CHAPTER VI.

REAPPEARANCE OF TORTURE.

The latter half of the twelfth century saw the study of the civil law prosecuted with intense ardor, and, in the beginning of the thirteenth, Innocent III. struck a fatal blow at the barbaric systems of the ordeal and sacramental compurgation by forbidding the rites of the Church to the one and altering the form of oath customary to the other. The unreasoning faith which had reposed confidence in the boiling caldron, or the burning ploughshare, or the trained champion as the special vehicle of Divine judgment, was fading before the Aristotelian logic of the schools, and dialectical skill could not but note the absurdity of acquitting a culprit because he could beg or buy two, or five, or eleven men to swear to their belief in his oath or denial.

Yet with all these influences at work, the ancestral customs maintained their ground long and stubbornly. It is not until the latter half of the thirteenth century that the first faint traces of legalized torture are to be found in France, at whose University of Paris for more than a hundred years the study of the Pandects had become the absorbing topic, and where the constantly increasing power of the crown found its most valuable instruments in the civil lawyers, and its surest weapon against feudalism in the extension of the royal jurisdiction. In Germany, the progress was even slower. The decline of the central authority, after the death of Frederic Barbarossa, rendered any general change impossible, and made the absolutist principles of the imperial jurisprudence especially distasteful to the crowd of feudal sovereigns, whose privileges were best supported by perpetuating organized anarchy. The early codes, therefore, the Sachsenspiegel, the Schwabenspiegel, the Kayser-Recht, and the Richstich Landrecht, which embodied the judicial proceedings of the Teutonic nations from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries, seem to know no other mode of deciding doubtful questions than sacramental purgation and the various forms of ordeal. During the latter portion of this period, it is true, torture begins to appear, but it is an innovation.[1538]

The first indications of the modern use of torture show distinctly that its origin is derived from the civil law. In the Latin Kingdoms of the East, the Teutonic races were brought into contact with the remains of the old civilization, impressive even in its decrepitude. It was natural that, in governing the motley collection of Greeks, Syrians, and Franks, for whom they had to legislate, they should adopt some of the institutions which they found in force amid their new possessions, and it is only surprising that torture did not form a more prominent feature in their code. The earliest extant text of the _Assises de Jerusalem_ is not older than the thirteenth century, and the blundering and hesitating way in which it recognizes, in a single instance, the use of torture shows how novel was the idea of such procedure to the feudal barons, and how little they understood the principles governing its application. When a murderer was caught in the act by two witnesses, he could be promptly hanged on their testimony, if they were strangers to the victim. If, however, they were relatives, their testimony was held suspect, and the confession of the accused was requisite to his conviction. To obtain this, he was subjected to torture for three days; if he confessed, he was hanged; if obdurate, he was imprisoned for a year and a day, with the privilege of clearing himself during that period by the ordeal of the red-hot iron. If he declined this, and if during his confinement no additional evidence was procured, he was acquitted, and could not be again appealed for the murder.[1539]

This show’s the transition state of the question. The criminal is caught with the red hand and the evidence of guilt is complete, save that the witnesses may be interested; confession thus becomes requisite, yet the failure to extort it by prolonged torment does not clear the accused; the ordeal is resorted to in order to supplement the torture, and solve the doubts which the latter could not remove; and finally, the criminal is absolved, though he dare not trust the judgment of God, and though the uncertainties in which torture had left the case are not removed.

Italy was the centre from which radiated the influences of the Roman law throughout Western Europe, and, as might be expected, it is to Italy that we must look for the earliest incorporation of torture in the procedures of modern criminal jurisprudence. The Veronese laws in force in 1228 already show a mixture of proceedings suggestive, like the Assises de Jerusalem, of the impending change. In doubtful cases, the podestà was empowered to ascertain the truth of testimony by either inquest, torture, or the duel.[1540] This shows that the employment of torture was by this time recognized to some extent, though as the code is a very full one and this is the only allusion to it, it evidently had not yet grown into one of the regular legal processes. So in the legislation of Frederic II. for his Neapolitan provinces, promulgated in 1231, the mode in which it is prescribed shows that it was as yet but sparingly employed. As Frederic was one of the earliest secular legislators who discountenanced and restricted the various forms of the ordeal, it was natural that, with his education and temperament, he should seek to replace them with the system of the Roman codes which he so much admired.

When a secret murder or other heinous crime was committed, and the most stringent investigation could not convict the perpetrators, if the weight of suspicion fell on persons of humble station and little consequence, they could be tortured for confession. If no torment could wring from them an acknowledgment of guilt, or if, as often happened (“prout accidere novimus in plerisque”), their resolution gave way under insufferable torment and they subsequently recanted, then the punishment, in the shape of a fine, was inflicted on the district where the crime had occurred.[1541] From this it is evident that torture was not exactly a novelty, but that as yet it was only ventured upon with the lowest and most unprotected class of society, and that confession during its infliction was not regarded as sufficient for conviction, unless subsequently ratified.

