A History of the Inquisition of Spain; vol. 1

by Henry Charles Lea

Meanwhile the obstinacy of the Catalans, which detained the impatient Charles in Barcelona throughout the year 1519, secured, nominally at least, the formal confirmation by both Charles and Adrian, of the Monzon Concordia of 1512 with additions. One of these provided that any one who entered the service of the Holy Office while liable to a civil or criminal action, should still be held to answer before his former judge, and that criminal offences, unconnected with the faith, committed by officials should be exclusively justiciable in the civil courts. This struck at the root of one of the most serious abuses—the immunity with which the Inquisition shielded its criminals—and scarcely less important to all who had dealings with New Christians was another article providing that property acquired in good faith, from one reputed to be a Christian, should be exempt from confiscation in case the seller should subsequently be convicted, even though the thirty years’ prescription should still exist.[719]

The agreement was reached January 11, 1520, but experience of the faithlessness of the Inquisition had made the Catalans wary. They were about to grant a servicio to Charles and they sought a guarantee by addressing to him a supplication that he should make Cardinal Adrian swear to the observance of the Concordia of 1512 and the new articles and that he should procure within four months from the pope a bull of confirmation, in which the Bishops of Lérida and Barcelona should be appointed conservators, with full power to enforce the agreement. They offered to pay two hundred ducats towards the cost of the bull and they demanded that they should retain twenty thousand libras of the servicio until the bull should be delivered to the Diputados. The same condition was attached to a liberal donation of twelve thousand libras which they made to the Inquisition—probably a part of the bargain. Meanwhile Charles was to give orders that the inquisitors should be bound by the articles and, in case of infraction, satisfaction for such violations should be deducted from the twenty thousand libras. In due time, August 25th, Leo X executed a formal bull of confirmation of the articles of 1512 and 1520 and appointed the Bishops of Lérida and Barcelona as conservators.[720]

ABUSES CONTINUE

What was the value of the Concordia thus solemnly agreed to and liberally paid for, with its papal confirmation and conservators, was speedily seen when, in 1523, the authorities of Perpignan became involved in a quarrel with Inquisitor Juan Naverdu over the case of the wife of Juan Noguer. They complained of an infraction of the Concordia and applied to the Bishop of Lérida for its enforcement. He appointed Miguel Roig, a canon of Elna, as the executor of his decision, who issued letters ordering the inquisitor and his secretary to observe the Concordia, under pain of excommunication, and to drop the cases which they were prosecuting. Appeal was also made to Rome and letters were obtained from Clement VII. Charles, however, intervened and obtained another brief, January 6, 1524, annulling the previous one and transferring the matter to Inquisitor-general Manrique. The result was that nearly all the magistrates of Perpignan—the consuls and jurados with their lawyers and Miguel Roig—were obliged to swear obedience in all things to the Inquisition, were exposed to the irredeemable disgrace of appearing as penitents at the mass and were subjected to fines from which the Holy Office gathered in the comfortable sum of 1115 ducats.[721] The motto of the Inquisition was noli me tangere and it administered a sharp lesson to all who might venture, even under papal authority, to make it conform to its agreements.

It was in vain that the sturdy subjects of the crown of Aragon struggled and gained concessions, paid for them and fenced them around with all the precautions held sacred by public law. The inquisitors felt themselves to be above the law and all the old abuses continued to flourish as rankly as ever. About this time the Córtes of the three kingdoms, by command of Charles, addressed to Inquisitor-general Manrique a series of sixteen grievances, repeating the old complaints—the extension of jurisdiction over usury, blasphemy, bigamy and sodomy; the acceptance by the inquisitors of commissions to act as conservators in secular and ecclesiastical cases and profane matters; their arresting people for private quarrels and on trivial charges and insufficient evidence, leaving on them and their descendants an ineffaceable stain, even though they were discharged without penance; their multiplication of familiars and concealing their names, appointing criminals and protecting them in their crimes and finally their overbearing and insulting attitude in general. In answer to this the inquisitor-general contented himself with asserting that the laws were obeyed and asking for specific instances of infraction and the names of the parties—secure that no one would dare to come forward and expose himself to the vengeance of the tribunal.[722] Again, in 1528 at the Córtes of Monzon, we find a repetition of grievances—the abuse of confiscations, the cognizance of usury and other matters disconnected with heresy and general inobservance of the articles agreed upon. To the petition that he remedy these and procure from the inquisitor-general an order to his subordinates to conform themselves to the Concordias, Charles returned the equivocating answer “His majesty will see that the inquisitor-general orders the observance of that which should be observed, removing abuses if there are any.”[723]

