 Book 2, Chapter 3, Part 5 of History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 1. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 1, by Henry Charles Lee. Book 2, Chapter 3, Privileges and Exemptions. The right of officials and familiars to hold secular offices raised questions that caused no little debate. It was evidently of advantage to the Inquisition that those who were bound to it and enjoyed its exemptions should be in positions of influence where they could guard its privileges and promote their extension. On the other hand, for these very reasons, the people were jealous of office-holding by its ministers and dreaded to have their local authorities relieved of responsibility through their claim on the fuero or jurisdiction of the Inquisition. Had these local positions been elective, popular good-sense could have averted the danger, but they were awarded by lot, the names of those deemed eligible being placed in a bolsa or bag, a process known as insaclacion, and drawn forth. The earliest instance I have met of a refusal to include officials of the Inquisition among the eligible occurs in 1503 when Ferdinand wrote to his Lieutenant General of Mahorca that he was astonished to learn that the names of Pere Prat, his son Pere Prat, Carmen Litra, and Heranimo Serma had not been insaculated because they held office in the Inquisition. It should rather be a recommendation. They must not be thus dishonored and their names must at once be put in the bolsa. Doubtless, Ferdinand's watchfulness preserved this privilege for officials during his life, but subsequently popular feeling must have manifested itself by their exclusion. For, in 1523, Charles V forbade it in an edict, and he followed this by a special pragmatica, May 30, 1524, asserting their eligibility to public office in all his dominions and for all future time under pain of the Royal Wrath and of 2,000 Florines. But he provided that they should not be entitled to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition for official maleficence. Notwithstanding this, Philip II was obliged to issue special instructions on the subject to Sardinia in 1552 and to Naver in 1558. In this, as in so much else, the Catalans were especially intractable. Cortes of the Three Kingdoms of Aragon were held in 1553, in which Catalonia alone took up the matter and adopted a law, confirmed by Prince Philip, prescribing that no bail or his lieutenant or judge or scrivener could be a familiar, nor could he accept office after his term of service had expired. This received scant obedience, nor did the Inquisition pay attention to the clause of the pragmatica of 1524, depriving it of cognizance of official maleficence. One of the complaints of the Royal Audiencia to De Soto Sassar in his visitation of the Barcelona Tribunal of 1566 was that it assumed jurisdiction in all such cases. Sassar recommended that this should be forbidden for it impeded the proper administration of the towns and officials could not be punished for violating local ordinances about bread, vineyards, meadows, breaking irrigating canals to water their lands, and multitudinous other derelections. Catalonia refused to accept the Concordia of 1568 and, in 1585, the Cortes reenacted the provisions of 1553 in an enlarged form, including almost all offices, and subjecting violation to a penalty of 200 ducats, which was confirmed by Philip II. This seems to have been enforced, for, in 1586, a memorial from the Bishop of Segovia says that in Catalonia the names of all officials of the Inquisition were removed from the lists of elegibles, that commissioners and familiars were resigning, and that every day withdrawals were received from applicants, so that the Tribunal would be crippled and the Cortes could have contrived nothing more damaging. The Catalans held good, despite the earnest efforts of the Holy Office, which declared long afterwards that this was the severest blow that it had ever received. In the Cortes of 1599, the battle was renewed after elaborate preparations by the Inquisitors. On July 30th, the King presented a series of articles in response to those submitted to him by the Cortes, and among them was one declaring officials and familiars eligible to all offices. But the Catalans would have none of it. In the elaborate memorial presented to Clement VIII by the Suprema against the work of the Cortes, it complained bitterly of the laws of 1553 and 1585 as diminishing notably the authority of the Inquisition and causing great lack of officials, so many having ignominously resigned, while others could not be found to replace them. Again, when the Cortes were about to assemble in 1626, the Barcelona Tribunal implored the Suprema to use its utmost exertions for the repeal of the law of 1585, for no person of consideration would accept office, and it was obliged to appoint those of low condition, which was fatal to its authority. The Cortes yielded, in so far as to adopt an article throwing open the offices, provided incumbents were justiciable by the civil courts for a long series of offenses, but the whole legislation of the Cortes came to naught through lack of the royal confirmation. When the question was coming up again in the Cortes of 1632, earnest appeals were made to the Suprema to have the obnoxious law of 1585 repealed. The condition of the Inquisition in Catalonia was represented as most deplorable by reason of it. In a memorial to the king, it was stated that in Barcelona there were but four or five familiars, and they were mechanics ineligible to public office, but there was not a single advocate of the accused, nor an ecclesiastical consulter. So greedy was everyone for public office. Throughout the Principality, there was the same dearth, familiars only in miserable villages, destitute of tempting positions, and those were of base condition, for in fact the barons would endure none other in their lands. The Suprema was urged to bring the matter before the Rota, and it submitted the question to its fiscal, but he wisely reported that, although a favorable result was to be anticipated, yet it was not expedient to set the example of recourse to Rome, which might result in other matters being carried thither with damage to the jurisdiction of the Holy Office. Thus, Catalan pertinacity triumphed, when in 1667 Pedro Montpaler, familiar at Alsuner, asked permission to resign in order to accept the office of Baal, and his request was referred to the Suprema, it replied that it should be denied on account of the evil influence of his example, but it added that if he should renounce his familiarship before the royal justice for the term of his office, the inquisitors should pretend ignorance. In Mahorca, frequent alterations of the law show that it was subject to active debate, and that preponderance shifted from one side to the other. In 1667, it was decided that none of those connected with the inquisition could hold public office. Then, in 1643, they were allowed to do so, in positions where they had not to vote or to give counsel. Again, in 1660 the prohibition was made absolute. Then, in 1662, royal letters of January 11th and March 4th removed the prohibition, provided they would previously renounce all claim to the jurisdiction of the inquisition. These letters afford a remarkable illustration of the vacillation of the monarch, and of the extent to which bureaucracy had crippled his autocracy. Only this time it was the Council of Aragón which imitated the methods of the Suprema. The latter body was dissatisfied with the arrangement, and addressed to the king a consulta, April 5th, 1663, asking its permission, and that a junta of the two councils should be called to consider the subject. Philip promptly acceded, and, on April 10th, ordered the Council of Aragón to write to that effect to the visory. The command was not obeyed, and, on September 19th, the Suprema asked him to remedy the omission, whereupon he asked the Council to state its reasons, and, on its doing so, he again ordered it, October 3rd, to execute his decree of April 10th. It was still recalcitrant, and, on March 19th, 1664, the Suprema represented the delay to the king, who the next day called upon the Council to render an exact account of what it had done. It replied that, in conformity with his commands, it had written on October 3rd, 1663, copy of which it enclosed. This proved to be merely copies of the letters of 1662, which had given rise to the debate, showing that it had deliberately nullified his orders. In view of all this, the Suprema, July 24th, 1664, asked the king to insist on literal compliance, and that a copy of the dispatch of the Council of Aragón to the visory should be furnished to it. This proved to be merely a duplicate of that of October 13th, 1663, with the date altered to April 6th, 1664. When the Suprema again asked the king preemptorily to order exact obedience, and he replied that he had done so. Meanwhile, the visory and the inquisitor of Mahorica had been playing at cross-purposes in consequence of the contradictory dispatches received by each. Such a method of carrying on an organized government seems incredible and trivial as was the question at issue. A case such as this throws light on one of the causes of Spanish decadence. The question itself, after all this trouble, apparently remained unsettled. For, in 1673, there was a competencia over Gabriel Bérecha, a knight of Santiago, and a familiar, when the tribunal contended that he could not renounce its jurisdiction. It would be superfluous to follow out in detail the vicissitudes of this matter in the other provinces of Spain where it gave abundant occasion for quarrels conducted with customary vehemence. It seems to have settled itself into the rule that officials and familiars were eligible to public office, but that, during their terms of service, they were not entitled to the jurisdiction of the inquisition. Such, we are told in 1632, was the practice of Castile, Aragon, and Valencia. Yet, still there were disputes for, about the middle of the 17th century, a formula is given for use when a familiar is prevented from taking office. This sets forth at much length that, if familiars are refused office, no one will take the position, which will inflict great detriment on the faith. It cites the royal sedulce. It sets aside opposing arguments by showing that for all maleficence in office, the familiar will be subject to the royal jurisdiction. And finally, it orders his immediate induction in his post under penalty of excommunication and of 500 Ducats. No further notice