CHAPTER XLIV.

OF THE INQUISITION DURING THE REIGN OF FERDINAND VII.

Charles IV. abdicated the crown in favour of his eldest son, Ferdinand, who began to reign on the same day, before any public act had proved the validity of the abdication. The royal and supreme Council of Castile considered it necessary to observe the national custom on this occasion, and commissioned the royal fiscals to examine into the validity of the abdication, that the people might be informed that they were released from their oath of allegiance to Charles. But a strict order was immediately sent to the council to renounce the measure, to proclaim the validity of the abdication, and acknowledge Ferdinand as king. Charles protested against his abdication; he said that it was not voluntary, since he had only done it to save his own life and that of the queen, in the sedition at Aranjuez. Ferdinand paid no attention to this protestation; the emperor Napoleon took advantage of the event, and the Bourbons ceased to reign in Spain. While Charles IV. was at Marseilles, and Ferdinand at Valencé, Joseph Napoleon, King of Naples, was proclaimed King of Spain; Ferdinand wrote to Joseph to congratulate him, and request his friendship, and commanded all Spaniards to recognise him, to prevent the ruin and desolation of their country.

When Joseph was acknowledged King of Spain, the archives of the Supreme Council and of the Inquisition of the Court were confided to me, in consequence of an order from his majesty. With his approbation, I burnt all the criminal processes, except those which belonged to history, from their importance, and the rank of the accused; but I preserved all the registers of the resolutions of the council, the royal ordinances, the papal bulls and briefs, the papers of the affairs of the tribunal, and all the informations taken concerning the genealogies of the persons employed in the holy office, on account of their utility in proving relationship in trials when it is necessary.

I have read in a work, intituled _Acta Latomorum_, that in the month of October, 1809, a grand national lodge of Spanish freemasons was founded even in the buildings of the Inquisition of Madrid. This assertion I consider entirely false, because at that time the keys of the building were in the possession of a subaltern under my orders, who would never have consented to give them up for such a purpose. I presume that the authors of this article wished to astonish, by the striking contrast between the different destinations of the same edifice.

My acquaintance with the archives already mentioned enabled me to compose for the Royal Academy of History (of which I have the honour to be a member), a dissertation, under the title of _A Memorial, in which the Opinion of the Spaniards concerning the Inquisition is examined_. The Academy published my work.

The above-mentioned materials, some others which I had collected since the year 1789, and some which were sent to me from Valladolid and other towns, enabled me to publish, in 1812 and 1813, two volumes of the _Annals of the Inquisition_, which comprehended all the events which passed in the tribunals from 1477 to 1530. I was not able to finish that work, being obliged to repair to France in 1813.

On the 22d of February, in the same year, the Spanish assembly at Cadiz, which styled itself the _General Cortes_, suppressed the Inquisition, restoring to the bishops and secular judges their jurisdictions, that they might prosecute heretics in the same manner as before the existence of the Inquisition.

This measure was the cause of long discussions in the tribune, and many orators pronounced speeches of great eloquence. The liberty of the press which then existed allowed many works to be published both for and against the holy office. Its partisans neglected nothing in its defence; in short, all that could possibly be advanced in favour of such a tribunal as the Inquisition, was published at Cadiz during this celebrated discussion. But reason prevailed; not because the majority of the voters were irreligious persons, or Jacobins (as it has since been unjustly said), but because the Cortes found an irresistible strength in the reasoning which condemned a tribunal which had been so fatal to the prosperity of the nation for three centuries. The representatives of Spain received an infinite number of letters and addresses, returning thanks for the benefit bestowed on the nation: several of these letters were signed by persons employed in the Inquisition. I have the satisfaction to be able to declare, that this triumph of reason and humanity was principally owing to the documents which I furnished, and which became known to the public in 1812, by means of the _Memorial on the Opinion of the Spaniards concerning the Inquisition_, and the first volume of the _Annals of the Inquisition_. This is proved by the manifesto addressed by the Cortes to the Spanish people; in which the representatives say, that they had seen the apostolical bulls addressed to the Inquisition, and the complaints and appeals of the prisoners: these details could only have been obtained from the works above mentioned, but they were not cited, because I was then a counsellor of state to King Joseph.

These measures of the Cortes were however useless. Buonaparte restored the crown of Spain to Ferdinand, by a treaty at Valencé, in 1813, and in March, 1814, the king re-entered Spain; on his arrival at Valencia, he was immediately surrounded by persons imbued with the Gothic prejudices of the age of chivalry, and one of the first measures of his administration was the re-establishment of the holy office, on the 21st of July, 1814.

