A History of the Inquisition of Spain; vol. 4

by Henry Charles Lea

Some preparation had been made for the struggle by the conservatives. The first Regency had endeavored to reconstitute all the old Councils of the monarchy and, on June 10, 1810, Ethenard, the Dean of the Suprema, addressed to it a memorial requesting it to order the reassembling of the Suprema, to which it responded, August 1st, by issuing such an order. The scattering of the members precluded this, but, when the early acts of the Córtes foreshadowed what was to come, on December 18th, Ethenard and Amarillas asked the new Regency to appoint as a member the fiscal Ibar Navarro and as fiscal the Madrid inquisitor, Galarza, thus enabling the body to resume its functions. As no attention was paid to this, an old member, Alejo Jimenez de Castro, who had been exiled to Murcia by Godoy, was brought from his retreat to Cádiz, so as to have material for a quorum present. The occasion to utilize this offered itself in January, 1811. The freedom of the press enabled Don Manuel Alzaibar to start “La Triple Alianza,” a frankly irreligious journal, in the second number of which there appeared an article ridiculing the immortality of the soul and suffrages for the dead. On January 28th advantage was taken of this to ask the Córtes to refer it to the Inquisition for censure, which was carried in spite of opposition. The next day the editors asked that the action be rescinded, leading to a three days’ debate in which the Inquisition was denounced as a mysterious, cruel and antichristian tribunal and, for the first time, its suppression was openly advocated. President Dou ruled that the inculpated journal must be passed to the Junta de Censura, for he understood that the Inquisition was not organized, when he was told that there were three members of the Suprema in Cádiz, and that the Seville tribunal was in Ceuta. This raised larger questions and the whole matter was referred to a committee so composed that it was expected to report against re-establishment, but it withheld its report for a long time and meanwhile there were other moves in the game.[896]

SKIRMISHING FOR POSITION

On May 16th, the members of the Suprema notified the Regency that they were prepared to act, in response to which the minister of Gracia y Justicia expressed his surprise that they should meet as a tribunal, without awaiting the decision of the questions submitted to the Córtes, and forbade them from forming a Council until they should have express authorization.[897] The matter was brought before the Córtes and Inquisitor Riesco vainly argued in favor of the Inquisition; his motion was referred to the committee, where it lay buried in spite of repeated calls for a report. The Liberals insisted that a National Council would be a more suitable body for the mature consideration of such questions; their object was solely to gain time, which was fighting on their side, but the idea was seriously entertained, even by the clericals. The committee on the external discipline of the clergy reported, August 22d, in favor of the project, with a list of matters to be submitted to the Council; on August 28th the Córtes ordered it to be convoked, but postponed consideration of the details. Other matters supervened and no further action was taken, which Archbishop Vélez assures us saved Spain from a schism, or at least from a scandal for, under the proposed program, it would have proved a second Synod of Pistoja. In fact, the journals naturally took a lively interest in the matter; thousands of pamphlets, we are told, appeared everywhere, pointing out the abuses and relaxed morals of the clergy and demanding a reform that was assumed to be necessary. It is easy to imagine that the ecclesiastical authorities were willing to let the project drop.[898]

The position of the Liberals was greatly strengthened by the adoption of the Constitution, in March 1812, as was abundantly shown in the next debate on the Inquisition. This was provoked by the publication, in April 1812, of the “Diccionario crítico-burlesco” of Gallardo, librarian of the Córtes, in which all that the mass of the population held sacred was treated with ridicule, neither refined nor witty. It created an immense sensation and was brought before the Córtes, which enabled Riesco, on April 22d, to call for the immediate presentation of the report of the committee on the Inquisition, for which the Córtes had been waiting for more than a year. The committee, in fact, had reached a decision, in July 1811, in favor of the Inquisition, and we are not told why it had been held back, for four members had concurred in it and only Muñoz Torrero had dissented. The report was accordingly presented, re-establishing the Suprema in its functions, with certain limitations as to political action; the debate was hot, but the Liberals had taken precautions to avoid a direct vote on the question. In a decree of March 25th, creating a supreme court of justice, they had introduced an article suppressing the tribunals known by the name of councils, and they pointed out that this embraced the Suprema, which gave abundant opportunity for discussion. Even more important was a decision of the Córtes, adroitly planned for this especial purpose, December 13, 1811, during the discussion on the Constitution, that no propositions bearing on the fundamental law should be admitted to debate without previous examination by the committee on the Constitution, to see that it was not in opposition to the articles thereof. It was notorious that inquisitorial procedure was in direct contravention of the constitutional provisions to secure justice in criminal prosecutions and, after an exciting struggle and a postponement, the report was referred to the committee on the Constitution. The Conservatives were so exasperated that they proposed to dissolve the Córtes, and have a new election under the Constitution, to which the Liberals agreed, except that the new body should meet October 1, 1813, and the existing one should remain in session until then. Archbishop Vélez tells us that the policy of the Liberals was to gain time, for their personal safety was at stake if the Inquisition was re-established, nor does he recognize how monstrous was the admission involved in this, for an institution that could prosecute and punish legislators for their official acts was virtually the despot of the land. Doubtless the deputies felt this, and that the struggle was one for life or death.[899]

