_A._ It is true that I have requested th_The History of the Inquisition of Spain from the Time of its Establishment to the Reign of Ferdinand VII.

freemasons, because I thought it would be useful to them if they

travelled into foreign countries, where they might meet brothers of

their order, who could assist them in any difficulty; but it is not true

that I engaged them to adopt any errors contrary to the Catholic faith,

since no such errors are to be found in freemasonry, which does not

concern any points of doctrine.

_Q._ It has been already proved that these errors are not chimerical;

therefore let M. Tournon consider that he has been a dogmatizing

heretic, and that it is necessary that he should acknowledge it with

humility, and ask pardon and absolution for the censures which he has

incurred; since, if he persists in his obstinacy he will destroy both

his body and soul; and as this is the first audience of _monition_, he

is advised to reflect on his condition, and prepare for the two other

audiences which are granted by the compassion and mercy which the holy

tribunal always feels for the accused.

M. Tournon was taken back to the prison; he persisted in giving the same

answers in the first and second audiences. The fiscal presented his act

of accusation, which, according to custom, was divided into the articles

similar to the charges of the witnesses. The accused confessed the

facts, but explained them as he had done before. He was desired to

choose an advocate, but he declined this, alleging that the Spanish

lawyers were not acquainted with the masonic lodges, and were as much

prejudiced against them as the public. He therefore thought it better

for him to acknowledge that he was wrong, and might have been deceived

from being ignorant of particular doctrines; he demanded absolution, and

offered to perform any penance imposed on him, adding, that he hoped the

punishment would be moderate, on account of the good faith which he had

shown, and which he had always preserved, seeing nothing but beneficence

practised and recommended in the masonic lodges, without denying or

combating any article of the Catholic faith.

The fiscal consented to this arrangement, and M. Tournon was condemned

to be imprisoned for one year, after which he was to be conducted under

an escort to the frontiers of France; he was banished from Spain for

ever, unless he obtained permission to return from the king or the holy

office. During the first month of his imprisonment, he was directed to

perform spiritual exercises, and a general confession; to spend half an

hour every morning in reading the meditations on the book of _spiritual

exercises_ of St. Ignatius de Loyola, and half an hour in the evening in

reading the considerations of Father John Eusebius Nieremberg, in his

work on the _difference between temporal and eternal_; to recite every

day part of the Rosary of Our Lady, and often to repeat the acts of

faith, hope, charity, and contrition; to learn by heart the catechism

of Father Astete, and to prepare himself to receive absolution, at

Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost.

A private _auto-da-fe_ was celebrated in the hall of the tribunal, in

which M. Tournon appeared without the _san-benito_, and signed his

abjuration, with a promise never again to attend the assemblies of the

freemasons.

M. Tournon went to France, and it does not appear that he ever returned

to Spain.

The society of freemasons has occupied the learned men, since the middle

of the seventeenth century, and the number of fables which have been

published concerning it have confused the subject, and done much injury

to it. The mysterious initiations of this order first began to attract

observation in England, during the reign of Charles I., who perished on

the scaffold in 1649. The enemies of Cromwell and the republican system

then established the dignity of _grand master_ of the English lodges, to

prepare the minds of the freemasons for the re-establishment of the

monarchy. William III. was a freemason, and though the dynasty was

changed by the accession of George I., it does not appear that

freemasonry was suspected in England. It was introduced into France in

1723, and Ramsay, a Scotchman, established a lodge in London in 1728,

giving out that the society had been founded in 1099, by Godfrey de

Bouillon, King of Jerusalem; preserved by the Knights Templars, and

brought to Edinburgh, where it was established by King Robert Bruce in

1314. In 1729 the order was introduced into Ireland. Holland received it

in 1731, and the first lodges were opened in Russia in the same year: it

appeared in Boston in America in 1733, and in several other towns of the

New World, subject to England. It was also established in Italy in that

year, and two years after freemasons were found at Lisbon.

I believe the first severe measure against the freemasons in Europe,

was that which was decreed on the 14th of December, 1733, by the chamber

of Police of the Chatelet at Paris: it prohibited freemasons from

assembling, and condemned M. Chapelot to a penalty of six thousand

livres, for having suffered them to assemble in his house. Louis XV.

commanded that those Peers of France, and other gentlemen who had the

privilege of the _entry_, should be deprived of that honour, if they

were members of a masonic lodge. The grand-master of the Parisian

lodges, being obliged to quit France, convoked an assembly of Freemasons

to appoint his successor. Louis XV., on being informed of it, declared

that if a Frenchman was elected, he would send him to the Bastile.

However, the Duke d'Antin was chosen, and after his death, Louis de

Bourbon, prince of Conti, succeeded him. Louis de Bourbon, duke de

Chartres, another prince of the blood, became grand-master.

In 1737, the Dutch prohibited the assemblies of freemasons as a

precautionary measure, without charging them with any crimes; the

members of a lodge assembled, they were arrested and prosecuted, but

they defended themselves with so much energy, that they were acquitted,

and the prohibition revoked.

The Elector Palatine of the Rhine also prohibited the order in his

states, and arrested several members at Manheim, in consequence of their

disobedience.

John Gaston, grand duke of Tuscany, published a decree of proscription

against the lodges in the same year. This prince died soon after, and

the masons again assembled: they were denounced to Pope Clement XII.

This pontiff sent an inquisitor to Florence, who imprisoned several

members of the society, but Francis of Lorraine, when he became Grand

Duke, set them at liberty. He declared himself the protector of the

institution, and founded several lodges in Florence, and other towns in

his states.

If I was a member of the society, I would do all in my power to abolish

those things which gave the inquisitors and other ecclesiastics occasion

to say, that sacred and profane things are mingled in the masonic

ceremonies; particularly the following, which have already appeared in

printed works.

In the sixth grade, or rank, which is that of _particular secretary_

(_secretary intime_,) the history of Hiram, king of Tyre, is taken from

the ninth chapter of the third book of Kings for the masonic allegories;

and _Jehovah_, the ineffable name of God, for the _sacred_ word of

freemasonry; this custom is likewise observed with some slight

differences in several other grades.

In the eighteenth, called the _Rosicrusian of Haradom_ of Kilwiniug, is

a representation of columns with inscriptions; the highest is as

follows: _In the name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity_: lower down,

_May our salvation be eternal in God_; still lower, _We have the

happiness of being in the pacific unity of the sacred numbers_. The

history of the second chapter of the first, and the nineteenth of the

second book of Esdras is made use of; the word of order between two

freemasons of the same rank is INRI, which some persons have supposed to

be _Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Judaeorum_: the word _passe_ is added, which

means Emmanuel, or _God is with us_.

The rank of Rosicrusiaci, in the Scotch lodges, is the perfection of the

order; the meaning is developed in fifteen sections. In the fifth, the

allegories are the mounts of salvation, mounts _Moriah_ and _Calvary_,

the first for the sacrifices of Abraham, David, and Solomon, the second

for that of Jesus of Nazareth: other allegories relate to the Holy

Spirit, designated as the _Majesty of God_ which descended on the

tabernacle, and on the temple at the moment of its dedication. In the

twelfth section a _holy mountain_ is seen, on which is a large church in

the form of a cross from east to west, in the neighbourhood of a city,

which is the image of the _celestial Jerusalem_; in the thirteenth,

three great lights, symbols of the natural law, the laws of Moses and

of Jesus Christ, and the cabinet of wisdom, designated as the _stable

for oxen_, in which is a faithful chevalier and his holy wife, and the

sacred names of _Joseph_, _Mary_, and _Jesus_; the fourteenth is an

allusion to the descent of our Saviour into the _Limbos_ after his

death, his resurrection and ascension; lastly, the fifteenth has the

words _consummatum est_, which Jesus pronounced on the cross.

In the twenty-seventh grade of the _grand commander of the temple_, a

cross is made on the forehead of the brother with the thumb of the right

hand; the sacred word INRI; the scarf has four crosses, the _disc_ a

triangle of gold, with the Hebrew characters of the ineffable name,

_Jehovah_.

The seal of the order has between the devices of the shield of arms

across, the arch of alliance, a lighted candle in a candlestick on each

side, and above the inscription, Glory to God. (Laus Deo).

All these things, and many others which allude to the sacred history of

the temple of Jerusalem, built by Solomon, re-established by Esdras,

restored by the Christians, and defended by the knights templars,

present a mixture liable to an interpretation similar to that in the

information of the witnesses at Florence, which was the first

apostolical condemnation; it was renewed under Pius VII., in an edict of

Cardinal Gonsalvi, in 1814.

There was not less inconvenience in the execratory oath of the famous

masonic secret, for which no adequate object has been discovered, unless

it was one which no longer exists.

John Mark Larmenio (who secretly succeeded the grand-master of the

Templars, the unfortunate James de Molay, who requested him to accept

the dignity) invented, in concert with some knights who had escaped the

proscription, different signs of words and actions, in order to

recognise and receive knights into the order secretly, and by means of a

novitiate, during which they were to be kept in ignorance of the object

of the association (which was to preserve the order, to re-establish it

in its former glory, and to revenge the deaths of the grand-master, and

the knights who perished with him); when the qualities of the new member

were perfectly well known, the grand secret was to be confided to him,

after a most formidable oath.

The secret signs were intended as a precaution against admitting into

the order those Templars who had formed a schism during the persecution;

they retired into Scotland, and refused to acknowledge John Larmenio as

grand-master, and pretended that they had re-established the order; this

pretension was refuted by a chapter of legitimate knights: after this

the new chief issued his diploma in 1324, and his successors have

followed his example, on attaining the dignity of secret grand-master of

the order of Templars in France. The list of grand-masters until the

year 1776 has been published. Philip de Bourbon, duke of Orleans, was

appointed in 1705, Louis Augustus de Bourbon, duke de Maine, in 1724,

Louis Henry de Bourbon Conde, in 1737, Louis Francis de Bourbon Conti,

in 1745, Louis Henry Timoleon de Cosse Brissac, in 1776, and Bernard

Raymond Fabre, in 1814.

The Knights Templars who retired to Scotland, founded an establishment

in 1314, under the protection of Robert Bruce; their objects and their

measures were the same, and they were concealed under the title of

_architects_; this was the origin of _freemasonry_. They soon, however,

forgot the most criminal part of the execratory oath: since the deaths

of Clement V. and Philip the Fair, the persecutors of the knights,

deprived them of the power of revenging the executions of James de Molay

and his companions, and had no other object but the re-establishment of

the order; this intention shared the fate of the first, after the deaths

of the authors of it, and their first disciples. From these facts it

appears, that the execratory oath is without a motive or object in

modern masonic lodges.

CHAPTER XLII.

OF THE INQUISITION UNDER CHARLES III.

Charles III. succeeded his brother Ferdinand on the 10th of August,

1759, and died on the 17th of November, 1788. The inquisitors-general

during this reign were Don Manuel Quintano Bonifaz, archbishop of

Pharsala; Don Philip Bertran, bishop of Salamanca, and Don Augustin

Rubin de Cevallos, bishop of Jaen. The characters of these persons were

humane, compassionate, and inclined to benevolence; qualities which

caused a remarkable decrease in the number of public _autos-da-fe_. If

the reign of Charles III. is compared with that of Philip V., his

father, they appear as if they had been separated by a period of several

centuries. The progress of knowledge was very rapid under this prince;

even the provincial inquisitors, though the laws of the Inquisition had

not been altered, adopted principles of moderation, which were unknown

under the Austrian princes. It is true, that from time to time great

severity was shown towards unimportant offences; but among the trials of

this reign, I have seen several which were suspended, though the proofs

were much more conclusive than many which were sufficient to condemn the

criminal to _relaxation_, under Philip II.