In the preamble to the royal decree, Ferdinand informed the people, that the object of the restoration of the Inquisition was to repair the evil caused to the religion of the state by the foreign troops, who were not Catholics; to forestall that which might be caused hereafter by the heretical opinions imbibed by a great number of Spaniards, and to preserve the tranquillity of the kingdom; that this measure was desired by learned and virtuous prelates, and by different bodies and corporations, who reminded him that, in the sixteenth century, Spain had preserved herself from the contagion of heresy, and the errors which desolated other countries; while the arts and sciences flourished under many men, who were famed for their learning and sanctity; that this happy influence of the Inquisition, was the reason why Buonaparte had destroyed the tribunal, and that the same resolution was afterwards adopted by the junta, falsely calling itself the _General Cortes_ of the kingdom, on the pretence that the Inquisition was opposed to the constitution of Cadiz, and that it was only decreed in the midst of tumults, and against the wishes of the nation. The decree also declares, that as it had been found necessary to frame new laws, to correct certain abuses and to limit privileges, it was his majesty's intention that they should be observed, and to appoint two members of the Council of Castile, and two of that of the _holy office_, to propose the necessary reforms and alterations in the mode of procedure concerning personal affairs, and the prohibition of books.

It appears that these commissioners were, Don Manuel de Lardizabal Uribe and Don Sebastian de Torres, of the Council of Castile; Don Joseph Armarilla, and Don Antonio Galarza, counsellors of the Inquisition. These persons might have proposed a reform, which would have remedied several evils, or entirely destroyed them. I do not know what these commissioners have yet done to justify the confidence placed in them, but it is certain that hitherto no reform has been made public.

On the 5th of May, 1815, Don Francis Xavier de Mier y Campillo, the inquisitor-general, published an edict, commanding all those who felt themselves guilty, to denounce themselves before the end of the year, and announcing that _Spain was infected by the new and dangerous doctrines which had ruined the greatest part of Europe_. The inquisitor-general condemned the _new_ and _dangerous doctrines_ which followed the entrance of the French army, and did not mention the systems which were propagated and put in practice by the Spanish partisans for the war, though they really came under his jurisdiction, because they were formerly opposed to the letter and spirit of the Gospel. This circumstance induces me to lay it before my readers, in order to prove that the _re-established_ Inquisition differs little from that which was _suppressed_, since, if the latter allowed works inculcating regicide to be circulated, and condemned books which supported the royal authority, the former began by condemning the doctrine which taught us, that men were not slaves or animals to be bought and sold, and at the same time allowed such maxims as the following to be acted upon:--

1st. That it was allowable during the invasion, to assassinate any Frenchman in Spain, whether he was a soldier or not, without distinction of circumstances or means, because they were all enemies of the country, the defence of which ought to be the first consideration.

2nd. That according to the same principal it was lawful to kill any Spaniard, who was a partisan of the superior power, designated as a _Francisé_.

3rd. That any Spaniards of the same party might be despoiled of their money, goods, or the produce of their estates, and that their houses, vineyards, olive-grounds, and other plantations might be burnt.

4th. That an oath of fidelity, taken on the sacrament, might be broken, even if no mental reservation was made, because the person was persuaded that it was the only means to avoid the danger threatened by the superior power, which could execute its threats, according to the general laws of war.

5. That the priests and monks were authorised to abandon their tranquil life, and engage in a military career, provided it was against the French and the Francisés. This doctrine prevailed even when it was seen that the ecclesiastics and monks had become the chiefs of bands of robbers, and carried infamous concubines in their suites, and that they had imposed arbitrary contributions on different towns.

6th. That the war against France was a war of religion, and, consequently, that those who perished were to be considered as martyrs.

7th. That it was allowable, and even praiseworthy, to refuse sacramental absolution to a penitent who had submitted to the superior force, unless he promised to abandon it, and to contribute by every means to its destruction.

8th. That it was preferable to eat meat on Fridays and other fast-days without permission, than to receive it from the apostolical commissary-general of the Holy Crusade of Spain, resident at Madrid, who was charged by the Pope with this commission.

9th. That it was permitted to preserve an eternal hatred, and to excite others to an implacable war against the Spaniards who had submitted to the superior force.

It is not my intention to accuse the Bishop of Almeira, or the present inquisitors, of abusing their powers. The edict, on the whole, expresses an intention of pursuing mild measures, and hitherto it does not appear that they have been unfaithful to this maxim; for I cannot credit certain reports circulated in Paris, or what was said in 1815, in _Acta Latomorum_. The author, after announcing the re-establishment of the Inquisition by Ferdinand VII., adds, that he had forbidden the masonic lodges, on pain of the punishments for high-treason. In another article of the same work, on the events of the year 1814, it is said,--

"On the 25th of September, twenty-five individuals were arrested, on suspicion that they were the members of a masonic lodge, and partisans of the Cortes: among them were the Marquis Tolosa; the Canon Marina, a learned and distinguished member of the Academy; Doctor Luque, the court physician; and some French, and Italians, and Germans, who had settled in Spain. The brave General Alava, who was chosen by General Wellington for his aide-de-camp, on account of his merit, has been imprisoned by the holy office, as a freemason." I consider the latter assertion to be entirely false, because letters worthy of credit, and the gazettes of Spain, only stated that an order to leave Madrid had been sent to the general by the king, but it was revoked, as his majesty discovered that he had been deceived; it is certain that Ferdinand, some time after, sent him as his ambassador into the Low Countries.