will be given, and all further action will be published in the halls of the inquisition, which will be full legal notice to all parties concerned. I have met with no further legislation on the subject, and presumably some arrangement of this kind was enforced to the end. It was highly inconsistent, but at the same time, thoroughly in keeping with the spirit of the inquisition in its dealings with the public, that while it vindicated so energetically the right of its officials to hold honorable and lucrative posts, it claimed for them the privilege to refuse to serve in those which were onerous. In the municipalities, there were a certain number of these latter entailing unremunerative labor and responsibility, which no one could refuse to accept when his name was drawn from the bolsa. The officials claimed to be insaculated for the desirable positions, but not for the undesirable ones. That such a claim could be made and sustained is a forcible illustration to the power of the inquisition. There is no allusion to this in the earlier Concordias and no specific grant that I have been able to find. It seems to have been merely a gratuitous assumption on the part of the inquisition, asserted with its customary persistence. A noteworthy case growing out of it occurred in 1622 in the town of Lorca, where a familiar refused to serve in the office of collector of the Alcalvala. The inquisitors of Mircea demanded his liberation and excommunicated the Alcalde-mer for refusing to obey. This failing, they prepared to arrest him and called upon the corredidor of Mircea, Pedro de Porres, for assistance. On his refusal, they excommunicated him and then laid an interdict on the city of Mircea. The citizens appealed to their bishop, Fri Antonio Trejo, who remonstrated with the tribunal and, finding this unavailing, issued an edict declaring the interdict invalid. Bishops were not subject to inquisitorial jurisdiction, even for heresy, without the special papal faculties. But the inquisitor general, Andres Pacheco, was the most audacious and inexorable ascetor of inquisitorial omnipotence, and he did not hesitate to condemn the Episcopal Edict, to publish the condemnation in all the churches, to find the bishop in 8,000 Ducats, and to summon him under pain of 4,000 more, to appear within 20 days and answer to the action brought against him by the fiscal as an importer of the inquisition. The bishop and chapter sent the dean and a canon to represent them, but, without a hearing, they were thrown incommunicado into the secret prison, excommunicated, and the censure published in all the churches. The inquisitors imprisoned the parish priest of Santa Catalina for disregarding the interdict, and the whole ecclesiastical body of Mircia became involved. Finally, through the intervention of the king and the pope, the bishop was absolved, but the inquisition reaped a rich harvest of fines. Those of the bishop, dean, and some of the canons were kept by the Suprema, while the local tribunal, in addition to inflicting terms of exile, of from one to eight years secured from José Lucas, the Episcopal secretary, a thousand Ducats, from Alonso Perriñán, the fiscal, 800, and from 13 other priests and dignitaries of the church, sums raising from 50 to 150, in all an aggregate of 3,272 Ducats. A claim enforced so relentlessly was dangerous to dispute, and even the Oregonese Concordia of 1646, which registered a triumph over the Holy Office, admitted the right of salaried officials and familiars to decline onerous offices. In time, however, there seems to have come a slight modification of the claim. About 1750, we have the formula of a mandate, issued at the instance of a familiar, forbidding, under pain of excommunication and of 200 Ducats, the authorities of a town from including him among those liable to serve in any of the minor offices, nor in any of the more important ones until every other inhabitant has served his term. It is not difficult to understand the origin of the claim that the buildings of the Inquisition and the houses of its officials were sanctuaries into which the officers of justice could not penetrate without special permission. The asylum afforded to criminals in churches was an old established practice throughout Europe, to which Spain was no exception. Even as late as 1737, the papal sanction was deemed necessary to accept from this certain crimes such as murder, highway robbery, and high treason. Asylum was also afforded by the feudal rights which debarred royal officers of justice from intruding on lands of nobles, and the withdrawal of this right in Granada is cited as one of the causes of the agitation to the rebellion of 1568. In Aragon this was developed so far that a law of Jaime I in the Cortes of Huesca in 1247 which still continued in force gave to the houses of gentlemen the same right of asylum as that possessed by churches. It is therefore somewhat remarkable that the claim of affording asylum was not made at the outset by the Inquisition, especially in view of the importance attached to the secrecy which shrouded all its operations. Yet, until the middle of the 16th century, such claims when made were authoritatively repudiated. Inquisitor General Tavera writes, September 3rd, 1540, a sharp letter to the Inquisitors of Seville saying that he is informed that recently certain murderers have been received and protected in the castle of Triana, occupied by the tribunal, and that the officers of the royal justice had not been allowed to search for them. The punishment of delinquents should be in no way impeded and no occasion be given for complaint. The gates of the castle must be kept shut so that criminals cannot take refuge there. So, in 1546, among instructions from the Suprema to the tribunal of Grenada, is an order that no criminals or debtors shall find refuge in the Inquisition, nor be allowed to sleep there, nor between the gates. The janitor must eject them and, if they will not go, report it to the Inquisitors for proper action. This shows that the abuse was commencing, but that it was disapproved, and the same is seen in the Valencia Concordia of 1554, which says that, as the Inquisition has no privileges as an asylum, it cannot protect those who take refuge there. Evidently, the local tribunals were claiming a right, which the central authority disallowed. They were more over-claiming not only for the building of the Inquisition, but for the houses of officials and familiars. Among the Malfest Senses of the Barcelona Tribunal, reported in 1567 by De Soto Salazar, were cases of this kind. When the bail of Perpec Nari sought to arrest some culprits, they were sheltered by Pedro de Roca, a familiar, in his house, and he resisted the bail who came with a passe to arrest them. Roca accused the bail and his men for this. They were imprisoned for a long while by the Barcelona Inquisitors, and were condemned to fines and exile. So when the bail of Senses with a passe broke into the house of Vicente Vallele, who was merely a temporary commissioner to arrest some culprits who had taken refuge there, he accused them, and they were all imprisoned. The rapidity with which the abuse developed in Valencia is manifested by a comparison of the Concordias of 1554 and 1568. The former, as we have seen, admits that the Inquisition could offer no asylum, while the latter is obliged to forbid the lower officials and familiars from putting the arms of the Inquisition on their houses. All such must be removed, and their houses shall not have immunity from the officers of justice. Evidently, the officials found profit in harboring thieves and murderers, and the tribunal supported them. In Barcelona, a sort of compromise was reached, by which, on application to the tribunal, one of its ministers was sent with the officers of justice to enter houses of officials where criminals had taken refuge. But the Cortes of 1599 complained that this delay afforded time for escape, and, in the abortive Concordia enacted there, a clause provided that this should not be necessary, and that, in case of resistance, houses could be entered. It shows how slow was the Suprema to assert a right of asylum that, in its protest to clement the 8th, it accepts this article on the ground that the Inquisition never has impeded the pursuit and arrest of malefactors. In time, however, it overcame these scruples, and, in 1632, it issued repeated orders that the officers of justice should not be allowed to enter the houses of officials. Philip IV countermanded this, but the Suprema presented a consulta, that there was no objection when the pursuit was flagrante delito. Prisoners, however, were frequently confined in the houses of officials, and an unlimited right of entry might be abused to obtain communication with them in violation of the all-important secrecy of the Holy Office. As usual, the vacillating monarch yielded, and, in 1634, issued a decree restricting the right of search to cases of hot pursuit. It is remarkable that the Aragonis Concordia of 1646 imposed by the Cortes on Philip, which, in so many ways, restricted the privileges of the Inquisition, recognized this doubtful one in the fullest manner. As the ministers, it says, of so wholly an office should enjoy certain honors and preeminence, it orders that they, including familiars, shall have, as to their houses, the same privileges as Caballeros and Ihostalgo, which, as we have seen, included the right of asylum. As regards the building of the Inquisition itself, a scandalous case occurring in 1638 shows how far it had traveled since Tavera rebuked the Tribunal of Seville. In Mahorca, the Count of Ayamanno, at the head of a band of assassins, committed the sacrilege of escalating the walls of a convent for the purpose of murdering his wife who had sought refuge there. Philip ordered every effort made to arrest him and his accomplices, but he escaped to Barcelona with eight of them and all found asylum in the Inquisition. In the apartments of his uncle, the Inquisitor Cotayer, it affords a curious insight into the conditions of the period to see that this created a situation impenetrable to the highest authorities of the land. Philip called a junta of two members each of the Suprema and Council of Aragon to devise how the criminals could be captured without scandal or quarrel with the Inquisition. The result of their deliberations seems to be a letter from the Suprema to Cotayer, telling him that, if he wanted to help his nephew, it should be outside and not inside of the Inquisition, in order to avoid the troubles ensuing on an attempt of the