Yet, though the system was comparatively moderate, the number of trials

was still immense, because all the denunciations were received. The

witnesses of the preparatory instruction were examined immediately, in

order to discover some charge, which the prejudices of the age rendered

serious. If out of an hundred trials which were begun ten had been

concluded, the number of persons subjected to _penances_ would have been

greater than under Ferdinand V.; but the tribunal was no longer the

same. Almost all the trials were suspended before the decree of arrest

was issued. The denounced was sometimes induced to repair to the

tribunal on the pretext of business, and then informed of the charges

against him; he replied to them, and returned home, after having

promised to return a second time when summoned. Sometimes the

proceedings were abridged, and the criminal was only condemned to a

private penance, which might be performed without the knowledge of any

person but the commissary of the tribunal.

Several trials which were commenced against persons of rank, were not

proceeded in after the preliminary instruction; such were those of the

Marquis de Roda, minister secretary of state, of grace and justice; of

the Count de Aranda, president of the Council of Castile, and

captain-general of New Castile, who was afterwards ambassador to Paris,

and lastly, prime-minister; of the Count de Florida Blanca, then fiscal

of the Council of Castile for civil affairs, afterwards successor to the

Marquis de Roda, and prime-minister; of the Count de Campomanes, fiscal

for criminal affairs, and afterwards governor of the same council; of

those of the Archbishops of Burgos and Saragossa, and of the Bishops of

Tarazona, Albarracin, and Orihuela, who had composed the council

extraordinary, in 1767, for the expulsion of the Jesuits. The trials of

all these distinguished men had the same origin.

The Bishop of Cuenca, Don Isidro de Carbajal y Lancaster, highly

respectable from his family, which was that of the Dukes of Abrantes,

and from his dignity, his irreproachable conduct, and his charity to the

poor, was less acquainted with the true principles of the canonic law

than zealous for the maintenance of the ecclesiastical privileges.

Influenced by this motive, he was so indiscreet as to represent to the

king, that the _Church was persecuted in its rights, property and

ministers_, and drew a picture of the reign of Charles III., which would

have been more applicable to that of the Emperor Julian. The king

commissioned the Council of Castile to examine if the complaint was

just, and to propose measures to repair the injury, if any had taken

place. The two fiscals of the council both made learned replies, in

which the ignorance of the bishop, and the consequences of his imprudent

zeal, were exposed. These answers, and the other papers belonging to the

proceedings, were printed by the king's order, and though they were

generally approved, some priests and monks, who regretted the inordinate

power once possessed by the Church, denounced several propositions

contained in them, as Lutheran, Calvinistic, or defended by other

parties inimical to the Roman Church.

The two archbishops, and the three bishops, already mentioned, who had

voted for the requisition addressed to the Pope for the expulsion of the

Jesuits, were also denounced, as suspected of professing the impious

doctrines of philosophism, which, it was said, they had only adopted to

please the court. They were commissioned to take cognizance of several

affairs relating to the Jesuits, and only accidentally spoke of the

Inquisition, and expressed opinions contrary to its system. The

inquisitors were all creatures of the Jesuits, without even the

exception of the inquisitor-general: it is not therefore surprising that

they received so many denunciations. The exclusive right possessed by

the Court of Rome to try bishops, never prevented the inquisitors from

secretly examining witnesses against them, because it gave them a

pretence to write to the Pope, and request permission to carry on the

proceedings; and though it was the custom of the holy see to transfer

the trials of bishops to Rome, the _Supreme Council_ of Spain always put

forward its fiscal, in order to justify its conduct in prosecuting

bishops: this was the case in the affair of Carranza.

The denunciations had not the effect expected by the enemies of the

prelates, because no _singular_ and independent proposition, opposed to

true doctrine, was proved to have been advanced. In a less enlightened

age, these prelates would have been exposed to great mortification from

this attack; but at this time the Inquisition found it dangerous to be

too severe, because the court had adopted the system of vigorously

opposing all the ancient doctrines which favoured the pretensions of the

ecclesiastics at the expense of the royal prerogatives; and on the

occasion of the publication of some conclusions on the canonical law,

which were entirely favourable to the Pope and the ecclesiastical

jurisdiction, a royal censor was appointed for each university, without

whose approbation no conclusion could be published or maintained.

The perseverance of the government in the new system prevented the

inquisitors from venturing to sentence the prelates of the extraordinary

council: they however thought proper to endeavour to avert the storm,

and applied to Don Fray Joachim de Eleta, the king's confessor. This man

was an ignorant _Recollet_, and known for his blind attachment to the

Court of Rome. The prelates declared that they condemned several

propositions advanced by the two fiscals in their work called _An

Impartial Judgment of the Monitory of Parma_, which was written by the

king's order, because they thought they tended to the infringement of

the privileges of the church. After this declaration, the prelates used

every means to make the confessor persuade Charles III., that the

printed copies ought not to be published, and that the work should be

reprinted, after the suppression of several propositions. The

inquisitor-general and the Supreme Council being informed of this

circumstance, the affair took another turn, and the faction of the

Jesuits became more calm.

These events exposed to great danger a person who had entered into them

without being aware of it. M. Clement, a French priest, treasurer of the

cathedral of Auxerre, and afterwards bishop of Versailles, arrived at

Madrid in 1768, at the time when the event above mentioned occupied

every mind. He held several conversations on this subject with the

Marquis de Roda, the fiscals of the council, and the Bishops of Tarazona

and Albarracin[77]. The zeal of this theologian for the purity of

doctrine on all points of discipline induced him to say, that the good

dispositions of the Court of Madrid ought to be taken advantage of, and

proposed three measures. The first was to place the Inquisition under

each bishop, who should be the chief, with a deliberative vote, with the

addition of two inquisitors with a consultive vote; the second, to

oblige the monks and nuns to acknowledge the bishop as their chief, and

to obey him as such after renouncing all the privileges contrary to this

arrangement; the third to abolish the distinct schools of theology,

under the titles of Thomists, Scotists, Suarists, or others, and to have

only one system of theology for the schools and universities, founded on

the principles of St. Augustin and St. Thomas.

It is sufficient to be acquainted with Spain, and the state of the monks

at that period, to foresee the persecution which the author of such a

plan would incur. The confessor of the king and the inquisitor-general

were informed of it by their political spies, and several monks

denounced M. Clement to the holy office, as a Lutheran, a Calvinistic

heretic, and an enemy of the regular orders.

M. Clement suspected the existence of this intrigue, from some

expressions made use of by a Dominican, with whom he was intimate. The

inquisitors, who saw that M. Clement was received at court, did not dare

to arrest him, but they requested their chief to oblige him to quit the

kingdom. The treasurer of Auxerre imparted his fears to the Count de

Aranda, and the Marquis de Roda; who being, from his connexion at court,

acquainted with all that had passed, advised him to depart, but without

informing him of what it was useless for him to know. M. Clement

followed his advice, and though he had intended to go to Portugal, he

returned immediately to France, to avoid the _Sbirri_ of the holy

office, who might have arrested him on his return from Lisbon, if the

system of the court was changed. In fact a great number of charges were

brought against him after his departure, but they were not made public,

and he wrote his travels without knowing anything of the plots against

him.

All that passed on the occasion of the apostolical prohibition of the

catechism of Mesengui was made public: Charles III. had ordered that it

should be made use of in the religious instruction of Charles IV.; and

the inquisitor-general was openly and justly blamed, for having

published the brief of prohibition, without waiting to obtain the

consent of the king. This proceeding was the cause of the exile of the

inquisitor-general. His disgrace might have rendered him more prudent,

but in his reply to the king, in 1769, concerning some measures taken by

the extraordinary council of five prelates, he advanced, as certain,

several propositions concerning the Inquisition, which might have been

proved to be false, if the Marquis de Roda had consulted the registers

of the Supreme Council. He said that the Inquisition had met with

nothing but opposition from the beginning; that it was conspired against

in the most cruel manner; that all the proceedings of the council were

made public, except the trials for heresy, but that even those were

always submitted to his Majesty; and that the charge against it of

acting with _entire independence_ was not just, he concluded with

saying, that his Majesty might appoint an ecclesiastic as his secretary

to attend the council, and inform him of all that passed.

It is impossible to find a reason for the necessity here imposed upon

the king to have a _priest_ for his secretary, since the inquisitors

employed seculars in their offices, who were permitted to see the trial,

though obliged to take an oath of secrecy, and two members of the

Council of Castile also attend the Supreme Council. Yet neither an

ecclesiastic nor a layman could prevent fraud: the same may be said of

the members of the Council of Castile, because in case of any intrigues,

for example, in a conflict for jurisdiction, the counsellors assembled

at the house of the inquisitor-general, and their chief sealed their

papers with his private seal.

The most decisive proof of the _entire_ independence of the Inquisition,

exists in two laws of Charles III., concerning bigamy and the

prohibition of books; they were insufficient to restrain the inquisitors

within their jurisdiction.

Yet though these abuses and many others were still continued, I do not

hesitate to say that the inquisitors of the reigns of Charles III. and

his successors were men possessed of extreme prudence and singular

moderation in comparison with those of the time of Philip V. and the

preceding reigns. This is confirmed by the very small number of

_autos-da-fe_ celebrated under the two kings, a period of twenty-nine

years; only ten persons were condemned, four of whom were burnt, and

fifty-six individuals subjected to penances. All the other trials were

terminated by _individual autos-da-fe_; the condemned was taken into a

church to hear his sentence read, when it was confirmed by the Supreme

Council, without waiting for other prisoners to form a particular

_auto-da-fe_. Other trials are concluded by a _lesser auto-da-fe_ in the

audience-hall of the tribunal; another mode, which was the least severe,

was to celebrate the _auto-da-fe_ in the presence of the secretaries of

the Inquisition alone; no greater indulgence than this could be shown.

The individual _auto-da-fe_ was decreed in two famous trials of the

reign of Charles III. Of the first, that of Olavide, an account has been

given in Chapter 26. The second was that of Don Francisco de Leon y

Luna, a priest and knight of the military order of St. Jago. He was

condemned as violently suspected of having fallen into the heresies of

the _Illuminati_ and of Molinos, for having seduced several women, for

communicating several times with the consecrated wafer from

superstitious motives, and for preaching a false and presumptuous

mysticity to several nuns and other women who were the dupes of his

error and their own weakness. Leon was imprisoned for three years in a

convent; he was then banished for seven years from Madrid, and forbidden

to exercise the ministry of a confessor. The council of the orders

requested the king to deprive Leon of his cross and knighthood,

according to the statutes which ordain that measure towards all who

commit a crime which incurs an infamous punishment. But the council

ought to have known that the _suspicion_ of heresy was not sufficient,

since the tribunal always declares, if the condemned desire it, that

this sort of sentence does not prevent them from attaining offices and

dignities.

At Saragossa the Marquis d'Aviles, intendant of Aragon, was accused

before the holy office of having read prohibited books; but this

denunciation, and that of the Bishop of Barcelona for Jansenism at

Madrid, and several others of the same nature, were passed over without

further notice.

CHAPTER XLIII.

OF THE SPANISH INQUISITION UNDER CHARLES IV.

Charles IV. ascended the throne on the 17th November, 1788; he abdicated

on the 19th March, 1808, in consequence of the popular commotions at

Aranjuez. The inquisitors-general under Charles IV. were Don Augustin

Rubin de Cevallos, Bishop of Jaen; Don Manuel de Abad-y-la-Sierra,

Archbishop of Selimbra; the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, Don Francisco

Lorenzana; and Don Ramon Joseph de Arce, Archbishop of Burgos.

The two obstacles which had principally contributed to impede the

progress of learning during the three preceding reigns, were removed by

the reform of the six grand colleges and the expulsion of the Jesuits.

