 1891-5).

[389] Obregon, México viejo, 2ª Serie, p. 333.

It would seem that the sanbenitos were not hung in the cathedral
until 1667, after pressure from the Suprema to compel the inquisitors
to perform the work, which must have been considerable if they had
to be compiled from the records. The number then hung amounted to
404.--Medina, Historia de la Inquisicion de México, p. 317.

[390] Puja, Provisiones, Cédulas, Instrumentos de su Magestad etc.,
fol. 97 (Mexico, 1563).

[391] Coleccion de Documentos, LXX, 535.--Solorzani de Indiar. Gubern.
Lib. III, cap. xxiv, n. 9.

[392] Recop. de las Indias, Lib. I, Tit. xix, ley 4.

[393] Obregon, _loc. cit._

[394] Obregon, _loc. cit._--Schäfer, Beiträge zur Geschichte der
Spanischen Protestantismus, II, 373.

[395] Obregon, _op. cit._, 2ª Serie, p. 61.

[396] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 35-6.

[397] Solorzani _op. cit._, Lib. III, cap. xxiv, n. 38.

[398] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. III, fol.
79, 123.

[399] Recop. de las Indias, Lib. I, Tit. xix,
ley 1.--Cf. Simancæ de Catholicis Institutionibus, Tit.
XXXVIII, n. 12.

[400] Relazioni Venete, Serie I, Tom. VI, p. 462.

[401] This and the following details of the installation of the Mexican
Inquisition I owe to a series of documents, copies of which were kindly
furnished to me by the late General Don Vicente Riva Palacio.

Doctor Moya de Contreras was an old and experienced hand. In 1541
he was appointed inquisitor of Saragossa.--Archivo de Simancas,
Inquisicion, Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 117.

[402] Torquemada, Lib. XIX, cap. 29. For almost all the
early inquisitors of Mexico the tribunal was the stepping-stone to the
episcopate. Bonilla, who went, in 1571, as fiscal, became inquisitor
in 1573 and Archbishop of Mexico in 1592. Alonso Granero, who went as
inquisitor in 1574, became Bishop of Charcas the same year. Santos
García was inquisitor in 1576 and Bishop of Jalisco in 1597. Alonso de
Peralta, who was inquisitor in 1594, was made Archbishop of La Plata in
1609, and Lobo Guerrero, who was inquisitor in 1593, became Archbishop
of Santafé in 1598.

It illustrates the character of the men occupying these positions
that when Granero left Mexico for his bishopric he went by land and
in Nicaragua he assumed still to be inquisitor, condemning people and
fining them to defray his travelling expenses. An unlucky notary named
Rodrigo de Evora wrote some satiric couplets about him, whereupon he
was thrown in prison with chains on hands and feet, tortured till he
was crippled with dislocated joints and then exposed in a public auto
and condemned to 300 lashes and six years of galleys. The scourging
was administered with excessive severity and Evora had to beg his way
to Mexico to appeal to the tribunal there. He evidently was stripped
of his property and among other things of four cases of Chinese ware,
which Granero appropriated to his own use.--Medina, _op. cit._, 76-78.

[403] Medina, _op. cit._, p. 22.

[404] See Appendix.

[405] Mr. Elkan N. Adler has printed a translation of these special
instructions furnished to Peru. Unquestionably the same provisions must
have been established in Mexico.--Publications of the American Jewish
Historical Society, No. 12.

The inquisitors were empowered to call in the judges of the Royal
Audiencia as consultors in the _consulta de fe_.--Ibidem.

[406] Medina, _op. cit._, p. 30.

[407] Llorente, Hist. crít., cap. xix, art. ii. n. 18.

[408] Medina, _op. cit._, p. 31.

[409] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 36-43.--Obregon, _op. cit._, 2ª Serie,
84-90, 335-7.--Páramo de Orig. Officii S. Inquisit., p. 241. The
“Cornelius the Irishman” of Miles Phillips’s narrative was not burnt
until the auto of March 6, 1575. He was one of Hawkins’s men, who had
married in Guatemala.--Medina, p. 51.

[410] Obregon, p. 391. In the great auto of December 8, 1596, the
sentence to relaxation of Manuel Díaz states that he is to be taken
on horseback to the market-place of San Ipolito where, in the place
provided for it, he is to be garroted and burnt.--Proceso contra Manuel
Díaz, fol. 154 (I owe to the kindness of General Riva Palacio several
of the original trials connected with this auto).

[411] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 49-55.

[412] Torquemada, Lib. XIX, cap. 30.--Obregon, pp.
338-52.--Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 91-115, 123-36.

[413] Páramo, pp. 241-2.--Proceso contra Manuel Díaz, fol. 71 (MS.
_penes me_).--Obregon, p. 344. The fourth sister of Carvajal was burnt
for relapse in the auto of 1601 and a fifth was reconciled (Medina, pp.
131-133).

An incident of Carvajal’s trial illustrates the dread excited by the
pitiless Peralta, who richly earned his archbishopric. After prolonged
torture and confession, Carvajal endeavored to commit suicide and then
asked for Lobo Guerrero to be sent for, to whom he explained that he
had begged that Peralta should not be present “because the mere sight
of him made his flesh creep, such was the terror with which his rigor
inspired him.”--Adler, Trial of Jorje de Almeida (Publications of Am.
Jewish Hist. Soc., IV, 42).

The complaints against Peralta accumulated until the Suprema was
compelled to formulate a process against him in which the _sumaria_
contained thirty-two charges, not only of arbitrary cruelty but of
prostitution of his office for illicit gain (Medina, p. 216); but this,
as we have seen, did not prevent his promotion to the archiepiscopate
of La Plata.

[414] Obregon, p. 391.

[415] Las Casas, Hist. de las Indias, Lib. III, cap. 99
(Col. de Docum., T. LXV, p. 365).

[416] Lorenzana, Concilios provin. de Mexico, pp. 18, 33.

[417] Ibidem, p. 82.

[418] Recop. de las Indias, Lib. I, Tit. xix, ley 17;
Lib. VI, Tit. i, ley 35.--Solorzani de Indiar. Gubern.,
Lib. III, cap. xxiv, n. 27, 30.

This fresh papal grant was evidently called for by the action of the
Council of Trent, in 1563 (Sess. XXIV, De Reform., cap.
6) which admitted that bishops had only power to absolve for secret
heresy, while even this was denied them by the bulls _In Cœna Domini_
of Pius V and his successors.

[419] Bancroft, History of Mexico, III, 747, 750.--Las Casas, Hist. de
las Indias, Lib. II, cap. 1; Lib. III, cap. 8 (Col. de Doc., Tom. LXIV,
7, 386).

[420] The Dominican Thomas Gage when, about the year 1630, he was
serving as a missionary priest at Mixco in Guatemala, discovered,
after considerable trouble, an idol in a cave, secretly worshipped by
the leading Indians of the vicinage. After relating his adventures
in the search, he proceeds “I writ to the President of Guatemala
informing him of what I had don and to the Bishop (as an Inquisitor
to whom such cases of Idolatry did belong) to be informed of him what
course I should take with the Indians, who were but in part as yet
discovered unto me and those only by the relation of one Indian. From
both I received great thanks for my pains in searching the mountains
and finding the Idol and for my zeal in burning of it. And as touching
the Indian Idolators their counsel unto me was that I should further
enquire after the rest and discover as many as I could and endeavor to
convert them to the knowledge of the true God by fair and sweet means,
showing pity unto them for their great blindness and promising them
upon their repentance pardon from the Inquisition, which considering
them to be but new plants useth not such rigor with them, which it
useth with Spaniards if they fall into such horrible sins.”--Gage’s New
Survey of the West Indies, pp. 397-8 (London, 1677).

For a considerable time the Indians seem to have escaped persecution,
but at length the bishops--or at least some of them--formed
Inquisitions for them and conducted these in inquisitorial fashion.
In 1690 the Bishop of Oaxaca, having discovered organized idolatry
in eleven pueblos of the Sierra de Xuquil, held an auto in which the
culprits were reconciled and penanced, twenty-six of the principal
ones being condemned to perpetual prison, for which he constructed
an appropriate building. Possibly the fact that persecution was
unprofitable may explain the infrequency of these proceedings. The
first Indian auto in the city of Mexico seems to have been held
December 23, 1731, which was followed occasionally by others--bigamy,
superstitions and idolatry being the common offences. In 1769
the Archbishop of Mexico published an Edict of Faith requiring
denunciations of Indian practices to his _Tribunal de Fe_. This
excited the indignation of the Inquisitors who vainly demanded its
suppression and then appealed to the Suprema, probably with no better
success.--Medina, pp. 371-8.

