ABUSES
It was impossible to prevent these lawless abuses. The Suprema might scold and threaten but, as it rarely punished and always protected the offenders, its restraining efforts amounted to little. Thevisitadores, or inspectors, duly reported disorders, and instructions would be issued to reform them, but to these the inquisitors paid little respect. There is no reason to suppose that the Barcelona tribunal was worse than any other and a series of reports of visitations there gives us an insight into the evils inflicted on the people. In 1544, Doctor Alonso Pérez sent in a report in consequence of which the Suprema roundly rebuked all the subordinates, except the judge of confiscations. All buttwo were defamed for improper relations with women; all accepted presents; all made extra and illegal charges; all neglected their duties and most of them quarrelled with each other. The fiscal was especially objectionable for his improper conduct of prosecutions and for appropriating articles belonging to the tribunal; he refused to pay his debts; he arrested a candle-maker for not furnishing candles as promptly as he demanded; when a certain party bought some sheep from a peasant and was dissatisfied with his bargain, the fiscal cited the peasant, asserted that the purchase money was his and forced the peasant to take back the sheep and return the money. Yet the Suprema was too tender of the honor of the Holy Office to dismiss a single one of the peccant officials. It ordered them to be severely reprimanded, a few debts to be paid and presents to be returned and uttered some vague threats of what it would do if they continued in their evil courses.[1254]
The natural result of this indulgence appears in the next visitation by the Licenciado Vaca, in 1549. The same abuses were flourishing, with the addition that the inquisitor, Diego de Sarmiento, had accepted the position of commissioner of the Cruzada indulgence and had appointed as its preachers and collectors the commissioners and familiars of the tribunal, to the great oppression and vexation of the people, whose dread of the Holy Office prevented complaints. Sarmiento was dismissed in 1550, but in 1552 he was reappointed to Barcelona; the fiscal and notary, who were specially inculpated, were suspended for six months and the gaoler, for ill-treatment of prisoners, was mulcted in one month’s wages.[1255]In 1561 another visitation was made by Inquisitor Gaspar Cervantes, whose report was exceedingly severe on the disorders of the tribunal and drew from the Suprema an energetic demand for their reform.[1256]This produced no amendment, the tribunal went on undisturbed until the complaints of the Córtes of 1564 led to another and more searching investigation by de Soto Salazar, in 1566. There were not only abuses of all kinds in the trials of heresy but numerous cases in which, as the Suprema told them, they had no jurisdiction. Apparently they were ready to put their unlimited powers at the disposal of allcomers and imprisoned, fined and punished in the most arbitrary manner, gathering fees, commissions and doubtless bribes and selling injustice to all who wanted it, while the dread of their censures prevented opposition or remonstrance. In these cases which were not of faith, the accused were often seized in the churches, where they had sought asylum, as though they were wanted for heresy and the repeated instances in which the Suprema orders their names stricken from the records points to one of the most cruel results of this reckless abuse of jurisdiction, for it inflicted on the sufferer, his kindred and posterity, an infamy unendurable to the Spaniard of the period. The long and detailed missive which the Suprema addressed to the tribunal, as the result of Salazar’s report, gives a most vivid inside view of the abuses naturally springing from unrestrained autocracy, which, by the absolute and impenetrable secrecy of its operations, was relieved from all responsibility to its victims or to public opinion. The Suprema takes every official in turn, from inquisitors down to messengers, specifies their misdeeds and scores them mercilessly, showing that the whole organization was solely intent on making dishonest gains, on magnifying its privileges and on tyrannizing over the community, while the defence of the faith was the baldest pretext for the gratification of greed and evil passions. Yet all this was practically regarded as quite compatible with the duties of the Inquisition. The three inquisitors, Padilla, Zurita and Mexia, were suspended for three years and were then sent to repeat their misdeeds elsewhere and the two former were in addition fined ten ducats apiece.[1257]That an institution possessing these powers and exercising them in such fashion, should be regarded with terror and detestation was inevitable. We shall see hereafter how it shrouded all its acts in inviolable secrecy and how it rightly regarded this as one of the most important factors of its influence, and we can understand the mysterious dread which this inspired, while, at the same time, it released the inquisitor and his subordinates from the wholesome restraint of publicity.
