Upon this day, the Portuguese attorneys declared that Alcazaba could not take the oath or act as judge, inasmuch as he had fled from Portugal with intent to be disloyal to his King, who had, for good and sufficient causes, refused him certain rewards, and had ordered him tried for certain offenses committed in India.  This was the reason for his flight, and therefore he was a suspicious person and ought not act as judge.  The attorneys asserted strenuously that they would not assent to anything Alcazaba did, and that their King had written the Emperor to appoint another in his place.

Nevertheless the judges ordered that he be sworn and he took the oath with the others.  Immediately Doctor Ribera, attorney for Spain, said that the reasons were trifling, and seemed to have been invented to delay the case.  A copy was given to the attorneys for Portugal and the day of

April 12. Ibid.  The latter said that they held their suspicions justly, and therefore the King had written to the Emperor, etc.

April 20.  In the chapter of San Juan, the Cathedral church of Badajoz.  A despatch from the King of Portugal was read, removing Bernardo Perez from participation in the case, “because of certain reasons that move us” [could he have been refused by the Emperor in reply to the refusal of Alcazaba? could the said Perez be a Spaniard?] and appointing in his place master Margallo.  Another provision of their Majesties was read, removing Simon de Alcazaba, “because he must occupy himself with matters connected with our service,” and appointing in his stead Master Alcarez; dated Burgos, April 10, 1524.—­Secretary Cobos.  Margallo and Alcarez took the oath and the matter of the demarcation was begun, by the reading of the treaty of Tordesillas of June 5, 1494, [183] with the confirmation given to the same at Arevalo, July 2, of the same year; and the agreement of May 7, 1495, as to the prorogation of the ten months allowed to the caravels to determine the said demarcation.

April 23. Ibid.  They began to treat formally of the matter, and in accordance with what had been discussed before, the attorneys propounded three questions.

1st.  In what manner the demarcation should be determined.

2d.  How the islands of Cabo Verde were to be situated and located in their proper place.

3d.  From which of the said islands they should measure the three hundred and seventy leagues.

The judges for Spain voted that these questions should be examined in this order.

May 4.  In Yelves, in the town hall.  The attorneys for Portugal deferred their voting until this day, and voted that the order of examination should be in the inverse order.  Immediately the deputies for Spain declared that in order to avoid discussions they made the declaration of the following writ.  In substance this was reduced to saying that they ought to determine first the manner of locating