royal officers to remove him. The imperturbable Cotayer was not to be scared by this gentle warning, and a fortnight later the Suprema enclosed to him a royal decree, telling him that he would see the untoward results of sheltering his nephew. As complete satisfaction was demanded, he was ordered to report in full all details, including his motives in harboring one who was put to the ban, especially when the latter was not a familiar. Unfortunately, we do not know how the affair ended, but when the Suprema, in place of dismissing Cotayer, inquired as to his motives, we may assume that the asylum offered by the Inquisition saved the forfeit life of the criminal by some compromise. The immunity of the houses of officials became generally recognized, with the proviso that permission of search would be granted by Inquisitors if special application was made to them, when they preserved their jurisdiction by sending one of their people to accompany the officers of justice. An exception which proved the rule, however, was made in favor of the administrators of the tax on tobacco, to whom general letters were given empowering them to search the houses of officials for contraband tobacco. Even this was argued away by the Suprema in 1728, when it asserted that semi-proof in advance was necessary to justify search and full proof to give jurisdiction. It is evident from the above that the Holy Office, with its claims for special privileges and exemptions, and its methods for enforcing their recognition, was a very disturbing factor in the body politic. Yet the greatest source of conflict lay in the exclusive jurisdiction which it sought to establish over all who were connected with it, not only between themselves, but between them and the rest of the community. This engrossed so large a portion of its activity and was the cause of such perpetually recurring trouble that its consideration requires a chapter to itself. End of Book 2, Chapter 3, Part 5 Book 2, Chapter 4, Part 1 of History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 1. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 1. By Henry Charles Lee. Book 2, Chapter 4, Conflicting Jurisdictions, Part 1 The principal source of strife between the Inquisition and the other authorities arose from its claim to exclusive competence in all cases involving those connected with it and their dependents. This gave rise to perpetual conflicts conducted with the utmost tenacity which filled the land with confusion and, in many cases, rendered the administration of justice a mockery. For two centuries, the monarchs vainly endeavored to keep the peace by repeated efforts to define the boundaries between the rival jurisdictions and the methods of settling their differences. The tireless efforts on the one side of the Holy Office to extend its authority and increase its emoluments cost it constantly to violate compacts. While the jealousy of the civil magistracy on the other and its natural desire to repel intrusion rendered it prompt to use whatever means lay in its power. The struggle was unequal against the superior weapons furnished by papal faculties and against the royal favor which was with the Inquisition but the conflict was maintained with marvelous constancy supported by popular sympathy and the time of the king and his advisers was flittered away in deciding a continuous stream of petty quarrels growing out of trivial incidents but assuming portentous proportions through the violent methods which had aggravated them. To understand the claim of the Inquisition to exclusive cognizance of the cases of its subordinates it is necessary to bear in mind the benefit of clergy through which, from the early Middle Ages all clerics were exempted from the jurisdiction of the laity and were subjected wholly to the spiritual courts. This amounted virtually to immunity for crime both because those courts were debarred from rendering judgments of blood and because of the inevitable favoritism manifested to those of their own cloth. A civilization advanced the disorders caused by a class thus emboldened in wrongdoing by impunity were the source of constant solicitude to rulers and were deplored by right-thinking churchmen. In this, Spain was no exception. In a project of instructions drawn up by a Spanish bishop for the delegates to the Lateran Council in 1512 the crimes and scandals perpetrated by married clerics and those in the lower orders through the expectation of immunity are dwelt upon as reasons for a change. There were daily conflicts between the spiritual and secular courts leading to interdicts cast on cities and some universal legislation by the church was desirable. No such remedy was adopted and when the Council of Trent gave promise of reform the Spanish prelates, in contrast with the inquisition which made every effort to extend its jurisdiction over offenders proposed in 1562 to the council that married clerics wearing secular habits should not enjoy protection from secular justice. In 1544, Fernando de Aragon, when visceral of Valencia, declared that his principal trouble lay with the church of which the chief object was to protect evil doers and liberate them from his justice an opinion in which he was heartily seconded by the saintly Tomás de Villanova then recently appointed archbishop. This aversion in Spain to ecclesiastical encroachment led to repeated enactments restraining spiritual jurisdiction within strict limits. In a series of laws dating from the 14th to the 16th century, Henry II, Juan II, Henry IV, Ferdinand and Isabella, and Charles V, endeavored by the severest penalties to repress its inevitable tendency to extend itself by seizure of the persons or property of the lady or by entertaining cases between laymen. Ferdinand and Isabella in 1493 even threatened half confiscation and perpetual exile from Spain for all who, under any pretext, aided ecclesiastical judges in taking prisoners from secular officials or who assisted them in any way. In addition to this was the Recurso de Fuerza through which appeal lay to the royal courts or to the sala de gobierno whenever the spiritual courts refused an appeal or heard secular cases or those in which laymen were concerned. It is necessary to bear in mind this tendency and these restrictions on ecclesiastical jurisdiction to estimate properly the latitude obtained by the inquisition in purely secular affairs. Whether at its inception, the inquisition enjoyed the prerogative of exclusive cognizance of cases involving its officials, it would be impossible now to say. They were mostly laymen and as such were subject to the secular courts while in the popular opposition elicited by their proceedings, especially in the Aragonese kingdoms. There might be anticipated danger that they would be terrorized or prosecuted unless protected by being reserved for judgment by their own tribunals. The earliest mandate to this effect that I have met is a Sedola of Ferdinand, March 26, 1488, addressed to all the officers of justice in Catalonia, ordering them, under penalty of 2,000 florins and the royal wrath, to take no cognizance of anything concerning the ministers and familiars of the inquisition. All their acts in such cases are declared invalid and anyone whom they may have arrested is at once to be transferred to the tribunal, showing that, at least in Catalonia, no such exemption from secular justice had previously been recognized. Yet, in this unlimited decree, Ferdinand had overlooked details which necessarily presented themselves in practice. Was this exemption from secular jurisdiction confined to the titulados i assalariados or did it extend to the unsalaried commissioners and familiars receiving no pay pursuing their customary avocations and only called upon for occasional service? There was also a question about the servants of officials for an abuse of the spiritual courts had included those of clerics. Then it might be asked whether the protection accorded to the person of the official extended to his property in civil suits with a wide avenue that's open to abuses of many kinds. There was, moreover, a well-settled principle of law that the accuser of plaintiff must seek the court of the defendant if, in violation of this, the official could enjoy what was known as the act of fuero as well as the passive. That is, if he as plaintiff could bring suit or prosecution before his own tribunal, his power of offense would be vastly increased together with his opportunities for tyrannizing over all around him. These were questions which had to be decided. It would seem that the inquisitors construed their powers in the most liberal fashion, giving rise to abuses which called for oppression and the limitation of their jurisdiction. The reformatory instructions of 1498, accordingly, ordered them not to defend officials and their servants in civil cases and only officials in criminal actions are ruled repeated in a Carta Accordada of May 4 of the same year. These excluded servants wholly and deprived officials of the fuero in civil matters, but it was soon modified by Ferdinand in the letter of January 12, 1500 to the Catalonia Tribunal, ordering it not to interfere with the royal court in a certain suit and expressing the rule that the plaintiff must seek the court of the defendant. It was impossible, however, to restrain inquisitors from exceeding their jurisdiction, and he was obliged, August 20, 1502, to repeat his injunctions to the same tribunal in consequence of complaints from the depotados. The inquisitors were roundly taken to task for lending themselves to the schemes of the receiver in buying up debts and claims and then collecting them through the tribunal. They were told that they must defend none but salaried officials actually in service. If they are plaintiffs in civil suits, they must apply to the court of the defendants, while if they are defendants, the plaintiffs must seek the tribunal. To evoke other cases, he says, causes great scandal and will lead to travels which must be prevented. A fortnight later, he emphasized this about a civil case which they had evoked from the royal court. They must remit it back and not have to be written to again, as he would not tolerate such proceedings. Thus, familiars and servants were not entitled to the pharaoh or inquisitorial jurisdiction while salaried officials enjoyed it active and passive in criminal actions and only passive in civil suits. Unduly favorable as was this to the inquisition, the tribunals paid no attention to its limitations. They welcomed all who sought their judgment seat and the desire