Part 35

The exact date of _Gray's Inn_ becoming the residence of lawyers is not known, though it was so occupied before the year 1370. The inn stands upon the site of the manor of Portpoole, belonging in ancient times to the dean and chapter of St Paul's, but subsequently the property of the family of Grey de Wilton and eventually of the crown, from which a grant of the manor or inn was obtained, many years since discharged from any rent or payment. The hall of the inn is of handsome design, similar to the Middle Temple hall in its general character and arrangements, and was completed about the year 1560. The chapel, of much earlier date than the hall, has, notwithstanding its antiquity, little to recommend it to notice, being small and insignificant, and lacking architectural features of any kind. The library, including about 13,000 volumes, contains a small but important collection of MSS. and missals, and also some valuable works on divinity. Little is known of the origin or early history of the library, though mention is incidentally made of it in the society's records in the 16th and 17th centuries. The gardens, laid out about 1597, it is believed under the auspices of the lord chancellor Bacon, at that time treasurer of the society, continue to this day as then planned, though with some curtailment owing to the erection of additional buildings. Among many curious customs maintained in this inn is that of drinking a toast on grand days "to the glorious, pious and immortal memory of Queen Elizabeth." Of the special circumstances originating this display of loyalty there is no record. The Inns of Chancery connected with Gray's Inn are Staple and Barnard's Inns. _Staple Inn_ was an Inn of Chancery in the reign of Henry V., and is probably of yet earlier date. Readings and moots were observed here with regularity. Sir Simonds d'Ewes mentions attending a moot in February 1624. The Inn, with its picturesque Elizabethan front, faces Holborn. It was sold by the antients in 1884 lor £68,000. It is in a very good state of preservation, and it is the intention of the purchasers, the Prudential Assurance Company, to preserve it as a memorial of vanishing London. _Barnard's Inn_, anciently designated Mackworth Inn, was an Inn of Chancery in the reign of Henry VI. It was bequeathed by him to the dean and chapter of Lincoln. It is now the property of the Mercer's Company and is used as a school.

The _King's Inns, Dublin_, the legal school in Ireland, corresponds closely to the English Inns of Court, and is in many respects in unison with them in its regulations with regard to the admission of students into the society, and to the degree of barrister-at-law, as also in the scope of the examinations enforced. Formerly it was necessary to keep a number of terms at one of the Inns in London--the stipulation dating as far back as 1542 (33 Henry VIII. c. 3). Down to 1866 the course of education pursued at the King's Inns differed from the English Inns of Court in that candidates for admission to the legal profession as attorneys and solicitors carried on their studies with those studying for the higher grade of the bar in the same building under a professor specially appointed for this purpose,--herein following the usage anciently prevailing in the Inns of Chancery in London. This arrangement was put an end to by the Attorneys and Solicitors Act (Ireland) 1866. The origin of the King's Inns may be traced to the reign of Edward I., when a legal society designated Collett's Inn was established without the walls of the city; it was destroyed by an insurrectionary band. In the reign of Edward III. Sir Robert Preston, chief baron of the exchequer, gave up his residence within the city to the legal body, which then took the name of Preston's Inn. In 1542 the land and buildings known as Preston's Inn were restored to the family of the original donor, and in the same year Henry VIII. granted the monastery of Friars Preachers for the use of the professors of the law in Ireland. The legal body removed to the new site, and thenceforward were known by the name of the King's Inns. Possession of this property having been resumed by the government in 1742, and the present Four Courts erected thereon, a plot of ground at the top of Henrietta Street was purchased by the society, and the existing hall built in the year 1800. The library, numbering over 50,000 volumes, with a few MSS., is housed in buildings specially provided in the year 1831, and is open, not only to the members of the society, but also to strangers. The collection comprises all kinds of literature. It is based principally upon a purchase made in 1787 of the large and valuable library of Mr Justice Robinson, and is maintained chiefly by an annual payment made from the Consolidated Fund to the society in lieu of the right to receive copyright works which was conferred by an Act of 1801, but abrogated in 1836.