During the remainder of the century, the statutes of many of the Italian cities show the gradual introduction of torture to replace the barbarian processes which were not indigenous,[1542] and which the traditional hate of the Italian States for the Tedeschi was not likely to render popular. That by the middle of the century, indeed, the practical applications of torture had been profoundly studied and were thoroughly understood in all their most inhuman ramifications is sufficiently evident from the accounts which we possess of the fearful cruelties habitually practised by petty despots such as Eccelino da Romano.[1543]

The manner in which the use of torture thus in time was superimposed upon the existing customs of Europe is clearly shown in the law of Lubeck. The mercantile law of the Middle Ages disregarded, as we have seen, all the irregular forms of evidence, such as the ordeal, the judicial duel, &c., and it naturally was not favorable to torture. As the chief of the Hanse-towns Lubeck, therefore, in its legislation preserved the principles of the mercantile law, but in time these came to be expounded by a race of lawyers imbued with the ideas of the imperial jurisprudence, and little was left of the primitive simplicity of the original code. Thus the latter, when treating of adultery, simply provides that the accused must clear himself by oath, or be held guilty of the charge; but a commentary on it, written in 1664, assumes that as the crime is a peculiarly secret one recourse must be at once had to torture where there is colorable ground for suspicion.[1544]

About this time we also find, in the increasing rigor and gradual systematizing of the Inquisition, an evidence of the growing disposition to resort to torture, and a powerful element in extending and facilitating its introduction. The Church had been actively engaged in discountenancing and extirpating the ordeal, and it now threw the immense weight of its authority in favor of the new process of extorting confessions. When Frederic II., from 1220 to 1239, published his three constitutions directed against heresy, cruel and unsparing as they were, they contained no indication that torture was even contemplated as a mode of investigation. In conformity with the provisions of the Lateran Council of 1215, parties suspected on insufficient evidence were directed to prove their innocence by some fitting mode of purgation, and the same instructions were given by Gregory IX. in 1235.[1545] In 1252, however, when Innocent IV. issued his elaborate directions for the guidance of the Inquisition in Tuscany and Lombardy, he ordered the civil magistrates to extort from all heretics by torture not merely a confession of their own guilt, but an accusation of all who might be their accomplices; and this derives additional significance from his reference to similar proceedings as customary in trials of thieves and robbers.[1546] It shows the progress made during the quarter of the century and the high appreciation entertained by the Church for the convenience of the new system.

At first the canons of the Church, which prohibited ecclesiastics from being concerned in such matters, or even from being present, under pain of “irregularity,” rendered it necessary for inquisitors to call in the secular executioners; but this interfered with promptness and secrecy, and the difficulty was removed with characteristic indirection. A series of papal bulls from 1256 to 1266 authorized inquisitors and their assistants to grant mutual absolution and dispensation for irregularities,[1547] and thus they were able to take the business of inflicting torture into their own hands—an opportunity of which they availed themselves fully.

As yet, however, this did not extend beyond Italy. There is extant a tract, written not long after this time, containing very minute instructions as to the established mode of dealing with the Waldensian sectaries known as the “Poor Men of Lyons.” It gives directions to break down their strength and overcome their fortitude by solitary confinement, starvation, and terror, but it abstains from recommending the infliction of absolute and direct torture, while its details are so full that the omission is fair negative evidence that such measures were not then customary.[1548]

The whole system of the Inquisition, however, was such as to render the resort to torture inevitable. Its proceedings were secret; the prisoner was carefully kept in ignorance of the exact charges against him, and of the evidence upon which they were based. He was presumed to be guilty, and his judges bent all their energies to force him to confess. To accomplish this, no means were too base or too cruel. According to the tract just quoted, pretended sympathizers were to be let into his dungeon, whose affected friendship might entrap him into an unwary admission; officials armed with fictitious evidence were directed to frighten him with assertions of the testimony obtained against him from supposititious witnesses; and no resources of fraud or guile were to be spared in overcoming the caution and resolution of the poor wretch whose mind, as we have seen, had been carefully weakened by solitude, suffering, hunger, and terror. From this to the rack and estrapade the step was easily taken, and was not long delayed. In 1301, we find even Philippe le Bel protesting against the cruelty of Fulk, the Dominican Inquisitor, and interfering to protect his subjects from the refinements of torture to which, on simple suspicion of heresy, unfortunate victims were habitually exposed.[1549] Yet when, a few years later, the same monarch resolved upon the destruction of the Templars, he made the Inquisition the facile instrument to which he resorted, as a matter of course, to extort from De Molay and his knights, with endless repetition of torments, the confessions from which he hoped to recruit his exhausted treasury with their broad lands and accumulated riches.[1550]

The history of the Inquisition, however, is too large a subject to be treated here in detail, and it can only be alluded to for the purpose of indicating its influence upon secular law. That influence was immense. The legists who were endeavoring to eradicate the feudal customs could not expect the community to share their admiration of the Roman law, and naturally grasped with eagerness the advantage offered them in adducing the example of ecclesiastical institutions. In founding their new system they could thus hardly avoid copying that which presented itself under all the authority of an infallible Church, and which had been found to work so successfully in unveiling the most secret of hidden crimes, those of faith and belief.[1551] When, therefore, men were taught that in these cases the ordinary forms and safeguards of the law were not to stand in the way of the public good, a principle was enunciated capable of illimitable development.

