Talk:Gray's Inn

Formal meal
Not leaving a formal meal until the coffee course (or even the loyal toast) is hardly confined to the Inns of Court...

David Underdown 14:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only rarely in a non-legal social situtation are you made to feel a fool for ignoring tradition Pydos 08:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with tradition - one should be regarded as a fool and a knave for bad manners. 79.72.17.57 (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice expansion ...
but that lead pic is not good. There are several decent photos in Commons that could be added around the article. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I've tried not to add too many photos, because otherwise it pulls the structure out. Can you suggest any particular pic for the lede? The current one is a bit natty, but I couldn't really find anything that said "Gray's Inn" to me. Ironholds (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no photo views yet! maybe File:Gray's inn zz.JPG or the one left of it, or the first in commons. The notice too, maybe, & the chapel. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite like the first one, I'll stick that in. The chapel isn't really an accurate portrayal, I feel. Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of the grammar and repititions as a minimum edit. 89.168.94.38 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Tony S
 * I've got to correct some of it - some of it is very confusing, and others are incorrect (civil law, for example). Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You've also removed several key points. Rewriting. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, flows better now - there was an edit conflict and I might have accidentally removed some of yours in the process. 89.168.94.38 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Tony S

Can anyone supply an image of the Inn's coat of arms- Griffon Rampant?? 89.168.94.38 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Tony S
 * It's rather difficult to get hold of a direct image. There is a very nice painting of them in the RCJ I was going to use, but I can't find the room it was in. Ironholds (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

