A History of the Inquisition of Spain (Vol. 1-4). Henry Charles Lea

when this was done, the inquisitors complained that Nadal had done wrong in going to the judge after appealing to them, and that Domenech had not treated them with proper respect, so that some months were required to arrange a truce between them.[1095]

      Aragon was a source of greater trouble than Valencia. The popular spirit was more independent, it had resisted the introduction of the Inquisition until the murder of San Pedro Arbués had rendered further opposition impossible, it had been cheated of the fruits of the tenacity of Juan Prat and it possessed an institution peculiar to itself, designed to limit the encroachments of the sovereign power and well adapted to restrain the arrogance of anything less formidable than the mingled spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Holy Office.

      ARAGON

      The origin of the court of the Justicia of Aragon was fondly attributed by the Aragonese to the legendary times of the kingdom of Sobrarve and there is fair probability in the theory of the latest writer on the subject that it was derived by the Christians from the conquered Moors.[1096] In the thirteenth century the Justicia was already judge between the king and his subjects; every precaution was taken to render him independent; he was irremovable by the king and even his resignation was void; he could accept no office from the king; he was not liable to arrest and in a case of prosecution the Córtes sat in judgement on him; every person in the kingdom was required to obey his commands, to respect his decisions and to aid in their enforcement. His court consisted of his assessors or lieutenants, originally appointed by him, but subsequently by the king. The Córtes of 1528 increased the number to five, submitting fifteen names to Charles V, who selected five, while the rest were placed in a bolsa and drawn as vacancies occurred. They were virtually the equals of the Justicia, for the assent of a majority was required in all judgements and all precautions were taken to secure their independence.[1097] It is true that, in spite of the inviolability of the Justicia, there were cases on record in which Justicias had been made way with and that, on the suppression of the rising caused by Antonio Pérez, in 1591, the Justicia, Juan de Lanuza, was beheaded without trial, and in the ensuing Córtes of Tarazona the appointment of both Justicia and lieutenants was surrendered to the king.[1098] Nevertheless the court of the Justicia was regarded by the Aragonese with the greatest pride and reverence, as the safeguard of their liberties and the highest expression of judicial authority existing in the world; it was the bond that united the state and the foundation of its tranquillity. When the Justicia authorized the cry of Contrafuero! Viva la Libertad y ayuda á la Libertad! it summoned every citizen to sally forth in arms to defend the liberties of the land. Moreover, he had the power of withholding from execution all papal decrees, and his authority in ecclesiastical matters in general caused him to be popularly termed the married pope.[1099]

      So far as we are concerned, the power of the court was exercised through two processes, the manifestacion and the firma. The former was a kind of habeas corpus, under which a person had to be produced before it, either to be liberated on bail or to be confined in the carcel de manifestados—a special prison over which even the king had no jurisdiction. The summons of a manifestacion had to be obeyed, even if the subject were on the gallows with the halter around his neck, or if it was addressed to the highest secular or spiritual court of the land. It was a privilege to which every citizen was entitled; when, in 1532, Charles V sent orders that Don Pedro de Luna should be deprived of it, he was not obeyed, and a special envoy was sent to him in Germany, asking the prompt withdrawal of the command as, until the return of the messenger, the land would be in great suspense. The firma was of various kinds, but in general it was of the nature of an injunction, stopping all proceedings and summoning the parties before the court of the Justicia, where their cases would be determined, and it was especially useful in preventing arbitrary arrests and seizure of property. Failure to obey a firma was promptly followed by seizure of temporalities and, under a fuero of King Martin, it could be served on the king himself. One was served on Charles V, at Valladolid, and again one on the papal nuncio and, when the latter disregarded it, his temporalities were sequestrated. Such a jurisdiction could not fail to come into collision with the Inquisition, against which its powers were frequently invoked, and the favorite device of the tribunal, of evading service by closing its doors, was unavailing, for attaching the firma to the gates was held to be legal service. In 1561, the Justicia granted a manifestacion to Don Juan Francés del Ariño, in a case not of faith; the tribunal prepared to answer by fulminating excommunications, but the court issued a monitorio against it, when a settlement was reached which both parties considered satisfactory. In the same year, when the inquisitors arrested Bartolomé Garate, secretary of the court, it served a monitorio upon them and, in 1563, it did the same for the censures issued against Augustin de Morlanes, of the criminal council of the Audiencia. In 1626, when Pedro Banet, secretary of the tribunal, was accused of the murder of Juan Domingo Serveto, the action of the inquisitors led to the issue against them of a firma and monitorio, under which their temporalities were seized and this was followed by another firma, prohibiting the use of excommunication.[1100]

