Chapter X: Decline of the Torture System (8)

[1538] Cæsarius of Heisterbach, writing in 1221, gives a story of an occurrence happening in 1184 which, if not embellished by some later transcriber, would seem to indicate that the judicial use of torture was known at an earlier period than is stated in the text. A young girl, in the disguise of a man, was despatched with letters to Lucius III. by the partisans of Wolmar in his struggle with Rudolph for the bishopric of Trèves. Near Augsburg she was joined by a robber, who, hearing his pursuers approaching, gave her his bag to hold while he retired on some pretext to a thicket. Captured with the stolen property she was condemned, but she told her story to a priest in confession, the wood was surrounded and the robber captured. He was tortured until he confessed the crime. Then he retracted, and the question between the two was settled, at the suggestion of the priest, by the ordeal of hot iron, when the robber’s hand was burnt, and the girl’s uninjured. The tale is a long one, very romantic in its details, and may very probably have been ornamented by successive scribes.—Cæsar. Heisterb. Dial. Mirac. Dist. I. c. xl.

[1539] Assises de Jerusalem, Baisse Court, cap. cclix.

[1540] Lib. Juris Civilis Veronæ cap. 75 (p. 61).

[1541] Constit. Sicular. Lib. I. Tit. xxvii.

[1542] Du Boys, Droit Criminel des Peup. Mod. II. 405.

[1543] Monach. Paduan. Chron. Lib. II. ann. 1252-3 (Urstisii Script. Rer. German. p. 594).—Quotidie diversis generibus tormentorum indifferenter tam majores quam minores a carnificibus necabuntur. Voces terribiles clamantum in tormentis die noctuque audiebantur de altis palatiis.... Quotidie sine labore, sine conscientiæ remorsione magna tormenta et inexcogitata corporibus hominum infligebat, etc.

[1544] Mevii Comment. in Jus Lubecense, Lib. IV. Tit. vi. Art. 4 (Francofurt. 1664).

[1545] Concil. Lateran. IV. can. iii.—Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 293-5.—Harduin. Concil. VII. 164. See above, p. 89.

[1546] Teneatur præterea potestas seu rector omnes hæreticos quos captos habuerit, cogere citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum, tanquam vere latrones et homicidas animarum et fures sacramentorum Dei et fidei Christianæ, errores suos expresse fateri et accusare alios hæreticos quos sciunt, et bona eorum, et credentes et receptatores et defensores eorum, sicut coguntur fures et latrones rerum temporalium accusare suos complices et fateri maleficia quæ fecerunt.—Innocent IV. Bull. _Ad extirpanda_ § 26.

[1547] Alex. P. P. IV. Bull. _Ut negotium_, 7 Julii, 1256 (MSS. Doat, XXXI. 196).—Ripoll. Bullar. Ord. Prædic. I. 430.—Mag. Bullar. Roman. I. 132.

[1548] Trac. de Hæres. Paup. de Lugd. (Martene Thesaur. V. 1787). In the tract, Frederic II., who died in 1250, is spoken of as “quondam imperator.”

[1549] Clamor validus et insinuatio luctuosa fidelium subditorum ... processus suos in inquisitionis negotio a captionibus, quæstionibus et excogitatis tormentis incipiens personas quas pro libito asserit hæretica labe notatas, abnegasse Christum ... vi vel metu tormentorum fateri compellit.—Lit. Philip. Pulchri (Vaissette, Hist. Gén. de Languedoc, T. IV. Preuves p. 118).

[1550] The fearful details of torture collected by Raynouard (Mon. Hist. rel. à la Condamnation des Chev. du Temple) show that the Inquisition by this time was fully experienced in such work.

[1551] Simancæ de Christ. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 19.—To the Inquisition is likewise attributable another of the monstrous iniquities of criminal justice—the denial to the accused of the assistance of counsel. Under the customary law of the feudal courts, the avocat or “avantparlier” was freely admitted, but such privilege was incompatible with the arbitrary process of which the sole object was to condemn for a crime scarce susceptible of proof. The decretal against heretics issued in 1235 by Gregory IX. forbids all judges, advocates, and notaries from helping the suspected heretic under pain of perpetual deprivation of function—“Item, judices, advocati, et notarii nulli eorum officium suum impendant; alioquin eodem officio perpetuo sint privati” (Harduin. Concil. VII. 164); and the same rule was enjoined “ne Inquisitionis negotium per advocatorum strepitum retardetur” by the Council of Valence (can. xi.) in 1248 and that of Alby (can. xxiii.) in 1254 (Harduin. VII. 426, 461).

[1552] Personas autem honestas vel bonæ famæ, etiam si sint pauperes, ad dictum testis unici, tormentis seu quæstionibus inhibemus, ne ob metum falsum confiteri, vel suam vexationem redimere compellantur.—Fontanon, Edicts et Ordonn. I. 701.—A somewhat different reading is given by Isambert, Anciennes Loix Françaises I. 270.

[1553] Cil qui est pris et mis en prison, soit por meffet ou por dete, tant comme il est en prison il n’est tenus à respondre à riens c’on li demande fors es cas tant solement por quoi il fu pris. Et s’on li fet respondre autre coze contre se volenté, et sor ce qu’il allige qu’il ne veut pas respondre tant comme il soit en prison; tout ce qui est fait contre li est de nule valeur, car il pot tout rapeler quand il est hors de prison.—Beaumanoir, cap. LII. § xix.

[1554] Quant tel larrecin sunt fet, le justice doit penre toz les souspeçonneus et fere moult de demandes, por savoir s’il porra fere cler ce qui est orbe. Et bien les doit en longe prison tenir et destroite, et toz cex qu’il ara souspechonneus par malvese renommée. El si’l ne pot en nule maniere savoir le verité du fet, il les doit delivrer, se nus ne vient avant qui partie se voille fere d’aus acuser droitement du larrecin.—Ibid. cap. XXXI. § vi.

[1555] Si li bons n’est connoissans de son mesfet, ou s’il l’a coneu et ce a esté par covent, s’en li fait jugement, apeler en puet.—Conseil, ch. xxii. art. 28 (Édition Marnier, Paris, 1846).

[1556] Tanon, Registre Criminel de la justice de S. Martin-des-Champs, Introd. p. lxxxvi. (Paris, 1877); Vaissette, Ed. Privat, VIII. 1348.—L’Oiseleur (Les Crimes et les Peines, Paris, 1863, p. 113) says that it was enacted for the baillages of Beauvais and Cahors, but we have seen from Beaumanoir that torture was not used in the Beauvoisis.

[1557] Baluz. Concil. Gall. Narbon. p. 75.

[1558] Chassaing, Spicilegium Brivatense, p. 92.

[1559] Conseil ch. xxi. art. 8.

[1560] Fontaines, Conseil, art. 14. Et encor ne puisse li vileins fausser le jugement son seignor.

[1561] Actes du Parlement de Paris, I. 382 (Paris, 1863).

[1562] Olim. T. II. p. 451.

[1563] Olim. III. 49-50.

[1564] Ibid. III. 185-6.

[1565] Olim. III. 221-2.

[1566] Ibid. III. 505-6.

[1567] Ibid. III. 751-2.

[1568] Ibid. III. 1299.

[1569] Guill. de Nangis Continuat. ann. 1304.

[1570] Ibid. ann. 1314.

[1571] Ibid. ann. 1315.

[1572] Grandes Chroniques, T. V. p. 221 (Ed. Paris, 1837).

[1573] Isambert, Anciennes Loix Françaises, III. 131, 60, 65.

[1574] Ordonnance, 1^{ier} Avril, 1315, art. xix. (Ibid. III. 58).

