Were it not for the steady patronage bestowed on the system by the Church, it would seem strange that torture should invade the quiet and holy retirement of the cloister. Its use, however, in monasteries was, if possible, even more arbitrary than in secular tribunals. Monks and nuns were exempt from the jurisdiction of the civil authorities, and were bound by vows of blind obedience to their superiors. The head of each convent thus was an autocrat, and when investigating the delinquencies of any of his flock he was subjected to no limitations. Not only could he order the accused to be tortured at will, but the witnesses, whether male or female, were liable to the same treatment, with the exception that in the case of nuns it was recommended that the tortures employed should not be indecent or too severe for the fragility of the sex. As elsewhere, it was customary to commence the torment with the weakest of the witnesses or criminals.[1804]
[CHAPTER IX.]
ENGLAND AND THE NORTHERN RACES.
In this long history of legalized cruelty and wrong the races of northern Europe are mostly exceptional. Yet it is somewhat remarkable that the first regular mediæval code in which torture is admitted as a means of investigation is the one of all others in which it would be least expected. The earliest extant law of Iceland, the Grágás, which dates from 1119, has one or two indications of its existence which are interesting as being purely autochthonic and in no sense derivable, as in the rest of Europe, from the Roman law. The character of the people, indeed, and of their institutions would seem to be peculiarly incompatible with the use of torture, for almost all cases were submitted to inquests or juries of the vicinage, and, when this was unsuitable, resort was had to the ordeal. The indigenous origin of the custom, however, is shown by the fact that while it was used in but few matters, the most prominent class subjected to it was that of pregnant women, who have elsewhere been spared by the common consent of even the most pitiless legislators. An unmarried woman with child, who refused to name her seducer, could be forced to do so by moderate torments which should not break or discolor the skin.[1805] The object of this was to enable the family to obtain the fine from the seducer, and to save themselves from the expense of supporting the child. When the mother confessed, however, additional evidence was required to convict the putative father. When the inhabitants of a district, also, refused to deliver up a man claimed as an outlaw by another district, they were bound to torture him to ascertain the truth of the charge[1806]—a provision doubtless explicable by the important part occupied by outlawry in all the schemes of Scandinavian legislation. These are the only instances in which it is permitted, while its occasional abuse is shown by a section providing punishment for its illegal employment.[1807] Slaves, moreover, under the Icelandic, as under other codes, had no protection at law, and were at the mercy of their masters.[1808] These few indications of the liability of freemen, however, disappear about the time when the rest of Europe was commencing to adopt the use of torture. In the Jarnsida, or code compiled for Iceland by Hako Hakonsen of Norway, in 1258, there is no allusion whatever to its use.
The Scandinavian nations, as a whole, did not admit torture into their systems of jurisprudence. The institution of the jury in various forms was common to all, and where proof upon open trial was deficient, they allowed, until a comparatively recent date, the accused to clear himself by sacramental purgation. Thus, in the Danish laws of Waldemar II., to which the date of 1240 is generally assigned, there is a species of permanent jury, sandemend, as well as a temporary one, nefninge, and torture seems to have formed no part of judicial proceedings.[1809] This code was in force until 1683, when that of Christiern V. was promulgated. It is probable that the employment of torture may have crept in from Germany, without being regularly sanctioned, for we find Christiern forbidding its use except in cases of high treason, where the magnitude of the offence seems to him to justify the infraction of the general rule. He, however, encouraged one of its greatest abuses in permitting it on criminals condemned to death.[1810]
Among the kindred Frisians the tendency was the same. Their code of 1323 is a faithful transcript of the primitive Barbarian jurisprudence. It contains no allusions to torture, and as all crimes, except theft, were still compounded for with wer-gilds, it may reasonably be assumed that the extortion of confession was not recognized as a judicial expedient.[1811]
So, in Sweden, the code of Raguald, compiled in 1441, and in force until 1614, during a period in which torture flourished in almost every European state, has no place for it. Trials are conducted before twelve nempdarii, or jurymen, and in doubtful cases the accused is directed to clear himself by oath or by conjurators. For atrocious crimes the punishments are severe, such as the wheel or the stake, but inflictions like these are reserved for the condemned.[1812] Into these distant regions the Roman jurisprudence penetrated slowly, and the jury trial was an elastic institution which adapted itself to all cases.
To the same causes may be attributed the absence of torture from the Common Law of England. In common with the other Barbarian races, the Anglo-Saxons solved all doubtful questions by the ordeal and wager of law, and in the collection known as the laws of Henry I. a principle is laid down which is incompatible with the whole theory of torture, whether used to extract confession or evidence. A confession obtained by fear or fraud is pronounced invalid, and no one who has confessed his own crime is to be believed with respect to that of another.[1813] Such a principle, combined with the gradual growth of the trial by jury, doubtless preserved the law from the contamination of inquisitorial procedure, though, as we have seen, torture was extensively employed for purposes of extortion by marauders and lawless nobles during periods of civil commotion. Glanville makes no allusion to it, and though Bracton shows a wide acquaintance with the revived Roman jurisprudence, and makes extensive use of it in all matters where it could be advantageously harmonized with existing institutions, he is careful to abstain from introducing torture into criminal procedure.[1814] A clause in Magna Charta, indeed, has been held by high authority to inhibit the employment of torture, but it has no direct allusion to the subject, which was not a living question at the time, and was probably not thought of by any of the parties to that transaction.[1815] In fact, the whole spirit of English law was irreconcilable with the fundamental principles of the inquisitorial process. When the accused was brought before court, he was, it is true, required to appear ungirdled, without boots, or cap, or cloak, to show his humility, but it is expressly directed that he shall not be chained, lest his fetters should embarrass his self-possession in his defence, and he was not to be forced in any way to state anything but of his own free will.[1816] Men who could frame legal maxims so honorable to their sense of justice and so far in advance of the received notions of their age could evidently have nothing in common with the principles which placed the main reliance of the law on confession to be wrung from the lips of an unfortunate wretch who was systematically deprived of all support and assistance. To do so, in fact, is classed with homicide, by a legal writer of the period;[1817] but that it was occasionally practised is shown by his giving a form for the appeal of homicide against judges guilty of it.[1818]
Under the common law, therefore, torture had properly no existence in England, and in spite of occasional efforts on the part of the Plantagenets[1819] the character of the national institutions kept at bay the absorbing and centralizing influences of the Roman law.[1820] Yet their wide acceptance in France, and their attractiveness to those who desired to wield absolute authority, gradually accustomed the crown and the crown lawyers to the idea that torture could be administered by order of the sovereign. Sir John Fortescue, who was Lord Chancellor under Henry VI., inveighs at great length against the French law for its cruel procedures, and with much satisfaction contrasts it with the English practice,[1821] and yet he does not deny that torture was occasionally used in England. Indeed, his fervent arguments against the system, addressed to Prince Edward, indicate an anxiety to combat and resist the spread of civil law doctrines on the subject, which doubtless were favored by the influence of Margaret of Anjou. An instance of its application in 1468 has, in fact, been recorded, which resulted in the execution of Sir Thomas Coke, Lord Mayor of London;[1822] and in 1485, Innocent VIII. remonstrated with Henry VII. respecting some proceedings against ecclesiastics who were scourged, tortured, and hanged.[1823]