March 20, 1524; the appointment of the nine Portuguese judges;
the appointment of one attorney for Spain, and two attorneys for
Portugal; and a secretary for Spain, and the same for Portugal.

II They took the solemn oath to act in the sight of God and
conscientiously.

III The judges ordered the attorneys of either side to state their
side of the case, and to proceed with the matter.

IV The attorneys disputed as to who should act as plaintiff. Each
one wished the other to act in this capacity. The Spanish attorney
asserted that this affair was at the instance of Portugal, and that
the ambassadors had been sent for this purpose by that country. The
Portuguese attorney asserted that there was nothing upon the matter
in the treaty, as was well known to Spain. In this wise passed the day.

April 14. On the said bridge. The Portuguese attorneys presented a
notification, asserting that they made no petition; they said that
the King had had possession of Maluco for more than ten years;
therefore Spain ought to ask for and accept the witnesses which,
according to the terms of the treaty of Vitoria, they were prepared
to give as their proofs.

The Spanish attorney gave answer, insisting that the King of
Portugal had moved first in this matter, and therefore should be the
plaintiff. As to the rest he said that the suit was obscure, vague,
and general, insufficient to form a case on possession, and to pass
a sure sentence upon it, let them specify wherein they thought the
treaty was not observed, and let them attempt the fitting remedy and
interdict, and he will answer them.

April 20. In the chapter of the Cathedral church of San Juan at
Badajoz. The attorney for Portugal said that it was not apparent from
the records that his King had moved first in this matter, nor even if
such a thing should be apparent, could it be called a provocation,
because this matter was between those who could not be coerced into
judgment, since they recognized no superior. As to the claim that
their suit was vague, that was no reason why it was not a suit. They
stated clearly that their King had been in possession ten years and
more. Therefore Spain should act as plaintiff.

April 21. Under the same head. The attorney for Spain insisted upon
what he said before, adding only that in regard to this matter being
started by Portugal, they denied what they knew to be so, and such a
thing could be proved quickly. As to Portugal's saying she had be