POPULAR HOSTILITY
The preceding chapters illustrate some of the causes that provoked
popular hatred of the Inquisition, but these were by no means all. It
enjoyed, as we have said, enthusiastic support in the exercise of its
appropriate functions in defending the faith, but apart from this, it
had infinite ways of exciting hostility. This was the inevitable result
of entrusting irresponsible power to men, for the most part overbearing
and arrogant, who owed obedience only to the Suprema and who early
learned that, while it might disapprove of their acts, it always
supported them against complaints and, while it might administer rebuke
in secret, it hesitated long before it would compromise the asserted
infallibility of the Holy Office by dismissal or any other public
demonstration. There was no other power to call them to account and they
could rely upon its indulgence. This indulgence they extended to their
subordinates, over whom, indeed, they had not the power of removal, and
the consequence was that the whole body thoroughly earned the
detestation of the people by the abuse of their privileges, creating
irritation which was none the less exasperating because its causes might
be trivial. The situation finds expression in a carta acordada of
October 12, 1561, in which the Suprema begs the tribunals, for the love
of God, to inflict no wrong or oppression for, since they are accused
when they do right, what is to be expected when they give just grounds
of complaint?[1251]
Whether just or not, grounds of complaint were never lacking. The power
of the inquisitor had practically scarce any bounds but his own
discretion, and the temptation to its abuse was irresistible to the kind
of men who mostly filled the position. In the memorial of Llerena to
Philip and Juana, in 1506, complaint is made that the officials seized
all the houses that they wanted and in one case, when some young orphan
girls did not vacate as quickly as ordered, they fastened up the
street-door and the occupants were obliged to make an opening in order
to leave it.[1252] The same spirit was shown to parties not quite so
defenceless in 1642, when its exhibition in Córdova nearly provoked a
disastrous tumult. There was a vacant house which Juan de Ribera, one of
the inquisitors, talked of renting, but he went to Murcia without taking
it. On his return he found that it had been leased to a son of Don Pedro
de Cardenas, one of the veinticuatros, or town-councillors. He sent for
Cardenas and asked whether he knew that he had engaged the house.
Cardenas professed ignorance, adding that, if he had not moved his
family into it, he would abandon it. Ribera ordered him to leave it and,
on his refusal, the tribunal took up the quarrel by serving on him a
notice to quit. As he did not obey, it cited him to appear and forced
him to give security. His kinsmen and friends rallied around him and
promised to sustain him by force; the matter became town-talk and the
tribunal felt its honor engaged to sustain its commands by violence. It
assembled the two companies of soldiers which it kept in the alcázar,
while the caballeros armed themselves and guarded the house. The
corregidor appealed to the tribunal not to drench the city in blood by
exposing the poor civic militia to the swords of the gentlemen, and it
consented to carry the matter to the king. The Council of Castile
ordered that the tenant be maintained in possession, while the Suprema
instructed the tribunal not to yield a jot, but to eject him by whatever
means it could.[1253] What was the outcome does not appear, but the case
illustrates the extent to which the Inquisition magnified its powers and
the determination with which it employed them.
[Sidenote: _ABUSES_]
It was impossible to prevent these lawless abuses. The Suprema might
scold and threaten but, as it rarely punished and always protected the
offenders, its restraining efforts amounted to little. The
_visitadores_, or inspectors, duly reported disorders, and instructions
would be issued to reform them, but to these the inquisitors paid little
respect. There is no reason to suppose that the Barcelona tribunal was
worse than any other and a series of reports of visitations there gives
us an insight into the evils inflicted on the people. In 1544, Doctor
Alonso Pérez sent in a report in consequence of which the Suprema
roundly rebuked all the subordinates, except the judge of confiscations.
All but two were defamed for improper relations with women; all
accepted presents; all made extra and illegal charges; all neglected
their duties and most of them quarrelled with each other. The fiscal was
especially objectionable for his improper conduct of prosecutions and
for appropriating articles belonging to the tribunal; he refused to pay
his debts; he arrested a candle-maker for not furnishing candles as
promptly as he demanded; when a certain party bought some sheep from a
peasant and was dissatisfied with his bargain, the fiscal cited the
peasant, asserted that the purchase money was his and forced the peasant
to take back the sheep and return the money. Yet the Suprema was too
tender of the honor of the Holy Office to dismiss a single one of the
peccant officials. It ordered them to be severely reprimanded, a few
debts to be paid and presents to be returned and uttered some vague
threats of what it would do if they continued in their evil
courses.[1254]
The natural result of this indulgence appears in the next visitation by
the Licenciado Vaca, in 1549. The same abuses were flourishing, with the
addition that the inquisitor, Diego de Sarmiento, had accepted the
position of commissioner of the Cruzada indulgence and had appointed as
its preachers and collectors the commissioners and familiars of the
tribunal, to the great oppression and vexation of the people, whose
dread of the Holy Office prevented complaints. Sarmiento was dismissed
in 1550, but in 1552 he was reappointed to Barcelona; the fiscal and
notary, who were specially inculpated, were suspended for six months and
the gaoler, for ill-treatment of prisoners, was mulcted in one month's
wages.[1255] In 1561 another visitation was made by Inquisitor Gaspar
Cervantes, whose report was exceedingly severe on the disorders of the
tribunal and drew from the Suprema an energetic demand for their
reform.[1256] This produced no amendment, the tribunal went on
undisturbed until the complaints of the Córtes of 1564 led to another
and more searching investigation by de Soto Salazar, in 1566. There were
not only abuses of all kinds in the trials of heresy but numerous cases
in which, as the Suprema told them, they had no jurisdiction. Apparently
they were ready to put their unlimited powers at the disposal of all
comers and imprisoned, fined and punished in the most arbitrary manner,
gathering fees, commissions and doubtless bribes and selling injustice
to all who wanted it, while the dread of their censures prevented
opposition or remonstrance. In these cases which were not of faith, the
accused were often seized in the churches, where they had sought asylum,
as though they were wanted for heresy and the repeated instances in
which the Suprema orders their names stricken from the records points to
one of the most cruel results of this reckless abuse of jurisdiction,
for it inflicted on the sufferer, his kindred and posterity, an infamy
unendurable to the Spaniard of the period. The long and detailed missive
which the Suprema addressed to the tribunal, as the result of Salazar's
report, gives a most vivid inside view of the abuses naturally springing
from unrestrained autocracy, which, by the absolute and impenetrable
secrecy of its operations, was relieved from all responsibility to its
victims or to public opinion. The Suprema takes every official in turn,
from inquisitors down to messengers, specifies their misdeeds and scores
them mercilessly, showing that the whole organization was solely intent
on making dishonest gains, on magnifying its privileges and on
tyrannizing over the community, while the defence of the faith was the
baldest pretext for the gratification of greed and evil passions. Yet
all this was practically regarded as quite compatible with the duties of
the Inquisition. The three inquisitors, Padilla, Zurita and Mexia, were
suspended for three years and were then sent to repeat their misdeeds
elsewhere and the two former were in addition fined ten ducats
apiece.[1257] That an institution possessing these powers and exercising
them in such fashion, should be regarded with terror and detestation was
inevitable. We shall see hereafter how it shrouded all its acts in
inviolable secrecy and how it rightly regarded this as one of the most
important factors of its influence, and we can understand the mysterious
dread which this inspired, while, at the same time, it released the
inquisitor and his subordinates from the wholesome restraint of
publicity.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _ABUSES_]
The smothered hostility thus excited was always ready for an explosion
when opportunity offered to gratify it. In the desire to stimulate the
breeding of horses, a royal pragmática, in 1628, prohibited the use of
mules for coaches. The inquisitors of Logroño, in the full confidence
that no one would venture to interfere with them, persisted in driving
with mules and when the corregidor, Don Francisco Bazan, remonstrated
and threatened to seize a coach, they told him it would be his ruin. He
did not venture, but, in 1633, he procured from the Council of Castile
an order that no coaches should be used in Logroño, under pretext that
they damaged certain shops projecting on the principal street. The
fiscal of the tribunal undertook to meet this by asserting that it had a
special privilege from the king concerning coaches, but when Bazan
promised to obey, it was not forthcoming. The Suprema took up the
quarrel and represented to Philip IV the hardship inflicted on the
inquisitors, too old and feeble for the saddle; the compassionate king
endorsed on the consulta the customary formula of approval--"I have so
ordered"; the Suprema then applied to the Council of Castile for a
corresponding order and several communications passed without result.
Another consulta was presented to the king, who endorsed it "I have so
ordered again," but the Council of Castile was still evasive. Then the
Logroño authorities offered to the Bishop of Calahorra permission to use
coaches and intimated to the inquisitors that, if they would apply for a
licence, it would be given. The Suprema forbade them thus to recognize
the local magistracy, as they had royal authority, whereupon they
resumed the use of their coaches; the alguazil of the corregidor
arrested one of their coachmen and they excommunicated the corregidor.
The king, December 9, 1633, ordered him to be absolved, to which, on
December 30th, the Suprema replied that he would be absolved if he made
application. The Council of Castile presented to the king a consulta,
arguing that ecclesiastics and inquisitors alike owed obedience to the
laws and that the corregidor had acted with great moderation. February
5, 1634, the king enquired what had been done with the corregidor, but
it was not until December 16th that the Suprema condescended to reply,
complaining bitterly of the slight put upon the Inquisition, when the
whole safety of the monarchy depended upon its labors. Finally, on
February 15, 1635, the Council of Castile sent to the Suprema a licence
for the use of coaches in Logroño, at the same time intimating that its
tax of _media añata_ had not been paid. In the course of the quarrel the
Council presented a very forcible consulta to the king which exhibits
the light in which the Inquisition was regarded by the highest
authorities of the State. It represented that everywhere the
inquisitors and their officials, under color of privileges that they did
not possess, were causing grave disorders. They were vexing and
molesting the corregidors and other ministers of the king, oppressing
them with violent methods and frightening them with threats of
punishment in order to deter them from defending the royal jurisdiction.
Thus crimes remained unpunished, justice became a mockery and the king's
vassals were afflicted with what they were made to suffer in their
honor, their lives, their fortunes and their consciences.[1258]
[Sidenote: _ABUSES_]
Trivial quarrels such as this, developed until they distracted the
attention of the king and his advisers, were constantly breaking out and
bear testimony to the antagonistic spirit which was all-pervading. A
long-standing cause of dissension in Logroño may be taken as a type of
what was occurring in many other places. Local officials there, as
elsewhere, had a perquisite in the public _carnicería_, or shambles, of
dividing among themselves the _vientres_ or _menudos_--the
chitterlings--of the beasts slaughtered. It was not unnatural that the
inquisitors and their subordinates should seek to share in this, but the
claim was grudgingly admitted, as it diminished the portions of the town
officers, and it led to bickerings. In 1572 Logroño complained to the
Suprema that, while it was willing to give to each inquisitor the
_menudo_ of a sheep every week, the inferior officials, down to the
messengers, claimed the same and, when there was not enough to go round,
they caused the slaughter of additional sheep, in order to get their
perquisite. As the population was poor, living mostly on cow-beef, and
meat would not keep in hot weather, this caused much waste, wherefore
the town begged that during the four hot months the inferior officials
should be content with what the town officers received and during the
other eight months it would endeavor to give them more. To this the
Suprema graciously assented, but, in 1577, there was another outbreak,
to quiet which the Suprema ordered the enforcement of the agreement. In
1584 trouble arose again and still more in 1593 and in 1601 it reached a
point at which the tribunal summoned all the staff of the carnicería and
scolded them roundly, giving rise to great excitement. Then in 1620
there was a worse outbreak than ever, owing to the refusal of the
regidor to give to one of the inquisitors two pairs of sheep's stones
asked for on the plea that he had guests to breakfast. The angry
inquisitor, thus deprived of his breakfast relish, induced the tribunal
to summon the regidor before it and severely reprimand him, thus not
only inflicting a grave stigma on him, but insulting the town, of which
it complained loudly to the Suprema.[1259] It is easy to understand how
trifles of the kind kept up a perpetual irritation, of which only the
exacerbations appear in the records.
The privileges of the markets, in fact, were a source of endless
troubles. It was recognized that both secular and ecclesiastical
officials were entitled to the first choice and to be served first.
Those of the Inquisition claimed the same privilege, not only in cities
where there was a tribunal, but also where the scattered commissioners
and notaries resided. That this was frequently resisted is shown by the
formula of mandate to be used in such cases, addressed to the corregidor
or alcaldes, setting forth that the rights in this respect of the
aggrieved party had not been respected and that in future he should have
the first and best (after the secular and ecclesiastical officials had
been served) of all provisions that he required, at current prices, and
this under penalty of twenty thousand maravedís, besides punishment to
the full rigor of the law.[1260] It does not appear that there really
was any legislation entitling the Inquisition to this privilege, but in
the frequent troubles arising from its assertion, the inquisitors acted
with their customary truculence. A writer, in 1609, who deprecates these
quarrels, suggests as a cure that the king issue a decree that the
representatives of the Inquisition shall have preference in purchasing
and, at the same time, he tells of a case in Toledo where a regidor, who
told the steward of the tribunal to take as many eggs as he wanted, but
no more, was arrested and prosecuted, and of another in Córdova, where a
hidalgo, who had bought a shad and refused to give it up to an
acquaintance of a servant of an inquisitor, was punished with two
hundred lashes and sent to the galleys.[1261] In 1608 the Suprema issued
an injunction that purveyors of inquisitors should take nothing by
force, the significance of which lies rather in the indication of
existing abuses than in its promise of their removal.[1262] The claim of
preference was pushed so far that in Seville, in 1705, there arose a
serious trouble because the servant of an inquisitor detained boat-loads
of fish coming to market, in order to make his selection, and it
required a royal cédula of March 26, 1705, forbidding inquisitors to
detain fish or other provisions on the way, or to designate by
_banderillas_ the pieces selected for themselves.[1263] When we consider
the character of the slaves and servants thus clothed with authority to
insult and browbeat whomsoever they chose, in the exercise of such
functions, we can conceive the wrath and indignation stored up against
their masters in the thousands of cases where fear prevented an
explosion. It is true that the Suprema issued instructions that all
purveyors should behave themselves modestly and give no ground of
offence and that no one should be summoned or imprisoned for matters
arising out of provisions, but as usual these orders were disregarded.