Before this revolution, all the canonical offices and magistracies were

given to the members and fellows of the colleges; while the immense

influence of the Jesuits prevented all who were not their disciples, or

Jesuits of the _short robe_, from obtaining any offices or honours. The

Marquis de Roda was the author of this politic measure, which caused him

to be hated by the disciples of St. Ignatius. But this minister has

obtained an honourable place in history, because in granting to _all_

classes the rewards due to merit, he excited a general emulation, which

increased the influence of knowledge and a taste for the sciences. This

has caused it to be said that the restoration of good Spanish literature

was the work of de Roda, but the commencement of that change may be more

correctly dated from the reign of Philip V.

During the twenty years preceding the accession of Charles IV. a

multitude of distinguished men had arisen, who would doubtless have led

Spain to rival France in the good taste and perfection of literary

works, if one of the most terrible events recorded in history had not

arrested the impulse these great men had given. The French revolution

caused a great number of works to be written on the rights of man, of

citizens, and of nations; the principles contained in them could not but

alarm Charles IV. and his ministers. The Spaniards read these books with

avidity; the minister dreaded the contagion of this political doctrine,

but in attempting to arrest its progress, he caused the human mind to

retrograde. He charged the inquisitor-general to prohibit and seize all

the books, pamphlets, and French newspapers, relating to the revolution,

and to recommend to his agents to use the greatest vigilance in

preventing them from being clandestinely introduced into the kingdom.

Another measure employed by the government was to suppress the office of

teacher of the natural law in the universities and seminaries.

The Count de Florida-Blanca was then prime-minister; this conduct

entirely destroyed the good opinion entertained of him by the nation. He

was said to be a novice in the art of government, because the

prohibition would only excite greater curiosity. The commissioners of

the holy office received an order to oppose the introduction of the

works of the modern philosophers, as contrary to the sovereign

authority, and commanded every person to denounce whom they knew to be

attached to the principles of insurrection.

It would be difficult to calculate the number of denunciations which

followed this order. The greatest number of the denounced were young

students of the universities of Salamanca and Valladolid. Those who

wished to read the French writings braved the prohibition, and employed

every means to obtain them; so that the laws of nature and of persons

were more studied than before the suppression of the office of teacher.

The severity of the administration only caused the commencement of an

immense number of trials, which were never finished, for want of proofs.

Many Spaniards, some of illustrious birth and others of great learning,

were the objects of secret informations, as suspected of impiety and

philosophism. The history of their trials, and those of many

distinguished persons for Jansenism, have been given in the twenty-fifth

and twenty-sixth chapters.

Don Bernardo-Maria de Calzada, colonel of infantry, and brother-in-law

to the Marquis de Manca, interested me much, when he had the misfortune

to be arrested by the Duke de Medina-Celi, grand provost of the holy

office: I accompanied him as secretary, the notary for the

sequestrations being ill. Don Bernardo was the father of a very large

family, who were reduced to indigence by this event, and it gave me the

greatest grief to witness the sad situation of their mother. I presume

that that lady has not forgotten my conduct on that mournful night and

on the following day, when I returned to visit her. The unfortunate

Calzada, whose appointment in the office of the minister of war was not

sufficient to maintain his very numerous family, had undertaken the

translation of some French books, and composed a satirical work, by

which he made enemies of some fanatics and monks, who, affecting the

most austere morals, were intolerant towards all who did not agree with

their opinions. By their denunciations they ruined this family. Calzada,

after passing some time in the prisons of the holy office, submitted to

an abjuration _de levi_, which is almost equivalent to an absolution,

and was banished from Madrid, after giving up his place and all hope of

advancement.

The Inquisition of the _Court_ was more indulgent towards the Marquis de

Narros: although many witnesses deposed that they had heard him maintain

some heretical propositions of Voltaire and Rousseau, whose works he

boasted that he had read, as well as those of Mirabeau, Montesquieu, the

Baron d'Holbac, and other philosophers of the same school, he was spared

the disgrace of an imprisonment and a public censure. It was thought

more decent to request the Count de Florida-Blanca to write to him by

the ordinary courier to Guipuscoa, where he then resided, and inform him

that the king commanded him to repair to Madrid on some affairs of the

government. The Marquis hastened to court, flattering himself (as he

informed his relation the Duke of Grenada) that he would be appointed

sub-governor to the Prince of Asturias, now Ferdinand VII. On the next

day he received an order not to quit Madrid, and to attend a summons to

the Inquisition. Some time after he confessed the truth of the charges,

and added some other circumstances, protesting at the same time that he

had always been a good Catholic, and that a desire of passing for the

most learned man in his country induced him to advance the propositions.

He abjured _de levi_; some private penances were imposed on him, and the

affair was only known to a few persons.

The inquisitors of Valencia prosecuted Fray Augustine Cabades,

commander of the convent of the nuns of the order of Mercy, and

professor of theology in that city; he abjured, and was then released

from prison. When he had obtained his liberty, he demanded a revision of

his judgment; the Supreme Council acknowledged the justice of his

appeal, and the sentence was declared null and void.

Don Mariano Louis de Urquijo, prime-minister and secretary of state

under Charles IV., was also an object for the persecutions of the holy

office. His great strength of mind, and a careful education, raised him

above the errors of his age. He made himself known in his early youth by

a translation of the _Death of Caesar_, a tragedy by Voltaire, which he

published with a preliminary _Essay on the Origin of the Spanish

Theatre, and its Influence on Morals_. This production, which only

displays a generous wish to acquire fame, and the ardent genius of its

young author, attracted the attention of the Inquisition. Private

informations were taken concerning the religious opinions of the

Chevalier de Urquijo, and the tribunal ascertained that he manifested

great independence in his opinions, with a decided taste for philosophy,

which the Inquisition called the doctrine of unbelievers. Everything

consequently was prepared for his arrest, when the Count d'Aranda, then

prime-minister, who discovered his merit (and had remarked his name in

the list of distinguished youths destined to serve the state, belonging

to the Count de Florida-Blanca his predecessor,) proposed to the king

that he should be initiated into public affairs. Charles IV. appointed

him to the office of first secretary of state in 1792.

The inquisitors changed their manner of proceeding when they saw the

elevation of their intended victim. Their policy at this time led them

to shew a deference towards the ministry which had not been observed in

preceding ages. They converted the decree of imprisonment into another

called the _audience of charges_, by which de Urquijo was required to

appear privately before the Inquisition of the court whenever he was

summoned. The sentence pronounced him to be only _slightly suspected_ of

partaking the errors of the unbelieving philosophers. He was absolved

_ad cautelam_, and some spiritual penances were imposed on him which he

might perform in private. The tribunal exacted his consent to the

prohibition of his preliminary essay and the tragedy; but as a

remarkable testimony of consideration, his name was not mentioned in the

edict, either as the author or translator. The inquisitors, even of

modern times, have rarely shewn themselves so moderate; but the fear of

offending the Count d'Aranda (who abhorred the tribunal) was the real

motive of their conduct.

Urquijo, at the age of thirty, became prime-minister, and in that

quality exerted himself to extirpate abuses, and to destroy the errors

which opposed the prosperity of his party and the progress of knowledge.

He encouraged industry and the arts, and the public owes to him the

immortal work of the Baron de Humboldt. Contrary to the custom of Spain,

he allowed him to travel in America, and supported him with the zeal of

a person passionately attached to the arts and sciences. With the

assistance of his friend Admiral Mazarredo he raised the navy. He was

the first in Europe who meditated the abolition of slavery; and at that

time concluded a treaty with the Emperor of Morocco for the exchange of

prisoners of war, which is still in force. In the year 1800, when

fortune seemed everywhere to attend the French arms, and the government

persecuted the august house of Bourbon, he had the glory of establishing

a throne in Etruria for a prince of that family, who had married a

daughter of Charles IV., and signed the treaty to that effect at St.

Ildephonso with General Berthier, afterwards Prince of Wagram.

The death of Pius VI. gave him an opportunity of freeing Spain, to a

certain degree, from its dependance on the Vatican. On the 5th

September, 1799, he induced the king to sign a decree which restored to

the bishops the powers which had been usurped by the Court of Rome, and

delivered the people from an annual impost of several millions, produced

by the sale of dispensations and other bulls and briefs.

The reform of the Inquisition ought to have followed this bold step. The

minister wished to suppress the tribunal entirely, and apply its

revenues to the establishment of useful and charitable institutions. He

drew up the edict for that purpose, and presented it to Charles IV. for

signature. Though Urquijo did not succeed in this attempt, he convinced

the king of the necessity of reforming the tribunal.

Among the many wise regulations suggested to the king by Urquijo, was

that published in the form of an ordinance in 1799, on the liberty and

independence of all the books, papers and effects of the foreign consuls

established in the sea-ports, and in the trading towns belonging to

Spain. It was occasioned by an inconsiderate disturbance made by the

commissioners of the holy office at Alicant, in the house of Don Leonard

Stuck, consul for Holland, and at Barcelona, at the residence of the

French consul.

Those happy dispositions of the Court of Spain vanished at the fall of

the minister who had inspired them. The victim of an intrigue, he shared

the fate of those great men who do not succeed in destroying the

prejudices and errors which they oppose. Urquijo was confined, and kept

in the strictest solitude, in the humid dungeons of the citadel of

Pampluna, where he was unable to obtain books, ink, paper, fire, or

light.

Ferdinand VII., on his accession to the throne, declared his treatment

to have been unjust and arbitrary; and forgetting the persecutions he

had suffered for eight years, he blessed, in Ferdinand, the sovereign

who would make the necessary reforms, and had voluntarily put a period

to his sufferings. He repaired to Vittoria, when that prince stopped

there on his way to Bayonne, and used every means to prevent him from

making that fatal journey. The letters he wrote on this subject to his

friend, General Cuesta, contain an exact prophecy of all the miseries

which have since overwhelmed Spain[78], and point out the means of

avoiding them.

Urquijo refused to repair to Bayonne, although Napoleon sent him three

orders to do so, until the renunciation and abdication of Charles IV.,

Ferdinand VII., and the princes of that house, had been made known.

After the royal family had left the place, he went there, and

endeavoured to persuade Napoleon to give up his plans.

He accepted the appointment of Secretary to the Junta of Notables, which

was then assembled at Bayonne, and soon after the office of

Minister-Secretary of State. His generous intentions need no comments;

they are known to all. The eulogium of this great man has just been made

by our energetic and sincere advocate; the public will read it with

pleasure and interest. During his ministry, he had the happiness of

witnessing the decree which suppressed the formidable tribunal of the

holy office, and declared it to be injurious to sovereignty.

Urquijo died at Paris, after an illness of six days, at the age of

forty-nine. He died as he had lived--full of that courage, serenity,

that philosophy, and love of virtue, which belong to the virtuous and

wise alone. He was buried on the 4th of May, 1817, in the cemetery of

Pere la Chaise, where a magnificent monument of white Carrara marble has

been erected to his memory.

In 1792 the inquisitors of Saragossa received a denunciation, and

examined witnesses against Don Augustin Abad-y-la-Sierra, Bishop of

Barbastro, who was accused of Jansenism, and of approving the principles

which were the basis of the civil constitution of the French clergy

under the constitutional assembly. During the progress of this affair,

Don Manuel Abad-y-la-Sierra, the brother of Don Augustin, was made

inquisitor-general, and the inquisitors were afraid to carry it on. When

Don Manuel was dismissed from his office, he also was denounced as a

Jansenist, but he was not prosecuted.

The bishop of Murcia and Carthagena, Victoriano Lopez Gonzalo, was

denounced in 1800 as suspected of Jansenism and other heresies, and for

having permitted certain propositions on some points of doctrine to be

maintained in his seminary. The trial of the bishop was not carried

farther than the summary instruction; because, on being informed of the

plots of some scholastic doctors who were partisans of the Jesuits, he

defended himself so ably before the inquisitor-general, that the members

of council did not proceed against him; but they continued the

prosecution of the theses, when they perceived that they were favourable

to some conclusions on miracles, which had been condemned by qualifiers.

