The letter proceeds to describe at great length and in much detail these somewhat complicated processes. In abandoning the pulleys and the water-jar, the patient gained little. He was adjusted for torment by a belt or girdle with which he was swung from the ground; his arms were tied together across his breast and were attached by cords to rings in the wall. For the trampa or trampazo the ladder in the potro had one of its rungs removed so as to enable the legs to pass through; another bar with a sharp edge was set below it and through this narrow opening the legs were forcibly pulled by means of a cord fastened around the toes with a turn around the ankle. Each vuelta, or turn given to the cord, gained about three inches; five vueltas were reckoned a most rigorous torture, and three were the ordinary practice, even with the most robust. Leaving him stretched in this position, the next step was the mancuerda, in which a cord was passed around the arms, which the executioner wound around himself and threw himself backward, casting his whole weight and pushing with his foot against the potro. The cord, we are told, would cut through skin and muscle to the bone, while the body of the patient was stretched as in a rack, between it and the cords at the feet. The belt or girdle at the waist, subjected to these alternate forces was forced back and forth and contributed further to the suffering. This was repeated six or eight times with the mancuerda, on different parts of the arms, and the patients usually fainted, especially if they were women.

After this the potro came in play. The patient was released from the trampa and mancuerda and placed on the eleven sharp rungs of the potro, his ankles rigidly tied to the sides and his head sinking into a depression where it was held immovable by a cord across the forehead. The belt was loosened so that it would slip around. Three cords were passed around each upper arm, the ends being carried into rings on the sides of the potro and furnished with garrotes or sticks to twist them tight; two similar ones were put on each thigh and one on each calf, making twelve in all. The ends were carried to a maestra garrote by which the executioner could control all at once. These worked not only by compression but by travelling around the limbs, carrying away skin and flesh. Each half round was reckoned a vuelta or turn, six or seven of which was the maximum, but it was usual not to exceed five, even with strong men. Formerly the same was done with the cord around the forehead, but this was abandoned as it was apt to start the eyes from their sockets. All this, the Cordova tribunal concludes, is very violent, but it is less so and less dangerous than the abandoned methods.

These remained practically the tortures in use. In 1662 the Suprema, in ordering the tribunal of Galicia to “continue” the torture of Antonio Méndez, called upon it to report as to its manner of administering torture. Its answer of May 13th shows that it was using the mancuerda and potro, though after a somewhat primitive fashion. To this, by order of the Suprema, Gonzalo Bravo replied, May 22d with elaborate instructions, especially as to the trampazo, indicating that substantially the methods described by Córdova were recognized officially. Galicia appears to have puzzled over this until September 19th, when it apologized for its lack of experience and asked for detailed plans and drawings of the form of potro required. It is fairly presumable from all this that thenceforward these new methods were adopted in all the tribunals.[65]

There was and could be no absolute limitation on the severity of torture. The Instructions of 1561 say that the law recognizes it as uncertain and dangerous in view of the difference in bodily and mental strength among men, wherefore no certain rule can be given, but it must be left to the discretion of judges, to be governed by law, reason and conscience.[66] All that Gonzalo Bravo can say, in the Instructions of 1662, is that its proper regulation determines the just decision of cases, and the verification of truth; the discretion and prudence of the judges must look to this, tempered by the customary compassion of the Holy Office, in such way that it shall neither exceed nor fall short. How this discretion was exercised depended wholly on the temper of the tribunal. One authority tells us that torture should never be prolonged more than half an hour, but the cases are numerous in which it lasted for two and even three hours. In that of Antonio López, at Valladolid, in 1648, it commenced at eight o’clock and continued until eleven, leaving him with a crippled arm; in a fortnight he endeavored to strangle himself, and he died within a month.[67] Such cases were by no means rare. Gabriel Rodríguez, at Valencia, about 1710, was tortured thrice and condemned to the galleys, but this was commuted on finding that he was crippled “por la violencia de la tortura.”[68] Nor was death by any means unknown. In 1623, Diego Enríquez, at Valladolid, was tortured December 13th. In the process an “accident” occurred and he was carried to his cell. On the 15th the physician reported that he should be removed to a hospital, which was done with the greatest secrecy and he died there. There is something hideously suggestive in such a matter of fact record as that of Blanca Rodríguez Matos, at Valladolid, which simply says that she was voted to torture, May 21, 1655, and it having been executed she died the same day; the case was continued against her fame and memory and, in due course, was suspended, November 19th.[69]