for it of those who had no claim on it shows that they had a reputation of selling justice. One or two cases will exemplify this and show how good were the grounds of complaint by the people. There was a certain one descent phallu of Murviedro whose father and mother in law had been condemned for heresy and to whom Ferdinand had kindly granted their confiscations, including the dowry of his wife. In 1505, the town of Murviedro farmed out to him and his wife they imposed on Mith for 11,100 sueldos a year. He died and in the settlement of his account he was found to owe the town 150 libras which he proceeded to collect from his sons in the court of the governor. Under pretext that his property had been confiscated and restored, they appealed in 1511 to the tribunal of Valencia which promptly evoked the case and inhibited the court from further action whereupon the town complained to Ferdinand who ordered the case remitted to the governor. Unabashed by this, in 1513 Ferdinand's heirs on the same pretext obtained the intervention of the tribunal in another case in which Dona Violante de Borja had sued them for 7,500 sueldos which she had entrusted to him to invest in a senso of the town of Murviedro. The senso had been paid off and he had concealed the fact and kept the money. The judgment was given against them when the inquisitors interposed and prohibited the royal court from further action. Ferdinand expressed much indignation at their interference with justice in a matter wholly foreign to their jurisdiction and ordered the prohibition to be withdrawn. Even more arbitrary was the action in 1511 of the Mahorca Tribunal when Pedro Tornamirandes sued the heirs of Francisco Ballester for some cattle and obtained judgment in the court of the royal lieutenant whereupon the heirs appealed to the inquisitor who evoked the case and forbade further proceedings in the secular court. None of the parties had any connection with the inquisition and there was not even the pretext of confiscation. It was a mere wanton interference with the course of justice only explicable by some illicit gain when his attention was called to it he ordered the inquisitor to revoke his action. If under Ferdinand's incessant vigilance the inquisition thus boldly prostituted its powers we can appreciate how well founded under his careless successors were the complaints of those who suffered under wrongs perpetrated under the pretense of serving God. In the Catalan Concordia of 1512 there was an attempt to do away with the abuses and the bull Pastoralis Ofici of Leo de Tenth confirming the Concordia marks another stage in the development of the Fuero. No one, he said, could be cited saving his own ordinary court at the instance of an official or familiar. If it were attempted all acts concerning it were invalid and the inquisitors must condemn the plaintiff in double the expenses and damage if any official bought property in suit or in which a suit was expected he could be cited before a court not his own and if he claimed property under seizure by a secular judge the latter could disregard all inhibitions issued by inquisitors moreover inquisitors should have no cognizance in matters concerning the private property of officials. While thus striking at some of the more flagrant abuses of the Fuero Leo opened the door to worse ones by admitting familiars and the commensals or servants of officials to participation in the immunities of the inquisition. The bull in fact is in accordance with the instructions of 1514 as issued by inquisitor general Mercader and we shall see how completely the restrictive clauses were ignored while those admitting familiars and servants were developed. The question as to familiars and servants was not absolutely settled for some years. It is true that in 1515 at Logroño when the Corridor arrested Martin de Viana a servant of the secretari Lesana and refused to surrender him to the tribunal he and his deputy and Algoazil were excommunicated and the Suprema on appeal subjected them all to fines and humiliating penance. On the other hand in 1516 at Valladolid when Alonso de Torres servant of inquisitor Frias was thrown into the royal prison the inquisitor did not reclaim him but procured the interposition of the Suprema which ordered him to be released on bail and then after nine months had passed without a charge being brought against him he procured a royal sedola for the release of his bondsmen. Whatever doubts may have existed on the subject were removed in 1518 by a sedola of Charles V reciting that in high end the secular courts assumed cognizance of criminal cases concerning officials and familiars and their servants which was contrary to the privileges of the holy office were for he forbade it strictly for the future. After this the imposition had no hesitation in insisting on its rights the officials of Toledo were excommunicated for punishing the servant of an inquisitor and the Empress Regent Isabel wrote to the tribunal to absolve them the Suprema instructed it not to obey her she learned the lesson and in 1535 when ordering some servants of inquisitors and familiars to be remitted to the inquisition she said it was accustomed to have their cases both civil and criminal and it was her pleasure that these should be observed the civil authorities were somewhat dilatory in recognizing the immunity of servants and cases continued to occur in which the tribunals vindicated their jurisdiction energetically about 1565 two officers of the royal justice in Barcelona arrested the servant of inquisitor Mexia in a brothel where he was quarreling with the woman for which they were thrown into the secret prison as though they were heretics and were banished for 30 months while the judge of the royal criminal court who had something to do with the matter was compelled to appear in the audience chamber and undergo a reprimand in the presence of the assembled officials of the tribunal the virtual immunity for offenders resulting from the privilege is illustrated by the case in the same tribunal of Pedro Juncar servant of the receiver who murdered the janitor of the governor of Catalonia the governor arrested him but was forced to surrender him to the tribunal which discharged him with a sentence of exile for a year or two and costs the influence and social order of conferring immunity on such a class can readily be conceived the privilege of the pharaoh was not confined to servants but was extended in whatever direction the ingenuity and perseverance of the tribunal could enforce it penitents who were fulfilling their terms of penance were claimed and the claim was confirmed in 1547 by Prince Philip in Valencia in Barcelona the work men employed in the buildings of the Inquisition were given nominal appointments under which they claimed immunity in Lima the tribunal complained to the visoroy of the arrest of a bricklayer who was working for it but it got no satisfaction in Barcelona the tribunal granted inhibition with censures on the civil court which the brother of a familiar was suing a merchant on a protested bill of exchange we have seen the limitations imposed by Ferdinand and the bull pastoralis of Vici and the reiteration of the principle that the plaintiff must seek justice in the court of the defendant as far as regards Castile Charles V had overthrown this in criminal matters for both officials and familiars civil cases remained in a somewhat especially concerning familiars the inquisitors endeavouring to grasp as far as they could both the active and passive Fuedo when in 1551 complete scheme from Valencia that the tribunal was collecting debts for familiars inquisitor general Valdez wrote that he did not know how this had come to pass and called for precise information as to when it had commenced and generally as to the method observed in the civil cases active and passive of familiars so that he could answer Prince Philip there was a good deal of uncertainty about the whole subject the courts were restive and the situation was becoming strained in the endeavour to settle it Charles in 1542 reissued his edict of 1518 with the sobrecarta emphatically commanding its strict observance and forbidding the secular courts from any cognizance of the criminal cases officials or familiars this did not mean matters the courts persisted in exercising jurisdiction over familiars that a curso de fuerza was freely invoked and competencias multiplied both sides appealed to Charles who was in Germany and this time the opponents of the imposition gained the advantage Prince Philip as regent issued a sedula May 151545 in which he described how laymen subject to the secular courts obtained immunity for their crimes on pretext of being familiars how the tribunals in defending them cast excommunications on the officers of justice through which scandals and disquiet were daily increasing and the courts of justice was impeded the familiars were in no way entitled to immunity from the secular courts as they were not officials although a different custom existed in Aragon and the inquisitors pretended to it in Castile under the sedula of 1518 and the sobresedula of 1542 but these were both irregular not having been dispatched by the council and secretariat of Castile as his customary and necessary therefore in order that the delinquent familiars may not remain unpunished and be induced to commit crimes by the prospect of immunity temporal ordered the matter thoroughly discussed and meanwhile the sedulas of 1518 and 1542 to be suspended in conformity with which they are declared to be suspended inquisitors are ordered no longer to take cognizance of the cases of familiars and the secular courts are instructed to prosecute them in accordance with the laws the inquisition did not acquiesce timely in this defeat which was aggravated by the secular courts interpreting it as giving them jurisdiction over officials as well as familiars it protested and resisted and showed so little obedience that the courtes of Valladolid in 1548 asked that it should be compelled to confine itself to its proper functions in matters of faith quarrels and recursos de Forza continued and finally the whole question was referred to a junta consisting of two members each from the Suprema and Council of Castile the representatives of the inquisition conceded that it had been in fault in appointing too many familiars and in claiming for them all the exemptions of salaried officials those of the council admitted that the courts had erred in interfering with civil and criminal cases properly appertaining to the holy office