About the time when Innocent IV. was prescribing torture in Italy, we find the first evidence of its authoritative use in France as an ordinary legal procedure. In December, 1254, an assembly of the nobles of the realm at Paris adopted an ordonnance regulating many points in the administration of justice. Among these occurs an order that persons of good reputation, even though poor, shall not be put to the torture on the evidence of one witness, lest, on the one hand, they may be forced to convict themselves falsely, or, on the other, to buy themselves off from the infliction.[1552]

This would seem to indicate that the system of judicial torture was so completely established that its evils and abuses had begun to render themselves apparent and to require restrictive legislation. Yet the contemporaneous remains of jurisprudence show no trace of the custom, and some of them are of a nature to render their silence a negative proof of no little weight. To this period, for instance, belongs the earliest extant coutumier of Normandy, published by Ludewig, and it contains no allusion to torture. The same may be said of the _For de Béarn_, granted in 1288, and recently printed by MM. Mazure and Hatoulet, which is very full in its details of judicial procedure. The collection of the laws of St. Louis, known as the _Établissements_, is likewise free from any instructions or directions as to its application, though it could scarcely have been omitted had it formed part of the admitted jurisprudence of the age. It may be argued, indeed, that these codes and laws assume the existence of torture, and therefore make no reference to it, but such an argument would not hold good with respect to the books of practice which shrewd and experienced lawyers commenced at that time to draw up for the guidance of courts in the unsettled period of conflict between the ancient feudal customs and the invading civil law. For instance, no text-book can well be more minute than the _Livres de Jostice et de Plet_, written about the year 1260, by a lawyer of the school of Orleans, then celebrated as the headquarters of the study of the imperial jurisprudence. He manifests upon almost every page his familiar acquaintance with the civil and canon law, and he could not possibly have avoided some reference to torture if it had been even an occasional resource in the tribunals in which he pleaded, and yet he does not in any way allude to it.

The same conclusion is derivable from the _Coutumes du Beauvoisis_, written about 1270 by Philippe de Beaumanoir. In his position as royal bailli, Beaumanoir had obtained the fullest possible familiarity with all the practical secular jurisprudence of his day, and his tendencies were naturally in favor of the new system with which St. Louis was endeavoring to break down the feudal customs. Yet, while he details at much length every step in all the cases, civil and criminal, that could be brought into Court, he makes no allusion to torture as a means of obtaining evidence. In one passage, it is true, he seems to indicate that a prisoner could be forced, while in prison, to criminate himself, but the terms employed prove clearly that this was not intended to include the administration of torment.[1553] In another place, moreover, when treating of robberies, he directs that all suspected parties should be long and closely confined, but that, if they cannot be convicted by external evidence, they must at last be discharged.[1554] All this is clearly incompatible with the theory of torture.

The _Conseil_ of Pierre de Fontaines, which was probably written about the year 1260, affords the same negative evidence in its full instructions for all the legal proceedings then in use. In these three works, notwithstanding the reforms attempted by St. Louis, the legist seems to imagine no other solution than the wager of battle for the settlement of doubtful cases, wherein testimony is insufficient. The form of trial is still public, in the feudal or royal courts, and every opportunity is given both for the attack and the defence. The work of de Fontaines, moreover, happens to furnish another proof that he wrote at the commencement of a transition period, during which the use of torture was introduced. In the oldest MSS. of his work, which are considered to date from 1260 to 1280, there is a passage to the effect that a man convicted of crime may appeal, if he has not confessed, or, when he has confessed, if it has been in consequence of some understanding (_covent_). In later MSS., transcribed in the early part of the fourteenth century, the word “covent” is replaced by “tourmenz,”[1555] thus showing not only the introduction of torture during the interval, but also that a conviction obtained by it was not final.

The Ordonnance of 1254, indeed, as far as it relates to torture, is asserted by modern criticism to have been applicable only to Languedoc.[1556] If so, its importance is reduced to a minimum, for in the document as registered in the council of Béziers in 1255, the section respecting torture is omitted,[1557] and this would seem to show that even in the south, where the traditions of the Roman law were continuous, torture was still regarded as an innovation not to be legally sanctioned. Still it was gradually winning its way against popular repugnance, for we have in 1260 a charter from Alphonse de Poitiers to the town of Auzon (Auvergne), in which he grants exemption from torture in all trials irrespective of the gravity of the crime.[1558]

While giving due weight, however, to all this, we must not lose sight of the fact that the laws and regulations prescribed in royal ordonnances and legal text-books were practically applicable only to a portion of the population. All non-nobles, who had not succeeded in extorting special privileges by charter from their feudal superiors, were exposed to the caprices of barbarous and irresponsible power. It was a maxim of feudal law that God alone could intervene between the lord and his villein—“Mès par notre usage n’a-il, entre toi et ton vilein, juge fors Deu”[1559]—the villein being by no means necessarily a serf; and another rule prohibited absolutely the villein from appealing from the judgment of his lord.[1560] Outside of law, and unauthorized by coutumiers and ordonnances, there must, under such institutions, have been habitually vast numbers of cases in which the impatient temper of the lord would seek a solution of doubtful matters, in the potent cogency of the rack or scourge, rather than waste time or dignity in endeavoring to cross-question the truth out of a quick-witted criminal.