[1575] Cart. Norman I. Mar. 1315, cap. xi. Cart. II. Jul. 1315, cap. xv. (Ibid. 51, 109).

[1576] Ordonn. Mai 1315, art. v. xiv. (Bourdot de Richebourg, III. 233-4).

[1577] Ordonn. Mars 1315, art. ix. (Ibid. p. 235). This ordonnance is incorrectly dated. It was issued towards the end of May, subsequently to the above.

[1578] Ordonn. Jul. 1319, art. xxii. (Isambert, III. 227).

[1579] Tout Lieu de Saint Disier, cap. cclxxii. (Olim, T. II. Append, p. 856).

[1580] Ibid. cap. cclxxiii.

[1581] Roisin, Franchises, Lois et Coutumes de Lille, p. 119. Thus, “on puet et doit demander de veir et de oir,” but when this is impossible, “on doit et puet bien demander et enquerre de croire et cuidier. Et sour croire et sour cuidier avoec un veritet aparent de veir et d’oir, et avoec l’omechide aparant, on puet bien jugier, lonc l’usage anchyen, car d’oscure fait oscure veritet.”

[1582] Rabanis, Revue. Hist, de Droit, 1861, p. 515.—No volgoren los savis antiquament qu’om pergossa sa franquessa ni sa libertat.

[1583] Registre Criminel de la Justice de St. Martin-des-Champs, p. 50.

[1584] Du Cange s. v. _Quæstionarius_.

[1585] Letters granting exemption from torture to the consuls of Villeneuve for any crimes committed by them were issued in 1371 (Isambert, V. 352). These favors generally excepted the case of high treason.

[1586] He pleaded his rank as baron as an exemption from the torture, but was overruled. Dumoulin, however, admits that persons of noble blood are not to be as readily exposed to it as those of lower station.—Desmaze, Les Pénalités Anciennes, d’après des Textes inédits, p. 39 (Paris, 1866).

[1587] Du Cange s. v. _Quæstio_ No. 3.

[1588] Pour denier mettre à question et tourment.—Jean Desmarres, Décisions, Art. 295 (Du Boys, Droit Criminel II. 48).

[1589] L. Tanon, Registre Criminel de la Justice de S. Martin-des-Champs, Introd. p. lxxxv. (Paris, 1877).

[1590] Registre Criminel du Châtelet de Paris. Publié pour la première fois par la Société des Bibliophiles Français. 2 tom. 8vo. Paris, 1864.

[1591] Ibid. I. 9, 14.

[1592] Ibid. I. 143. See also the similar case of Raoulin du Pré (p. 149), who recanted on the scaffold and protested his innocence “sur la mort qu’il attendoit à avoir et recevoir presentement,” but who nevertheless was executed. Also that of Perrin du Quesnoy (p. 164).

[1593] See the case of Berthaut Lestalon (Ibid. p. 501) accused of sundry petty thefts and tortured unsuccessfully. The court decided that in view of the little value of the articles stolen and of their having been recovered by the owners, the prisoner should be tortured again, when, if he confessed, he should be hanged, and if he still denied, he should have his right ear cropped and be banished from Paris. This logical verdict was carried out. No confession was obtained, and he was punished accordingly. Somewhat similar was the case of Jehan de Warlus (Ibid. p. 157), who was punished after being tortured five times without confession; also that of Jaquet de Dun (Ibid. p. 494).

[1594] In the Registre Criminel de St. Martin-des-Champs the cases are recorded with too much conciseness to give details as to the process, only the charge and the sentence being stated. It frequently happens, however, that a man convicted of some petty larceny is stated to have confessed more serious previous crimes, which necessarily implies their confession being extorted. See, for instance, the case of Jehannin Maci, arrested in 1338 for having in his possession two brass pots, the stealing of which he not only confessed but also “plusures murtres et larrecins avoir fais” for which he was duly drawn on a hurdle and hanged (_op. cit._ pp. 120-1). The case of Phelipote de Monine (p. 178) is also suggestive.

[1595] Registre Criminel du Châtelet de Paris, I. 36.

[1596] Ibid. I. 201-209.—Somewhat similar was the case of Marguerite de la Pinele (Ibid. p. 322), accused of stealing a ring, which she confessed under torture. As she did not, however, give a satisfactory account of some money found upon her, though her story was partially confirmed by other evidence, she was again twice tortured. This was apparently done to gratify the curiosity of her judges, for, though no further confession was extracted from her, she was duly buried alive.

Crimes for which a man was hanged or decapitated were punished in a woman by burying or burning. Jews were executed by being hanged by the heels between two large dogs suspended by the hind legs—a frightful death, the fear of which sometimes produced conversion and baptism on the gallows (Ibid. II. 43).

[1597] Ibid. I. pp. 1, 268, 289; II. 66, etc.

[1598] Ibid. I. 419-475.—The same result is evident in a very curious case in which an old sorceress and a young “fille de vie” were accused of bewitching a bride and groom, the latter of whom had been madly loved by the girl (Ibid. I. p. 327).

[1599] Ibid. I. 516.

[1600] Ibid. I. 151, 163, 164, 173-77, 211, 269, 285, 306, 350, etc.

[1601] See, for instance, the case of Pierre Fournet (Ibid. I. 516).

[1602] Très Ancienne Cout. de Bretagne, cap. CI. (Bourdot de Richebourg IV. 224-5)—“Et s’il se peut passer sans faire confession en la gehenne, ou les jons, il se sauveroit, et il apparestroit bien que Dieu montreroit miracles pour luy.”

[1603] Concil. Remens. ann. 1408, cap. 49 (Martene Ampliss. Collect. VII. 420).

[1604] Bull. Aur. cap. xxiv. § 9 (Goldast. I. 365).

[1605] Chron. Cornel. Zantfleit, ann. 1376 (Martene Ampl. Coll. V. 308-9).

[1606] Statut. Criminali cap. xiv. (Gregorj, Statuti di Corsica, p. 101).

[1607] Ibid. cap lx. (p. 163).

[1608] Statuta Criminalia Mediolani e tenebris in lucem edita, cap. 3, 24-28 (Bergomi, 1694).

[1609] Statuti della Terra del Comune della Mirandola, Modena, 1885, p. 91.

[1610] Statuta et Decreta antiqua Civitatis Placentiæ, Lib. v. Rubr. 96 (Placentiæ, 1560, fol. 63_b_).

[1611] Statuts de l’Inquisition d’Etat, 1^e Supp. §§ 20, 21 (Daru).

[1612] Li Statuti de Valtellina Riformati nella Cità di Coira nell’ anno del S. MDXLVIII. Stat. Crimin. cap. 8, 9, 10 (Poschiavo, 1549).

[1613] Synod. Reg. ann. 1514, Proœm. (Batthyani Legg. Eccles. Hung. I. 574). According to some authorities, this was a general rule—“Judex quamvis viderit committi delictum non tamen potest sine aliis probationibus reum torquere, ut per Specul. etc.”—Jo. Emerici a Rosbach Process. Criminal. Tit. V. cap. v. No. 13 (Francof. 1645).

[1614] Du Boys, Droit Criminel, I. 650.

[1615] Jo. Herb. de Fulstin. Statut. Reg. Polon. (Samoscii, 1597, p. 7).

[1616] Esneaux, Hist. de Russie, III. 236.