Insolence would naturally elicit a hasty rejoinder which, as reported by
the servant to his master, would imply disrespect towards the Holy
Office, and severe punishment would be justified on that account.
* * * * *
Perhaps less irritating but more serious in its effects was the use made
of the fuero by those engaged in trade. Inquisitor-general Deza, in
1504, issued a stringent prohibition against any salaried official
having an interest, direct or indirect, in any business. Daily
experience, he said, showed how much opprobrium and disturbance it
brought upon the Inquisition, wherefore he decreed that it should, _ipso
facto_, deprive the offender of his position and subject him to a fine
of twenty thousand maravedís; he should cease to be an official as soon
as contravention occurred and the receiver, under pain of fifty ducats,
should cut off his salary. All officials cognizant of such a case should
notify the inquisitor-general within fifteen days, under pain of major
excommunication, and this order was to be read in all tribunals in
presence of the assembled officials.[1264]
[Sidenote: _OFFICIALS AS TRADERS_]
The severity of this regulation indicates the recognized magnitude of
the evil, and its retention in the compilation of Instructions shows
that it was considered as remaining in force. Like all other salutary
rules, however, it was slackly enforced from the first and the Catalans
took care to have the prohibition embodied in the bull _Pastoralis
officii_. It gradually became obsolete. A royal decree of August 9,
1725, in exempting from taxation the salaries of officials of the
tribunal of Saragossa, adds that, if they possess property or are in
trade, those assets are taxable, showing that their ability to trade was
recognized.[1265] How aggravating was the advantage which they thus
enjoyed can be gathered from a Valencia case of about 1750. Joseph
Segarra, the contador of the tribunal, entered into partnership with
Joseph Miralles, a carpenter, to bring timber from the Sierra de Cuenca.
In the settlement Segarra claimed from Miralles a balance of 1779
libras; they entered into a formal agreement to accept the arbitration
of Doctor Boyl, but Segarra rejected the award and Miralles sought to
enforce it in the royal court. Then the tribunal intervened, asserting
the award to be invalid because Segarra could not divest the Inquisition
of its jurisdiction and it refused the request of the regent for a
conference and a competencia.[1266] Evidently it was dangerous to have
dealings with officials; they always had a winning card up the sleeve,
to be played when needed.
As regards the great army of familiars, it was of course impossible to
prevent them from trading. In fact traders eagerly sought the position
in view of the advantages it offered of having the Inquisition at their
backs, whether to escape payment of debts or to collect claims or to
evade customs dues, or in many other ways, not recognized by the
Concordias but allowed by the tribunals. The Suprema occasionally warned
the inquisitors not to appoint men of low class, such as butchers,
pastry-cooks, shoemakers and the like, or traders whose object was
protection in their business,[1267] but no attention was paid to this; a
large portion of the familiars was of this class, and the space occupied
in the formularies by forms of levy and execution and sale and other
similar matters shows how much business was brought to the tribunals by
the collection of their claims.[1268] The opportunities thus afforded
for fraudulent dealings, for evading obligations and for enforcing
unjust demands were assuredly not neglected and may be reckoned among
the sources of the animosity felt for everyone connected with the Holy
Office.
In the remarkable paper presented, in 1623, to the Suprema by one of its
members, many of the abuses of the Inquisition are attributed to the
indifferent character and poverty of the officials. It would be well,
the writer says, to appoint none but clerics, holding preferment to
support themselves and unencumbered with wife and children. They would
not, when dying, leave penniless families, which obliges the
inquisitor-general to give to the children their fathers' offices, thus
bringing into the tribunals men who cannot even read; an increase of
salaries, also, would relieve them of the necessity of taking bribes
under cover of fees, and thus would put a stop to the popular murmurs
against them. The inquisitors moreover should have power of removal,
subject to confirmation by the Suprema, for now their hands are tied;
their subordinates are unruly and uncontrollable. The greatest injury to
the reputation of the Holy Office arises from its bad officials, who
recognize no responsibility. No one should be appointed to office, or as
a familiar, who is a tailor, carpenter, mason or other mechanic; it is
these people who cause quarrels with the secular authorities, for they
have little to lose and claim to be inviolable. In short, if we may
believe the writer, the whole body of the tribunals, except the
inquisitors, was rotten; none of the officials, from the fiscals down,
were to be trusted, for all were eagerly in pursuit of dishonest gains,
robbing the Inquisition itself and all who came in contact with it, and
to this he attributed its loss of public respect and confidence.[1269]
[Sidenote: _COMPLAINTS OF FEUDALISM_]
Matters did not improve, for the Suprema always defended the tribunals
from all complaints, and its tenderness towards delinquents assured them
of virtual impunity. At length, as we have seen, in 1703, Philip V made
an attempt at reform. It was probably owing to this pressure that, in
1705, the Suprema issued a carta acordada prohibiting a number of
special abuses and pointing out that, in regard to the proprieties of
life, neither inquisitors nor officials obeyed the Instructions,
consorting with improper persons and intervening in matters wholly
foreign to their duties, thus rendering odious the jurisdiction of the
Holy Office.[1270] From various incidents alluded to above it is
evident that this produced little amendment but, when the vacillation
of Philip V was succeeded by the resolute purpose of Carlos III and his
able ministers, the power of the Inquisition to oppress was greatly
curbed.
* * * * *
It was not alone the commonalty that had reason to complain of the
extended jurisdiction claimed by the Inquisition. The feudal nobles,
whose rights were already curtailed by the growth of the royal power,
were restive under the interjection of this new and superior
jurisdiction, which recognized no limitations or boundaries and
interfered with their supremacy within their domains. Thus in 1553, the
Duke of Najera complained that, in his town of Navarrete, the
commissioner of the Inquisition had insulted his alcalde mayor and then,
with some familiars, had forcibly taken wheat from his alguazil.
Inquisitor-general Valdés wrote to the tribunal of Calahorra to
investigate the matter and punish the officials if found in fault; the
alcalde and alguazil were not to be prosecuted save for matters
pertaining to the Inquisition and this not only in view of its proper
administration but because he desired to gratify the duke.[1271]
A still more serious cause of complaint, to which the nobles were fully
alive, was the release of their vassals from jurisdiction by appointment
to office. In 1549, the Countess of Nieva appealed to Valdés, setting
forth that Arnedo was a place belonging to the count; it was within
three leagues of Calahorra and there had never been a familiar there
until recently Inquisitor Valdeolivas had appointed some peasants in
order to enfranchise them from the jurisdiction of their lord. It was
not just that, while the count was absent from the kingdom on the king's
service, his peasants should be thus honored in order that they might
create disturbance in the villages and interfere with the feudal
jurisdiction.[1272] It may well be doubted whether her request for the
revocation of the commissions was granted, but that her prevision of
trouble was justified is seen in a case before the tribunal of
Barcelona, in 1577, in which Don Pedro de Queral, lord of Santa Coloma,
a powerful noble of Tarragona, endeavored to secure the punishment of
two of his vassals, Juan Requesens, a miller, and his cousin Vicente.
They were both familiars and seem to have been the leaders of a
discontented opposition which rendered Don Pedro's life miserable. The
trees in his plantations were cut down, his arms, over the door of his
bayle in Santa Coloma, were removed and defaced, libellous _coplas_
against him were scattered around the streets, but the cousins, being
familiars, were safe from his wrath. Don Pedro died but the trouble
continued between his widow, the Countess of Queral and a new generation
of Requesens, who succeeded to their fathers' office of familiars.
Finally, in 1608, she succeeded in convicting Juan Requesens of
malicious mischief, but her only satisfaction was that he was
reprimanded, warned and sentenced to pay the costs, amounting to 115-1/2
reales.[1273] Such a case shows how feudalism was undermined and we can
conceive how nobles must have writhed under the novel experience of
rebellious vassals clothed with inviolability.
[Sidenote: _PERSISTENT ANTAGONISM_]
It is easy therefore to understand the detestation felt for the
Inquisition by all classes--laymen and ecclesiastics, noble and simple.
It was fully aware of this and constantly alleged it to the king when
defending the tribunals in their quarrels, and when urging enlarged
privileges as a protection against the hatred which it had excited. In
its appeals against the curtailment of its jurisdiction in Aragon, it
did not hesitate to admit that it had been hated there from the
beginning and that its officials were so abhorred that they would not be
safe if exposed to secular justice and, even as late as 1727, it
repeated the assertion of the persistent hostility of the
Aragonese.[1274] In Logroño, the inquisitors reported to the Suprema, in
1584, that it was a common saying among the people that their life
consisted in discord with the tribunal and that it was death to them
when there was peace.[1275] It was the same in Castile. The Córtes, in
1566, when encouraging Philip II to constrain the Flemings to admit the
Inquisition, gave as a reason that his success there was necessary to
the peaceful maintenance of the institution in Spain, thus intimating
that, if the Flemings rejected it, the Castilians would seek to follow
their example.[1276] In the same year the familiars alleged that the
detestation in which they were held led them to be singled out for
especial oppression in the billeting of troops and, in 1647, the
Suprema declared that nothing seemed sufficient to repress the hatred
with which they were regarded, in support of which it instanced an
unjust apportionment, in Cuenca, of an assessment of a forced
loan.[1277] This hostility continued to the last, even though the
decadence of the Inquisition in the eighteenth century diminished so
greatly its powers of oppression. A defender of the institution, in
1803, commences by deprecating the hatred which had pursued it from the
beginning; even in the present age, he says, of greater enlightenment,
there is crass ignorance of its essential principles and a mortal
opposition to its existence.[1278]
* * * * *
Thus, notwithstanding the Spanish abhorrence of Jews and heretics, the
dread which the Inquisition inspired was largely mingled with
detestation, arising from its abuse of its privileges in matters wholly
apart from its functions as the guardian of the faith.
APPENDIX.
I.
LIST OF TRIBUNALS.
The permanent tribunals of the Spanish Inquisition were Toledo, Seville,
Valladolid, Corte (Madrid), Granada, Córdova, Murcia, Llerena, Cuenca,
Santiago (Galicia), Logroño and Canaries, under the crown of Castile,
and Saragossa, Valencia, Barcelona and Majorca under the crown of
Aragon. In addition were Sicily, Sardinia, Mexico, Lima and Cartagena de
las Indias, which lie beyond the scope of the present work.
This distribution of the forces of the Inquisition was not reached until
experience had shown the most effective centres of action. Numerous more
or less temporary tribunals were erected and many changes occurred in
the apportionment of territory. The following list makes no pretension
to absolute completeness but contains the result of such allusions as I
have met in the documents.
* * * * *
ALCARAZ. For some years there was a tribunal fixed at Alcaraz. In 1495
Alonso Hernandez, presented for a canonry, is qualified as Inquisitor of
Alcaraz and, in 1499, Alonso de Torres is appointed as inquisitor
there.[1279]
ARMY AND NAVY. The fleet organized for the Catholic League which won at
Lepanto seemed to require a tribunal to preserve it from heresy and
Philip II procured from Pius V a brief of July 23, 1571, authorizing the
inquisitor-general to appoint an inquisitor for each army of Philip II,
whether by land or sea.[1280] The first appointment under this seems to
have been Rodrigo de Mendoza, Inquisitor of Barcelona, whose commission
as _Inquisidor de las Galeras_ is dated March 21, 1575, together with
one for his notary, Domingo de Leon, and instructions as to his
duties.[1281] He was succeeded by Gerónimo Manrique, who celebrated an
auto de fe in Messina. After him was Doctor Juan Bautista de Cardona,
but merely as commissioner, who served for two years, when Páramo,
writing in 1598; tells us that the fleets were scattered and the office
ceased to exist.[1282] If so, it was revived for, in 1622, we are told
that Fray Martin de Vivanco, chaplain of the galleys of Sicily, was
appointed _Inquisidor del Mar_ and, in 1632, it is stated that when a
_Principe del Mar_ was appointed he took with him an inquisitor and
officials and all prisoners arrested by them were delivered to the
nearest tribunal when the galleys made port.[1283]
In later times the inquisitor-general was "Vicario géneral de los Reales
Ejercitos de Mar y Tierra" and as such appointed sub-delegates to
accompany the army, with the necessary powers. The _jurisdiccion
castrense_ enjoyed by military men did not exempt them in matters of
faith from the Inquisition, but the _subdelegados castrenses_ seem to
have possessed no judicial powers, and debate arose, in 1793 and again
in 1806, whether they or the episcopal Ordinaries should be called in to
vote with the inquisitors in the cases of soldiers.[1284]
AVILA. When Torquemada built his convent of San Tomas in Avila he
provided accommodations for an Inquisition and, in 1590, the prisoners
accused of the murder of the Santo Niño de la Guardia were transferred
thither from the tribunal of Segovia for trial. It continued to exist
for some years and had connection with Segovia, for, June 9, 1499,
Francisco González of Fresneda and Juan de Monasterio were appointed
inquisitors of Avila and Segovia, residing sometimes in one city and
sometimes in the other.[1285]
[Sidenote: _TRIBUNALS_]
BALAGUER. There were autos de fe celebrated in Balaguer, August 15, 1490
and June 10, 1493, but these were held by the inquisitors of Barcelona
as they did in Tarragona, Gerona, Perpignan and other places in their
district. In 1517, however, there would seem to be a tribunal there for
a letter of the Suprema relates to the murder of the assessor of the
Inquisition of Balaguer. If so, it was probably withdrawn in consequence
for, in 1518, the inquisitors of Barcelona are ordered to publish
edicts against those who molest the clergy of Balaguer for observing the
interdict cast upon the town.[1286]
BARBASTRO. As early as 1488 there was a tribunal with inquisitors at
Barbastro, but, in 1521, it was suppressed and incorporated with
Saragossa.[1287]
BARCELONA. Established in 1486. It claimed jurisdiction over the free
Republic of Andorra, which was included by Arevalo de Zuazo in his
visitation of 1595. Long after Roussillon and Cerdagne had been
retroceded to France, the Barcelona inquisitors in 1695 still styled
themselves "Inquisidores Apostólicos ... en el Principado de Cataluña y
su partido, con los Condados do Rosellon y Cerdaña y los Valls de Aran y
Andorra."[1288] See LÉRIDA, TARRAGONA, TORTOSA, BALAGUER.