Still, as an admitted legal procedure, the introduction of torture was very gradual. The _Olim_, or register of cases decided by the Parlement of Paris, extends, with some intervals, from 1255 to 1318, and the paucity of affairs recorded in which torture was used shows that it could not have been habitually resorted to during this period. The first instance, indeed, only occurs in 1283, when the Bishop of Amiens complains of the bailli of that town for having tried and tortured three clerks in defiance of the benefit of clergy which entitled them to exemption from secular jurisdiction. The bailli pleaded ignorance of their ecclesiastical character, and his plea was admitted as sufficient.[1561] The next instance of the use of torture is found in 1299, when the royal bailli of Senlis cites the mayor and jurats of that town before the Parlement, because in a case of theft they had applied the question to a suspected criminal; and although theft was within their competence, the bailli argued that torture was an incident of “haute justice” which the town did not possess. The decision was in favor of the municipality.[1562] The next year (1300) we find a clerk, wearing habit and tonsure, complaining that the royal officials of the town of Villeneuve in Rouergue had tortured him in divers ways, with ropes and heavy weights, heated eggs and fire, so that he was crippled, and had been forced to expend three hundred livres Tournois in medicines and physicians. This, with other proper damages, he prays may be made good to him by the perpetrators, and the arrêt of the Parlement orders their persons and property to be seized, and their possessions valued, in order that the amount may be properly assessed among them.[1563] Philippe le Bel, notwithstanding his mortal quarrel with the papacy—or perhaps in consequence of it—was ever careful of the rights and privileges of the clergy, among which the immunity from secular jurisdiction and consequently from torture was prominent. The case evidently turned upon that point.

The fourth case does not present itself until 1306. Two Jews, under accusation of larceny by their brethren, complain that they had been illegally tortured by the bailli of Bourges, and though one of them under the infliction had confessed to complicity, the confession is retracted and damages of three thousand livres Tournois are demanded. On the other hand, the bailli maintains that his proceedings are legal, and asks to have the complainants punished in accordance with the confession. The Parlement adopts a middle course; it acquits the Jews and awards no damages, showing that the torture was legal and a retracted confession valueless.[1564]

The fifth case, which occurs in 1307, is interesting as having for its reporter no less a personage than Guillaume de Nogaret, the captor of Boniface VIII. A certain Guillot de Ferrières, on a charge of robbery, had been tried by the judge of Villelongue and Nicolas Bourges, royal chatelain of Mont-Ogier. The latter had tortured him repeatedly and cruelly, so that he was permanently crippled, and his uncle, Étienne de Ferrières, Chatelain of Montauban, claims damages. The decision condemns Nicolas Bourges in a mulct of one thousand livres Tournois, half to Guillot for his sufferings and half to Étienne for his expenses, besides a fine to the crown.[1565] It is evident that judges were not allowed to inflict unlimited torment at their pleasure.

The sixth case, occurring in 1310, may be passed over, as the torture was not judicial, but merely a brutal outrage by a knight on a noble damsel who resisted his importunities: though it may be mentioned that of the fine inflicted on him, fifteen hundred livres Tournois enured to the crown and only one hundred to the victim.[1566]

The seventh case took place in 1312, when Michael de Poolay, accused of stealing a sum of money from Nicolas Loquetier, of Rouen, was subjected to a long imprisonment and torture at Château-Neuf de Lincourt, and was then brought to the Châtelet at Paris, where he was again examined without confession or conviction. Meanwhile, the real criminal confessed the theft, and Nicolas applies to the Parlement for the liberation of Michael, which is duly granted.[1567]

A long interval then occurs, and we do not hear of torture again until 1318, when Guillaume Nivard, a money-changer of Paris, was accused of coining, and was tortured by the Prevôt of the Châtelet. He contends that it was illegal, while the Prevôt asserts that his jurisdiction empowered him to administer it. The Parlement investigates the case, and acquits the prisoner, but awards him no damages.[1568]

The essentially common-place and trivial character of these cases has its interest in showing that the practice of appealing to the Parlement was not confined to weighty matters, and therefore that the few instances in which torture was involved in such appeals afford a fair index of the rarity of its use during this period. These cases, too, have seemed to me worth reciting, as they illustrate the principles upon which its application was based in the new jurisprudence, and the tentative and uncertain character of the progress by which the primitive customs of the European races were gradually becoming supplanted by the resuscitated Roman law.

A few instances, moreover, are on record in which torture was used in affairs of state. Thus in 1304 we find Charles of Valois torturing a Flemish beguine who was accused of an attempt to poison him. The mode adopted was the application of fire to the soles of the victim’s feet, and though she was said to have confessed, still he liberated her after a short imprisonment.[1569] In the frightful scandal, also, of the daughters-in-law of Philippe le Bel, which occurred in 1314, though torture does not seem to have been used in examining the principals, either the princesses or their paramours, it was freely employed upon the numerous persons who were accused as accessories.[1570] In 1315, during the long trial of Enguerrand de Marigny, sacrificed after the death of Philippe le Bel to the hatred of Charles of Valois, torture was freely used to obtain evidence from his dependents;[1571] and in the same year Raoul de Presles, accused of the death of the late king, was exposed to torture without obtaining a confession, and was finally liberated.[1572]

This undermining of the ancient customs had not been allowed to continue uninterrupted by protest and resistance. In the closing days of the reign of Philippe le Bel the feudal powers of France awoke to the danger with which they were menaced by the extension of the royal prerogative during the preceding half-century. A league was formed which seemed to threaten the existence of the institutions so carefully nurtured by St. Louis and his successors. It was too late, however, and though the storm broke on the new and untried royalty of Louis Hutin, the crown lawyers were already too powerful for the united seigneurie of the kingdom. When the various provinces presented their complaints and their demands for the restoration of the old order of things, they were met with a little skilful evasion, a few artful promises, some concessions which were readily withdrawn, and negatives carefully couched in language which seemed to imply assent.

