[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.