Although the holy office had obtained an unjust victory, the inquisitors were vexed that Carranza had not been degraded from his dignity. The suspension for five years appeared to them a singularly slight punishment, and they feared that the Pope would grant him a dispensation from it, which he, in fact, did, eight days after the sentence.

Their rage is displayed in several letters written from Rome on the three first days after the judgment, and which were found among the papers of the trial at Madrid. Among many things which are disgraceful to the writers, is the advice given to the king, not to permit Carranza to return to Spain, and, above all, not to suffer him to govern his see even after the lapse of the suspension; their envy and animosity making them suppose, that it would be a disgrace to the diocese of Toledo to be governed by a man who had been prosecuted by the Inquisition: they said that it would be better for the king to request the Pope to induce Carranza to give up his diocese and accept a pension, that some person might be placed in his see more worthy to occupy it; but G.o.d in his infinite wisdom destroyed, by the death of the archbishop, the cause, the motive, and the matter for new intrigues. In the writings of the process I saw with sorrow, that, far from relinquishing their pursuits, the inquisitors had prepared a fresh persecution for him.

CHAPTER x.x.xV.

TRIAL OF ANTONIO PEREZ, MINISTER AND FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE TO PHILIP II.

Antonio Perez was another ill.u.s.trious victim to the Inquisition and the evil disposition of Philip II. The misfortunes of Perez commenced when Philip put to death Juan Escobedo, secretary to Don John of Austria; he succeeded in making his escape to Aragon, where he hoped to live in tranquillity under a government which only allowed the sovereign to have an accusing fiscal in the tribunals. It is not necessary to relate all that Perez suffered at Madrid during twelve years before he made his escape; these details may be found in a work published by this minister, under the t.i.tle of _Relations_, in the recital which Antonio Valladares de Sotomayor inserted in the _Seminario erudito_, and in a volume in octavo which appeared in 1788, ent.i.tled _The Trial of Antonio Perez_.

Antonio Perez having retired to Aragon in 1590, Philip issued an order for his arrest, which took place at Calatayud. Perez having protested against this measure, and claimed the privilege of the _manifestados_, he was conducted to Saragossa, and confined in the prison of the _kingdom_, or of _liberty_. The prisoners were there free from the immediate authority of the king, and only depended on an intermediate judge called the chief justice of Aragon. It was also called the prison of the _Fuero_ or _Const.i.tutional_, because the const.i.tution of the king alone was named the _Fuero d'Aragon_; it was sometimes named the prison of the _manifestados_; no persons were received into it except those who presented themselves, or claimed the benefit of the const.i.tution, in order to avoid the royal prison, and declared that they submitted to the laws of the kingdom, and invoked the support of its privileges: those of a prisoner in the case of Perez consisted in not being put to the torture; in being set at liberty, after taking an oath to present himself to reply to the charges, and being allowed even if condemned to death by any other judge, to appeal to the tribunal of the chief justice of Aragon[68], who examined if the execution of the sentence was contrary to any _Fuero_ of the kingdom. This tribunal resembles that of France called the _Court of Ca.s.sation_.

Philip II., after many earnest but useless endeavours to induce the permanent deputation of the kingdom to transfer Perez to Madrid, sent the commencement of the trial into Aragon, and gave the necessary powers to his fiscal at Saragossa, to accuse him of having made false reports to the king, which had induced him to put Juan Escobedo to death; of having forged letters from the cabinet, and revealed state secrets.

After many incidents, Perez reduced the king to the necessity of renouncing the prosecution, by a public act on the 18th of August, in order to avoid the disgrace of seeing him acquitted.

His majesty, however, reserved to himself the right of making use of his privileges; and to prevent Perez from obtaining his liberty, he caused another trial to be commenced, under the form of an _inquest_[69], before the regent of the royal audience of Aragon. To give occasion for this trial, it was decided that the domestics of the king were exempted from the privileges of the _Fueros_, and that Antonio Perez was the king's servant, in the office of Secretary of State. Perez a.s.serted that the Secretary of State was a servant of the public, and had never been confounded with the king's domestics; that supposing he had been of that cla.s.s, the law could only extend to the Secretary of State for Aragon; that the const.i.tution only alluded to those royal domestics who were natives of Aragon; that no one could be tried twice for the same crime before two different tribunals; that he had been tried at Madrid in 1582; that he then submitted to much ill-treatment, rather than justify himself by divulging the private letters of the king, which he had in his possession; lastly, that though the papers useful in his defence had been obtained from his wife by fraudulent means, yet he had still doc.u.ments enough to justify himself entirely.