[1617] Pauli Jovii Moschovia.—This is a brief account of Russia, compiled about the year 1530, by Paulus Jovius, from his conversations with Dmitri, ambassador to Clement VII. from Vasili V., first Emperor of Russia. Olaus Magnus, in the pride of his Northern blood, looks upon the statement in the text as a slander on the rugged Russ—“hoc scilicet pro terribili tormento in ea durissima gente reputari, quæ flammis et eculeis adhibitis, vix, ut acta revelet, tantillulum commovetur”—and he broadly hints that the wily ambassador amused himself by hoaxing the soft Italian: “Sed revera vel ludibriose bonus præsul a versuto Muscovitici principis nuntio Demetrio dicto, tempore Clementis VII. informatus est Romæ” (Gent. Septent. Hist. Brev. Lib. XI. c. xxvi.). The worthy archbishop doubtless spoke of his own knowledge with respect to the use of the rack and fire in Russia, but the contempt he displays for the torture of a stream of water is ill-founded. In our prisons the punishment of the shower-bath is found to bring the most refractory characters to obedience in an incredibly short time, and its unjustifiable severity in a civilized age like this may be estimated from the fact that it has occasionally resulted in the death of the patient. Thus, at the New York State Prison at Auburn, in December, 1858, a strong, healthy man, named Samuel Moore, was kept in the shower-bath from a half to three-quarters of an hour, and died almost immediately after being taken out. A less inhumane mode of administering the punishment is to wrap the patient in a blanket, lay him on his back, and, from a height of about six feet, pour upon his forehead a stream from an ordinary watering-pot without the rose. According to experts, this will make the stoutest criminal beg for his life in a few seconds.

During the later period of our recent war, when the prevalence of exaggerated bounties for recruits led to an organized system of desertion, the magnitude of the evil seemed to justify the adoption of almost any means to arrest a practice which threatened rapidly to exhaust the resources of the country. Accordingly, the shower-bath was occasionally put into requisition by the military authorities to extort confession from suspected deserters, when legal evidence was not attainable, and it was found exceedingly efficacious.

[1618] Du Boys, _op. cit._ I. 618.

[1619] Quod iidem prælati et inquisitores de ipsis Templariis et eorum corporibus, quotiens voluerint, ordinent et faciant id quod eis, secundum legem ecclesiasticam, videbitur faciendum.—Rymer, Fœdera, III. 203.

[1620] C. 1 § 1 Clement, V. 3.—Bern. Guidonis Gravamina (MSS. Doat, XXX.).

[1621] Haroldus, Lima limata Conciliis etc. Romæ, 1672, pp. 75, 76.

[1622] Statut. S. Ludov. ann. 1254, §§ 20, 21 (Isambert, I. 270).

[1623] Thus Gratian, in the middle of the twelfth century—“Qui calumniam illatam non probat pœnam debet incurrere quam si probasset reus utique sustineret.”—Decreti P. II. caus. v. quæst. 6, c. 2.

[1624] Ordonnance, Mars 1498, §§ 110-116 (Isambert, XI. 365.—Fontanon, I. 710). It would seem that the only torture contemplated by this ordonnance was that of water, as the clerk is directed to record “la quantité de l’eau qu’on aura baillée audit prisonnier.” This was administered by gagging the patient, and pouring water down his throat until he was enormously distended. It was sometimes diversified by making him eject the water violently, by forcible blows on the stomach (Fortescue de Laudibus Legg. Angliæ, cap. xxii.). Sometimes a piece of cloth was used to conduct the water down his throat. To this, allusion is made in the “Appel de Villon”:—

“Se fusse des hoirs Hue Capel
Qui fut extraict de boucherie,
On ne m’eust, parmy ce drapel,
Faict boyre à celle escorcherie.”

[1625] Ordonn. de Villers Cotterets, Août 1539, §§ 162-164 (Isambert, XIII. 633-4). “Ostant et abolissant tous styles, usances ou coutumes par lesquels les accusés avoient accoutumés d’être ouïs en jugement pour sçavoir s’ils devoient être accusés, et à cette fin avoir communication des faits et articles concernant les crimes et délits dont ils étoient accusés.”

[1626] Anc. Cout. de Bretagne, Tit. I. art. xli.—D’Argentré’s labored commentary on this article is a lamentable exhibition of the utter confusion which existed as to the nature of preliminary proof justifying torture. Comment. pp. 139, sqq.

[1627] Nemo igitur de proprio crimine confitentem super conscientia scrutetur aliena.—Const. 17 Cod. IX. ii. (Honor. 423).

[1628] Nemini de se confesso credi potest super crimen alienum, quoniam ejus atque omnis rei professio periculosa est, et admitti adversus quemlibet non debet.—Pseudo-Julii Epist. II. cap. xviii.—Gratian. Decret. P. II. caus. v. quæst. 3, can. 5.

[1629] Inhærendo decretis alias per felicis recordationis Paulum papam quartum Sanctissimus dominus noster Pius papa quintus decrevit omnes et quoscunque reos convictos et confessos de heresi pro ulteriori veritate habenda et super complicibus fore torquendos arbitrio dominorum judicum.—Locati Opus Judiciale Inquisitorum, Romæ, 1570, p. 477.

[1630] Chéruel, Dict. Hist. des Institutions, etc. de la France, p. 1220 (Paris, 1855).

[1631] Isambert, XIV. 88. Beccaria comments on the absurdity of such proceedings, as though a man who had accused himself would make any difficulty in accusing others.—“Quasi che l’uomo che accusa sè stesso, non accusi più facilmente gli altri. E egli giusto il tormentare gli uomini per l’altrui delitto?”—Dei Delitte e delle Pene, § XII. A curious illustration of its useless cruelty when applied to prisoners of another stamp is afforded by the record of a trial which occurred at Rouen in 1647. A certain Jehan Lemarinier, condemned to death for murder, was subjected to the _question définitive_. Cords twisted around the fingers, scourging with rods, the strappado with fifty pounds attached to each foot, the thumbscrew were applied in succession and together, without eliciting anything but fervent protestations of innocence. The officials at last wearied out remanded the convict to prison, when he sent for them and quietly detailed all the particulars of his crime, committed by himself alone, requesting especially that they should record his confession as having been spontaneous, for the relief of his conscience, and not extorted by torment.—Desmaze, Les Pénalités Anciennes, p. 159, Paris, 1866.

[1632] Ordonnance Criminel d’Août 1670, Tit. xiv. xix. (Isambert, XIX. 398, 412).

[1633] Nicolas, Dissertation Morale et Juridique sur la Torture, p. 111 (Amsterd. 1682).

[1634] Déclaration du 13 Avril 1703 (Ordonnances d’Alsace, I. 340).

[1635] Coutumier de Picardie, Éd. Marnier, p. 88.

[1636] Registre Criminel de la Justice de S. Martin-des-Champs. Paris, 1877, p. 229.

[1637] Desmaze, Pénalités Anciennes, p. 204.

[1638] Bodini de Magor. Dæmonoman. Basil. 1581, pp. 325, 334, 390.

[1639] Scialojæ Praxis torquendi Reos c. i. No. 12 (Neap. 1653).

[1640] Thomæ Grammatici Decisiones Neapolitanæ, pp. 1275-6 (Venetiis 1582). Cf. Scialojæ _op. cit._ c. i. No. 22.

[1641] L’Oiseleur, Les Crimes et les Peines, pp. 206-7.

[1642] Braune Dissert. de Tortura Valetudinar. Halæ Cattor. 1740, p. 28.

[1643] Meyer, Institutions Judiciaires, IV. 285, 293.

[1644] Legg. Capital. Caroli V. c. lx. lviii.

[1645] Ibid. c. xx. lviii.

[1646] Ibid. c. lv. lvi. lvii.

[1647] Legg. Capital. Carol. V. c. xxii. lxix.

[1648] Ibid. c. xxviii.

[1649] Ibid. c. xxiii. xxi.