The flank of the enemy was thus skilfully turned. The committee on the Constitution was in no haste to report and occupied itself with collecting documentary material from the archives wherever accessible. Its conclusion was that the Inquisition was incompatible with the fundamental law and, on November 13th, it voted on a project for establishing “Tribunales protectores de la fe” in compliance with the constitutional requirements. Finally, on December 8th two reports were presented. That of the minority by Antonio Joaquin Pérez, who had been an inquisitor in Mexico, argued that the abuses of the Inquisition were not inherent; that its procedure conflicted with the Constitution and should therefore be modified accordingly.[900]

DEBATE ON SUPPRESSION

The majority report was a very elaborate document, tracing the treatment of heresy from the earliest times, and pointing out the irreconcileable incompatibility of the Inquisition with the constitutional provisions securing to the citizen the right of open trial and opportunities for defence. It concluded with the draft of a decree “Sobre Tribunales protectores de la fe,” in which such caution was deemed necessary that the Inquisition was nowhere mentioned. It appealed to the national pride, by simply reviving a law of the Partidas concerning the prosecution of heretics by bishops, it prescribed the form and procedure of the episcopal tribunals, the punishment by lay judges of those pronounced guilty, and it provided for appeals as well as for the suppression of writings contrary to religion. The reports were duly received and January 4, 1813, was appointed for the opening of debate.[901]

Probably no measure before the Córtes provoked so bitter and prolonged a debate. The Liberals had secured the advantage of position, and the Conservatives felt that the issue involved the whole future relations of Church and State. There was a preliminary skirmish on December 29th, when Sánchez de Ocaña asked for a postponement until the bishops and chapters could be consulted, on the ground that the Church was an independent body.[902] This was voted down and the debate was opened on the designated day, January 4, 1813. The friends of the Inquisition had not been idle; the Church organization was in good working order, and the Córtes were bombarded with memorials from bishops, chapters, ayuntamientos, military officers, towns and provinces, showing how active the canvass had been during the two years in which the subject had been mooted. Yet the Conservatives could only procure, out of the fifty-nine sees existing in Spain, protests from two archbishops and twenty-four bishops, the authorities of three vacant sees, and four chapters of those occupied by the French; while the number from officers of the army was not large, those from towns were but a small fraction of the municipalities, and only two provinces—Alava and Galicia—spoke through their authorities. Muñoz Torrero declared, January 10th, that every mail brought him mountains of letters in favor of the Inquisition and Toreno spoke of the reclamations that came in, showing how the signers of protests had been coerced.[903]

The debate was vigorous and eloquent on both sides but, while it took the widest range, embracing the history of the Church from apostolic times and the career of the Inquisition from the thirteenth century, the parliamentary question in reality turned upon the power of the Córtes to intrude in the sphere of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. After discussion lasting until January 22d on the preliminary propositions, the decree itself was taken up, article by article and strenuously fought over; amendments were presented and accepted or rejected, as they strengthened or weakened the measure, and hot resistance was offered to the clauses allowing appeals from the judgements of the bishops, which the Liberals supported on the ground that all the members who opposed the Inquisition had been denounced throughout Spain as heretics, and the safety of the citizen demanded that episcopal definition of heresy should not be final. The debate was prolonged until February 5th, when the last article was agreed to, and the decree in its final shape did not differ essentially from that proposed by the Committee. There was no formal suppression of the Inquisition; it was simply declared to be incompatible with the Constitution and the law of the Partidas was revived. This latter had been agreed to on January 26th by a vote of 92 to 30, and that date was assumed as determining the extinction of the Inquisition, regulating the disposition of its property. It is not worth while to recapitulate the details of the episcopal tribunals and the provisions for censorship, as the bishops took little interest in the exercise of their restored jurisdiction, though there are traces of their action in one or two cases—that of Joaquin Ramírez, priest of Moscardon and of Doña Antonia de la Torre of Seville.[904] During the seventeen months that elapsed until the re-establishment of the Inquisition, we are told that, although the land was full of Freemasons and other anticatholics, the bishops had no occasion to arrest any one, for no informers or accusers came forward—doubtless because they realized that their names would be known.[905]