The account given in the Madrid Gazette on the 14th May, 1816, of an _auto-da-fé_ celebrated by the Inquisition of Mexico on the 27th December, 1815, is more worthy of belief. Don Joseph-Maria Morellos, a priest, had placed himself at the head of his countrymen, with the intention of freeing his country from the dominion of the King of Spain. The holy office prosecuted him for heresy, while the viceroy arrested him for rebellion. The prisons of the holy office were preferred to that of the government, and some witnesses were found who deposed to certain facts which the Mexican qualifiers thought sufficient to authorize them to pronounce Morellos suspected of atheism, materialism, and other errors. One proof of his guilt was, that he had two children. The accused abjured, and was absolved in an _auto-da-fé_, which was celebrated with as much parade as in the reign of Philip II. When the Inquisitors treated Morellos with so much moderation, they knew that the viceroy would hang him; before his execution he was degraded from the priesthood by the Bishop of Antequera in America.

I do not know if the Spanish Inquisition has celebrated an _auto-da-fé_ since its re-establishment. I shall only say, that if its members wish to follow the precepts of the Gospel more faithfully than their predecessors, they ought to follow the example of their chief, Pius VII. A letter from Rome, dated the 31st of March, 1816, announces that his Holiness had abolished the use of torture in all the tribunals of the holy office, and that the resolution had been communicated to the ambassadors of Spain and Portugal[80]. A second letter from the same city on the 17th of April following, says that the procedure of the Inquisition was to be similar to that of the other tribunals, and to be made public[81].

A third letter on the 9th May, states that the Inquisition of Rome had annulled the sentence which that of Ravenna had pronounced against Solomon Moses Viviani, who had relapsed into Judaism, after having abjured it to become a Christian. In confirming the revocation, the Pope said: "The divine law is not of the same nature as that of man, but a law of persuasion and gentleness; persecution, exile, and imprisonment, are only suitable to false prophets and the apostles of false doctrines. Let us pity the man who does not see the true light, or who even refuses to see it; the cause of his blindness may tend to fulfil the profound designs of providence, &c." His Holiness having since presided at a congregation of the holy office, has decreed that, "in all trials of heresy, the accuser shall be confronted with the accused, in the presence of the judges, and has expressed an intention that the trials shall be so conducted as to avoid the punishment of death[82]."

Another letter from Rome, of the 17th January, 1817, contains the following article: "It is reported that the holy office will be reformed this year. It appears that it will only be allowed to proceed in the same manner as the other tribunals. The government considers it to be dangerous to allow a body to exist which is useless, and always armed against the progress of reason. You may believe that the Inquisition has already ceased to exist[83]."

In March, 1816, the Portuguese ambassador had sent a diplomatic note to the cardinal-secretary of state to his Holiness, in which he informs him, in the name of his court, of the condemnation of a work printed by the Inquisitor Louis de Paramo, of the formal and judicial suppression of the holy office, and of the re-establishment of the bishops in their former privileges[84].

These just and moderate measures ought to be the rule and guide of the Spanish inquisitors; if they would make the proceedings public, and liberate the prisoners on bail, I confess that I should not be afraid to present myself to be tried by that tribunal.

Since this article was printed, I have been informed, that the inquisitor-general Mier Campillo is dead, and that Ferdinand has appointed Monseigneur Jerome Castillon de Salas, Bishop of Taragona, as his successor. God grant that he may understand the spirit of the Gospel, and the necessity of reforming the Inquisition, better than his predecessor!

NUMBER OF THE VICTIMS

OF

THE INQUISITION.

It is impossible to determine the exact number of persons who perished in the first years after the establishment of the holy office. Persons were burnt in the year 1481, and the Supreme Council was not created until 1483. The registers in its archives, and those of the inferior tribunals, are of a still later date; and as the inquisitor-general accompanied the court, which had no fixed residence until the reign of Philip II., many of the trials must have been lost during these journeys. These circumstances oblige me to found my calculations on the combination of certain data, which I found in the registers and writings of the holy office.

Mariana, in his History of Spain, informs us that, in 1481, the Inquisitors of Seville condemned two thousand persons to _relaxation_, that is, to be burnt, and that there were as many effigies; the number of persons reconciled was one thousand seven hundred. The latter were always subjected to severe penances.

The _autos-da-fé_ of this period, which I examined at Saragossa and Toledo, lead me to suppose that each tribunal of the Inquisition celebrated at least four _autos-da-fé_ every year. The provincial tribunals were successively organised. I do not speak of those of Mexico, Lima, Carthagena in America, Sicily or Sardinia, although they were subject to the Inquisitors-general and the Supreme Council, because I am only enabled to establish my calculation for those of the Peninsula and the neighbouring isles.