[421] Recop. de las Indias, Lib. I, Tit. xix, ley 26.

[422] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 40, fol. 24; Libro 926,
fol. 169.

[423] Solorzani de Indiar. Gubern., Lib. III, cap. xxiv,
n. 13.

[424] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Leg. 1157, fol. 66.

[425] Ibidem, Libro 40, fol. 31.

[426] Recop., Lib. I, Tit. xix, ley 14. In 1626,
however, Philip IV ordered them to be compelled to pay the _alcavala_
or commutation of the tax of ten per cent. on all transactions like
other subjects and, in the Concordia of 1633, the exemption from royal
taxes and imposts was wholly withdrawn.--Ibidem, Lib. I,
Tit. xix, leyes 15; 30, § 5.

[427] MSS. of Royal Library of Munich, Cod. Hispan. 79, Leg. 1, fol. 1.

[428] Recop., Lib. VI, Tit. xii, ley 42.

[429] Recop., Lib. I, Tit. xix, leyes 10, 11,
12.--Solorzani de Ind. Gubern., Lib. III, cap. xxiv, n.
11.

[430] Recop., Lib. I, Tit. xix, leyes 24, 25. In the
earlier period of the colonial Inquisition, the inquisitors sometimes,
as we have seen, held prebends in addition to their salaries, but this
privilege was subsequently withdrawn, at the instance of the Council
of Indies, on account of the poverty of the churches.--Solorzani, _op.
cit._, Lib. III, cap. xxiv, n. 78.

[431] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 40, fol. 54, 128, 139.

The canonries fell in gradually. October 24, 1636, the Suprema reports
that up to that time, only those of Mexico, Puebla, Oaxaca and
Guatemala, had become available, the aggregate revenues of which did
not amount to the royal subvention. The tribunal had reported, January
23d, that a vacancy had occurred in the cathedral of Guadalajara and
the king is urged to lose no time in ordering its suppression.--Ibidem,
Lib. 21, fol. 67.

About the middle of the century the tribunal enjoyed canonries in
Mexico, Puebla, Oaxaca, Chiapa, Yucatan, Guatemala, Mechoacan,
Guadalajara and Manila. In Mexico the sees of Guadiana, Honduras and
Nicaragua, and in the Philippines those of Cebu, Cagayan and Nueva
Segovia were too poor, some of them not even having prebendaries, and
the bishops were supported by the treasury.--Medina, p. 209.

[432] MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.

[433] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 40, fol. 44.--Recop., Lib.
I, Tit. xix, ley 30, § 1.

[434] Medina, p. 209.

[435] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 40, fol. 85, 139. In these
papers the Suprema had the hardihood to assert that the prebends were
suppressed in order to enable the tribunals to meet expenses over and
above the royal subvention for salaries, although all the documents
show that the object was to relieve the treasury.

[436] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 40, fol. 91, 103.

[437] J. T. Medina, La Inquisicion en Cartagena de Indias, p. 310
(Santiago de Chile, 1899).

[438] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 1465, fol. 78.

[439] Archivo de Simancas, Libro 40, fol. 57.

[440] Ibidem, fol. 74.

The Contratacion could furnish only the records of silver passing
through it, which were always liable to seizure by the king. The great
remittances of 1646 and 1648 were cautiously made in bills of exchange,
and this was probably the rule.

[441] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 40, fol. 77.

[442] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 40, fol. 85, 139.

The letter-book of the tribunal from 1642 to 1649 is largely filled
with minute instructions as to the sequestrations which accompanied
arrests and the management of the property seized. Though called
sequestration this was really confiscation for, without awaiting
the conviction of the accused, the assets were converted into money
as rapidly as possible, by auctions in which of course much was
sacrificed. The proceedings were most arbitrary. In a letter of October
21, 1645, the commissioner at Vera Cruz is instructed as to some cocoa
belonging to prisoners, either on hand or expected to arrive. Trains
of pack-mules were to be seized, no matter under what engagements they
might be, to hurry the goods to Mexico and no other cocoa was to be
allowed to come, so that this might bring a better price. A few weeks
earlier, on September 25th, orders were sent for the arrest of Captain
Fernando Moreno of Miaguatlan (Oaxaca), who was claimed to be a debtor
to the fisc. He was to be seized suddenly and hurried off, heavily
ironed, to Mexico, while his property was taken possession of. He was
engaged in large transactions of making advances to Indians for cotton
yarn and cochineal and minute instructions were given as to gathering
in the product of these advances, which would be an affair of time.
All this work had to be gratuitous. When on one occasion a familiar
and a notary charged for their labor, they were compelled to refund
and were told that the honor of serving the Inquisition was sufficient
payment.--MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.

[443] Bibl. nacional, MSS., D, 150, p. 224.

[444] Archivo de Simancas, Lib. 40, fol. 218, 328.

[445] Archivo de Simancas, fol. 85, 139. In 1631 the _vara_, or wand
of office of alguazil, was sold in Castile and, in 1634, the Suprema
sought to extend this to the Colonies, under pretext of applying it
to the repairs of the Castle of Triana, the home of the tribunal of
Seville. The Council of Indies stoutly resisted it and a consulta of
November 16, 1638, shows that the struggle was still going on (Ibidem,
Libro 21, fol. 162). The Suprema finally won, but of course it absorbed
the proceeds and the castle was repaired by means of the levy known
as the _Fabrica de Sevilla_, which continued to be collected in the
nineteenth century.

It is probable that the amount attributed to the sale of _varas_ is
largely exaggerated. In 1652 there came a remittance from Mexico of
2298 pesos, of which 1711 were the proceeds of sales and 587 for the
_media añata_--a tax of half of the first year’s salary of those
appointed to office (Ibidem, Lib. 40, fol. 295).

[446] Obregon, _op. cit._, 1ª Serie, p. 188.

[447] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 28, fol. 276.

[448] Medina, pp. 213, 348, 379, 405.

[449] Archivo de Simancas, Libro, 435, 2º.

[450] Obregon, _op. cit._, 2º Serie, pp. 352-55. From 1601 to 1646 the
only sanbenitos were--

1603. A Fleming relaxed for Calvinism, one Judaizer reconciled and one
relaxed in effigy and two mulattos reconciled for heresy.

1605. An Irishman reconciled for Lutheranism and a Portuguese for
Judaism. There were however 36 penitents in this auto of whom 21 were
negroes and mulattos for blasphemy. When in 1605 the general pardon for
Judaizers descended from Portuguese reached Mexico, there was only one
to be liberated.--Medina, pp. 143, 146.

1606. A mulatto relaxed for administering sacraments without
ordination. There was however another person guilty of the same
offence, a married priest and a blasphemer.--Medina, p. 145.

1621. A German reconciled for Lutheranism.

1625. Three Judaizers reconciled.

1626 One Judaizer relaxed in effigy.

1630. Three Judaizers reconciled.

1635. Four Judaizers reconciled, one relaxed in person and four in
effigy. This is evidently incomplete. Medina, p. 165, reports that in
this auto there were twelve Judaizers reconciled and five effigies of
the dead relaxed.

1636. One Judaizer relaxed in effigy.

[451] Medina, pp. 146-50.

[452] MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr. The cases reported consisted of

Judaism                  22
Solicitation             12
Sorcery                   8
Bigamy                    4
Personating priesthood    4
Illuminism                2
Miscellaneous            11


[453] Medina, p. 168.

[454] MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.

[455] Medina, p. 169.

[456]

Solicitation in the confessional                                       14
Sorcery and divination                                                112
Consulting diviners                                                    13
Judaism (besides 11 in Pernambuco)                                     41
Disregard of disabilities of descendants                                8
Bigamy                                                                  4
Abuse of Inquisition by culprits                                        2
Remaining under excommunication for a year                              4
Revealing confessions                                                   1
Heretical blasphemy                                                     6
Incest                                                                  1
Neglect of observances                                                  5
Mental Prayer better than Oral                                          1
A little girl for breaking an arm of an image of Christ                 1
A boy of 6, for making crosses on the ground, stamping on them and
saying that he was a heretic                                            1
Priest saying 4 masses in one day                                       1
Personating official of Inquisition                                     1
Celebrating mass without ordination                                     2
Impeding the Inquisition                                                7
Insults to images                                                       6
Concubinage better than marriage                                        3
Irregular fasting                                                       1
Propositions                                                           12
Various suspicious acts                                                 1
Marriage better than Religious Life                                     1
Criticizing the Inquisition                                             1
Denying a debt due to the confiscated estate of a culprit               1
Marriage in Orders                                                      1
For being the grandson of a man relaxed in Portugal                     1

(MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.).

Nearly all the accusations of sorcery are of Indians, negroes or
mulattos. A note states that the testifications against Indians are not
indexed because the Inquisition has not jurisdiction over them.