The subject of Jansenism created a great sensation in Spain. The

Jesuits, who had been permitted to return to that kingdom in 1798, soon

acquired a numerous party, and accused all who did not adopt their

opinions of Jansenism. Their conduct was so impolitic, that they were a

second time banished from the kingdom. They were the authors of the

denunciations against the Countess de Montijo, and many other

distinguished persons, of whom an account has been given in a former

chapter.

The accusation of Jansenism against Don Antonio and Don Jerome de la

Cuesta was the cause of the trial of Don Raphael Muzquiz, Archbishop of

Santiago, who had been confessor to Queen Louisa, wife of Charles IV.

The energetic defence of Don Jerome de la Cuesta obliged Muzquiz to

defend himself against the imputation of calumny: he made

representations which injured his cause, for he vilified the inquisitors

of Valladolid, and even the inquisitor-general, and accused them of

partiality and collusion with Cuesta: his rank protected him from the

danger of an arrest which he incurred by this temerity, but he was

condemned to pay a penalty of eight thousand ducats, and the Bishop of

Valladolid four thousand. Muzquiz would have been more severely

punished, if he had not been protected by a person, who obtained from

the Prince of Peace that the affair should not be carried farther.

The same pretence of Jansenism was the cause of the trial of Don Joseph

Espiga, almoner to the king, and a member of the tribunal of the

nunciature in 1799. His accusers represented him as the author of the

royal decree of the 5th of September in that year, after the death of

Pius VI., forbidding any person to apply to Rome for matrimonial

dispensations. Espiga was then the most intimate friend of the minister

Urquijo, but he never allowed any one to influence him in official

affairs. The Nuncio Cassoni made many useless representations to the

king on this subject; however, he partly obtained his end by political

intrigues, for though the bishops had promised to obey the ordinance,

yet most of them avoided granting matrimonial dispensations, and those

who did so were accused of Jansenism. The inquisitors, though they were

all sold to the Nuncio and the Jesuits, were afraid to proceed, and the

trial of Espiga was suspended. When his friend Urquijo was deprived of

his office, he was obliged to retire to the cathedral of Lerida, of

which he was a dignitary.

The year 1796 is remarkable for the prosecution commenced against the

Prince of Peace, the king's cousin, by his marriage with Donna Maria

Theresa de Bourbon, the daughter of the infant Don Louis. It may be

easily supposed that much address was necessary in conducting an attack

against a person so high in favour. Three denunciations were received at

the holy office, accusing him of atheism, because he had not confessed

himself or taken the pascal communion for eight years, and because he

was married to two women at the same time, and the life he led with many

others was a source of great scandal to the public. The three denouncers

were monks, and there is some reason to suppose that they were directed

by the authors of a court intrigue, to cause the prince to be disgraced.

The head of the Inquisition at that time was Cardinal Lorenzana, who was

simple and easily deceived, but too timid not to be on his guard against

anything which might displease the king and queen. Although the

denunciations were presented to him, he did not dare to examine

witnesses, or even the accusers. Don Antonio Despuig, Archbishop of

Seville, and Don Raphael Muzquiz, who were at the head of this intrigue,

made every effort to induce Lorenzana to cause a private instruction to

be taken, to arrest the prince in concert with the Supreme Council, and

to obtain the approbation of the king, of which they thought themselves

certain, if they could prove that his favourite was an atheist. This

attempt was so repugnant to the disposition of Lorenzana, that the two

conspirators agreed that Despuig should press his friend the Cardinal

Vincenti, famous for his intrigues, to persuade Pius VI. to write to

Lorenzana, and reproach him for the indifference with which he beheld a

scandal so injurious to the purity of the religion professed by the

Spanish nation. Vincenti obtained the letter from the Pope; Lorenzana

promising, that if the Pope decided that the measure was necessary, he

would do what they desired. Napoleon Bonaparte, who was then a general

of the French Republic, intercepted a courier from Italy at Genoa. The

letter of Cardinal Vincenti to Despuig, enclosing that of the Pope to

Lorenzana, was found among his despatches: Bonaparte thought it

necessary to the continuance of the good intelligence then established

between France and Spain, to inform the Prince of Peace of the intrigue,

and he commissioned General Perignon, ambassador at Madrid, to remit the

correspondence to Godoy. The favourite opposed another intrigue to his

enemies, and succeeded in freeing himself from them by sending

Lorenzana, Despuig, and Muzquiz to Rome, to carry the condolences of the

king to the Pope, on the occasion of the entrance of the French army

into his states. Their commission was dated the 14th March, 1797.

At this period the Inquisition was in imminent danger of being deprived

of the power of arresting individuals without the consent of the king.

This circumstance arose from the trial of Don Ramon de Salas, which is

related in the twenty-fifth chapter. The affair of Jovellanos also took

place at this time.

In 1799 the inquisitors of Valladolid, with the approbation of the

council, condemned Don Mariano and Don Raymond de Santander, booksellers

of that city, to two months seclusion in a convent, to a suspension of

their trade for two years, and to banishment; they were also forbidden

to approach Valladolid, Madrid, and other royal residences, within eight

leagues. They were obliged to pay a penalty, and after having been a

long time in the secret prisons, Don Mariano could not obtain permission

to remove to another place, though he was subject to attacks of

epilepsy. Their only offence was having received and sold prohibited

books; for though some fanatics had accused them of heresy, no proofs

were obtained. On the 10th of November, Don Mariano solicited the

inquisitor-general to allow them to reside in Valladolid, representing,

that if this favour was refused, their families must die in poverty, and

they offered to purchase the permission by paying another penalty.

The affair of a Beata at Cuenca created a great sensation. She was the

wife of a labourer at Villar d'Aguilar. Among other fictions which she

invented to make people suppose her a saint, she said that Jesus Christ

revealed to her that he had changed her flesh and blood into the same

substance as his own body. This imposture caused great theological

discussion among the priests and monks. Some maintained that it was

impossible, others that it was not impossible, if the infinite power of

God was considered; others believed all, and were astonished that any

person could be so incredulous, for they thought that the Beata could

have no interest in deceiving them; lastly, there were some who were

witnesses of the life of this _Beata_, and were her accomplices from the

beginning of her imposture, or who were the dupes of their credulity,

and who continued to believe, or appeared to do so, in her supernatural

state. They carried their folly so far as to adore this woman; they

conducted her in procession in the streets and to the churches with

lighted tapers; they burnt incense before her as before the consecrated

host; lastly, they prostrated themselves before her, and committed many

other sacrileges. The Inquisition could not but notice these scenes. The

pretended saint and some of her accomplices were taken to the secret

prisons, where the _Beata_ ended her days. One of the articles of the

sentence commanded that her effigy should be taken to the _auto-da-fe_

on a traineau, and burnt; the curate of Villar, and two monks, who were

her accomplices, were condemned to follow the effigy barefooted, clothed

in short tunics, and with a cord round their necks; they were degraded

and banished for life to the Philippine Isles. The Curate of Casasimarro

was suspended for six years, and two men of the lowest class received

two hundred stripes, and were imprisoned for life; one of her servants

was sent to the house of the _Recogidas_ for ten years. I do not know

any judgment of the Inquisition more just than this.

Another _Beata_ at Madrid, called Clara, did not profit by this

example. She did not carry her phrensy so far as the other, but her

miracles and her sanctity made a great noise; she pretended that she was

paralytic, and could not leave her bed. On this report every one went to

see her. The most distinguished ladies in Madrid repaired to her, and

thought themselves happy in being admitted to see her; she was entreated

to be the mediatrix with God for the cure of different maladies, to

enlighten judges on the eve of an important judgment, and graces and

assistances were implored against many other misfortunes. Clara replied

to them all in an emphatic style, like an inspired person who saw into

the future. She announced that, by an especial call from the Holy

Spirit, she was destined to be a Capuchin nun, and she was extremely

grieved that she had not the strength and health necessary for living in

a community and a cloister. She imposed so well on the persons who

surrounded her, that Pius VII. permitted her, in a special brief, to

make her profession before Don Athanasius de Puyal, bishop coadjutor of

the Archbishop of Toledo, at Madrid, and granted her a dispensation from

the cloistered life, and the exercises of a community. From that moment

nothing was spoken of in society but the miracles and heroic virtue of

sister Clara. The bishop who had received her vows obtained permission

from the Pope and the Archbishop of Toledo to erect an altar in her

chamber opposite her bed; several masses were performed there every day,

and even the holy sacrament was placed there in a tabernacle. Clara

communicated every day, and persuaded those who came to see her that she

took no sustenance but the bread of the eucharist. This delusion lasted

for several years: but in 1802, Clara was taken to the prison of the

holy office; her mother was likewise arrested, and a monk whom she had

taken for her director. They were accused of having assisted the nun in

her impostures, in order to obtain considerable sums of money, which the

ladies of Madrid and other devout persons placed in her hands to be

distributed as alms. When her deceit, her pretended sickness, and the

other circumstances of her life were proved, Clara, her mother, and her

director, were condemned to seclusion and other punishments, much less

severe than they deserved.

Another _Beata_ appeared after these, but the circumstances of her

imposture are not so interesting.

The inquisitors no longer thought of condemning criminals to the flames.

A proof of this laudable change in their system may be seen in the trial

of Don Miguel Solano, curate of Esco in Aragon[79]. It was proved by the

depositions of the witnesses, that he had advanced several propositions

condemned by the church.

He was conducted to the secret prisons of Saragossa, where he confessed

all, alleging, that having meditated for a long time with a sincere

desire to discover the truth of the Christian religion, and that,

without the assistance of any book but the Bible, he had convinced

himself that there was no truth in anything but which was contained in

the Holy Scriptures; that all the rest might be erroneous, because

though several fathers of the church maintained these opinions, they

were but men, and, consequently, liable to err; that he considered all

that had been established by the Roman Church, in opposition to the

proper and literal meaning of the Scriptural text, as false, and that it

was possible to fall into error, in admitting that which did not result

either directly or indirectly from the text; that he considered it

certain that the ideas of purgatory and the limbos were the invention of

man, since Jesus spoke of only two receptacles for souls, paradise and

hell; that it was a sin to receive money for performing mass, although

it was called an alms, and for the support of the celebrator; and that

the priests and other ministers of religion ought to receive their

salaries from the government, like the judges and other officers. He

thought that the introduction and establishment of tithes was a fraud of

the priests, and the manner of explaining the commandment of the church,

which ordained that they should be paid without any deductions for seed,

or the expenses of the harvest, was a shameful robbery; that no

attention ought to be paid to the commands of the Pope, because no God

but avarice is adored at Rome, and all the measures of that government

only tend to take money from the people on religious pretences.

Solano had made a complete body of doctrine of these articles, and had

composed a book on it, which he confided to his bishop and other

theologians, as if he incurred no danger from such a proceeding.

The inquisitors of Saragossa undertook to persuade Solano to renounce

his opinions, and employed for that purpose some respectable

theologians; they exhorted him to acknowledge his errors and repent, and

threatened him with _relaxation_. Don Michel replied that he was aware

of his danger, but if he was induced to retract, he would be condemned

before the tribunal of God, and that if he was in error, God would

enlighten him or pardon him. The infallibility of the church, and the

opinions of the saints and learned men who had decided on the meaning of

the obscure texts, were represented to him; he replied, that in all

their discussions the Court of Rome had interfered, and rendered their

good intentions of no avail.