ABUSES
The smothered hostility thus excited was always ready for an explosion when opportunity offered to gratify it. In the desire to stimulate the breeding of horses, a royal pragmática, in 1628, prohibited the use of mules for coaches. The inquisitors ofLogroño, in the full confidence that no one would venture to interfere with them, persisted in driving with mules and when the corregidor, Don Francisco Bazan, remonstrated and threatened to seize a coach, they told him it would be his ruin. He did not venture, but, in 1633, he procured from the Council of Castile an order that no coaches should be used in Logroño, under pretext that they damaged certain shops projecting on the principal street. The fiscal of the tribunal undertook to meet this by asserting that it had a special privilege from the king concerning coaches, but when Bazan promised to obey, it was not forthcoming. The Suprema took up the quarrel and represented to Philip IV the hardship inflicted on the inquisitors, too old and feeble for the saddle; the compassionate king endorsed on the consulta the customary formula of approval—“I have so ordered”; the Suprema then applied to the Council of Castile for a corresponding order and several communications passed without result. Another consulta was presented to the king, who endorsed it “I have so ordered again,” but the Council of Castile was still evasive. Then the Logroño authorities offered to the Bishop of Calahorra permission to use coaches and intimated to the inquisitors that, if they would apply for a licence, it would be given. The Suprema forbade them thus to recognize the local magistracy, as they had royal authority, whereupon they resumed the use of their coaches; the alguazil of the corregidor arrested one of their coachmen and they excommunicated the corregidor. The king, December 9, 1633, ordered him to be absolved, to which, on December 30th, the Suprema replied that he would be absolved if he made application. The Council of Castile presented to the king a consulta, arguing that ecclesiastics and inquisitors alike owed obedience to the laws and that the corregidor had acted with great moderation. February 5, 1634, the king enquired what had been done with the corregidor, but it was not until December 16th that the Suprema condescended to reply, complaining bitterly of the slight put upon the Inquisition, when the whole safety of the monarchy depended upon its labors. Finally, on February 15, 1635, the Council of Castile sent to the Suprema a licence for the use of coaches in Logroño, at the same time intimating that its tax ofmedia añatahad not been paid. In the course of the quarrel the Council presented a very forcible consulta to the king which exhibits the light in which the Inquisition was regarded by the highest authorities of the State. Itrepresented that everywhere the inquisitors and their officials, under color of privileges that they did not possess, were causing grave disorders. They were vexing and molesting the corregidors and other ministers of the king, oppressing them with violent methods and frightening them with threats of punishment in order to deter them from defending the royal jurisdiction. Thus crimes remained unpunished, justice became a mockery and the king’s vassals were afflicted with what they were made to suffer in their honor, their lives, their fortunes and their consciences.[1258]
ABUSES
Trivial quarrels such as this, developed until they distracted the attention of the king and his advisers, were constantly breaking out and bear testimony to the antagonistic spirit which was all-pervading. A long-standing cause of dissension in Logroño may be taken as a type of what was occurring in many other places. Local officials there, as elsewhere, had a perquisite in the publiccarnicería, or shambles, of dividing among themselves thevientresormenudos—the chitterlings—of the beasts slaughtered. It was not unnatural that the inquisitors and their subordinates should seek to share in this, but the claim was grudgingly admitted, as it diminished the portions of the town officers, and it led to bickerings. In 1572 Logroño complained to the Suprema that, while it was willing to give to each inquisitor themenudoof a sheep every week, the inferior officials, down to the messengers, claimed the same and, when there was not enough to go round, they caused the slaughter of additional sheep, in order to get their perquisite. As the population was poor, living mostly on cow-beef, and meat would not keep in hot weather, this caused much waste, wherefore the town begged that during the four hot months the inferior officials should be content with what the town officers received and during the other eight months it would endeavor to give them more. To this the Suprema graciously assented, but, in 1577, there was another outbreak, to quiet which the Suprema ordered the enforcement of the agreement. In 1584 trouble arose again and still more in 1593 and in 1601 it reached a point at which the tribunal summoned all the staff of the carnicería and scolded them roundly, giving rise to great excitement. Then in 1620 there was a worse outbreak than ever, owing to the refusal of the regidor to give to one of the inquisitorstwo pairs of sheep’s stones asked for on the plea that he had guests to breakfast. The angry inquisitor, thus deprived of his breakfast relish, induced the tribunal to summon the regidor before it and severely reprimand him, thus not only inflicting a grave stigma on him, but insulting the town, of which it complained loudly to the Suprema.[1259]It is easy to understand how trifles of the kind kept up a perpetual irritation, of which only the exacerbations appear in the records.
