A History of the Inquisition of Spain; vol. 4

by Henry Charles Lea

The instructions as to the examination of accusers offer a strong contrast to the negligence habitual in trials for formal heresy, of which the penalties were so much more severe. Tribunals were warned that it required special attention and the utmost exactitude; the woman must declare precisely the spot and the time, whether confession was real or simulated, and she must repeat in full detail the words and acts of the confessor without omission. If any one was near enough to see or to hear, she must state who it was; if she had spoken to any one, the name must be given, and the inquisitor was urged to exercise his ingenuity according to the circumstances of the case. If she had subsequently confessed to the same priest, she must give her reasons and state whether he had absolved her. Special inquiry was to be made as to any cause of enmity on her part or that of her kindred; whether she had heard of his doing the same with other women; what she thought or knew as to his character, and whether any other confessor had told her that she was not bound to denounce him.[257] All these were salutary precautions which, if general and not exceptional, would have prevented much injustice.

TWO DENUNCIATIONS REQUIRED

This instruction would appear to require that, in case of consent, the witness should be forced to reveal her shame. Protection from this would seem necessary to overcome reluctance to make denunciation, and the Roman Inquisition, by decree of July 25, 1624, ruled that neither the woman nor the accused was to be questioned as to this and, if the information was volunteered, it was to be omitted from the record, while confessors were ordered to assure penitents that no such inquiries would be made.[258] If such a rule existed in Spain, it was not observed until near the end, for the records of trials show that the examination was pushed to the last point, and the results were fully set forth in the proceedings. As late as the middle of the eighteenth century, instructions to commissioners taking testimony in these cases require them to obtain all details as to words and acts and to write them out fully and distinctly, no matter how obscene they may be.[259] Soon after this, however, occurs the first intimation as to reticence that I have met, in instructions to a commissioner, January 27, 1759, as to taking testimony from a nun, in which he is told to notify her that, if she volunteers to relate her own ruin, this is not to be stated or included in the testimony.[260] Subsequently this became the rule, as appears by instructions in 1816 and 1819.[261]

The most important discrimination in favor of these delinquents was the requirement of two independent denunciations to justify arrest and trial. This was not reached without some hesitation. The earliest formal instructions that we have on the subject are embodied in a letter to the tribunal of Sardinia, in 1574, when forwarding to it the brief of Pius IV. As the crime is understood to be very prevalent in the island, the inquisitor is ordered to prosecute it with rigor, according to the procedure in cases of heresy, no exception being alluded to as respects single denunciations.[262] Instructions to the tribunal of Peru, about the same time, specify that a single witness suffices for prosecution and that Indian women can be admitted.[263] Then, as we have seen, there is an inclination in favor of the accused, in a carta acordada of March 2, 1576, ordering single accusations to be received, but the Suprema is to be consulted before taking action. This tendency increased, and fuller instructions to Sardinia, in 1577, require two witnesses with conclusive evidence as a condition precedent to arrest.[264] This was repeated in general instructions issued in 1580 and, after some variations, it remained an absolute rule until the end.[265] Even this was regarded by churchmen as too harsh. A Cunha holds that, while two witnesses may suffice for prosecution, there should be at least four for conviction, and he grows eloquent in pointing out the dignity of the priest, the scandal to the Church and the exultation of the heretic. De Sousa likewise considers two witnesses insufficient for conviction, though, if they are of exemplary character, their evidence may justify some moderate penalty.[266]

It is probable that, for awhile, practice was not uniform in all tribunals. In that of Valladolid, in 1621 and 1622, there are several cases in which arrest was voted on the evidence of a single witness and these votes were confirmed by the Suprema.[267] On the other hand, about 1640, an inquisitor tells us that, when the accused denies, conviction requires the evidence of three witnesses whom he has been unable to disable for enmity, low rank of life, or doubtful repute. Some authors, he adds, insist that four are necessary, but he admits that, when there are two whose characters stand thorough investigation and there are supporting indications, conviction may follow.[268] It is impossible not to recognize the charitable motives that prompted this reluctance to punish.

