Those who have acquired any experience in criminal proceedings, are aware of the great advantages which may be derived from the comparison of the testimony of the witnesses in the defence of the accused; but the direction given to the proceedings by the Inquisition is such, that the lawyer can rarely find any means of defence but that which arises from the difference and variations in the depositions on the actions and words imputed to the prisoner. As this is not sufficient, (because the semi-proof exists,) the defender generally demands to see the prisoner, that he may inquire if it is his intention to challenge the witnesses, to destroy, either in part, or entirely, the proof established against him. If he replies in the affirmative, the inquisitors order proceedings to prove the irregularity of the witnesses. _Proof._ It is then necessary to separate all the original declarations of the witnesses from the process, and send them to the places which they inhabit to receive a _ratification_. This takes place without the knowledge of the prisoner, and as he is not represented by any person during this formality, it is impossible that the challenge of a witness should succeed, even if he was the greatest enemy of the prisoner. If the witness was at Madrid at the time of the instruction, and afterwards went to the Philippine Isles, the course of the trial was suspended, and the prisoner was obliged to wait till the ratification arrived from Asia. If he demanded an audience, to complain of the delay, he was answered with ambiguity, that the tribunal could not proceed with greater haste, as it was occupied with particular measures. The prisoner made his challenge of the witnesses by naming those whom he considered as his enemies, giving his reasons for mistrusting them, and writing on the margin of each article the names of those persons who could attest the facts which are the causes of the challenge. The inquisitors decree that they shall be examined, unless some motive prevents it. As the prisoner is not acquainted with the proceedings, he often accuses persons who have not been summoned as witnesses. The article in which they are mentioned is passed over with those of the witnesses who have not deposed against him, or who have spoken in his favour. Thus he encounters his accusers only by chance. It sometimes happens that the procurator-fiscal secretly obtains the proof of the morality of the witnesses, in order to destroy the effect of the challenge; and as this is more easy to accomplish than the measures taken by the prisoner, they are generally rendered useless, because in doubtful cases the inquisitors are always disposed to depend upon the witness, if he is not known to be the declared enemy of the accused. _Publication of the Proofs._