Although the arguments we have mentioned appear to us slight, yet neither can we attach much importance to the contrast which the favourers of the opposite opinion profess to consider so incredible between the honourable manner in which Galileo was treated throughout the rest of the inquiry, and the suspected harsh proceeding against him. Whether Galileo should be lodged in a prison or a palace, was a matter of far other importance to the Inquisitors and to their hold upon public opinion, than the question whether or not he should be suffered to exhibit a persevering resistance to the censures which they were prepared to cast upon him. Nor need we shrink from the idea, as we might from suspecting of some gross crime, on trivial grounds, one of hitherto unblemished innocence and character. The question may be disencumbered of all such scruples, since one atrocity more or less can do little towards affecting our judgment of the unholy Office of the Inquisition. Delambre, who could find so much to reprehend in Galileo's former uncompromising boldness, is deeply penetrated with the insincerity of his behaviour on the present occasion. He seems to have forgotten that a tribunal which finds it convenient to carry on its inquiries in secret, is always liable to the suspicion of putting words into the mouth of its victims; and if it were worth while, there is sufficient internal evidence that the language which Galileo is made to hold in his defence and confession, is rather to be read as the composition of his judges than his own. For instance, in one of the letters which we have extracted[87], it may be seen that this obnoxious work was already in forward preparation as early as 1610, and yet he is made to confess, and the circumstance appears to be brought forward in aggravation of his guilt, that he began to write it after the prohibition which he had received in 1616. The abjuration was drawn up in the following terms:— _The Abjuration of Galileo._