BURGOS. There was originally a tribunal in Burgos but, in the
redistricting by Ximenes it was included in Valladolid. In 1605, Philip
III transferred the tribunal to Burgos, with orders to the inquisitors
to eject any occupants of buildings that they might find suited to their
purposes. In 1622 it was still rendering yearly reports of cases to the
Suprema but, probably about 1630, it returned to Valladolid. When, in
1706, Madrid was captured by the Allies under Galloway and Las Minas,
the court fled to Burgos, carrying the Inquisition thither, but its stay
was short and it soon returned to the capital.[1289]
CADIZ. See XERES.
CALAHORRA. A tribunal was established here as early as 1493, when it
celebrated an auto at Logroño. In 1499 it alternated between Calahorra
and Durango. In the redistricting by Ximenes in 1509 it was incorporated
with Durango, but was soon re-established. Cédulas of 1516, 1517, and
1520 indicate that at this time it was the tribunal of the enormous
district of Valladolid, but in 1522 the Inquisition of Navarre was
extended over Calahorra; then Navarre and Calahorra were separated, but
in 1540 there was a redistribution, and Navarre and the Basque Provinces
were added to Calahorra. In 1560 a part of the territory of Burgos was
set off from Valladolid and added to Calahorra and, in 1570, the seat of
the tribunal was definitely moved to Logroño, _q. v._[1290]
CALATAYUD. Calatayud was the seat of an intermittent tribunal at least
from the year 1488 for, in 1502, Ferdinand speaks of Joan de Aguaviva
who for fourteen years had served it as barber-surgeon whenever it
resided in Calatayud and one of the first presentations to a prebend, in
1488, was Martin Márquez, described as fiscal of the Inquisition of
Calatayud. A letter of the Suprema, Jan. 22, 1519, addressed to the
"Inquisitor of Calatayud" shows that it was still in existence, but it
must soon afterwards have been merged into Saragossa.[1291]
CANARIES. The zeal of Diego de Muros, Bishop of Canaries, did not wait
for the extension of the Spanish Inquisition over his diocese, but led
him to establish an episcopal one by proclamation of April 28, 1499. It
was not until 1504 that Inquisitor-general Deza sent Bartolomé López de
Tribaldos thither to establish a tribunal at Las Palmas, which seems to
have commenced business Oct. 28, 1505. It continued thus to the
end.[1292]
CARTAGENA. See MURCIA.
CIUDAD REAL. A letter of Ferdinand, Nov. 8, 1483, announces the
appointment of Licenciados Costana and de Balthasar as inquisitors for
Ciudad Real. May 10, 1485, Ferdinand announces the transfer of Costana
to Toledo, to which place the tribunal was removed.[1293]
CÓRDOVA. A tribunal was established in Córdova as early as 1482, at the
instance of its bishop, the New Christian Alonso de Burgos. Its district
comprised the bishoprics of Córdova and Jaen, the Abadía de Alcalá la
Real, the Adelantamiento of Cazorla, with Ecija and Estepa, to which
Granada was added after the conquest.[1294] See GRANADA and JAEN.
[Sidenote: _TRIBUNALS_]
CORTE. The tribunal of Madrid was technically known as _Corte_. Madrid,
originally a town of no special importance, belonged to the province of
Toledo and was naturally under the jurisdiction of its tribunal. As the
royal residence under Philip II and eventually the capital of the
kingdom (except during the brief transfer to Valladolid, 1600-1606) it
furnished a large part of the business of Toledo. Toledan inquisitors
came there to make investigations and even to try cases, of which we
have examples in 1590 and 1592.[1295] Something more than this was felt
to be needed and the Suprema adopted the plan of calling inquisitors
from other places to commence prosecutions and act under its
instructions, of which the Licenciado Flores, Inquisitor of Murcia, in
1593, and Cifontes de Loarte, Inquisitor of Granada, in 1615, are
examples.[1296] The presence of the inquisitor-general who did not
hesitate to take action in emergencies, and that of an experienced
commissioner, together with the frequent sojourn of one of the Toledo
inquisitors enabled speedy action to be taken when requisite, as
occurred in 1621 and again in 1624 and seemed to render superfluous the
organization of a special tribunal.[1297]
Yet the want of it was felt, especially with the influx of Portuguese
New Christians who multiplied in the capital. As the pressure increased
Toledo furnished two assistant inquisitors to reside in Madrid, thus
establishing a kind of subordinate court, but in 1637 it was reported
that the establishment of a tribunal was positively resolved upon, with
the added comment that this would sorely vex the Toledans.[1298] To
their natural opposition is doubtless to be attributed the postponement
of what, to a Spaniard of the period, would seem a necessity to the
capital. It cannot have been long after this that one was organized for,
in the matter of the confiscation of Juan Cote, commenced in Toledo, we
find it, September 10, 1640, sitting in Madrid, with Francisco Salgado
and Juan Adam de la Parra as inquisitors. In the same year they
suggested that the case of Benito de Valdepeñas, on which they were
engaged, should be sent to Toledo as more convenient for the witnesses,
which was accordingly done.[1299] Toledan influence is doubtless
responsible for the action of Arce y Reynoso, soon after his accession
in 1643, in suppressing the new tribunal and restoring the business to
Toledo.[1300] The pressure, however, became too great and Arce y Reynoso
was obliged to reverse his action. The date of the re-establishment may
safely be assumed as 1650, for a list of penitents, reconciled by Corte
from the beginning, starts with three in 1651 and their trials can
scarce have been commenced later than 1650.[1301] Yet the relations
between Toledo and Madrid continued intimate; in 1657, Lorenzo de
Sotomayor styles himself as "Inquisidor Apostólico de la Inquisicion de
la Ciudad y Reyno de Toledo y asistente de Corte;" to the end of the
century the former always alluded to Corte as a _despacho_ or office and
not as a tribunal, and Corte seems to have sent its convicts to Toledo
for their sentences to be published in the autos de fe.[1302] Its
jurisdiction was strictly limited to the city, while the surrounding
country remained with Toledo. In some respects its organization was
peculiar. About 1750 we are informed that its inquisitors were drawn
from other tribunals who continued them on their pay-rolls, their places
being taken by appointees who served without salary until a vacancy
occurred. Selection to serve in Corte was regarded as a promotion,
leading to a place in the Suprema or to a bishopric, although the
incumbent drew only the salary from his former tribunal with a Christmas
_propina_ of a hundred ducats. It had no receiver; the Suprema paid its
expenses and presumably collected its fines and confiscations.[1303]
[Sidenote: _TRIBUNALS_]
CUENCA. Murcia and Cuenca were originally under one tribunal. Some
trouble apparently arose, possibly connected with the episcopal
Ordinaries, for Ximenes ordered, January 22, 1512, that cases
originating in Murcia should be taken to Cuenca to be voted on and vice
versa. Llorente says that in 1513 they were separated and Cuenca formed
an independent tribunal, but documents as late as 1519 show them still
connected, until, in 1520, we find Cuenca celebrating an auto. A letter
of March 7, 1522, states that the pope has given to Cuenca the see of
Sigüenza, without taking it from Toledo, because Toledo has never
visited it although ordered to do so, and is not to do so in future.
Then, May 31, 1533, the Suprema says that Toledo can exercise
jurisdiction there without giving Cuenca cause of complaint, and, in
1560, Sigüenza was restored to Toledo, yet in 1584 we find Cuenca
exercising jurisdiction as far north as Soria. There would seem to have
been some connection maintained between Murcia and Cuenca for, in 1746,
the former, in enumerating its personnel, specifies nine calificadores
in Murcia and four in Cuenca.[1304]
DAROCA. There would appear to have been for a time a tribunal in Daroca
for, in the accounts of Juan Royz, receiver of Aragon, for 1498 there is
an item of expenditure on the prison of the Inquisition there, which was
duly passed.[1305]
DURANGO. See CALAHORRA. As defined by Ximenes, in 1509, Durango had
jurisdiction over Biscay, Guipúzcoa, Alava and Calahorra, with some
neighboring districts.[1306]
ESTELLA. See NAVARRE.
GALICIA, also known as SANTIAGO. The earliest allusion to this tribunal
occurs in a commission issued at Coruña, May 20, 1520, to Doctor Gonzalo
Maldonado as Inquisitor of Santiago. It was probably some time before
the tribunal was in working order but in 1527 it had caused sufficient
alarm for the Suprema to write to João III of Portugal asking for the
arrest and surrender of those who had fled from it and, in the same
year, a warrant for three hundred ducats was drawn to be distributed
among the inquisitors and officials of the Inquisition of Galicia. This
was followed by a similar payment in 1528, showing that the tribunal was
not self-sustaining.[1307] Apparently the harvest was scanty and the
tribunal was allowed to lapse, until the scare about Protestantism
called attention to the ports of the North-west as affording ingress to
heretics and their books, for we hear nothing more about it until 1562,
when Philip II, in letters of June 2nd and 26th informs the governor and
officials of Galicia that Valdés had despatched Dr. Quixano there as
inquisitor; they are no longer to prosecute cases of heresy as they have
been doing but are to lend him all aid and favor and are to allow him to
dispose as he pleases of the seats in his public functions, without
disputes as to precedence. In 1566 we hear of Bartolomé de Leon as
receiver there, which would indicate that it was at work and was making
collections.[1308] Still, it had a struggle for existence, for it was
discontinued early in 1568, but it was re-established within a few
years, if Llorente is correct in saying that its first auto de fe was
celebrated in 1573. A letter of Dr. Alva, its inquisitor, October 31,
1577, speaks of having, in the previous year, sentenced Guillaume le
Meunier, he being the only inquisitor, with the advice of a single
consultor, showing that the tribunal was sparingly equipped.[1309] In
later years it became one of the active tribunals of the kingdom. Its
district comprised Coruña, Pontevedro, Orense and Lugo.
GRANADA. Granada, after its capture, was included in the inquisitorial
district of Córdova until, in 1526, the tribunal of Jaen was transferred
thither.[1310]
GUADALUPE. A temporary tribunal was organized here in 1485 which during
its brief existence was exceedingly efficient (see p. 171).
HUESCA. See LÉRIDA.
JACA. A tribunal apparently existed here, which was annexed to Saragossa
in 1521.[1311]
JAEN. A tribunal must have been established here about 1483, for two of
its inquisitors took part in the assembly of Seville which framed the
Instructions of 1484. It seems to have been discontinued, for September
2, 1501, Ferdinand ordered a certain Doña Beatrix of Jaen to abandon her
house to the inquisitors sent thither, and to seek other quarters until
they should finish the business that took them there. This indicates
that only a temporary tribunal was intended but the situation was
conveniently central and it was one of those retained by Ximenes in his
reorganization of 1509, when he assigned to it the districts of Jaen and
Guadix, with Alcaraz, Cazorla and Beas. It was still in existence in
1525, as shown by a royal letter of that date, but in 1526 it was
suppressed and united with Córdova, the tribunal being transferred to
Granada. In 1547, the official title of the tribunal was Córdoba y Jaen.
Rodrigo tells us that it was re-established independently in 1545, but
this is evidently an error and the name does not reappear in subsequent
lists of tribunals.[1312]
[Sidenote: _TRIBUNALS_]
LEON. In 1501 we hear of "inquisitors of the province of Leon," whose
district cannot have been confined to that province, for Ferdinand,
writing September 2nd to "Cousin Duke" tells him that they have occasion
to go to his city of Coria (Extremadura) and asks that they may occupy
his house while there. In 1514, also there is allusion to the receiver
and alguazil of the Inquisition of Leon.[1313] Apparently the term is a
synonym of the tribunal of Valladolid.
LÉRIDA. The provinces of Huesca in Aragon and Lérida and Urgel in
Catalonia were united as an inquisitorial district at least as early as
1490, when we hear of "the inquisitors of Huesca and Lérida" taking
testimony. In 1498, a letter of Ferdinand, October 8th, announces the
transfer of Urgel to Barcelona. Allusions to the tribunal continue to
occur in the correspondence of Ferdinand, who, in 1502, called away the
inquisitor, as there was so little to do; Saragossa would attend to
heresy and only the financial officials need be left. It was not
discontinued however. In 1514, there was an attempt to murder the
inquisitor, Canon Antist, but in 1519 he is still addressed as
inquisitor of Lérida. In this same year, however, Charles V, in a letter
of January 22nd, speaks of the tribunals of Huesca, Tarazona and Lérida
having been united with that of Saragossa, and, when the people of
Huesca complained, in the Córtes of Saragossa, of their citizens being
carried away for trial, he ordered, under pain of a thousand florins,
that no one should interfere with the jurisdiction of the Saragossa
tribunal. October 9th an inspector reported that there was no need of a
receiver or other officials there, whereupon they were all dismissed. In
1532, however, the inquisitors of Saragossa undertook to appoint a
receiver for Lérida, but were told by the Suprema to cancel it as this
was a function of the crown.[1314]
LOGROÑO. In 1570, as we have seen, the tribunal of Calahorra was shifted
to Logroño, which, in 1690, defines its territory as the whole kingdom
of Navarre, the bishopric of Calahorra and la Calzada, Biscay,
Guipuzcoa, Burgos along the mountains of Oca and the sea-coast as far as
San Vicente de la Barquera, thus comprising the modern provinces of
Navarre, Guipuzcoa, Biscay, Santander, Alava, Logroño and a large part
of Burgos.[1315]
LLERENA. Originally Extremadura and Leon were combined. In 1500, Enrique
Paez is receiver for the sees of Plasencia, Coria and Badajoz and the
Province of Leon. In 1509 Ximenes assigned to Llerena as its district,
Plasencia, Coria, Badajoz and the lands of the military Orders, but as
late as 1516 it is spoken of as the Inquisition of Leon, Plasencia,
Coria and Badajoz. Its original seat was Llerena but, in 1516, it was
transferred to Plasencia and the receiver was ordered to sell the houses
purchased at Llerena for the prison because others will be wanted for
the purpose at Plasencia. It was migratory, however and, in 1520, the
people of Ciudad Rodrigo, Coria and Merida were notified that it was
about to leave Plasencia and wherever it went accommodations must be
provided for lodgement, audience chamber and prisons. Finally it settled
permanently at Llerena and, towards the close of the sixteenth century,
Zapata speaks of it as the first tribunal of the kingdom, with the
widest jurisdiction.[1316]
MADRID. See CORTE.