[457] The plant named Peyote had intoxicating and narcotic properties
causing pipe-dreams and visions. It was largely used by diviners and
was strictly prohibited by the Inquisition.

[458] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 812; Cuenca, fol. 2.

[459] MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.

[460] MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.

[461] Carta de 27 Nov. 1643 (MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.). These
prisoners were all reconciled in the subsequent autos except three who
died in prison and were relaxed in effigy.

For the individual offences of these inquisitors and their subordinates
in cruelty, rapacity, embezzlement and licentiousness, as reported by
the _visitador_ Medina Rico, see Medina, pp. 261-2.

[462] Medina, pp. 239.

[463] Medina, pp. 181, 182.

[464] Medina, p. 183.--El Museo Mexicano, Mexico, 1843, pp. 537 sqq.
Reprinted also, with some abbreviation as an appendix to a translation
of Féréal’s _Mystères de la Inquisition_, Mexico, 1850.

[465] My copy of this scarce tract unfortunately lacks the title page,
which I am thus unable to give. It was printed in Mexico in 1649.

[466] In addition to those who appeared in the auto there were two
women condemned to relaxation, Isabel Núñez and Leonor Vaz who, the
night before in the prison, sought audience with the inquisitors,
professed conversion, and were withdrawn. They were reconciled in
church, April 21, with irremissible perpetual prison and sanbenito.

Besides the summary in the text, the list of sanbenitos for this year
includes the names of Francisco López de Aponte, relaxed in person for
atheism and Sebastian Alvares for obstinacy in various errors (Obregon,
p. 372), but they are not in the official relation and, as they occur
again in 1659 (p. 381), there is obviously an erroneous duplication.

[467] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 38, fol. 96, 101.

[468] When, in 1654, Medina Rico came as visitador, he found 1200 cases
pending in suits against the fisc of the tribunal.--Medina, p. 212.

[469] Medina, pp. 271-311.

[470] Proceso contra Joseph Bruñon de Vertiz (MSS. of David Fergusson
Esqr.).

I have considered this curious case at greater length in “Chapters from
the Religious History of Spain,” pp. 362-73.

[471] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 60, fol. 189.

[472] Obregon, _op. cit._, 2ª Serie, pp. 380-4.

[473] Medina, pp. 328, 330.

[474] In the auto of 1601 the priest Juan Plata appeared as a penitent
and was suspended from orders for connivance in pretended revelations
of a nun of the Puebla convent of St. Catherine of Siena. He was also
a _solicitante_, having seduced her in the confessional, but this was
studiously omitted from the sentence read.--Medina, _op. cit._, p. 125.

[475] Oviedo y Valdés, Las Quinquagenas de la Nobleza de España, I, 383
(Madrid, 1880).--Concil. Mexican. I, ann. 1555, cap. lvii.--Mendieta,
Hist. eccles. Indiana, Lib. IV, cap. xlv.

[476] Medina, p. 54.

[477] MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.

[478] “Que es delito muy reiterado en estas partes y muchos confesores
hacen poquisimo caso dél.”--Medina, p. 162.

[479] MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.

[480] Medina, p. 320.

In 1664 the tribunal asked to have its jurisdiction extended over
unnatural crime and bestiality, which it described as exceedingly
prevalent, especially in the Religious Orders, but the Suprema
refused.--Ibidem, p. 321.

It was beyond the power of the Suprema to accede to this without
a special papal delegation. In Spain this had been granted to the
tribunals of the Kingdoms of Aragon, but not to those of Castile.

[481] MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.

[482] Ibidem.

[483] Biblioteca nacional de Madrid, Seccion de MSS., X, 157, fol. 240
(see Appendix).--Royal Library of Munich, Cod. Hispan. 79.

[484] These cases are derived from the Munich MS., last cited, entitled
“Extractos de Causas [de] Familiares y Ministros que no son Oficiales
que ay en la Camara del Secreto de la Inquisicion de Mexico en este
presente año de 1716.”

[485] E. N. Adler, The Inquisition in Peru (Publications of the
American Jewish Historical Society, No. 12).

[486] J. T. Medina, Hist. de la Inquisicion de Cartagena p. 437. See,
also, p. 278. Cf. Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 61, fol.
251.--MSS. of Library of University of Halle, Yc 17.

[487] MSS. of Royal Library of Munich, Cod. Hispan. 79.

[488] Solorzani de Indiar. Gubern., Lib. III, cap. xxiv,
n. 16.

[489] Medina, p. 315.

[490] Solorzano, _loc. cit._, n. 61.

[491] This prohibition was removed in the Concordia of 1633.

[492] Recop. de las Indias, Lib. I, Tit. xix, ley 29.

The vexatious petty tyranny in which the tribunal indulged is
illustrated by the case of a law-student, Diego de Porras Villerías,
about 1600, who was fined in 100 pesos and banished for a year because
he refused to honor a requisition for two cartloads of lime for the
prison which it was constructing.--Medina, p. 137.

[493] Solorzani _op. cit._, Lib. III, cap. xxiv, n.
60.--MSS. of Royal Library of Munich, Cod. Hispan. 79.--Archivo de
Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 60, fol. 1, 60, 66 _sqq._

[494] Solorzano, _loc. cit._, n. 63-73.

[495] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 17, fol. 1.

[496] Munich, MSS., Cod. Hispan. 79.

[497] Recop., Lib. I, Tit. xix, ley 30.

[498] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 60, fol. 199.

[499] Munich MSS., Cod. Hispan. 79.

[500] Medina, p. 323. Possibly this may explain his treasonable project
of transferring the northern provinces of Mexico to France.

[501] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 60, fol. 362.

[502] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 946, fol. 282, 360,
400.--Por el Tribunal del S. Officio de Mexico sobre el Impedimiento
que a puesto D. D. Matheo Sagade Bugueiro, Arzobispo de la dicha Ciudad
(communicated by D. Fergusson Esqr.).

[503] The visitador Medina Rico characterizes without reserve this
unjustifiable action of the tribunal “sin causa, motivo, ni razon
alguna, se introdujeron à inmensos procedimientos en la materia, y
esto no con igualdad y justicia, sino con manifiesta pasion contra el
dicho señor Obispo, su provisor, criados, allegados y afectos.” They
represented to Viceroy Salvatierra “que era sospechoso en la fe y
tizon ardiente del infierno y otras cosas gravisimas semejantes à las
referidas.”--Medina, pp. 241, 242.

[504] Obras de Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, Tom. I, Prolegom.; T. XI, pp.
241, 289, 328, 466-7 (Madrid, 1762). The fullest account, however, of
the arbitrary proceedings of the Inquisition is contained in a letter,
omitted for cause from his collected works, written from Chiapa, August
10, 1647, to the Inquisitor-general Arce y Reynoso. It was printed by
Puigblanch, Cadiz, 1813, and by Medina, pp. 242-60.

It is worthy of note that at this time the Jesuits were laying the
foundation of their curious autocratic empire of Paraguay, by a quarrel
with Bernardino de Cardenas, Bishop of Asuncion, known as _el Padre de
los Indios_. To prevent his visiting their missions they drove him by
force of arms from his episcopal see. The struggle lasted from 1644
to 1660, when the Holy See decided in favor of the bishop.--Coleccion
de Documentos tocantes á la Persecucion contra D. Fr. Bernardino de
Cardenas, Madrid, 1768.

[505] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 38, fol. 64.

We shall meet Archbishop Juan de Mañozca hereafter in his earlier
capacity of Inquisitor of Cartagena, where he earned an infamous
notoriety.

[506] MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr. The sentence in this case is so
unusual that I give the essential portion of it in the Appendix.

[507] Medina, p. 266.

[508] Gams, Series Episcoporum, s. vv.

[509] Munich MSS., Cod. Hispan., 79.

[510] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 940, fol. 2.

[511] Páramo, p. 243.--Archivo de Simancas, Lib. 940, fol. 6.

[512] MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.

[513] See the Author’s “Chapters from the Religious History of Spain,”
p. 73.

There was no little scandal, in 1768, when it was discovered that
the receiver of the tribunal, Vicente de las Heras Serrano, had sold
for 850 pesos to the Licentiate Juan José Azpeitia a number of the
prohibited books which had been seized. No great damage to the faith
could have ensued if they were all like Milton’s Paradise Lost, for
the possession of which a French surgeon, Carlos Loret, was forced to
abjure and was banished to Spain.--Medina, p. 434.

[514] MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.

A similar prohibition of the irreverent use of crosses and images
is embodied in the Peruvian Edict of Faith of 1641.--Adler, The
Inquisition in Peru (American Jewish Historical Society, No. 12).

