cast in jail a notary who had ventured to draw up an appeal of the inhabitants of Carcassonne to the king.[1]
All this is interesting as an illustration of the spirit which pervaded every act of the Inquisition, but in reality no advocate could be of material service to the accused, save in the most exceptional cases. The men who organized the Holy Office knew too well what they wanted to leave open any possibilities of which even the shrewdest advocate could take advantage, and it was admitted on all hands as a recognized fact that there was no method of defence save disabling the witnesses for the prosecution. It has been seen that enmity was the only source of disability in a witness, and this had to be mortal — there must have been bloodshed between the parties, or other cause sufficient to induce one to seek the life of the other. If, therefore, the case rested on witnesses of this kind, their testimony had to be rejected and the prosecution fell. As this was the only possible mode of escape, the cruelty of withholding from the prisoner the names of the adverse witnesses becomes doubly conspicuous. He was forced to grope around in the dark and blindly name such persons as he imagined might have a hand in his misfortunes. If he failed to hit upon any who appeared in the case, the evidence against him was conclusive, as far as it went. If he chanced to name some of the witnesses, he was interrogated as to the causes of enmity ; the inquisitor examined into the facts of the alleged quarrel, and decided as he saw fit as to the retention or the rejection of their testimony. Conscientious jurists hke Gui Foucoix and inquisitors like Eymerich warned their brethren that as the accused had so slender a chance of guessing the sources of evidence, the judge ought to investigate for himself and discard any that seemed to be the product of malice ; but there were others who sought rather to deprive the poor wretch of every straw that might postpone his sinking. One device was to ask him, as though
- ↑ Concil. Biterrens. ann. 1246, Append, c. 8. — Concil. Campinacens. ann. 1238 c. 14. — Contre le Franc- Allen sans Tiltre, Paris, 1629, p. 216. — Fournier, Les Oflacialitgs, etc. p. 289. — C. 11, Extra v. 7.— Concil. Valentin, ann. 1248 c. 11. — Concil. Albiens. ann. 1254 c. 23. — Bernard. Guidon. Practica. P. iv. (Doat, XXX.).— Eymeric. Direct. Inquis. pp. 446, 452, 565, 568.— MSS. Bib. Nat, fonds latin, No. 14930, fol. 220. — Bernardi Comens. Lucerna Inquisitor, s. vv. Advocatus, Defensor. — Q. 13, § 7, Extra v. 7. —Alex. PP. IV. Bull. Cupientes, 4 Mart. 1260.— Arch, de l’Inq. de Carcassonne (Doat, XXXIV. 123).— Vaissette, IV. 72.