Andres Bernaldez, a contemporary historian, and very much attached to the new institution, in which he held the office of almoner to the second inquisitor, states, in his inedited History of the Catholic Kings, that from 1482 to 1489, more than seven hundred individuals were burnt, and more than five thousand subjected to penances, at Seville: he does not mention the effigies.

In 1481 the number equalled that of the persons burnt. I will, however, suppose that these were only half that number, to avoid all exaggeration, though it was in general much more considerable; I may, therefore, say, that in each year of this period, 88 persons were burnt at Seville, 44 in effigy, and 600 condemned to different penances; total, 757. The same mode of calculation may be applied to the other tribunals of the province which were then founded.

In the castle of Triana, at Seville, where the inquisitorial tribunal was held, is an inscription, placed there in 1524, importing that in the space of time from 1492 to that year, about 1000 persons had been burnt, and 20,000 condemned to penances;--I will suppose that 1000 individuals were burnt, and 500 effigies, which will give for each year 32 burnt, 16 effigies, and 625 subjected to penances. I might admit a similar result for all the tribunals of the kingdom, but I prefer taking the half, on the supposition that the commerce carried on in the kingdom of Seville drew thither many Jewish families.

With respect to the years 1490, 91, and 92, which elapsed between those mentioned by Bernaldez and the period of the inscription of Triana, I prefer calculating according to the thirty-two years after the inscription.

Such are the foundations of my calculations for the first eighteen years of the Inquisition. I shall consider it from that time as entirely belonging to the government of Torquemada, the first inquisitor-general; for, although his office was not created till 1483, the two preceding years may be united to his administration, because he was at that time one of the Inquisitors appointed by the Pope. I shall, however, carefully distinguish the time when the inferior tribunals began to act, as a greater number of persons perished in the first year, because they were not sufficiently observant of their words and actions.

1481. Seville, the only tribunal. Burnt, 2000. Effigies, 2000. Penances, 1700. Total, 21,000.

I do not mention Aragon, where the old Inquisition was in full activity.

1482. Seville. Burnt, 88. Effigies, 44. Penances, 625. Total, 757.

The tribunals of Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, and Majorca, belonged to the old Inquisition.

1483. Seville. Ditto.

Tribunals were established in this year at Cordova, Jaen, and Toledo; it is probable that as many persons were condemned at these places as in the first year at Seville, but I shall take the tenth part of that number.

Cordova. Burnt, 200. Effigies, 200. Penances, 17. Total, 2100. Jaen, ditto. Toledo, ditto. Total, 7057.

1484. Seville. Burnt, 88. Effigies, 44. Penances, 625. Total, 757.

I calculate half that number for each of the three additional tribunals. Total, 1892.

1485. Seville, ditto. Cordova, ditto. Jaen, ditto. Toledo, ditto.

Valladolid, Estremadura, Murcia, Calahorra, Saragossa, and Valencia; each, burnt, 200. Effigies, 200. Penances, 1700. Total, 2100.

For the ten tribunals. Total, 12,930.

1486. Seville, as before.

Cordova, Jaen, and Toledo, ditto.

Valladolid, Llerena, Murcia, Logroño, Saragossa, and Valencia; same number as Cordova.

For the ten tribunals. Total, 4149.

1487. Seville, and the other tribunals; the same number as the preceding year.

Barcelona and Majorca, burnt, 200. Effigies, 200. Penances, 1700.

Total for the twelve tribunals, 8359.

1488. Seville, ditto.

Eleven other tribunals, same number as before. Total, 4915.

1489. Same as the preceding year. Here finish the calculations founded on the statements of Mariana and Bernaldez.

1490. Seville. Burnt, 32. Effigies, 16. Penances, 625. Total, 663. According to the calculation from the inscription of Triana.

The eleven other tribunals may be considered to have punished half that number. Total for the twelve, 4369.

1491 to 1498. According to my system of reduction, the total number of victims for the eight last years of Torquemada, was 34,952.

Total for the eighteen years of his administration, 105,294.

1499 to 1507. _Second inquisitor-general._ Don Fray Diego Deza. For the twelve tribunals during the eight years of his administration. Burnt, 1664. Effigies, 832. Penances, 32,456. Total, 34,952.

1507 to 1518. _Third inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros. In 1513 he separated the tribunal of Cuença from that of Murcia.

Number of persons condemned during the eleven years of his administration. Burnt, 2536. Effigies, 1368. Penances, 47,263. Total, 51,163.

1518 to 1524. _Fourth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Adrian. Number of tribunals in the peninsula, the same as under his predecessor. Burnt, 1344. Effigies, 662. Penances, 26,214. Total, 28,230.

