A History of the Inquisition of Spain; vol. 2

by Henry Charles Lea

In view of the temptation offered for the gratification of malice by shielding informers and witnesses, special care was advisable for the detection and punishment of false-witness. This was the more necessary as perjury was a popular failing and the sanction of an oath was lightly esteemed. In 1555 the Córtes of Valladolid asked that, in cases involving death or mutilation, oaths should be abolished, as they merely led to perjury and, in 1560, the Córtes of Toledo complained of the prevalence of false-witness as a matter so customary that there were provinces in which it was as abundant as any other merchandise, and it was openly said that for money a man could get as many witnesses as he desired.[1669]

FALSE-WITNESS

We have seen how, in 1488, at Toledo, eight Jews were torn with hot pincers and lapidated for bearing false-witness against good Christians with the object of rendering the Inquisition odious.[1670] This savage penalty compares strangely with the leniency shown to exculpatory perjury in the case of Mossen Pedro de Santangel, Prior of Daroca, who had sought, by the employment of several false-witnesses, to save his brother Luis de Santangel, burnt for complicity in the murder of San Pedro Arbués. He escaped with the simple penance of holding a lighted candle before the high altar and they were treated as benignantly.[1671] It was probably to secure greater uniformity that, in the Instructions of 1498, inquisitors were told to inflict public punishment, according to law, on those whom they detected in testifying falsely.[1672] The matter was one which might well excite solicitude for it is evident that perjury on both sides was rife and the tribunals might reasonably hesitate to believe any witness.

In 1500 and 1501 we find Ferdinand repeatedly interposing to shield those whom he favored and whom he declared to be persecuted by perjurers,[1673] and the career of Lucero shows how readily and unscrupulously they could be employed in the secrecy of the tribunals. The Jaen memorial of 1506 speaks of a certain Diego de Algecira, whom Lucero kept for five years to testify against all whom he desired to destroy and whom the inquisitors of Jaen borrowed for the same purpose, besides other adepts of the kind whom they employed and rewarded. When a raid was made on Arjona, the notary Barzena brought with him Luis de Vilches who, by changing his name and garments, testified repeatedly in different characters.[1674] One of the petitions of the Córtes of Monzon, in 1512, bears eloquent testimony to the same state of affairs in Catalonia, for it asks that, when a man was burnt through fraudulent testimony, the inquisitors should not prevent the king from punishing the false witnesses.[1675] Such a system necessarily produced professional perjurers who did for gain what others might do through malice. That the accused should resort to the same means was inevitable. In Segovia, in 1504, there appears to have been a perfect carnival of false-witness. On July 10th and 11th there were punished two accusing perjurers and twenty-two who had sworn falsely on the side of the defence; there were others who had died before sentence and still more who had confessed and were awaiting punishment, which consisted mostly in scourging and exile.[1676]

Thus far there seems to have been uncertainty as to jurisdiction. In the Catalan efforts for relief, the bull Pastoralis officii was procured from Leo X, August 1, 1576, which rendered perjury committed in the Inquisition justiciable by the inquisitors and ecclesiastical judges in conjunction but not severally.[1677] The result was naturally discouraging and papal intervention was again sought. In a brief of December 14, 1518, addressed to Cardinal Adrian, Leo deplored the condition under which, through false-witness, the guilty escaped and the innocent suffered, but the only remedy provided was in conferring full jurisdiction on inquisitors with faculties to punish, even by relaxation to the secular arm, without incurring “irregularity.”[1678]

The crime was thus placed wholly in the hands of the Inquisition, which was no more likely than before to exert itself in checking perjured accusations. This proved to be the case and, in 1523, the Córtes of Valladolid asked that it should inflict on false witnesses the penalties provided by the Laws of Toro in 1502, which decreed the talio for perjury committed in criminal cases.[1679] Charles contented himself with replying that he had asked the pope to appoint as inquisitor-general Archbishop Manrique, whom he would charge to see justice done. That this remedy proved futile may be gathered from the memorial of Granada, in 1526, in which one of the arguments against the suppression of the names of witnesses is the number of souls condemned to hell for perjury, through the facilities offered by the secret system tempting them to destroy their enemies or to swear falsely through bribery, a thing which happens every day.[1680]

FALSE-WITNESS

In fact the procedure of the Inquisition was such as to encourage the crime and to render its detection exceedingly difficult, at least when committed for the benefit of the prosecution. When every precaution was taken to prevent the accused from identifying his accusers, it was expecting too much of the average inquisitor that he should depart from the routine work of his office to discover, without assistance from those interested, whether the witnesses, mechanically examined by him or his commissioner, were telling the truth or not. Had there been any zeal in this direction, the Suprema would not have felt obliged, in 1531, to instruct the tribunals that perjurers should be punished as a warning to others, giving due consideration as to whether they were actuated by malice or ignorance. Possibly this may have stimulated some tribunal to inconvenient activity for, in 1536, it saw occasion to moderate zeal by ordering that the rigor of the brief of Leo X should not be observed, unless some one had been condemned through false evidence, and even in such case the Suprema was to be consulted before action.[1681] The infallibility of the Inquisition was too important to be rashly compromised.

Moderation thus remained the rule. Simancas tells us that, under Leo’s brief, perjurers should be burnt, with confiscation, but this should only be done when the accused has suffered severely; in most cases the injury is but slight, for which such penalties suffice as appearing in an auto with a defamatory mitre and scourging, galleys or exile; even when burnt there are no disabilities on descendants; the talio has become virtually obsolete and should be used only in extreme cases; subornation of perjury is even worse than false-witness and incurs the same punishment.[1682]

Theoretically this reflects the ordinary practice. I have met with but one case in which a perjurer was burnt and this was in Sardinia, in 1562, but about 1640 an experienced inquisitor states that he has seen records of such cases in Logroño and it is possible that they occurred occasionally.[1683] So also we sometimes find scourging and the galleys in aggravated cases, while priests were let off with fines and exile. Still, the tendency was to extreme moderation. In Valladolid, Juan Gomez Rubio suffered imprisonment for nearly two years, from 1636 to 1638, on a charge of blasphemous propositions, when his case was suspended and he was dismissed with a reprimand and the corresponding infamy. His accuser was Pedro de la Cruz who had testified twice against him under fictitious names and had suborned others to appear against him, for which he escaped with parading in vergüenza and exile.[1684]