The privileges of the markets, in fact, were a source of endless troubles. It was recognized that both secular and ecclesiastical officials were entitled to the first choice and to be served first. Those of the Inquisition claimed the same privilege, not only in cities where there was a tribunal, but also where the scattered commissioners and notaries resided. That this was frequently resisted is shown by the formula of mandate to be used in such cases, addressed to the corregidor or alcaldes, setting forth that the rights in this respect of the aggrieved party had not been respected and that in future he should have the first and best (after the secular and ecclesiastical officials had been served) of all provisions that he required, at current prices, and this under penalty of twenty thousand maravedís, besides punishment to the full rigor of the law.[1260]It does not appear that there really was any legislation entitling the Inquisition to this privilege, but in the frequent troubles arising from its assertion, the inquisitors acted with their customary truculence. A writer, in 1609, who deprecates these quarrels, suggests as a cure that the king issue a decree that the representatives of the Inquisition shall have preference in purchasing and, at the same time, he tells of a case in Toledo where a regidor, who told the steward of the tribunal to take as many eggs as he wanted, but no more, was arrested and prosecuted, and of another in Córdova, where a hidalgo, who had bought a shad and refused to give it up to an acquaintance of a servant of an inquisitor, was punished with two hundred lashes and sent to the galleys.[1261]In 1608 the Suprema issued an injunction that purveyors of inquisitors should take nothing by force, the significance of which lies rather in theindication of existing abuses than in its promise of their removal.[1262]The claim of preference was pushed so far that in Seville, in 1705, there arose a serious trouble because the servant of an inquisitor detained boat-loads of fish coming to market, in order to make his selection, and it required a royal cédula of March 26, 1705, forbidding inquisitors to detain fish or other provisions on the way, or to designate bybanderillasthe pieces selected for themselves.[1263]When we consider the character of the slaves and servants thus clothed with authority to insult and browbeat whomsoever they chose, in the exercise of such functions, we can conceive the wrath and indignation stored up against their masters in the thousands of cases where fear prevented an explosion. It is true that the Suprema issued instructions that all purveyors should behave themselves modestly and give no ground of offence and that no one should be summoned or imprisoned for matters arising out of provisions, but as usual these orders were disregarded. Insolence would naturally elicit a hasty rejoinder which, as reported by the servant to his master, would imply disrespect towards the Holy Office, and severe punishment would be justified on that account.
Perhaps less irritating but more serious in its effects was the use made of the fuero by those engaged in trade. Inquisitor-general Deza, in 1504, issued a stringent prohibition against any salaried official having an interest, direct or indirect, in any business. Daily experience, he said, showed how much opprobrium and disturbance it brought upon the Inquisition, wherefore he decreed that it should,ipso facto, deprive the offender of his position and subject him to a fine of twenty thousand maravedís; he should cease to be an official as soon as contravention occurred and the receiver, under pain of fifty ducats, should cut off his salary. All officials cognizant of such a case should notify the inquisitor-general within fifteen days, under pain of major excommunication, and this order was to be read in all tribunals in presence of the assembled officials.[1264]
OFFICIALS AS TRADERS
The severity of this regulation indicates the recognized magnitude of the evil, and its retention in the compilation of Instructions shows that it was considered as remaining in force. Likeall other salutary rules, however, it was slackly enforced from the first and the Catalans took care to have the prohibition embodied in the bullPastoralis officii. It gradually became obsolete. A royal decree of August 9, 1725, in exempting from taxation the salaries of officials of the tribunal of Saragossa, adds that, if they possess property or are in trade, those assets are taxable, showing that their ability to trade was recognized.[1265]How aggravating was the advantage which they thus enjoyed can be gathered from a Valencia case of about 1750. Joseph Segarra, the contador of the tribunal, entered into partnership with Joseph Miralles, a carpenter, to bring timber from the Sierra de Cuenca. In the settlement Segarra claimed from Miralles a balance of 1779 libras; they entered into a formal agreement to accept the arbitration of Doctor Boyl, but Segarra rejected the award and Miralles sought to enforce it in the royal court. Then the tribunal intervened, asserting the award to be invalid because Segarra could not divest the Inquisition of its jurisdiction and it refused the request of the regent for a conference and a competencia.[1266]Evidently it was dangerous to have dealings with officials; they always had a winning card up the sleeve, to be played when needed.