In discipline and professional etiquette the members of the bar in Ireland differ little from their English brethren. The same style of costume is enforced, the same gradations of rank--attorney-general, solicitor-general, king's counsel and ordinary barristers--being found. There are also serjeants-at-law limited, however, to three in number, and designated 1st, 2nd and 3rd Serjeant. The King's Inns do not provide chambers for business purposes; there is consequently no aggregation of counsel in certain localities, as is the case in London in the Inns of Court and their immediate vicinity.

The corporation known as the _Faculty of Advocates_ in Edinburgh corresponds with the Inns of Court in London and the King's Inns in Dublin (see ADVOCATES, FACULTY OF).

AUTHORITIES.--Fortescue, _De laudibus legum Angliae_, by A. Amos (1825); Dugdale, _Origines juridicales_ (2nd ed., 1671); _History and Antiquities of the Four Inns of Court_, &c. (1780, 2nd ed.); Foss, _Judges of England_ (1848-1864, 9 vols.); Herbert, _Antiquities of the Inns of Court_ (1804); Pearce, _History of the Inns of Court_ (1848); _Report_ of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Inns of Court and Chancery, 1855; Ball, _Student's Guide to the Bar_ (1878); Stow, _Survey of London and Westminster_, by Strype (1754-1755); Nichols, _Progresses of Elizabeth and James I._; Lane, _Student's Guide through Lincoln's Inn_ (2nd ed., 1805); Spilsbury, _Lincoln's Inn, with an Account of the Library_ (2nd ed., 1873); Douthwaite, _Notes illustrative of the History and Antiquities of Gray's Inn_ (1876), and _Gray's Inn, its History and Associations_ (1886); _Paston Letters_ (1872); _Law Magazine_, 1859-1860; _Quarterly Review_, October, 1871; Cowel, _Law Dictionary_ (1727); Duhigg, _History of the King's Inns in Ireland_ (1806); Mackay, _Practice of the Court of Session_ (1879); Bellot, _The Inner and Middle Temple_ (1902); Inderwick, _The King's Peace_ (1895); Fletcher, _The Pension Book of Gray's Inn_ (1901); Loftie, _The Inns of Court_ (1895); Hope, _Chronicles of an Old Inn_ (Gray's Inn) (1887); _A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records_ (ed. F. A. Inderwick, 3 vols.). (J. C. W.)

INNUENDO (Latin for "by nodding," from _innuere_, to indicate by nodding), an insinuation, suggestion, in prima facie innocent words, of something defamatory or disparaging of a person. The word appears in legal documents in Medieval Latin, to explain, in parenthesis, that to which a preceding word refers; thus, "he, _innuendo_, the plaintiff, is a thief." The word is still found in pleadings in actions for libel and slander. The innuendo, in the plaintiff's statement of claim, is an averment that words written or spoken by the defendant, though prima facie not actionable, have, in fact, a defamatory meaning, which is specifically set out (see LIBEL AND SLANDER).

INOUYE, KAORU, MARQUESS (1835- ), Japanese statesman, was born in 1835, a _samurai_ of the Choshu fief. He was a bosom friend of his fellow-clansman Prince Ito, and the two youths visited England in 1863, serving as common sailors during the voyage. At that time all travel abroad was forbidden on pain of death, but the veto did not prove deterrent in the face of a rapidly growing conviction that, as a matter of self-protection, Japan must assimilate the essentials of Western civilization. Shortly after the departure of Inouye and Ito, the Choshu fief, having fired upon foreign vessels passing the strait of Shimonoseki, was menaced by war with the Yedo government or with the insulted powers, and Inouye and Ito, on receipt of this news, hastened home hoping to avert the catastrophe. They repaired to the British legation in Yedo and begged that the allied squadron, then about to sail for Shimonoseki to call Choshu to account, should be delayed that they might have an opportunity of advising the fief to make timely submission. Not only was this request complied with, but a British frigate was detailed to carry the two men to Shimonoseki, and, pending her departure, the British legation assisted them to lie _perdu_. Their mission proved futile, however, and Inouye was subsequently waylaid by a party of conservative _samurai_, who left him covered with wounds. This experience did not modify his liberal views, and, by the time of the Restoration in 1867, he had earned a high reputation as a leader of progress and an able statesman. Finance and foreign affairs were supposed to be the spheres specially suited to his genius, but his name is not associated with any signal practical success in either, though his counsels were always highly valued by his sovereign and his country alike. As minister of foreign affairs he conducted the long and abortive negotiations for treaty revision between 1883 and 1886, and in 1885 he was raised to the peerage with the title of count, being one of the first group of _Meiji_ statesmen whose services were thus rewarded. Prior to his permanent retirement from office in 1898, he held the portfolios of foreign affairs, finance, home affairs, and agriculture and commerce, and throughout the war with Russia he attended all important state councils, by order of the emperor, being also specially designated adviser to the minister of finance. In 1907 he was raised to the rank of marquess. His name will go down in his country's history as one of the five _Meiji_ statesmen, namely, Princes Ito and Yamagata, Marquesses Inouye and Matsukata and Count Okuma.