19th century
"During the nineteenth century the Inns began to stagnate; little had been changed since the seventeenth century in terms of legal education or practice, except that students were no longer bound to be confirmed by the Church of England before their call to the Bar..." the italicised bit is not what the reference says. A better text or reference is needed, and a date ought to found for the change. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gah, miswrote there. "By the 1840s" is the best date I can get (unless you're willing to trawl through 400 years of primary references at the Holker Library without the aid of a searching mechanism?). Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would that be necessary? Test Act repeal etc. The subject hardly lacks secondary sources.  Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it was customary, not part of the Test Acts, as far as I'm aware. The secondary sources I've gathered (and they're a) pretty substantial and b) just about everything on the topic outside of the Holker Library) make a single reference to this requirement, a reference given in the article. Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd become more aware. I very much doubt it was customary. No doubt that is why there is little in purely local sources. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any kind of evidence that this was the reason, then? If so, I'd be glad to improve it, but when the sources give "some time between 1740 and 1840" it rather screws things up. Ironholds (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Access of non-Anglicans to the universities & professions was a major political issue in the period, and far too important to be left to the colleges and professional bodies. I don't really think I have to provide evidence of this.  A little research into the general subject should easily turn up the facts I imagine.  Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually if you're disputing the facts of the article you do have to provide evidence. Ironholds (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I pointed out the article contradicted its own reference. You have now changed that to "the Anglican sacrament" (sic) perhaps a typo. Beyond that I said you should give a figure for the change, rather than a range of some 150 years, which if you have any aspirations to FAC you certainly should.  Their website & the guidebook is not "the sources", just your sources. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See my above point. The large number of books on the subject give a total of zero mentions of this; the only thing that does is the website. I can't see a typo. Again, I don't have a better date range, because the website is the only source here that covers it. See how we're going in circles? Again, if you're so sure it was part of the test acts you should be able to find a reference saying it is, and as somebody challenging content backed up by reliable sources the onus is on you to prove your assertion, not me. Ironholds (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Outdent: I note that the test acts cover "civil and military offices" - barristers were neither of those. There was certainly a prohibition against judges being catholic, but I can find no reference to barristers. I have the raw text of both acts and neither act makes any reference to barristers or the bar. Ironholds (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it seems from this and this that Catholics (& similar references refer to Jews) were able to study in the Inns, but not be called to the Bar. Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The second reference there implies that they could be called to the Bar; it makes reference to some catholics who were allowed to "practice the law" following admission to one of the Inns. Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way the current text does not appear correct. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry? The reference says that prior to the 1840s, people were required to take the Anglican sacrament. The text says that prior to the 1840s, people were required to take the Anglican sacrament. Your efforts to show that it was because of the Test Acts have so far turned up two references, one of which says nothing properly either way and the other implies that catholics were able to practice the law. A look at the text of the acts shows it covers "civil and military offices", which has never included barristers. Where exactly is the problem with the text? The only problem I can see is with your assertion. Ironholds (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Both references make it clear that in fact Catholics were able to study at the Inns in general during the period when the web page implies they were not (at Grays Inn). But I'm not going to bother further here if you're going to take a dog in the manger attitude. See you at FAC I suppose. You might try & establish what exactly the "Anglican sacrament" is supposed to be in the meantime. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be this, then. Please try to avoid personal little comments. This whole argument has got slightly confused, so I'll again address your two points:
 * 1) that the "anglican sacrament" was due to the test acts. You've provided no reference to support this, and can't seem to find one. My attempts, which include pulling up the original wording of the act, show no mention of barristers, only "military and civil offices", which didn't include barristers.
 * 2) that the sentence and reference are wrong because you've pulled up references saying that Catholics could study at the Inns. My source and your source do not conflict, because the Call is after the training.
 * Overall I'm now just slightly confused. You've been unable to find proof for your main argument, and without a single reference either supporting your view that it was the test acts or providing a more accurate date we can't change the "1840s" we've got. You "[WP:OR|thinking]]" it's the Test Acts isn't good enough. I've pulled out some more sources thanks to the Selden Society, and will try and find a more accurate date, but unreferenced assertions are not included in articles I edit. If this somehow gives me a dog in a manger attitude then so be it; I'm sorry you find my refusal to let you put a mix of synthesis and original research in an article so upsetting. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never edited the article; I am merely trying to get you to do so in an unsloppy manner. What I said was "Why on earth would that be necessary?  Test Act repeal etc. The subject hardly lacks secondary sources." - etc covering the whole of the Penal laws.  Enough. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the secondary sources mention the requirement at all. You have yet to find any evidence that it was the Test Acts. Ironholds (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"High-quality reliable sources"
I have some questions regarding the sources in this article. I see that the article rests on many 19th-century and early 20th-century sources. The discipline of history was quite different at this time - the standards for evidence, for example, were quite different. Think, also, for example about how the views about women's roles in society have changed since this time. The way that women were treated by the law and the perception of its fairness has changed dramatically in the last 100 years. By relying so extensively on older books, the article will reflect their views on such matters. However, not all 19th-century and early 20th-century histories are unreliable. What I would like to see is some evidence from late 20th-century historians that these books are high-quality sources. Without this, I would be worried about relying on them so extensively and would encourage the article authors to use more recent scholarship. Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmn, good point. The article doesn't really deal with women (particularly since women weren't admitted to the Inns of Court until the early 20th century, mainly because of the LLB awarding system used by Oxbridge) but the quality of sources is always important. One of the reasons I'm using these is that there's very little written in the late twentieth century about the Inns - the most recent stuff I have is snippets from The Times and the like. However, the bibliography of the Selden Society on the Inns (which I used as a starting point) lists all of these as acceptable academic sources. It was written by Sir John Sainty and the society is the premier legal history society in the United Kingdom - John Baker (blessed be his name :P) is currently the editor in chief. I hope that helps. I should be wandering down to the Holker Library in December if I can, there may be something more recent there. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"A place of living"
Do barristers actually "live" here, as per this version, where it talks of a "place of living"? Seems a little unlikely, although nothing would surprise me. --Nickhh (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Some do, in fact. I suspect it's a similar situation to my Inn, Inner Temple (sorry Ironholds!), where the top floor of most of the buildings is a residential flat, rented out to barristers or judges belonging to the Inn either as a London pied-a-terre or in some cases as a main residence. Some senior members of the Inn staff have flats too. BencherliteTalk 01:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll take your word for it. Although a less clunky phrasing might be preferred, and it should presumably be secondary to the "office accommodation" point, which is what 90% at least of the Inns of Court are about? --Nickhh (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed to "provider of office accommodation", rather than "place of living and office accommodation"; its residential role is, as you say, small in comparison to the provision of rooms for chambers, and it probably doesn't need mentioning in the lead. BencherliteTalk 01:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Some barristers indeed live there, although it isn't as structured as Inner Temple and Lincoln's Inn, where it's always the top floors. Some flats are rented by barristers, some flats are available to rent, so on. No ownership, of course, although in Lincoln's Inn the situation is somewhat different. Ironholds (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