As regards the great army of familiars, it was of course impossible to prevent them from trading. In fact traders eagerly sought the position in view of the advantages it offered of having the Inquisition at their backs, whether to escape payment of debts or to collect claims or to evade customs dues, or in many other ways, not recognized by the Concordias but allowed by the tribunals. The Suprema occasionally warned the inquisitors not to appoint men of low class, such as butchers, pastry-cooks, shoemakers and the like, or traders whose object was protection in their business,[1267]but no attention was paid to this; a large portion of the familiars was of this class, and the space occupied in the formularies by forms of levy and execution and sale and other similar matters shows how much business was brought to the tribunals by the collection of their claims.[1268]The opportunities thus afforded for fraudulent dealings, for evading obligations andfor enforcing unjust demands were assuredly not neglected and may be reckoned among the sources of the animosity felt for everyone connected with the Holy Office.
In the remarkable paper presented, in 1623, to the Suprema by one of its members, many of the abuses of the Inquisition are attributed to the indifferent character and poverty of the officials. It would be well, the writer says, to appoint none but clerics, holding preferment to support themselves and unencumbered with wife and children. They would not, when dying, leave penniless families, which obliges the inquisitor-general to give to the children their fathers’ offices, thus bringing into the tribunals men who cannot even read; an increase of salaries, also, would relieve them of the necessity of taking bribes under cover of fees, and thus would put a stop to the popular murmurs against them. The inquisitors moreover should have power of removal, subject to confirmation by the Suprema, for now their hands are tied; their subordinates are unruly and uncontrollable. The greatest injury to the reputation of the Holy Office arises from its bad officials, who recognize no responsibility. No one should be appointed to office, or as a familiar, who is a tailor, carpenter, mason or other mechanic; it is these people who cause quarrels with the secular authorities, for they have little to lose and claim to be inviolable. In short, if we may believe the writer, the whole body of the tribunals, except the inquisitors, was rotten; none of the officials, from the fiscals down, were to be trusted, for all were eagerly in pursuit of dishonest gains, robbing the Inquisition itself and all who came in contact with it, and to this he attributed its loss of public respect and confidence.[1269]
COMPLAINTS OF FEUDALISM
Matters did not improve, for the Suprema always defended the tribunals from all complaints, and its tenderness towards delinquents assured them of virtual impunity. At length, as we have seen, in 1703, Philip V made an attempt at reform. It was probably owing to this pressure that, in 1705, the Suprema issued a carta acordada prohibiting a number of special abuses and pointing out that, in regard to the proprieties of life, neither inquisitors nor officials obeyed the Instructions, consorting with improper persons and intervening in matters wholly foreign to their duties, thus rendering odious the jurisdiction of the Holy Office.[1270]From various incidents alluded to above it is evidentthat this produced little amendment but, when the vacillation of Philip V was succeeded by the resolute purpose of Carlos III and his able ministers, the power of the Inquisition to oppress was greatly curbed.
It was not alone the commonalty that had reason to complain of the extended jurisdiction claimed by the Inquisition. The feudal nobles, whose rights were already curtailed by the growth of the royal power, were restive under the interjection of this new and superior jurisdiction, which recognized no limitations or boundaries and interfered with their supremacy within their domains. Thus in 1553, the Duke of Najera complained that, in his town of Navarrete, the commissioner of the Inquisition had insulted his alcalde mayor and then, with some familiars, had forcibly taken wheat from his alguazil. Inquisitor-general Valdés wrote to the tribunal of Calahorra to investigate the matter and punish the officials if found in fault; the alcalde and alguazil were not to be prosecuted save for matters pertaining to the Inquisition and this not only in view of its proper administration but because he desired to gratify the duke.[1271]
A still more serious cause of complaint, to which the nobles were fully alive, was the release of their vassals from jurisdiction by appointment to office. In 1549, the Countess of Nieva appealed to Valdés, setting forth that Arnedo was a place belonging to the count; it was within three leagues of Calahorra and there had never been a familiar there until recently Inquisitor Valdeolivas had appointed some peasants in order to enfranchise them from the jurisdiction of their lord. It was not just that, while the count was absent from the kingdom on the king’s service, his peasants should be thus honored in order that they might create disturbance in the villages and interfere with the feudal jurisdiction.[1272]It may well be doubted whether her request for the revocation of the commissions was granted, but that her prevision of trouble was justified is seen in a case before the tribunal of Barcelona, in 1577, in which Don Pedro de Queral, lord of Santa Coloma, a powerful noble of Tarragona, endeavored to secure the punishment of two of his vassals, Juan Requesens, a miller, and his cousin Vicente. They were both familiars and seem to have been the leaders of a discontented opposition whichrendered Don Pedro’s life miserable. The trees in his plantations were cut down, his arms, over the door of his bayle in Santa Coloma, were removed and defaced, libellouscoplasagainst him were scattered around the streets, but the cousins, being familiars, were safe from his wrath. Don Pedro died but the trouble continued between his widow, the Countess of Queral and a new generation of Requesens, who succeeded to their fathers’ office of familiars. Finally, in 1608, she succeeded in convicting Juan Requesens of malicious mischief, but her only satisfaction was that he was reprimanded, warned and sentenced to pay the costs, amounting to 115½ reales.[1273]Such a case shows how feudalism was undermined and we can conceive how nobles must have writhed under the novel experience of rebellious vassals clothed with inviolability.