MEDINA DEL CAMPO. The great importance of Medina del Campo as a centre
of trade rendered inevitable its selection as the seat of a tribunal at
an early period. In 1486 it was fully furnished with three inquisitors
and an assessor, the Abbot of Medina serving as Ordinary. In 1516 we
find it incorporated with Valladolid. When the court moved to
Valladolid, the buildings of the Inquisition were wanted for its
accommodation and the tribunal, in June 1601, was unceremoniously sent
to Medina, where Dr. Martin de Bustos was turned out of his house to
lodge it. Its stay was short, for in 1605, as we have seen, it was
transferred to Burgos and there is no later trace of a tribunal at
Medina.[1317]
MURCIA, also known as CARTAGENA. See also CUENCA. Murcia was a seat of
one of the early tribunals, comprising the sees of Murcia and Cartagena.
Cuenca, which was attached to it in the redistribution by Ximenes in
1509, was separated about 1520. Oran, some time after its conquest by
Ximenes, was placed under the jurisdiction of Murcia. The see of
Orihuela, although belonging to Valencia, on its suppression about 1510,
was united to that of Cartagena and thus fell under the tribunal of
Murcia, where it remained after the restoration to episcopal honors in
1564.[1318] The tribunal of Orihuela naturally followed the same course
on its suppression.
[Sidenote: _TRIBUNALS_]
NAVARRE. After the conquest of Navarre, in 1512, a tribunal was
established in Pampeluna, where it did not long remain. Then, for a
short period it was transferred to Estella. In 1515 we find it in
Tudela, where Ferdinand orders the Archdeacon of Almazan to visit it as
it is in much need of reform and, soon afterwards, he asks for a
delegation of episcopal power, as Tudela was only a deanery. It was
quartered in the convent of San Francisco, to relieve which, in 1518,
the Suprema ordered appropriate buildings to be obtained. In 1521 and
1522 there was talk of removing it to Pampeluna; then it was extended
over Calahorra; soon afterwards they were separated but finally, in
1540, they were united and so remained. Soon after the transfer to
Logroño we find the tribunal describing itself as "en todo el Reyno de
Navarra, Obispado de Calahorra y la Calzada y su distrito."[1319]
NAVY. See ARMY.
ORAN. Páramo tells us that when Ximenes conquered Oran he commissioned
Fray Yedra as inquisitor there. Llorente places this in 1516 and calls
the inquisitor Martin de Baydacar, Ximenes's provisor. At that time,
however, there could have been no tribunal there for, July 9, 1516 the
Governor Lope Hurtado de Mendoza was ordered to discover and punish
those who were impeding the sale of property for the Inquisition, work
which would have been entrusted to the tribunal had there been one. By
this time it had probably been suppressed and placed under Murcia.[1320]
ORIHUELA. According to Llorente, Ferdinand, Aug. 7, 1507, united the
tribunal of the bishopric of Orihuela to Valencia, which would infer its
previous existence. It was reorganized in 1515, when Bishop Mercader
appointed Pedro de los Rios as inquisitor and he was sent there with a
staff of officials, and the magistrates were ordered to provide quarters
for "el tiempo que fuere menester." This indicates that the tribunal was
not expected to be permanent and it was probably not long afterwards
that it was united with Murcia, _q. v._[1321]
OSUNA. In 1488, among the presentations to prebends is one of Pedro
Sánchez, qualified as Inquisitor of Osuna.[1322] Such tribunal can only
have been short-lived and must speedily have been incorporated with that
of Seville.
PAMPELUNA. See NAVARRE.
PERPIGNAN. August 9, 1495 an auto de fe was celebrated in Perpignan, but
it was held by the inquisitors of Barcelona. In 1518 there was only a
commissioner there but, in 1524, there was a tribunal, with Juan Navardu
as inquisitor and Antonio Saliteda as secretary. It was not permanent
however. In 1566, when de Soto Salazar was sent on his visitation to
Barcelona he was instructed to ascertain and report promptly details for
the benefit of the inquisitor about to be sent to Perpignan to reside
for the future and what officials should be provided for him. It is
doubtful whether this intention was carried out; in any event it was but
transitory.[1323]
PLASENCIA. See LLERENA.
SANTIAGO. See GALICIA.
SARAGOSSA. Established in 1484, the tribunal gradually absorbed all the
minor tribunals, but parted with Teruel to Valencia. See BARBASTRO,
CALATAYUD, DAROCA, JACA, LÉRIDA, TARAZONA, TERUEL.
SEGOVIA. Segovia claimed the honor of being among the earliest cities,
after Seville, to possess a tribunal, but there was no representative
from there among the inquisitors assembled to frame the Instructions of
1484, owing doubtless to the resistance of the bishop Juan Arias
Dávila.[1324] One must have been established soon afterwards for, in
1490, the prisoners accused of the murder of the Santo Niño de la
Guardia were on trial there when Torquemada transferred them to Avila.
(See AVILA.) In the redistribution by Ximenes, in 1509, Segovia was
incorporated with Valladolid, but, in 1544 and again in 1599, the
inquisitors of Toledo include it in their enumeration of their
jurisdictions.[1325]
[Sidenote: _TRIBUNALS_]
SIGÜENZA. A tribunal was early established in Sigüenza which must have
been busy if we may believe the statement that at an auto de fe in 1494
it relaxed a hundred and forty-nine victims to the secular arm. In
1506, Deza dismissed the officials for the reason that it was about to
be united with Toledo, a merger ratified by Ximines in 1509. Toledo
neglected it and it was transferred to Cuenca, _q. v._ In the eighteenth
century there would appear to be some kind of subordinate tribunal
there, for about 1750, Saragossa, in a report of its personnel, states
that one of its five inquisitors is assisting at Sigüenza.[1326]
TARAZONA. A tribunal established here in the early period was merged
into that of Saragossa in 1519.[1327]
TARRAGONA. When, in 1643, the inquisitors of Barcelona were ejected,
they were, after some delay, sent to open their tribunal at Tarragona,
where they remained until the suppression of the Catalan rebellion in
1652.[1328]
TERUEL. In 1485 a tribunal was established in Teruel after some
resistance. At what time it was transferred to Valencia does not appear,
but a cédula of October 2, 1502 is addressed to the inquisitors of
Valencia residing in Teruel and Albarracin, showing that it was then
subordinate to Valencia. In 1518 it was discontinued and the district
was subjected to the direct jurisdiction of the Valencian tribunal, but
Cardinal Adrian, by a provision of Nov. 21st of the same year,
transferred it to Saragossa and then, March 3, 1519 restored it to
Valencia. This was felt by Aragon as a grievance and, at the Córtes of
Monzon, in 1533 it asked that Teruel and Albarracin should be restored
to the Saragossa tribunal, but the request was peremptorily refused and
they remained subject to Valencia.[1329]
TOLEDO. In 1485 the tribunal of Ciudad Real was transferred to Toledo.
At first the limits of its district seem not to be clearly defined for,
in 1489 the inquisitors were told to go to Guadalajara and Ferdinand
ordered the local authorities to show them favor and allow them to make
arrests. See CORTE, CUENCA, SEGOVIA, SIGÜENZA, VALLADOLID for sundry
changes in its district. In 1565 the official designation is the city
and archbishopric of Toledo, the city and bishopric of Sigüenza and the
bishoprics of Avila and Segovia, which apparently remained permanent,
except the detachment of Madrid.[1330]
TORTOSA. For some reason the bishopric of Tortosa, although part of
Catalonia, was subject to the tribunal of Valencia. When, in 1697,
Vendôme captured Barcelona, the tribunal emigrated to Tortosa and
established itself in the Colegio Imperial. Although peace was declared
soon afterwards it remained in Tortosa at least until 1700 and
presumably stayed until the conclusion of the War of Succession, when it
was reinstated in Barcelona in 1715.[1331]
TUDELA. See NAVARRE.
VALENCIA. The old Inquisition of Valencia was reorganized in 1484, and
continued to the end. As seen above, it parted with Orihuela to Murcia,
obtaining Teruel and Albarracin from Saragossa and Tortosa from
Barcelona.
[Sidenote: _TRIBUNALS_]
VALLADOLID. A tribunal was assigned to Valladolid in 1485, but did not
get into working order until 1488. After this it was suspended to be
revived in 1499, as appears from a letter of Isabella, Dec. 24, 1498.
The northern provinces of Spain were comparatively free from heresy and
Ximenes, in his reorganization of 1509, assigned to Valladolid the
enormous district comprising the sees of Burgos, Osma, Palencia,
Segovia, Avila, Salamanca, Zamora, Leon, Oviedo and Astorga and the
abbeys of Valladolid, Medina del Campo and Sahagun. In 1516 the
enumeration is the same except the omission of Zamora and the addition
of Ciudad Rodrigo and Calahorra. Roughly speaking, it may be assumed to
comprise the whole of the provinces of Old Castile, Leon and Asturias.
Valdés, August 8, 1560, repeated April 12, 1562 made over the whole of
this to Toledo, but the grant can only have been temporary for, in 1565
the Toledan inquisitors described themselves as of the city and
archbishoprics of Toledo, the city and bishopric of Sigüenza, with the
bishoprics of Avila and Segovia, and in 1579 we find the inquisitors of
Valladolid styling themselves inquisitors of the kingdoms of Castile and
Leon and the principality of Asturias. This enormous district it
continued to retain, subject to the easternmost portion detached to
Calahorra or Logroño and to its translation in 1601 to Medina del Campo
and thence to Burgos, from which it returned to Valladolid, probably
about 1630.[1332]
XERES. In 1495, Rodrigo Lucero is described as Inquisitor of Xeres. In
1499 the sovereigns appointed Alonso de Guevara Inquisitor of Cadiz and
Xeres. The tribunal continued there for some time. In 1515 Ferdinand
alludes to Luis de Riba Martin "our late receiver in the Inquisition of
Xeres," who in dying had left to the treasury a legacy of 30,000 mrs.
for the relief of his conscience.[1333] I have met no later reference to
it and probably it was soon afterwards merged into the tribunal of
Seville.
II.
LIST OF INQUISITORS-GENERAL.
1483. Thomás de Torquemada. Appointed in 1483. Died Sept. 16, 1498.
1491. Miguel de Morillo is also inquisitor-general in 1491.
_Additional Inquisitors-general, Appointed in 1494._
1494. Martin Ponce de Leon, Archbishop of Messina. Died in 1500.
Iñigo Manrique, Bishop of Córdova. Died March 4, 1496.
Francisco Sánchez de la Fuente, Bishop of Avila. Died Sept., 1498.
Alonso Suárez de Fuentelsaz, Bishop of Jaen. Resigned in 1504. Died
Nov. 5, 1520.
1498. Diego Deza, Archbishop of Seville. Commissioned Nov. 24,
1498, for Castile, Leon and Granada, and Sept. 1, 1499, for all
Spain. Resigned in 1507. Died July 9, 1523.
_Separation of Inquisitions of Castile and Aragon._
_Castile._
1507. Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros, Cardinal and Archbishop of
Toledo. Commissioned June 5, 1507. Died Nov. 8, 1517.
_Aragon._
1507. Juan Enguera, Bishop of Vich (of Lérida in 1511).
Commissioned June 6, 1507. Died Feb. 14, 1513.
1513. Luis Mercader, Bishop of Tortosa. Commissioned July 15, 1513.
Died June 1, 1516.
Fray Juan Pedro de Poul, Dominican Provincial of Aragon, also
commissioned by Leo X. Died in 1516.
1516. Adrian of Utrecht, Cardinal and Bishop of Tortosa.
Commissioned Nov. 14, 1516.
[Sidenote: _LIST OF INQUISITORS-GENERAL._]
_Reunion of Inquisitions of Castile and Aragon._
1518. Cardinal Adrian of Utrecht. Commissioned March 14, 1518.
Elected to papacy Jan. 9, 1522. Continued to act until his
departure for Rome from Tarragona Aug. 4, 1522.
1523. Alfonso Manrique, Cardinal and Archbishop of Seville.
Commissioned Sept. 10, 1523. Died Sept. 28, 1538.
1539. Juan Pardo de Tavera, Cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo.
Appointed June 10, 1539. Commissioned Nov. 7, 1539. Took possession
Dec. 7, 1539. Died Aug. 1, 1545.
1546. Francisco García de Loaysa, Archbishop of Seville.
Commissioned Feb. 18, 1546. Took possession March 29, 1546. Died
April 22, 1546.
1547. Fernando Valdés, Archbishop of Seville. Commissioned Jan. 20,
1547. Took possession Feb. 19, 1547. Resigned in 1566. Died Dec. 9,
1568.
1566. Diego Espinosa, Cardinal and Bishop of Sigüenza. Commissioned
Sept. 8, 1566. Took possession Dec. 4, 1566. Died Sept. 15, 1572.
