his careless successors, were the complaints of those who suffered under wrongs perpetrated under the pretence of serving God.

In the Catalan Concordia of 1512 there was an attempt to do away with some of these abuses and the bull Pastoralis officii of Leo X, confirming the Concordia, marks another stage in the development of the fuero. No one, he said, could be cited save in his own ordinary court at the instance of an official or familiar; if it were attempted, all acts concerning it were invalid and the inquisitors must condemn the plaintiff in double the expenses and damage; if any official bought property in suit, or on which a suit was expected, he could be cited before a court not his own and if he claimed property under seizure by a secular judge, the latter could disregard all inhibitions issued by inquisitors; moreover inquisitors should have no cognizance in matters concerning the private property of officials. While thus striking at some of the more flagrant abuses of the fuero, Leo opened the door to worse ones by admitting familiars and the commensals or servants of officials to participation in the immunities of the Inquisition.' The bull, in fact, is in accordance with the Instructions of 1514, as issued by Inquisitor-general Mercader, and we shall see how completely the restrictive clauses were ignored while those admitting familiars and servants were developed.2

The question as to familiars and servants was not absolutely settled for some years. It is true that, in 1515 at Logroño, when the corregidor arrested Martin de Viana, a servant of the secretary Lezana, and refused to surrender him to the tribunal, he and his deputy and alguazil were excommunicated and the Suprema on appeal subjected them all to fines and humiliating penance.' On the other hand, in 1516 at Valladolid, when Alonso de Torres, servant of Inquisitor Frias, was thrown into the royal prison, the inquisitor did not reclaim him but procured the interposition of the Suprema, which ordered him to be released on bail and then, after nine months had passed without a charge being brought against him, he procured a royal cédula for the release of his bondsmen. Whatever doubts may have existed on the subject were removed, in 1518, by a cédula of Charles V, reciting that in

1 Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I de copias, fol. 219.-Pragmáticas y altres Drets de Cathalunya, Lib. 1, Tit. viii, cap. 2.

Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 933.

Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 925, fol. 680.

• Ibidem, Lib. 3, fol. 452.

Jaen the secular courts assumed cognizance of criminal cases concerning officials and familiars and their servants, which was contrary to the privileges of the Holy Office, wherefore he forbade it strictly for the future.' After this the Inquisition had no hesitation in insisting on its rights. When, in 1532, the corregidor and officials of Toledo were excommunicated for punishing the servant of an inquisitor and the Empress-regent Isabel wrote to the tribunal to absolve them, the Suprema instructed it not to obey her. She learned the lesson and, in 1535, when ordering some servants of inquisitors and familiars to be remitted to the Inquisition, she said it was accustomed to have their cases, both civil and criminal, and it was her pleasure that this should be observed.

The civil authorities were somewhat dilatory in recognizing the immunity of servants, and cases continued to occur in which the tribunals vindicated their jurisdiction energetically. About 1565 two officers of the royal justice in Barcelona arrested a servant of Inquisitor Mexia in a brothel where he was quarrelling with a woman, for which they were thrown into the secret prison as though they were heretics and were banished for three months, while the judge of the royal criminal court, who had something to do with the matter, was compelled to appear in the audiencechamber and undergo a reprimand in the presence of the assembled officials of the tribunal. The virtual immunity for offenders resulting from the privilege is illustrated by the case, in the same tribunal, of Pedro Juncar, servant of the receiver, who murdered the janitor of the Governor of Catalonia; the governor arrested him but was forced to surrender him to the tribunal, which discharged him with a sentence of exile for a year or two and costs. The influence on social order of conferring immunity on such a class can readily be conceived..

The privilege of the fuero was not confined to servants but was extended in whatever direction the ingenuity and perseverance of the tribunal could enforce it. Penitents who were ful

1 Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 9, fol. 1; Lib. 939, fol. 149.—MSS. of Bodleian Library, Arch. S, 130.

' Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol. 147.

3 Ibidem, fol. 144.

4 Ibidem, Visitas de Barcelona, Leg. 15, fol. 20.-A summary of cases, apparently compiled about 1582, may be found in the Simancas Archives, Leg. 1465, fol. 79.

filling their terms of penance were claimed and the claim was confirmed, in 1547, by Prince Philip. In Valencia and Barcelona the workmen employed on the buildings of the Inquisition were given nominal appointments under which they claimed immunity. In Lima the tribunal complained to the viceroy of the arrest of a bricklayer who was working for it, but it got no satisfaction. In Barcelona the tribunal granted inhibition with censures on the civil court, in which the brother of a familiar was suing a merchant on a protested bill of exchange.'

We have seen the limitations imposed by Ferdinand and the bull Pastoralis officii and the reiteration of the principle that the plaintiff must seek justice in the court of the defendant. As far as regards Castile, Charles V had overthrown this in criminal matters for both officials and familiars. Civil cases remained in a somewhat undetermined state, especially concerning familiars, the inquisitors endeavoring to grasp as far as they could both the active and passive fuero. When, in 1551, complaints came from Valencia that the tribunal was collecting debts for familiars, Inquisitor-general Valdés wrote that he did not know how this had come to pass and called for precise information as to when it had commenced and generally as to the method observed in the civil cases, active and passive, of familiars, so that he could answer Prince Philip. There was a good deal of uncertainty about the whole subject; the courts were restive and the situation was becoming strained. In the endeavor to settle it, Charles, in 1542, reissued his edict of 1518 with a sobre carta emphatically commanding its strict observance and forbidding the secular courts from any cognizance of the criminal cases of officials or familiars.3 This did not mend matters. The courts persisted in exercising jurisdiction over familiars, the recurso de fuerza was freely invoked and competencias multiplied. Both sides appealed to Charles, who was in Germany, and this time the opponents of the Inquisition gained the advantage. Prince Philip, as regent, issued a cédula, May 15, 1545, in which

1 Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 7, fol. 6; Lib. 13, fol. 20, 370, 372; Lib. 688, fol. 18; Visitas de Barcelona, Leg. 15, fol. 20.-Archivo hist. nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 5, n. 1, fol. 200.-Bibl. nacional de Lima, Protocolo 223, Expediente, 5288.