The requirement thus established of two independent denunciations threw serious impediments in the way of suppressing a crime in which it was so notoriously difficult to find accusers. The routine gradually established was, when a denunciation was received, to search the records for a previous one. If none were found, letters were addressed to all the other tribunals requesting a similar examination of their registers and, if this was unsuccessful, the denunciation was filed away to await the chances of another accuser presenting herself, thus giving the accused, if guilty, the opportunity of continuing his profligate career, and leading the woman to believe that the case was too trivial to deserve the attention of the Inquisition. These long intervals of impunity illustrate the difficulty of obtaining denunciations, and the preponderant chances of escape, when prosecution was thus obstructed.

TWO DENUNCIATIONS REQUIRED

Numberless cases show how prolonged was often this period of immunity in a career of crime, to say nothing of the yet more frequent instances where the second denunciation never came. Thus at Valencia, on September 22, 1734, María Theresa Terrasa accused Fray Agustin Solves of having taken her, after confession and communion, to a room back of the altar and committed violence on her. This was laid aside for fourteen years when, on November 12, 1748, Sor Vitoria Julian, of the convent of San Julian, appeared and denounced him for having, some fifteen years before, solicited her some twenty times in the confessional of the convent of which he was the regular confessor, though she had not understood until now the obligation of denunciation. He had meanwhile been removed to the convent of Villajoiosa and had doubtless profited fully by the interval thus afforded.[269] This is by no means an extreme instance. In the list of soliciting confessors, kept by the Madrid tribunal, there occurs, in 1772, the name of Fray Andrés Izquierdo as accused in Valladolid, with a reference back to the years 1751 and 1752. Fray Bartolomé de Montijo appears as denounced in 1740 and again in 1776. Fray Fernando López, ex-provincial of the Escuelas pias, was denounced in 1780 for tampering with the children under his charge, and again in 1795, when he was tried and exiled. The Jesuit Juan Francisco Nieto, was denounced in Toledo in 1708 and again in 1731 in Madrid. Fray Joseph de San Juan was accused in Toledo in 1732 and in Granada in 1772. Fray Pedro de la Madre de Dios was denounced in Barcelona in 1722 and again in 1744. Even two denunciations, in many cases, did not suffice to put an end to these corrupting careers, and it required three or four. Fray Alonso de Arroya was denounced in 1768, 1788 and 1803; Fray Francisco de la Asuncion Torquemada in 1735, 1770 and 1776; Domingo Galindo, rector of Nules, in 1790, 1792, and 1795; Fray Francisco Escriva in 1769, 1775, 1786 and 1787; and Padre Feliciano Martínez, S. J., in 1767, 1771, 1784 and 1800. It is scarce worth while to multiply instances of which the records furnish an abundant supply.[270]

As the majority of offenders were frailes, who had no settled residence, it became necessary, in order to meet the exceptional requirement of two denunciations, to establish communication between the several tribunals. This was felt as early as 1601, when each one was ordered to send to all the rest, information as to solicitantes, whose cases had been suspended without prosecution. This seems to have received scant obedience, while cases of solicitation were constantly becoming a more important portion of inquisitorial duty, leading to a more comprehensive effort in 1647. The tribunals were required to search their records for thirty years back and make out lists of those charged with solicitation with all necessary details; copies of these lists were to be sent to the Suprema and to all other tribunals, and every year the new cases were to be similarly circulated. A complete alphabetical list of the whole was to be compiled and copies were to be furnished to all tribunals making application.[271] If this was obeyed at the time, it must soon have fallen into desuetude, for the custom became universal, when a denunciation was received, of addressing all the sister tribunals with the inquiry as to whether the name of the accused appeared on their records. To facilitate these frequent researches, in compiling the Libras Vocandorum and other registers, a separate volume was reserved for solicitation.[272]