Perez had, in fact, retained several notes in the king's own hand-writing, which were sufficient to exculpate him: he sent copies of them to the Marquis d'Almenara and other persons attached to the king, and told them that having been informed that his majesty was vexed that his letters had been exposed in the trial, he wished to spare him the pain of seeing other original doc.u.ments presented, which contained very important secrets relating to different people; but if the disposition to persecute him continued, he would produce them, because he was no longer capable of making useless sacrifices to the prejudice of his wife and seven children.

The _inquest_ was then given up, and Perez demanded his liberty on his parole, or at least on giving security; this was refused by the regent: he then appealed to the privileges of the kingdom against force, before the tribunal of the chief justice, who did not show him more favour.

It appears that Perez then, with his companion in misfortune, Juan Francis Mayorini, formed a plan to escape into Bearn. Their design was discovered at the moment they were about to execute it, but Perez conducted himself with so much address, that he reduced his part in the transaction to a simple suspicion.

The deposition of the witnesses before the regent furnished the Inquisition with a pretext to prosecute Perez; this event was agreeable to the Court, because no means to prolong the _inquest_ could be invented.

On the 19th of February, 1591, the regent wrote to the inquisitor, Molina, that Perez and Mayorini intended to escape from prison to go to Bearn, and to other places in France, where the heretics resorted, with intentions which would be proved by the declarations of witnesses.

The proof mentioned in this letter is an attestation, without date, given by the notary, Juan Montanes, into which had been copied the 8th chapter of the first additions and the 5th of the second, which had been made to the princ.i.p.al charges against Perez by the royal fiscal, and the depositions which had been obtained from Juan Louis de Luna, Anton de la Almunia and Diego Bustamente. In these chapters an attempt had been made to prove, "that Antonio Perez and Juan Francis Mayorini intended to escape from confinement, saying that they intended to go to Bearn, to Vendome and his sister[70], and to other parts of France, where they would find many heretics inimical to his majesty; that he hoped to be well received, because Perez knew a great many state secrets which he could communicate to them; that they had added to this discourse many expressions criminal and offensive to the majesty of the king, and that they were resolved to do him as much harm as they could." I should not have believed that such depositions would have been sufficient to denounce Perez to the Inquisition as guilty of heresy, if I had not seen the writings of the trial.

We may be permitted to suppose, from what pa.s.sed at Madrid, and the commencement of the _inquest_ which threatened Perez with capital punishment, that the accusation of heresy was a stroke of policy of the agents of the king. They did not dare to present the depositions they had obtained as being decisive, but they hoped that when the holy office began the trial of their victim, the charges would be multiplied.

The inquisitors of Saragossa were Don Alphonso Molina de Medrano, and Don Juan Hurtado de Mendoza: the one was the cousin of the Marquis d'Almenara, and the other an intriguing and immoral man, who wished to obtain a bishopric at any price. For this reason the marquis placed more confidence in him than in his cousin, who was less learned, and too good to become a persecutor. In fact, Don Juan avoided, as much as possible, taking any part in this transaction, and even obtained leave to remove to another tribunal. Molina received the letter of the regent, and the depositions which accompanied it; but instead of communicating them to the tribunal, he sent them by the first courier to Quiroga, the inquisitor-general. The Marquis d'Almenara gave information of the event to the Count de Chinchon, who communicated it the king; after having consulted the cardinal, Philip commanded him to take proper measures to prove the heresy of Perez, and to punish him accordingly. On the 5th of March, Quiroga ordained that Molina alone should receive the depositions; that the inquisitors should examine them without the concurrence of the diocesan and consultors, and send them immediately to Madrid.

On the 20th of March ten witnesses were examined: Diego Bustamente, the servant of Perez, and Juan de Basante, a teacher of Latin, who often saw him in prison, quoted sentences which, in the original, did not prove anything against him, but which, on being separated from the others, had a meaning which gave an appearance of justice to the measure employed.

The tribunal remitted the information to Quiroga, who sent it to Fray Diego de Chabes, who qualified four propositions imputed to Perez, and one to Mayorini.