The imperial attitude was not such as to discourage the audacity of the inquisitors and, at the Córtes of Monzon in September, 1533, the deputies of Aragon presented to Inquisitor-general Manrique, who was present, two series of grievances. One of these he promptly answered by characterizing some of the demands as impertinent, scandalous, and illegal, and others as not worthy of reply. The other series was referred to Charles and was not answered until December. It commenced by asking that the Concordia confirmed by Leo X, in 1516, should be observed, to which the reply was that such action should be taken as would comport with the service of God and proper exercise of the Inquisition. The request that the inquisitors confine themselves to matters of faith was met with the assertion that they did so, except when under orders from their superiors. To the demand that the dowries of Catholic wives should not be confiscated, the dry response was that the laws should be observed. In this cavalier spirit the rest of the petition was disposed of, and the whole shows how completely the Holy Office was emancipated from any subjection to the laws which had cost such struggles to obtain and which had been paid for so largely.[724]

ABUSES CONTINUE

While Manrique and the Suprema were at Monzon, they were called upon to take action with regard to troubles at Barcelona between the inquisitor, Fernando de Loazes and the magistrates and Diputados. These had been on foot for some time. A letter of Charles from Bologna, February 25, 1533, to Loazes assures him of his sympathy and support and, in September, the Suprema at Monzon resolved to send a judge thither to prosecute and punish the offenders for their enormous delinquencies.[725] What were the merits of the quarrel do not appear, but it was doubtless provoked by the overbearing arrogance of Loazes for, at the Córtes of Monzon, the Catalans represented to Charles that the pretensions of the inquisitor impeded the course of justice in matters involving the regalías or prerogatives of the crown, and asked to have him prosecuted by the Bishop of Barcelona. Charles thereupon addressed to Loazes a letter January 16, 1534, forbidding him in future to interfere with the royal judges, as no one could claim exemption from the royal jurisdiction. At the same time he instructed his lieutenant for Aragon, Fadrique de Portugal, Archbishop of Saragossa, to enforce this mandate. It was not long before Loazes had the opportunity of manifesting his contempt for these expressions of the royal will. One of the consuls holding the admiralty court of Barcelona was hearing a case between two merchants, Joan Ribas and Gerald Camps: a quarrel ensued between them; Ribas with his servant Joan Monseny struck Camps in the face and then drawing his sword, threatened the consul’s life. This was a scandalous offence to the dignity of the crown under whose protection the court was held. By order of the Archbishop and royal council the culprits were arrested and thrown in prison, but Ribas was a familiar of the Inquisition and Loazes presented himself before the archbishop in full court and claimed him. The letters of Charles V were read and his claim was rejected, whereupon, on June 13th, he issued a mandate demanding the surrender to him of Ribas and forbidding all proceedings against him under pain of excommunication.[726] What was the termination of this special case we have no means of knowing, but Loazes did not suffer by reason of his audacity. In 1542 he was made Bishop of Elna, whence he passed by successive translations through the sees of Lérida, Tortosa and Tarragona, dying at last, full of years and honors in 1568 as Archbishop of Valencia.

It is not worth while at present to pursue these disputes which reveal the character of the Inquisition and the resistance offered to it by the comparatively free populations subject to the crown of Aragon. We shall have ample opportunity hereafter to note the persistant arrogance of the inquisitors under the royal favor, the restlessness of the people and the fruitlessness of their struggle for relief from oppression. The Holy Office had become part of the settled policy of the House of Austria. The Lutheran revolt had grown to enormous proportions and no measures seemed too severe that would protect the faith from an enemy even more insidious and more dangerous than Judaism. The system grew to be an integral part of the national institutions to be uprooted only by the cataclysm of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic war. At what cost to the people this was effected is seen in the boast, in 1638, of a learned official of the Inquisition that in its favor the monarchs had succeeded in breaking down the municipal laws and privileges of their kingdoms, which otherwise would have presented insuperable obstacles to the extermination of heresy, and he proceeds to enumerate the various restrictions on the arbitrary power of the secular courts which the experience of ages had framed for the protection of the citizen from oppression, all of which had been swept away where the Inquisition was concerned, leaving the subject to the discretion of the inquisitor.[727]