INOWRAZLAW, the Polish form of the German _Jung-Breslau_, by which the place was formerly known, a town in the Prussian province of Posen, situated on an eminence in the most fertile part of the province, 21 m. S.W. of Thorn. Pop. (1900) 26,141. Iron-founding, the manufacture of machinery and chemicals, and an active trade in cattle and country produce are carried on. In the vicinity are important salt works and a sulphur mine, and since 1876 a brine bath has been within the town. Inowrazlaw is mentioned as early as 1185, and in 1772 it passed to Prussia.

INQUEST (O. Fr. _enqueste_, modern _enquête_, from Lat. _inquisitum_, _inquirere_, to inquire), an inquiry, particularly a formal legal inquiry into facts. The word is now chiefly confined to the inquiry held by a coroner and jury into the causes of certain deaths, in matters of treasure trove, and, in the city of London, in cases of fires (see CORONER). Formerly the term was applied to many formal and official inquiries for fixing prices, &c.

INQUISITION, THE (Lat. _inquisitio_, an inquiry),

Punishment of heresy in the Roman Empire.

Opinions of the Fathers.

In the early Middle Ages.

Conflicting views as to the punishment of heresy.

The Church Councils.

Influence of the Canon Law.

The Council of Tours, 1163.

Definition of the procedure under Lucius III. and the Emperor Frederick I.

The death penalty.

Innocent III.