PERSISTENT ANTAGONISM
It is easy therefore to understand the detestation felt for the Inquisition by all classes—laymen and ecclesiastics, noble and simple. It was fully aware of this and constantly alleged it to the king when defending the tribunals in their quarrels, and when urging enlarged privileges as a protection against the hatred which it had excited. In its appeals against the curtailment of its jurisdiction in Aragon, it did not hesitate to admit that it had been hated there from the beginning and that its officials were so abhorred that they would not be safe if exposed to secular justice and, even as late as 1727, it repeated the assertion of the persistent hostility of the Aragonese.[1274]In Logroño, the inquisitors reported to the Suprema, in 1584, that it was a common saying among the people that their life consisted in discord with the tribunal and that it was death to them when there was peace.[1275]It was the same in Castile. The Córtes, in 1566, when encouraging Philip II to constrain the Flemings to admit the Inquisition, gave as a reason that his success there was necessary to the peaceful maintenance of the institution in Spain, thus intimating that, if the Flemings rejected it, the Castilians would seek to follow their example.[1276]In the same year the familiars alleged that the detestation in which they were held led them to be singled out for especial oppression in the billeting of troopsand, in 1647, the Suprema declared that nothing seemed sufficient to repress the hatred with which they were regarded, in support of which it instanced an unjust apportionment, in Cuenca, of an assessment of a forced loan.[1277]This hostility continued to the last, even though the decadence of the Inquisition in the eighteenth century diminished so greatly its powers of oppression. A defender of the institution, in 1803, commences by deprecating the hatred which had pursued it from the beginning; even in the present age, he says, of greater enlightenment, there is crass ignorance of its essential principles and a mortal opposition to its existence.[1278]
Thus, notwithstanding the Spanish abhorrence of Jews and heretics, the dread which the Inquisition inspired was largely mingled with detestation, arising from its abuse of its privileges in matters wholly apart from its functions as the guardian of the faith.
THEpermanent tribunals of the Spanish Inquisition were Toledo, Seville, Valladolid, Corte (Madrid), Granada, Córdova, Murcia, Llerena, Cuenca, Santiago (Galicia), Logroño and Canaries, under the crown of Castile, and Saragossa, Valencia, Barcelona and Majorca under the crown of Aragon. In addition were Sicily, Sardinia, Mexico, Lima and Cartagena de las Indias, which lie beyond the scope of the present work.
This distribution of the forces of the Inquisition was not reached until experience had shown the most effective centres of action. Numerous more or less temporary tribunals were erected and many changes occurred in the apportionment of territory. The following list makes no pretension to absolute completeness but contains the result of such allusions as I have met in the documents.