The very large number of cases recorded in which the accused overcame the torture without confession would argue that it was frequently light. This is doubtless true to a great extent, but the surprising endurance sometimes displayed shows that this was not always the case. Thus Tomás de Leon, at Valladolid, November 5, 1638, was subjected to all the successive varieties and overcame them, although at the end it was found that his left arm was broken. So, in 1643, in the same tribunal, Engracia Rodríguez, a woman sixty years of age, had a toe wrenched off while in the balestilla. Nevertheless the torture proceeded until, in the first turn of the mancuerda, an arm was broken. It then was stopped without having extorted a confession, but her fortitude availed her little, for fresh evidence supervened against her and, some ten months later, she confessed to Jewish practices. Another of the same group, Florencia de Leon, endured the balestilla, three turns of the mancuerda and the potro without confessing, but she did not escape without reconciliation and prison.[70]

The process and its effects on the patient can best be understood from the passionless business-like reports of the secretary, in which the incidents are recorded to enable the consulta de fe to vote intelligently. They are of various degrees of horror and I select one which omits the screams and cries of the victim that are usually set forth. It is a very moderate case of water-torture, carried only to a single jarra, administered in 1568 by the tribunal of Toledo to Elvira del Campo, accused of not eating pork and of putting on clean linen on Saturdays. She admitted the acts but denied heretical intent and was tortured on intention. On April 6th she was brought before the inquisitors and episcopal vicar and, after some preliminaries, was told that it was determined to torture her, and in view of this peril she should tell the truth, to which she replied that she had done so. The sentence of torture was then read, when she fell on her knees and begged to know what they wanted her to say. The report proceeds:

It is scarce worth while to continue this pitiful detail. Four days were allowed to elapse, for experience showed that an interval, by stiffening the limbs, rendered repetition more painful. She was again brought to the torture-chamber but she broke down when stripped and piteously begged to have her nakedness covered. The interrogatory went on, when her replies under torture were more rambling and incoherent than before, but her limit of endurance was reached and the inquisitors finally had the satisfaction of eliciting a confession of Judaism and a prayer for mercy and penance.[71]

It is impossible to read these melancholy records without amazement that the incoherent and contradictory admissions through which the victim, in his increasing agonies, sought to devise some statement in satisfaction of the monotonous command to tell the truth, should have been regarded by statesmen and lawgivers as possessed of intrinsic value. The result was a test of endurance and not of veracity. In one case we find a man of such fibres and nerves that all the efforts of the torturer fail to elicit aught but denial—the cords may rasp through the flesh to the bone and limbs be wrenched to the breaking without affecting his constancy. In another, when a few turns of the garrote have twisted a single cord into his arm—or even at the mere aspect of the torture-chamber, with its grimly suggestive machinery—he will yield and confess all that is wanted as to himself and all the comrades whose names he can recall in the dizziness of his suffering. Yet, with full knowledge of this, for centuries the secular and ecclesiastical courts of the greater part of Christendom persisted in the use of a system which, in the name of justice, perpetrated an infinite series of atrocities.

Yet, as though still more effectually to deprive the system of all excuse, the confession obtained at such cost was practically admitted to be in itself worthless. To legalize it, a ratification was required, after an interval of at least twenty-four hours, to be freely made, without threats and apart from the torture-chamber. This was essential in all jurisdictions, and the formula in the Inquisition was to bring the prisoner into the audience-chamber, where his confession was read to him as it had been written down. He was asked whether it was true or whether he had anything to add or to omit and, under his oath, he was expected to declare that it was properly recorded, that he had no change to make and that he ratified it, not through fear of torture, or from any other cause, but solely because it was the truth. Such ratification was required even when the confession was made on hearing the sentence of torture read or when placed in conspectu tormentorum.[72] This was customarily done on the afternoon of the next day, to allow the full twenty-four hours to expire, but there was sometimes a longer interval. Thus, in the case of Catalina Hernández, at Toledo, who confessed on being stripped, July 13, 1541, it was not until the 27th that her ratification was taken, the inquisitors explaining that press of business had prevented it earlier.[73]