Among the complaints we find the introduction of torture enumerated as an innovation upon the established rights of the subject, but the lawyers who drew up the replies of the king took care to infringe as little as they could upon a system which their legal training led them to regard as an immense improvement in procedure, especially as it enabled them to supersede the wager of battle, which they justly regarded as the most significant emblem of feudal independence.

The movement of the nobles resulted in obtaining from the king a series of charters for the several provinces, by which he defined, as vaguely, indeed, as he could, the extent of royal jurisdiction claimed, and in which he promised to relieve them from certain grievances. In some of these charters, as in those granted to Britanny, to Burgundy, and to Amiens and Vermandois, there is no allusion made to torture.[1573] In the two latter, the right to the wager of battle is conceded, which may explain why the nobles of those provinces were careless to protect themselves from a process which they could so easily avoid by an appeal to the sword. In the charter of Languedoc, all that Louis would consent to grant was a special exemption to those who had enjoyed the dignity of capitoul, consul, or decurion of Toulouse and to their children, and even this trifling concession did not hold good in cases of _lèse-majesté_ or other matters particularly provided for by law; the whole clause, indeed, is borrowed from the Roman law, which may have reconciled Louis’s legal advisers to it, more especially as, for the first time in French jurisprudence, it recognized the crime of _lèse-majesté_, which marked the triumph of the civil over the feudal law.[1574] Normandy only obtained a vague promise that no freeman should be subjected to torture unless he were the object of violent presumptions in a capital offence, and that the torture should be so regulated as not to imperil life or limb; and though the Normans were dissatisfied with this charter, and succeeded in getting a second one some months later, they gained nothing on this point.[1575]

The official documents concerning Champagne have been preserved to us more in detail. The nobles of that province complained that the royal prevôts and serjeants entered upon their lands to arrest their men and private persons, whom they then tortured in defiance of their customs and privileges (“contre leurs coustumes et libertez”). To this Louis promised to put an end. The nobles further alleged that, in contravention of the ancient usages and customs of Champagne (“contre les us et coustumes enciens de Champagne”), the royal officers presumed to torture nobles on suspicion of crime, even though not caught in the act, and without confession. To this Louis vaguely replied that for the future no nobles should be tortured, except under such presumptions as might render it proper, in law and reason, to prevent crime from remaining unpunished; and that no one should be convicted unless confession was persevered in for a sufficient time after torture.[1576] This, of course, was anything but satisfactory, and the Champenois were not disposed to accept it; but all that they could obtain after another remonstrance was a simple repetition of the promise that no nobles should be tortured except under capital accusations.[1577] The struggle apparently continued, for, in 1319, we find Philippe le Long, in a charter granted to Périgord and Quercy, promising that the proceedings preliminary to torture should be had in the presence of both parties, doubtless to silence complaints as to the secret character which criminal investigations were assuming.[1578]

The use of torture was thus permanently established in the judicial machinery of France as one of the incidents in the great revolution which destroyed the feudal power. Even yet, however, it was not universal, especially where communes had the ability to preserve their franchises. Count Beugnot has published, as an appendix to the _Olim_, a collection known as the _Tout Lieu de St. Disier_, consisting of 314 decisions of doubtful cases referred by the magistrates of St. Dizier to the city of Ypres for solution, as they were bound to do by their charter. This especially directed that all cases not therein provided for should be decided according to the customs of Ypres, and consequently, for two hundred and fifty years, whenever the eschevins of the little town in Champagne felt in doubt they referred the matter to the lordly burghers of Flanders as to a court of last resort. In the _Tout Lieu_ the cases date mostly from the middle third of the fourteenth century, and were selected as a series of established precedents. The fact that, throughout the whole series, torture is not alluded to in a single instance shows that it was a form of procedure unknown to the court of the eschevins of St. Dizier, and even to the superior jurisdiction of the bailli of their suzerain, the Seigneur of Dampierre. Many of these cases seem peculiarly adapted to the new inquisitorial system. Thus, in 1335, a man was attacked and wounded in the street at night. A crowd collected at his cries, and he named the assailant. No rule was more firmly established than the necessity of two impartial witnesses to justify condemnation, and the authorities of St. Dizier, not knowing what course to take, applied as usual for instructions to the magistrates of Ypres. The latter defined the law to be that the court should visit the wounded man on his sick-bed and adjure him by his salvation to tell the truth. If on this he named any one and subsequently died, the accused should be pronounced guilty; if, on the other hand, he recovered, then the accused should be treated according to his reputation: that is, if of good fame, he should be acquitted; if of evil repute, he should be banished.[1579] No case more inviting under the theory of torture could well be imagined, and yet neither the honest burghers of St. Dizier nor the powerful magnates of Ypres seem to have entertained the idea of its application. So, again, when the former inquire what proof is sufficient when a man accuses another of stealing, the answer is that no evidence will convict, unless the goods alleged to be stolen are found in the possession of the accused.[1580] The wealthy city of Lille equally rejected the process of torture. The laws in force there, about the year 1350, prescribe that in cases of homicide conviction ought to be based upon absolute evidence, but where this is unattainable then the judges are allowed to decide on mere opinion and belief, for uncertain matters cannot be rendered certain.[1581] In such a scheme of legislation, the extortion of a confession as a condition precedent to condemnation can evidently find no place.