[1650] Ibid. c. xxxiii.-xliv.

[1651] Ibid. c. xx. lxi.

[1652] Ibid. c. lviii. lix. Accusatus, si periculum sit, ne inter vel post tormenta ob vulnera expiret, ea arte torquendus est, ne quid damni accipiat.

[1653] Heineccii Hist. Jur. Civ. Lib. II. §§ cv. sqq.—Meyer (Instit. Judiciaires, Liv. VI. chap. xi.) gives a very interesting sketch of the causes which led to the overthrow of the old system of jurisprudence throughout Germany. He attributes it to the influence of the emperors and the municipalities, each equally jealous of the authority of the feudal nobles, aided by the lawyers, now becoming a recognized profession. These latter of course favored a jurisprudence which required long and special training, thus conferring upon them as a class peculiar weight and influence.

[1654] My principal authorities are:—

Rerum Criminalium Praxis, by Josse Damhouder, a lawyer and statesman of repute in Flanders, where he held a distinguished position under Charles V. and Philip II. His work was received as an authority throughout Europe for two centuries, having passed through numerous editions, from that of Louvain, in 1554, to that of Antwerp, in 1750. My edition is of Antwerp, 1601.

Tractatus de Quæstionibus seu Torturis Reorum, published in 1592 by Johann Zanger, of Wittenberg, a celebrated jurisconsult of the time, and frequently reprinted. My edition is that of 1730, with notes by the learned Baron Senckenberg, and there is a still later one, published at Frankfort in 1763.

Practica Criminalis, seu Processus Judiciarius ad usum et consuetudinem judiciorum in Germania hoc tempore frequentiorem, by Johann Emerich von Rosbach, published in 1645 at Frankfort on the Mayn.

Tractatio Juridica, de Usu et Abusu Torturæ, by Heinrich von Boden, a dissertation read at Halle in 1697, and reprinted by Senckenberg in 1730, in conjunction with the treatise of Zanger.

Scialojæ Praxis torquendi Reos, Neapoli, 1653.

Tractatus de Maleficiis, nempe D. Alberti de Gandino, D. Bonifacii de Vitalianis, D. Pauli Grillandi, D. Baldi de Periglis, D. Jacobi de Arena. Venetiis, 1560.

[1655] Cum nihil tam severum, tam crudele et inhumanum videatur quam hominem conditum ad imaginem Dei ... tormentis lacerare et quasi excarnificare, etc.—Zangeri Tract. de Quæstion. cap. I. No. 1.

Tormentis humanitatis et religionis, necnon jurisconsultorum argumenta repugnant.—Jo. Emerici a Rosbach. Process. Crimin. Tit. v. c. ix. No. 1.

Saltem horrendus torturæ abusus ostendit, quo miseri, de facinore aliquo suspecti, fere infernalibus, et si fieri possit, plusquam diabolicis cruciatibus exponuntur, ut qui nullo legitimo probandi modo convinci poterant, atrocitate cruciatuum contra propriam salutem confiteri, seque ita destruere sive jure sive injuria, cogantur.—Henr. de Boden Tract. Præfat.

[1656] Zangeri cap. I. Nos. 49-58.

[1657] Zangeri cap. I. Nos. 59-88.—Knipschild, in his voluminous “Tract. de Nobilitate” (Campodun. 1693), while endeavoring to exalt to the utmost the privileges of the nobility, both of the sword and robe, is obliged to admit their liability to torture for these crimes, and only urges that the preliminary proof should be stronger than in the case of plebeians (Lib. II. cap. iv. Nos. 108-120); though, in other accusations, a judge subjecting a noble to torture should be put to death, and his attempt to commit such an outrage could be resisted by force of arms (Ibid. No. 103). He adds, however, that no special privileges existed in France, Lombardy, Venice, Italy, and Saxony (Ibid. Nos. 105-7). Scialoja expressly says (Praxis c. xiii. Nos. 40-49, 55) that in Naples no dignity, secular or ecclesiastical, except that of judges, conferred immunity from torture; and all privileges were set aside by a direct order from the sovereign.

[1658] Erphurdianus Variloquus, ann. 1514 (Mencken. Script. Rer. German. II. 527-8).

[1659] Grillandi de Quæst. et Tortura Q. vi.—Baldi de Periglis de Quæstionibus c. iii. § 4.—Alberti de Gandino de Quæstionibus §§ 7, 9, 36, 37.

[1660] Damhouder. Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxvii. Nos. 23, 24. Cf. Passerini Regulare Tribunal Quæst. xv. Art. ix. No. 117.

[1661] Emer. a Rosbach Process. Crimin. Tit. v. cap. xiv.

[1662] Simancæ de Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 50.

[1663] Willenbergii Tract. de Excess. et Pœnis Cleric. 4to. Jenæ, 1740, p. 41.

[1664] Braune Diss. de Tortura Valetudinar. p. 32.

[1665] Grillandi de Quæstione et Tortura, Q. vi. §§ 4, 6, 9.—Baldi de Periglis de Quæstionibus cap. i. § 4.

[1666] Zangeri _op. cit._ cap. I. Nos. 34-48.

[1667] Scialojæ c. xiii. No. 21.

[1668] Ibid. Nos. 24-30.

[1669] Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, Lipsiæ, 1742, pp. 46-8.

[1670] Braune Diss. de Tortura Valetudinar. pp. 24, 43.

[1671] Zangeri cap. V. Nos. 73-83.

[1672] Del Rio Magicarum Disquisit. Lib. v. Sect. iii. L.

[1673] Damhouder. _op. cit._ cap. xxxviii. Nos. 3, 4.—Rosbach. Tit. V. cap. xv. No. 14.—Simancas, however, declares that only two applications of torture are allowable (De Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. Nos. 76, 81).

[1674] Disquis. Magicar. Lib. V. sect. ix.

[1675] Assessores tamen honoris et avidi et cupidi hoc non servant imo quotidie quæstiones repetunt absque novis indiciis.—Baldi de Periglis de Quæstionibus cap. i. § 6. So also Alberti de Gandino de Quæstionibus § 20, and Bonifacii de Vitalianis, Rubr. _Quæ Indicia_ § 8.

[1676] Zangeri Præfat. No. 31.

[1677] Scialojæ _op. cit._ cap. i. No. 27.

[1678] Statuta Criminalia Communis Bononiæ (Bononiæ, 1525, fol. 15 _a_).

[1679] Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, pp. 52-3.

[1680] Zangeri Tract. Not. ad p. 903.

[1681] Grillandi de Quæst. et Tortura Q. vii.

[1682] Scialojæ _op. cit._ cap. i. No. 34.—Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 53.—Grillandi, _loc. cit._—Bernhard (Diss. Inaug. de Tort. cap. I. § iv.) states that in these cases not only the principals but even the witnesses could be tortured if suspected of concealing the truth.

[1683] Grillandi de Quæst. et Tortura, Q. V. § 6.

[1684] Baldi de Periglis de Quæstionibus cap. iii. § 2.—Damhoud. cap. xxxviii. No. 13.—Alberti de Gandino de Quæstionibus § 31.

[1685] Zangeri Præfat. No. 32.—Tortura enim datur non ad liquidandum factum sed personam.—Damhouder. Rer. Crimin. Prax. cap. xxxv. No. 7.

[1686] Process. Criminal. Tit. V. cap. ix. No. 17.

[1687] De Usu et Ab. Tort. Th. IX.—Qui aliter procedit judex, equum cauda frenat et post quadrigas caballum jungit.

[1688] Boyvin du Villars, Mémoires, Liv. VII.

[1689] Godelmanni de Magis Lib. III. cap. x.