The latter was reduced to some indecent oaths, used by Italians, which had escaped Mayorini in losing at play, and were qualified as _heretical blasphemies_; this was sufficient to authorize his imprisonment.

_First proposition, taken from the testimony of Diego de Bustamente._--Some one told Perez not to speak ill of Don John of Austria: he replied, "After being accused by the king of having disguised the sense of my letters, and betraying the secrets of the council, it is just that I should vindicate myself without respect of persons: _If G.o.d the Father put any obstacle in the way of it, I would cut off his nose for having permitted the king to behave like a disloyal knight towards me._"--QUALIFICATION. This proposition is blasphemous, scandalous, offensive to pious ears, and approaching to the heresy of the Vaudois, who suppose that G.o.d the Father has a body.

_Second proposition, taken from the deposition of Juan de Basante._--Antonio Perez considering the bad state of his affairs, said to me one day, in a fit of grief and anger: "I shall perhaps no longer believe in G.o.d. _One would say that he sleeps during my trial; if he does not perform a miracle in my favour, I shall lose all faith._"--QUALIFICATION. This proposition is scandalous, offensive to pious ears, and suspected of heresy, because it supposes that G.o.d sleeps, and has an intimate relation with the preceding proposition. The two remaining accusations were very similar, with similar qualifications. It appears that the words he used were uttered in moments of grief and despair. It is remarkable that the Inquisition has provided for this case, for in one of their ordinances it is decreed, that no person shall be arrested for uttering a blasphemy, when excited by impatience or rage. To this may be added, that the proof was defective, since the second proposition rested solely on the testimony of Basante. With respect to the three others, I shall quote the third article of the instruction of Toledo, in 1498. "We also command the inquisitors to be prudent when a person is to be arrested, and not to issue the decree _until they_ have obtained sufficient proof of the crime of heresy imputed to the accused."

However, as religion was only the ostensible motive for this trial, the Supreme Council, after having seen the censures, decreed on the 21st of May, that Perez and Mayorini should be arrested and confined in the secret prisons of the Inquisition, that they should be strictly watched, and arrested so promptly, that no one should have any suspicion of it.

On the 24th of May, the inquisitors sent an order to the grand alguazil of the holy office, to seize the persons of the accused. The gaoler of the prison of the kingdom declared, that he could not give them up without an order from the chief justice, or one of his lieutenants. The inquisitors wrote on the same day to the lieutenant, and commanded him on pain of excommunication, and a penalty of a thousand ducats, to give up the prisoners in the s.p.a.ce of three hours, _without allowing the Fuero of the manifestation to be any obstacle, since it could not be applied to a trial for heresy; and for that reason the inquisitors revoked and annulled any such interpretation of the Fuero, as preventing the free exercise of the holy tribunal_.

The secretary presented these letters to the chief justice, Don Juan de la Nuza, in a public audience, in the presence of five judges who formed his council, and of all the persons employed in his tribunal. The chief justice submitted to the order of the inquisitors, and the prisoners were conducted to the Inquisition in separate carriages. It was afterwards known that the courier, who brought the order from Madrid, also brought letters from the Count de Chinchon to the Marquis d'Almenara, who, in a private conversation with the chief justice, persuaded him not to insist upon his privileges; and that the two letters of the inquisitors were written on the same night, though they were dated the 24th, because they were previously informed by the marquis of what would take place.

Perez, who foresaw his danger, had imparted his fears to the Count d'Aranda and other n.o.bles, who resolved to oppose this measure as an infraction of the most valuable privilege of the kingdom. Don Diego Fernandez de Heredia, baron de Barboles, afterwards declared, in the trial which brought him to the scaffold, that the Count and Perez agreed to a.s.sa.s.sinate the Marquis d'Almenara, because if they got rid of him, the king and the Count de Chinchon would renounce their plan of making a Castilian the viceroy of Aragon, who would not fail to destroy all their privileges in succession.

Perez, in his _Relations_, informs us that the father of the Count d'Aranda above mentioned, and several other persons, claimed and were allowed the privileges of the _Fuero de Manifestados_, when arrested by the Inquisition.

When Perez was transferred to the prison of the holy office, he told his servants to inform the Baron de Barboles and several other gentlemen of the circ.u.mstance. At this news the Aragonese excited the people of Saragossa to revolt, by cries of "Treason! Treason! Live the nation!

