[1065] Ibidem, Vistas 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.
[1066] 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.
[1067] Archivo de Simancas, Sala 40, Lib. 4, fol. 206.
[1068] Bibl. nacional, MSS., X, 157, fol. 244.
[1069] 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.
[1070] Colmeiro, Córtes de Leon y de Castilla, II, 217.
[1071] Bibl. nacional, MSS., X, 157, fol. 244.—MSS. of Bodleian Library, Arch. S, 130.—MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Yc, 17.
[1072] Nueva Recop., Lib. I, Tit. i, ley 18.—Novís. Recop., Lib. II, 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).
[1073] The only allusion that I have met to this is its citation in the argument of the alcaldes del crimen of Granada in the case of Gerónimo Palomino. A copy is in Bodleian Library, Arch. S, 130.