In some witch trials of 1474 in Piedmont the oath to tell the truth was enforced with excommunication and “tratti di corde,” or infliction of the torture known as the strappado, varying from ten to twenty-five times—and also with pecuniary forfeits.—P. Vayra (Curiosità di Storia Subalpina, 1875, pp. 682, 693).
[358] Zanchini Tract. de Hæret. c. ii.
[359] Eymeric. Direct. Inquis. pp. 413-17.—Archivio di Napoli, Reg. 138, Lett. F, fol. 105.
To appreciate the contrast between the processes of the Inquisition and of the secular courts, it will suffice to allude to the practice of the latter in Milan in the first half of the fourteenth century. An accuser bringing a criminal action was obliged to inscribe himself and to furnish ample security that in case of failure he would undergo the fitting penalty and indemnify the accused for all expenses; in default of security he was to remain in jail until the end of the trial. The judge was, moreover, bound to render his decision within three months.
If the judge proceeded by inquisition he was obliged to give the accused notice in advance. The latter was entitled to counsel and to have the names and testimony of the witnesses communicated to him, and the judge was required, under a penalty of fifty lire, to complete the matter within thirty days.—Statuta Criminalia Mediolani, e tenebris in lucem edita, Bergami, 1594, c. 1-3, 153.
It is true that, under the influence of the Inquisition, the lay courts outgrew these wholesome provisions against injustice, but meanwhile it is important to bear them in mind when considering the secrecy, the delays, and the practical denial of justice in every way which characterized the proceedings against heretics. The gradual demoralization of the secular courts under these influences was a subject of complaint. In 1329 the consuls of Béziers represented to Philippe de Valois that his judges were neglecting to take from accusers proper security to indemnify the accused in case of the failure of the prosecution, and the king promptly ordered the abuse to be corrected.—Vaissette, Éd. Privat, X. Pr. 687.
[360] Doctrina de modo procedendi (Martene Thesaur. V. 1805).—Molinier, L’Inquisition dans le midi de la France, pp. 186-7.
[361] Concil. Tolosan. ann. 1229 c. 10.—Concil. Biterrens. ann. 1244 c. 31.—Concil. Albiens. ann. 1254 c. 5.—Modus examinandi hæreticos (Mag. Bib. Patrum XIII. 341).—Joan. Andreæ Gloss. sup. c. 13 Sexto v. 2.—Pegnæ Comment. in Eymeric. p. 490.—Bernardi Comens. Lucerna Inquis. s. vv. Minor, Torturœ No. 33.
[362] C. 8 Extra II. 14.—Concil. Narbonn. ann. 1244 c. 19.—Concil. Biterrens. ann. 1246 c. 8; Append. c. 14.—Guid. Fulcod. Quæst. VI.—Coll. Doat, XXI. 143.—Eymeric. Direct. Inq. pp. 382, 495, 528-31.—Lib. Sententt. Inq. Tolosan. pp. 175, 367-74.—Zanchini Tract. de Hæret. c. ii., viii., ix.—MSS. Bib. Nat., fonds latin, No. 14930, fol. 221.—Bernardi Comens. Lucerna Inquisit. s. vv. Contumax, Convincitur.—Concil. Lateran. IV. ann. 1215 c. 28.—Hist. Diplom. Frid. II. T. II. p. 4.—Concil. Albiens. ann. 1254 c. 28.—Alex. PP. IV. Bull. Consultationi vestrœ, 28 Mai. 1260.—C. 13 Extra. v. 38 (cf. Concil. Trident. Sess. 25 de Reform. c. 3).—Arch. de l’Inq. de Carcass. (Doat, XXXI. 83).—Bernardi Comens. Lucerna Inquisit. s. v. Procedere, No. 10.
[363] Muratori, Antiquitat. Ital. Dissert. 60.—Zanchini Tract. de Hæret. c. xxiv., xl.—Lami, Antichità Toscane, p. 497.