In this the defence was heavily handicapped by the suppression of witnesses' names and the garbling of evidence in the publication to protect them from recognition. While occasionally the accused could identify one or two, in general he could only grope blindly and indicate persons with whom he had quarrelled, in the desperate hope that they might chance to be those who had given damaging testimony. Slender as was the prospect of accomplishing this, it was rendered additionally difficult by the obstructions placed in the way of his obtaining and presenting his evidence. He was permitted only to furnish the names of those whom he suspected, with a list of the witnesses on whom he relied to prove enmity and a series of questions to be put to the latter who, during the years of his incarceration might have died or disappeared. We have seen how rigid were the qualifications exacted of witnesses for the defence, so that the inquisitor exercised his discretion as to whom he would admit, nor was he bound to put any interrogations which he deemed irrelevant, or of which he disapproved--indeed, it was held to be the duty of the inquisitor to expurgate the interrogatories and if, in those of _tachas_, there was anything affecting the reputation of a married woman, or the limpieza of a family, it was to be struck out.[171] The whole matter was absolutely in his hands and he could even refuse to admit the prisoner to any defence, as in the case of Martin de Jaen, a Morisco, burnt in the Toledo auto de fe of 1606, or Manuel de Mesones, penanced in that of 1610, on the ground that what they asked for was unnecessary or irrelevant.[172] When defence was permitted, neither the accused nor his advocate had the privilege of examining such witnesses as were admitted, or of drawing forth all that they might have to tell. If they were residents of the city, the inquisitor would summon them; if at a distance, the interrogatories were sent to a commissioner; the witness, to each bald question, would answer yes or no, or perhaps might give some vague details or say that he knew nothing, and there the taking of testimony ended. If inquiries were directed against parties who had not testified, they were generally suppressed, although the instructions were to investigate them also, in order more perfectly to keep the accused in the dark, and it was also suggested that they be examined personally because, as enemies, they might have additional damaging testimony to give. When the witnesses for the defence, as frequently happened, were widely scattered, all this consumed considerable time, during which the prisoner in his cell was gnawing his heart in suspense, and when it was finished he was brought into the audience-chamber, curtly informed that what he had requested had been duly attended to, and asked if he had anything more to say. Under the Instructions of 1561, the results of the interrogations were carefully withheld from him as we have seen above (Vol. II, p.