[515] Munich MSS., Cod. Hispan. 79. See “Chapters from Spain,” p. 86,
for instructions to the commissioners in the performance of this duty.

[516] Recop., Lib. I, Tit. xix, ley 30.

[517] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 20, fol. 10; Lib. 40, fol.
44.

[518] MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.

[519] Munich MSS., Cod. Hispan. 79.

[520] Note to Recop., Lib. I, Tit. xix, ley 29. For
further details as to this see below, under Peru.

[521] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 28, fol. 272, 276.

Obregon (_op. cit._, p. 227) relates an anecdote of this period which
would seem incompatible with the existing discredited position of the
Inquisition. One Ash Wednesday, when the canons of the cathedral called
upon the Marquis de Croix, as customary, to present him with ashes, he
kept them waiting in his antechamber, to the intense indignation of
those dignified personages. They complained to the inquisitors, who
summoned the viceroy to appear before them. He obeyed, but he went
attended by a guard and some pieces of artillery. He was haughtily
received until he took out his watch and casually remarked that he
hoped the audience would be brief for, if he was not back in the street
in ten minutes, the cannon would open on the building and reduce it
to ruins. The dignity of the inquisitors disappeared; they promptly
dismissed him and were in agony as he leisurely sauntered forth.

If such an occurrence took place it is attributable with more
verisimilitude to the period of the Marquis de Croix in Mexico than
to the earlier time of the Marquis de Castelfuerte in Peru, of whom a
precisely similar story is told, except that he gave the tribunal an
hour for consideration. In his case the summons to appear is ascribed
to his rough treatment of the Franciscans, July 5, 1731, when two of
them were killed in a disturbance at the execution of Dr. Joseph de
Antequera.--Palma, Añales de la Inquisicion de Lima, p. 184 (Madrid,
1898).

[522] Medina, p. 338.

[523] Ibidem, pp. 339-45.

[524] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 1465, fol. 81.

[525] Medina, pp. 358-63.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo
1465, fol. 81.

[526] Medina, pp. 365, 388.

[527] Ibidem, pp. 396, 432.

[528] Medina, pp. 387, 397-405.

[529] Obregon, _op. cit._, 2ª Serie, pp. 389, 392-3.

Lizardi’s troubles did not end with the extinction of the Inquisition.
In 1822 he issued a defence of Free-Masonry which excited clerical
wrath. In Puebla, a priest, after arousing the people with his sermons,
headed a mob which broke into a printer’s shop, carried off the
obnoxious books and made an auto de fe of them, leading to a tumult in
which three men were killed and a number were wounded. About the same
time Lizardi was obliged to appeal to the Córtes for protection against
his public excommunication by the archiepiscopal provisor.--El Sol, pp.
122, 146, 152 (Mexico, 1822).

[530] I owe to the late General Don Vicente Riva Palacio the documents
in this matter.

[531] Obregon, _op. cit._, 2ª Serie, p. 393.

[532] Note to Recop., Lib. I, Tit. xix, ley 1. Cf. Lib.
III, Tit. i, ley 2.

[533] See in Appendix the Edict of January 26, 1811. Also Obregon, 2ª
Serie, p. 393.

[534] Proceso contra Dr. Pedro Mendizabal, fol. 13 (MS. _penes me_).

[535] I owe the following details to a transcript of his trial, made
from the original in 1865 by Don José María Lafragua and kindly
communicated to me by David Fergusson Esqr.

[536] The learned Dominican Jacques Augustin Serry’s _Historia
Congregationum de Auxiliis_, issued also under the pseudonym of
Augustin Leblanc, appeared in 1700 and was promptly condemned in Spain
in 1701 (Index of 1707, I, 776), but is not on the Roman Index. His
_Exercitationes de Christo ejusque V. Matre_ are in both Indexes. For
a Jesuit opinion of the former work see Father Colonia’s _Bibliothèque
Janseniste_, p. 186 (Ed. 1735).

María de Agreda was a Spanish mystic of the seventeenth century whom
Spain has repeatedly, up to modern times, endeavored to get canonized.

[537] These comprehensive excommunications led to a result not
particularly creditable to the Church. A writer in 1822 calls attention
to the fact that, while the leading insurgents who were captured were
formally reconciled before they were shot, the mass of the people, who
had never paid any attention to the censures, were freely received to
the sacraments without having been absolved.--El Sol, México, Feb. 27,
1822, p. 107.

[538] See Appendix. One of the insurgent proclamations shows the savage
character of the warfare. It sets forth the terms and conditions of the
struggle of which the following may serve as a specimen--

4. The European who resists with arms will be put to the sword.

5. When threatened with siege or battle, before commencing we will put
to the sword the numerous Europeans in our hands and will then abide
the fortunes of war.

6. The American who defends a European with arms will be put to the
sword.

Thus was justified the execution of Hidalgo and his chiefs. Whatever
sympathy we may feel for the cause, we must admit that the cruelty
marking the strife was equally shared and that the fate of Maximilian
was foreshadowed.

[539] In estimating the veracity of this curious tale, we must bear in
mind that both Fernando VII and Pius VII were at the time prisoners of
Napoleon. There was, it is true, a Spanish Regency and the Córtes of
Cádiz which used the royal name, but it is inconceivable that, even if
it had access to the pope, it would have taken such a precaution at a
time when there was no anticipation of rebellion in the colonies.

[540] Medina, pp. 456-61.

[541] Ibidem, pp. 461, 463.

[542] Coleccion de Cédulas etc. de Fernando VII, pp. 8, 85 (Valencia,
1814).

[543] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libros 877, 890.

[544] Medina, pp. 467-9.

[545] Medina, pp. 469-70.

[546] Ibidem, pp. 479-92.

[547] The following details of the trial of Morelos are derived from a
report, accompanied by the documents, made by Flores to the Suprema,
November 27 and December 29, 1815. It is in the archives of Simancas,
Inquisicion, Sala 49, Legajo 1473.--See also Medina, pp. 513-45.

[548] The Constitution of Nov. 22, 1814, which based all government on
the will of the people clearly came under the edict of August, 1808,
which denounced the doctrine of popular sovereignty as manifest heresy.
For the same reason the Constitution of Cádiz was heretical.

[549] See Appendix.

[550] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 559.

[551] Obregon, 2ª Serie, p. 395. Mier’s crowning offence was a book
with the suggestive title “Informe y Pedimento Fiscal presentado por
los Locos ante el Supremo Tribunal de la Razon humana.”--Archivo
histórico nacional de Madrid, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 100.

He escaped to the United States and returned to Mexico in 1822, when he
was imprisoned by Dávila, Governor of the castle of San Juan de Ulua,
but was speedily released.--El Sol, p. 117 (Mexico, 1822).

[552] Medina, p. 505.

[553] Archivo hist. nacional de Madrid, Inquisicion, Legajo 6462,
Cuaderno 1, fol. 68; Cuaderno 2, fol. 2.

[554] Defensa del Editor de la Obra titulada los Misterios de la
Inquisicion, México, 1850.

[555] J. T. Medina, El Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisicion en
las Islas Filipinas, pp. 16, 28-9 (Santiago de Chile, 1899).

[556] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 17-28, 30-1, 36-8, 141-51.

[557] Instruccion que han de guardar los Comisarios, n. 16, 17, 18, 30.

[558] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 178-9, 181-2.

[559] Ibidem, pp. 38-9.

[560] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 42-3.

We have seen above (p. 243) that, in the list of cases of solicitation
pending before the Mexican tribunal in the years 1622-3-4, there
were seven from Manila. Of these, as we chance to learn from other
documents, three, Fray Domingo Fernández, Fray Melchor de Manzano and
Fray Martin de la Anunciacion, were all denounced, by different women,
on March 31, 1622, to Fray Miguel de San Jacinto, commissioner for the
province of New Segovia. As that day was the Thursday after Easter,
this was probably the result of confessing to a rigid confessor who
refused absolution until denunciation should be made. Another one was
Padre Pedro Ramírez, S. J., denounced to the Manila commissioner, Fray
Domingo González, Aug. 16, 1622.

The comparative infrequency of Jesuit culprits may perhaps be partially
explained by a remarkable precaution adopted by the Society. A
deposition under oath, Jan. 20, 1625, made in the Philippines by Padre
Baltasar de Silva, states that experienced and trustworthy women, whom
they called syndics, were employed to confess to Jesuits and tempt
them to a certain point. The result was reported to the rector and if
one was found to respond to the advances, he was transferred to some
other place before he reached the point of himself soliciting. The
Order looked with aversion on the requirement of denunciation to the
Inquisition and took this method of averting it. In Manila, about 1605,
one of these syndics was Doña Mariana Garvi, who was succeeded by Doña
María Marmolejo.--MSS. of David Fergusson Esqr.