      ARAGON

      Under such institutions, animated by such a spirit, it was inevitable that the extension of the temporal jurisdiction of the Holy Office should provoke a bitter and prolonged conflict. We have seen the early struggles of this; how concessions were wrung from monarch and Inquisition, to be disregarded by them as soon as the momentary pressure had passed, and how the remonstrances of the Córtes of 1528 and 1533 were contemptuously brushed aside. The grievances were real and the Suprema knew them to be such, but the policy was invariable of denying their existence and refusing amendment when asked for by the sufferers. The temper in which complaints were heard was significantly manifested when, in 1533, the Córtes of Monzon adopted certain articles and presented them to Inquisitor-general Manrique and the Suprema, with the request that they should be adopted. Thereupon Miguel de Galbe, fiscal of the tribunal of Lérida, addressed to Manrique a formal accusation, naming four members of the Córtes, who seem to have been the committee deputed to communicate with the Suprema, asking that they and all who had advocated the articles should be prosecuted as fautors of heretics and impeders and disturbers of the Inquisition, while the articles in question should be publicly torn and burnt as condemned and suspect of heresy, injurious to the honor of God and prejudicial to the Holy Office.[1101] Parliamentary discussion had doubtless been warm and freedom of debate and legislation was contrary to the principles of the Holy Office. Possibly it was the unpleasant experience of the Suprema on this occasion that led it to keep away from the Córtes of Monzon in 1537 and to order the inquisitors to do likewise or, if their duties called them there, to keep silent. Thus, when the Córtes asked the emperor to make the Inquisition obey the laws, he was able to promise accordingly and then the Suprema could subsequently argue it away in a consulta.[1102]

      The remedial decree of Prince Philip, in 1545, was limited to Castile, and Aragon was coolly told that its customs were different. Abuses continued unchecked and at the Córtes of Monzon, in 1547, a long series of grievances was presented to the inquisitor-general, as though the crown had ceased to be a factor. The bull Pastoralis officii, by which Leo X had confirmed the Concordia of 1512, had limited the number of familiars to ten permanent ones in Saragossa and ten temporary ones elsewhere as needed, in place of which the number was between five hundred and a thousand; the bull had prescribed that they should be married men of good character, in place of which many were bandits and homicides and of notoriously evil life; the bull had ordered dismissal for officials and familiars who did not pay their debts or who engaged in trade, whereas the fuero was held to cover debts contracted and offences committed prior to appointment; when they became bankrupt they took refuge with the tribunal and the creditors were unpaid; if they were creditors of a bankrupt they seized all the assets and others got nothing; men procured appointments in order to revenge themselves in safety on their enemies; it was impossible to collect debts of them and this protection was extended even to women. A woman who claimed that her father had been a familiar was thus defended from her creditors; the brother of a notary of the tribunal, who had committed an offence, caused the aggrieved parties to be arrested and the inquisitors held them until they were forced to a compromise. How little hope there was of redress for all this is visible in the contemptuous indifference with which Inquisitor-general Valdés answered the several articles. As to bandits and homicides being made familiars, he said the Inquisition had need of all kinds of officials for its various functions, and as to the specific