1572. Pedro Ponce de Leon y Córdova, Bishop of Plasencia.
Commissioned Dec. 7, 1572. Did not take possession; his brief
arrived four hours after his death, Jan. 17, 1573.
1573. Gaspar de Quiroga, Cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo.
Commissioned April 20, 1573. Took possession May 28, 1573. Died
Nov. 12, 1594.
1595. Gerónimo Manrique de Lara, Bishop of Avila. Commissioned Aug.
1, 1595. Died Nov. 1, 1595.
1596. Pedro de Portocarrero, Bishop of Cuenca. Commissioned Jan. 1,
1596. Resigned in 1599. Died Sept. 20, 1600.
1599. Fernando Niño de Guevara, Cardinal and Archbishop of Seville.
Commissioned Aug. 11, 1599. Took possession Dec. 23, 1599.
Resigned in 1602. Died Jan. 1, 1609.
1602. Juan de Zuñiga, Bishop of Cartagena. Commissioned July 29,
1602. Died Dec. 20, 1602.
1603. Juan Bautista Acevedo, Royal Confessor and Patriarch of the
Indies. Commissioned Jan. 20, 1603. Died July 8, 1608.
1608. Bernardo de Sandoval y Roxas, Cardinal and Archbishop of
Toledo. Commissioned Sept. 12, 1608. Died Dec. 7, 1618.
1619. Luis de Aliaga, Royal Confessor. Commissioned Jan. 4, 1619.
Resigned in 1621. Died Dec. 3, 1626.
1622. Andrés Pacheco, Bishop of Cuenca. Commissioned Feb. 12, 1622.
Died April 7, 1626.
1627. Antonio de Zapata, Cardinal and Archbishop of Burgos,
1600-1605. Commissioned Jan. 30, 1627. Resigned in 1632. Died April
23, 1635.
1632. Antonio de Sotomayor, Royal Confessor and Archbishop of
Damascus. Commissioned July 17, 1632. Resigned June 21, 1643. Died
in 1648.
1643. Diego de Arce y Reynoso, Bishop of Plasencia. Commissioned
Sept. 18, 1643. Took possession Nov. 14, 1643. Died June 20, 1665.
1665. Pascual de Aragon, Archbishop of Toledo. A document of Oct.
26, 1665, is drafted in his name. Resigned soon afterwards.
1666. Juan Everardo Nithardo, Royal Confessor and Cardinal.
Commissioned Oct. 15, 1666. Banished Feb. 25, 1669, as ambassador
to Rome. Died in 1681.
1669. Diego Sarmiento de Valladares, Bishop of Plasencia.
Commissioned Sept. 15, 1669. Died Jan. 29, 1695.
1695. Juan Thomás de Rocaberti, Archbishop of Valencia.
Commissioned Aug. 2, 1695. Died June 13, 1699.
1699. Alfonso Fernández de Córdova y Aguilar. Died Sept. 19, 1699,
before the arrival of his brief.
1699. Balthasar de Mendoza y Sandoval, Bishop of Segovia.
Commissioned Oct. 31, 1699. Resigned in 1705. Died Nov. 4, 1727.
1705. Vidal Marin, Bishop of Ceuta. Commissioned March 24, 1705.
Died March 10, 1709.
1709. Antonio Ybañez de la Riva-Herrera, Archbishop of Saragossa.
Commissioned April 5, 1709. Died Sept. 3, 1710.
1711. Francesco Giudice, Cardinal. Commissioned June 11, 1711.
Resigned in 1716. Died Oct. 10, 1725.
1715. Felipe Antonio Gil de Taboada. Commissioned Feb. 28, 1715.
Did not serve.
1717. Josef de Molines. Proclaimed Jan. 9, 1717, while in Rome.
Detained in Milan by the Austrians and died there.
Juan de Arzamendi. Died without serving.
1720. Diego de Astorga y Cespedes, Bishop of Barcelona.
Commissioned March 26, 1720. Resigned in 1720. Died Feb. 9, 1724.
1720. Juan de Camargo, Bishop of Pampeluna. Commissioned July 18,
1720. Died May 24, 1733.
1733. Andrés de Orbe y Larreategui, Archbishop of Valencia.
Commissioned July 28, 1733. Died Aug. 4, 1740.
1742. Manuel Isidro Manrique de Lara, Archbishop of Santiago.
Commissioned Jan. 1, 1742. Died Jan. 10, 1746.
1746. Francisco Pérez de Prado y Cuesta, Bishop of Teruel.
Appointed July 26, 1746. Commissioned Aug. 22, 1746. Died in July,
1755.
[Sidenote: _LIST OF INQUISITORS-GENERAL._]
1755. Manuel Quintano Bonifaz, Archbishop of Pharsalia.
Commissioned Aug. 11, 1755. Resigned in 1774. Died Dec. 18, 1775.
1775. Felipe Beltran, Bishop of Salamanca. Appointed Dec. 27, 1774.
Commissioned Feb. 27, 1775. Took possession May 5, 1775. Died Nov.
30, 1783.
1784. Agustin Rubin de Cevallos, Bishop of Jaen. Appointed Jan. 23,
1784. Commissioned Feb. 17, 1784. Took possession June 7, 1784.
Died Feb. 8, 1793.
1793. Manuel Abad y la Sierra, Archbishop of Selimbria. Took
possession May 11, 1793. Resigned in 1794. Died Jan. 12, 1806.
1794. Francisco Antonio de Lorenzana, Archbishop of Toledo. Took
possession Sept. 12, 1794. Resigned in 1797. Died April 17, 1804.
1798. Ramon Josef de Arce y Reynoso, Archbishop of Saragossa.
Resigned March 22, 1808. Died in Paris, Feb. 16, 1814.
1814. Xavier Mier y Campillo, Bishop of Almería. Took possession in
August, 1814. In a series of documents he ceases to appear about
June, 1818, and for some months the Suprema acts as in a vacancy.
1818. Gerónimo Castellon y Salas, Bishop of Tarazona. The earliest
document in which I have met his signature is dated Oct. 21, 1818.
He had no successor and died April 20, 1835.
[Illustration: _Signature of the Last Inquisitor-general._]
III.
SPANISH COINAGE.
The question of values has significance in so many of the operations of
the Inquisition that an outline of the successive mintages of Spain
becomes almost a necessity. The subject is complicated, after the middle
of the sixteenth century, by the progressive but fluctuating
depreciation in the _moneda de vellón_, or base coinage, which became
practically the standard of value in all transactions.
The monetary unit of Castile was the _maravedí_, anciently a gold coin
of value but, in the fifteenth century, diminished to a fraction of its
former estimation. A declaration of Ferdinand and Isabella in 1503 says
that formerly the silver real was equal to 3 maravedís, but now it is
worth 34.[1334]
The unit of weight was the marc, or half-pound, of 8 ounces or 4608
grains. The intermediate weights were the _ochavo_ of 72 grains, the
_adarme_ of 36 and the _tomin_ of 12. These were applicable to all the
precious metals but, up to 1731, the marc of gold was reckoned to
contain 50 _castellanos_ of 8 _tomines_, making 4800 grains, whereby the
grain was reduced 1/25.
The standard of fineness was fixed, by Ferdinand and Isabella, for gold
at 23-3/4 carats, but was reduced by Charles V to 22 carats, at which it
remained. For silver the standard maintained since the fourteenth
century was known as _once dineros cuatro granos_ (pure silver being
_doce dineros_) equivalent to .925 fine. In 1709 Philip V reduced it to
_once dineros_ or .91667, and in some mintages even lower.
GOLD COINS. When Ferdinand and Isabella revised the coinage, in 1497,
they ordered the marc to be worked into 65-1/3 _excelentes de la
granada_. This coin was worth 374 maravedís and thus was practically the
same as the ducat or escudo which was rated at 374. There were also the
_dobla alfonsi_ or _castellano_ or _peso de oro_, equal to 485, the
_dobla de la banda_ to 365, the florin to 265. Thus the ducat, which was
the coin most frequently quoted, was equivalent to 11 silver reales. The
ratio between gold and silver fluctuated between 7 and 8 to 1.
[Sidenote: _SPANISH COINAGE_]
In 1537 Charles V ordered _coronas_ and _escudos_, 22 carats fine to be
worked 68 to the marc and to be worth 330 maravedís, which he says was
the weight and fineness of the best crowns of Italy and France. With the
progressive depreciation in the value of silver, the coinage law of
Philip II in 1566 raised the escudo from 330 mrs. to 400. The old ducats
were to be current at 429 mrs., the castellanos at 544. The tendency of
silver continued downward and in 1609 Philip III permitted the escudo to
pass for 440 mrs., threatening three years' exile and a fine of 500
ducats for asking or receiving more. In 1612 he allowed the castellano
in bullion to be sold for 576 mrs. under the same penalties for
exceeding it. The escudo or crown remained the standard gold coin. In
1642 it was raised to 550 mrs.; in 1643 to 612 and then reduced to 510
owing to variations in the silver and vellón coinage. In 1651 it is
rated at 16 silver reales, in 1652 at 14, in 1686 at 15, but with a new
coinage of lighter weight silver it was raised to 19, and the _doblon_,
or piece of 2 escudos, to 40 reales. For larger transactions multiples
of the escudo were struck, known as _doblones de a dos_, _de a cuatro_
and _de a ocho_, containing respectively 2, 4 and 8 escudos. The latter,
which became popularly known as the Spanish doubloon, were rated in 1726
at 18 _pesos_ or pieces of eight silver reales, in 1728 at 16, in 1737
at 15 and in 1779 at 16 again, the doubloon and the peso being virtually
of the same weight, each a fraction under an ounce. In 1738, to supply
the lack of silver money there were coined half-crowns of gold, worth in
vellón 18 reales 28 mrs. This fraction was troublesome and, in 1742, the
weight was changed to correspond with 20 reales, and the coins became
known as _veintenos_ or _escuditos_.
SILVER COINS. The silver unit was the real, which, under the coinage
laws of Ferdinand and Isabella, was worked 67 to the silver marc, of 11
dineros 4 grains fine (.925), worth 34 maravedís. It long continued of
this standard but, in the financial mismanagement under Philip IV, the
weight was reduced by ordering the marc worked into 83 reales and 1
quartillo (83-1/4 reales), the old coinage in circulation being advanced
25 per cent. in value by making the peso equivalent to 10 reales instead
of 8, but as this failed to afford the expected relief it was suspended
in 1643, to be again tried in 1684 when the real was reduced to 84 to
the marc, and the old coinage was rated at 10 to 8 of the new. In 1709
we first hear of the _peseta_, as a name applied to the French coin
introduced by the War of Succession, rated at 2 reales, and subsequently
used to denote the double real of Spanish mintage. At the same time the
standard was reduced to 11 dineros or .91667 fine. During the subsequent
years of the reign of Philip V the variations in the silver coinage were
numerous and perplexing. The peso, escudo de plata, or piece of 8
reales, was the leading coin, and in 1726 it was ordered that it,
whether minted in the Indies or in Spain, should be current for 9-1/2
reales, and, as this did not bring it to an equivalent with gold, in
1728 it was declared equal to 10 reales. This however was now confined
to the mintage of the Indies, which came to be known as _plata
nacional_; the small coinage of the Spanish mints was termed
_provincial_ and was allowed to remain current at a discount of 20 per
cent. It was 77 reales to the marc and the fineness was only 10 dineros,
reduced in 1728 to 9 dineros, 22 grains or .798 fine, rendering it in
reality only about three-quarters the value of the standard. There were
thus two entirely distinct silver currencies coexistent, and to these
was added a third, popularly known as Marias--"plata nueva que
vulgarmente se llaman Marías"--which was called in by decree of April
27, 1728, but which was still in circulation in 1736. Under these
circumstances considerable circumlocution was necessary when quoting
sums in silver to define the exact kind of coin meant as, for instance,
in the coinage law of July 16, 1730, we are told that the allowance for
expenses to the official known as the Fiel, was "un real de plata
provincial, valor de 16 quartos de vellón." In fact, as we shall see,
the debased coinage known as _vellón_ had become the real standard of
financial transactions.
In the later periods it will simplify the appreciation of amounts
recorded to remind the reader that the _peso_, or piece of 8 reales, is
the modern dollar, and the real, or one-eighth of this, is the coin
familiarly known of old in various parts of the United States as the
"bit," the "elevenpenny bit" shortened to "levy," the ninepence or the
shilling. The maravedí was 1/34 of this, or about 3/8 of one cent.
In the colonies there is frequent allusion to the _peso ensayado_ as
distinguished from the _peso de a ocho_, which I gather to be a piece
worth 400 maravedís, or nearly 11-3/4 reales--a little more than a
ducat.
[Sidenote: _SPANISH COINAGE_]
[Sidenote: _SPANISH COINAGE_]
VELLON COINAGE. The debased coinage known as vellón was an alloy of
silver and copper, which proved the source of unutterable confusion in
Spanish finance. As we find it prescribed by Ferdinand and Isabella in
1497, it is merely a token coin convenient for small transactions,
consisting of 7 grains of silver to the marc of copper, worked into 192
_blancas_, the blanca being one-half of the maravedí. Complaints were
made that it was exported at a profit, so that it became scarce, and in
1552 Charles V, to remedy this, reduced the silver to 5 grains. The
extravagant expenditures of Philip II rendered him eager to clutch at
any expedient to relieve immediate necessities and, in 1566, he adopted
the unfortunate device of issuing a _moneda de vellón rica_, with 2-1/2
dineros, 2 grains (98 grains) of silver to the marc of copper, to be
worked into _quartillos_, 80 to the marc (worth 1/4 real or 8-1/2
maravedís), into _quartos_, 170 to the marc (worth 4 maravedís) and
_medios quartos_, 340 to the marc (worth 2 maravedís). The _blancas_ or
half maravedís, were retained, but the silver in them was reduced to 4
grains to the marc, worked into 220 pieces. Although there do not appear
ever to have been larger coins of vellón issued than those authorized by
Philip II the flood of this inferior money supplanted the precious
metals. It became the basis of all internal transactions and the
precious metals were reduced virtually to the position of commodities.