1524 to 1539. _Fifth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Manrique. For each year of this administration, I calculate that in each of the tribunals 10 were burnt, 5 in effigy, and 50 subjected to penances; total, 65. There were thirteen tribunals in the peninsula, and two in the adjacent isles. According to the preceding calculation, we find that during the fifteen years of the administration of Manrique, there were, Burnt, 2250. Effigies, 1120. Penances, 11,250. Total, 14,625.

1539 to 1545. _Sixth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Tabera. His administration may be considered as having lasted seven years. For the fifteen tribunals during that period, I calculate, Burnt, 840. Effigies, 420. Penances, 4200. Total, 5460.

_Seventh inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Loaisa was appointed in 1546, and died in the same year; the time of his administration may be said to be twelve months. In the fifteen tribunals, Burnt, 120. Effigies, 60. Penances, 600. Total, 780.

_Eighth inquisitor-general._ Don Ferdinand Valdés, Archbishop of Seville. Twenty years in the fifteen tribunals, Burnt, 2400. Effigies, 1200. Penances, 12,000. Total, 19,600.

_Ninth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Espinosa, six years. Burnt, 720. Effigies, 360. Penances, 3600. Total, 4680.

_Tenth inquisitor-general._ Don Pedro de Cordova, Ponce de Leon, succeeded in 1572, and died in January, 1573, before he could enter on his office.

_Eleventh inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Quiroga, twenty-two years. Another tribunal was established in Galicia. In the sixteen tribunals were Burnt, 2816. Effigies, 1408. Penances, 14,080. Total, 18,304.

_Twelfth inquisitor-general._ Don Jerome Manrique de Lara, Bishop of Carthagena and Avila, one year. Total for the sixteen Inquisitions, Burnt, 180. Effigies, 64. Penances, 640. Total, 832.

_Thirteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Pedro de Porto-Carrero, Bishop of Cuença, three years. Burnt, 184. Effigies, 92. Penances, 1920. Total, 2196.

_Fourteenth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Guevara, three years. Burnt, 240. Effigies, 96. Penances, 1728. Total, 2064.

_Fifteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan de Zuñiga, Bishop of Carthagena, one year. Burnt, 84. Effigies, 32. Penances, 576. Total, 688.

_Sixteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan Bautista de Acebedo, Archbishop _in partibus infidelium_, five years. Burnt, 400. Effigies, 116. Penances, 2880. Total, 3440.

_Seventeenth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Sandoval y Roxas, eleven years. Burnt, 880. Effigies, 352. Penances, 6336. Total, 7568.

_Eighteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Fray Louis de Aliaga, two years. Burnt, 240. Effigies, 96. Penances, 1728. Total, 2064.

_Nineteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Andres Pacheco, four years. Burnt, 200. Effigies, 128. Penances, 1280. Total, 1664.

_Twentieth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Mendoza, six years. Burnt, 384. Effigies, 192. Penances, 1920. Total, 2496.

_Twenty-first inquisitor-general._ Don Fray Antonio de Sotomayor, Archbishop _in partibus infidelium_, eleven years. Burnt, 704. Effigies, 352. Penances, 3520. Total, 4576.

_Twenty-second inquisitor-general._ Don Diego de Arce y Reynosa, Bishop of Placencia, twenty-three years. Burnt, 1472. Effigies, 736. Penances, 7360. Total, 9568.

_Twenty-third inquisitor-general._ Cardinal d'Aragon. Dismissed before he entered on his office.

_Twenty-fourth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan Everard Nitardo, three years. Burnt, 144. Effigies, 48. Penances, 576. Total, 768.

_Twenty-fifth inquisitor-general._ Don Diego Sarmiento de Valladares, twenty-six years. Burnt, 1248. Effigies, 416. Penances, 4992. Total, 6656.

_Twenty-sixth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan Thomas Rocaberti, Archbishop of Valencia, five years. Burnt, 240. Effigies, 80. Penances, 960. Total, 1280.

_Twenty-seventh inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Aguilar. Died before he entered on his office.

_Twenty-eighth inquisitor-general._ Don Balthazar Mendoza y Sandoval, Bishop of Segovia, five years. Burnt, 240. Effigies, 80. Penances, 960. Total, 1280.

_Twenty-ninth inquisitor-general._ Don Vidal Marin, Bishop of Ceuta, four years. Seventeen tribunals. Burnt, 136. Effigies, 68. Penances, 816. Total, 1020.

_Thirtieth inquisitor-general._ Don Antonio Ibañez de la Riva Herrera, Archbishop of Saragossa, two years. Burnt, 68. Effigies, 34. Penances, 408. Total, 510.

_Thirty-first inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Judice, six years. Burnt, 204. Effigies, 102. Penances, 1224. Total, 1530.

_Thirty-second inquisitor-general._ Don Joseph Molines, Auditor de Rote at Rome, two years. Burnt, 68. Effigies, 34. Penances, 408. Total, 510.

_Thirty-third inquisitor-general._ Don Juan de Arzamendi. Died before he entered on the office.