[561] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 48-50.

[562] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 53-4.

[563] Ibidem, pp. 33-4.

[564] El Museo Mexicano, 1843, p 361.

[565] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 59-66.

[566] Fray Juan de la Concepcion, Historia general de Philipinas, T.
IX, pp. 202-4.

[567] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 151-4.

[568] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 141-51.

[569] Ibidem, pp. 161-3.

[570] Juan de la Concepcion, XIV, 81-107.--Buzeta, Diccionario de las
Islas Filipinas, I, 395 (Madrid, 1850).

[571] MSS. of Royal Library of Munich, Cod. Hisp. 79.

[572] Juan de la Concepcion, V, 276, 278. Puigblanch (La Inquisicion
sin Mascara, Cádiz, 1811, p. 402) is in error in attributing the
persecution of Archbishop Guerrero to the Inquisition and has
misapprehended Palafox’s allusion to it. In both cases it was the
Jesuits acting through _jueces conservadores_, who, by a monstrous
abuse, assumed to exercise full papal powers, but in Mexico the
Inquisition was with them and in Manila it was against them.

The ecclesiastics had full revenge on Governor Corcuera when, in 1644,
he was succeeded by Diego Fajardo. In fortifying Manila against an
expected attack by the Dutch, his lines ran through an Augustinian
convent. He offered the frailes another house, but they refused to move
and he tore down the building about their ears. When out of office they
prosecuted him and obtained a verdict of 25,000 pesos. He must have
been a rarely honest governor, for he was unable to pay it and they
kept him in harsh gaol for five years. On his liberation, Philip IV
appointed him Governor of the Canaries.--Concepcion, VI, 185-93.

[573] Medina, _op. cit._, p. 46.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion,
Lib. 21, fol. 154.

[574] Juan de la Concepcion, VI, 316.

[575] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 84-6.

[576] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 87-130.--MSS. of Royal Library of Munich,
Cod. Hispan. 79.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 60, fol. 209,
249. It is perhaps worth remarking that Juan de la Concepcion makes no
allusion to this episode, so prominent in the history of the Colony and
so little creditable to his Augustinian Order.

[577] Medina, _op. cit._, pp. 156-7.

[578] MS., _penes me_.

[579] Medina, Inquisicion en las Provincias del Plata, pp. 43-7.

Thanks to the researches of native scholars there is ample material for
the history of the South American Inquisition. The most prominent of
these gentlemen is Don José Toribio Medina who has gathered a wealth of
documents in the Spanish archives on which are based the works to which
I am principally indebted. These are:

“Historia del Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisicion de Lima
(1569-1820).” 2 vols., 8vo, Santiago de Chile, 1887.

“Historia del Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisicion en Chile.” 2
vols., 8vo, Santiago de Chile, 1890.

“El Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisicion en las Provincias del
Plata.” 1 vol., 8vo, Santiago de Chile, 1900.

“Historia del Santo Oficio de la Inquisicion de Cartagena de las
Indias.” 1 vol., 12mo, Santiago de Chile, 1899.

Don Ricardo Palma of Lima has contributed a useful compendium--“Añales
de la Inquisicion de Lima,” Lima, 1863. Third edition, Madrid, 1897.

Don Vicuña Mackenna has given some exceedingly curious details of
the procedure of the tribunal in his “Francisco Moyen ó lo que fué
la Inquisicion en América,” Valparaiso, 1868, of which an English
translation by Dr. James W. Duffy appeared in London in 1869.

Various relations of autos de fe have been reprinted in the “Documentos
Literarios del Perú,” Tomo VII, Lima, 1876.

Unfortunately, the main source of information, the records of the
tribunal itself, are no longer available. They were preserved almost
intact, at the suppression in 1820, and were lodged in the Archivo
nacional, in the convent of San Agustin, but were dispersed in 1881
when Lima was occupied by the Chilian army. Before this event,
through the kindness of Doctor Paz-Soldan, I procured copies of some
interesting documents, referred to in the following pages under the old
numbers. The Spanish archives have also furnished me some material.

[580] Medina, Inquisicion de Lima, II, 469-73.

[581] Ibidem, I, 26; La Plata, I, 16-18.

[582] Concil. Limens. Provin. I, Act. II, cap. 1; Act.
V, cap. 1 (Haroldus, Lima Limata, pp. 5, 42).

[583] Medina, La Plata, 19.

[584] Medina, La Plata, pp. 21-41, 85-111.

Another distinguished conquistador, Felipe de Cáceres, was prosecuted
by Pedro Fernández de la Torre, Bishop of la Plata, who carried him to
Spain, about 1580, but died on the passage and Cáceres was delivered to
the tribunal of Seville.--Ibidem, p. 116.

[585] Archivo nacional de Lima, Protocolo 223, Exped^{te} 5270.

[586] Medina, Lima, I, 173-177, 179-80.--Archivo nacional de Lima, _ubi
sup._

[587] Medina, Lima, II, 424.

[588] Medina, Lima, I, 2-4.

[589] Medina, Lima, I, 6-18.--See also Elkan N. Adler, The Inquisicion
in Peru (Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, No.
12), who prints a translation of the special instructions of the
Suprema.

[590] Medina, Lima, I, 29-31.

[591] Medina, Lima, I, 49-55.

[592] Archivo nacional de Lima, Protocolo 223, Exped^{te} 5270.--Palma,
Añales, 8-11.--Medina, Lima, I, 6.

[593] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 1465, fol. 23.

[594] Archivo de Simancas, _loc. cit._

[595] Medina, Lima, I, 5.--Archivo nacional de Lima, Protocolo 228,
Exp^{te} 5289.

[596] Archivo de Lima, Protocolo 223, Exp^{te} 5270.--Medina, Lima, I,
301-18.

[597] Medina, La Plata, p. 57.--Archivo de Lima, _ubi sup._

[598] Medina, Chile, I, 363, 365.--Archivo nacional de Lima, _ubi sup._

[599] Medina, Lima, I, 172; II, 58.--Archivo nacional de Lima,
Protocolo 228, Exp^{te} 5287; Protocolo 223, Exp^{te} 5270.

[600] The prosecution, about 1580, of Fray Andres Vélez, Provincial
of San Domingo, shows that the islands were subject to the Lima
tribunal.--Archivo de Lima, Protocolo 223, Exp^{te} 5270.

[601] Archivo nacional de Lima, Protocolo 223, Exp^{te} 5270.

[602] Archivo nacional de Lima, _ubi sup._--Archivo de Simancas,
Inquisicion, Legajo 1465, fol. 23.

[603] Medina, Lima, I, 204-223; La Plata, 62-3, 113.

[604] Medina, Lima, I, 261; La Plata, 113-15.

[605] Medina, La Plata, p. 116.

[606] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 45, fol. 210.

[607] Medina, La Plata, pp. 200-7.

[608] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 20, fol. 46.

[609] Ibidem, fol. 66.

[610] Medina, La Plata, pp. 207-8. I give the date as printed but think
it probable that a typographical error has converted 1630 to 1636.

[611] Medina, La Plata, pp. 209-14; Lima, I, 331.

[612] Medina, La Plata, pp. 215-24; Lima, I, 332.

[613] Medina, Lima, I, 2. Vicuña Mackenna asserts (Francisco Moyen,
p. 112) that Philip granted the tribunal a dotation which produced
an annual revenue of 32,817 pesos, 3-1/2 reales, but this is a
self-evident error, probably based on the king’s assertion to Urban
VIII that he spent 32,000 ducats a year on the three tribunals of
Mexico, Lima and Cartagena.

[614] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 40, fol. 20, 21, 54,
91.--Medina, Lima, I, 187.--Archivo nacional de Lima, _ubi sup._

[615] Archivo nacional de Lima, _ubi sup._--Archivo de Simancas,
Inquisicion, Libro 40, fol. 30.

[616] Archivo nacional de Lima, _ubi sup._--Medina, Lima, I, 202.

[617] Medina, Lima, I, 47-9, 188-95, 200, 304.

[618] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 40, fol. 34, 35, 36,
54.--Recop. Lib. I, Tit. xix, ll. 10, 11, 12.--Solorzani
de Indiar. Gubernat., Lib. III, cap. xxiv, n. 11.

[619] In the chapter of Santiago de Chile, one of the canons, Francisco
Navarro, soon after the arrival of the royal order suppressing a
prebend, withdrew to the convent of San Francisco. It was claimed
that his retirement vacated the benefice; the matter was referred to
the king who decided, by a decree of August 31, 1635, that this was
the case. The canons adopted the favorite device of obeying without
executing and were supported by the Audiencia, much to the disgust of
the Dean, Tomas de Santiago, who was commissioner of the Inquisition.
Meanwhile another of the canons, Gerónimo Salvatierra, died and the
question was finally settled by a royal order of April 6, 1638,
pronouncing the vacated prebend to be that of Salvatierra.

