The History of the Inquisition of Spain from the Time of its Establishment to the Reign of Ferdinand Part 6

When the qualification has been made, the procurator-fiscal demands that the denounced person shall be removed to the _secret prisons_ of the _holy office_. The tribunal has three sorts of prisons, public, intermediate, and secret. The first are those where persons are imprisoned, who are not guilty of heresy, but of some crime which the Inquisition has the privilege of punis.h.i.+ng: the second are destined for those servants of the holy office who have committed some crime in the exercise of their functions, without incurring suspicion of heresy.

Those who are detained in these prisons are permitted to communicate with others, unless they are condemned to solitary confinement. The secret prisons are those where all heretics, or persons suspected of heresy, are confined; they can only communicate with the judges of the tribunal.

These prisons are not, as they have been represented, damp, dirty, and unhealthy; they are vaulted chambers, well lighted, not damp, and large enough for a person to take some exercise in. The real horrors of the prisons are, that no one can enter them without becoming infamous in public opinion; and the solitude and the darkness to which the prisoner is condemned for fifteen hours in the day during the winter, as he is not allowed light before the hour of seven in the morning, or after four in the evening. Some authors have stated, that the prisoners were chained; these means are only employed on extraordinary occasions, and to prevent them from destroying themselves.

_First Audiences._

In the three first days following the imprisonment of the culprit, he had three _audiences_ of _monition_, or caution, recommending him to speak the truth, without concealing anything that he had done or said, or that he can impute to others, contrary to the faith. He was told that if he followed this recommendation he would be treated leniently; but in the contrary case, he would be proceeded against with severity. Until then the prisoner is ignorant of the cause of his arrest; he is only told that no person is taken to the prison of the holy office without sufficient proof that he has spoken against the Catholic faith, and, therefore, it is for his interest to confess his crimes voluntarily.

Some prisoners confessed themselves guilty of the crimes stated in the preparatory instruction; others acknowledged more; others less; generally the prisoners declared that their consciences did not reproach them, but that they would endeavour to recollect the faults which they had committed if the accusations of the witnesses were read to them.

The advantages of the confession were, that it lessened the duration of the trial, and rendered the punishments inflicted on the accused less severe when the reconciliation took place. Whatever promises might be made to the prisoners, they could not avoid the disgrace of the _san-benito_ and _auto-da-fe_, or preserve their honour or their property, if they acknowledged themselves _formal_ heretics.

Another custom of the Inquisition was to examine the prisoner on his genealogy and parentage, in order to discover by the registers of the tribunal if any of his family had been punished for heresy, supposing that he might have inherited the erroneous doctrines of his ancestors.

He was also obliged to recite the _Pater_, the _Credo_, and other forms of Christian doctrine, because the presumption that he had erred in his faith was stronger, if he did not know them, had forgotten them, or if he made mistakes in the repet.i.tion. In short, the Inquisition employed every means, and neglected nothing in the trial of the prisoners, to make them appear guilty of heresy, and all this was done with an appearance of charity and compa.s.sion, and in the name of Jesus Christ.

_Charges._

When the ceremony of the three first audiences is finished, the procurator-fiscal forms his act of accusation against the prisoner, from the preliminary instruction. Although a semi-proof only exists, he reports the facts in the depositions as if they were proved; and what is still more illegal, he does not reduce the articles of his _requisition_ to the number of facts, but following the practice in forming the extracts of the propositions for the act of _qualification_, he multiplies them according to the variations in the statements; so that an accusation which ought to be reduced to one point, contains five or six charges, which appear to indicate that the accused has advanced so many heretical opinions on different occasions, without any foundation but the different manner in which each witness relates the conversation.

This mode of proceeding produces the worst effects; it confuses the prisoner where the charges are read to him, and if he has not coolness and intelligence, he imagines that several crimes are imputed to him, and replies, for instance, to the third article, and relates the facts in different words from those which he employed in answering the second; this variation taking place in each article, he sometimes contradicts himself, and thus furnishes the fiscal with fresh accusations against him, for he is accused of not adhering to truth in his replies.

_Torture._

Although the prisoner has confessed all that the witnesses deposed against him in the first audiences, yet the fiscal terminates his _requisition_ by saying, that he is guilty of concealment and denial, that he is, therefore, impenitent and obstinate, and demands that the question shall be applied to the accused.

It is true, that it is so long since torture has been inflicted by the inquisitors, that the custom may be looked upon as abolished, and the fiscal only makes the demand in conformity to the example of his predecessors, yet it is equally cruel to make the prisoners fear it.