It was impossible to make Solano recant, and the inquisitors passed

sentence of _relaxation_; it must be confessed that they could not do

otherwise, according to the code of the Inquisition. But the Supreme

Council, wishing to spare the Spanish nation the spectacle of an

_auto-da-fe_, had recourse to the extraordinary measure of examining

some persons who had been mentioned by the witnesses, but had been

neglected, commanding the inquisitors, at the same time, to use every

effort to make Solano retract. It was in vain, and the inquisitors,

though they well knew the motives which led the council to vote against

their sentence, did not dare to disobey the law. They pronounced

sentence of _relaxation_ a second time, and the council took advantage

of a declaration made by one of the witnesses, to order an inquest to be

taken among all the curates, priests, and physicians of Esco and the

neighbourhood, in order to discover if Solano had ever suffered an

illness which weakened or deranged his mind. The result of this inquest

was to be communicated to the council, and in the mean time the trial

was suspended. The physician, who suspected what they wished him to say,

declared that Solano had had a severe illness for several years, before

he was arrested, and that it was not surprising that it had weakened his

mental powers; he said, that from that time he had spoken more

frequently of his religious opinions, which were not those of the

Catholics in Spain. On receiving this deposition, the council decreed,

that, without pronouncing definitively on the subject, every means

should be used to convert the accused. At this juncture, Solano fell

dangerously ill; the inquisitors charged the most able theologians of

Saragossa to endeavour to make him return to the faith, and even

entreated the bishop coadjutor of the Archbishop of Saragossa, Don Fray

Miguel Suarez de Santander, to exhort him with that tenderness and

goodness which were characteristic of that worthy prelate. The curate

appeared to be sensibly affected at all that was done for him, but he

said that he could not renounce his opinions, without fearing that he

offended God by betraying the truth. On the twentieth day of his

illness, the doctor told him that he was dying, and desired him to take

advantage of the few moments which were left him. "I am," said Solano,

"in the hands of God; I have nothing more to do." Thus died the curate

of Esco, in the year 1805; he was refused ecclesiastical sepulture, and

was privately buried within the walls of the tribunal. The inquisitors

reported all that had passed to the Supreme Council, which forbade them

to continue the trial, that Solano might not be burnt in effigy.

Two years after the intrigue intended to ruin the Prince of Peace,

another event which took place at Alicant ought to have been sufficient

to cause the tribunal to be reformed, or even suppressed. On the death

of Don Leonard Stuck, Consul for the Batavian Republic in that city, his

executor, the Vice-Consul of France, put his seals upon the property of

the deceased, until the formalities of the law had been fulfilled. The

commissary of the Inquisition desired the governor of the town to take

off the seals and give him the keys of the house, that he might register

the books and prints, as some of them were prohibited. The governor

demanded time, in order to consult his majesty's minister. The

commissary, who was disconcerted at this delay, went in the night with

his alguazils, broke the seals, opened the door, and made the inventory;

and when he had done, replaced the seals as well as he could, and went

away. The ambassador of the Batavian Republic complained to the

government of this violation of the law of nations, and the king wrote

to the inquisitor-general, through his minister Urquijo, informing him,

that the Inquisition must avoid similar infringements for the future,

and bounding its office to the care of observing that, on the death of

foreign ministers, no prohibited books were sold to Spaniards or

naturalized foreigners. Nearly the same thing happened to the French

consul at Barcelona.

It may have been seen in the preceding chapters, that the Inquisition

has been several times in danger of being suppressed, or subjected to

the general forms of law. These occasions were more frequent during the

reign of Charles IV.

The Counts d'Aranda, de Florida-Blanca, and Campomanes, and the

extraordinary council, represented the continual abuses committed by the

_holy office_ to Charles III., but he contented himself with passing

some ordinances to curtail its power.

In 1794, Don Manuel Abad-y-la-Sierra, inquisitor-general under Charles

IV., wished to reform the procedure of the tribunal, and commanded me to

compose a work, entitled, _A Discourse on the Procedure of the Holy

Office_, in which I represented the vices of the actual practice, and

the means of obviating them, even though the proceedings for heresy

should still continue to be secret. But, by various intrigues, an order

was obtained from Charles IV., which forced the inquisitor-general to

quit Madrid, and resign his office.

Another attempt was made, when the Prince of Peace discovered the plot

against him; the royal decree for the suppression was drawn up, but

never presented for the signature of the king, because Godoy was the

dupe of counter-intrigue. In the following year, Jovellanos wished to

make use of the work I had composed for Don Manuel Abad-y-la-Sierra, of

which I had given him a copy, but he failed in his design; and Charles

IV., who was ill-informed, and deceived by intriguers, commanded that

minister to retire to his house at Gijon in the Asturias. The attempt of

Urquijo has been already mentioned.

In 1808, Napoleon Buonaparte decreed the suppression of the Inquisition,

at Chamastin, near Madrid; he alleged that the tribunal was an

encroachment on the royal authority.

In 1813, the Cortes-general of the kingdom adopted the same measures,

after declaring that the existence of the privileged tribunal of the

holy office was incompatible with the political constitution which had

been decreed, published, and received by the nation.

In spite of these two last suppressions, the tribunal still exists;

because the greatest number of the men who surround the throne have been

and will always be the partisans of ignorance, of the ultra-montane

opinions, and of those which influenced the world before the invention

of printing. These opinions are strenuously supported by the Jesuits,

who have been recently recalled to Spain by Ferdinand VII.

CHAPTER XLIV.

OF THE INQUISITION DURING THE REIGN OF FERDINAND VII.

Charles IV. abdicated the crown in favour of his eldest son, Ferdinand,

who began to reign on the same day, before any public act had proved the

validity of the abdication. The royal and supreme Council of Castile

considered it necessary to observe the national custom on this occasion,

and commissioned the royal fiscals to examine into the validity of the

abdication, that the people might be informed that they were released

from their oath of allegiance to Charles. But a strict order was

immediately sent to the council to renounce the measure, to proclaim the

validity of the abdication, and acknowledge Ferdinand as king. Charles

protested against his abdication; he said that it was not voluntary,

since he had only done it to save his own life and that of the queen, in

the sedition at Aranjuez. Ferdinand paid no attention to this

protestation; the emperor Napoleon took advantage of the event, and the

Bourbons ceased to reign in Spain. While Charles IV. was at Marseilles,

and Ferdinand at Valence, Joseph Napoleon, King of Naples, was

proclaimed King of Spain; Ferdinand wrote to Joseph to congratulate him,

and request his friendship, and commanded all Spaniards to recognise

him, to prevent the ruin and desolation of their country.

When Joseph was acknowledged King of Spain, the archives of the Supreme

Council and of the Inquisition of the Court were confided to me, in

consequence of an order from his majesty. With his approbation, I burnt

all the criminal processes, except those which belonged to history, from

their importance, and the rank of the accused; but I preserved all the

registers of the resolutions of the council, the royal ordinances, the

papal bulls and briefs, the papers of the affairs of the tribunal, and

all the informations taken concerning the genealogies of the persons

employed in the holy office, on account of their utility in proving

relationship in trials when it is necessary.

I have read in a work, intituled _Acta Latomorum_, that in the month of

October, 1809, a grand national lodge of Spanish freemasons was founded

even in the buildings of the Inquisition of Madrid. This assertion I

consider entirely false, because at that time the keys of the building

were in the possession of a subaltern under my orders, who would never

have consented to give them up for such a purpose. I presume that the

authors of this article wished to astonish, by the striking contrast

between the different destinations of the same edifice.

My acquaintance with the archives already mentioned enabled me to

compose for the Royal Academy of History (of which I have the honour to

be a member), a dissertation, under the title of _A Memorial, in which

the Opinion of the Spaniards concerning the Inquisition is examined_.

The Academy published my work.

The above-mentioned materials, some others which I had collected since

the year 1789, and some which were sent to me from Valladolid and other

towns, enabled me to publish, in 1812 and 1813, two volumes of the

_Annals of the Inquisition_, which comprehended all the events which

passed in the tribunals from 1477 to 1530. I was not able to finish that

work, being obliged to repair to France in 1813.

On the 22d of February, in the same year, the Spanish assembly at Cadiz,

which styled itself the _General Cortes_, suppressed the Inquisition,

restoring to the bishops and secular judges their jurisdictions, that

they might prosecute heretics in the same manner as before the existence

of the Inquisition.

This measure was the cause of long discussions in the tribune, and many

orators pronounced speeches of great eloquence. The liberty of the press

which then existed allowed many works to be published both for and

against the holy office. Its partisans neglected nothing in its defence;

in short, all that could possibly be advanced in favour of such a

tribunal as the Inquisition, was published at Cadiz during this

celebrated discussion. But reason prevailed; not because the majority of

the voters were irreligious persons, or Jacobins (as it has since been

unjustly said), but because the Cortes found an irresistible strength in

the reasoning which condemned a tribunal which had been so fatal to the

prosperity of the nation for three centuries. The representatives of

Spain received an infinite number of letters and addresses, returning

thanks for the benefit bestowed on the nation: several of these letters

were signed by persons employed in the Inquisition. I have the

satisfaction to be able to declare, that this triumph of reason and

humanity was principally owing to the documents which I furnished, and

which became known to the public in 1812, by means of the _Memorial on

the Opinion of the Spaniards concerning the Inquisition_, and the first

volume of the _Annals of the Inquisition_. This is proved by the

manifesto addressed by the Cortes to the Spanish people; in which the

representatives say, that they had seen the apostolical bulls addressed

to the Inquisition, and the complaints and appeals of the prisoners:

these details could only have been obtained from the works above

mentioned, but they were not cited, because I was then a counsellor of

state to King Joseph.

These measures of the Cortes were however useless. Buonaparte restored

the crown of Spain to Ferdinand, by a treaty at Valence, in 1813, and in

March, 1814, the king re-entered Spain; on his arrival at Valencia, he

was immediately surrounded by persons imbued with the Gothic prejudices

of the age of chivalry, and one of the first measures of his

administration was the re-establishment of the holy office, on the 21st

of July, 1814.

In the preamble to the royal decree, Ferdinand informed the people, that

the object of the restoration of the Inquisition was to repair the evil

caused to the religion of the state by the foreign troops, who were not

Catholics; to forestall that which might be caused hereafter by the

heretical opinions imbibed by a great number of Spaniards, and to

preserve the tranquillity of the kingdom; that this measure was desired

by learned and virtuous prelates, and by different bodies and

corporations, who reminded him that, in the sixteenth century, Spain had

preserved herself from the contagion of heresy, and the errors which

desolated other countries; while the arts and sciences flourished under

many men, who were famed for their learning and sanctity; that this

happy influence of the Inquisition, was the reason why Buonaparte had

destroyed the tribunal, and that the same resolution was afterwards

adopted by the junta, falsely calling itself the _General Cortes_ of the

kingdom, on the pretence that the Inquisition was opposed to the

constitution of Cadiz, and that it was only decreed in the midst of

tumults, and against the wishes of the nation. The decree also declares,

that as it had been found necessary to frame new laws, to correct

certain abuses and to limit privileges, it was his majesty's intention

that they should be observed, and to appoint two members of the Council

of Castile, and two of that of the _holy office_, to propose the

necessary reforms and alterations in the mode of procedure concerning

personal affairs, and the prohibition of books.

It appears that these commissioners were, Don Manuel de Lardizabal Uribe

and Don Sebastian de Torres, of the Council of Castile; Don Joseph

Armarilla, and Don Antonio Galarza, counsellors of the Inquisition.

These persons might have proposed a reform, which would have remedied

several evils, or entirely destroyed them. I do not know what these

commissioners have yet done to justify the confidence placed in them,

but it is certain that hitherto no reform has been made public.

On the 5th of May, 1815, Don Francis Xavier de Mier y Campillo, the

inquisitor-general, published an edict, commanding all those who felt

themselves guilty, to denounce themselves before the end of the year,

and announcing that _Spain was infected by the new and dangerous

doctrines which had ruined the greatest part of Europe_. The

inquisitor-general condemned the _new_ and _dangerous doctrines_ which

followed the entrance of the French army, and did not mention the

systems which were propagated and put in practice by the Spanish

partisans for the war, though they really came under his jurisdiction,

because they were formerly opposed to the letter and spirit of the

Gospel. This circumstance induces me to lay it before my readers, in

order to prove that the _re-established_ Inquisition differs little from

that which was _suppressed_, since, if the latter allowed works

inculcating regicide to be circulated, and condemned books which

supported the royal authority, the former began by condemning the

doctrine which taught us, that men were not slaves or animals to be

bought and sold, and at the same time allowed such maxims as the

following to be acted upon:--

1st. That it was allowable during the invasion, to assassinate any

Frenchman in Spain, whether he was a soldier or not, without distinction

of circumstances or means, because they were all enemies of the country,

the defence of which ought to be the first consideration.