History

 * The sentence about the reason for migrating to Holborn appears to be wrong in the light of London geography. Westminster Hall is also outside the City of London, and in fact further away from it than Holborn, so there's a sizeable area nearer than Holborn to Westminster Hall, and this area is entirely outside the City of London.  It would make geographical sense if the sentence referred to some place in the western part of the City instead of Westminster Hall, or if the reason was something like that Holborn is on the route between the City and Westminster Hall.  Perhaps someone with the cited source could check it?  If the geographical error is in the source, an alternative could be to say that Holborn was a suitable site because it offered easy access to Westminster.  Source: The London Encyclopaedia, Third Edition. Weinreb B, Hibbert C, Keay J and Keay J. London, Macmillan, 2008.  Article: Inns of Court, p433.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.122.5 (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have checked the source - it indeed states that, no idea why. Feel free to put your section in. Ironholds (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

First sentence of lead
I've undone the reversion of my edit of yesterday to the first sentence of the lead, and wanted to explain my reasoning here. Article leads are supposed to provide an easily digestible summary of the article, accessible to a general reader. In most cases, a reader with no prior knowledge of the subject should be able to get all the way through the lead and get a good idea of the subject that the article is about without having to delve into other parts of Wikipedia to understand what the lead is talking about. There are a few exceptions to this - articles on mathematics being the obvious one - where the concepts are so precise and abstruse that the only option is to include a wikilink to a technical term, but this shouldn't be the case for legal topics. "Inns of Court" is clearly a piece of jargon, but an easily explainable piece of jargon. Including a six word explanation in parantheses is helpful to the reader, without interrupting the flow of the article. The alternative - forcing the vast majority of readers to click off of the page within the first sentence of the lead, in order to understand the meaning of the sentence, goes against our aims of making Wikipedia content accessible to the general reader. SP-KP (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; suggest delinking the second "barrister", then. Note that the cycle is bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, revert, discuss. Make a bold change to the version consensus is at, if it is reverted then discuss it. Do not immediately revert back to your preferred version. Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good spot re: the double linking of barrister - I hadn't noticed that. I've fixed it now. Thanks for the BRD link, which I'd not seen before - I didn't think of my edit as being that bold at the time - one editor's bold is another's minor, I guess. SP-KP (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Disposal by Lord de Gray, 1506 and previous tranactions from 1456.
I feel these 2 paragraphs are somewhat confused and historically incorrect. Gray's Inn was not "sold" to Sheen Priory - it was bequeathed to it by will on the death of Hugh Denys in 1511, which bequest was effected in 1516. There is obviously an important difference. Similarly, in 1506 Gray's Inn was not "transferred out of the hands of" the Gray family(to Hugh Denys), it was sold by them. There is clearly some imprecision here in legal terminology - something this page, no doubt read by laywers, should be sensitive to. The page has been Wikified to the new page on Hugh Denys, the bequester, which describes the tranaction in great detail - or certainly will do once it is completed by me shortly. Any one who reads both and who has sharp eyes, as lawyers tend to, will spot that one or other page is incorrect. It would be a solution to this impasse if the offending paragraph were altered thus:

1)Replace "permanently transferred out of the hands of" by "sold by" quoting as ref "Fletcher (1901) p.xxiii" (where Fletcher's footnote 3 states: "The transfer was effected by means of (I) a Bargain and sale from Edmund de Grey to Hugh Denys".)

2)"And a group" sounds a bit vague. What sort of group? What information is this designed to impart to the reader? We know that these were "feoffees", and indeed "feoffees of Hugh Denys". Why not use the precise legal terminology? I therefore suggest inserting the following words in inverted commas ...and a group "of his feoffees" including Roger Lupton... For a ref, again, "Fletcher (1901)" would do "pp.xxiii-xxiv" (bottom of xxiii: ...transferred the property absolutely to Hugh (next page) Denys and his wife, Edmund Dudley, Roger Lupton, Godfrey Toppes, etc...Of these, possibly, Hugh Denys and his wife were the only beneficial owners". Fletcher's assumption is confirmed as not possibly but definitely by several other sources most explicitly by Williams, E (1906), p.42: "Hugh Denys died in 1511, and his will was proved in the Court of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. We learn from it that the same system of enfeoffing others which had been customary with the de Greys had also been adopted by him. There can be no clearer expression of the position. I therefore suggest this author should be quoted as a preferable reference to Fletcher, on this point. Williams was FRGS, and clearly trustworthy.

