In the Royal Palace of the Inquisition of Barcelona, on the ninth day of October, one thousand six hundred and thirtyfive, the Inquisitor, Dr Domingo Abbad y Huerta being at his morning audience, ordered the above Pedro Ginesta to be brought from prison, which being done, and the prisoner present, he was Questioned, if he remembered anything which he was bound to declare in discharge of his conscience, according to the oath he had sworn. Answered, that he had nothing more to say. The prisoner was then informed that Doctor Francisco Magrina, his counsel, was present, with whom he might communicate and take measures for his defence. The publication of the testimony against the prisoner, with his answers to the same, were then read to the said Dr Francisco Magrina, who proceeded to confer with the prisoner about his defence. Having done this he received from the hands of the prisoner a sheet of paper, upon which he drew up articles of defence which were then read to the prisoner and he declared that he made a formal presentation of the same. Here follows the defence. DEFENCE. ‘Although Pedro Ginesta, a native of France, and by trade a brazier, has no necessity for any defence against the charges brought against him by the Promotor Fiscal of this Holy Office, as may be clearly seen from the testimony; nevertheless, for greater security, and with an express declaration that his impeachment of the testimony of the witnesses against him, is not occasioned by a desire to injure them, but solely to defend himself, he states the following. ‘1st. He confesses that he has committed an offence, but denies that he ought to receive any ordinary or extraordinary punishment for the same, which is the truth, because, ‘2d. Although it be the fact that he ate meat on St Bartholomew’s eve last, yet it is not the fact that he did it through malice, or from the intention to transgress the ordinances of the Church; which declaration is the truth. ‘3d. The said Pedro Ginesta has, in consequence of his occupation, spent his life in travelling from one place to another, attending mass where he happened to be on Sundays and holidays, not being able to give more attention to the duties of religion; and in consequence has been ignorant of the fast days, by not hearing them announced; which is the truth. ‘4th. For this reason, and being ignorant that a fast was prescribed on St Bartholomew’s day, he declares he should not have eaten, had he known the same; which is the truth. ‘5th. Although it be true he was informed that he ought not to eat flesh at that time, as it was St Bartholomew’s eve, yet those present suffered him to eat, notwithstanding, and made no remonstrances; which is the truth. ‘6th. The said Pedro Ginesta, besides being a person of simple understanding, is very aged, being more than eighty years old, at which time the memory is apt to fail, as old age is a _species infirmitatis_; which is the truth.