gon, in 1248, complained of the Tolosan inquisitor, Bernard de Caux, for citing his subjects to appear, and Innocent IV. commanded that the abuse should cease, an order which received but slack obedience ; and with the growth of the Holy Office such reclamations were not likely to be repeated. Cases, of course, occurred, in which two tribunals would claim the same culprit, and in this the rule of the Council of Narbonne, in 1244, was generally observed, that he should be tried by the inquisitor who had first commenced prosecution. Considering, indeed, the abundant causes of jealousy, and especially the bitter rivalry between the Dominican and Franciscan Orders, the cases of quarrel seem to have been singularly few. Whatever there were, they were hushed up with prudent reserve, and with occasional exceptions we find a hearty and zealous co-operation in the holy work to which all were alike devoted.[1]
The implacable energy with which the resources of this organization were employed may be understood from one or two instances. Under the Hohenstaufens the two Sicihes had served as a refuge for many heretics self -exiled by the rigor of the Inquisition of Languedoc, and merciless as was Frederic when it suited him, his system was by no means so searching and unintermittent as that of the Holy Office. After his death, the active warfare between Manfred and the papacy doubtless left the heretics in comparative peace, but when Charles of Anjou conquered the kingdom as the vassal of Rome, it was at once thrown open and the French inquisitors made haste to pursue those who had eluded them. But seven months after the execution of Conradin, Charles issued his letters-patent. May 31, 1269, to all the nobles and magistrates of the realm, setting forth that the inquisitors of France were about coming or sending agents to track and seize the fugitive heretics who had sought refuge in Italy, and ordering his subjects to give them safe-conduct and assistance whenever they might require it. In
- ↑ Lib. Sententt. Inq. Tolosan. pp. 252-4.— MSS. Bib. Nat., fonds latin, 11847 ad Jinem. — Arch, de I'lnquis. de Carcassonne (Doat, XXXI. 83, 94-5). — Quid. Fulcod. QuoDst. v.— Alex. PP. IV. Bull. Cupientes, 4 Mart. 1260.— Urbani PP. IV. Bull. Licet ex omnibus, § 11, 12G2.— Ejusd. Bull. Prm cunctis, 2 Aug. 1264.— C. 2 Sexto V. 2. — Bern. Guidon Practica P. iv. (Doat, XXX,). — Zanchini Tract, de Haeret. c. viii. — Coucil. Narbonn. ann. 1244 c. 20. — Eymeric. Direct. Inquis. pp. 461-5.