Commissioner Santiago had become violently inimical to some of the
canons in the course of this dispute and undertook to gratify his
revenge, when Manuel Bautista Pérez of Lima was burnt and his property
was confiscated. One of his debtors to the amount of 2000 pesos was a
prominent merchant of Santiago, Pedro Martínez Gago, whose property
was seized by Santiago; some of the canons were indebted to him for
trifling amounts and Santiago persecuted them. The quarrel assumed
portentous dimensions through the violence of his proceedings and
liberal use of excommunication, when a new bishop Fray Gaspar de
Villaroel, made his appearance, and undertook to reduce Santiago
to submission. In this he disregarded all the immunities of the
Inquisition and, being supported by the civil power and the judiciary,
he vindicated his episcopal supremacy by arresting the contumacious
commissioner and imprisoning him in chains. Santiago boldly strove to
make head against the united secular and ecclesiastical power of the
province, but was finally forced to submit. Villaroel does not seem
to have suffered for his audacity. In 1651 he was transferred to the
see of Arequipa and in 1658 he became Archbishop of la Plata. When he
died there, in 1665, his whole fortune was found to consist of six
reales.--Mackenna, La Revista de Buenos Aires, Mayo, 1870, p. 102.

[620] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 40, fol. 46.

[621] Ibidem, fol. 54.

[622] Archivo de Simancas Inq., Libro 21, fol. 72.

[623] Medina, Lima, II, 165-66.

[624] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 36, fol. 74.

[625] Archivo de Simancas Inquisicion, Libro 21, fol. 261.

[626] Medina, Lima, II, 48, 167.

[627] Ibidem, 166.

[628] Medina, Lima, II, 167.

[629] Ibidem, 251.

A statement of expenses for 1681 shows:

Salaries of fourteen officials                               pesos 23,528.0
Yearly remittance to the Suprema                                  9,926.3
  “        “      to its Secretary                                  496.2
  “        “      to two other secretaries and two clerks at 275  1,100.0
                                                                  -------
                                                                   11,522.5
Maintenance of poor prisoners                                         850.0
Extraordinary expenses                                              2,800.0
Expenses of the cámara del secreto                                    250.0
                                                                  ---------
                                                                   38,950.5
Spent in seven years on the houses of inquisitors                   7,000.0

In giving this Medina (pp. 252-3) calls attention to the fact that in
this enumeration are not included the salaries of a number of other
officials mentioned by the receiver, as follows:

A third secretary                                                      1000
Notario del juzgado                                                    1400
Contador                                                                200
Juez de los bienes confiscados                                         1000
Advocate of prisoners                                                   200
Steward                                                                 300
Solicitador                                                             100
Barber                                                                  100
                                                                       ----
                                                                       4300

There is significance in the annual payments to the secretaries of the
Suprema whose good will might at any moment be useful.

[630] MSS. of White Library, Cornell University, n. 616, fol. 65.

[631] Medina, Chile, II, 396; Lima, II, 315-19, 326, 331,
352-3.--Archivo nacional de Lima, Protocolo 225, Exp^{te}
5278.--Memorias de los Vireyes, IV, 490.

A salutary regulation required each viceroy, at the expiration of his
term, to draw up an account of his experience and of the condition of
affairs for the benefit of his successor. These, so far as recovered,
were printed at Lima in 1859, under the title of _Memorias de los
Vireyes_.

[632] Medina, Lima, II, 382-3.

[633] Mackenna, p. 116.--Medina, Lima, II, 392.--Memorias de los
Vireyes, VI, 51.

[634] Medina, Lima, I, 44, 47, 204, 223.

[635] Medina, Lima, I, 223-47, 251. After Villar’s term was ended, in
1590, the inquisitors prosecuted his secretary, Juan Bello, because,
when some one insisted on having certain papers, Bello exclaimed
impatiently that he could not have them even if God wished it, and also
because he had said that he would rather have to do with demons than
with the frailes.--Ibidem, p. 258.

[636] Ibidem, p. 217.

[637] Medina, Lima, I, 262, 264, 274, 277-80, 282.

[638] Medina, Lima, I, 283-6.

[639] Ibidem, pp. 327-8.

[640] Medina, Lima, I, 301, 313-17.

[641] Ibidem, pp. 317-18.

[642] Medina, Lima, I, 301-3.

[643] Ibidem, I, 329, 348.

[644] Ibidem, II, 5.

[645] Medina, Lima, II, 14-15.

[646] Ibidem, p. 16, 76-8.

[647] Medina, Lima, II, 253; Cartagena, pp. 343-44.

[648] Medina, Lima, II, 212-14.

[649] Ibidem, pp. 283, 285.

[650] Medina, Lima, II, 311-14, 317.--Joseph Bermudez de la Torre y
Solier, Triunfos del S. Oficio Peruano, Lima, 1737.--Palma, p. 107.

[651] Medina, Lima, II, 318-19.

[652] Medina, Lima, II, 319.

[653] Medina, Lima, II, 320-22.

[654] Ibidem, pp. 322-26.

[655] Medina, Lima, II, 326-8, 331, 353-6.--Memorias de los Vireyes,
IV, 69-72, 490-91.--Archivo nacional de Lima, Protocolo 225, Exp^{tes}
5276, 5278.

It is to the credit of Arenaza that, in the earthquake of 1746, which
ruined the buildings of the Inquisition, the prisoners were rescued by
his efforts, he himself sustaining injury and one of his servants being
killed.--Medina, II, 331.

[656] Medina, Lima, II, 384-6, 398.

W. B. Stevenson, Secretary to Lord Cochrane, who was brought before
the tribunal in 1813, shortly before the decree of suppression
was received, gives a vivid description of Zalduegui--“I knew the
inquisitors--but how changed from what at other times I had seen them!
The pursy swarthy Abarca, in the centre, scarcely half filling his
chair of state--the fat monster Zalduegui on his left, his corpulent
paunch being oppressed by the arms of his chair, and blowing through
his nostrils like an over-fed porpoise--the fiscal, Sobrino, on his
right, knitting his black eye-brows and striving to produce in his
unmeaning face the semblance of wisdom.”--Twenty Years’ Residence in
South America, I, 264 (London, 1825).

[657] Hoyo, Relacion del auto de fe de 20 Dic. de 1694 (Lima, 1695).

[658] Medina, Lima, II, 183-5.

[659] Recop. de las Indias, Lib. I, Tit. xix, ley 2.

[660] Medina, Lima, I, 181.

[661] Archivo nacional de Lima, Protocolo 228, Exp^{te} 5287 (see
Appendix).

[662] Medina, Lima, I, 263, 285-6, 290-2.

[663] Medina, Lima, II, 444.

[664] Ibidem, 444, 449.

[665] Medina, Lima, II, 454.

[666] Memorias de los Vireyes, IV, 487.

[667] Bibl. nacional de Madrid, Seccion de MSS., R, 102, fol.
169.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 27, fol. 90,
106.--Memorias de los Vireyes, III, 85.

[668] Nueva Recopilacion, Lib. I, Tit. x, ley 10, n. 5.

[669] Bibl. nacional de Madrid, MSS., R, 102.--MSS. of Archivo nacional
de Lima, Legajo 225, Expediente 5278.--Memorias de los Vireyes del
Perú, III, 86-93.

[670] Memorias de los Vireyes, III, 94-100.

[671] Memorias de los Vireyes, IV, 73-6, 300.

[672] Memorias de los Vireyes, IV, 300-2; V, 50.

[673] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Sala 39, Legajo 52.--Archivo
nacional de Lima, Protocolo 225, Exped^{te} 5278.

[674] For the large part played in South American sorcery by coca see
Granada, _Reseña de antiguas y modernas Supersticiones del Río de la
Plata_, pp. 26, 30, 201, 208-9, 498, 501, 578 (Montevideo, 1896).

[675] Medina, Lima, II. 35-41, 357.

[676] Medina, La Plata, pp. 129-37; Lima, I, 311; II, 45, 225, 273.

[677] Medina, Lima, I, 139, 147, 188-95; La Plata, 122.--Palma, Añales,
p. 51.

[678] Medina, La Plata, pp. 122-5.

[679] Ibidem, pp. 125-6.

[680] Medina, Lima, I, 313; II, 474-8.

[681] Medina, La Plata, p. 266; Lima, II, 307, 381.

[682] Medina, Lima, I, 57-117.

[683] Ibidem, II, 34-5.

[684] Ibidem, pp. 27, 28, 30.