There was a restamping of this coinage in 1602, in which the silver was
omitted, put into forced circulation at a value of 7 to 2. With all the
power of Spain, backed by the treasures of the New World and wielded by
an autocratic monarchy, it was impossible to maintain so vicious and
artificial a currency at par, and there followed, during the seventeenth
century, a series of the most desperate attempts to remedy the evils
which were crippling the commerce and industry of the nation.[1335] In
1619 there was a solemn promise made that no more of the pernicious
stuff should be issued for twenty years--a promise only made to be
broken and renewed in 1632. In 1625, under the severest penalties, the
premium on gold and silver was limited to 10 per cent., and in 1628 the
nominal value was reduced one-half, but in 1636 the permissible premium
on silver was recognized as 25 per cent., immediately after which the
vellón coinage was restamped and trebled in value. In 1640 the premium
was allowed to be 28 per cent. and in 1641 there was another restamping
and the value was doubled, followed by recognizing the premium as 50 per
cent. In some accounts before me of the salaries and expenses of the
Supreme Council of the Inquisition, not dated, but evidently belonging
to this period, the figures set down are increased when added, in one
case by 28 per cent. and in another by 50, to adjust them to the
currency in which they were expected to be paid. In other statements
some items are specified as payable in _vellón_ and others in _plata_.
In the effort to bring the vellón to par in 1642, it was suddenly
reduced to one-sixth of its current value and then, in 1643, it was
raised four-fold. This resulted, in 1647, in a premium of 25 per cent.,
but when, in 1651, it was again restamped and restored to the value
which it bore prior to 1642, the premium rose to 50 per cent. In June,
1652, another attempt was made to reduce it to one-fourth, but this
seems to have been a failure and in November the edict was suspended. In
1660 its further issue was suspended and the experiment was again tried
of an alloy containing 20 grains of silver to the marc, or about 1/230,
which became known as _moneda de molino de vellón ligado_. This was so
unsuccessful that, in 1664, its nominal value was reduced one-half and
all other vellón currency was prohibited, while in February, 1680, a
still further reduction of 75 per cent. in its value was ordered and in
May its use was forbidden, it was declared to have no value as currency,
and the premium of 50 per cent. was permitted as against other vellón
coins, which had still continued in circulation. This lasted for four
years, when in 1684 the _moneda de molino_ was restored to circulation
with a nominal value double that of the last reduction.[1336] With the
eighteenth century the pretence of alloying copper with a fraction of
silver was abandoned. In 1718 a pure copper coinage was issued and by
this time the premium on specie recognized by law had advanced to nearly
100 per cent. In spite of the prohibitions to ask or receive more than
this, people were forced to pay more. Traders kept the copper coinage
tied up in bags representing the larger coins and refused to furnish the
latter except at an advance.[1337] The premium gradually rose until, in
1737, the _real de plata provincial_ was recognized legally as worth 2
reales de vellón and the _real de plata nacional_ as worth 2-1/2.
Although there were no coined reales de vellón, they were the standard
money of account on which all transactions were based. In the laws
regulating the mints the salaries of the officials are always stated in
vellón. Thus, in 1718, the superintendent of the mint of Madrid has
24,000 reales de vellón, the treasurer 16,000, and so forth. In 1728 the
superintendent is allowed 500 escudos de vellón, the contador 400, etc.
In 1730 it is provided that the sum of 120,000 reales de vellón is to be
placed in the hands of the treasurer for current expenses and he is to
give security in 20,000 ducados de vellón on unencumbered real estate.
From this it follows that, when the kind of coin is not specified, there
may be some difficulty in estimating the value of a sum of money
mentioned. The difference between silver and vellón went on increasing.
In 1772, when a new coinage of gold and silver was issued, the gold
escudo, worth 16 reales de plata, was declared to be worth 37-1/2 reales
de vellón.
With the Revolution the old coinage passed away and was replaced by the
decimal system, the _peseta_ and _céntimo_ being equivalent to the
French franc and centime. Yet still prices continue to be quoted in
reales, which are now rated at 25 céntimos, or about 5 cents of American
money.
Nothing is more difficult than to ascertain accurately the variation in
the purchasing power of money, but perhaps the price of labor affords
the most trustworthy standard. In the fifteenth century this would seem
to have been about 6 maravedís a day. In the eighteenth, common laborers
employed in the mints received 3-1/2 reales de vellón per diem, while
those in more confidential positions such as watchmen were paid 6.[1338]
* * * * *
As a matter of course the kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon had their
independent systems of coinage, which were based on the old divisions of
the marc, almost everywhere prevalent, of _libras_, _sueldos_ and
_dineros_, or pounds, shillings and pence, there being 20 sueldos to the
libra and 12 dineros to the sueldo. In the documents of the early period
there are frequent fluctuations in the relations between these coins and
the Castilian system, but as a rule there were reckoned 20 Aragonese
sueldos to the ducat, which therefore was equivalent to the libra. In
Catalonia the _sueldo barcelonense_ was 24 to the ducat, and there was
also a coin known as _morabatin_, equal to 9 sueldos. Unification of
currency throughout the monarchy was a desirable object, long frustrated
by the stubborn particularism of the provinces. It was especially
difficult to bring about in Catalonia, where the vellón coinage had been
largely diluted by the allies during their long occupation of the
principality in the War of Succession. An edict of 1733 informs us that
there were 24 dineros to the Catalan real, but most of those in
circulation of the coinage of 1653 had been restamped by the allies to
double their nominal value. They had also coined _dinerillos Catalanes_
with the same alloy of silver as the mintage of 1653, but with only half
the weight, yet circulated at the full value. The edict denounces the
_dinerillos_ of both Aragon and Catalonia as an intolerable abuse and
with superfluous emphasis orders their use to be abandoned, immediately
in Aragon and in Catalonia as soon as sufficient money of vellón can be
coined to take their place. The effort was futile for another edict of
1737 assimilates the dinerillo of Aragon and Valencia to the Castilian
_ochavo_, or piece of 2 maravedís, and the dinerillo of Catalonia to 1
maravedí. In 1743, in consequence of disputes arising between troops
quartered in Catalonia and the peasants, it was ordered that the vellón
money of Castile should circulate freely in Aragon, Catalonia and
Majorca. As late as 1772 an edict calls in the local small coinage of
Valencia and orders it replaced with Castilian money, but this was so
unsuccessful that it was followed, in 1777, with one confining the use
of these coins to Valencia and forbidding their circulation elsewhere.
When the unification of the currency occurred does not clearly appear,
but it probably was not until the revision of the monetary system in the
present century.
The old _cruzado_ of Portugal, to which reference sometimes occurs, was
virtually the same as the Spanish ducat.
DOCUMENTS.
I.
LETTER OF KING FERDINAND TO THE INQUISITOR-GENERAL TORQUEMADA, July 22,
1486.
(See pp. 132, 254, 291).
(Archivo General de la Corona de Aragon, Registro 3684, fol. 102).
EL REY.
Devoto padre Prior. Vuestra carta vi e las otras de los otros
inquisidores de Çaragoca y el memorial que vos embiaron. A la carta
vuestra con otra de mi mano vos respondo e a las de los inquisidores e
mandado responder e será la carta con la presente. E quanto a lo del
memorial ó instruccion que escriben sobre lo que Don Juan de Ribera no
faze la guerra fasta haber carta de mano mia e de la serenisima reina mi
muy cara e muy amada mujer luego le ascribieramos salvo porque toda la
gente suya havemos mandado venir para donde himos y sin gente ninguna
cosa podria hazer. Plazera a nuestro senyor que con nuestra ida se
remediará presto e volverse ha la gente a la frontera de Navarra e luego
mandaremos a Don Juan que apriete a los de Tudela en guisa que fagan la
razon. Quanto a lo que scriven en el tercero capitulo de la limosna que
les parece se debe facer de sus bienes a los pobres penitenciados
imponiendolos alguna pecuniaria sentencia, porque los conversos de
aquella ciudad son muy conocidos y podria ser que allá les dieren a
entender una cosa por otra me parece que les debeis escribir que envien
relacion de quien son, specificando los nombres de cada uno e que bienes
tienen e quantas sentencias e que penitencia les parece que se debe dar
a todos e a cada uno dellos, porque, sabida la relacion de todo ello se
podrá mejor determinar lo que en ello se debe facer. Quanto a la
particion de los bienes dentre marido e muger quando el uno es
sentenciado y el otro se falla inmune porque es cosa que esta en drecho
y en fuero del reino me parece que lo debeis mandar veer a micer Ponce y
otros letrados y que sea menester y mas convenga. Quanto al cinqueno
capitulo que fabla de las carceles perpetuas es muy gran razon que se
faga e yo enbio a mandar al receptor que las faga. Quanto al sexto
capitulo en que dicen que se embie a mandar que se ha de dar a los
encarcerados para su mantenemiento me parece escriban aca su parecer y
entonce sobrello podremos determinar lo que paresca mas razonable.
Quanto al seteno que dicen que han tomado un hombre para tormentar
porque dicen que los nuncios no lo quieren facer ni fallan quien lo
faga, me parece que por scusar tantos salarios devrian echar uno de los
nuncios e que la persona que han tomado para tormentar sirviere de
nuncio e se le diese el mismo salario e puesto que esto no se puede
facer se debe limitar el salario, porque seiscientos sueldos es muy
sobrado salario. Quanto al ocheno capitulo en que fabla del salario de
Don Ramon de Mur es justa cosa que pues que bien sirve sea muy bien
pagado, e se le den dos mil sueldos de salario. Quanto al noveno
capitulo que fabla de los porteros estoy maravillado que pagando tan
gran salario como se pagó al aguacil allende aquello se hayan de pagar
porteros que acá como sabeis todo esta a cargo del aguacil. Debeis les
mucho encargar a los inquisidores que lo miren porque se asi no lo fazen
mas montarán los salarios que proceda de la inquisicion. Quanto al
deceno capitulo que dice que han de facer e fazen un lugarteniente de
aguacil para enviar de fuera, parece que se les debe escribir que en las
cosas que buenamente escusar se pudieren lo deben escusar, faciendo ir a
ello al alguacil principal, pero no pudiendo ir el fagase un
lugarteniente como lo acostumbran de facer, pero sea el salario lo menos
que ser pueda porque bien mirado son muy excesivos los salarios que se
pagan a la inquisicion. En lo que dicen que tengo fecha merced de los
bienes de Pedro de Urrea saben poco en la verdad porque es cierto que de
aquellos ni de otros tengo fecha merced a nadie. Quanto al onceno
capitulo en que demandan carta de marca e represalia para Tudela por el
negocio de Martin de Santangel ha de preceder carta requisitoria la qual
debeis mandar ordenar allá a micer Ponte y enviandola aca luego se
despachará. En el dozeno esta ya respondido y quanto a lo que escriben
en el treceno que no han egecutado los matadores de maestre Epila
pluguierame mucho que vos escribieran las causas porque. Quanto al
catorceno capitulo en que escriben que seria bueno que fuere maestro
Crespo a entender en la inquisicion con el abad de Barbastro, buen
hombre es sin duda e pareceme bien que vaya e asimismo me parece bien
micer Tristan de la Porta para que vaya a fazer assesor como lo escriben
en el quatorceno capitulo que buen letrado es e hombre de buena fama. En
el dezeseyseno e ultimo demandan un escribano para los bienes que se han
de litigar por justicia y lo han de determinar ellos como jueces.
Verdaderamente demandan tantos oficiales y acrecentamiento de tantos
salarios que es menester que se mire mucho en ello, mayormente que es
cierto segun Camanyas me ha dicho que los escribanos de la inquisicion
sienten a injuria que otro entiende en el dicho negocio sino ellos,
mayormente que podrian poner en ello criado suyo de quien se confien. Si
en todo lo sobredicho o en algo dello vos parece otra cosa vedlo alla y
escrivitme vuestro parecer porque sobre todo se mire e se faga lo
mejor.
[Sidenote: _DOCUMENTS_]
Camanyas me dijo como vos habia fablado sobre los Judios de Teruel que
les han mandado ir dentro de termino de tres meses e que dize se fizo
con voluntad mia. Essa es la verdad que assi me plugo e me plaze dello e
nunca será de otro parecer; verdad es que en lo del tiempo tienen razon
porque creo que en tampoco tiempo no podrian pagar y cobrar deudas
maiormente teniendo como tienen censales, ni podrian vender las casas y
heredamientos que tienen e por esso sera bien si asi a vos paresciere
que se les den otros seis meses de tiempo sobre los tres que los
inquisidores han dado porque de aquellos segun dicen ha pasado ya buena
parte. Vedlo vos e si os paresciere bien asi fagase. E por agora no
ocurre otro que escrivir salvo que vos ruego mucho que de la salut de
vuestra persona continuamente me fagais sabidor. Del Viso á XXII de
julio de LXXXVI años. Yo el Rey. Por mandado del Rey. Camanyas.
II.
EDICT OF MAY 30, 1492, REGULATING SETTLEMENTS WITH THE EXPELLED JEWS.
(Biblioteca Nacional de España, Seccion de MSS., Dd, 108, fol. 126).
(See p. 136).
Don Fernando et Doña Isabel, por la gracia de Dios Rey et Reyna de
Castilla, etc.