_Thirty-fourth inquisitor-general._ Don Diego de Astorga y Cespedes, Bishop of Barcelona, two years. Burnt, 68. Effigies, 34. Penances, 408. Total, 510.

_Thirty-fifth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan de Camargo, Bishop of Pampluna, thirteen years. Burnt, 442. Effigies, 221. Penances, 2652. Total, 3315.

_Thirty-sixth inquisitor-general._ Don Andres de Orbe y Larreategui, Archbishop of Valencia, seven years. Burnt, 238. Effigies, 119. Penances, 1428. Total, 1785.

_Thirty-seventh inquisitor-general._ Don Manuel Isidro Manrique de Lara, Archbishop of Santiago, four years. Burnt, 336. Effigies, 68. Penances, 816. Total, 1020.

_Thirty-eighth inquisitor-general._ Don Francisco Perez de Prado y Cuesta, Bishop of Teruel. He was confirmed by the Pope in 1746; I do not know the exact term of his administration, but I have fixed it in 1757, before the death of Ferdinand VI., who appointed his successor. Burnt, 10. Effigies, 5. Penances, 107. Total, 122.

_Thirty-ninth inquisitor-general._ Don Manuel Quintano Bonifaz, Archbishop of Pharsala, seventeen years. Burnt, 2. Penances, 10 in public, a greater number in private.

_Fortieth inquisitor-general._ Don Philip Bertran, Bishop of Salamanca, nine years. Two were burnt every year of this administration, six condemned to public, and a great number to private penances[85].

_Forty-first inquisitor-general._ Don Augustin Rubin de Cevallos, Bishop of Jaen, nine years. Fourteen condemned to public penances, and a considerable number condemned intra muros.

_Forty-second inquisitor-general._ Don Manuel Abad y la Sierra, Archbishop of Selimbria, two years. Sixteen individuals condemned to public, a greater number to private penances.

_Forty-third inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Lorenzana, three years. Public penances, 14. A very great number condemned to private penances. One effigy was burnt at Cuença.

_Forty-fourth inquisitor-general._ Don Ramon Joseph de Arce, Archbishop of Saragossa, eleven years. Twenty individuals were condemned to public, and a very considerable number to private penances. The Curate of Esco was condemned to the flames, but the grand-inquisitor and the Supreme Council would not permit the sentence to be executed.

Number of persons who were condemned and perished in the flames - - 31,912 Effigies burnt - - - - - 17,659 Condemned to severe penances - - 291,450 --------- 341,021

THE END.

LONDON:

Printed by WILLIAM CLOWES, Stamford-Street.

* * * * *

The following typographical errors have been corrected by the etext transcriber:

those already in in prison were excluded from the pardon=>those already in prison were excluded from the pardon

John Guiterrez de Chabes=>John Gutierrez de Chabes

Don Diego Deza, a Dominician=>Don Diego Deza, a Dominican

entirely composed by Catholics authors=>entirely composed by Catholic authors

he went out, and was assasinated=>he went out, and was assassinated

more favourably received than at Vallodolid=>more favourably received than at Valladolid

expences in travelling and maintaining=>expenses in travelling and maintaining

mind was so much disorderered=>mind was so much disordered

from the secresy of their proceedings=>from the secrecy of their proceedings

secresy, and two members of the Council of Castile=>secrecy, and two members of the Council of Castile

inquisitor in ordinary of the diocease=>inquisitor in ordinary of the diocese

he ackowledges his guilt=>he acknowledges his guilt

Nicholas Antonio say that he died, with the reputation of being a saint=>Nicholas Antonio says that he died, with the reputation of being a saint

Haping occasion to say=>Having occasion to say

it appears, from cotemporary=>it appears, from contemporary

made several journies to Valladolid=>made several journeys to Valladolid

The queen and the princes were in tears=>The queen and the princess were in tears

his death was invitable=>his death was inevitable

afterwards transferred to the the city of=>afterwards transferred to the city of

when Cazella was arrested=>when Cazalla was arrested

decree of the congregation shuld be revoked.=>decree of the congregation should be revoked.

Majorca, Bilboa, Valladolid, aud Osma=>Majorca, Bilboa, Valladolid, and Osma

cemetery of Pére la Chaise=>cemetery of Père la Chaise

there was a third called called Huguenaos=>there was a third called Huguenaos

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The following fact shews that the inquisitors of our own days do not fall below the standard of those who followed the fanatic Torquemada. * * * * was present when the Inquisition was thrown open, in 1820, by the orders of the Cortes of Madrid. Twenty-one prisoners were found in it, not one of whom knew the name of the city in which he was: some had been confined three years, some a longer period, and not one knew perfectly the nature of the crime of which he was accused.