mutual concessions were made resulting in what was known as the Concordia of Castile March 10, 1553 an agreement which the inquisition admitted a century later that neither side had observed the Concordia was silent as to the salaried officials thus leaving them in possession of the active and passive duero in both civil and criminal cases it devoted itself holy to the familiars who in this as in so much else were the leading source of trouble after regulating as we shall see here after their number and character it defined that in civil cases they should be subject holy to the secular courts for the greater crimes moreover cognizance was also reserved exclusively to the courts the least comprising treason unnatural crime sedition violating royal safe conducts disobedience to royal mandates treachery, rape carrying off women highway robbery, arson force breaking and crimes of greater magnitude than this as well as resistance or formal disrespect to the royal courts those who held office were also amenable to the courts for official malfeasance this left only petty offenses subject to inquisitorial jurisdiction and for these familiars were liable to arrest by secular magistrates subject to be immediately transferred to the inquisition for doubtful cases it was provided that when the lay judge and inquisitor could not agree there should be no contention but the evidence was to be sent to the court of the king where two members each of the Suprema and Council of Castile should decide as to the jurisdiction for this a majority was required and in case of equal division of votes the matter went to the king for final decision no appeal from this was allowed and meanwhile the accused was retained in the prison to which he had been consigned at arrest this process of adjudicating disputes became known as competencia the details of which will be considered hereafter End of Book 2 Chapter 4 Part 1 Recording by Shena Sir Fresno, California Book 2 Chapter 4 Part 2 of history of the inquisition of Spain Volume 1 This is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org History of the Inquisition of Spain Volume 1 by Henry Charles Lee Book 2 Chapter 4 Conflicting Jurisdictions Part 2 Whatever concession the inquisition made in thus surrendering a portion of its jurisdiction over familiars was more than compensated by what was evidently part of the agreement the issue on the same day of Philips Sedola addressed to all judicial bodies forbidding them to entertain appeals of any kind from the acts of the holy office it thus secured complete it was rendered self-judging responsible to the king alone and the populations were surrendered holy to its discretion As far as regards Castile the Concordia of 1553 was final it is true that the royal Sedola of Aranüez April 28, 1583 extended its principles to the salaried officials but there is no trace of the observance of this another point was subjected to a temporary modification the absolute denial of justice in allowing inquisitors to have their civil suits decided by their own tribunals attracted attention after nearly a century and the Suprema February 18, 1641 ordered that these cases should be referred to it when, if it deemed proper to question the tribunal to hear them but this slender restriction seems to have elicited so active an opposition that it was withdrawn within three months by a counter-order of May 14 restoring to the inquisitors the power of sitting in judgment on their own cases it is easy to conceive the amount of oppression and wrong which they could thus inflict with these trivial exceptions the Concordia remained the law in Castile in 1568 Philip II issued a sedula stating that it had not been observed wherefore he ordered strict compliance with it and as late as 1775 Carlos III treats it as being still in force and to be respected by all parties if Philip however expected peace between the rival and jealous jurisdictions as the result of the Concordia he deceived himself both were eager for quarrel and opportunities to gratify combative instincts were not lacking the secular courts resented the intrusion of the inquisition which was careful to keep antagonism active by the insulting arrogance of its methods whenever a question arose between them there was ample field for contention for not only were the accepted crimes loosely defined giving rise to many nice questions but the inquisition accurately argued that before the royal courts could assume possession of a case the crime must be fully proved for the familiar was entitled to the fuero until his guilt was ascertained thus keeping in its own hands all the vital parts of the process and excluding the secular justices then the circle of accepted cases was enlarged not only for familiars but for salaried officials by various edicts from time to time as we have seen with regard to pistols and discharging firearms another instance was a sedula of Philip II in 1566 including among exceptions the violation of royal pragmaticas which was put to the test in 1594 when the chance salary of Granada prosecuted a notary of the tribunal for wearing a larger ruff than was allowed by a samchewari pragmatica the tribunal excommunicated the judges but when the case was carried after the Suprema and Council of Castile the chance salary was justified in the frenzied efforts to maintain the value the worthless vellon coinage Philip IV by repeated edicts between 1631 and 1660 deprived familiars and salaried officials of the fuero in cases of demanding more than the legal premium for the precious metals or of counterfeiting or importing base money frauds and the revenue from tobacco also deprived all offenders of exemptions by a pragmatica of 1719 but it was difficult to enforce and had to be repeated in 1743 after which at last inquisitor General Prado Equesta in 1747 ordered the tribunals to obey it although Navarre was under the crown of Castile the concordia of 1553 was not extended to it until 1665 by a royal sedola of May 9th the questions which agitated the rest of Spain seem to have rarely presented themselves there for we hear little of them in that quarter although in 1564 the tribunal of Logronio complained of the intrusion of the secular courts on its jurisdiction and there were as we shall see here after occasional collisions on the subject of witchcraft which was mixedy 40 the kingdoms of the crown of Aragon were the scenes of much greater trouble than those of Castile in delimiting the boundaries of the rival jurisdictions for they still had institutions which could remonstrate against abuses and struggle for their removal we have seen how Recalcitrante were when the inquisition was introduced and how vigorously they struggled against the abuses which followed in the concordias of 1512 and 1520 they secured certain paper guarantees but these were brushed aside by the inquisition with customary ill faith irritation and hostility became chronic with the result that they were denied some of the slender alleviations vouchsafed to Castile on the ground that the character of the population and the neighborhood of the heretics of France rendered it necessary that the holy office should be fortified with greater privileges than in the rest of Spain of the three kingdoms Valencia was the one which gave the least trouble in this matter the case occurring in 1540 is highly significant of the terrorism under which the royal judges discharged their duties Dr. Ferrer of Tortosa one of the judges appealed to inquisitor general Tavera representing that in the previous year he had condemned to death a murderer who had fully deserved it now that the inquisitor had come his enemies represent that the culprit was a familiar although he had never claimed to be one and it is currently reported that the inquisitor is about to prosecute him if he is in fault in the matter he will carefully submit to punishment but he begs not to be subjected to the infamy of a trial to this appeal the supreme responded by ordering the inquisitor to send it such evidence as he may gather and to await a reply before taking action it is evident that all criminal judges lived in an atmosphere of dread less than any moment the honest discharge of their functions might precipitate them into a disastrous conflict with the tribunal it justifies the complaints of the courtes of 1547 in 1553 the latter of which declared that the inquisitors exceeded their jurisdiction intervening in many affairs both civil and criminal had no connection with heresy these caused great disturbance of justice and contentions between the jurisdictions in which the tribunal assumed to be supreme and to define the limits of its own power great as were these evils they were daily increasing and were becoming intolerable wherefore the courtes pray that the subject be investigated and a clear definition be made between the royal jurisdiction this resulted in a junta of the members of the supreme and of the council of Paragon who agreed the Panoconcordia published by Prince Philip May 11, 1554 in this he recited that in consequence of the great numbers of familiars and their endeavoring to have all their cases civil and criminal tried by the tribunal which sought to protect them in this against the claims of the judges there had recent many contentions in which the whole of the audience had been excommunicated to put an end to this unseemly strike he had caused the junta to be held with the result of the following articles which he ordered both sides to observe the royal officials under pain of a thousand Florians and the inquisitors as they decide to please him and the emperor in this the first point was the reduction of the excessive number of familiars in the city of Valencia they were not to exceed 180 in towns of more than a thousand hearts there might be 8 in those of over 506 in smaller places 4 except that in the coast towns there might be 2 more lists of all appointees were to be furnished to the magistrates to check excess and to identify individuals in civil suits they were to enjoy the pasipuero but not the active if in contracts they renounced this privilege the condition held good while if the other party agreed to accept the jurisdiction of the inquisition he could not be cited before it in criminal cases the inquisition had sole cognizance with respect to officials and families and to familiars but not to their wives, children and servants when contests arose with secular courts mild measures were to be used to in excommunication be avoided as far as possible when a familiar entered into a treaty of peace and truth it was