Of the Same Matter,
Declaring more Particularly how the Question of Personal
Enmity is to be Investigated. The Seventh Action
TAKE
notice that only mortal enemies are debarred from giving
evidence, as was shown in the Fifth Question. But the
Judge may consider that to come to a decision about such
enmity by the means we have just explained is rather
dubious and unsatisfactory; and the accused or her
Procurator may not be willing to accept a decision
arrived at on such grounds as to whether the enmity is
mortal or not. Therefore the Judge must use other means
to decide concerning the alleged enmity, so that he may
not punish the innocent, but exact full justice from the
guilty. And though these means may savour of cunning and
even guile, yet the Judge may employ them for the good
of the faith and the State; for even S. Paul says: But
being crafty, I caught you by guile. And these means are
especially to be employed in the case of a prisoner who
has not been publically defamed, and is not suspected
because of the evidence of any fact; and the Judge may
also employ them against prisoners who have alleged
enmity on the part of the deponents, and wish to know
all the names of the witnesses.
The first
method is this. The accused or her Advocate is given a
copy of the process with the names of the deponents or
informers, but not in the order in which they deposed;
but in such a way that the name of the witness who comes
first in the copy is sixth or seventh in the schedule,
and he who comes second is last or last but one. In this
way the accused will be deceived as to which witness
deposed this or that. And then she will either say that
they are all her enemies, or not; and if she says that
they all are, she will be more easily detected in a lie
when the cause of the enmity is investigated by the
Judge; and if she names only certain ones, still the
cause of the enmity will be more easily investigated.
The second
method is similar, when the Advocate is given a copy of
the process, and separately a list of the names of the
deponents; but there are added other matters perpetrated
elsewhere by witches, but not set down in writing by the
witnesses or deponents. And so the accused will not be
able to say definitely that this one or that one is her
mortal enemy, because she does not know what they have
deposed against her.
The third
method was touched upon in the Fifth Question above. For
when the accused is questioned at the end of her second
examination, and before she has demanded to be defended
or an Advocate has been allotted to her, let her be
asked whether she thinks that she has any mortal enemies
who, setting aside all fear of God, would falsely accuse
her of the crime of heresy and witchcraft. And then
perhaps without thinking, and not having seen the
depositions of the witnesses, she will answer that she
does not think that she has any such enemies. Or if she
says, “I think I have,” and names any of the
witnesses who have laid information, and the reason for
that enmity is known, then the Judge will be able to
investigate it with more certainty afterwards, when the
accused has been given separate copies of the process
and of the names of the witnesses, in the manner we have
explained.
The fourth
method is this. At the end of her second examination and
confession (as we showed in the Sixth Question), before
she is granted any means of defence, let her be
questioned as to the witnesses who have laid the more
serious charges against her, in this manner. “Do you
know So-and-so?• naming one of the witnesses; and then
she will answer either Yes or No. If she says No, she
will not be able, after she has been given means of
defence and an Advocate, to plead that he is a mortal
enemy, since she has said on oath that she does not know
him. But if she says Yes, let her be asked whether she
knows or has heard that he or she has acted in any way
contrary to the Christian faith in the manner of a
witch. Then if she says Yes, for he did such and such a
thing; let her be asked whether he is her friend or
enemy; and she will immediately answer that he is her
friend, because of the testimony of such is not of very
great account; and consequently she will not be able
afterwards to plead an oath through her Advocate that he
is her enemy, for she has already said that he is her
friend. But if she answers that she knows nothing about
him, let her again be asked whether he is her friend or
enemy, and she will at once answer that he is her
friend; for it would be futile to allege enmity on the
part of someone of whom she knows nothing. Therefore she
says, “I am his friend, but if I knew anything about
him I would not fail to reveal it.” Therefore she will
not be able afterwards to plead that her is her enemy.
Or perhaps she will from the very beginning allege
reasons for mortal enmity, and in that case some
credence must be placed in the plea of the Advocate.
A fifth
method is to give the Advocate or the accused a copy of
the process, with the names of the informers suppressed.
And then the accused will guess, and very often rightly,
who has deposed such and such against her. And then if
she says, “So-and-so is my mortal enemy, and I am
willing to prove it by witnesses,” then the Judge must
consider whether the person named is the same person
named in the schedule, and since she has said that she
is willing to prove it by witnesses, he will examine
those witnesses and inquire into the causes of the
enmity, having secretly called into consultation learned
and aged men of known prudence. And if he finds
sufficient reasons for mortal enmity, he shall reject
that evidence and dismiss the prisoner, unless there are
other grave charges against her, sworn to by other
witnesses.
And this
fifth method is commonly used; and it is found in
practice that witches quickly guess from the copy of the
process who has laid information against them. And
because in such cases mortal enmity is rarely found
unless it arises from the wicked deeds of the witch,
therefore the Judge can easily come to a decision by the
above means. Also it is to be noted that often the
informers desire to confront the witch personally, and
to charge her to her face with the bewitchment which has
befallen them.
There is
still one more method whereunto the Judge may finally
have recourse, when perhaps the other methods, and
especially the first four, seem to some to savour too
much of cunning and deceit. Accordingly, to satisfy and
content the scrupulous, and that no fault may be found
with the Judge, let him take care, after he has found by
the above methods that there is no mortal enmity between
the accused and the deponent, but wishes to remove all
grounds for complaint by settling the question finally
in consultation with his other assessors, to act as
follows. Let him give to the accused or her Advocate a
copy of the process, with the names of the deponents or
informers suppressed. And since her defence is that she
has mortal enemies, and perhaps she has alleged various
reasons for the enmity, whether or not the facts are in
agreement with her statements, let the Judge call into
consultation learned men of every faculty (if such can
be had), or at least some honest and reputable persons
(for this is the purport of that statute we have so
often quoted); and let him cause the whole process to be
read through to them from end to end by the Notary or
scribe, and let the names of the witnesses be made known
to them, but under an oath of secrecy; and he shall
first inquire whether or not they are willing to be
bound by such an oath, for if not the names must by no
means be declared to them.
Then let him
tell how he has inquired in such and such a manner into
the alleged enmity, and has not been able to find any
testimony of fact. But he shall add that, if they
please, one of two courses shall be pursued. Either they
shall decide then and there in consultation whether the
evidence of any of the witnesses shall be rejected on
the grounds of mortal personal enmity; or let them
choose three or four or five persons who have most
knowledge in that town or village of any friendship or
enmity between the accused and the informer, who are not
present at the consultation, and let them be informed of
the names only of the accused and the witness, but not
of the information which has been deposed, and let the
whole question be left to their judgement. If they
follow the former of these courses, they cannot very
well reject any witness, since the Judge has already
used his own methods of investigation; but by the second
course he protects himself perfectly, and clears himself
of all ugly suspicions. And he ought to observe this
last method when the accused has been taken in a foreign
town or country. These methods will suffice for
examining the question of personal enmity.
|