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,—