The declaration in the ratification, that it was not made through fear of torture was a falsehood, for, in all jurisdictions, a retraction of the confession called for a repetition of torment, and in fact we sometimes find that when the confession was made the prisoner was warned not to retract for, if he did so, the torture would be “continued.”[74] This was possibly to evade a singularly humane provision in the Instructions of 1484, to the effect that, if the confession is ratified, the accused is to be duly punished, but if he retracts, in view of the infamy resulting from the trial, he is to abjure publicly the heresy of which he is suspect and be subjected to such penance as the inquisitors may compassionately assign. The mercy of this, however, is considerably modified by a succeeding clause that it is not to deprive them of the right to repeat the torture in cases where by law they can and ought to do so.[75] Still, it was probably the first portion of the provision that guided the Toledo tribunal, in 1528, in the case of Diego de Uceda, on trial for Lutheranism. At the sight of the torture-chamber he broke down and admitted all that the witnesses had testified, but could not remember what it was. As this was evidently inspired by fear, the torture went on when, at the first turn of the garrote, he inculpated himself so eagerly that he was warned not to bear false-witness against himself. He declared it to be the truth and was untied. Before he was called upon to ratify, he asked for an audience in which he ascribed his confession to fear and declared himself ready to die for the faith of the Church, and a week later he ratified this revocation, saying that he was out of his senses under the torture. He was not tortured again and his sentence, some months later, was in accordance with the Instructions of 1484—to appear in an auto de fe, to abjure de vehementi and to be fined at the discretion of the inquisitors.[76]

Such cases, however, were exceptional and the regular practice was to repeat the torture, when a confession followed by another revocation, subjected the victim to a third torture.[77] Whether the process could be carried on indefinitely was a doubtful question which some legists answered in the negative on the general philosophic assumption that nature and justice abhorred infinity, but this reasoning, however, academically conclusive, was not respected in practice when a conviction was desired. There was one dissuasive from revocation, which was brought to bear when culprits gave unreasonable trouble, which was the penalty incurred by revocantes. This is illustrated, as also the troublesome questions which sometimes perplexed the tribunals, by the case of Miguel de Castro, tried for Judaism, at Valladolid, in 1644. As a negativo, he was tortured and confessed, after which he ratified, revoked and ratified again. A process was commenced against him for revoking; he was tortured again, until an arm was dislocated and he lost two fingers, during which he confessed and then revoked the confession. He would have been tortured a third time had not the physician and surgeon declared him to be unable to endure it. The Suprema ordered him to be relaxed to the secular arm, if he could not be induced to repent and return to the Church, when, under the persuasion of two calificadores, he begged for mercy and confessed as to himself and others. Finally he was sentenced to reconciliation and irremissible prison and sanbenito, with a hundred lashes as a special punishment for revocation, which was executed January 21, 1646.[78]

Some culprits, we are told, cunningly took advantage of the opportunity of retraction, by confessing at once, as soon as subjected to torture, then recanting and repeating this process indefinitely, to the no small disgust of the inquisitors. A writer of the close of the seventeenth century, who mentions this, shows that the subject was then in an indeterminate condition, by suggesting as a remedy that they should be subjected to extraordinary penalties.[79] A case at Cuenca, in 1725, in which these tactics were successful, indicates that by that time a third torture was not recognized as lawful. Dr. Diego Matheo López Zapata, as soon as the torturer was ready to begin, exclaimed that he was ready to confess, and made a detailed confession of Judaic practices followed for nearly fifty years. The next day he revoked and, when the torture was resumed, he repeated his confession, only to revoke it as before. The tribunal appears to have been powerless and contented itself with making him appear in an auto de fe as a penitent, with a sanbenito to be immediately removed, abjuration de vehementi and twenty years’ exile from Cuenca, Murcia and Madrid.[80] At an earlier period he would scarce have escaped without scourging, galleys and irremissible prison.

When torture was administered, without eliciting a confession, the logical conclusion, if torture proved anything, was that the accused was innocent. In legal phrase, he had purged the evidence and was entitled to acquittal.[81] Such, indeed, was the law, but there was a natural repugnance to being baffled, or to admit that innocence had been so cruelly persecuted, and excuses were readily found to evade the law. On such a subject there could be no definite line of practice prescribed, and the situation is reflected by the Instructions of 1561, which tell the inquisitor that, in such cases, he must consider the nature of the evidence, the degree of torture employed, and the age and disposition of the accused; if it appears that he has fully purged the evidence, he should be fully acquitted, but if it seems that he has not been sufficiently tortured he can be required to abjure either for light or vehement suspicion, or some pecuniary penalty can be imposed, although this should be done only with great consideration.[82] Thus the matter was practically left to the discretion of the tribunal, with the implied admission that, when torture proved unsuccessful, it was merely surplusage.