to be executed before an inquisitor and if it contained a condition of death or violation the inquisitor in case of such violation was to relax the culprit to the secular arm to be put to death Familiar sewer in trade were not to enjoy the furrow for frauds or violations of municipal loss and officials holding public office were liable to the secular courts for malfeasance therein this would appear to grant to the inquisition all that it had any excuse for asking but it was impossible to bind the inquisitors to any compact or to observe any rules a letter to them from the Suprema in September 1560 reminds them that it had already ordered them in the case of one Sanchez to deprive him of his familiarship to withdraw their inhibitions and censures and to remit the affair to the secular judge in spite of which they had gone forward and rendered sentence now a Sanchez is not a familiar they must positively send the case back to the ordinary courts when such persistence in injustice existed it is not surprising that at the courtes of Monzon in 1564 the deputies of Valencia like those of Aragon and Catalonia presented a series of complaints bearing chiefly on abuses of jurisdiction we happen to have a view of the situation by an impartial observer the Venetian envoy Giovanni Soranzo in his relation of 1565 which is worth repeating although we must bear in mind that it was impossible for a Venetian statesman to give Philip the second credit for the honest fanaticism which underlay his character after alluding to the privileges of the Aragonis kingdoms he proceeds the king uses every opportunity to deprive them of these great privileges and knowing that there is no easier or more certain method of inquisition he is continually increasing his authority in his last courtes the Aragonis pray that the inquisition should take cognizance of no cases save those of religion and say that they grieved greatly that it embraced infinite things as distant as possible from its jurisdiction and they presented many cases not pertaining in any way to its duties in truth at present the inquisition interposes in everything without respect to anyone of whatever rank or position and we may say positively that this tribunal is the real master which rules and dominates all Spain the king replied that the inquisition was not to be discussed in the courtes when they all arose and threatened to depart without finishing any other business if the king did not wish them to discuss a matter of so much importance to them the king quieted them by promising that still he would listen to their complaints and would not fail to grant the appropriate relief but undoubtedly he did this so that the courtes should end without a revolt his intention being to increase rather than to diminish the importance of the inquisition clearly recognizing it as the means of maintaining his reputation and of keeping the people in obedience and terror Soran's account of the courtes is not fully complete after his return to Castile the deputies replied that they did not choose to be convoked in Castile and that they would go no further with the subsidio which he wanted until they were satisfied the sessions were prolonged the patients of the deputies outwore his own and he promised that he would have a visitation made of the tribunals of the three kingdoms and then in concert with their deputados issue a new series of regulations the promise was kept Francisco de Soto Salazar a member of the Suprema was sent in 1566 with full powers and instructions to investigate all abuses but especially those connected with jurisdiction in matters not of faith in Valencia his attention was particularly called to a practice of appointing deputies, inquisitors and officials and investing them with the privilege of the fuero as well as mechanics employed on the palace of the inquisition and houses of the officials and also to the overgrown number of familiars and their character in Catalonia especially he found much to criticize as we shall have occasion to see hereafter for he performed his mission thoroughly and conscientiously he listened to all complaints investigated them and bore back to the Suprema full reports which bore hardly of all the tribunals prolonged debates ensued between the Suprema, the Council of Aragon and the deputados and finally in 1568 a new concordia was issued it is significant that it no longer was a royal decree but bore the shape of instructions from inquisitor general Espinosa and the Suprema to the tribunals and the king only appeared in it as communicating it to his representatives in ordering its observance and repaying of a thousand florins coupled with commands to favor and reverence the inquisition and its officials to give them all necessary aid and to protect and defend their privileges the concordia thus granted to Valencia, confirmed that of 1554 and ordered its observance adding a number of special provisions highly suggestive of the abuses which had flourished including a view in some detail of the causes of popular irritation and of the remedy sought I subjoin an abstract of the articles bearing on the subject Outside of the city the local magistrates are to have cognizance of civil cases of familiars involving less than 12 libras Familiars of other districts settling in Valencia Lus de Ferro but retain it if the residence is temporary the number of familiars is to be reduced to that provided in 1554 weeding out the least desirable They must present themselves with their commissions to the local magistrates in order to be entered on the lists without which they forfeit their exemption The provision depriving those in trade of the ferro for frauds and offenses committed in their business which has not been observed is to be enforced Crimes committed prior to appointment are not entitled to the ferro No cleric or religious or powerful noble or baron is to be appointed Consultors are not to be considered as officials but only persons holding commissions from the inquisitor general to whom may be added as steward of the prison and to advocates of personers In future the servants of officials must really be servants living with them and receiving regular wages in order to be protected by the inquisitors Inquisitors are not to interfere at the petition of an official or familiar with the regulations of the college of surgeons Any familiar who is a carpenter and who brings lumber from the Sierra of Cuenca shall not be protected by the inquisitors but shall be left for judgment to the secular court Outside of cases of heresy Inquisitors must not interfere with the execution of justice the judge under protects that culprits have committed offenses pertaining to them but in such cases the judges shall be notified and allowed to execute justice after which the inquisitors can inflict punishment In case of heresy however a prisoner can be demanded to be returned after trial provided he is not sentenced to relaxation Familiars are not to be protected from municipal regulations nor during pestilence in the refusal to observe the regulations for the avoidance of contagion they must submit for inspection the goods which they bring in and the royal judges shall not be prevented from imposing the penalties provided in the Royal Pragmatica Commissioners shall not form competencies with secular or ecclesiastical judges nor shall their assistants enjoy greater privileges than familiars persons temporarily employed to make arrests or to read the edicts or as procurators etc shall not be defended by the inquisitors as the inquisitorial district of Valencia comprehends the Ruelli Naragon in Tortosa in Catalonia those places are not to be exempted from the concordia under the pretext that the concordia of 1554 spoke of the kingdom of Valencia the widows of officials while remaining unmarried enjoy both civil and criminal fuero but not their children and families as has been the case but widows of familiars are deprived of it and are not to be defended by the inquisitors the judge employed by the inquisitors to hear the cases of officials and familiars is to be dismissed such cases are to be heard by the inquisitors outside of the regular hours of service and for these they are to charge no fees servants and families of salary officials are only to have the passive fuero in civil cases like familiars inquisitors are no longer to defend familiars in matters of the apportionment of irrigating waters injuries to harvests vineyards, pastures forests, furnishing of lights licenses for building street cleaning, road mending and furnishing provisions inquisitors are not to publish edicts with excommunication for the discovery of deaths thefts or other hidden offenses committed against officials and familiars nor such edicts against any delinquents saving cases of heresy persons arrested except for heresy are not to be confined in the secret prison but in the public one where they can confer with their council and procurators and they are to be allowed to hear mass and receive the sacraments familiars holding office are not to be defended for official frauds or malfeasance but the secular authorities are to be freely allowed to administer justice inquisitors shall not give safe conducts to persons outlawed or banished by the royal judges except in cases of faith and then only for the time necessary to appear before them when any official or familiar in criminal or civil cases not of faith has consented tacitly or explicitly to the secular jurisdiction or has pleaded clergy the inquisitors shall not protect him nor inhibit the secular judges and if any official or familiar inherits property and litigation the case shall remain in the court where it is spending as familiars in civil cases of only the passive and not active vero shall no longer, as adhered to for, be artifices employed such as pretend criminal prosecutions and interdicts to obtain cognizance of such cases but they shall be conducted in the court of the defendant when a suit between outsiders has been decided if any official or familiar intervenes to prevent the execution of the decision on the pretext that he is in possession of the property at issue or a part of it the inquisitors shall not support him in it if an outsider commits a crime while in company with an official or familiar or is an accomplice in a crime committed by an official or familiar the inquisitors shall not have cognizance of his case but only of that of the official or familiar when a grave crime has been committed by or against the familiar the inquisitors shall not send the judge testimony or