A History of the Inquisition of Spain; vol. 4

by Henry Charles Lea

[1022] Koska Vayo, III, 342, 352, 358-68.—Modesto Lafuente, XXIX. 191.

[1023] Koska Vayo, III, 369-75, 387.—Modesto Lafuente, XXIX, 152.

[1024] Koska Vayo, III, 380.

That the Carlists should regard the opportune resurrection of this long-buried pragmática as a fraud was not unnatural, but the records produced in its favor bear every evidence of genuineness. From them it appears that on May 31, 1789, Carlos IV summoned the Córtes to assemble on September 23d to take the oath of allegiance to his son Fernando and to transact other business. The oath was duly taken on that day; on the 30th a petition in the customary form was addressed to the king for the abrogation of the pragmática of Philip V and the restoration of the ancient law of succession. The session continued with various acts of legislation; on October 7th Carlos obtained an approval of the measure from fourteen archbishops and bishops who had joined in the oath of allegiance; on October 30th he confirmed the pragmática, but ordered absolute secrecy to be maintained with respect to it and to this all concerned took a solemn oath. Still it did not remain wholly unknown and, in December 1809, Doña Carlota, Princess of Brazil, applied to the supreme Junta Central, then ruling the kingdom, to have her possible rights to the succession under it acknowledged. The Junta was sitting in Seville; the archives were in Madrid, then in possession of the French, and inquiries were made of such survivors of the Córtes of 1789 as could be reached, who confirmed the fact of the adoption of the pragmática and of the secrecy enjoined, whereupon the Consejo de España é Indias reported in favor of the Portuguese princess’s application. That these records, with their wealth of names and dates and elaborate details could be manufactured is simply incredible.—Testimonio de las Actas de Córtes de 1789 sobre la Sucesion en la Corona de España, y de los Dictámenes dados sobre esta materia; publicado por real decreto de S. M. la Reina N^ra S^ra. Año de 1833, Madrid, en la Imprenta Real.

[1025] Koska Vayo, III, 393-425.

[1026] Ibidem, p. 437.

[1027] Quoted by Hervaz, Ruiz de Padron, p. 160.

[1028] Archivo de Alcalá, Ministerio de Estado, Leg. 897, n. 30; Leg. 906, n. 87, 88.—(See Appendix.)

It will be remembered that the Duke of Medinaceli was alguazil mayor of the Madrid tribunal, and as such was drawing a yearly stipend of a thousand reales.

[1029] See Appendix. The allusion to the concurrence of the Holy See is a pure assumption, seeing that, for political reasons, Isabel and the Regency were not recognised by the papacy for many years.