the name given to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction dealing both in the middle ages and in modern times with the detection and punishment of heretics and all persons guilty of any offence against Catholic orthodoxy. It is incorrect to say that the Inquisition made its appearance in the 13th century complete in all its principles and organs. It was the result of, or rather one step in, a process of evolution, the beginnings of which are to be traced back to the origins of Christianity. St Paul (1 Tim. i. 20) "delivered unto Satan" Hymenaeus and Alexander, "that they might learn not to blaspheme." The penalty of death by stoning inflicted by the book of Deuteronomy upon those who deserted the true faith (Deut. xiii. 6-9, xvii. 1-6) is thus reduced to a purely spiritual excommunication. During the first three centuries of the Church there is no trace of any persecution, and the earlier Fathers, especially Origen and Lactantius, reject the idea of it. Constantine, by the edict of Milan (313), inaugurated an era of official tolerance, but from the time of Valentinian I. and Theodosius I. onwards, laws against heretics began to appear, and increased with astonishing regularity and rapidity. We can count sixty-eight distributed over fifty-two years; heretics are subjected to exile or confiscation, disqualified from inheriting property, and even, in the case of a few groups of Manichaeans and Donatists, condemned to death; but it should be noticed that these penalties apply only to the outward manifestations of heresy, and not, as in the middle ages, to crimes of conscience. Within the Church, St Optatus alone (_De schismate Donatistarum_, _lib._ iii. cap. iii.) approved of this violent repression of the Donatist heresy; St Augustine only admitted a _temperata severitas_, such as scourging, fines or exile, and at the end of the 4th century the condemnation of the Spanish heretic Priscillian, who was put to death in 385 by order of the emperor Maximus, gave rise to a keen controversy. St Martin of Tours, St Ambrose and St Leo vigorously attacked the Spanish bishops who had obtained the condemnation of Priscillian. St John Chrysostom considered that a heretic should be deprived of the liberty of speech and that assemblies organized by heretics should be dissolved, but declared that "to put a heretic to death would be to introduce upon earth an inexpiable crime." From the 6th to the 9th century the heterodox, with the exception of the Manichaean sects in certain places, were hardly subjected to persecution. They were, moreover, rare and generally isolated, for groups of sectaries only began to appear to any extent at the time of the earliest appearances of Catharism. However, at the end of the 10th century, the disciples of Vilgard, a heretic of Ravenna, were destroyed in Italy and Sardinia, according to Glaber, _ferro et incendio_, probably by assimilation to the Manichaeans. Perhaps this was the precedent for the punishment of the thirteen Cathari who were burnt at Orleans in 1022 by order of King Robert, a sentence which has been commonly quoted as the first action of the "secular arm" (or lay power) against heresy in the West during the middle ages. However that may be, after 1022 there were numerous cases of the execution of heretics, either by burning or strangling, in France, Italy, the Empire and England. Up till about 1200 it is not quite easy to determine what part was taken by the Church and its bishops and doctors in this series of executions. At Orleans the people, supported by the Crown, were responsible for the death of the heretics; the historians give only the faintest indications of any direct intervention of the clergy, except perhaps for the examination of doctrine. At Goslar (1051-1052) the proceedings were the same. At Asti (1034) the bishop's name appears side by side with those of the other lords who attacked the Cathari, but it seems clear that it was not he who had the chief voice in their execution; at Milan, it was again the civil magistrates, and this time against the wish of the archbishop--who gave the heretics the choice between the adoration of the cross and death. At Soissons (1114) the mob, distrusting the weakness of the clergy, took advantage of their bishop's absence to burn heretics at the stake. It was also the mob who, infuriated at seeing him destroy and burn crosses, burnt the heresiarch Peter of Bruis (c. 1140). At Liége (1144) the bishop saved from the flames certain persons whom the faithful were attempting to burn. At Cologne (1163) the archbishop was less successful, and the mob put the heretics to death without even a trial. The condemnation of Arnold of Brescia was entirely political, though he was denounced as a heretic to the secular arm by Bernard of Clairvaux, and his execution was the act of the prefect of Rome (1155). At Vézelay, on the contrary (1167), the heretics were burnt after ecclesiastical judgment had been pronounced by the abbot and several bishops. From 1183 to 1206 Hugh, bishop of Auxerre, took upon himself the discretionary power of exiling, dispossessing or burning heretics, while about the same time William of the White Hands, archbishop of Reims, in concert with Philip, count of Flanders, stamped out heresy from his diocese by fire. There was a similar unanimity between the lay and ecclesiastical authorities in the famous condemnation of the disciples of Amalric of Bena, who were burnt at Paris in 1209 by order of Philip Augustus after an ecclesiastical inquiry and judgment. The theory in these matters was at first as uncertain as the practice; in the 11th century one bishop only, Theodwin of Liége (d. 1075), affirms the necessity for the punishment of heretics by the secular arm (1050). His predecessor, Wazo, bishop of Liége from 1041 to 1044, had expressly condemned any capital punishment and advised the bishop of Chalons to resort to peaceful conversion. In the 12th century Peter the Cantor[1] protested against the death penalty, admitting at the most imprisonment. It was imprisonment again, or exile, but not death, which the German abbot Gerhoh of Reichersperg (1093-1169) demanded in the case of Arnold of Brescia, and in dealing with the heretics of Cologne, St Bernard, who cannot be accused of leniency where heterodoxy was concerned, recommended pacific refutation, followed by excommunication or prison, but never the death penalty (see BERNARD, ST, of Clairvaux). In the councils, too, it is clear that the appeal to the secular arm was equally guarded: at Reims (1049) excommunication alone is decreed against heretics; and when, as at Toulouse (1119) and the Lateran council (1139), it is laid down that heretics, in addition to excommunication, should be dealt with _per potestates exteras_, or when, as at the council of Reims (1148), the secular princes are forbidden to support or harbour heretics, there is never any suggestion of capital punishment. But it must be noticed that from the opening years of the 12th century date the beginnings of a decided evolution in the canon law, continuing up to the time of Innocent III., which substituted for arbitrary decisions according to circumstances an organized and