punish with salary by the day but shall avoid expense by making a commissioner gather the evidence inquisitors shall no longer enforce contracts of peace and truth unless they have been entered into before them or by their order inquisitors shall not have cognizance of contracts between outsiders because of a clause submitting them to the federal nor of cases of donations or session to officials or familiars inquisitors shall not protect with those of officials and familiars and refusing to pay imposts and contributions when inquisitors have to summon secular judges before them it must be only in cases where it is unavoidable and then only with great consideration if a bankrupt is a familiar the inquisitors have cognizance but not in the case of an outsider under pretext an official or familiar is a creditor familiar shall not make arrests or other execution of justice without orders from inquisitors inquisitors shall not proceed against the priors and officials of guilds and confraternities who levy upon a familiar who is a member for those under the rules of the association or when a familiar has had the administration of a church or hermitage or hospital and for debts or contributions do end of book 2 chapter 4 part 2 recording by Shana Sear, Fresno, California book 2 chapter 4 part 3 of history of the inquisition of Spain volume 1 this is a LibriVax recording all LibriVax recordings are in the public domain for more information please visit LibriVax.org history of the inquisition of Spain volume 1 by Henry Charles Lee book 2 chapter 4 conflicting jurisdictions part 3 the other prayers and demands of the courtesse were rejected but those which were granted sufficiently indicate the abusive manner in which the tribunal had extended its jurisdiction how that jurisdiction was admittedly used to protect officials and familiars in violations of law and how intolerable was the influence on municipal and commercial life of letting loose on the community a class who were beyond the reach of justice we can readily understand the eagerness of the lawless and unscrupulous to obtain positions which secured for them such privileges and why it was impossible to restrain inquisitors within the prescribed limits of their appointing power after protracted effort the Valencians had thus obtained promise of substantial relief but as usual it was a promise only made to be broken how little intention there was of enforcing the reform was promptly revealed for when the authorities naturally ordered the new concordia to be printed so that the courts and rural magistrates could be guided by it in their dealings with the officials and familiars the inquisitors at once ordered the printers to suspend work and appealed to the king who commanded that all copies should be surrendered although the settlement was permanent and remained in force until the end it apparently never was published for general information at the moment it was regarded as limiting the secular jurisdiction of the tribunal and the worthy Valencian inquisitor Juan de Rojas says that he is ashamed to allude to its depressed and weakened condition which has worked great injury to the faith his grief was superfluous the tribunal was not accustomed to be bound by law and its methods of enforcing its assumed prerogatives were difficult to resist in 1585 under the fresh accumulation of grievances which by order of the king the Supremas sent to the inquisitors with orders to report the method of meeting them most advantageous to the holy office if space permitted abundant cases could be cited to show the justice of these complaints in fact the correspondence between the Supremas and the tribunal during the last 15 years of the 16th century is largely devoted to cases of competencies arising from crimes of all descriptions committed by familiars and to the punishments inflicted by the tribunal the heaviest of which is the galleys in two or three cases sometimes the charges are dismissed and as a whole the criminals seem to have escaped so lightly that prosecution only served to encourage their lawlessness there was no improvement as time went on and a case occurring in 1632 is worth alluding to as illustrating the results of the fuero and the spirit in which it was administered by the tribunal Don Martin Santis was murdered by pistol shots while returning with some Dominican friless in a coach from the grow of Valencia to the city four notorious familiars Pedro Rebert, Juan Siorana Jaime Blau and Calixto Tafaya were suspected and were arrested by the Audiencia the tribunal claimed them a competencia was formed and the case came up before the Suprema and the Council of Aragon the Marquis of Los Veles the Viseroi took advantage of it to represent to Philip IV the disorders and scandals caused by the criminal familiars who were protected by the Inquisition this paper was referred to by the Council of Aragon which, on July 21st presented a consulta on the subject there is, it says no peace or safety to be hoped for in Valencia unless there is reform in the selection of familiars for there is no crime committed therein which they are not principals or accomplices in the confidence of escaped through the intervention of the tribunal since there is no one however guilty he may be of the crime who is not speedily seen walking the streets in freedom in all disturbances familiars are recognized as ring leaders and their object in gaining appointment is only to enjoy immunity for their crimes in Valencia, Pedro Revert Juan Siorana and Sebastián Adel all familiars are the chief disturbers of the peace so in Villa Real a place notorious for murders has been the moving spirit in Benign Amin where there are constant outbreaks the leaders of the factions are Graciana Espana, Martin Barcella and others likewise familiars it is the same in Oriuela with Juan García de Espejo and others scares any worries their trouble in which familiars are not concerned and they daily become more insolent through impunity for the inquisitors never punished with the requisite severity one result is that it is almost impossible to procure evidence against these malefactors in consequence of witnesses knowing that they will shortly be released and will avenge themselves justice cannot be administered and still greater evils are to be anticipated if the king does not provide a remedy if it is difficult to revise the Concordia and introduce the necessary provisions at least the king can order that these familiars be dismissed and greater care be exercised in new appointments all the visceroids have recognized these impediments to justice for these people only seek exemption from the secular courts in order to be free to commit crimes we might imagine much of this to be exaggeration were not its truth tacitly admitted by the Suprema when transmitting it to Valencia with instructions for information to base a reply there is no review or exhortation to amendment but the inquisitors are told to act with the utmost caution and secrecy to report the number of familiars in Valencia and how many are unmarried to give details as to the cases cited by the council of Aragon and what punishments were inflicted what was the record of those inculpated in the murder of Don Martin Santis covertly to obtain statistics of crime in Valencia for the last 10 years committed by those not exempt the punishments inflicted by the royal court and whether these were subsequently remitted whether when familiars were tried by the tribunal accomplices were prosecuted in the royal courts and if so what sentences were pronounced also to make secret investigation as to promises made to familiars by the judges to let them off easily if they would not claim the fuero to furnish a list of cases in which the tribunal has punished its officials for trifling offences altogether the effort was evidently much less to offer a justification than to make a too coquet rejoinder apparently the statistics asked of the tribunal were unsatisfactory for there was no use made of them in the answer presented October 6th in which after seeking to explain away the assertions of the visceroi and council of Paragon the Suprema accused the secular courts and their officials of perpetual prosecution of familiars who were arrested on the slightest suspicion assumed to be guilty and then forced by cruel treatment to renounce the fuero the suggestions for a form were rarely brushed aside to dismiss the link with familiars would be almost impossible in view of its effect upon their families and kindred the inquire of the royal officials as to the character of aspirants for appointment was inadmissible as it would admit them to participation in a matter with which they had nothing to do the true cure for the troubles would be to secure the inquisition in its rights by forbidding the secular courts from assuming any jurisdiction over familiars in short it was a passionate outburst precluding all hope of amendment to which the king replied by telling the Suprema to see that the tribunal did not employ violent measures against the royal officials but report to him any excess for his action evidently nothing was to be hoped for from him and indeed he had written on August 6th to the visceroi that the case must take its regular course as a competencia and the inquisitors must not use inhibitory censures or summon charges to appear before them the result was the usual one that the tribunal obtained cognizance of the case one at least of the accused Haime Blau was found guilty for we have his insufficient sentence condemning him to exile and a fine of 300 ducats a sentence which goes far to explain the eagerness of the inquisitors to extend their jurisdiction for the rarely inflicted corporal punishments on their subsequent officials when pecuniary ones were so much more profitable the same spirit was shown when in 1649 disturbances between armed bans led Philip IV to order the Suprema to instruct the inquisitors that familiars and officials participating in these brawls or lending aid to peace breakers should not enjoy the fuero and that the tribunal should not defend them or interfere with the course of justice instead of obeying the Suprema replied that it suspended the order until the king should be better informed it then proceeded with a long argument to show that the faith would be imperiled by such abridgement of the privileges of the holy office besides these factional contests had always been customary in Valencia and it was impossible to avoid favoring one side or the other for these armed bans demanded whatever they wanted