Live our liberty! Live the Fueros! Death to the traitors!" In less than an hour, more than a thousand men, under arms, surrounded the house of the Marquis d'Almenara, and treated him with so much violence, that he would have been killed if he had not been immediately taken into the royal prison, where he died of his wounds fourteen days after. The insurgents insulted the archbishop, and threatened to kill him and burn his hotel if he did not make the inquisitors give up the prisoners: they menaced the viceroy Bishop of Teruel in the same manner, and a.s.sembling to the number of three thousand men, began to set fire to the Castle of Aljaferia, (an ancient palace of the Moorish kings, where the Inquisition was held,) crying that they would burn the inquisitors if they did not give up Perez and Mayorini. Many other events occurred in the city, because Molina de Medrano obstinately persisted in endeavouring to quell the insurrection, contrary to the entreaties twice repeated of the archbishop, the viceroy, of the Counts d'Aranda and Morata, and of many of the first n.o.blemen of Aragon. At last, finding that the danger increased, he appeared to yield, and announced that he would not set the prisoners at liberty, but would give them for the prison of the holy office that of the kingdom, and they were removed thither on the same day.

The inquisitors were left in a critical situation, and did not dare to arrest any one; they addressed several letters to the commissioners of the holy office, some of them accompanied by the order to the lieutenants and their decree, to show that they had not violated the prison of the kingdom, but had only received the persons given up to them by the chief justice: the others were sent with the bull of Pius V., dated 1st of April, 1569, concerning those who opposed the exercise of the holy office; they also proposed to publish an edict, excommunicating several persons already noted in the registers of the Inquisition as having opposed the execution of the orders of the inquisitors, but they were persuaded to relinquish the intention by the archbishop. At this period, some persons who fled to Madrid when the revolt took place, and who were known to be devoted to the king, were examined as witnesses; and it appeared from their depositions, that the Counts d'Aranda and Morata, the Barons de Barboles, de Biescas, de Purroy, de la Laguna, and many others of the first n.o.blemen of the country, had excited the people to sedition, and increased the disturbance by persuading them that the _Fuero_ was attacked.

The members of the permanent deputation of the kingdom thought, that being interested in the defence of the political const.i.tution, they might be accused of having failed in their duty; they therefore endeavoured to justify themselves, by declaring that as theirs was not an armed body or a judicial authority, they could not prevent the revolt. They also thought proper to p.r.o.nounce by a commission of jurisconsults, that those who had given up the prisoners to the inquisitors, from the prison of the kingdom, had violated its privileges. However the secret intrigues of the inquisitors, the archbishop, the viceroy, and the chief justice were so adroitly conducted, that some members remarked, that four lawyers were not enough to discuss the rights of the king and the holy office. This observation caused nine other jurisconsults to be appointed, and it was decreed that they should decide by a majority of three votes. They declared that the inquisitors had exceeded their powers, when they cancelled the _manifestation_, because no authority could do so, except that of the king, and the deputies a.s.sembled in Cortes; but that if the inquisitors required the prisoners to be given up to them, and the _privilege of manifestation was suspended_ during their prosecution, it would not be contrary to the laws of the kingdom. Antonio Perez wrote to the deputation, to represent that his cause was that of all the Aragonese; several of his friends undertook to shew, that the _suspension_ was equally contrary to the laws, since the prisoner might be tortured, was deprived of his right to his liberty on oath, and was exposed to the misery of an interminable trial; these efforts were all in vain. It was privately decided that the inquisitors should demand the prisoners a second time, without threats or orders, and resting only on the _suspension of the privileges_. The king was given to understand that it would be useful if he wrote to the Duke de Villahermosa, and the Counts d'Aranda, de Morata, and de Sastago, to engage them to lend a.s.sistance to the viceroy, with their relations and friends, and to aid the const.i.tuted authorities, if any event rendered it necessary. Philip followed the advice, and his letters to those n.o.blemen were as gracious and flattering, as if he had been ignorant of the part they had taken in the late disturbances.

Perez now saw no safety except in flight, and had everything in readiness to force his prison, when he was betrayed some hours before, by the perfidious Juan de Basante, his false friend and accomplice.