In former times, if the inquisitors judged that the prisoner had not made a full confession, they ordered him to be tortured: the object was to make him confess all that formed the substance of the process. I shall not describe the different modes of torture employed by the Inquisition, as it has been already done by many historians: I shall only say that none of them can be accused of exaggeration. When the accused acknowledged the crimes imputed to them, during the torture, they were obliged the next day to ratify or retract their confession upon oath. Almost all confirmed their first statement, because they were subjected to the torture a second time if they dared to retract.

_Requisition._

The requisition or accusation of the procurator-fiscal was never given to the prisoner in writing, that he might not reflect on the charges in prison and prepare his replies. The prisoner is conducted to the audience-chamber, where a secretary reads the charges, in the presence of the inquisitors and the fiscal: between each article he calls upon the prisoner to reply to it instantly, and declare if it is true or false.

It is evident that this proceeding is intended to embarra.s.s the prisoner, by compelling him to reply without previous reflection. Such stratagems are allowed in other tribunals where the prisoners are guilty of homicide, theft, or other offences against society; but it must be allowed that it is against the spirit of Christianity to employ them where zeal for religion and the salvation of others seem to be the motives for acting.

_Defence._

When the charges and the _accusation_ have been read, the inquisitors ask the prisoner if he wishes to make a defence; if he replies in the affirmative, a copy of the _accusation_ and the replies is taken. He is then required to select the lawyer whom he wishes to employ for his defence, from the list of those belonging to the holy office. Some prisoners required permission to seek a defender out of the tribunal, a pretension which is not contrary to any law, particularly if the lawyer has taken an oath of secrecy; yet this simple and natural right has seldom been granted by the inquisitors.

It is of little consequence to the accused to be defended by an able man, as the lawyer is not allowed to see the original process, or to communicate with his client. One of the notaries draws up a copy of the result of the _preliminary instruction_, in which he reports the deposition of the witnesses, without mentioning their names, or the circ.u.mstances of time or place, and (what is more extraordinary) without stating what has been said in defence of the prisoner. He entirely omits the declarations of the persons who, having been summoned and interrogated by the tribunal, have persisted in affirming that they knew nothing of the subject on which they were examined. This extract is accompanied by the censure of the _qualifiers_, and the demand of the fiscal for the examination, and the accusation, and the replies of the accused. This is all that is given to the defender in the audience-chamber, where the inquisitors have commanded him to attend. He is then obliged to promise to defend the prisoner if he thinks that it is just to do so; but, in the contrary case, that he will use all the means in his power to persuade him to solicit his pardon of the tribunal, by a sincere confession of his sins, and a demand to be reconciled to the church.

Those who have acquired any experience in criminal proceedings, are aware of the great advantages which may be derived from the comparison of the testimony of the witnesses in the defence of the accused; but the direction given to the proceedings by the Inquisition is such, that the lawyer can rarely find any means of defence but that which arises from the difference and variations in the depositions on the actions and words imputed to the prisoner.

As this is not sufficient, (because the semi-proof exists,) the defender generally demands to see the prisoner, that he may inquire if it is his intention to challenge the witnesses, to destroy, either in part, or entirely, the proof established against him. If he replies in the affirmative, the inquisitors order proceedings to prove the irregularity of the witnesses.

_Proof._

It is then necessary to separate all the original declarations of the witnesses from the process, and send them to the places which they inhabit to receive a _ratification_. This takes place without the knowledge of the prisoner, and as he is not represented by any person during this formality, it is impossible that the challenge of a witness should succeed, even if he was the greatest enemy of the prisoner. If the witness was at Madrid at the time of the instruction, and afterwards went to the Philippine Isles, the course of the trial was suspended, and the prisoner was obliged to wait till the ratification arrived from Asia. If he demanded an audience, to complain of the delay, he was answered with ambiguity, that the tribunal could not proceed with greater haste, as it was occupied with particular measures.

The prisoner made his challenge of the witnesses by naming those whom he considered as his enemies, giving his reasons for mistrusting them, and writing on the margin of each article the names of those persons who could attest the facts which are the causes of the challenge. The inquisitors decree that they shall be examined, unless some motive prevents it.

As the prisoner is not acquainted with the proceedings, he often accuses persons who have not been summoned as witnesses. The article in which they are mentioned is pa.s.sed over with those of the witnesses who have not deposed against him, or who have spoken in his favour. Thus he encounters his accusers only by chance.