Archivo de Simancas, Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 206 'Bibl. nacional, MSS., X, 157, fol. 244.

he described how laymen, subject to the secular courts, obtained immunity for their crimes on pretext of being familiars; how the tribunals, in defending them, cast excommunications on the officers of justice, through which scandals and disquiet were daily increasing, and the course of justice was impeded. The familiars were in no way entitled to immunity from the secular courts, as they were not officials, although a different custom existed in Aragon and the inquisitors pretended to it in Castile, under the cédula of 1518 and the sobrecédula of 1542, but these were both irregular, not having been despatched by the Council and Secretariat of Castile as is customary and necessary. Therefore in order that delinquent familiars may not remain unpunished and be induced to commit crimes by the prospect of immunity, the emperor ordered the matter to be thoroughly discussed and meanwhile the cédulas of 1518 and 1542 to be suspended, in conformity with which they are declared to be suspended, inquisitors are ordered no longer to take cognizance of the cases of familiars and the secular courts are instructed to prosecute them in accordance with the laws.1

The Inquisition did not acquiesce tamely in this defeat, which was aggravated by the secular courts interpreting it as giving them jurisdiction over officials as well as familiars. It protested and resisted and showed so little obedience that the Córtes of Valladolid, in 1548, asked that it should be compelled to confine itself to its proper functions in matters of faith. Quarrels and recursos de fuerza continued and finally the whole question was referred to a junta consisting of two members each from the Suprema and Council of Castile. The representatives of the Inquisition conceded that it had been in fault in appointing too many familiars and in claiming for them all the exemptions of salaried officials; those of the Council admitted that the courts had erred in interfering with civil and criminal cases properly appertaining to the Holy Office. Mutual concessions were made, resulting in

1 Bibl. nacional, MSS., X, 157, fol. 244.-Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol. 149.-All this shows how mistaken is the assertion of Llorente (Hist. crít. Cap. XLVII, Art. 1) repeated by Rodrigo (III, 365) and others, that Charles V, in 1535, suspended the royal jurisdiction (under which the Inquisition had cognizance of the affairs of its officials) and restored it in 1545. This action was confined to the tribunal of Sicily. The anonymous author of the Discurso historico-legal sobre el Origen etc. de la Inquisicion, p. 93 (Valladolid, 1803) seems to be the only one who has recognized this.

2 Colmeiro, Córtes de Leon y de Castilla, II, 217.

what was known as the Concordia of Castile, March 10, 1553an agreement which the Inquisition admitted, a century later, that neither side had observed.1

The Concordia was silent as to the salaried officials, thus leaving them in possession of the active and passive fuero in both civil and criminal cases. It devoted itself wholly to the familiars who, in this as in so much else, were the leading source of trouble. After regulating, as we shall see hereafter, their number and character, it defined that in civil cases they should be subject wholly to the secular courts. For the greater crimes, moreover, cognizance was also reserved exclusively to the courts, the list comprising treason, unnatural crime, sedition, violating royal safe-conducts, disobedience to royal mandates, treachery, rape, carrying off women, highway robbery, arson, house-breaking and crimes of greater magnitude than these, as well as resistance or formal disrespect to the royal courts. Those who held office were also amenable to the courts for official malfeasance. This left only petty offences subject to inquisitorial jurisdiction and for these familiars were liable to arrest by secular magistrates, subject to being immediately transferred to the Inquisition. For doubtful cases it was provided that, when the lay judge and inquisitor could not agree, there should be no contention, but the evidence was to be sent to the court of the king, where two members each of the Suprema and Council of Castile should decide as to the jurisdiction; for this a majority was required and, in case of equal division of votes, the matter went to the king for final decision. No appeal from this was allowed and meanwhile the accused was retained in the prison to which he had been consigned at arrest. This process of adjudicating disputes

1 Bibl. nacional, MSS., X, 157, fol. 244.-MSS. of Bodleian Library, Arch. S, 130.-MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Yc, 17.

Nueva Recop., Lib. 1, Tit. i, ley 18.-Novís. Recop., Lib. 11, Tit. vii, ley 1. It is not without interest to observe that the privileges of officials and familiars of the Roman Inquisition were much more limited than in Spain. Familiars had no exemption from public burdens or duties or military service and were subject to the secular courts in all criminal cases. When, in 1633, those of Jesi asked to have their civil suits tried by the Inquisition, the Congregation did not even answer them. The only officials entitled to the forum were those in continual active service, and there is nothing said about wives, children and servants sharing in the privilege. As in Spain, the number of familiars was excessive. Faenza was allowed 50, Ancona 40 and Rimini 30.-Decret. Sacr. Congr. Sti Officii, pp. 197-8, 200 (R. Archivio di Stato in Roma, Fondo Camerale, Congr. del S. Offizio, vol. 3).