One of these prisoners had been condemned, and was to have suffered on the following day. His punishment was to be death by the _pendulum_. The method of thus destroying the victim is as follows:--The condemned is fastened in a groove, upon a table, on his back; suspended above him is a pendulum, the edge of which is sharp, and it is so constructed as to become longer with every movement. The wretch sees this implement of destruction swinging to and fro above him, and every moment the keen edge approaching nearer and nearer: at length it cuts the skin of his nose, and gradually cuts on, until life is extinct. It may be doubted if the holy office in its mercy ever invented a more humane and rapid method of exterminating heresy, or ensuring confiscation. This, let it be remembered, was a punishment of the Secret Tribunal, A.D. 1820!!!

[2] The _absolution ad cautelam_ is that granted by inquisitors to persons who have been suspected of heresy.

[3] Since the publication of this work, the Author has been informed that the convicts were only fastened to the statues of the _Four Prophets_, and not enclosed in them. Andrew Bernaldez, a contemporary writer, and eye-witness of the executions, from whom this fact was taken, is not sufficiently explicit to remove all doubt.

[4] Erasmus, letters 884, 907, 910.

[5] Sandoval. Hist. Charles V. B. 24, § 23.

[6] Salazar de Mendoza, Life of Don Bartholomew Carranza, ch. vii.

[7] Mayan's Life of John Louis Vives, in the introduction to the new edition of his works.

[8] Virues: _Philippics against Melancthon_, in the dedication of the edition of Antwerp, 1541.

[9] Reginaldus Gonzalvius Montanus, _Sanctæ Inquisitionis Hispanicæ, artes aliquot detectæ_. This work is now extremely rare; it was published in 8vo. at Heidelberg in 1567.

[10] Charles V. is the hero of this poem.

[11] Don Antonio Cajetan de Souza has inserted this bull in his genealogical History of the Royal House of Portugal; Vol. II.

[12] Continued from Gonzales de Montes.

[13] Sandoval's History of Charles V., vol. ii.

[14] Sandoval's History of Charles V., tom. ii.

[15] Cabrera, Hist. Philip II., Book 2. chap. vi.

[16] Cabrera, ibid. B. I. chap. viii. and ix.

[17] Leti, Life of Philip II. Book 17.--Reinaldi, Annales Eccles. An. 1563, No. 146.--Palavicini, Hist. Council of Trent, Book 22, Chap. viii.--Sarpi, Hist. Council of Trent, Book 8. No. 42.

[18] See Chapter XVI.

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

[20] Regnialdus Gonzalirus Montanus, _Sanctæ Inquisitionis Hispanicæ artes aliquot detectæ_, in the rubric _Publicato testium_, p. 50.

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

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

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

[24] They never found this measure necessary. The old bulls and the Cortes had provided that the interlocutory act of arrest should be consented to, and signed by the inquisitor in ordinary of the diocese. Reason dictated this measure, because the decree for an arrest does not permit the summons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[40] Cabrera. Ibid. chap. 28.

[41] Kircher: _Vide_ the Work before mentioned, b. ii. chap. 2.

[42] Estrada: Wars of Flanders, Decade i. b. 7.

[43] Cabrera: Hist. Philip II., b. vii. chap. 28.

[44] Wander-Hamen: Life of Don John of Austria, book i.

[45] Cabrera: Hist. Philip II., book vii. chap. 22.

[46] Retamar is a place situated half-way between Madrid and the Pardo.

[47] Cabrera, book vii. chap. 22.--Wander-Hamen: Life of Don John of Austria, book i.

[48] St. Jerome is a monastery of the order of Jeronimites, founded by Henry IV. Near this monastery is the old royal palace called _Buen Retiro_.

[49] _Atocha_ is a Convent of Dominicans near _Buen Retiro_, on the east side.

[50] This was not the Saturday following, which was on the 3rd of January, 1568, but on the 17th of January, the day before Don Carlos was arrested.

[51] The princes of Bohemia and Hungary, then at Madrid, also Don John of Austria and Alexander Farnese.

[52] Some galleys which were then being prepared under the command of Don John.

[53] Grand prior of the order of St. John of Jerusalem: his name was Don Antonio de Toledo, brother to the Duke of Alva, and a councillor of state.

[54] The Duke de Feria was captain-general of the king's guards, and a councillor of state.

[55] Louis Quijada was Lord of Villagarcia, son of him who was major-domo to Charles V. in his retirement. The Count de Lerma was afterwards first duke and favourite of Philip III. Don Rodrigo de Mendoza was the eldest son of the Prince d'Evoli.

[56] Son of Don Gabriel, Count de Siruela.

[57] Mass was afterwards said in the prince's apartment; this shows that the account was written before the 2nd of March, when the order was given to have it performed.

[58] The 19th of January, 1568.

[59] Hoyos. His name was Pedro del Hoyo.

[60] That is of the eldest sons who have the right of succeeding to the crown, which is a _majorat_, or a perpetual substitution by the order of primogeniture.

[61] Jane, the king's sister, who had brought up Don Carlos before he had masters.

