Yes, there were complaints, let's look at one in the 13th century, during the first inquisitions into heretical depravity.

As part of my response to What sort of tortures were allowed, and disallowed, during the inquisitions of the 12-14th centuries?, I talked about complaints of torture against the inquisitor Jean Galand by the consuls of Carcassone, 50 years after the first establishment of inquisitions in southern France. Here they wrote to Galand:

We feel ourselves aggrieved in that you, contrary to the use and custom observed by your predecessors in the inquisition, have made a new prison, called the mur. Truly this could be called with good cause a hell. For in it you have constructed little cells for the purpose of tormenting and torturing people. Some of these cells are dark and airless, so that those lodged there cannot tell if it is day or night, and they are continuously deprived of air and light. In other cells there are kept miserable wretches laden with shackles, some of wood, some of iron. Nor can they lie down except on the frigid ground. They have endured torments like these day and night for a long time. In other miserable places in the prison, not only is there no light or air, but food is rarely distributed, and then only bread and water.

Many prisoners have been put in similar situations, in which several, because of severity of their tortures, have lost limbs and have been completely incapacitated. Many, because of the unbearable conditions and their great suffering, have died a most cruel death. In these prisons there is constantly heard an immense wailing, weeping, groaning, and gnashing of teeth. What more can one say? For these prisoners life is a torment and death a comfort. And thus coerced they say that what is false is true, choosing to die once rather than endure more torture. As a result of these false and coerced confessions not only do those making the confessions perish, but so do the innocent people named by them... [James Given, Inquisition and Medieval Society: Power, Discipline, and Resistance in Languedoc (Cornell, 1997)]

To be sure, 'torture' depends on your definition (see my other post linked above more about that), however it is clear that medieval western European society was neither settled on the appropriateness nor the efficacy of even minimalist ideas of torture for eliciting confessions. And in fact, the papacy itself did both authorize and restrict forced confession, the Ad exterpanda of Innocent IV on 1252 being the first such order after the establishment of inquisitions:

[Law 25.] The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs, as actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the sacraments of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them, as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed.

It becomes even more complicated when we realize that 'heads of state' (lords) and ecclesia could be the same thing in medieval European rule: a bishop, who might also be the inquisitor, might also be the secular lord of a jursidiction. One can see how suddenly the assignment of 'forced confession' to 'lay authority' (in moral theory, removing it from church jurisdiction and responsibility), creates problems for simple notions of one social group complaining about another's actions.

As I wrote in the preceding post, no matter who is the imprisoning authority, (remembering that imprisonment being a 'tortureless' method of extracting confession):

[...]we can see this as skillful use of the concept of 'torture-that-isn't-really-torture' by ecclesiastics; it allowed claims by popes, legates, inquisitors that it was simply 'imprisonment' and that the conditions of imprisonment were the fault of the imprisoned: they inflict it upon themselves. This is a more subtle view, but makes clearer our understanding of the relationship between Christian notions of sin and punishment within an ethic of self-punishment that are distinctly medieval, and which we live with today.

For further reading, I recommend the Given book above and, more generally, Torture by Edward Peters(Univ Penn, 1999) which is a standard text in the field.

edit: grammar, spelng

A similar question that I've always had: Is everything that Foucault said in Discipline and Punish regarding medieval torture and punishment actually true?

The Illustrated Guide To Law has an arc on the history of self incriminating that describes English attitudes towards torture. http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2317

To answer your question, it seems many in England were against torture, not necessarily because of the brutality but because they did not like coerced testimony.