[1690] Not. ad p. 907 Zangeri _op. cit._

[1691] Del Rio Magicar. Disquisit. Lib. V. sect. ix.

[1692] Grillandi de Quæst. et Tortura, Q. vi. § 10.

[1693] Simancæ de Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 56.

[1694] De Usu et Abusu Tort. Th. XIII.

It must not be supposed from this and the preceding extracts that von Boden was an opponent of torture on principle. Within certain bounds, he advocated its use, and he only deplored the excessive abuse of it by the tribunals of the day.

[1695] Quando quis dicatur competenter tortus vel non, similiter quando quis dicatur purgasse indicia vel non, omnia ista demum relinquuntur arbitrio et discretioni honesti judicis, quoniam in his certa regula tradi non potest.—Grillandi de Quæst. et Tortura Q. vii. § 10.—Cf. Godelmanni de Magis Lib. III. cap. x. § 36.—Baldi de Periglis de Quæstionibus cap. i. § 5.

[1696] Zangeri _op. cit._ cap. I. Nos. 42-44.

[1697] Ibid. cap. III. Nos. 20-22.

[1698] Baldi de Periglis cap. iii. § 7.

[1699] Bonifacii de Vitalianis, Rubr. _de Perseverentia_ § 5.—Alberti de Gandino, De Quæstionibus § 35.

[1700] Godelmanni l. c. § 54.

[1701] Cap. xxxviii. No. 18.

[1702] Zangeri cap. III. Nos. 20-22.

[1703] Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 74.

[1704] So thoroughly was this recognized, that in 1668 Racine represents a judge, desirous of ingratiating himself with a young girl, as offering to exhibit to her the spectacle of the question as an agreeable pastime.

“DANDIN. N’avez vous jamais vu donner la question?

ISABELLE. Non, et ne le verrai, que je crois de ma vie.

DANDIN. Venez, je vous en veux faire passer l’envie.

ISABELLE. Hé! Monsieur, peut-on voir souffrir les malhereux?

DANDIN. Bon! cela fait toujours passer une heure ou deux.”

_Les Plaideurs_, Acte III. Sc. dernière.

[1705] Fortescue, in his arguments against the use of torture, does not fail to recognize that the acquittal of a tortured prisoner is the condemnation of the judge—“qui judex eum pronuntiet innocentem, nonne eodem judicio judex ille seipsum reum judicat omnis sævitiæ et pœnarum quibus innocentem afflixit?”—De Laud. Legg. Angl. cap. xxii.

[1706] Occurrit hic cautela Bruni dicentis, si judex indebite torserit aliquem facit reum confiteri quod fuit legitime tortus, de qua confessione faciat notarium rogatum.—Rosbach. Process. Crim. Tit. V. cap. xv. No. 6.

[1707] Quoted by Nicolas, Diss. Mor. et Jurid. sur la Torture, p. 21. This mode of torture consisted in placing the accused between two jailers, who pummelled him whenever he began to doze, and thus, with proper relays, deprived him of sleep for forty hours. Its inventor considered it humane, as it endangered neither life nor limb, but the extremity of suffering to which it reduced the prisoner is shown by its efficaciousness.

Marsigli received much credit for this ingenious invention. Grillandus informs us that he experimented with it in a difficult case of two monks “et profecto vidi ea quæ prius non credebam, quod illud affert maximum tormentum et fastidium in corpore absque aliqua membrorum læsione.”—Grillandi de Quæstione et Tortura Art. ii.

I have purposely abstained from entering into the details of the various forms of torture. They may be interesting to the antiquarian, but they illustrate no principle, and little would be gained by describing these melancholy monuments of human error. Those who may be curious in such matters will find ample material in Grupen Observat. Jur. Crim. de Applicat. Torment., 4to., Hanov. 1754; Zangeri _op. cit._ cap. IV. Nos. 9, 10; Hieron. Magius de Equuleo cum Appendd. Amstelod. 1664, etc. According to Bernhardi, Johann Graefe enumerates no less than six hundred different instruments invented for the purpose. Damhouder (_op. cit._ cap. xxxvii. Nos. 17-23) declares that torture can legally be inflicted only with ropes, and then proceeds to describe a number of ingenious devices. One of these, which he states to produce insufferable torment without risk, is bathing the feet with brine and then setting a goat to lick the soles.

The strappado, or suspension by the arms behind the back with weights to the feet, was the torture in most general use and most favored by legal experts.—Grillandus, _loc. cit._

[1708] Augustin Nicholas, _op. cit._ pp. 169, 178.

[1709] Even this, however, was not deemed necessary in cases of conspiracy and treason “qui fiunt secreto, propter probationis difficultatem devenitur ad torturam sine indiciis”—Emer. a Rosb. Tit. V. cap. x. No. 20.

[1710] Fama frequens et vehemens facit indicium ad torturam (Zanger. c. II. No. 80. Cf. Alberti de Gandino de Quæst. § 39). Reus ante accusationem vel inquisitionem fugiens et citatus contumaciter absens, se suspectum reddit ut torqueri possit (Ibid. No. 91. Cf. Simancæ Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. Nos. 28-30). Inconstantia sermonis facit indicium ad torturam (Zanger. Nos. 96-99). Ex taciturnitate oritur indicium ad torturam (Ibid. No. 103). Physiognomia malam naturam arguit, non autem delictum (Ibid. No. 85). How exceedingly lax was the application of these rules may be guessed from a remark of Damhouder’s, that although rumor was sufficient to justify torture, yet a contrary rumor neutralized the first and rendered torture improper.—Damhouder. Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxv. Nos. 14, 15.

[1711] Deinde a pallore et similibus oritur indicium ad torturam secundum Bartol. (Emer. a Rosbach Tit. V. c. vii. Nos. 28-31). Whereupon von Rosbach enters into a long dissertation as to the causes of paleness.

[1712] Godelmanni de Magis Lib. III. cap. x. § 29.

[1713] Scialojæ cap. iii. Nos. 5, 6.

[1714] Judicis arbitrio relinquitur an indicia sint sufficientia ad torturam (Zanger. cap. II. Nos. 16-20). An indicia sufficiant ad torturam judicis arbitrio relictum est.... Indicia ad torturam sufficientia relinquuntur officio judicis (Emer. a Rosbach Tit. V. c. ii. p. 529). Damhouder, indeed, states that no rules can be framed—“neque ea ullis innituntur regulis: sed universum id negotium geritur penes arbitrium, discretionem ac conscientiam judicis.”—Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxvi. Nos. 1, 2. Cf. Braune Dissert. de Tortura Valetudin. Halæ Cattor. 1740.

So Grillandus (De Quæstione et Tortura Q. iii.)—“Quæ autem indicia dicantur esse sufficientia ad torturam certa regula tradi non potest, sed hoc relinquitur arbitrio et discretioni boni judicis.”

And Albertus de Gandino (De Quæstionibus § 14)—“Nec de his possit dari certa doctrina sed hoc committitur arbitrio judicantis.”

[1715] Sunt tamen nonnulli prætores et judices sanguine fraterno adeo inexsaturabiles ut illico quemvis malæ famæ virum, citra ulla certa argumenta aut indicia, corripiant ad sævissimam torturam, inclementer dicentes, cruciatum facile ab illis extorturum rerum omnium confessionem.—Damhouder. Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxv. No. 13.

[1716] Hipp. de Marsiliis Singularia, No. 455 (Venet. 1555).

[1717] Godelmanni de Magis Lib. III. cap. v. § 26.—Emer. a Rosbach Tit. V. c. x. No. 25.

[1718] Groot, Historia Eclesiastica y Civil de Nueva Granada, Bogotá, 1869, T. I. pp. 114-5, 116-20. Cf. Scialojæ Praxis torquendi Reos, cap. i. No. 25.

