Page:A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages-Volume I .pdf/502

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

neglected to expel heretic occupants ; it is found in the statutes of Florence a few years later, and is included in the papal bulls defining the procedure of the Inquisition. In France the Council of Toulouse, in 1229, decreed that any house in which a heretic was found was to be destroyed, and this was given the force of secular law by Count Kaymond in 1234. It naturally forms a feature of the legislation of the succeeding councils which regulated the inquisitorial proceedings, and was adopted by St. Louis. Castile, in fact, seems to be the only land in which the regulation was not observed, owing doubtless to the direct derivation of its legislation from the Koman law, for, in the Partidas, houses in which heretics were sheltered are ordered to be given to the Church. Elsewhere such dwellings were razed to the ground, and the site, as accursed, was to remain forever a receptacle for filth and unfit for human habitation ; yet the materials could be employed for pious uses unless they were ordered to be burned by the inquisitor who rendered the sentence. This sentence was addressed to the parish priest, with directions to pubhsh it for three successive Sundays during divine service.[1]

In France the royal officials in charge of the confiscations came at length to object to this destruction of property, which, was sometimes considerable, as the castle of the seigneur was as liable to it as the cabin of the peasant. In 1329 it forms one of the points for which the Inquisitor of Carcassonne, Henri de Chamay, asked and obtained the confirmation of Philippe de Valois, and the same year he had the satisfaction, in an auto held in September, to order the destruction of four houses, and a farm, whose owners had been hereticated in them on their death-beds. Some fifty years later, however, a quarrel on the subject between the king's representatives and the inquisitors of Dauphine resulted differently. Charles le Sage, after consulting with the pope, issued letters of

  1. Constt, v., vin. § 3, Cod. I. v. — Assis. Clarendon. Art. 21. — Lami, Antichitit Toscane, p. 124.— Hist. Diplom. Frid. II. T. IV. pp. 299-300.— Lib. Juris Civilis Veronse c. 156 (Ed. 1728, p. 117).— Alex. PP. IV. Bull. Ad extirpanda, § 21.— Concil. Tolosan. ann. 1229 c. 6.— Statut. Raymondi ann. 1234 (Harduin. Vlt. 203).— Vaissette, HI. Pr. 370-1. — Concil. Biterrens. ann. 1246, Append, c. 35. — Concil. Albiens. ann. 1254 c. 6. — Établissements, Liv. i. c. 36. — Siete Partidas, P. vii. Tit. xxvi. 1. 5.— Bern. Guidon. Practica (Doat, XXIX. 89).— Lib. Sententt. Inq. Tolosan. pp. 4, 80-1, 168.