2nd. That according to the same principal it was lawful to kill any

Spaniard, who was a partisan of the superior power, designated as a

_Francise_.

3rd. That any Spaniards of the same party might be despoiled of their

money, goods, or the produce of their estates, and that their houses,

vineyards, olive-grounds, and other plantations might be burnt.

4th. That an oath of fidelity, taken on the sacrament, might be broken,

even if no mental reservation was made, because the person was persuaded

that it was the only means to avoid the danger threatened by the

superior power, which could execute its threats, according to the

general laws of war.

5. That the priests and monks were authorised to abandon their tranquil

life, and engage in a military career, provided it was against the

French and the Francises. This doctrine prevailed even when it was seen

that the ecclesiastics and monks had become the chiefs of bands of

robbers, and carried infamous concubines in their suites, and that they

had imposed arbitrary contributions on different towns.

6th. That the war against France was a war of religion, and,

consequently, that those who perished were to be considered as martyrs.

7th. That it was allowable, and even praiseworthy, to refuse sacramental

absolution to a penitent who had submitted to the superior force, unless

he promised to abandon it, and to contribute by every means to its

destruction.

8th. That it was preferable to eat meat on Fridays and other fast-days

without permission, than to receive it from the apostolical

commissary-general of the Holy Crusade of Spain, resident at Madrid, who

was charged by the Pope with this commission.

9th. That it was permitted to preserve an eternal hatred, and to excite

others to an implacable war against the Spaniards who had submitted to

the superior force.

It is not my intention to accuse the Bishop of Almeira, or the present

inquisitors, of abusing their powers. The edict, on the whole, expresses

an intention of pursuing mild measures, and hitherto it does not appear

that they have been unfaithful to this maxim; for I cannot credit

certain reports circulated in Paris, or what was said in 1815, in _Acta

Latomorum_. The author, after announcing the re-establishment of the

Inquisition by Ferdinand VII., adds, that he had forbidden the masonic

lodges, on pain of the punishments for high-treason. In another article

of the same work, on the events of the year 1814, it is said,--

"On the 25th of September, twenty-five individuals were arrested, on

suspicion that they were the members of a masonic lodge, and partisans

of the Cortes: among them were the Marquis Tolosa; the Canon Marina, a

learned and distinguished member of the Academy; Doctor Luque, the court

physician; and some French, and Italians, and Germans, who had settled

in Spain. The brave General Alava, who was chosen by General Wellington

for his aide-de-camp, on account of his merit, has been imprisoned by

the holy office, as a freemason." I consider the latter assertion to be

entirely false, because letters worthy of credit, and the gazettes of

Spain, only stated that an order to leave Madrid had been sent to the

general by the king, but it was revoked, as his majesty discovered that

he had been deceived; it is certain that Ferdinand, some time after,

sent him as his ambassador into the Low Countries.

The account given in the Madrid Gazette on the 14th May, 1816, of an

_auto-da-fe_ celebrated by the Inquisition of Mexico on the 27th

December, 1815, is more worthy of belief. Don Joseph-Maria Morellos, a

priest, had placed himself at the head of his countrymen, with the

intention of freeing his country from the dominion of the King of Spain.

The holy office prosecuted him for heresy, while the viceroy arrested

him for rebellion. The prisons of the holy office were preferred to that

of the government, and some witnesses were found who deposed to certain

facts which the Mexican qualifiers thought sufficient to authorize them

to pronounce Morellos suspected of atheism, materialism, and other

errors. One proof of his guilt was, that he had two children. The

accused abjured, and was absolved in an _auto-da-fe_, which was

celebrated with as much parade as in the reign of Philip II. When the

Inquisitors treated Morellos with so much moderation, they knew that the

viceroy would hang him; before his execution he was degraded from the

priesthood by the Bishop of Antequera in America.

I do not know if the Spanish Inquisition has celebrated an _auto-da-fe_

since its re-establishment. I shall only say, that if its members wish

to follow the precepts of the Gospel more faithfully than their

predecessors, they ought to follow the example of their chief, Pius VII.

A letter from Rome, dated the 31st of March, 1816, announces that his

Holiness had abolished the use of torture in all the tribunals of the

holy office, and that the resolution had been communicated to the

ambassadors of Spain and Portugal[80]. A second letter from the same

city on the 17th of April following, says that the procedure of the

Inquisition was to be similar to that of the other tribunals, and to be

made public[81].

A third letter on the 9th May, states that the Inquisition of Rome had

annulled the sentence which that of Ravenna had pronounced against

Solomon Moses Viviani, who had relapsed into Judaism, after having

abjured it to become a Christian. In confirming the revocation, the Pope

said: "The divine law is not of the same nature as that of man, but a

law of persuasion and gentleness; persecution, exile, and imprisonment,

are only suitable to false prophets and the apostles of false doctrines.

Let us pity the man who does not see the true light, or who even refuses

to see it; the cause of his blindness may tend to fulfil the profound

designs of providence, &c." His Holiness having since presided at a

congregation of the holy office, has decreed that, "in all trials of

heresy, the accuser shall be confronted with the accused, in the

presence of the judges, and has expressed an intention that the trials

shall be so conducted as to avoid the punishment of death[82]."

Another letter from Rome, of the 17th January, 1817, contains the

following article: "It is reported that the holy office will be reformed

this year. It appears that it will only be allowed to proceed in the

same manner as the other tribunals. The government considers it to be

dangerous to allow a body to exist which is useless, and always armed

against the progress of reason. You may believe that the Inquisition has

already ceased to exist[83]."

In March, 1816, the Portuguese ambassador had sent a diplomatic note to

the cardinal-secretary of state to his Holiness, in which he informs

him, in the name of his court, of the condemnation of a work printed by

the Inquisitor Louis de Paramo, of the formal and judicial suppression

of the holy office, and of the re-establishment of the bishops in their

former privileges[84].

These just and moderate measures ought to be the rule and guide of the

Spanish inquisitors; if they would make the proceedings public, and

liberate the prisoners on bail, I confess that I should not be afraid to

present myself to be tried by that tribunal.

Since this article was printed, I have been informed, that the

inquisitor-general Mier Campillo is dead, and that Ferdinand has

appointed Monseigneur Jerome Castillon de Salas, Bishop of Taragona, as

his successor. God grant that he may understand the spirit of the

Gospel, and the necessity of reforming the Inquisition, better than his

predecessor!

NUMBER OF THE VICTIMS

THE INQUISITION.

It is impossible to determine the exact number of persons who perished

in the first years after the establishment of the holy office. Persons

were burnt in the year 1481, and the Supreme Council was not created

until 1483. The registers in its archives, and those of the inferior

tribunals, are of a still later date; and as the inquisitor-general

accompanied the court, which had no fixed residence until the reign of

Philip II., many of the trials must have been lost during these

journeys. These circumstances oblige me to found my calculations on the

combination of certain data, which I found in the registers and writings

of the holy office.

Mariana, in his History of Spain, informs us that, in 1481, the

Inquisitors of Seville condemned two thousand persons to _relaxation_,

that is, to be burnt, and that there were as many effigies; the number

of persons reconciled was one thousand seven hundred. The latter were

always subjected to severe penances.

The _autos-da-fe_ of this period, which I examined at Saragossa and

Toledo, lead me to suppose that each tribunal of the Inquisition

celebrated at least four _autos-da-fe_ every year. The provincial

tribunals were successively organised. I do not speak of those of

Mexico, Lima, Carthagena in America, Sicily or Sardinia, although they

were subject to the Inquisitors-general and the Supreme Council, because

I am only enabled to establish my calculation for those of the Peninsula

and the neighbouring isles.

Andres Bernaldez, a contemporary historian, and very much attached to

the new institution, in which he held the office of almoner to the

second inquisitor, states, in his inedited History of the Catholic

Kings, that from 1482 to 1489, more than seven hundred individuals were

burnt, and more than five thousand subjected to penances, at Seville: he

does not mention the effigies.

In 1481 the number equalled that of the persons burnt. I will, however,

suppose that these were only half that number, to avoid all

exaggeration, though it was in general much more considerable; I may,

therefore, say, that in each year of this period, 88 persons were burnt

at Seville, 44 in effigy, and 600 condemned to different penances;

total, 757. The same mode of calculation may be applied to the other

tribunals of the province which were then founded.

In the castle of Triana, at Seville, where the inquisitorial tribunal

was held, is an inscription, placed there in 1524, importing that in the

space of time from 1492 to that year, about 1000 persons had been burnt,

and 20,000 condemned to penances;--I will suppose that 1000 individuals

were burnt, and 500 effigies, which will give for each year 32 burnt, 16

effigies, and 625 subjected to penances. I might admit a similar result

for all the tribunals of the kingdom, but I prefer taking the half, on

the supposition that the commerce carried on in the kingdom of Seville

drew thither many Jewish families.

With respect to the years 1490, 91, and 92, which elapsed between those

mentioned by Bernaldez and the period of the inscription of Triana, I

prefer calculating according to the thirty-two years after the

inscription.

Such are the foundations of my calculations for the first eighteen years

of the Inquisition. I shall consider it from that time as entirely

belonging to the government of Torquemada, the first inquisitor-general;

for, although his office was not created till 1483, the two preceding

years may be united to his administration, because he was at that time

one of the Inquisitors appointed by the Pope. I shall, however,

carefully distinguish the time when the inferior tribunals began to act,

as a greater number of persons perished in the first year, because they

were not sufficiently observant of their words and actions.

1481. Seville, the only tribunal. Burnt, 2000. Effigies, 2000. Penances,

1700. Total, 21,000.

I do not mention Aragon, where the old Inquisition was in full activity.

1482. Seville. Burnt, 88. Effigies, 44. Penances, 625. Total, 757.

The tribunals of Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, and Majorca, belonged to

the old Inquisition.

1483. Seville. Ditto.

Tribunals were established in this year at Cordova, Jaen, and Toledo; it

is probable that as many persons were condemned at these places as in

the first year at Seville, but I shall take the tenth part of that

number.

Cordova. Burnt, 200. Effigies, 200. Penances, 17. Total, 2100. Jaen,

ditto. Toledo, ditto. Total, 7057.

1484. Seville. Burnt, 88. Effigies, 44. Penances, 625. Total, 757.

I calculate half that number for each of the three additional tribunals.

Total, 1892.

1485. Seville, ditto. Cordova, ditto. Jaen, ditto. Toledo, ditto.

Valladolid, Estremadura, Murcia, Calahorra, Saragossa, and Valencia;

each, burnt, 200. Effigies, 200. Penances, 1700. Total, 2100.

For the ten tribunals. Total, 12,930.

1486. Seville, as before.

Cordova, Jaen, and Toledo, ditto.

Valladolid, Llerena, Murcia, Logrono, Saragossa, and Valencia; same

number as Cordova.

For the ten tribunals. Total, 4149.

1487. Seville, and the other tribunals; the same number as the preceding

year.

Barcelona and Majorca, burnt, 200. Effigies, 200. Penances, 1700.

Total for the twelve tribunals, 8359.

1488. Seville, ditto.

Eleven other tribunals, same number as before. Total, 4915.

1489. Same as the preceding year. Here finish the calculations founded

on the statements of Mariana and Bernaldez.

1490. Seville. Burnt, 32. Effigies, 16. Penances, 625. Total, 663.

According to the calculation from the inscription of Triana.