———
Alcaraz.For some years there was a tribunal fixed at Alcaraz. In 1495 Alonso Hernandez, presented for a canonry, is qualified as Inquisitor of Alcaraz and, in 1499, Alonso de Torres is appointed as inquisitor there.[1279]
Army and Navy.The fleet organized for the Catholic League which won at Lepanto seemed to require a tribunal to preserve it from heresy and Philip II procured from Pius V a brief of July 23, 1571, authorizing the inquisitor-general to appoint an inquisitor for each army of Philip II, whether by land or sea.[1280]The first appointment under this seems to have been Rodrigo de Mendoza, Inquisitor of Barcelona, whose commission asInquisidor de las Galerasis dated March 21, 1575,together with one for his notary, Domingo de Leon, and instructions as to his duties.[1281]He was succeeded by Gerónimo Manrique, who celebrated an auto de fe in Messina. After him was Doctor Juan Bautista de Cardona, but merely as commissioner, who served for two years, when Páramo, writing in 1598; tells us that the fleets were scattered and the office ceased to exist.[1282]If so, it was revived for, in 1622, we are told that Fray Martin de Vivanco, chaplain of the galleys of Sicily, was appointedInquisidor del Marand, in 1632, it is stated that when aPrincipe del Marwas appointed he took with him an inquisitor and officials and all prisoners arrested by them were delivered to the nearest tribunal when the galleys made port.[1283]
In later times the inquisitor-general was “Vicario géneral de los Reales Ejercitos de Mar y Tierra” and as such appointed sub-delegates to accompany the army, with the necessary powers. Thejurisdiccion castrenseenjoyed by military men did not exempt them in matters of faith from the Inquisition, but thesubdelegados castrensesseem to have possessed no judicial powers, and debate arose, in 1793 and again in 1806, whether they or the episcopal Ordinaries should be called in to vote with the inquisitors in the cases of soldiers.[1284]
Avila.When Torquemada built his convent of San Tomas in Avila he provided accommodations for an Inquisition and, in 1590, the prisoners accused of the murder of the Santo Niño de la Guardia were transferred thither from the tribunal of Segovia for trial. It continued to exist for some years and had connection with Segovia, for, June 9, 1499, Francisco González of Fresneda and Juan de Monasterio were appointed inquisitors of Avila and Segovia, residing sometimes in one city and sometimes in the other.[1285]
TRIBUNALS
Balaguer.There were autos de fe celebrated in Balaguer, August 15, 1490 and June 10, 1493, but these were held by the inquisitors of Barcelona as they did in Tarragona, Gerona, Perpignan and other places in their district. In 1517, however, there would seem to be a tribunal there for a letter of the Suprema relates to the murder of the assessor of the Inquisition of Balaguer. If so, it was probably withdrawn in consequence for, in 1518, the inquisitors of Barcelona areordered to publish edicts against those who molest the clergy of Balaguer for observing the interdict cast upon the town.[1286]
Barbastro.As early as 1488 there was a tribunal with inquisitors at Barbastro, but, in 1521, it was suppressed and incorporated with Saragossa.[1287]
Barcelona.Established in 1486. It claimed jurisdiction over the free Republic of Andorra, which was included by Arevalo de Zuazo in his visitation of 1595. Long after Roussillon and Cerdagne had been retroceded to France, the Barcelona inquisitors in 1695 still styled themselves “Inquisidores Apostólicos ... en el Principado de Cataluña y su partido, con los Condados do Rosellon y Cerdaña y los Valls de Aran y Andorra.”[1288]SeeLérida,Tarragona,Tortosa,Balaguer.
Burgos.There was originally a tribunal in Burgos but, in the redistricting by Ximenes it was included in Valladolid. In 1605, Philip III transferred the tribunal to Burgos, with orders to the inquisitors to eject any occupants of buildings that they might find suited to their purposes. In 1622 it was still rendering yearly reports of cases to the Suprema but, probably about 1630, it returned to Valladolid. When, in 1706, Madrid was captured by the Allies under Galloway and Las Minas, the court fled to Burgos, carrying the Inquisition thither, but its stay was short and it soon returned to the capital.[1289]
Cadiz.SeeXeres.
Calahorra.A tribunal was established here as early as 1493, when it celebrated an auto at Logroño. In 1499 it alternated between Calahorra and Durango. In the redistricting by Ximenes in 1509 it was incorporated with Durango, but was soon re-established. Cédulas of 1516, 1517, and 1520 indicate that at this time it was the tribunal of the enormous district of Valladolid, but in 1522 the Inquisition of Navarre was extended over Calahorra; then Navarre and Calahorra were separated, but in 1540 there was a redistribution, and Navarre and the Basque Provinces were added to Calahorra. In 1560 a partof the territory of Burgos was set off from Valladolid and added to Calahorra and, in 1570, the seat of the tribunal was definitely moved to Logroño,q. v.[1290]
Calatayud.Calatayud was the seat of an intermittent tribunal at least from the year 1488 for, in 1502, Ferdinand speaks of Joan de Aguaviva who for fourteen years had served it as barber-surgeon whenever it resided in Calatayud and one of the first presentations to a prebend, in 1488, was Martin Márquez, described as fiscal of the Inquisition of Calatayud. A letter of the Suprema, Jan. 22, 1519, addressed to the “Inquisitor of Calatayud” shows that it was still in existence, but it must soon afterwards have been merged into Saragossa.[1291]
Canaries.The zeal of Diego de Muros, Bishop of Canaries, did not wait for the extension of the Spanish Inquisition over his diocese, but led him to establish an episcopal one by proclamation of April 28, 1499. It was not until 1504 that Inquisitor-general Deza sent Bartolomé López de Tribaldos thither to establish a tribunal at Las Palmas, which seems to have commenced business Oct. 28, 1505. It continued thus to the end.[1292]
Cartagena.SeeMurcia.