Attempts to introduce torture in Aquitaine were apparently made, but they seem to have been resisted. In the Coutumier of Bordeaux, during the fourteenth century there is a significant declaration that the sages of old did not wish to deprive men of their liberties and privileges. Torture, therefore, was prohibited in the case of all citizens except those of evil repute and declared to be infamous. The nearest approach to it that was permitted was tying the hands behind the back, without using pulleys to lift the accused from the ground.[1582]

By this time, however, places where torture was not used were exceptional. An allusion to it in 1335 in the register of the court of the Priory of St. Martin-des-Champs shows that already it was not confined to the royal jurisdiction, but that it was recognized as an incident to the possession of haute justice.[1583] By a document of 1359, it appears that it was the custom to torture all malefactors brought to the Châtelet of Paris,[1584] and though privileged persons constantly endeavored to exempt themselves from it, as the consuls of Villeneuve in 1371,[1585] and the Seigneur d’Argenton in 1385,[1586] other privileged persons as constantly sought to obtain the power of inflicting it, as shown in the charter of Milhaud, granted in 1369, wherein the consuls of that town are honored with the special grace that no torture shall be administered except in their presence, if they desire to attend.[1587] At the end of the century, indeed, the right to administer torture in cases wherein the accused denied the charge was regularly established among the privileges of haute justiciers.[1588]

By this time criminal procedures were fully recognized as divisible into two classes—the _procès ordinaire_ and the _procès extraordinaire_. The former of these was carried on by the form of inquest, the latter by inquisition, in which torture was habitually employed. There were no definite rules to determine the class to which any given case might be referred, and though at the beginning of the fourteenth century the _procès ordinaire_, as its name infers, was the usual mode of trying criminals, gradually the choice between the two was left to the discretion of the judge, and this discretion leaned so constantly in favor of the _procès extraordinaire_ that by the close of the century it had become the rule rather than the exception.[1589]

This is very clearly shown by the records of the Châtelet of Paris from 1389 to 1392,[1590] which enable us to form a tolerably distinct idea of the part assigned to torture in the criminal procedure of this period. It had virtually become the main reliance of the tribunal, for the cases in which it was not employed appear to be simply exceptional. Noble blood afforded no exemption, for gentlemen were placed on the rack for petty crimes as freely as roturiers.[1591] No avenue of escape was open to the miserable culprit. If he denied the alleged offence, he was tortured at once for a confession, and no settled rules seem to have existed as to the amount of evidence requisite to justify it. Thus, in one case, a man on the _tresteau_ relating the misdeeds of his evil life chanced to mention the name of another as a professional thief. The latter was immediately arrested, and though there was no specific crime charged against him, he was tortured repeatedly until sufficient confession was extracted from him to justify his execution.[1592] If, on the other hand, the prisoner persistently denied his guilt there was no limit to the repetition of the torture, and yet, even when no confession could be thus extracted, the failure did not always serve to exempt him from punishment.[1593] If he retracted the confession extorted from him, he was tortured again and again until he ceased to assert his innocence, for it was a positive necessity for conviction that the confession under torture should be confirmed by the prisoner without constraint—“sans aucune force, paour ou contrainte de gehayne”—when sentence came to be passed upon him outside of the torture-chamber.

If, again, the luckless prisoner confessed the crime of which he stood accused, he was further promptly tortured to find out what other offences he might at some previous time have committed. This, which we will see hereafter, continued to be to the end one of the worst abuses of the torture system, was already a practice at least half a century old,[1594] and it had become so habitual that it is scarcely worth while to cite particular examples, though the case of Gervaise Caussois may be briefly referred to on account of its quaintness. Arrested for stealing some iron tools, he promptly confessed the crime. Among the reasons on record for proceeding to torture him in order to elicit an account of his other presumed misdemeanors, is included the excellent one, “attendu qu’il est scabieux.” Under the torment the poor wretch accused himself of some other petty thefts, but even this did not satisfy his examiners, for the next day he was again brought before them and bound to the _tresteau_, when he confessed a few more trifling larcenies. Having apparently thus obtained enough evidence to satisfy their consciences, his judges mercifully hanged him without further infliction.[1595] In fact, the whole matter apparently was left very much to the discretion of the court, which seems to have been bound by no troublesome limitations to its curiosity in investigating the past career of the miserable beings brought before it.

How that discretion was habitually exercised may be judged from the case of a certain Fleurant de Saint-Leu, who was brought up for examination Jan. 4, 1390, on the charge of stealing a silver buckle. Denying the accusation, he was twice tortured with increasing severity, until he confessed the alleged crime, but asserted it to be a first offence. On Jan. 8th the court decided that as the petty theft was insufficient to merit death, he should be tortured repeatedly to ascertain whether he had not been guilty of something else worthy of capital punishment. On that day he was therefore thrice exposed to the question, in an ascending scale of severity, but without success. On the 13th he was again twice tortured, when the only admission that rewarded the examiners was that three years before he had married a prostitute at Senlis. This uncommon obduracy seems to have staggered the court, for he was then kept in his dungeon until April 9th, when his case was carefully considered, and though nothing had been extorted from him since his first confession, he was condemned, and was hanged the same day—thus proving how purely gratuitous were the fearful sufferings to which he had been exposed in order to gratify the curiosity or satisfy the consciences of his remorseless judges.[1596]