The authorities naturally are not wholly at one with regard to the practical applications of these principles—except that acquittal should rarely be granted and, in fact, while the records are full of cases in which torture was overcome, it is somewhat unusual to find the parties acquitted, or their cases even suspended. About 1600 a writer tells us that these cases are to be treated with some extraordinary penalty or with acquittal or suspension, according to the degree of suspicion that remains, but that Moriscos, however light the suspicion, must appear in an auto de fe and abjure de vehementi and, if there has been evidence by single witnesses, they must be sent to the galleys for three years or more; with other culprits, if the suspicion is light, there may be acquittal or suspension, but suspension is the more usual. It all depends upon the degree in which the evidence has been purged by the torture.[83] As this degree was a matter purely conjectural, inquisitorial discretion was unlimited.

The rule as to Moriscos is borne out by the Valencia auto de fe of 1607, in which there appeared sixteen who had overcome the torture, most of whom were visited with imprisonment, scourging or fines.[84] With their expulsion in 1609-10, there was no further call for discrimination, and the general practice is expressed about 1640, by an experienced inquisitor, who tells us that, when there have been several single witnesses, the accused who overcomes the torture should be subjected to some severe extraordinary punishment, such as abjuring de vehementi, with confiscation of half his property, or a heavy fine—the latter being preferable as it is more easily collected and the culprit endures it better in order to preserve his credit.[85] That this reflects the current practice would appear from a Cuenca auto de fe, June 29, 1654. Don Andrés de Fonseca had been required to abjure de vehementi, at Valladolid in 1628; the evidence of his relapse was strong, but insufficient for conviction; he endured torture without confessing; then further evidence supervened and he was again tortured with the same ill-success; he appeared in the auto as a penitent, abjured de levi, with ten years’ exile and a fine of five hundred ducats. Doña Theodora Paula had overcome the torture and had abjuration de lev, six years’ exile and a fine of three hundred ducats. Doña Isabel de Miranda had been unsuccessfully tortured and was sentenced to two years’ exile and three hundred ducats. So, after fruitless torture, Doña Isabel Henríquez had the same punishment, and Manuel Lorenzo Madureyra was sentenced to abjuration de vehementi, ten years’ exile and five hundred ducats fine.[86] It is to the credit of the Valladolid tribunal that, in 1624, it showed itself more lenient and suspended six cases in which torture proved fruitless, inflicting no punishment except six years of exile on María Pérez, who was charged with false-witness.[87]

Perhaps the frequency with which torture was overcome may be partially explained by bribery of the executioner. This was rendered difficult by the secrecy surrounding all the operations of the tribunals, yet it was possible, and the kindred of one who was arrested would naturally seek to propitiate the minister of justice in case the prisoner should fall into his hands. At a Valencia auto de fe, in 1594, there appeared ninety-six Morisco penitents of whom fifty-three had been tortured without extracting confessions.[88] It may possibly be only a coincidence that, in 1604, Luis de Jesus, the torturer of the tribunal was prosecuted for receiving money from Moriscos, but we may readily imagine that communities, living in perpetual dread of the Inquisition, might tax themselves to subsidize the executioner regularly.[89] A similar case occurs in the Córdova auto of June 13, 1723, in which appeared the executioner, Carlos Felipe, whose offence is discreetly described as fautorship of heretics and unfaithfulness in their favor, in the discharge of his office.[90]

It is a little remarkable that, although the use of torture was so frequent and must have been generally known, there appears to have been a shrinking from admitting it in the sentences publicly read in the autos de fe, which habitually recited the details of the trials—possibly attributable, in part at least, to a desire to preserve secrecy, although it is particularly marked in the early period when secrecy had not become so rigid as it was subsequently. Indeed, in the sentence of Juan González Daza, who confessed under torture in 1484, at Ciudad Real, it is mendaciously asserted that he pertinaciously denied until he learned that his accomplice, Fernando de Theba, had confessed, when he did so freely.[91] This continued as a rule, though occasionally there is less reticence. In one sentence I have found it alluded to—that of Mari Gómez, at Toledo, in 1551.[92] Sometimes there is a veiled allusion to it, as though the inquisitors could not conceal it wholly, but felt a certain shame in admitting it openly. Thus in the sentence of Elvira del Campo (see p. 24), which gives a very detailed account of the incidents of the trial, it is stated that, on using “mas diligencias,” with her she admitted the charges, and in the sentence of Doctor Zapata, in 1725, “cierta diligencia” is alluded to as having been employed.[93]