Al Nuestro Justicia Maior et a los de nuestro Consejo et oydores de la
nuestra Audiencia, Alcalles et otras Justicias de la nuestra Casa et
Corte et Chancelleria e a los Corregidores e Assistentes, Alcalles,
Merinos, Alguaciles et otras Justicias qualesquier de las Cibdades e
Villas e Logares de los nuestros Reynos e Señorios et a cada uno et
qualquier de vos a quien esta nuestra Carta fuere mostrada o su traslado
signado de escrivano publico, Salud e gracia. Bien savedes et deveis
saber como nos por algunas justas cabsas que a ello nos movieron
complideras al servicio de Dios e nuestro e bien e pro comun de nuestros
Reynos e nuestros subditos e naturales dellos, mandamos por nuestras
cartas firmadas de nuestros nombres et selladas con nuestro sello, que
todos los Judios et moradores y estantes en los dichos nuestros Reynos e
Señorios salgan dellos de aqui ha en fin del mes de Jullio primero que
viene deste presente año de la Data desta nuestra carta, so ciertas
penas contenidas en las dichas nuestras Cartas. Agora por parte de
algunas aljamas de los dichos Judios et personas particulares dellos nos
es fecha relacion que ellos deven e son obligados a dar e pagar algunas
contias de maravedises et otras cosas ha algunas personas Christianas e
Moros nuestros subditos e naturales et ellos et otras personas les deven
a ellos otras quantias de maravedises et otras cosas et que ellos no
tienen con que pagar salbo con las dichas debdas et algunas bienes
raices, et que si aquellos e las dichas debdas non les oviesen de
recebir en pago por su justo precio et valor que recebirian agravio e
daño, et nos fue suplicado que cerca de ello les mandasemos proveer de
remedio como la nuestra merced fuese. Et porque nuestra merced e
voluntad es que lo que asi mandamos cerca de salir de los dichos Judios
se cumpla en el dicho termino et en ello non se ponga impedimento
alguno, tovimoslo por bien. Por que vos mandamos a todos et a cada uno
de vos en nuestros logares e jurisdicciones que luego que con esta
nuestra carta o con el dicho su traslado signado como dicho es, fueredes
requeridos, la qual mandamos que vos sea notificada dentro de veinte
dias primeros siguientes de la data della fagais pregonar publicamente
por ante escrivano publico por las Plazas e Mercados e otros logares
acostumbrados que todos los Christianos e Moros a quien deven los dichos
Judios qualesquier debdas, o Judios a quien devan Christianos o Moros
otras debdas parescan et se presenten ante vos las dichas Justicias
donde biben los deudores a pedir e liquidar et averiguar las debdas et
otras abciones que los unos deban a los otros, las quales liquides e
averigues et llamadas et oidas las partes, procediendo en la liquidacion
simplemente et de plano sin estrepitu et figura de juicio, solamente
sabida la verdad, por manera que todas las dichas debdas et abciones
sean liquidadas et averiguadas e sentenciadas fasta mediado el dicho mes
de Jullio primero que viene y las que hallardes que los plazos a que se
han de pagar fueren llegados o llegaren al dicho termino, las hagais
luego dar e pagar a las partes que lo ovieren de aver por las personas
que las deven, et los Judios que non tovieren bienes muebles et
semovientes para pagar lo que asi devieren castigades et apremiedes et
costringades a los dichos Christianos e Moros a que tomen et resciban en
pago de sus debdas otras debdas liquidadas con las partes que se deven a
los Judios por Christianos o Moros, o en bienes rayces apreciados por su
justo precio e valor por vos las dichas Justicias con dos buenas
personas que en ello entiendan et con tanto que los dichos Vienes rayces
que asi se dieren en pago apreciados sean en lugares donde son vezinos
et abitantes las personas a quien se deven las dichas debdas. Et en las
debdas que se debieren por los dichos Judios que non llegaren los plazos
durante el dicho termino de fasta mediado el dicho mes de Jullio, den
seguridad dellas a vista de vos las dichas Justicias para las pagar a
los plazos que las devieren et sinon dieren la dicha seguridad paguen
luego las tales debdas, pues se han de ir et despues non avrian contra
quien aver recurso. Et en quanto a las debdas que se deben a los dichos
Judios por Christianos o Moros que non fueren llegados los plazos nin
llegaren dentro del dicho termino, hazed que quede averiguado e
liquidado segund dicho es para que puedan dexar los dichos Judios sus
procuradores Christianos o Moros o persona en quien cedieren o
traspasasen las tales debdas o otros sus bienes et abciones para que las
cobren a los plazos et segund et en la manera que los debdores les
estavan et fueron obligados para la qual todo que dicho es con todas sus
incidencias et dependencias vos damos poder complido, lo qual todo haced
et complid sin embargo de qualesquier leyes, fueros e derechos e
ordenamientos que en contrario desto sean, con las quales et con cada
una dellas dispensamos et las derogamos en quanto a esto atañe, quedando
en su fuerza e vigor para delante. Et los unos nin los otros non fagades
nin fagan endeal por alguna manera so pena de la nuestra merced et de
diez mill maravedises para la nuestra camara al que lo contrario
fisiese. Et demas mandamos al ome que les esta nuestra carta mostrare
que los emplase que parescan ante nos en la nuestra Corte doquier que
nos seamos del dia que los emplasasse fasta quince dias primeros
siguientes so la dicha pena so la qual mandamos a qualquier escrivano
publico que para esto fuere llamado que dende al que se la mostrare
testimonio signado con su signo porque nos sepamos en como se cumple
nuestro mandado. Dada en la Ciudad de Cordova a treinte dias del mes de
Mayo, año del nascimiento de nuestro Salvador Jesu Christo de mill e
quatrocientos e noventa e dos años.--Yo el Rey.--Yo la Reina.--Yo
Ferrand Alvarez de Toledo, Secretario del Rey e de la Reyna nuestros
señores la fize escrivir por su mandado.--En la forma acordada,
Rodericus Dottor.--Registrada, Perez Francisco de Madrid, Chanciller.
(Hallase original en el Archivo de la Ciudad de Toledo).
III.
TORQUEMADA'S INSTRUCTIONS TO INQUISITORS, Dec., 1484.[1339]
(Archivo General de Simancas, Consejo de la Inquisicion, Libro 933).
(See p. 182).
_Otras Capitulaciones por el Reverendo Señor Padre Prior de Santa Cruz
hechas por sus Altezas é confirmadas._
Por mandado de los serenisimos rey é reyna nuestros señores yo el prior
de santa cruz, confesor de sus altezas, inquisidor general por la
abtoridad apostolica en los reynos de Castilla é de Aragon, hordené los
articulos siguientes cerca de algunas cosas tocantes á la sancta
inquisicion é á sus ministros é oficiales los quales dichos capitulos
mandan sus altezas que se guarden é cumplan é yo de parte de sus altezas
é por la abtoridad susodicha asi lo mando é son las que se siguen.
1. Primeramente que en cada partido donde fuere necesario poner
inquisicion é en los que agora la hay é se facen, aya dos inquisidores
con un buen asesor los quales sean personas letrados de buena fama é
conciencia los mas idoneos que se puedan haber é que se les dé alguacil
é fiscal é notarios y los otros oficiales que son necesarios para la
inquisicion los quales sean asi mesmo personas aviles é diligentes en su
calidad é que á los dichos inquisidores é oficiales les den é sean
situados sus salarios que deben haber, y es la merced de sus altezas é
mandan que ninguno de los dichos oficiales lleve de su oficio derechos
algunos por los abtos que hiciere en la dicha inquisicion ó en los
negocios é cosas della dependientes so pena de perder el oficio, é
mandan que ninguno de los inquisidores tengan oficial ninguno del dicho
oficio por su familiar porque al bien del negocio é al servicio de sus
altezas asi cumple.
2. Item plaze á sus altezas que en corte de Roma se ponga una buena
persona que sea letrado é de buen celo para que procure los negocios
tocantes á toda la inquisicion destos reinos é que sea pagado
competentemente de los bienes confiscados por el delicto de la heregia é
apostasia que pertinescen á sus altezas é que asi lo mandan á sus
tesoreros.
3. Item por quanto en tiempo de Sixto papa quarto de buena memoria
hemanaran de la corte Romana algunos rescriptos é bulas é confesionarios
exorvitantes é contra derecho mucho en perjuicio de la inquisicion é
ministros della, mandan sus altezas que se libren cartas é provisiones
que juntas sean generates para todo el reino con las quales se impida é
pueda impedir justamente la ejecucion de los tales rescriptos é bulas,
si alguno los impetrare é quisiere usar dellos fasta que con el papa sea
consultado é informado de la verdad por parte de sus altezas, por quanto
no es de presumir que la intencion del santo padre sea dar impedimento
en los negocios de la santa fe catolica, pero que las dichas provisiones
de sus altezas no se publiquen fasta ver si el papa Inoscencio octavo
moderno algunas bulas ó requisitos concede ó de lugar que se expidan en
su corte en perjuicio de la sancta inquisicion.
4. Item es la merced de sus altezas porque los inquisidores é sus
oficiales clerigos que trabajan en la dicha inquisicion sean
aprovechados é honrados de mandar á sus embajadores que procuren en su
nombre un indulto del papa para que sus altezas puedan nombrar á las
dichas personas de la dicha inquisicion en ciertas iglesias de sus
reinos en las primeras dignidades é beneficios que vacaren é que
aquellos sean reservados para los nombrados de sus altezas.
5. Otrosi mandan sus altezas que por quanto tienen por bien de hacer
merced de sus bienes á todos aquellos que como quier que fuesen culpados
en el delicto de la heretica pravedat se reconciliaren bien é como deben
en el tiempo de la gracia que los tales reconciliados puedan cobrar
qualesquier debdas de qualesquier tiempo que les fuesen debidas para si
é que su fisco no les embargue asi mesmo si algunos bienes muebles é
raices hayan vendido, dado ó otorgado ó obligado antes de su
reconciliacion que los dichos contractos queden firmos á las personas
que administren los dichos bienes porque es la merced de sus altezas é
mandan que los dichos reconciliados no puedan vender ni enagenar ni
obligar dende en adelante los bienes raices que tovieren sin especial
licentia de sus altezas porque quieren ser primero informados de como
guardan la santa fe catolica é si son verdaderamente convertido á ella.
6. Item como quiera que sus altezas no tienen por bien de hacer gracia
de los bienes á los hereges é apostatas que fueron reconciliados fuera
del tiempo de la gracia para la reconciliacion y les pertinezcan todos
los bienes de los hereges condempnados e reconciliados desde el dia que
cometieron el dicho delicto de la heregia segun el derecho dispone y
podria el fisco de sus altezas demandar los bienes que los tales ovieren
vendido ó enagenado en qualquier manera é escusarse de pagar las debdas
que los tales debiesen por qualquier obligaciones, salvo si en lugar de
las tales ventas é enagenaciones paresciere y se hallare el prescio é
otra cosa equivalente en los bienes de los tales hereges, pero por mas
de clemencia é umagnidad con sus vasallos y porque si algunos con buena
fe contrataron con los dichos hereges que no sean condempnados que sean
reconciliados como dicho es hicieron antes que començase el año de
setenta é nueve, valgan é sean firmes, con tanto que se prueben
legitimamente por testigos dignos de fe ó por scripturas abtenticas que
sean verdaderas é no simuladas en tal manera que si alguna persona
hiciere alguna ynfinta ó simulacion en fraude del fisco cerca de
qualquier contrato ó fuere participante en la dicha fraude ó colusion y
fuere reconciliado le den cient azotes y le hierren con una señal de
hierro en el rostro, y si fuere qualquier otro que no sea reconciliado
aunque sea cristiano haya perdido todos sus bienes é el oficio é oficios
que toviere é que su persona quede á su merced de sus altezas, é mandan
que este capitulo sea pregonado publicamente en los lugares de la
inquisicion porque ninguno pueda pretender ignorancia.
7. Otrosi que si algun caballero de los que han acogido ó acogieren en
sus tierras los hereges que por temor de la inquisicion huyan y huyeron
de las cibdades, villas é lugares realengos demandaren qualesquier
debdas que digan serles debidas por qualesquier hereges que sean huydos
á sus tierras que no el tesorero no les pague las debdas ya dichas ni el
juez de los bienes confiscados se las mande pagar fasta que los dichos
caballeros restituyan todo lo que los dichos confesos que cogieron en
sus tierras llevaron consigo, pues es cierto que aquella pertenescia é
pertenesce á sus altezas é que si sobre tales debdas fuere puesta
demanda al procurador fiscal que el dicho procurador ponga por
reconvencion é compensacion la cantidad en que poco mas ó menos le
parescere que es obligado el caballero que pide su debda jurando que no
lo alega maliciosamente.
8. Otrosi mandan sus altezas que ningun tesorero de los que son ó fueren
puestos para recebir é recabdar los bienes confiscados por el dicho
delicto no secresten ni occupen bienes de ningund herege ni apostata sin
mandamiento especial de los dichos inquisidores é quando ellos dieren
mandamiento para ello hagase la secrestacion por su alguacil é por ante
notario de la inquisicion é por antel escribano del tesorero para que
cada uno dellos haga registro del dicho secresto el qual mandan que se
haga en personas llanas vecinos del lugar que tengan los dichos bienes é
quel tesorero no toque en ellos fasta que la persona cuyos eran los
dichos bienes sea condenada ó por reconciliacion declarada que fue
herege é manda é mandan sus altezas que al tiempo de la secrestacion se
oviere de hacer el tesorero sea requerido por el alguacil para que vaya
á ver como se face.
9. Que si en los bienes asi secrestados como dicho es oviere é se
fallaren algunas cosas que guardandolas se perderian asi como pan é vino
é otras cosas semejantes que el tesorero procure con los inquisidores
que las manden vender é al presente se vendan en publica almoneda é que
el prescio de las tales cosas sea puesto en el dicho secresto en poder
de los dichos secrestadores ó en un cambio como mejor los dichos
inquisidores y el tesorero vieren, asi mismo si algunos bienes raices
ovieren que se deban arrendar manden los dichos inquisidores al
secrestador que juntamente con el dicho tesorero los arriende en publica
almoneda.
10. Otrosi que el tesorero no venda bienes algunos ni reciba dineros ni
qualesquier bienes algunos otros que sean confiscados é pertenescian al
fisco de sus altezas sin que esten delante de dos notarios uno suyo del
dicho tesorero é otro que sea puesto por magno de sus altezas para que
cada uno dellos escriba sobre si los bienes é maravedises que el dicho
tesorero rescibiere é haga registro é libro ordenado de todo ello para
que [de] los dichos libros é registros se tomen despues las cuentas al
dicho recebdor.