[685] Hoyo, Relacion del Auto de Fe de 20 Diz. 1694, fol. 54 (Lima,
1695).

[686] Hoyo, Relacion, fol. 2, 3, 34, 36, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45,
48.--Medina, Lima, II 258.

[687] Hoyo, fol. 16, 27, 28, 40, 42.

[688] Ibidem, fol. 17, 18, 39.

[689] Palma, p. 67.

[690] Hoyo, fol. 8, 9, 11, 49-50.

[691] Hoyo, fol. 50-1.

[692] Ibidem, fol. 51-3.

[693] Medina, Lima, II, 262.

[694] Medina Lima, II, 262, 264.--Index Prohib. et Expurg., 1747,
I, 124. The title of Sartolo’s book was “Vida admirable y muerte
prodigioso de Nicolás de Ayllon y con nombre mas que curioso Nicolás de
Dios, natural de Clayo en las Indias del Perú.” Madrid, 1684.

[695] Medina, Lima, II, 241.

[696] Medina, Chile, II, 276-356, 450.--Bermudez de la Torre, Triunfos
del Santo Oficio Peruano, Lima, 1737.

[697] Medina, Chile, II, 388-91, 442-8.

[698] Medina, Chile, II, 450-61.

[699] Medina, Lima, I, 150-6, 257.

[700] Ibidem, II, 29, 287, 310, 375.

[701] Archivo nacional de Lima.

[702] Medina, Chile, I, 363.

[703] Medina, Lima, I, 157; Chile, I, 359.

[704] Archivo nacional de Lima, Protocolo 228, Exp^{te} 5287.

[705] Medina, La Plata, pp. 117-19.

[706] Medina, Lima, I, 296-8.

[707] Medina, Chile, I, 371-80.

[708] Medina, Chile, I, 381; Lima, I, 305-7.

[709] Medina, Chile, I, 385-90.

The question as to the ownership of confiscations made on heretic
prisoners was a nice one. When some Englishmen were captured in Vallano
the tribunal laid claim to the gold that was taken with them. How
the dispute was settled does not appear.--Archivo nacional de Lima,
Protocolo 223, Exp^{te} 5270.

[710] Medina, Lima, II, 33; Chile I, 366, 369.

[711] Recop., Lib. VII, Tit. v, ley 29.

[712] Medina, Lima, I, 29.

[713] Ibidem, p. 157.--Palma, Añales, p. 21.

[714] Medina, Lima, I, 297.--Palma, p. 49.

[715] Medina, Lima, I, 305, 307-10.

[716] Ibidem, I, 321-23.

[717] Medina, Lima, I, 337-9. It must be borne in mind in all these
cases that “reconciliation” to the Church entailed confiscation and
was usually accompanied with other penalties more or less severe
according to the record of the culprit and the readiness with which
he had confessed and recanted as indicative of the sincerity of his
conversion. There might be prison and sanbenito for a term or for life,
scourging or the galleys.

[718] Ibidem, p. 341, 347.

[719] Palma, Añales, p. 31.

[720] Medina, La Plata, 155-61.

[721] Ibidem, 164-66.

[722] Medina, Lima, II, 27-31.

[723] Pablo de Santa María was originally the Rabbi Selemoh Ha-Levi,
one of the most learned of Jewish doctors. Converted in 1390, he
rose to be regent of Spain in the minority of Juan II, papal legate
_a latere_ and bishop successively of Cartagena and Búrgos. His book
was regarded as convincing and was repeatedly printed. Two editions
appeared in Strassburg about 1471 and my copy is of Búrgos, 1591.

[724] Medina, La Plata, pp. 172-97; Lima, II, 146.--See also a paper
by George Alexander Kohut in Publications of the Am. Jewish Historical
Society, XI, 163 (1903).

[725] Medina, Lima, II, 47-168, 176. Medina prints the Relation of
the auto by Fernando Montesinos. A brief abstract of it is given by
Pellicer, _Avisos históricos_, under date of Feb. 7, 1640 (Valladares,
Semanario erúdito, XXXI, 129).

[726] Medina, Lima, II, 169, 175, 177-8.--Palma, Añales, p. 41.

[727] Palma, Añales, pp. 38-9.

[728] Medina, Lima, II, 189-90.

[729] Medina, Lima, II, 276-80.

[730] Bermudez de la Torre, Triunfos del Santo Oficio Peruano, fol.
59-60, 154-55, 178.--Palma, Añales, pp. 105-6.--Medina, Lima, II, 312.

[731] Medina, Lima, II, 336, 341-52.

[732] Ibidem, p. 378.

[733] Palma, Añales, pp. 14-19.

[734] Bermudez de la Torre, Triunfos, pp. 136-57, 172-78.

[735] Palma, Añales, p. 139.

[736] Barnuevo de Peralta, Relacion del Auto de 1733, Lima, 1733.

[737] Bermudez de la Torre, Triunfos, fol. 146, 152.

[738] Mackenna, Francisco Moyen, _passim._--Palma, Añales, pp.
129-32.--Medina, Lima, II, 374.

[739] Medina, Lima, I, 5, 172, 330; II, 368.

[740] Medina, Lima, II, 249.

[741] Memorias de los Vireyes, IV, 472.

[742] Archivo nacional de Lima, Protocolo 225, Exp^{te} 5278.

[743] Memorias de los Vireyes, V, 85.

[744] Medina, La Plata, II, 256.

[745] Stevenson, Twenty Years in South America, I, 269.

[746] Palma, Añales, p. 176, 210.

[747] Stevenson, Twenty Years in South America, I, 261-67.

[748] Stevenson, _op. cit._, I, 267-74.--Medina, Lima, II, 398.

[749] Medina, Lima, II, 400.

[750] Palma, Añales, p. 211.

[751] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 1473.

[752] Ibidem, Libro 559.

[753] Palma, Añales, p. 213.

[754] Archivo nacional de Lima, Inventarios Originales, No. 1.

It may be of interest to put on record the personnel of the tribunal
and the salaries at the moment of extinction:

                                                             Pesos. Reales. Mrs.
Inquisidor mas antiguo Cristóval de Ortegon                   4962    9      30
Inquisidor Anselmo Pérez de la Canal (at 3/4 of salary
              as ordered by Suprema)                          3722    3      14
    Do. fiscal José Mariano de Larrea (Do.--but with
              148 additional as Juez de los bienes)           3870    3       6
Jubilado Dean Pedro Zalduegui (at 1/4 salary)                 1240    6      16
    “    Inquisidor José Ruiz Sobrino (Do.)                   1240    6      16
Secretario del Secreto Manuel de Arizcurrunaga                1700
            Do. Fran^{co} de Echavarria Momediano             1700
            Do. Ramon del Valle                               1700
            Do. Carlos Delgado (at 1/2 salary)                 850
            Do. Jubilado Pablo de la Torre (Do.)               850
Secretario de Secuestros Jacinto Jimeno                       1000
Receptor-general Carlos Lizon, 1900, together with 250 for
  collecting rents                                            2150
Contador Ildefonso Gereda                                      500
Abogado del Fisco Manuel de la Fuente y Chaves                 350
Procurador del Fisco Mariano González                          300
Alcaide de Carceles J. Baut. de Barnechea                      900
Nuncio A. D. Eustaquio                                         830
Portero de Camara Manuel Leon                                  500
Ministro de vara Teodoro Marino                                 50
                                                            --------------------
                                                            28,417     5      14
                                                            ====================

In addition Teodoro Marino is ordered to receive 33 pesos 2-1/2 reales
for four months’ service as portero at the rate of 100 pesos per annum.
Also there is a salary of forty reales per month as sweeper, divided
between Fray Manuel Bahamonde and Fray Manuel Tinoco, who are each to
receive five pesos for the months of July and August. The peso, or
piece of eight reales, is the Spanish dollar.

[755] Medina, Lima, II, 466-7.

[756] José Manuel Groot, Historia eclesiastica y civil de Nueva
Granada, I, 1, 7, 98 (Bogotá, 1869-71).

[757] J. A. García y García, Relaciones de los Vireyes del Nuevo Reyno
de Granada, pp. xvi-xix (New York, 1869).

[758] Groot, I, 84, 504.

[759] J. T. Medina, Historia del Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la
Inquisicion de Cartagena de las Indias, pp. 19-23, 430 (Santiago de
Chile, 1899).

[760] Ibidem, pp. 27, 29.

[761] Ibidem, p. 423.

[762] Medina, pp. 37-41.

[763] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 45, fol. 182.

[764] Medina, p. 434.

[765] Medina, p. 46.

[766] Medina, p. 433.

[767] Ibidem, pp. 155, 163.

