decided afterwards upon the location of the said islands, we were in agreement with a map on which they had located them. As the decision was not unanimous they locked up the said map and would not produce it again, although they were requested to do so by us. And therefore, they voted afterwards upon the location of the said islands contrary to their own determination of them in the said map, and contrary to what we voted in the said case. They did this contrary to all reason and right, as was proved afterwards by a globe that they showed, on which both the island of Sant Antonio and that of La Sal were exactly where we located them, as is evident from the judicial records of this case. Consequently they acted contrary to what they had declared and voted. In the same way it was proved by the said globe [the first one] that the voyage eastward from the said island of La Sal to the Malucos, was greater than they had declared at first; and the said globe did not conform with the map they had shown first, nor even with another globe they produced. It is adduced from all the above by, evidence and clear demonstration, that the said distance of degrees asserted by them is untrue. Therefore they sought and tried to delay these negotiations, alleging that maps and globes were insufficient instruments from which to ascertain the truth, and that the demarcation could not be determined by them. They begged insistently that other methods of eclipses and fixed stars be sought, not taking into account, as we have said, that these are causes for great delay; for the consideration of such eclipses, and the movement of the moon, and its visual conjunction with any fixed star, and all other like mathematical considerations can