Few criminals, however, gave so much trouble as Fleurant. The “petit et grand tresteaux,” on which the torture was customarily administered, were a sword which cut many a Gordian knot, and, by rendering the justice of the Châtelet sharp and speedy, saved the court a world of trouble. It was by no means unusual for the accused to be arraigned, tortured, condemned, and executed all on the same day,[1597] and not a few of the confessions read as though they were fictions composed by the accused in order to escape by death from the interminable suffering to which they were exposed. The sameness frequently visible in a long catalogue of crimes seems to indicate this, but it is especially notable in some singular cases of parties accused of poisoning wells throughout the north of France, when there was an evident necessity for the authorities to satisfy the excited populace by procuring them some victims, and the unfortunate wretches who were arrested on suspicion were tortured until they were ready to accuse themselves of anything.[1598] In one case, indeed, the prisoner stated that he had known a person tortured at the Châtelet with such severity that he died in the hands of his torturers, and for himself he declared, after one or two inflictions, that he would confess whatever would relieve him from a repetition of what he had endured.[1599]

Yet, with all this reckless disregard of the plainest principles of justice, the torture process had not yet entirely obliterated the memory of the old customary law. The prisoner was not, as we shall see practised hereafter, kept in ignorance of the charges against him and of the adverse testimony. The accusation was always made known to him, and when witnesses were examined, the record is careful to specify that it was done in his presence.[1600] The court deliberated in private, but the prisoner was brought before it to receive condemnation either to torture or to death. Facilities were likewise afforded him to procure evidence in his favor, when the swift justice of the Châtelet might allow him leisure for such defence, for his friends were allowed to see him in prison during the intervals of his trial.[1601]

Thus, in the capital, the royal power, aided by the civil lawyers, was fast encroaching upon all the liberties of the subject, but in the provinces a more stubborn resistance was maintained. It was some little time after the period under consideration that the ancient Coutumier of Britanny was compiled, and in it we find the use of torture, though fully established as a judicial expedient, yet subjected to much greater restrictions. A prisoner, accused of a capital crime and denying the charge, was liable to torture only if positive evidence was unattainable, and then only if he had been under accusation within the previous five years. Moreover, if he endured its application three times without confession, he was discharged acquitted as one in whose favor God would work a miracle[1602]—thus showing how torture was assimilated in the popular mind to the ordeal which it had supplanted. Such escape indeed might well be regarded as a miracle, for the reckless barbarity of the age had little scruple in pushing the administration of the question to the utmost rigor. About this same time, the Council of Reims, in 1408, drew up a series of instructions for the bishops of the province in visiting their dioceses; and among the abuses enumerated for investigation was whether the judges were in the habit of torturing prisoners to death on feast days.[1603] It was not the cruelty, but the sacrilege to which the Church took exception.

* * * * *

Even in Germany, the citadel of feudalism, the progress of the new ideas and the influence of the Roman law had spread to such an extent that in the Golden Bull of Charles IV., in 1356, there is a provision allowing the torture of slaves to incriminate their masters in cases of sedition against any prince of the empire;[1604] and the form of expression employed shows that this was an innovation. Liége, which at that period formed part of the empire, furnishes us with a case in 1376 which shows not only that torture then was an habitual resource in procedure, but also that it was applied as illogically there as we have seen it in Paris. The young wife of a burgher named Gilles Surlet was found one morning strangled in bed. The husband, as though conscious of innocence, at once presented himself to the authorities asserting with fearful oaths his ignorance of the crime. A servant girl of the household was then arrested, and she, without torture, immediately confessed that she had committed the murder; but the judges, not satisfied with this, submitted her to the question, when she denied her guilt with the most provoking constancy. Suspicion then grew against the husband, and he was duly tortured without extorting a confession, though at the same time he declared that the girl was innocent; and on being taken back to his cell he strangled himself during the night. The chronicler does not record what was the fate of the girl, but the body of Gilles was treated as that of a murderer—it was dragged to the place of execution and broken on the wheel, while the superstitious did not fail to note that on this dreary transit it was accompanied by a black hog, which refused to be driven away until the gallows was reached.[1605]

In Corsica, at the same period, we find the use of torture fully established, though subject to careful restrictions. In ordinary cases, it could only be employed by authority of the governor, to whom the judge desiring to use it transmitted all the facts of the case; the governor then issued an order, at his pleasure, prescribing the mode and degree to which it might be applied.[1606] In cases of treason, however, these limitations were not observed, and the accused was liable to its infliction as far and as often as might be found requisite to effect a purpose.[1607]

The Italian communities seem to have still at this period preserved some limitations on the application of torture. In Milan, in 1338, it could be only employed in capital cases where there was evidence or public repute; it could only be ordered by the lord of the city, his vicar, the podestà, and the criminal judges, and even these were heavily fined if they used it illegally or elsewhere than in the accustomed torture-chamber; the abuse of torturing witnesses had already been introduced, but the judge was warned that this could be done only when the witness swore to having been personally present and then varied in his testimony or gave false evidence. Torture, moreover, could only be inflicted once unless new evidence supervened.[1608] In the statutes of Mirandola, revised in 1386, it could not be employed in cases which did not involve corporal punishment or a fine of at least twenty-five lire; nor even then unless the podestà submitted all the evidence to the accused and gave him a sufficient and definite term in which to purge himself.[1609] In Piacenza, about the same period, torture was guarded with even more careful restrictions. There is no indication that witnesses were exposed to it. Every effort to obtain testimony was to be exhausted, and the accused was to be afforded full opportunities for defence before he could be subjected to it, and then there must be sufficient indications of guilt, mere rumor being inadequate to justify it. Moreover, except in cases of high treason, theft, highway robbery, assassination, and arson, a single judge could not order it, but the case had to be submitted to all the judges and the podestà, who determined by a majority in secret ballot whether it should be employed. If any of these formalities were omitted, the confession extorted was invalid, and the judge was mulcted in a fine of a hundred lire.[1610]

