CONTENTS. Court of Philip II. — Character of that Prince and his Minis- CHAP. II. by his family against Perez. - Hesitating conduct of Philip. Philip's prosecution of Perez before the Court of the Justicia Mayor of the kingdom of Aragon. - Compulsory desistance of Philip. Accusation of heresy brought against Perez. — His removal into the prison of the Holy Office.- - Insurrec- Inquiry into the troubles of Saragossa. New and cleverly concerted attempt to replace Perez in the hands of the CHAP. VI. Formation of a Castilian army upon the frontiers of Aragon. — Its entrance into Saragossa. Arrest and execution of the Justicia Mayor.- Execution or flight of the principal insur- gents. Sentence of death pronounced by the tribunal of the Holy Office against Perez and sixty-nine others found CHAP. VII. Arrival of Perez in France. Repeated attempts of the agents of the Spanish Government to assassinate him. His resi- dence in England, and friendship with the Earl of Essex. His return, and position in France.-What part he takes in the policy of Henry IV. and Queen Elizabeth against CHAP. VIII. Useless efforts of Perez to re-enter Spain after the accession of Philip III. - Liberation of his wife and children. - Perez' voyage to England in the hope of obtaining his pardon by ΑΝΤΟΝΙΟ PEREZ AND PHILIP II. CHAPTER I. COURT OF PHILIP II. — CHARACTER OF THAT PRINCE AND HIS MINISTER ANTONIO PEREZ. TRUE CAUSES OF THE DEATH OF THE SECRETARY ESCOVEDO. THE trial of Antonio Perez was one of the most singular occurrences of the sixteenth century, rich as it was in extraordinary events. It belongs to history by the importance of the personages who figure in it, by the causes that produced it, and which cast a strong light upon the character and policy of Philip II., by its consequences in provoking the revolt, invasion, and subjection of Aragon, whose ancient constitution was thereby destroyed, and lastly, by the mysteries which it leaves us even now to unravel. 1 B If I had only the Memoirs of Perez to assist me in making a new examination of this important and obscure occurrence, I would not undertake it; not that Perez does not furnish valuable documents respecting it, in his Relaciones, addressed to the opinion of Europe, and in his Memorial, presented to the supreme tribunal of the kingdom of Aragon; but Perez does not tell every thing, and we understand why— because he is a party in the process, and not the historian. He relates then only what serves for his justification, and leaves the rest in the dark. By the aid of new and authentic documents, I hope to elucidate what still appears mysterious in this long and lugubrious drama, and explain the slow and terrible disgrace of Perez, whom Philip II., his accomplice in the murder of Escovedo, secretary to Don Juan of Austria, detained eleven years in prison, put to the torture, punished even in the person of his wife and children, and pursued with his vengeance even on a foreign shore, where he had managed to take refuge after having vainly sheltered himself under the, till then, sovereign rights of Aragon. How was Philip induced to order the murder of Escovedo, the first, if not the sole cause of all these events? What part did Perez take in the execution of that murder? Was he the mere instrument of the suspicious policy of Philip, or did he advise him to rid himself of this secretary, the confident and agent of his brother? If he urged him by his counsels to this extremity, was he guided by reasons of state or by private interest? Did he persuade him to get rid of Escovedo, because the latter exalted the ambitious imagination of Don Juan and entertained him with dangerous projects, or did he make use of this pretext, by deceiving Philip, to rid himself of a man who constrained and blamed his amours with the princess of Eboli, the widow of Ruy Gomez de Sylva, whose creatures they both were? Have these amours, called into question by M. Ranke, an ingenious historian, full of knowledge and authority, any real foundation? and did they, as it has always been believed, cause a rivalry between the king and the minister, Philip II. and Perez? Ought the disgrace of Perez, managed with skilful dissimulation, and pursued with implacable rigour, to be attributed to the policy of Philip, who sacrificed Perez, leaving the whole responsibility of the murder of Escovedo to fall upon himself, or ought we also to seek its cause in the vindictive jealousy of this prince, who showed himself inexorable as soon as he knew that Perez had deceived him? Such are the questions that I shall have to examine and solve. Philip II. was severe and suspicious. He never gave his confidence entirely, and people were not sure of possessing it even when he showed the most apparent proofs of it. They did not perceive the loss of his favour till the moment he struck them. |