[1719] Rosbach Tit. V. cap. x. No. 2.

[1720] Ibid. Tit. V. cap. xiv. No. 16.—Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 54.—Grillandi de Quæst. et Tortura, Q. vii.

[1721] Scialojæ cap. xiv. Nos. 5-20.—Jo. Frid. Werner Dissert. de Tortura Testium, Erford. 1724, pp. 72 sqq.

[1722] Passerini Regulare Tribunal, Quæst. XV. Art. ix. No. 115 (Colon. Agripp. 1665).

[1723] Process. contr. Card. de Caraffa (Hoffman. Collect. Script. I. 632).

[1724] Scialojæ c. xiv. No. 2.

[1725] Statuta Criminalia Communis Bononiæ (Bononiæ 1525, p. 15 _b_).

[1726] Damhouder, _op. cit._ cap. xlvii. No. 3.

[1727] Passerini, _loc. cit._ Nos. 122-3.

[1728] Ibid. No. 118.

[1729] Simancæ de Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 73.

[1730] Zangeri, _op. cit._ I. Nos. 8-25.

[1731] Zangeri cap. IV. Nos. 25-30.—Damhouder, _op. cit._ cap. xxxvii. Nos. 15, 16.—Baldi de Periglis de Quæstionibus, cap. i. § 7.—Alberti de Gandino de Quæstionibus § 11.

[1732] Grilland. de Quæstione et Tortura Q. iv. §§ 2-10. “Quod tunc corpus ipsius rei dilaniatur membraque et ossa quodammodo dissolvuntur et evelluntur a corpore.”

[1733] Zangeri, _op. cit._ cap. III. No. 3.

[1734] Process. Criminal. Tit. V. cap. x. No. 7.

We have already seen (p. 514) that in France the accused was not allowed to see the evidence against him; and the same rule was in force in Flanders—“Toutes depositions de tesmoins en causes criminelles demeureront secrètes à l’égard de l’accusé.”—Coutume d’Audenarde, Stile de la Procedure, Art. 10. (Le Grand, Coutumes de Flandre, Cambrai, 1719, p. 103).

[1735] Diss. Inaug. cap. I. § xii.

[1736] Goetzii, _op. cit._ p. 36.

[1737] Zangeri, _op. cit._ cap. III. Nos. 1, 4, 5-43.

[1738] Process. Crim. Tit. V. cap. xi. No. 6.

[1739] Goetzii, _op. cit._ p. 35.

[1740] Zangeri cap. II. Nos. 49-50.—Cum enim confrontatio odiosa sit et species suggestionis, et remedium extraordinarium ad substantiam processus non pertinens, et propterea non necessaria.

[1741] Zangeri, cap. IV. Nos. 1-6.

[1742] Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 34.

[1743] Braune Dissert. de Tortura Valetudin. p. 16.

[1744] Process. Crimin. Tit. V. cap. ix. No. 10.

[1745] Zangeri cap. I. No. 37.

[1746] Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxviii. Nos. 6, 7.

[1747] Boden de Usu et Abusu Torturæ Th. XII. Damhouder declares this practice to be unjustifiable, though not infrequent (Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxvii. No. 12).—Bonifazio de’ Vitaliani speaks of it as a common but evil custom.—De Quæstionibus, Rubr. _Quæ indicia_, § 7.

[1748] He represents the judge as addressing his victim “Tu sei il reo di un delitto, dunque è possibile che lo sii di cent’ altri delitti: questo dubbio mi pesa, voglio accertarmene col mio criterio di verità: le leggi ti tormentano, perche sei reo, perche puoi esser reo, perche voglio che tu sii reo.”—Dei Delitti e delle Pene, § XII.

[1749] Martini Bernhardi Diss. Inaug. de Tortura cap. I. § 4. Scialoja, in 1653, assures us that this torture after confession to prevent appeals was no longer permitted in the Neapolitan courts, and that it was only allowed for the discovery of accomplices (Praxis torquendi Reos. c. i. Nos. 8-10).

[1750] Scialojæ, _op. cit._ cap. i. No. 14.

[1751] Damhouder, Rer. Crimin. Prax. cap. xxxv. No. 9, cap. xxxviii. No. 14.—Werner Dissert. de Tortura Testium, pp. 76 sqq.

[1752] Damhoud. cap. xxxix. No. 6.

[1753] Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 26.

[1754] Emer. a Rosbach Process. Criminal. Tit. V. cap. x. Nos. 8-16.—Simancæ Cath. Inst. LXV. 17.

[1755] Bernhardi, _loc. cit._ The difference between the practice and principles of the law is shown by the rules laid down in 1647 by Brunnemann, coexisting with the above. He directs that the proceedings are to be exhibited to the accused or his friends, and then submitted to a college of jurists who are to decide as to the necessity of torture, and he warns the latter that they can have no graver question placed before them—“Et sane nullam graviorem puto esse deliberationem in Collegiis Juridicis quam ubi de tortura infligenda agitur.”—Brunneman. de Inquisitionis Processu cap. VIII. Memb. iv. No. 10; Memb. v. No. 1.

[1756] Passerini Regulare Tribunal; Praxis, cap. viii. No. 170.

[1757] Louïse, Sorcellerie et Justice Criminelle à Valenciennes (Valenciennes, 1861, pp. 121-125).

[1758] Goetzii Diss. de Tortura, p. 71.

[1759] Bodin de Magor. Dæmonom. (Basil. 1581, p. 325).

[1760] Zangeri cap. V. Nos. 79-81.

[1761] Bernhardi Diss. Inaug. cap. I. § xi.

[1762] Emer. a Rosbach, _op. cit._ Tit. V. cap. xviii. No. 13.—Godelmanni de Magis L. III. cap. x. § 52.—Gerstlacheri Comment. de Quæst. per Tormenta, p. 35.—Grillandi de Quæst. et Tortura Q. vii. § 11. So Beccaria (Delitt. e Pene, § XII.)—“Alcuni dottori ed alcune nazioni non permettono questa infame petizione di principio che per tre volte; altre nazioni ed altri dottori la lasciano ad arbitrio del giudice.”

[1763] This custom prevailed in Electoral Saxony until the abrogation of torture (Goetzii Diss. de Tort. p. 33), and was especially the case at Amsterdam. Meyer (Institutions Judiciaires, IV. 295) states that the registers there afford scarcely an instance of a prisoner discharged without conviction after enduring torture.

[1764] Zanger. _loc. cit._

[1765] Bernhardi, cap. I. § xii.—Goetzii _op. cit._ p. 74.—Cf. Caroli V. Const. Crim. cap. XX. § 1.—Goetz (p. 67) derives _urpheda_ from _ur_ before, and _fede_ enmity.

[1766] Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 31.

[1767] Werner. Dissert. de Tortura, pp. 91-2.

[1768] Zangeri cap. II. Nos. 9-10; cap. V. Nos. 19-28.—Damhouder. _op. cit._ cap. xxxvi. No. 36.—Baldi de Periglis de Quæstionibus cap. ii. § 9.

[1769] Zangeri cap. V. Nos. 1-18.—Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, pp. 67-9.

[1770] Damhouder. _op. cit._ cap. xl. No. 3.—Bigotry and superstition, especially, did not allow their victims to escape so easily. In accusations of sorcery, if appearances were against the prisoner—that is, if he were of evil repute, if he shed no tears during the torture, and if he recovered speedily after each application—he was not to be liberated because no confession could be wrung from him, but was to be kept for at least a year, “squaloribus carceris mancipandus et cruciandus, sæpissime etiam examinandus, præcipue sacratioribus diebus.”—Rickii Defens. Aq. Probæ cap. I. No. 22.