The peculiar character of Venetian civilization made torture almost a necessity. The atmosphere of suspicion and secrecy which surrounded every movement of that republican despotism, the mystery in which it delighted to shroud itself, and the pitiless nature of its legislation conspired to render torture an indispensable resource. How freely it was administered, especially in political affairs, is well illustrated in the statutes of the State Inquisition, where the merest suspicion is sufficient to authorize its application. Thus, if a senatorial secretary were observed to be more lavish in his expenditures than his salary would appear to justify, he was at once suspected of being in the pay of some foreign minister, and spies were ordered on his track. If he were then simply found to be absent from his house at undue hours, he was immediately to be seized and put to the torture. So, if any one of the innumerable secret spies employed by the inquisitors were insulted by being called a spy, the offender was arrested and tortured to ascertain how he had guessed the character of the emissary.[1611] Human life and human suffering were of little account in the eyes of the cold and subtle spirits who moulded the policy of the mistress of the Adriatic.

The rude mountaineers of the Valtelline preserved to a later date their respect for the ancient guarantees of the law. In their statutes as revised in 1548 torture is indeed permitted, but only in case of persons accused of crimes involving the penalty of blood. In accusations of less heinous offences and in matters concerning money, it was strictly forbidden; and even in cases where it was allowed it could not be employed without the assent of the central authority of the territory. When proceedings were had by inquisition, moreover, all the evidence was submitted to the accused, and a sufficient delay was accorded to him in which to frame a defence before he could be ordered to the torture. Thus were avoided the worst abuses to which the system had been made subservient long before that time in all the surrounding regions.[1612]

Other races adopted the new system with almost equal hesitation. Thus in Hungary the first formal embodiment of torture in the law occurs in 1514, and though the terms employed show that it had been previously used to some extent, yet the restrictions laid down manifest an extreme jealousy of its abuse. Mere suspicion was not sufficient. To justify its application, a degree of proof was requisite which was almost competent for condemnation, and the nature of this evidence is well exemplified in the direction that if a judge himself witnessed a murder, he could not order the homicide to be tortured unless there was other testimony sufficient, for he could not be both witness and judge, and his knowledge of the crime belonged to his private and not to his judicial capacity.[1613] With such refinements, there would seem to be little danger of the extension of the custom.

In Poland, torture does not make its appearance until the fifteenth century, and then it was introduced gradually, with strict instructions to the tribunals to use the most careful discretion in its administration.[1614] Until, at least, the seventeenth century, there remained in force laws of Casimir the Great promulgated in the fourteenth, prohibiting any prosecution not brought by a proper accuser, in whose presence alone could the matter be heard, thus showing that the inquisitorial process found no foothold in the Polish courts.[1615] In Russia, the first formal allusion to it is to be found in the Ulagenié Zakonof, a code promulgated in 1497, by Ivan III., which merely orders that persons accused of robbery, if of evil repute, may be tortured to supply deficiencies of evidence; but as the duel was still freely allowed to the accused, the use of torture must have been merely incidental.[1616] From another source, dating about 1530, we learn that it was customary to extort confessions from witches by pouring upon them from a height a small stream of cold water; and in cases of contumacious and stubborn criminals, the finger-nails were wrenched off with little wooden wedges.[1617] Still, torture makes but little show in the subsequent codes, such as the Sudebtnick, issued in 1550, and the Sobornoié Ulagenié, promulgated in 1648.[1618] In fact, these regions were still too barbarous for so civilized a process.

In addition to these national jurisdictions there was a wide field open to the use of torture in the spiritual courts established everywhere, for it was not confined to the secular tribunals and to the Inquisition. The latter had so fully familiarized the minds of churchmen with it that it came to be employed generally in the episcopal tribunals which, through their exclusive jurisdiction over clerks and over all matters that could be connected with spiritual offences, had considerable criminal business. We may assume, however, that in this respect they were limited by the laws of the land and were debarred from its use in countries where it was not allowed in secular matters. In 1310 it required the most urgent pressure from Clement V. to induce Edward II. to violate the common law by permitting the papal emissaries to torture the English Templars, and the King sought to conceal the illegality of the act by an order to the gaolers which bore that the inquisitors and episcopal ordinaries should be allowed to deal with the bodies of the prisoners “in accordance with ecclesiastical law,”[1619] showing how completely in the minds of men torture was identified with the spiritual courts. When the canons of the council of Vienne were promulgated in 1317 and the inquisitor Bernard Gui remonstrated with John XXII. against a clause intended to diminish the abuse of torture by inquisitors, he argued that it was a reflection on the Inquisition, because the episcopal courts were subject to no such restrictions on its use.[1620] The Church carried this blessing with it wherever it went. When in 1593 St. Toribio, Archbishop of Lima, sought to reform the abuses of the episcopal courts throughout his vast province, he issued an _arancel_ or tariff of fees for all their officials. In this we find that the executioner was not to charge more than a peso for torturing a prisoner, while the notary was entitled to two reales for drawing up a sentence of torture, and one real for each folio of his record of its administration and the confession of the accused.[1621]