It would of course be impossible to compile statistics of the torture-chamber, or to form a reasonably accurate estimate of the number of cases in which it was employed during the career of the Inquisition. Some fragmentary data, however, can be had, as in the record of the Toledo tribunal between 1575 and 1610. During this period it tried four hundred and eleven persons for heretical offences admitting of the use of torture, and in these it was used once on one hundred and nine, and twice on eight, besides two cases in which it had to be stopped on account of the fainting of the patient, and seven in which confession was obtained before it commenced. There were also five cases in which the accused was placed in conspectu tormentorum.[94] In all, we may say that here its agency was invoked in about thirty-two per cent. of heretical prosecutions. This is probably less than the average. In a number of cases tried by the tribunal of Lima between 1635 and 1639, nearly all the accused appear to have been tortured, while the report of the tribunal of Valladolid for 1624 shows that of eleven cases of Judaism and one of Protestantism, eleven were tortured and, in 1655, every case of Judaism, nine in number, was subjected to torture.[95]

After all, numbers, however they may impress the imagination, are not supremely important. They are simply a measure of the greater or less activity of the tribunals and not of the principles involved. Whenever there was a doubt to solve, whether as to the sufficiency of the evidence, the intention of the accused, the completeness with which he had denounced his associates, or other inscrutable matter, recourse to torture was a thing of course. In not a few cases, indeed, there seems to have been an almost infantile confidence in its power as a universal solvent. About 1710, Fernando Castellon, on trial at Valencia for Judaism, claimed not to be baptized and was promptly tortured to find out, but without success.[96] In 1579 the Toledo tribunal had to deal with Anton Moreno, an aged peasant, accused of entertaining views too liberal as to salvation; torture seemed the only means of definition and, between the turns of the garrote, he was made to express his opinions as to the saving effects of death-bed repentance and the viaticum on a sinner who had been duly baptized with the water of the Holy Ghost. There was ghastly ludicrousness in the attempt, under such persuasion, to ascertain the beliefs of an untutored old man, on these subtle questions of scholastic theology, ending with the result that he was adjudged to be worthy only of abjuration de levi, with a reprimand and hearing of a mass in the audience-chamber.[97]

As the activity of the Inquisition diminished, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, the use of torture naturally decreased but, until, the suppression in 1813, the formal demand for it was preserved in the accusation presented by the fiscal. One of the early acts of Fernando VII, on his restoration in 1814, was the issue of a cédula, July 25th, addressed to all officers of justice, reciting that, in 1798, when the Royal Council learned that, in the courts of Madrid, the accused were subjected to the severest pressure to extort confessions, it investigated the matter and found that thumb-screws and other methods more or less rigorous were employed, and that this was without authority of law: consequently on February 5, 1803, the discontinuance of these was ordered, except fetters to the feet, and at the same time inquiries made of all courts in the kingdom showed that various kinds of compulsion were used whereby the innocent were sometimes compelled to convict themselves falsely. In view of all of this Fernando now ordered that in future no judge should use any kind of pressure or torment to obtain confession from the accused or testimony from witnesses, all usages to the contrary being abolished.[98] This can scarce have applied to the Inquisition but, under the Restoration, it had little to do with actual heresy and, before it was thoroughly reorganized, all doubts were removed by Pius VII. Llorente tells us that the Gazette de France of April 14, 1816, contained a letter from Rome of March 31st, stating that the pope had forbidden the use of torture in all tribunals of the Inquisition, and had ordered that this be communicated to the ambassadors of France and Portugal.[99] I see no reason for doubting this, although no such brief appears in the Bullarium of Pius VII, and we may assume that at last the Spanish Holy Office closed its career relieved of this disgrace.

