Before proceeding with the history of the modern Spanish Inquisition, we shall give here some account of the government of the old tribunal, and the proceedings of the ancient Inquisitors. "The first Inquisitors had no fixed salary," says Llorente; "the Holy Office was founded on devotion and zeal for the faith; its members were almost all monks, who had made a vow of poverty, and the priests who were associated in their labours were generally canons, or provided with benefices. But when the Inquisitors began to make journeys, accompanied by recorders, alguazils, and an armed force, the Pope decreed that all their expenses should be defrayed by the bishops, on the pretence that the Inquisitors laboured for the destruction of heresy in their dioceses. The expenses of the Inquisition were afterwards defrayed by the fines and confiscation of the condemned heretics; these resources were the only funds of the Holy Office; it never possessed any fixed revenue." No sooner was an Inquisitor appointed by the Roman Pontiff, than the magistrates of the place were commanded to arrest all persons suspected of heresy, to furnish the Inquisitor and his attendants with lodgings, and to protect them from every insult. One of the first acts of the Inquisitor, was to publish an order, requiring all heretics voluntarily to confess themselves to be such, and promising them absolution, accompanied by slight penance, provided their confession was made within a stated period. Those who were accused, and did not appear within the time prescribed, were shortly afterwards arrested and lodged in the Inquisition. The examination of the accused person soon followed, and his answers were compared with the testimonies of the informer and witnesses against him. If he confessed himself to be guilty of one heretical word, he was immediately asked to abjure all his errors, as the admission of one was considered an acknowledgment of all the crimes laid to his charge. If he consented, he was reconciled, after undergoing various penances; but if he refused, he was delivered over to the secular judge as an obstinate heretic. When an accused person denied all the charges, he was furnished with a copy of the process, but the names of the accuser and witnesses were carefully concealed. Many questions were asked at his examination; such as, if he had any enemies; if he knew their motives for hating him; if he suspected any particular person of wishing to ruin him, &c. In the event of his still denying the charges, notwithstanding he was convicted or strongly suspected, he was tortured to make him confess his heresies. If the crime imputed to the accused was not proved, he was acquitted, but still the name of the accuser was withheld.[4]