The removal of Perez was to take place on the 24th of September; the Inquisition, the viceroy, the archbishop, the deputation of the kingdom, the munic.i.p.ality, and the civil and military governors, were all to a.s.sist. The inquisitors had summoned to Saragossa, from the neighbouring towns, a great number of the _familiars_ of the holy office, and the military governor had in attendance three thousand men, well armed. This expedition was to have been made without the knowledge of the inhabitants; but the Barons de Barboles, de Biescas, and de Purroy, and some other individuals, were informed of it. At the moment when the prisoners were coming out of the prison, in the presence of the princ.i.p.al magistrates of the city, and while the avenues and streets through which they were to pa.s.s were lined with soldiers, a furious troop of insurgents broke through the lines, killed a great number of men, dispersed the others, put the magistrates to flight, and seizing Perez and Mayorini, carried them off in triumph, shouting, _Live our liberty! Live the Fueros of Aragon!_ Perez and Mayorini were received into the house of the Baron de Barboles; when they had reposed for a few minutes, they were taken out of the town, and taking different roads, hastened away from it.

Perez repaired to Tauste, with the intention of crossing the Pyrenees by the valley of Roncal, but as the frontiers were strictly guarded, he returned to Saragossa. He entered it in disguise, on the 2nd of October, and remained concealed in the house of the Baron de Biescas until the 10th of November. He then thought it dangerous to remain there longer, because Don Alphonso de Vargas was advancing with an army to take the town, and punish the rebels. This event has been related very incorrectly in several histories.

The presence of Perez in Saragossa was suspected by means of some letters from Madrid, which Basante had seen, and of which he had given information. The inquisitors searched the houses of the Baron de Barboles and several other persons. Don Antonio Morejon, the second inquisitor[71], suspected that de Biescas knew the place of his concealment, and pressed him to discover it, promising that Perez should be well treated if he presented himself voluntarily. Perez had several times declared that he would surrender to the holy office, if he was not almost certain that he should be given up to the government, which would immediately execute the sentence of death pa.s.sed upon him in 1590, without allowing him to be heard. On the 11th of November, Perez went to Sallen, in the Pyrenees, on the estates of the Baron de Biescas.

On the 18th he wrote to the Princess of Bearn, to ask an asylum in the states of her brother, Henry IV., or to be permitted to pa.s.s through them to some other country. This letter was given to the princess by Gil de Mesa, an Aragonese gentleman, and an old and faithful friend of Perez.

Catherine received Perez into her brother's states on the 24th of November, when the Barons de Concas and de la Pinilla arrived at Sallen, with three hundred men, to take him; they had offered to betray him if they were pardoned: the first had been condemned by the Inquisition, for having sent horses to France, and the other was to be executed for having excited a revolt, in an attempt of the same nature.

Perez went to Pau, and while he was in that place the inquisitor Morejon again requested the Baron de Biescas to persuade him to submit to the Inquisition; he replied that he would do so, if they would promise to try him at Saragossa instead of Madrid, and that he should require that his wife and children should be set at liberty, of which they had been deprived, although they were innocent. Perez made the same reply to another requisition.

In order to satisfy the curiosity of the Princess Catherine and her subjects, Perez composed two little works, the first called _Morceau Historique, sur ce qui est arrivee a Saragosse d'Aragon, le_ 24th Septembre, 1591; and the other, _Precis du Recit des Avantures d'Antoine Perez, depuis le Commencement, de sa premiere Detention jusqu'a sa Sortie des Domaines du Roi Catholique_. These works were printed at Pau, without the name of the author; the inquisitors examined them, and derived from them some additional charges.

Philip II. and the inquisitors offered life, offices, money, and honours, to any condemned criminal who would kill Perez or bring him as a prisoner into Spain. I refer the reader for all that relates to this part of the history to the work ent.i.tled _Relations_, in which Perez takes the name of _Raphael Peregrino_. Perez obtained leave from Henry IV. to go to London, where he was extremely well received by Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Leicester; he afterwards went to Paris, where he pa.s.sed the rest of his life, pining unceasingly for his wife and children.

On the 15th of February, 1592, the inquisitors declared Antonio Perez to be a fugitive; they affixed an edict on the metropolitan church of Saragossa, summoning him to appear within one month; this measure was most revoltingly unjust, since they well knew that Perez was in a country then at war with Spain, and the laws of the holy office allowed even the s.p.a.ce of a year, according to the distance the accused had to travel.