[1771] Alberti de Gandino de Quæstionibus § 21.

[1772] Zangeri cap. V. No. 53-61.—Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 57.

[1773] Boden, _op. cit._ Th. V. VI.

[1774] Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 72.

[1775] Boden, _op. cit._ Th. V. VI.

[1776] Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 76. Distinction was sometimes made between crimes involving death or corporal punishment and those of lighter grade, but Goetz states that in his time (1742) in Saxony the above was the received practice.

[1777] Dissert. Mor. et Jurid. sur la Torture, pp. 36-7.

[1778] Ibid. p. 169.

[1779] Damhoud. Rer. Criminal. Prax. cap. 34, § 7.

[1780] Const. 7 Cod. IX. xviii.

[1781] Concil. Emeritan. ann. 666 can. xv.

In the middle of the thirteenth century, the Emperor Theodore Lascaris invented a novel mode of torture in a case of this kind. When a noble lady of his court was accused of sorcery, he caused her to be inclosed naked in a sack with a number of cats. The suffering, though severe, failed to extort a confession.—Georg. Pachymeri Hist. Mich. Palæol. Lib. I. cap. xii.

[1782] Bodini de Magorum Dæmonoman. Lib. IV. cap. 2.

[1783] Boguet, Discours des Sorciers, chap. lv. (Lyon, 1610).

[1784] Louïse, La Sorcellerie et la Justice Criminelle à Valenciennes (Valenciennes, 1861, pp. 133-64).—For other similar instances see Bodin, _op. cit._ Lib. IV. cap. 1, 2.

[1785] Bodin. Lib. I. cap. 2.

[1786] Per legales testes hujus rei ad convincendum fides certa haberi non potest.—Rickii Defens. Aquæ Probæ cap. III. No. 117.

[1787] Idque facilius in excepto et occulto difficilisque probationis crimine nostro sortilegii admiserim quam in aliis.—Disquisit. Magicar. Lib. V. Sect. iii. No. 8.

[1788] Boguet, Instruction pour un juge en faict de Sorcelerie, art. xxxii.

[1789] Soit pour ne trouver les délitz suffisament vérifiez, ou pour savoir tous les complices, _ou autrement_.—Chart. nouv. du Haynau, chap. 125, art. xxvi. (Louïse, p. 94).

[1790] Nicolas, p. 145. The curious reader will find in Del Rio (Lib. V. Sect. ix.) ample details as to the arts of the Evil One to sustain his followers against the pious efforts of the Inquisition.

[1791] “Qu’après qu’on eut lavé ses jambes, qui avoient été déchirées par la torture, et qu’on les eut présentées au feu pour y rapeller quelque peu d’esprits et de vigueur, il ne cessa pas de s’entretenir avec ses Gardes, par des discours peu sérieux et pleins de railleries; qu’il mangea avec apétit et but avec plaisir trois ou quatre coups; et qu’il ne répandit aucuns larmes en souffrant la question, ni après l’avoir souffert, lors même qu’on l’exorcisa de l’exorcisme des Magiciens, et que l’Exorciste lui dit à plus de cinquante reprises ‘præcipio ut si sis innocens effundas lachrymas.’”—Hist. des Diables de Loudon, pp. 157-8.

[1792] Rerum Crimin. Praxis Cap. xxxvii. Nos. 21, 22. Cf. Brunnemann. de Inquisit. Process. cap. VIII. Memb. v. No. 70.

[1793] Rickii _op. cit._ cap. I. No. 24.

[1794] Grillandi de Quæstione et Tortura, Art. iii. §§ 12-16. One of the conjurations is an allusion to the Crucifixion,

“Imparibus meritis tria pendent corpora ramis.
Dismas et Gestas, in medio est divina potestas.
Dismas damnatur, Gestas ad astra levatur.”

Another “Quemadmodum lac beatæ gloriosæ Mariæ virginis fuit dulce et suave domino nostro Jesu Christo, ita hæc tortura sit dulcis et suavis brachiis et membris meis.”

[1795] Boguet, Instruction pour un juge, art. xxix.—Damhouderi Rer. Crim. Prax. cap. xxxviii. No. 19.

[1796] Sprenger Mall. Maleficar. P. III. q. xvi. This was directly in contradiction to the precepts of the civil lawyers. Ippolito dei Marsigli says positively that a confession uttered in response to a promise of pardon cannot be used against the accused (Singularia, Venet. 1555, fol. 36 _b_). The Church, however, did not consider itself bound by the ordinary rules of law or morality. Marsigli in another passage (fol. 30 _a_) relates that Alexander III. once secretly promised a bishop that if he would publicly confess himself guilty of simony he should have a dispensation, and on the prelate’s doing so, immediately deposed him.

[1797] Bodin. Lib. IV. cap. I.

[1798] Boguet, Instruction, art. xxvii.

[1799] De Cathol. Instit. Tit. XIII. No. 12.

[1800] Disquisit. Magicar. Lib. V. Sect. x.

[1801] Father Tanner states that he had this from learned and experienced men.—Tanneri Tract. de Proc. adv. Veneficas, Quæst. II. Assert. iii. § 2.

[1802] Ibid. _loc. cit._

[1803] Nicolas, p. 164.

[1804] Chabot, Encyclopédie Monastique, p. 426 (Paris, 1827). For instances see Angeli Rumpheri Hist. Formbach. Lib. II. (Pez, I. III. 446).—A. Molinier in Vaissette, Ed. Privat, IX. 417.

[1805] “Ita torquatur ut nec plagam referat nec color cutis livescat.”—Grágás, Festathattr cap. xxxiii.

[1806] Grágás, Vigslothi cap. cxi.

[1807] Ibid. Vigslothi cap. lxxxviii.

[1808] Schlegel Comment. ad Grágás § xxix.

[1809] Legg. Cimbric. Woldemari Lib. II. cap. i. xl. (Ed. Ancher, Hafniæ, 1783).

[1810] Christiani V. Jur. Danic. Lib. I. cap. xx. (Ed. Weghorst, Hafniæ, 1698). Senckenberg (Corp. Jur. German. T. I. Præf. p. lxxxvi.) gives the chapter heads of a code in Danish, the _Keyser Retenn_, furnished to him by Ancher, in which cap. iv. and v. contain directions as to the administration of torture. The code is a mixture of German, civil, and local law, and probably was in force in some of the Germanic provinces of Denmark.

[1811] Legg. Opstalbomicæ ann. 1323 (_ap._ Gärtner, Saxonum Leges Tres. Lipsiæ, 1730).

[1812] Raguald. Ingermund. Leg. Suecor. Stockholmiæ, 1623.

[1813] Ll. Henrici I. cap. v. § 16.

A curious disregard of this principle occurs in the Welsh laws, which provide that when a thief is at the gallows, with the certainty of being hanged, his testimony as to his accomplices is to be received as sufficient without requiring it to be sworn to on a relic—the inseparable condition of all other evidence. By a singular inconsistency, however, the accomplice thus convicted was not to be hanged, but to be sold as a slave.—Dimetian Code, Bk. II. ch. v. § 9 (Owen I. 425).

[1814] Many interesting details on the influence of the Roman law upon that of England will be found in the learned work of Carl Güterbock, “Bracton and his Relation to the Roman Law,” recently translated by Brinton Coxe (Philadelphia, 1866). The subject is one which well deserves a more thorough consideration than it is likely to receive at the hands of English writers.