According to an arancel, or fee-list, of 1553, the executioner was entitled to one real for administering torture, or to half a real if the infliction was only threatened. In the lay courts the sufferer was obliged to pay his tormentor, for there is a provision that, if he is poor, the executioner is to receive nothing and is not allowed to take his garments in lieu of the money.[100] In the Inquisition where, for offences justifying torture, arrest was accompanied with sequestration, the tribunal necessarily took upon itself the payment and, as we have seen, in 1681, the fee had increased to four ducats. In cases which did not end with confiscation, the outlay was undoubtedly included among the costs of the trial charged against the sequestrated estate. In the Roman Inquisition, where torture was used so much more indiscriminately, a decision of the Congregation, in 1614, relieved the accused from payment of the fee.[101]

CHAPTER VIII.

THE TRIAL

In the earliest period there were few formalities and no absolute estilo, or recognized method of procedure. In the enormous work crowded upon the inexperienced tribunals, the main object was the despatch of business, and the success attained in this is seen in the frequent and enormous autos de fe. The records of the trials are hasty and imperfect, showing that little attention was paid to forms that might cause delay. The Instructions of 1484 are crude, merely meant to supplement the traditional system of inquisitorial procedure with such regulations as should adapt it to the needs of the situation and to the intentions of Ferdinand and Isabella. They are largely devoted to the questions of confiscation and the fines accruing under the Edicts of Grace and, for the rest, they conclude by saying that, as all circumstances cannot be foreseen and provided for, everything is left to the discretion of the inquisitors who, in all that is not especially prescribed, must conform themselves to the law and act according to the dictates of their consciences for the service of God and the sovereigns.[102] The result of this discretion was that, in the assembly of the inquisitors in 1488, a long debate was required to reach the conclusion that there should be uniformity in the procedure and acts of all the tribunals, the existing diversity having led to many embarrassments.[103]

It is therefore scarce worth while to examine in detail the simple and varying forms of this period, except as we shall find them interesting in comparison with later practice. The desired uniformity was gradually attained by the Suprema which, under the independent organization of the Spanish Holy Office, developed an elaborate system of procedure, set forth in the Instructions of 1561 and furnished, in 1568, with all necessary formulas in the Orden de Processar of Pablo García. Subject to such changes as subsequent experience demanded, this remained the standard to the last and was followed, with more or less exactitude by the tribunals.

When the accused was thrown into the secret prison his case, in the hurry of the earlier period, was heard and despatched with promptitude, but subsequently it became the custom for the inquisitors to exercise their discretion as to when they would call him before them, and we shall see what exasperating and calculated delays they sometimes interposed. He could, however, ask for an audience at any time, and it was an invariable rule to grant such requests, for the reason that he might have an impulse to repent and confess which might be transitory. Such audiences, however, did not count in the progress of the case. When summoned to his first regular audience, he was sworn to tell the truth in this and all future hearings and to keep silence as to all that he might see or hear, and as to everything connected with his own affair. He was made to declare his name, his age, his birthplace, his occupation and the length of time since his arrest. After these formalities, if the case was one of heresy, there came an investigation into his genealogy. This, which accumulated a mass of information as to all infected families, and facilitated greatly researches into limpieza, was not a feature of the early trials; in those of from 1530 to 1540, it was still very informal, but by the middle of the century it had become minute, extending back to two generations and including all uncles, aunts and cousins, describing of what race they were, whether any of them had been tried by the Inquisition and, if so, how punished. The punctilious observance of this takes a somewhat ludicrous aspect in the trial at Lima, in 1763, of a Mandingo negro slave for superstitious cures. He was seventy years of age and had been brought from Guinea when a child, but was interrogated minutely as to parents and grandparents, uncles and aunts, and was made to declare that they were all of the race and caste of negroes, and that none of them had been penanced, reconciled or punished by the Inquisition.[104] The accused was then interrogated as to his baptism, confirmation and observance of the rites of religion; he was made to sign and cross himself, repeat the creed and usual prayers, and finally to give an account of his past life.

After these preliminaries, of which the results were carefully recorded, he was asked whether he knew, presumed or suspected the cause of his arrest. With rare exceptions, the reply was in the negative and then followed what was known as the first of three monitions. There is no trace of these in the earliest trials, but toward 1490 an informal monition makes its appearance and the Instructions of 1498, in requiring the formal accusation to be presented within ten days after arrest, prescribed that within that time the necessary admonitions shall be given.[105] In 1525 a letter of Manrique shows that these monitions then were three, but they still were negligently observed, and in trials from that time until 1550 they vary from none to three.[106]