[768] MSS. of Library of University of Halle, Yc, 17.--Archivo de
Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 60, fol. 352; Lib. 61, fol. 524, 534.

It does not seem that the tribunal of Cartagena had any part in a
curious attempt to introduce the Inquisition into Louisiana, which
was ceded to Spain by the Treaty of Paris in 1762. The disaffected
colonists drove out their new masters in 1768, but were subdued the
next year by O’Reilly. In 1772 the Governor, Don Luis de Unzaga,
in a report to the Bishop of Havana, said “It is not the practice
here to force any one to submit to the Church, and the process of
excommunication is held in utter abomination.” This toleration
continued and, in 1789, the Governor Estevan Miró was surprised
to receive from Fray Antonio de Sedella--one of a band of Spanish
Capuchins who had been sent to New Orleans in 1772--a communication
stating that, in a letter of December 5th, he had received from the
proper authority a commission as commissioner of the Inquisition, with
instructions to perform his duties with the utmost zeal and fidelity;
that, having made his investigations with the greatest secrecy and
precaution, he notified the governor that, in execution of his
instructions, he might soon, at some late hour of the night, deem it
necessary to require some guards to assist him in his operations. That
same night, April 29th, he was aroused from sleep to find at his door
an officer with a file of grenadiers, when he thanked them and said
that he had no use for them that night. To his astonishment he was told
that he was under arrest; he was hurried on board a vessel which sailed
the next day for Cádiz, and the Inquisition was nipped in the bud. Miró
seems to have been called upon for an explanation, for in a despatch of
June 3d he declared that he shuddered when he read Sedella’s note. He
had been ordered to foster immigration from the United States, under
pledge of no molestation on account of religion, and the mere name of
the Inquisition in New Orleans would not only check immigration but
would be capable of driving away those who had come, and, in spite of
his action with Sedella, he dreaded the most fatal consequences from
the mere suspicion of the causes of his dismissal. His justification
seems to have been accepted, for the attempt was abandoned.--Gayarré,
History of Louisiana. The Spanish Domination, pp. 56, 69, 269-71 (New
York, 1854).--Fortier, History of Louisiana, II, 62, 140, 327.

It may be assumed that the motive of commissioning Sedella was rather
political than religious. The uprising in France was calling for
active measures by the Inquisition in Spain to keep out revolutionary
principles; Louisiana was French and its loyalty to Spain was doubtful,
so that the Inquisition would be useful both as a source of information
and an instrument of repression.

[769] Medina, pp. 42-50, 76.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Leg.
1465, fol. 23.

[770] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 40, fol. 51.

[771] Medina, pp. 82-96.

[772] Medina, pp. 100-1.

[773] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 30, fol. 180.

[774] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 30, fol. 178.

[775] Medina, pp. 211-19, 225-6.

[776] Medina, pp. 118-19.

[777] Ibidem, pp. 158-9.

[778] Ibidem, pp. 175-94.

[779] Medina, pp. 222-7.

[780] Groot, II, 473. This is not strictly correct. After an interval
of many years, Inquisitor Valera published the edict in Lent, 1684,
when it brought in denunciations which doubled the number of cases in
hand (Medina, p. 308). Probably this was the last until the nineteenth
century.

[781] Medina, pp. 346-51, 364.--Groot, I, 331-6.

[782] Medina, pp. 369-70.

[783] Medina, pp. 358, 371.

[784] Medina, pp. 359-61.

[785] Ibidem, pp. 374-6.

[786] Ibidem, p. 378.

[787] Medina, pp. 379-80, 390.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib.
25, fol. 52.

[788] Medina, pp. 380-6.

[789] Ibidem, pp. 387-9. During the suppression of the Inquisition, it
was reprinted and largely circulated, forming the subject of a severe
edict in 1814 (Ibid., p. 390).

[790] Ibidem, p. 390.--Suplemento al Indice Expurgatorio, p. 10
(Madrid, 1805).--Index Pii PP. VII, p. 53 (Romæ, 1819).

[791] Medina, pp. 74-8, 80.

[792] Medina, pp. 129-31.

[793] Ibidem, p. 134.

[794] Medina, pp. 135-45.

[795] Ibidem, pp. 103, 154-55.

[796] Ibidem, p. 112.

[797] Medina, pp. 146-9, 160.

[798] Ibidem, pp. 152-3.

[799] Archivo de Simancas, Gracia y Justicia, Inquisicion, Leg. 621,
fol. 26.

[800] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 20, fol. 59.

[801] Medina, pp. 201-3,--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 20,
fol. 177, 299.

[802] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 61, fol. 51; Lib. 21, fol.
8.--Medina, pp. 204, 207.

[803] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 21, fol. 82, 88, 196.

[804] Medina, pp. 233-7.

[805] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 61, fol. 270.--Medina, pp.
238-9.

[806] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 38, fol. 122.

[807] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 61, fol. 130.

[808] Medina, pp. 239-45, 247-8, 257.--Archivo de Simancas,
Inquisicion, Lib. 61, fol. 130, 270.

[809] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 61, fol. 164, 175.

[810] Archivo de Simancas, Inq., Lib. 61, fol. 251.

[811] Medina, pp. 249-50.

[812] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 38, fol. 31; Lib. 61, fol.
251.

[813] Medina, pp. 260-1.

[814] Ibidem, pp. 250-59.

[815] Medina, pp. 261-3.

[816] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 61, fol. 251.

[817] Medina, pp. 263-5.

[818] Medina, pp. 280-88.

[819] Medina, pp. 297-301.

[820] Medina, pp. 302-5.

[821] Of this quarrel we have two accounts. That of Sr. Medina (pp.
311-24), drawn from the records of the Inquisition, is naturally
favorable to Valera. The other side is given by Groot (I, 286-306; II,
584) from a MS. relation. I have endeavored to elicit the truth from
the conflicting statements.

[822] MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Yc, 17.--Medina, p. 324.

[823] Cuaderno de Cumplimientos, fol. 62 (MSS. of White Library,
Cornell University).

[824] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 60, fol. 352.

[825] MSS. of the Library of the Univ. of Halle, Yc, 17.

[826] Medina, pp. 365-7.

[827] Ibidem, p. 368.

[828] Ibidem, pp. 372-6.

[829] Medina, p. 157.

[830] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 20, fol. 59.

[831] Medina, p. 230.

[832] Ibidem, p. 231.

[833] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 36, fol. 74.--Medina, pp.
262, 265-66.

[834] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 40, fol. 112, 120.

[835] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 40, fol. 122, 132.

[836] Ibidem, fol. 139, 54.

[837] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 40, fol. 155, 151.

[838] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 40, fol. 116.

[839] Medina, pp. 367, 400.

[840] Groot, II, 230.

[841] Ibidem, pp. 226, 232.

[842] Ibidem, pp. 230-1.

[843] Medina, pp. 398-407.

[844] Medina, pp. 408-12.--Groot, II, 473.

[845] Groot, II, 472-3.

[846] Medina, pp. 414-16.

[847] Groot, III, 124, 142-3, 151.

[848] Ibidem, pp. 143-44.

[849] MSS. of Library of University of Halle, Yc, 17.

[850] Relaciones de los Vireyes del Nuevo Reino de Granada, pp. 26-8,
41-3, 67, 95, 97.

[851] Ibidem, pp. 112-14.

[852] Noticias secretas de America, pp. 489-536, 382-3 (Londres, 1826).

Juan and Ulloa were distinguished men of science, _Tenientes Generales_
of the Navy and members of the British Royal Society and of the Royal
Academies of Paris, Berlin and Stockholm. Their report was so damaging
as to the defenceless condition of the ports that it was jealously kept
secret until, after the independence of the colonies had rendered this
unimportant, a copy was procured by Don David Barry and printed in
London. From casual allusions by the authors, they seem to have been
good Catholics and punctual in religious observance.

[853] I give the reference to the numbers in the archives prior to
their dispersion in 1881.

Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:

be litte doubt=> be little doubt {pg 23}

the twefth century=> the twelfth century {pg 49}

Staaten-und Kirchengeschicte=> Staaten-und Kirchengeschichte {pg 108; FN
197}

de-details=> details {pg 166}

so conspicious of its services=> so conspicuous of its services {pg 214}

trials shoud be completed=> trials should be completed {pg 270}

certain ebullitious of blasphemy=> certain ebullitions of blasphemy {pg
321}

annoyauce and always=> annoyance and always {pg 389}

urge that instructions he sent=> urge that instructions be sent {pg 484}

large expenditures were making=> large expenditures were made {pg 503}

Ullos, Juan de, case of, 393=> Ulloa, Juan de, case of, 393 {pg 563}

of the the hated Portuguese=> of the hated Portuguese {pg 433}