It sometimes happens that the procurator-fiscal secretly obtains the proof of the morality of the witnesses, in order to destroy the effect of the challenge; and as this is more easy to accomplish than the measures taken by the prisoner, they are generally rendered useless, because in doubtful cases the inquisitors are always disposed to depend upon the witness, if he is not known to be the declared enemy of the accused.

_Publication of the Proofs._

When the proof is established, the tribunal publishes the state of the trial, the depositions, and the act of judgment. But these terms are not to be understood in the common sense, since the publication was only an unfaithful copy of the declarations and other facts contained in the extract formed for the use of the defender. A secretary reads it to the prisoner in the presence of the inquisitors; after each article he asks him if he acknowledges the truth of what he has just heard; he then reads the declarations, and if the prisoner has not yet alleged any thing against the witnesses, that privilege is given him, because, after hearing the deposition, he is generally able to designate the person who has made it.

This reading is only a fresh snare; for if the least contradiction is perceived, he may be considered guilty of duplicity, concealment, or a false confession, and the tribunal may refuse to grant the reconciliation, although he demand it, and even condemn him to _relaxation_.

_Definitive Censure of the Qualifiers._

After this ceremony the _qualifiers_ are summoned, who receive the original writing of the sentence pa.s.sed in the _summary_ instruction, with the extract of the replies of the prisoner in his last examination, and the declarations of the witnesses which were communicated to him.

They are commissioned to qualify the propositions a second time, to examine his explanation, and to decide if his replies have destroyed the suspicion of heresy which he had incurred, or if he had confirmed it, and was to be looked upon as a _formal_ heretic.

Every one must be sensible of the importance of this censure, since it led to the definite sentence; yet the _qualifiers_ scarcely took the trouble to hear a rapid perusal of the proceedings; they hastily gave their opinion, and this was the last important act in the proceedings, as the rest was a mere formality.

_Sentence._

The trial was then considered as finished. The diocesan in ordinary was convoked, that with the inquisitors he might decide upon the proper sentence. In the first ages of the holy office these functions were confided to _consultors_: these were doctors of law, but as they could only give their opinion, and as the inquisitors p.r.o.nounced the definitive sentence, the latter always prevailed if they chanced to differ. The accused had the right of appealing to the _Supreme_ Council, but appeals to Rome were more frequent. The inquisitors of the provinces were afterwards obliged to submit their opinion to the council before they p.r.o.nounced the definitive sentence; the council modified and reformed it; their decision was sent to the inquisitors, who then established the judgment in their own names, although it might be contrary to their previous opinion. This proceeding rendered the office of the consultors useless, and it was discontinued.

Although the prisoner was acquitted, he was not acquainted with the names of his denouncers and the witnesses. He rarely obtained a more public reparation than the liberty of returning to his house with a certificate of absolution.

_Execution of the Sentence._

The nature of the punishments inflicted by the Inquisition has been already described; it is, therefore, only necessary to remark that the sentences were not communicated to the victims until the commencement of the execution, since the condemned were sent to the _autos-da-fe_, either to be reconciled or given over to secular justice; on leaving prison the _familiars_ attired them in the _san-benito_, with a paper mitre on their heads, a cord round their necks, and a wax taper in their hands.

When the prisoner arrives at the place of execution, his sentence is read, and he is then reconciled or _relaxed_, which means, that he is condemned to be burnt by the justice of the king.

_San-benito._

The _San-benito_ was a species of _scapulary_, which only descended to the knees, that it might not be confounded with those worn by some monks: this motive also made the inquisitors prefer common woollen stuff of a yellow colour with red crosses for the _San-benito_. Such were the penitential habits in 1514, when Cardinal Ximenez de Cisneros altered the common crosses for those of St. Andrew. The inquisitors afterwards had a different habit for each cla.s.s of penitents.

Those who abjured as _slightly_ suspected of heresy, wore the scapulary of yellow stuff without the cross. If he abjured as _violently suspected_, he wore half the cross; if he was a _formal heretic_, he wore it entire. There were also three different kinds of garments for those who were condemned to death. The first was for those who repented before they were sentenced. It was a simple yellow scapulary with a red cross, and a conical cap, denominated _Caroza_, which was formed of the same stuff as the _San-benito_, and decorated with similar crosses.

The second was destined for those who had been condemned to be burnt, but who had repented after their sentence, and before they were conducted to the _autos-da-fe_. The _San-benito_ and the _Caroza_ were made of the same stuff. On the lower part of the scapulary a bust was painted, in the midst of a fire, the flames of which were reversed, to show that the culprit was not to be burnt until he had been strangled.

The _Caroza_ was painted in the same manner.