3) "again sold" is clearly an inaccurate form of words. In 1516 the bequest was merely authorised by the Court, after 5 years of legal wrangling 1511-1516, to proceed as intended, that is to be 'gifted', not 'sold' to Sheen. I therefore suggest the words "and it was again sold" be replaced by "and after a five year delay, it was transferred under the will of Denys" . Fletcher is confused on this point, and inaccurate. He states, p.xxiv,: "In any case the new owners did not hold the property long for in 1516 we find that the survivors among them sought and obtained the King's leave to sell it to the prior and convent of...Shene". The interim holders of Gray's Inn were not "new owners", but "feoffees", i.e. trustees as demonstrated in 2) above, ref Williams, E. (1906)p.42. The feoffees had been specifically tasked by Denys in his will to obtain such royal consent for the alienation to Sheen, and that is exactly what they had been working on during the intervening 5 years, being in dispute with the Court, the reason for which is detailed by Williams, but is not relevant for this article, being away from the point. "Williams, E. (1906) pp.42/43" is therefore a perfect ref. for this form of words I have suggested, in which he says: "The application by the executors..for licence...was at length issued 5 years after Denys's decease".

I must apologise for an error in my earlier attempted edits to the page. I was wrong to assume that Grey's Inn had been transferred in 1530 from Sheen to Syon with Denys's other properties. This was not the case, Gray's Inn remained with Sheen until Dissolution. The logic is simple: Osterley and Wyke were next door to Syon, and therefore desirable to it, Gray's Inn was out of their orbit. Fletcher has been useful in this respect, as has been this discussion which has focussed my mind very precisely, which accuracy will hopefully show in my Hugh Denys page shortly.

Your thoughts please on these 3 changes which will render the article fully accurate in this area and will enable me to Wikify my article without apprehension of confusing my reader.

Summary:

1)Replace "permanently transferred out of the hands of" by "sold by"; ref "Fletcher (1901) p.xxiii"

2)Insert the following words in inverted commas ...and a group "of his feoffees" including Roger Lupton...; ref: "Williams, E. (1906) p.42"

3)Replace "and it was again sold" by "and after a five year delay, it was transferred under the will of Denys"; ref: "Williams, E. (1906) pp.42/43"

And: 4) Suggest addition of "(Sheen Priory)" where shown in bold. This is the common nomenclature, which will have more significance for the reader. It can then be Wikified to the Sheen Priory page, which exists.

Text with suggested revisions: "In 1506 the Inn was sold by the Gray family to Hugh Denys and a group of his feoffees including Roger Lupton. This was not a purchase on behalf of the society and after a 5 year delay, it was transferred under the will of Denys in 1516 to the Carthusian House of Jesus of Bethlehem '(Sheen Priory)', who '(which?)' remained the Society's landlord until 1539, when the Second Act of Dissolution led to the Dissolution of the Monasteries and passed ownership of the Inn to the Crown."

Williams, E. (1906) : Williams, E. FRGS. Staple Inn, Customs House, Wool Court and Inn of Chancery; Its Mediaeval Surroundings and Associations. London, 1906. Lobsterthermidor (talk)
 * Bolding is usually used in the lead section of an article when first mentioning the title and not really anywhere else, but other than that it's all fine. Link feoffee, change who to which, and change (Sheen Priory) to (commonly known as [blotto]). Ironholds (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Changes made. Have also bolded, Wiki sense, by clarifying what was sold, as the para. above says the land was "sold" in 1456, and it might appear unless altered, that only the Inn, i.e. residence, had been sold to Denys in 1506. The astute reader might be confused and wonder what became of the land. Also I think it gives some interesting flavour, especially the windmill(quoted from Williams, per ref.)  I have left out all the extras such as rents of 10s and Advowson of Portpool Chantry, which would be providing too much info. I do detect some confusion in the events of 1456 as related, it is obvious to the reader, and it might be better to substitute a vaguer term like "transferred", to admit the uncertainty, rather than use a specific term like "sold". That is for your consideration, I am not well-researched that far back. Also, I have never seen Grey referred to as "Wilton" in any of my reading. I think that would be like calling Lord Mandleson of Hartlepool "Hartlepool". I have bolded this latter one change too. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gray's Inn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090803003708/http://www.barcouncil.org.uk:80/about/innsofcourt/graysinn/ to http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/about/innsofcourt/graysinn/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gray's Inn. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/histories/matches.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)