[62] The _monteros_ are the king's body-guard for the night. All the individuals of this guard are called _Monteros de Espinosa_, because they ought to have been born in the borough called _Espinosa de la Monteros_; this is a privilege which was granted to them by the sovereign Count of Castile, Ferdinand Gonzalez, as a recompense for a distinguished act of fidelity.

[63] Watson: History of the Reign of Philip II., in English and French, Appendix.

[64] De Thou: History of his Time, in Latin, vol. ii. b. 43.

[65] Comentarios del Reverendissimo señor Fray Barthome Carranza de Miranda, Arzobispo de Toledo, sobre el cathecismo christiano, divididos en quatro partes, les quales contienent odo lo que profesamos en el santo bautismo, como se vera en la plana siguiente, dirigida al serenisimo senor rey de Espana, &c., nuestro senor. En Anveres, en casa de Martin Nucio, Anno M. D. LVIII., con privilegio real.

[66] Reinaldo: Ecclesiastical Annals for 1563, No. 137. Paul Sarpi: History of the Council of Trent, b. viii. p. 32.

[67] These expressions show that the Count foresaw that the resolution of the council would be favourable to the Catechism; and in that case the holy office of Spain would be dishonoured.

[68] The chief justice of Aragon was an intermediate judge between the king and his subjects, and independent of him as an officer of justice, before whom the king only was the pleading party. This magistracy had been established by the constitution of the kingdom; the person invested with it was authorized to declare, at the demand of any inhabitant, that the king, his judges, or his magistrates, abused their power, and acted against the law in violating the constitution and privileges of the kingdom; in this case, the chief justice could defend the oppressed by force of arms against the king, and of course against his agents or lieutenants.

[69] This expression is ancient in the Aragonese dialect, and taken from the French, which derived it from the Latin _inquisitio_. It is the title given in the code of _Fueros_ to the sentence pronounced against magistrates or other public officers guilty of infidelity, abuse of power, or other crimes.

[70] Henry IV. of France, then called the Duke of Vendome, and Catherine de Bourbon, afterwards Sovereign Duchess of Bar.

[71] Molina was then at Madrid, where he had been rewarded by a place in the council of military orders. He was succeeded at Saragossa by Don Pedro de Zamora.

[72] See _Relations_ of Perez.

[73] See Chapter XV.

[74] See Chapter 15.

[75] See Chapter 26.

[76] See Chapter 25.

[77] A work, by M. Clement, was printed at Paris, in 1802, called _A Journal of Correspondences and Journeys for the Peace of the Church_.

[78] These letters will be found in the second volume of the _Memoires pour servir à l'Histoire de la Révolution d'Espagne_, by Don Juan Nellerto, Nos. 34, 59, 67.

[79] Don Miguel Juan Antonio Solano was born at Veroline in Aragon. Nature had endued him with an inventive, penetrating genius, inclined to mathematical applications; he learned the trade of a joiner, for his own amusement. He invented a plough which would work without oxen or horses, and presented it to the government, but little notice was taken of it. Desiring to make himself useful to his parishioners, he undertook to fertilize the earth in a ravine situated between two mountains, and completely succeeded. He had brought into the ravine the waters of a fountain, which was about a quarter of a Spanish league from the spot. A long and severe illness had made him lame, and during his convalescence, he invented a chair in which he could go out into his garden. When his age inclined him to meditations of another nature, as he had not many books, he particularly applied himself to the study of the Bible, and from it he formed his religious system, which differed little from that of the reformed Protestants, who are most attached to the discipline of the first ages of the church; he was persuaded that all that is not expressed in the New Testament, or is opposed to the literal sense of the text, was invented by man. He put his sentiments in writing, and sent the work to his bishop, requesting him to instruct him and give his opinion. The bishop Lopez Gil promised to send him an answer; but as it did not arrive, Solano communicated his opinions to some professors of theology in the University of Saragossa, and to some curates in his neighbourhood: he was in consequence denounced to the Inquisition of Saragossa, who proceeded to take informations, and arrest the criminal. A curate, who called himself his friend, received the commission to arrest the unfortunate Solano, while entire liberty was allowed him to enable him to recover. Solano, however, found means to convey himself to Oleron, the nearest town on the French frontier; but soon after, depending on the goodness of his intentions, hoping that the inquisitors would respect his innocence, and show him his errors, if he had fallen into any, he returned to Spain, and wrote to inform them that he would submit to anything, in order to be enlightened and convinced. His conduct proved that he was little acquainted with the tribunal of the Inquisition.

[80] See _Gazette de France_, for the 14th April, 1816, No. 103.

[81] _Gazette de France_, _Journal du Soir_, for the 1st May, 1816.

[82] _Gazette de France_, 22nd May, 1816, No. 41.

[83] _Gazette de France_, January 21st, 1817, No. 31.

[84] _Gazette de France_, April 3rd, 1816, No. 94.

[85] The last person burnt by the Inquisition was a Beata, for having made a compact with the devil. She suffered on the 7th of November, 1781.