The eleven other tribunals may be considered to have punished half that

number. Total for the twelve, 4369.

1491 to 1498. According to my system of reduction, the total number of

victims for the eight last years of Torquemada, was 34,952.

Total for the eighteen years of his administration, 105,294.

1499 to 1507. _Second inquisitor-general._ Don Fray Diego Deza. For the

twelve tribunals during the eight years of his administration. Burnt,

1664. Effigies, 832. Penances, 32,456. Total, 34,952.

1507 to 1518. _Third inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros.

In 1513 he separated the tribunal of Cuenca from that of Murcia.

Number of persons condemned during the eleven years of his

administration. Burnt, 2536. Effigies, 1368. Penances, 47,263. Total,

51,163.

1518 to 1524. _Fourth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Adrian. Number of

tribunals in the peninsula, the same as under his predecessor. Burnt,

1344. Effigies, 662. Penances, 26,214. Total, 28,230.

1524 to 1539. _Fifth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Manrique. For each

year of this administration, I calculate that in each of the tribunals

10 were burnt, 5 in effigy, and 50 subjected to penances; total, 65.

There were thirteen tribunals in the peninsula, and two in the adjacent

isles. According to the preceding calculation, we find that during the

fifteen years of the administration of Manrique, there were, Burnt,

2250. Effigies, 1120. Penances, 11,250. Total, 14,625.

1539 to 1545. _Sixth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Tabera. His

administration may be considered as having lasted seven years. For the

fifteen tribunals during that period, I calculate, Burnt, 840. Effigies,

420. Penances, 4200. Total, 5460.

_Seventh inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Loaisa was appointed in 1546, and

died in the same year; the time of his administration may be said to be

twelve months. In the fifteen tribunals, Burnt, 120. Effigies, 60.

Penances, 600. Total, 780.

_Eighth inquisitor-general._ Don Ferdinand Valdes, Archbishop of

Seville. Twenty years in the fifteen tribunals, Burnt, 2400. Effigies,

1200. Penances, 12,000. Total, 19,600.

_Ninth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Espinosa, six years. Burnt, 720.

Effigies, 360. Penances, 3600. Total, 4680.

_Tenth inquisitor-general._ Don Pedro de Cordova, Ponce de Leon,

succeeded in 1572, and died in January, 1573, before he could enter on

his office.

_Eleventh inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Quiroga, twenty-two years.

Another tribunal was established in Galicia. In the sixteen tribunals

were Burnt, 2816. Effigies, 1408. Penances, 14,080. Total, 18,304.

_Twelfth inquisitor-general._ Don Jerome Manrique de Lara, Bishop of

Carthagena and Avila, one year. Total for the sixteen Inquisitions,

Burnt, 180. Effigies, 64. Penances, 640. Total, 832.

_Thirteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Pedro de Porto-Carrero, Bishop of

Cuenca, three years. Burnt, 184. Effigies, 92. Penances, 1920. Total,

2196.

_Fourteenth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Guevara, three years. Burnt,

240. Effigies, 96. Penances, 1728. Total, 2064.

_Fifteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan de Zuniga, Bishop of

Carthagena, one year. Burnt, 84. Effigies, 32. Penances, 576. Total,

688.

_Sixteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan Bautista de Acebedo, Archbishop

_in partibus infidelium_, five years. Burnt, 400. Effigies, 116.

Penances, 2880. Total, 3440.

_Seventeenth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Sandoval y Roxas, eleven

years. Burnt, 880. Effigies, 352. Penances, 6336. Total, 7568.

_Eighteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Fray Louis de Aliaga, two years.

Burnt, 240. Effigies, 96. Penances, 1728. Total, 2064.

_Nineteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Andres Pacheco, four years. Burnt,

200. Effigies, 128. Penances, 1280. Total, 1664.

_Twentieth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Mendoza, six years. Burnt, 384.

Effigies, 192. Penances, 1920. Total, 2496.

_Twenty-first inquisitor-general._ Don Fray Antonio de Sotomayor,

Archbishop _in partibus infidelium_, eleven years. Burnt, 704. Effigies,

352. Penances, 3520. Total, 4576.

_Twenty-second inquisitor-general._ Don Diego de Arce y Reynosa, Bishop

of Placencia, twenty-three years. Burnt, 1472. Effigies, 736. Penances,

7360. Total, 9568.

_Twenty-third inquisitor-general._ Cardinal d'Aragon. Dismissed before

he entered on his office.

_Twenty-fourth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan Everard Nitardo, three

years. Burnt, 144. Effigies, 48. Penances, 576. Total, 768.

_Twenty-fifth inquisitor-general._ Don Diego Sarmiento de Valladares,

twenty-six years. Burnt, 1248. Effigies, 416. Penances, 4992. Total,

6656.

_Twenty-sixth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan Thomas Rocaberti, Archbishop

of Valencia, five years. Burnt, 240. Effigies, 80. Penances, 960. Total,

1280.

_Twenty-seventh inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Aguilar. Died before he

entered on his office.

_Twenty-eighth inquisitor-general._ Don Balthazar Mendoza y Sandoval,

Bishop of Segovia, five years. Burnt, 240. Effigies, 80. Penances, 960.

Total, 1280.

_Twenty-ninth inquisitor-general._ Don Vidal Marin, Bishop of Ceuta,

four years. Seventeen tribunals. Burnt, 136. Effigies, 68. Penances,

816. Total, 1020.

_Thirtieth inquisitor-general._ Don Antonio Ibanez de la Riva Herrera,

Archbishop of Saragossa, two years. Burnt, 68. Effigies, 34. Penances,

408. Total, 510.

_Thirty-first inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Judice, six years. Burnt,

204. Effigies, 102. Penances, 1224. Total, 1530.

_Thirty-second inquisitor-general._ Don Joseph Molines, Auditor de Rote

at Rome, two years. Burnt, 68. Effigies, 34. Penances, 408. Total, 510.

_Thirty-third inquisitor-general._ Don Juan de Arzamendi. Died before he

entered on the office.

_Thirty-fourth inquisitor-general._ Don Diego de Astorga y Cespedes,

Bishop of Barcelona, two years. Burnt, 68. Effigies, 34. Penances, 408.

Total, 510.

_Thirty-fifth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan de Camargo, Bishop of

Pampluna, thirteen years. Burnt, 442. Effigies, 221. Penances, 2652.

Total, 3315.

_Thirty-sixth inquisitor-general._ Don Andres de Orbe y Larreategui,

Archbishop of Valencia, seven years. Burnt, 238. Effigies, 119.

Penances, 1428. Total, 1785.

_Thirty-seventh inquisitor-general._ Don Manuel Isidro Manrique de Lara,

Archbishop of Santiago, four years. Burnt, 336. Effigies, 68. Penances,

816. Total, 1020.

_Thirty-eighth inquisitor-general._ Don Francisco Perez de Prado y

Cuesta, Bishop of Teruel. He was confirmed by the Pope in 1746; I do not

know the exact term of his administration, but I have fixed it in 1757,

before the death of Ferdinand VI., who appointed his successor. Burnt,

10. Effigies, 5. Penances, 107. Total, 122.

_Thirty-ninth inquisitor-general._ Don Manuel Quintano Bonifaz,

Archbishop of Pharsala, seventeen years. Burnt, 2. Penances, 10 in

public, a greater number in private.

_Fortieth inquisitor-general._ Don Philip Bertran, Bishop of Salamanca,

nine years. Two were burnt every year of this administration, six

condemned to public, and a great number to private penances[85].

_Forty-first inquisitor-general._ Don Augustin Rubin de Cevallos, Bishop

of Jaen, nine years. Fourteen condemned to public penances, and a

considerable number condemned intra muros.

_Forty-second inquisitor-general._ Don Manuel Abad y la Sierra,

Archbishop of Selimbria, two years. Sixteen individuals condemned to

public, a greater number to private penances.

_Forty-third inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Lorenzana, three years.

Public penances, 14. A very great number condemned to private penances.

One effigy was burnt at Cuenca.

_Forty-fourth inquisitor-general._ Don Ramon Joseph de Arce, Archbishop

of Saragossa, eleven years. Twenty individuals were condemned to public,

and a very considerable number to private penances. The Curate of Esco

was condemned to the flames, but the grand-inquisitor and the Supreme

Council would not permit the sentence to be executed.

Number of persons who were condemned

and perished in the flames - - 31,912

Effigies burnt - - - - - 17,659

Condemned to severe penances - - 291,450

---------

341,021

THE END.

LONDON:

Printed by WILLIAM CLOWES,

Stamford-Street.

* * * * *

The following typographical errors have been corrected by the etext

transcriber:

those already in in prison were excluded from the pardon=>those already

in prison were excluded from the pardon

John Guiterrez de Chabes=>John Gutierrez de Chabes

Don Diego Deza, a Dominician=>Don Diego Deza, a Dominican

entirely composed by Catholics authors=>entirely composed by Catholic

authors

he went out, and was assasinated=>he went out, and was assassinated

more favourably received than at Vallodolid=>more favourably received

than at Valladolid

expences in travelling and maintaining=>expenses in travelling and

maintaining

mind was so much disorderered=>mind was so much disordered

from the secresy of their proceedings=>from the secrecy of their

proceedings

secresy, and two members of the Council of Castile=>secrecy, and two

members of the Council of Castile

inquisitor in ordinary of the diocease=>inquisitor in ordinary of the

diocese

he ackowledges his guilt=>he acknowledges his guilt

Nicholas Antonio say that he died, with the reputation of being a

saint=>Nicholas Antonio says that he died, with the reputation of being

a saint

Haping occasion to say=>Having occasion to say

it appears, from cotemporary=>it appears, from contemporary

made several journies to Valladolid=>made several journeys to Valladolid

The queen and the princes were in tears=>The queen and the princess were

in tears

his death was invitable=>his death was inevitable

afterwards transferred to the the city of=>afterwards transferred to the

city of

when Cazella was arrested=>when Cazalla was arrested

decree of the congregation shuld be revoked.=>decree of the congregation

should be revoked.

Majorca, Bilboa, Valladolid, aud Osma=>Majorca, Bilboa, Valladolid, and

Osma

cemetery of Pere la Chaise=>cemetery of Pere la Chaise

there was a third called called Huguenaos=>there was a third called

Huguenaos

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The following fact shews that the inquisitors of our own days do not

fall below the standard of those who followed the fanatic Torquemada. *

* * * was present when the Inquisition was thrown open, in 1820, by the

orders of the Cortes of Madrid. Twenty-one prisoners were found in it,

not one of whom knew the name of the city in which he was: some had been

confined three years, some a longer period, and not one knew perfectly

the nature of the crime of which he was accused.

One of these prisoners had been condemned, and was to have suffered on

the following day. His punishment was to be death by the _pendulum_. The

method of thus destroying the victim is as follows:--The condemned is

fastened in a groove, upon a table, on his back; suspended above him is

a pendulum, the edge of which is sharp, and it is so constructed as to

become longer with every movement. The wretch sees this implement of

destruction swinging to and fro above him, and every moment the keen

edge approaching nearer and nearer: at length it cuts the skin of his

nose, and gradually cuts on, until life is extinct. It may be doubted if

the holy office in its mercy ever invented a more humane and rapid

method of exterminating heresy, or ensuring confiscation. This, let it

be remembered, was a punishment of the Secret Tribunal, A.D. 1820!!!

[2] The _absolution ad cautelam_ is that granted by inquisitors to

persons who have been suspected of heresy.

[3] Since the publication of this work, the Author has been informed

that the convicts were only fastened to the statues of the _Four

Prophets_, and not enclosed in them. Andrew Bernaldez, a contemporary

writer, and eye-witness of the executions, from whom this fact was

taken, is not sufficiently explicit to remove all doubt.

[4] Erasmus, letters 884, 907, 910.

[5] Sandoval. Hist. Charles V. B. 24, Sec. 23.