It is curious to observe that the _crimen læsæ majestatis_ makes its appearance in Bracton (Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 3, § 1) about the middle of the thirteenth century, earlier than in France, where, as we have seen, the first allusion to it occurs in 1315. This was hardly to be expected, when we consider the widely different influences exerted upon the jurisprudence of the two countries by the Roman law.

[1815] The passage which has been relied on by lawyers is chap. xxx.: “Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut dissaisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut aliquo modo destruatur; nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terræ.” If the law just above quoted from the collection of Henry I. could be supposed to be still in force under John, then this might possibly be imagined to bear some reference to it; but it is evident that had torture been an existing grievance, such as outlawry, seizure, and imprisonment, the barons would have been careful to include it in their enumeration of restrictions. Moreover, Magna Charta was specially directed to curtail the royal prerogative, and at a later period was not held by any one to interfere with that prerogative whenever the king desired to test with the rack the endurance of his loving subjects.

[1816] Et come ascuns felons viendrount en Jugement respondre de lour felonie, volons que ils viegnent dechausses et descients sauns coiffe, et a teste descouverte, en pure lour cote hors de fers et de chescun manere de liens, ïssint que la peine ne lour toille nule manere de rason, selon par force ne lour estouva mye respondre forsque lour fraunche volunte.—Britton, chap. v.

[1817] Per volunté aussi se fait ceste pesché [homicide] si come per ceux qui painent home tant que il est gehist pur avouer pesché mortelment.—Horne, The Myrror of Justice, cap. I. sect. viii.—See also Fleta, Lib. I. cap. xxvi. § 5.

[1818] Ou faussement judgea Raginald ... ou issint; tant luy penia pur luy faire conoistre, approver il se conoist faussement aver pesché ou nient ne pescha.—Horne, cap. II. sect. xv.

[1819] Pike (Hist. of Crime in England I. 427) quotes a document of 1189 which seems indirectly to show that torture could be inflicted under an order of the king. The expression is somewhat doubtful, and as torture had not yet established itself anywhere in Europe as a judicial procedure the document alleged can hardly be received as evidence of its legality.

[1820] See Fortescue de Laud. Legg. Angliæ. cap. xxxiii.—The jealousy with which all attempted encroachments of the Roman law were repelled is manifested in a declaration of Parliament in 1388. “Que ce royalme d’Engleterre n’estait devant ces heures, ne à l’entent du roy nostre dit seignior et seigniors du parlement unque ne serra rulé ne governé par la ley civill.”—Rot. Parl., II Ric. II. (Selden’s Note to Fortescue, _loc. cit._).

[1821] De Laudibus Legum Angliæ, cap. xxii.

[1822] See Jardine’s “Reading on the Use of Torture in the Criminal Law of England,” p. 7 (London, 1837), a condensed and sufficiently complete account of the subject under the Tudors and Stuarts.

[1823] Partim tormentis subjecti, partim crudelissime laniati, et partim etiam furca suspensi fuerant.—Wilkins Concil. III. 617.

[1824] Jardine, _op. cit._ pp. 8-9, 24-5. It is due to Sir Thomas to add that he earnestly begs Lord Burghley to release him from so uncongenial an employment.

[1825] Ibid. pp. 8, 47.

[1826] Bacon’s Works, Philadelphia, 1846, III. 126.

[1827] Strype’s Eccles. Memorials, III. 101.

[1828] Burnet, Hist. Reform. Bk. III. pp. 341-2.

[1829] According to Nicander Nucius (Travels, Camden Soc. 1841, pp. 58, 62), the investigation of these deceptions with the severest tortures, Βασάνοις ἀφορήτοις, was apparently the ordinary mode of procedure.

[1830] Diarium rerum gestarum in Turri Londinensi (Sanderi Schisma Anglicanum, _ad calcem_, Ingolstadt, 1586).

[1831] Sir William Skevington, a lieutenant of the Tower, under Henry VIII., immortalized himself by reviving an old implement of torture, consisting of an iron hoop, in which the prisoner was bent, heels to hams and chest to knees, and was thus crushed together unmercifully. It obtained the nickname of Skevington’s Daughter, corrupted in time to Scavenger’s Daughter. Among other sufferers from its embraces was an unlucky Irishman, named Myagh, whose plaint, engraved on the walls of his dungeon, is still among the curiosities of the Tower:—

“Thomas Miagh, which liethe here alone,
That fayne wold from hens begon:
By torture straunge mi truth was tryed,
Yet of my libertie denied.
1581. Thomas Myagh.” (Jardine, _op. cit._ pp. 15, 30).

[1832] Jardine, pp. 53, 57-8.

It is rather remarkable to find torture legalized at this period, even in qualified form of the _question définitive_ in the Colony of Massachusetts. The Body of Liberties, enacted in 1641, declares:—

“45. No man shall be forced by Torture to confesse any crime against himselfe nor any other, unlesse it be in some Capitall case where he is first fully convicted by cleare and suffitient evidence to be guilty, After which if the case be of that nature, That it is very apparent there be other conspiritours or confederates with him, Then he may be tortured, yet not with such Tortures as be Barbarous and inhumane.”—Whitmore’s Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, Boston, 1889 (N. Y. Nation, No. 1268, p. 318).

From this it would appear safe to conclude that this is a limitation on a pre-existing, more general use of torture.

[1833] Jardine, p. 65.

[1834] Lecky, Hist. of Rationalism, Am. ed. I. 122.—In his very interesting work, Mr. Lecky mentions a case, occurring under the Commonwealth, of an aged clergyman named Lowes, who, after an irreproachable pastorate of fifty years, fell under suspicion. “The unhappy old man was kept awake for several successive nights, and persecuted ‘till he was weary of his life, and was scarcely sensible of what he said or did.’ He was then thrown into the water, condemned, and hung.”—Ibid. p. 126.

[1835] Cobbett’s State Trials, VI. 686.—Although ostensibly not used to extort confession, this pricking was practically regarded as a torture. Thus in 1677 the Privy Council of Scotland “found that they (_i. e._, the inferior magistracy) might not use any torture by pricking or by withholding them from sleep” (_loc. cit._).

[1836] Spottiswoode Miscellany, Edinburgh, 1845, II. 67.

[1837] Rogers’s Scotland, Social and Domestic, p. 266.

[1838] Statut. Roberti III. cap. xvi. (Skene).

[1839] Lecky, _op. cit._ I. 145-6.—Rogers, _op. cit._ pp. 267-300.

[1840] I quote from Mr. Lecky (p. 147), who gives as his authority “Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials of Scotland.”

“But others and perhaps worse trials were in reserve. The three principal that were habitually applied were the penniwinkis, the boots, and the caschielawis. The first was a kind of thumbscrew; the second was a frame in which the leg was inserted, and in which it was broken by wedges driven in by a hammer; the third was also an iron frame for the leg, which was from time to time heated over a brazier. Fire matches were sometimes applied to the body of the victim. We read, in a contemporary legal register, of one man who was kept for forty-eight hours in ‘vehement tortour’ in the caschielawis; and of another who remained in the same frightful machine for eleven days and eleven nights, whose legs were broken daily for fourteen days in the boots, and who was so scourged that the whole skin was torn from his body.” These cases occurred in 1596.

These horrors are almost equalled by those of another trial in which a Dr. Fian was accused of having caused the storms which endangered the voyage of James VI. from Denmark in 1590. James personally superintended the torturing of the unhappy wretch, and after exhausting all the torments known to the skill and experience of the executioners, he invented new ones. All were vain, however, and the victim was finally burnt without confessing his ill-deeds (Ibid. p. 123).

[1841] Rogers, _op. cit._ p. 307.

[1842] Diurnal of Occurrences in Scotland (Spottiswoode Miscellany, II. 90-91).