11. Otrosi mandan sus altezas que cada uno de los recebtores que fueren
puestos por su mandado recabten é resciban los bienes que fueren de los
herejes vecinos é moradores en el partido donde son puestos é no se
entremetan á ocupar ni tomar bienes de ningun hereje que pertenezcan á
otra inquisicion mas que luego qualquier de los dichos tesoreros hobiere
noticia de algunos bienes confiscados por el dicho delicto que
pertenezcan á otro tesorero que lo hagan luego saber para que lo cobre
é recabte so pena que el que lo encubriera pierde el oficio ó sea
obligado al daño é menoscabo que por su negligencia se recresciere al
patrimonio de sus altezas con el doblo.
12. Otrosi mandan sus altezas que a los inquisidores é oficiales que en
este negocio de la inquisicion entienden el tesorero les pague los
tercios de sus salarios adelantados en el principio de cada tercio
porque tengan que comer é se les quite ocasion de recebir dadivas é que
es comience el tiempo de su paga desde el dia que salieren de sus casas
á entender en la dicha inquisicion, é que asi mesmo pague los mensageros
que á sus altezas enviaren los dichos inquisidores é qualquier otras
cosas que los inquisidores vieren que cumple al oficio asi como en
carceles perpetuas ó mantenimientos de los presos ó otras qualesquier
cosas é espensas.
13. Item que todos los mandamientos de qualquier calidad que sean que
los inquisidores mandaren dar asi para su alguacil como para su tesorero
ó para qualesquier otras personas cerca de los bienes ó prision de las
personas de los herejes, los negocios de la inquisicion, sean tenidos de
los asentar é asienten en sus registros é hagan libros dellos aparte,
porque si alguna dubda se ofresciere se pueda saber la verdad de lo que
paso.
14. Otrosi que las otras cosas que aqui no son declarados queden é se
remitan á la buena discreccion de los inquisidores para que si se
ofrescieren casos tales que á su parescer se puedan espedir sin
consultar á sus altezas hagan segun Dios é derecho é sus buenas
conciencias lo que les paresciere é en las cosas graves escriban luego
con diligencia á sus altezas é á mi el dicho procurador para que sus
altezas manden proveer en ello como cumpla al servicio de Dios nuestro
señor é suyo, ensalzamiento de nuestra sancta fe catolica é á buena
edificacion de la cristiandad. Dada en la ciudad de Sevilla, seis dias
del mes de Deziembre, año del nascimiento de nuestro Salvador
Jesucristo, de mil é quatrocientos é ochenta é quatro años.
IV.
TORQUEMADA'S INSTRUCTIONS TO INQUISITORS, Jan., 1485.[1340]
(Archivo General de Simancas, Consejo de la Inquisicion, Libro 933).
(See p. 182).
_La Forma que se debe tener en el proceder de los Inquisidores es la
siguiente._
Primeramente que los inquisidores loego en legando en el lugar donde se
ha de facer la inquisicion pongan sus cartas e edictos de treinta ó
quarenta dias ó como mejor visto les fuese que todos los que en algun
caso de heregia ó apostasia se fallaran culpados y en este dicho tiempo
vernan con dolor sin fuerza ninguna á confesar sus errores y diran la
verdad de todo lo que supiere no solamente de si mesmos mas de los otros
que con ellos participaren en el dicho error, que estos tales sean
recebidos con toda caridad, y abjurando sus errores en forma les sean
dadas penitencias publicas ó secretas segun la infamia ó calidad del
delito á alvedrio de los inquisidores y denseles algunas penitencias
pecuniarias que paguen en cierto tiempo, y estos dineros sean puestos en
mano de una persona fiable y den los inquisidores ó los escribanos la
copia dellos al rey nuestro señor ó á mi como á inquisidor principal,
para que se gasten en la guerra ó en otras obras pias y para que se
paguen los salarios de los inquisidores y otros ministros que en la
santa inquisicion entenderan, y seanles dexados todas los otros bienes
que tuvieren asi mobles como raices, y cerca de los oficios publicos que
tienen deben por ahora ser privados fasta que se vea su forma de vevir,
y si fueren buenos cristianos y conocidamente se viere la enmienda en
ellos pueden ser habilitados para que ayan los dichos oficios si fueren
vacos ó otros semejables.
1. Otrosí si despues del tiempo del edicto algunos vinieren á se
reconciliar, los quales non dejaron de venir por temor ni por
menosprecio mas por enfermedad ó por otro justo impedimento, que con
estos tales se use de misericordia como en el capitulo primero, pero si
al tiempo que se vinieren á reconciliar fueron ya citados ó tienen
contra si provantes, estos non gocen de la gracia de los bienes, pero
los inquisidores se hayan con ellos misericordiosamente quanto de
derecho y buena conciencia podieren facer segun la calidad del delito é
infamia requiere é segund esto consultando con el rey nuestro señor se
verá si se debierá fazer gracia de los bienes ó no.
2. Otrosí si á estos que asi bien se vinieren á reconciliar son debidas
algunas deudas, que los deudores sean obligados sin embargo del fisco á
ge les pagar, y si algunas ventas de sus bienes ovieren fechas que
valgan y que por parte del fisco del rey nuestro señor no les sean
impedidos, pero si estos tales tovieren esclavos cristianos que sean
libres y forros, y si los hobieren vendido los que les compraren non los
puedan retener mas que luego los dejen forros y ellos recauden el precio
de los vendidores.
3. Otrosí si algunos de los susodichos que se vinieren á reconciliar y
no dizieren la verdad de sus errores é de los que fueron particioneros
con ellos é despues se fallaren por las probanzas el contrario, estos
tales sean havidos por contumaces é que vinieron fingidos á la
confesion, no gocen de nada de lo susodicho mas antes se proceda contra
ellos con todo rigor segun que el derecho en tal caso dispone.
4. Otrosí que ningun receptor debe sequestrar bienes de ningun herege
nin apostata sin especial mandamiento en escrito de los inquisidores é
que se pongan los tales bienes no en manos del receptor mas en manos de
una persona fiable y que hagan el secuestro el receptor con el alguacil
de la inquisicion y por delante de dos escribanos, uno del alguazil y
otro del receptor, y estos escribanos cada una escriba por si todo lo
que se sequestrare, y sean pagados los dichos escribanos de los bienes
de los dichos hereges aunque despues se hayan de reconciliar, y el
salario sea lo que los inquisidores mandaren.
5. Otrosí si algunos fueren absentados antes del tiempo del edicto y asi
mesmo absentaren sus bienes y estos tales vinieren en el tiempo del
dicho edicto confesando sus errores como arriba dicho es, gocen de la
misma gracia de los bienes é fagase con ellos en la misma forma que en
el capitulo primero está escrito, pero si en el tiempo del edicto non
quisieren venir procedase contra ellos segun que en este caso el derecho
dispone.
6. Otrosí que ni por los procesos de los vivos se deben de dejar de
facer los de los muertos é los que se fallaren aver seydo é muerto como
herejes ó judios los deben desenterrar para que se quemen y dar lugar al
fisco para que occupe los bienes segun que de derecho se debe facer.
7. Otrosí que el receptor no venda bienes ningunos ni reciba sin que
esten dos escribanos delante, los quales sean puestos ó por manos del
rey nuestro señor ó de los inquisidores y cada uno dellos escriba el
bienes que el receptor recibe y el precio por que los vende porque
despues por aquellos libros se les tomarán las quentas.
8. Otrosí que á los inquisidores y oficiales que en este sancto negocio
entienden les debe el receptor pagar sus tercios adelantados, porque
tengan de comer y se les quiten la ocasion de recebir dadivas de ninguno
y debe de comenzar el tiempo de su pago desdel dia que salieren de sus
casas para entender en este sancto negocio.
9. Otrosí que continuamente los inquisidores fagan saber al rey nuestro
señor é á mi todas las cosas que sucedieren en la dicha inquisicion é
conoscieren que se deban escrevir, é que el receptor loego que por ellos
le será mandado pague el trotero que ellos quieran enviar.
10. Otrosí que todos los mandamientos de qualquier calidad que sean que
los inquisidores mandaren dar asi al alguazil como al receptor ó á otras
qualesquier personas manden á los escribanos de la inquisicion los
asienten en sus registros porque por allí se conozca la verdad de todo
lo que pasare.
11. Otrosí que los inquisidores y el asesor esten juntos y muy conformes
en la ejecucion de la justicia y buena administracion della y finalmente
en todo quanto pertenece é se habrá de facer en la inquisicion, de
manera que ni el inquisidor sin el asesor ni el asesor sin el inquisidor
faga cosa alguna, é si lo ficieren que por el mismo caso sea ninguno.
12. Otrosí que esten los inquisidores é todos los oficiales de la
inquisicion aposentados dentro de una casa, podiendose haber, porque
esten juntamente é que quando ovieren de escrebir dichos negocios de la
inquisicion é del estado della escriban los inquisidores y el asesor
juntamente.
13. Otrosí que ningun oficial de la dicha inquisicion no tiene ningun
derecho por cosa ninguna de su oficio pues que el rey nuestro señor les
manda dar su mantenemiento razonable y les fara mercedes andando el
tiempo é faciendo ellos lo que deben é que no recivan dadivas ni
subornaceones de ninguna persona y si se fallare que alguno el contrario
ficiere por el mismo caso sea privado del oficio y mas este á la pena
que los inquisidores darle quisieren, é á un cada vez que un tal caso
conteciere informen á su alteza del rey nuestro señor porque se provea
de otro oficial y entre tanto se ponga otro en lugar del tal delinquente
aquel que los inquisidores acordaren fasta que el rey nuestro señor é yo
proveamos.
14. Otrosí que en todas las otras cosas que á la santa inquisicion se
requieren queda á juicio y buena discrecion de los inquisidores que
ellos las fagan segun Dios é derecho é buenas conciencias se deben
facer, y si algunas otras cosas vieren que el rey nuestro señor debe
remediar las escriban y que se faran como cumple al servicio de
Jesucristo nuestro señor y ensalzamiento de su santa fé y buena
edificacion de la cristiandad.
FR. THOMAS, prior et inquisitor generalis.
V.
INSTRUCTIONS OF SEVILLE, 1500.[1341]
(Archivo General de Simancas, Consejo de la Inquisicion, Libro 933).
(See p. 182).
_Otras Instituciones._
Las capitulaciones infraescritas que ordinaron los muy reverendos
señores inquisidores generales para instruccion de los inquisidores é
prosecucion del oficio de la sancta inquisicion en la muy noble é muy
leal cibdad de Sevilla á diez é siete dias del mes de Junio año de mil y
quinientos.
1. Primeramente que los inquisidores de cada una inquisicion é partido
salgan é vayan á todos los lugares é villas de sus diocesis é partidos
donde nunca fueron personalmente é en cada una de las dichas villas é
lugares hagan é resciban los testigos de la general inquisicion, é para
que esto puedan mejor hacer é mas brevemente se espida, se aparten los
inquisidores é vaya cada uno por su parte con un notario del secreto
para rescebir la dicha pesquisa é informacion general, é despues de
rescibida é hecha la dicha pesquisa general se tornen á juntar en la
cibdad ó lugar donde tovieren su asiento para que alli vista por amos la
testificacion que cada uno ha tomado puedan mandar prender á los que se
hallaren culpados é testificados suficientemente para se poder prender
segun se contiene en el capitulo de las instrucciones hechas en Toledo.
2. Item, que en las inquisiciones donde los inquisidores han andado é
recebido la general testificacion que cada año el uno de los
inquisidores salga por las villas y lugares á inquerir, poniendo sus
edictos generales para los que algo saben tocante al crimen de la
heregia que lo venga á decir, y el otro inquisidor quede á hacer los
procesos que á la sazon oviere, é si no abra algunos salga cada uno por
su parte segun arriba esta dicho.
3. Item, que los inquisidores de cada inquisicion pasen los libros
ordinariamente por sus abecedarios dende el primero fasta el fin, para
lo qual se ayuden del fiscal é notarios quando non andovieren por los
lugares á tomar la testificacion como dicho es.
Sobre esto capitulo se ha de hacer principal relacion en la visitacion
de manera que han de saber los inquisidores generales que es lo que han
procedido de los dichos abecedarios.
4. Item, por quanto los inquisidores algunas veces proceden por cosas
livianas non continentes herexia derechamente y por la palabras que mas
son blasfemias que herejias, ó dichas con enojo ó yra, que de aqui
adelante no se prenden ningunos desta calidad, é si dubda oviere que lo
consulten con los inquisidores generales.
5. Item, quando prendieren alguno por el dicho crimen de herejia en
poniendole la acusacion envien la copia della á los inquisidores
generales y la probanza que tienen contra el verba ad verbum declarando
los nombres de los testigos y las calidades de las personas y esto
envien con el nuncio de la inquisicion á buen recabdo.
6. Item, que los inquisidores non consientan dilacion en los procesos é
procedan sumariamente segun la forma del derecho que en este caso de la
herejia habla.
7. Item, que los inquisidores de aqui adelante non dispensen con los que
fueren condempnados a carcel perpetua ni les comuten la dicha carcel en
otra penitencia é quando esta facultad de dispensar é comutar la dicha
carcel los dichos inquisidores generales les reservan para si la dicha
facultad é poder que ninguno otro pueda dispensar é comutar.
8. Item, que á los testigos conpurgadores no les sean leidos los dichos
é dipusciones de los testigos del crimen que hay contra el acusado en la
acusacion del fiscal, sino que guarde la forma del derecho que es que el
acusado ha de jurar juxta formam juris que el [niega] el crimen de lo
que esta asentado, ante los dichos testigos compurgadores, é que á ellos
se les pregunte si creen que juro verdad ó no, sin hacerles otras
preguntas.