Ciudad Real.A letter of Ferdinand, Nov. 8, 1483, announces the appointment of Licenciados Costana and de Balthasar as inquisitors for Ciudad Real. May 10, 1485, Ferdinand announces the transfer of Costana to Toledo, to which place the tribunal was removed.[1293]
Córdova.A tribunal was established in Córdova as early as 1482, at the instance of its bishop, the New Christian Alonso de Burgos. Its district comprised the bishoprics of Córdova and Jaen, the Abadía de Alcalá la Real, the Adelantamiento of Cazorla, with Ecija and Estepa, to which Granada was added after the conquest.[1294]SeeGranadaandJaen.
TRIBUNALS
Corte.The tribunal of Madrid was technically known asCorte. Madrid, originally a town of no special importance, belonged to the province of Toledo and was naturally under the jurisdiction of its tribunal. As the royal residence under Philip II and eventually the capital of the kingdom (except during the brief transfer to Valladolid, 1600-1606) it furnished a large part of the business of Toledo. Toledan inquisitors came there to make investigations and even to try cases, of which we have examples in 1590 and 1592.[1295]Something more than this was felt to be needed and the Suprema adopted the plan of calling inquisitors from other places to commence prosecutions and act under its instructions, of which the Licenciado Flores, Inquisitor of Murcia, in 1593, and Cifontes de Loarte, Inquisitor of Granada, in 1615, are examples.[1296]The presence of the inquisitor-general who did not hesitate to take action in emergencies, and that of an experienced commissioner, together with the frequent sojourn of one of the Toledo inquisitors enabled speedy action to be taken when requisite, as occurred in 1621 and again in 1624 and seemed to render superfluous the organization of a special tribunal.[1297]
Yet the want of it was felt, especially with the influx of Portuguese New Christians who multiplied in the capital. As the pressure increased Toledo furnished two assistant inquisitors to reside in Madrid, thus establishing a kind of subordinate court, but in 1637 it was reported that the establishment of a tribunal was positively resolved upon, with the added comment that this would sorely vex the Toledans.[1298]To their natural opposition is doubtless to be attributed the postponement of what, to a Spaniard of the period, would seem a necessity to the capital. It cannot have been long after this that one was organized for, in the matter of the confiscation of Juan Cote, commenced in Toledo, we find it, September 10, 1640, sitting in Madrid, with Francisco Salgado and Juan Adam de la Parra as inquisitors. In the same year they suggested that the case of Benito de Valdepeñas, on which they were engaged, should be sent to Toledo as more convenient for the witnesses, which was accordingly done.[1299]Toledan influence is doubtless responsible for the action of Arce y Reynoso, soon after his accession in 1643, in suppressing the new tribunal and restoring the business toToledo.[1300]The pressure, however, became too great and Arce y Reynoso was obliged to reverse his action. The date of the re-establishment may safely be assumed as 1650, for a list of penitents, reconciled by Corte from the beginning, starts with three in 1651 and their trials can scarce have been commenced later than 1650.[1301]Yet the relations between Toledo and Madrid continued intimate; in 1657, Lorenzo de Sotomayor styles himself as “Inquisidor Apostólico de la Inquisicion de la Ciudad y Reyno de Toledo y asistente de Corte;” to the end of the century the former always alluded to Corte as adespachoor office and not as a tribunal, and Corte seems to have sent its convicts to Toledo for their sentences to be published in the autos de fe.[1302]Its jurisdiction was strictly limited to the city, while the surrounding country remained with Toledo. In some respects its organization was peculiar. About 1750 we are informed that its inquisitors were drawn from other tribunals who continued them on their pay-rolls, their places being taken by appointees who served without salary until a vacancy occurred. Selection to serve in Corte was regarded as a promotion, leading to a place in the Suprema or to a bishopric, although the incumbent drew only the salary from his former tribunal with a Christmaspropinaof a hundred ducats. It had no receiver; the Suprema paid its expenses and presumably collected its fines and confiscations.[1303]
TRIBUNALS