The declarations of the witnesses who were interrogated at Madrid, after the first revolt of Saragossa in 1591, deposed to facts to which no importance could have been attached, if they had related to other persons and events. But Antonio Perez was concerned in them, and that was sufficient to cause them to be censured as _audacious_, and _suspected of heresy_. I shall not stay to prove the insufficiency of this act, but shall give the third of the propositions as an example of the rest. "In speaking of Philip II., and of Vendome, Antonio Perez said that the king was a tyrant, but that Vendome would be a great monarch, for he was an excellent prince, and governed the state to the satisfaction of every one; that he therefore rejoiced on hearing of his victories, and _that it was not heresy to pay court to him and speak to him_." QUALIFICATION. "The accused shews himself to be impious in respect to G.o.d and the holy Catholic faith, a favourer and violently suspected of heresy; and as he now lives in the midst of heretics, it proves that he is himself an heretic."

The inquisitors, who wished to favour the views of the court at any rate, took advantage of a vague report, communicated to them by one of their _familiars_, that Antonio Perez was descended from the Jews, because in the borough of Hariza, near Montreal, from whence his family came, there had lived a new Christian called Juan Perez, who was burnt by the Inquisition as a judaizing heretic. The registers of the holy office were immediately consulted, and it appeared that one Juan Perez de Fariza had been burnt, and that Antonio Perez de Fariza had died a heretic.

Pascual Gilberte, a priest and commissioner of the holy office, was appointed, on the 16th of April, 1592, to ascertain if there was any degree of relationship between the condemned heretics and the father of Antonio Perez. Many witnesses were examined, both in Montreal, and the neighbouring towns, but they all declared that the two families were perfectly distinct.

All that is known concerning the genealogy of Perez is, that he was the natural son of Gonzalez Perez and Donna Jane d'Escobar, and that he was legitimatized by Charles V. That his paternal grandfather was Bartholemew Perez, secretary to the Inquisition of Calahorra, that his grandmother was Donna Louisa Perez del Hierro, of a n.o.ble family of Segovia; that he was great grandson to Juan Perez, an inhabitant of Montreal, and of Mary Tirado his wife; and that there was no relationship, direct or indirect, between his family and that of Juan and Antonio Perez de Fariza. This was afterwards fully proved by the wife and children of Antonio Perez. It must be observed, that if the inquisitors had wished to be truly informed, they might have had a copy of the contract of marriage between Perez and Donna Jane Coello, which states that his father was born at Segovia. In that city, at Calahorra, and even in the Supreme Council, they might have found his real genealogy.

However, the fiscal abused the privilege of secrecy, in the accusation he brought against Perez, on the 6th of July, by supposing that he was descended from the Jews, in order to strengthen the suspicion of heresy, according to the custom of the Inquisition. The accusation was composed of forty-three articles, each more vague than the others, and only founded on words uttered without reflection, during a fit of rage, or in extreme pain, which had no connexion with doctrine, and concerning which no two witnesses agreed in the time, place, or circ.u.mstances.

On the 14th of August the fiscal demanded that the depositions of the witnesses should be published; and on the 16th the qualifiers again a.s.sembled to censure the propositions already noted, and the works printed at Pau. They censured sixteen as _audacious_ and _erroneous_; some others as _blasphemous_, and _approaching to heresy_, and concluded that Antonio Perez was _suspected of heresy in the most violent degree_[72].

On the 18th the fiscal required that Perez should be declared contumaceous, and that the definitive sentence should be p.r.o.nounced. On the 7th of September, the diocesan, different consultors, and jurisconsults (among whom was the first informer, Don Urban Ximenez de Aragues, regent of the royal audience) were convoked, and voted the punishment of _relaxation_ in effigy. The Supreme _Council_ confirmed the sentence on the 13th of October, and on the 20th the judges p.r.o.nounced the definitive sentence, condemning Perez as a _formal heretic_, _a convicted Hugonot_, and _an obstinate impenitent_, to be _relaxed_ in person when he could be taken, and in the mean time to suffer that punishment in effigy, with the mitre and San-benito. His property was confiscated, and his children and grandchildren in the male line devoted to infamy, besides other penalties. Many other persons suffered in this _auto-da-fe_, of whom an account will be given in the next chapter.

Perez was in England when he was condemned to death. A conspiracy against his life by some Spaniards was discovered there: it was renewed at Paris by the Baron de la Pinilla, who declared that he had been sent to kill him by Don Juan Idiaquez, minister to Philip II.