[6] Salazar de Mendoza, Life of Don Bartholomew Carranza, ch. vii.

[7] Mayan's Life of John Louis Vives, in the introduction to the new

edition of his works.

[8] Virues: _Philippics against Melancthon_, in the dedication of the

edition of Antwerp, 1541.

[9] Reginaldus Gonzalvius Montanus, _Sanctae Inquisitionis Hispanicae,

artes aliquot detectae_. This work is now extremely rare; it was

published in 8vo. at Heidelberg in 1567.

[10] Charles V. is the hero of this poem.

[11] Don Antonio Cajetan de Souza has inserted this bull in his

genealogical History of the Royal House of Portugal; Vol. II.

[12] Continued from Gonzales de Montes.

[13] Sandoval's History of Charles V., vol. ii.

[14] Sandoval's History of Charles V., tom. ii.

[15] Cabrera, Hist. Philip II., Book 2. chap. vi.

[16] Cabrera, ibid. B. I. chap. viii. and ix.

[17] Leti, Life of Philip II. Book 17.--Reinaldi, Annales Eccles. An.

1563, No. 146.--Palavicini, Hist. Council of Trent, Book 22, Chap.

viii.--Sarpi, Hist. Council of Trent, Book 8. No. 42.

[18] See Chapter XVI.

[19] Pellecyr, Ensago de Biblioteca de Traductores Espanoles. Articles,

_Reina_, _Perez_, and _Valera_.

[20] Regnialdus Gonzalirus Montanus, _Sanctae Inquisitionis Hispanicae

artes aliquot detectae_, in the rubric _Publicato testium_, p. 50.

[21] Fleury, Hist. Ecoles, liv. 154, ann. 1559, No. 14.

[22] Ulloa, _Vita di Carlos V._, edition of Venice; 1589, p. 237.

[23] The _informer_ is admitted as a witness, in contempt of the rule of

right, and the punishment due to a false witness is not inflicted, if he

is discovered to be such.

[24] They never found this measure necessary. The old bulls and the

Cortes had provided that the interlocutory act of arrest should be

consented to, and signed by the inquisitor in ordinary of the diocese.

Reason dictated this measure, because the decree for an arrest does not

permit the summons.

[25] This form is very prejudicial to the prisoner, when the

conversation takes place with one person, because the manner of relating

the fact supposes three, the accused, the interlocutor, and the

individual who has seen or heard.

[26] This inconvenience was the danger to which the secrecy of the holy

office was exposed from the activity of these procurators.

[27] This is false; the advantages on the contrary were very important,

because the procurators who knew the persons capable of proving the

challenge of presumed witnesses, informed them of it, in order to favour

the accused.

[28] The New Christians, the relations, the servants, malefactors,

infamous persons, in fact every man, a wife, a child, are admitted to

depose against the accused, and he cannot call as a witness any person

who is a relation or a servant!

[29] This is an injustice. If an accused person had seen the proved

articles of the examination in his defence, or if they had been

communicated to his lawyer, he would have often derived conclusive

arguments from them against the depositions for the prosecution.

[30] _It was not often used_, because the inquisitors were unwilling to

reveal the secret of their irregular proceedings; they considered it

_dangerous_, because it was favourable to the accused, in the few cases

where it had been employed; they wished it to be used with great

caution, because they felt that those who are not inquisitors act like

judges. The canonical proof takes place in the presence of twelve

persons, who declare upon oath whether they believe the accused to be

innocent or guilty. They were a kind of jury, to whom the inquisitors

were obliged to show the original process, and thus the accused depended

more upon the jury than on the inquisitors.

[31] I have not read any process which proves that more than one

inquisitor has assisted at this execution; I have never seen either the

ordinary, or the consultors present at it; the question was only applied

in the presence of the inquisitor, the notary, and the executioners.

[32] It was afterwards regulated that this should be done in all

definitive sentences.

[33] The trial began in 1558; it had already lasted more than fifteen

years, yet the council said that it went on quickly!

[34] Father Kircher has inserted this letter in his work called

_Principis Christiani Archetipon Politicum_.

[35] Kircher has inserted the whole of this letter in the work before

mentioned.

[36] Estrada: Decades of the War of Flanders. Decade i. b. 7.

[37] This refers to the queen's journey to Bayonne, to confer with her

mother on the political affairs of the League. It took place in 1565.

[38] Cabrera: History of Philip II., chap. 28.

[39] Wander-Hamer: History of Philip II., p. 115. Cabrera: Prudence of

Philip II., b. vii. chap. 22.

[40] Cabrera. Ibid. chap. 28.

[41] Kircher: _Vide_ the Work before mentioned, b. ii. chap. 2.

[42] Estrada: Wars of Flanders, Decade i. b. 7.

[43] Cabrera: Hist. Philip II., b. vii. chap. 28.

[44] Wander-Hamen: Life of Don John of Austria, book i.

[45] Cabrera: Hist. Philip II., book vii. chap. 22.

[46] Retamar is a place situated half-way between Madrid and the Pardo.

[47] Cabrera, book vii. chap. 22.--Wander-Hamen: Life of Don John of

Austria, book i.

[48] St. Jerome is a monastery of the order of Jeronimites, founded by

Henry IV. Near this monastery is the old royal palace called _Buen

Retiro_.

[49] _Atocha_ is a Convent of Dominicans near _Buen Retiro_, on the east

side.

[50] This was not the Saturday following, which was on the 3rd of

January, 1568, but on the 17th of January, the day before Don Carlos was

arrested.

[51] The princes of Bohemia and Hungary, then at Madrid, also Don John

of Austria and Alexander Farnese.

[52] Some galleys which were then being prepared under the command of

Don John.

[53] Grand prior of the order of St. John of Jerusalem: his name was Don

Antonio de Toledo, brother to the Duke of Alva, and a councillor of

state.

[54] The Duke de Feria was captain-general of the king's guards, and a

councillor of state.

[55] Louis Quijada was Lord of Villagarcia, son of him who was

major-domo to Charles V. in his retirement. The Count de Lerma was

afterwards first duke and favourite of Philip III. Don Rodrigo de

Mendoza was the eldest son of the Prince d'Evoli.

[56] Son of Don Gabriel, Count de Siruela.

[57] Mass was afterwards said in the prince's apartment; this shows that

the account was written before the 2nd of March, when the order was

given to have it performed.

[58] The 19th of January, 1568.

[59] Hoyos. His name was Pedro del Hoyo.

[60] That is of the eldest sons who have the right of succeeding to the

crown, which is a _majorat_, or a perpetual substitution by the order of

primogeniture.

[61] Jane, the king's sister, who had brought up Don Carlos before he

had masters.

[62] The _monteros_ are the king's body-guard for the night. All the

individuals of this guard are called _Monteros de Espinosa_, because

they ought to have been born in the borough called _Espinosa de la

Monteros_; this is a privilege which was granted to them by the

sovereign Count of Castile, Ferdinand Gonzalez, as a recompense for a

distinguished act of fidelity.

[63] Watson: History of the Reign of Philip II., in English and French,

Appendix.

[64] De Thou: History of his Time, in Latin, vol. ii. b. 43.

[65] Comentarios del Reverendissimo senor Fray Barthome Carranza de

Miranda, Arzobispo de Toledo, sobre el cathecismo christiano, divididos

en quatro partes, les quales contienent odo lo que profesamos en el

santo bautismo, como se vera en la plana siguiente, dirigida al

serenisimo senor rey de Espana, &c., nuestro senor. En Anveres, en casa

de Martin Nucio, Anno M. D. LVIII., con privilegio real.

[66] Reinaldo: Ecclesiastical Annals for 1563, No. 137. Paul Sarpi:

History of the Council of Trent, b. viii. p. 32.

[67] These expressions show that the Count foresaw that the resolution

of the council would be favourable to the Catechism; and in that case

the holy office of Spain would be dishonoured.

[68] The chief justice of Aragon was an intermediate judge between the

king and his subjects, and independent of him as an officer of justice,

before whom the king only was the pleading party. This magistracy had

been established by the constitution of the kingdom; the person invested

with it was authorized to declare, at the demand of any inhabitant, that

the king, his judges, or his magistrates, abused their power, and acted

against the law in violating the constitution and privileges of the

kingdom; in this case, the chief justice could defend the oppressed by

force of arms against the king, and of course against his agents or

lieutenants.

[69] This expression is ancient in the Aragonese dialect, and taken from

the French, which derived it from the Latin _inquisitio_. It is the

title given in the code of _Fueros_ to the sentence pronounced against

magistrates or other public officers guilty of infidelity, abuse of

power, or other crimes.

[70] Henry IV. of France, then called the Duke of Vendome, and Catherine

de Bourbon, afterwards Sovereign Duchess of Bar.

[71] Molina was then at Madrid, where he had been rewarded by a place in

the council of military orders. He was succeeded at Saragossa by Don

Pedro de Zamora.

[72] See _Relations_ of Perez.

[73] See Chapter XV.

[74] See Chapter 15.

[75] See Chapter 26.

[76] See Chapter 25.

[77] A work, by M. Clement, was printed at Paris, in 1802, called _A

Journal of Correspondences and Journeys for the Peace of the Church_.

[78] These letters will be found in the second volume of the _Memoires

pour servir a l'Histoire de la Revolution d'Espagne_, by Don Juan

Nellerto, Nos. 34, 59, 67.

[79] Don Miguel Juan Antonio Solano was born at Veroline in Aragon.

Nature had endued him with an inventive, penetrating genius, inclined to

mathematical applications; he learned the trade of a joiner, for his own

amusement. He invented a plough which would work without oxen or horses,

and presented it to the government, but little notice was taken of it.

Desiring to make himself useful to his parishioners, he undertook to

fertilize the earth in a ravine situated between two mountains, and

completely succeeded. He had brought into the ravine the waters of a

fountain, which was about a quarter of a Spanish league from the spot. A

long and severe illness had made him lame, and during his convalescence,

he invented a chair in which he could go out into his garden. When his

age inclined him to meditations of another nature, as he had not many

books, he particularly applied himself to the study of the Bible, and

from it he formed his religious system, which differed little from that

of the reformed Protestants, who are most attached to the discipline of

the first ages of the church; he was persuaded that all that is not

expressed in the New Testament, or is opposed to the literal sense of

the text, was invented by man. He put his sentiments in writing, and

sent the work to his bishop, requesting him to instruct him and give his

opinion. The bishop Lopez Gil promised to send him an answer; but as it

did not arrive, Solano communicated his opinions to some professors of

theology in the University of Saragossa, and to some curates in his

neighbourhood: he was in consequence denounced to the Inquisition of

Saragossa, who proceeded to take informations, and arrest the criminal.

A curate, who called himself his friend, received the commission to

arrest the unfortunate Solano, while entire liberty was allowed him to

enable him to recover. Solano, however, found means to convey himself to

Oleron, the nearest town on the French frontier; but soon after,

depending on the goodness of his intentions, hoping that the inquisitors

would respect his innocence, and show him his errors, if he had fallen

into any, he returned to Spain, and wrote to inform them that he would

submit to anything, in order to be enlightened and convinced. His

conduct proved that he was little acquainted with the tribunal of the

Inquisition.

[80] See _Gazette de France_, for the 14th April, 1816, No. 103.

[81] _Gazette de France_, _Journal du Soir_, for the 1st May, 1816.

[82] _Gazette de France_, 22nd May, 1816, No. 41.

[83] _Gazette de France_, January 21st, 1817, No. 31.

[84] _Gazette de France_, April 3rd, 1816, No. 94.

[85] The last person burnt by the Inquisition was a Beata, for having

made a compact with the devil. She suffered on the 7th of November,

1781.

The History of the Inquisition of Spain from the Time of its Establishment to the Reign of Ferdinand VII. · 第 30 / 30 章

_A._ It is true that I have requested these persons to become