Cuenca.Murcia and Cuenca were originally under one tribunal. Some trouble apparently arose, possibly connected with the episcopal Ordinaries, for Ximenes ordered, January 22, 1512, that cases originating in Murcia should be taken to Cuenca to be voted on and vice versa. Llorente says that in 1513 they were separated and Cuenca formed an independent tribunal, but documents as late as 1519 show them still connected, until, in 1520, we find Cuenca celebrating an auto. A letter of March 7, 1522, states that the pope has given to Cuenca the see of Sigüenza, without taking it from Toledo, because Toledo has never visited it although ordered to do so, and is not to do so in future. Then, May 31, 1533, the Suprema says that Toledo can exercise jurisdiction there without giving Cuenca cause of complaint, and, in 1560, Sigüenza was restored to Toledo, yet in 1584 we find Cuenca exercising jurisdiction as far north as Soria. There would seem to have been some connection maintained between Murcia and Cuenca for, in 1746,the former, in enumerating its personnel, specifies nine calificadores in Murcia and four in Cuenca.[1304]
Daroca.There would appear to have been for a time a tribunal in Daroca for, in the accounts of Juan Royz, receiver of Aragon, for 1498 there is an item of expenditure on the prison of the Inquisition there, which was duly passed.[1305]
Durango.SeeCalahorra. As defined by Ximenes, in 1509, Durango had jurisdiction over Biscay, Guipúzcoa, Alava and Calahorra, with some neighboring districts.[1306]
Estella.SeeNavarre.
Galicia, also known asSantiago. The earliest allusion to this tribunal occurs in a commission issued at Coruña, May 20, 1520, to Doctor Gonzalo Maldonado as Inquisitor of Santiago. It was probably some time before the tribunal was in working order but in 1527 it had caused sufficient alarm for the Suprema to write to João III of Portugal asking for the arrest and surrender of those who had fled from it and, in the same year, a warrant for three hundred ducats was drawn to be distributed among the inquisitors and officials of the Inquisition of Galicia. This was followed by a similar payment in 1528, showing that the tribunal was not self-sustaining.[1307]Apparently the harvest was scanty and the tribunal was allowed to lapse, until the scare about Protestantism called attention to the ports of the North-west as affording ingress to heretics and their books, for we hear nothing more about it until 1562, when Philip II, in letters of June 2nd and 26th informs the governor and officials of Galicia that Valdés had despatched Dr. Quixano there as inquisitor; they are no longer to prosecute cases of heresy as they have been doing but are to lend him all aid and favor and are to allow him to dispose as he pleases of the seats in his public functions, without disputes as to precedence. In 1566 we hear of Bartolomé de Leon as receiver there, which would indicate that it was at work and was making collections.[1308]Still, it had a struggle for existence, for it was discontinued early in 1568, but it was re-establishedwithin a few years, if Llorente is correct in saying that its first auto de fe was celebrated in 1573. A letter of Dr. Alva, its inquisitor, October 31, 1577, speaks of having, in the previous year, sentenced Guillaume le Meunier, he being the only inquisitor, with the advice of a single consultor, showing that the tribunal was sparingly equipped.[1309]In later years it became one of the active tribunals of the kingdom. Its district comprised Coruña, Pontevedro, Orense and Lugo.
Granada.Granada, after its capture, was included in the inquisitorial district of Córdova until, in 1526, the tribunal of Jaen was transferred thither.[1310]
Guadalupe.A temporary tribunal was organized here in 1485 which during its brief existence was exceedingly efficient (see p. 171).
Huesca.SeeLérida.
Jaca.A tribunal apparently existed here, which was annexed to Saragossa in 1521.[1311]
Jaen.A tribunal must have been established here about 1483, for two of its inquisitors took part in the assembly of Seville which framed the Instructions of 1484. It seems to have been discontinued, for September 2, 1501, Ferdinand ordered a certain Doña Beatrix of Jaen to abandon her house to the inquisitors sent thither, and to seek other quarters until they should finish the business that took them there. This indicates that only a temporary tribunal was intended but the situation was conveniently central and it was one of those retained by Ximenes in his reorganization of 1509, when he assigned to it the districts of Jaen and Guadix, with Alcaraz, Cazorla and Beas. It was still in existence in 1525, as shown by a royal letter of that date, but in 1526 it was suppressed and united with Córdova, the tribunal being transferred to Granada. In 1547, the official title of the tribunal was Córdoba y Jaen. Rodrigo tells us that it was re-established independently in 1545, but this is evidently an error and the name does not reappear in subsequent lists of tribunals.[1312]