## particularized legislation, in which judgment was given _secundum

canonicas et legitimas sanctiones_. Anselm of Lucca and the _Panormia_ attributed to Ivo of Chartres reproduced word for word under the rubric _De edicto imperatorum in dampnationem hoereticorum_, law 5 of the title _De hereticis_ of Justinian's code, which pronounces the sentence of death against the Manichaeans; and we should remember that the Cathari, and in general all heretics in the West in the 11th and 12th centuries were considered by contemporary theologians as Manichaeans. Gratian in the _Decretum_ proclaims the views of St Augustine (exile and fines). Certain of his commentators (_2^a pars Caus._ xxiii.), and notably Rufinus Johannes Teutonicus, and the anonymous glossator (in Uguccio's Great Summa of the _Decretum_) declare that impenitent heretics may, or even should, be punished by death. As early as 1163, the council of Tours suggested to the ecclesiastical authorities definite penalties to be inflicted on heretics, namely, imprisonment and loss of all their property. Pope Alexander III., who had attended the council of Tours of 1163, renewed at the Lateran council (1179) the decisions which had already been made with regard to the heterodox in the south of France, and at Verona in 1184 Pope Lucius III., in concert with the emperor Frederick Barbarossa, took still more severe measures: obstinate heretics were to be excommunicated, and then handed over to the secular arm, which would inflict a suitable penalty. The emperor, on his side, laid them under the imperial ban (exile, confiscation, demolition of their houses, _infamia_, loss of civil rights, disqualification from public offices, &c.). The usage, then, was already quite clear; but the death penalty had not as yet been demanded or inflicted. Possibly it was Count Raymond V. of Toulouse, in whose territories heretics abounded, who in 1194 enacted a law threatening them with the penalty of death; but the authenticity of this act has been questioned. It was more probably Peter II. of Aragon who was the first to decree, in 1197, the punishment of death by burning against the heretics who should not have left his kingdom within a given time. But it was Innocent III. who gave the most powerful impetus to the anti-heretical movement in the secular world by his frequent exhortations (beginning in 1198) to the secular princes (letters of March 25th, 1199, and September 22nd, 1207). As a jurist he henceforward assimilated the crime of high treason against God to that of high treason against temporal rulers, and admitted all the terrible consequences of this assimilation.

Albigensian Crusade. No regular Inquisition.

The Emperor Frederick II.

Gregory IX. creates the monastic Inquisition.

The Dominicans.

It is therefore incorrect to believe that the Inquisition arose out of, and at the time of, the crusade against the Albigenses. These executions _en masse_ certainly created a definitive precedent for violent repression, but there was still no regular organization: the council of Toulouse, held in November 1229 by the Roman legate after the treaty of peace, attempted to organize one, and constituted itself the tribunal. But the procedure was still uncertain; in the north, from 1200 to 1222, at Paris (execution of the disciples of Amalric of Bena), at Strassburg, Cambrai, Troyes and Besançon executions took place, after trials in which the bishops were the judges, the exercise of the secular power being based on vague phrases in the decrees of Louis VIII. (that heretics be punished _animadversione debita_), or in those of Louis IX., ordering his _baillis_ or barons to do to them _quod debebunt_. The emperor Frederick II. defined his jurisprudence more clearly: from 1220 to 1239, supported by Pope Honorius III., and above all by Gregory IX., he established against the heretics of the Empire in general a legislation in which the penalties of death, banishment and confiscation of property were formulated so clearly as to be henceforth incontestable. Gregory IX. felt his influence, and also that of the Dominican Guala, bishop of Brescia, who had subjected his episcopal town to the full rigour of the imperial laws. The pope no longer hesitated as to the principle or the degree of repression; but introduced new methods of inquiry and judgment: he created out of the material furnished him by the mendicant orders, and especially the Dominicans, who were more disciplined than the rest and better theologians, the monastic inquisition, which was more elastic, more constant in its activities and more numerous than the inquisition by legate, and better disciplined than the episcopal inquisition. In November 1232 the Dominican Alberic went round Lombardy with the title of _Inquisitor haereticae pravitatis_. In 1231 a similar commission was given to the Dominicans of Friesach and to the terrible Conrad of Marburg, whose zeal in Germany even exceeded the pope's wishes. In 1233 Gregory IX. addressed a letter to the bishops in the south of France, in which he announced his intention of employing the preaching friars in future for the discovery and repression of heresy.

Beginnings of the Inquisition.

Inquisitorial districts.

The Inquisitors and their auxiliaries.