money or food or clothes and people were forced to give it at the risk of having their harvests burned or their throats cut the consulta ended with the impudent suggestion that in future it would be much better for the king before issuing such decrees to communicate to the Suprema the consultas of the other councils on which they were based so that the junta could be formed and the matter be debated evidently the Suprema held that the semi-savage state of society should be encouraged by favoring the factionists and under such conditions amelioration was impossible rivalry of jurisdiction paralyzed the law and there was perpetual friction over the various trifles for the tribunal was always on the watch to resist the minutest infraction of its prerogatives of disregard of its dignity when in 1702 the tribunal, a familiar of onteniente received summons to appear before Don Pedro Domenich a criminal judge of the audiencia, he at once appealed to the tribunal which sent word on May 29 that he had been under arrest since March 25 and the papers in any charge against him must be surrendered to it it turned out that Domenich only wanted him to enter security for his son and when this was done the inquisitors complained that Nadal had done wrong in going to the judge after appealing to them and that Domenich had not treated them with proper respect so that some months were required to arrange a truce between them Aragon was a source of greater trouble than Valencia the popular spirit was more independent it had resisted the introduction of the inquisition until the murder of St. Pedro Arbues had rendered the inquisition impossible it had been cheated of the fruits of the tenacity of one Prat and it possessed an institution peculiar to itself designed to limit the encroachments of the sovereign power and well adapted to restrained arrogance of anything less formidable than the mingled spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Holy Office the origin of the court of the Hustesia of Aragon was fondly attributed by the Aragonis of the kingdom of Sobrarve and there is fair probability in the theory of the latest writer on the subject that it was derived by the Christians from the conquered Moors in the 13th century the Hustesia was already judged between the king and his subjects every precaution was taken to render him independent he was irremovable by the king and even his resignation was void he could accept no office from the king if he was liable to arrest and in a case of prosecution the courtest sat in judgment on him every person in the kingdom was required to obey his commands to respect his decisions and to aid in their enforcement his court consisted of his assessors or lieutenants originally appointed by him but subsequently by the king the courtest of 1528 increased the number to five submitting 15 names to Charles V while the rest were placed in a balsa and drawn as vacancies occurred they were virtually the equals of the Hustesia for the assent of a majority was required in all judgments and all precautions were taken to secure their independence it is true that in spite of the inviolability of the Hustesia there were cases on record in which Hustesias had been made way with and that on the suppression of the rising cost by Antonio Perez in 1591 the Hustesia Juan de la Nusa was beheaded without trial and in the ensuing courtes of Tarazona the appointment of both Hustesia and lieutenants was surrendered to the king nevertheless the court of the Hustesia was regarded by the Aragonese with the greatest pride and reverence as the safeguard of their liberties and the highest expression of judicial authority existing in the world it was the bond that united the state and the foundation of its tranquility when the Hustesia authorized the cry of contrafuero viva la libertad y ayuda a la libertad it summoned every citizen to sally forth in arms to defend the liberties of the land moreover he had the power of withholding from execution all people decrease and his authority in ecclesiastical matters in general cost him to be popularly termed the married pope so far as we are concerned the power of the court was exercised through two processes the manifestacion and the firma the former was a kind of habeas corpus under which a person had to be produced before it either to be liberated on bail or to be confined in the carcel de manifestados a special prison over which even the king had no jurisdiction some months of a manifestacion had to be obeyed even if the subject were on the gallows with a halter around his neck or if it was addressed to the highest secular or spiritual court of the land it was a privilege to which every citizen was entitled when in 1532 chastafib sent orders that Don Pedro de Luna should be deprived of it he was not obeyed and a special envoy was sent to him in Germany to come to withdraw all of the command as until the return of the messenger the land would be in great suspense the firma was of various kinds but in general it was of the nature of an injunction stopping all proceedings and summoning the parties before the court of the hostesia where their cases would be determined and it was especially useful in preventing arbitrary arrests and seizure of property failure to obey a firma was promptly followed by a seizure of temporalities and under afuero of King Martin it could be served on the king himself one was served on Charles V at Valladolid and again one of the papal nunsio and when the latter disregarded it his temporalities were sequestrated such a jurisdiction could not fail to come into collision with the inquisition against which its powers were frequently invoked and the favorite device of the tribunal of evading service by closing its doors was an availing for attaching the firma to the gates was held to be legal service in 1561 the hostesia granted a manifestacion to Don Juan Frances Del Arinio in a case not of faith the tribunal prepared to answer by fominating excommunications but the court issued a monitoryo against it when a settlement was reached which both parties considered satisfactory in the same year when the inquisitors arrested Bartolomé Garate secretary of the court it served a monitoryo upon them and in 1563 it did the same for the censures issued against Augustine de Merlanes of the criminal council of the audiencia in 1626 when Pedro Banet secretary of the tribunal was accused of the murder of Juan Domingo Serveto the action of the inquisitors led to the issue against them of a firma and monitoryo under which their temporalities were ceased and this was followed by another firma prohibiting the use of excommunication under such institutions animated by such a spirit it was inevitable that the extension of the temporal jurisdiction of the holy office should provoke a bitter and prolonged conflict we have seen the early struggles of this how concessions were run from monarch and inquisition to be disregarded by them as soon as the momentary pressure had passed and how the remonstrances of the courtes of 1528 and 1533 were contemptuously brushed aside the grievances were real and the supremans knew them to be such but the policy was inviolable of denying their existence refusing amendment when asked for by the sufferers the temper in which complaints were heard was significantly manifested when in 1533 the courtes of monzón adapted certain articles and presented them to inquisitor general manrique and the suprema with the request that they should be adapted therapan Miguel de Galbe fiscal of the tribunal of Lerida addressed to manrique a formal accusation naming four members of the courtes who seemed to have been the committee deputed to communicate with the suprema asking that they and all who had advocated the articles should be prosecuted as fathers of heretics and impeters and disturbers of the inquisition while the articles in question should be publicly torn and burnt as condemned and suspect of heresy injurious to the honor of God and prejudicel to the holy office parliamentary discussion had doubtless been warm and freedom of debate and legislation was contrary to the principles of the holy office possibly it was the unpleasant experience of the suprema on this occasion that led it to keep away from the courtes of monzón in 1537 and to order the inquisitors to do likewise or if their duties called them there to keep silent thus when the courtes asked the emperor to make the inquisition obey the laws he was able to promise accordingly and then the suprema could subsequently argue it away in a consulta the remedial decree of prince philip in 1545 was limited to castile and the ragón was coolly told that its customs were different abuses continued unchecked and at the courtes of monzón in 1547 a long series of grievances was presented to the inquisitor general as though the crown had ceased to be a factor the bull pastoralis offici by which leo the tenth had confirmed the concordia of 1512 had limited the number of familiars to ten permanent ones in saragossa and ten temporary ones elsewhere as needed in place of which the number was between 500 and 1000 the bull had prescribed that they should be married men of good character in place of which many were bandits and homicides and of notoriously evil life leo had ordered dismissal for officials and familiars who did not pay their debts or who engaged in trade whereas the fuero was held to cover debts contracted and offences committed prior to appointment when they became bankrupt they took refuge with the tribunal and the creditors were unpaid if they were creditors of a bankrupt they seized all the assets and others got nothing men procured appointments in order to revenge themselves in safety on their enemies it was impossible to collect debts of them and this protection was extended even to women a woman who claimed that her father had been a familiar was thus defended from her creditors the brother of a notary of the tribunal who had committed an offence caused the aggrieved parties to be arrested and the inquisitors helped them until they were forced to a compromise how little hope there was of redress for all this is visible in the difference with which inquisitor general valeles answered the several articles as to bandits and homicides being made familiars he said the inquisition had need of all kinds of officials for its various functions and as to the specific complaints the stereotyped answer was that anyone deeming himself aggrieved could appeal to the Suprema and get justice End of book 2 Chapter 4 part 3 Recording by Shana Sear, Fresno, California