A History of the Inquisition of Spain; vol. 2

by Henry Charles Lea

SEGREGATION OF ACCUSED

Even after the Suprema had required to be consulted prior to ordering arrest, small respect was paid to formalities. In criticizing, August 25, 1695, the report of cases pending in Valencia, the Suprema expresses astonishment that an arrest should have been made previous to the calificacion of the charges. In this case the accused was thrown into prison October 22, 1694, and the calificacion followed, February 9, 1695, but the Suprema contented itself with this rebuke and merely ordered the prosecution to be pushed and not be allowed to become immortal.[1442] The Suprema need not have been surprised at this trifling informality in view of the atrocity of a group of cases comprised in a Valladolid report of July, 1699. Francisco Hernández Castañeda had been imprisoned August 30, 1697; his case is reported in the same state as before, there being no testimony against him. Baltazar González Cardozo, aged 14, was arrested August 15, 1698, and there is no evidence against him. Ana Gutiérrez, aged 9, was arrested August 14, 1697, and there is nothing against her as yet. Leona de Paz was arrested September 15, 1698, and there is no proof against her.[1443] Thus these poor creatures had lain in gaol for one or two years without a scintilla of evidence to justify their arrest, and the fact that the tribunal coolly makes this report indicates that there was in it nothing unusual or regarded as scandalous.

Among the reforms which Carlos III attempted to introduce towards the close of the eighteenth century was that of requiring manifest proofs of heresy as a necessary preliminary to arrest, but Llorente informs us that his decrees were not obeyed.[1444] Still, in time there was an improvement in this as in so many other directions, perhaps partially influenced by the poverty of the Holy Office and its desire to avoid the maintenance of poor prisoners. Thus, in the case, at Cuenca, of Juan Francisco de la Landera, a jubilado notary of confiscations, prosecuted in 1816 on suspicion of being the author of a memorial to the king and of other offences, he was allowed to be at large during nearly the whole course of the trial and it was not until after the presentation of the accusation and his reply that it was voted to imprison him and embargo his property.[1445]

The reason commonly alleged, in deprecation of reckless arrest, was the infamy cast on the accused and his kindred, but this was by no means the only infliction peculiar to the Inquisition. There was special hardship in the segregation at once imposed on the prisoner. From the moment of his arrest, the utmost care was taken to prevent his exchanging a word with any one. When it took place at a distance, the commissioner was instructed to observe this with the utmost rigor, both in confining the prisoner on the spot and in sending him to the tribunal. If two or more were arrested simultaneously, they were strictly kept apart, both in prison and on the road. Thus, in 1678, when several Judaizers were to be seized at Pastrana, the instructions from Toledo were that they were at once to be shut up, incomunicado, in houses of officials, and to be sent to Toledo one by one, observing rigid precautions that they should speak with no one. Each was to be under charge of a familiar and, if there were not enough in Pastrana, those of the neighboring towns were to be called upon.[1446] The misery caused to the prisoner and his family by the arrest was intensified by this sudden inhibition of all exchange of affection and all instruction and advice as to what they were to do in their affliction.

IMPORTANCE OF SEQUESTRATION

Another feature, falling with especial severity on the poorer classes, arose from the rule of the Inquisition to cast all expenses on its prisoners. The officer who made the arrest was instructed to bring with him a specified sum to be deposited with the alcaide of the prison for the maintenance of the prisoner; also a bed for him to sleep on and clothes for him to wear. If, as usually was the case, the required amount was not found in cash among the effects of the culprit, enough of his household goods was sold at auction to meet the demand. The working of this is seen in the case of Benito Peñas, a poor ploughmaker of Cobeña, near Alcalá de Henares—a half-crazed devotee, who created scandal by denying that Christ had died on the cross. The order for his arrest by the Toledo tribunal, January 25, 1641, required the familiar to bring with him 30 ducats for expenses and a bed. The only coins found in Benito’s possession amounted to 19 cuartos vellon, equivalent to about 2½ reales: so on Sunday, February 10th, all his little possessions of tools, furniture and clothing, except the garments on him and two old shirts, were sold at auction. Even the rosary in his hands was included, but the total proceeds, after deducting charges, amounted to only 20 ducats. Of this about a half was absorbed by the expenses of guards and conveyance to Toledo, and only 105½ reales were delivered with him at the carceles secretas, out of which the tribunal refused to pay anything to the familiar for his time and labor. Benito’s mental unsoundness developed rapidly in his incarceration and, in August, he was discharged as irresponsible. The authorities of Cobeña were obliged to take him home at their own expense, and doubtless to support him afterwards, as he had been deprived of all means of earning his livelihood, while, with customary inquisitorial logic, in spite of his insanity, he was condemned to wear a parti-colored garment of gray and green, in penance for his heresy.[1447] In the case of a religious, if his peculium was insufficient to furnish the desired amount, the superior of his convent was required to complete it.[1448]

Another feature of extreme severity which, however, was common to secular and episcopal as well as to inquisitorial practice, was the sequestration which accompanied arrest in all cases involving confiscation. The losses and hardships incident to this were fully recognized in secular proceedings and, in 1646, the Córtes of Aragon endeavored to mitigate them and also to prevent the frauds which were admitted to be frequent.[1449] On the other hand, to have the property of the accused in the power of his family was to risk its dissipation before the conclusion of the trial; it had to be preserved at all hazards and the only way to do this was to make sure of it by seizure at the moment of arrest. The importance attributed to this by the Holy Office is seen in the details which form so prominent a portion of the Instructions. It is true that the canon law strictly prohibited the seizure of property, before a sentence of condemnation had been duly rendered, but this had been framed at a time when the temporal lords enjoyed the confiscations, and was disregarded when they enured to the benefit of those who decreed them.[1450]

The alguazil executing a warrant of arrest was accompanied by the notario de secrestos, or notary of sequestrations, who at once seized all visible property and compiled a minute inventory. It was then placed in the hands of a sequestrador or depositario, who held it until the case was decided, when, if confiscation was decreed, he handed it over to the receiver; if not, it was returned, or what was left of it, to the owner.

In the earliest instructions, the receiver and his scrivener accompanied the notary of sequestrations, and two copies of the inventory were made. Much conflicting legislation followed, directed to finding means for preventing the receiver from appropriating portions of the sequestrations, but the trouble was perennial and, in interrogatories drawn up for inspectors on their visitations, there was one which required all officials to declare whether the receiver had taken any sequestrated property before the case of the owner was determined.[1451]