HOUSES OF MILITARY ORDERS
8. THE TEMPLE
The first mention of the Knights Templars in
connexion with England is in 1128, when Hugh
de Payens, the master of the order, visited this
country, (fn. 1) and received aid both in men and
money for the cause. The foundation of the
house outside Holborn Bars probably dates from
this time, for Hugh de Payens before he left
appointed a prior to preside over the English
branch of the order, (fn. 2) and since other settlements
here were cells of the Temple at London it
follows that this central house must have been
established early.
Among the first patrons of the Templars in
this country were Earl Robert de Ferrers, (fn. 3)
Bernard de Balliol, (fn. 4) King Stephen and Queen
Matilda, (fn. 5) but the earliest grant made to them
in London of which there is evidence was
Henry II's gift or confirmation (fn. 6) of the place on
the Fleet by Castle Baynard, the watercourse for a
mill, a messuage by Fleet Bridge, (fn. 7) and the advowson of St. Clement Danes. (fn. 8) Henry seems to
have been a great benefactor of the knights, for
he gave them lands in other parts of England. (fn. 9)
It is probably to him that they owed the silver
mark paid from the revenues of many of the
English counties in 1155, (fn. 10) since it is called 'alms
newly constituted.'
In Henry's reign there are indications that the
Templars were already playing that part in
diplomacy and finance which was so remarkable
a feature of their career. Richard de Hastings,
the master of the Temple, and two others were
entrusted with the castles which were to be
delivered to Henry II on the marriage of his son
with Margaret of France, and found it expedient
to leave France when Henry by a piece of sharp
practice had the two children married and
secured the castles. (fn. 11) Hastings' influence was
also used to persuade Becket to accept the Constitutions of Clarendon. (fn. 12) That the Templars
were at this time employed by the king in
monetary affairs is shown by Walter of Coventry's story (fn. 13) of Gilbert de Ogrestan, the Knight
Templar who, appointed collector of the tenth,
was detected in embezzlement in 1188, and
severely punished by the master.
The extent of the possessions acquired by the
Templars in England during a period of scarcely
sixty years can be seen in the return to an inquisition ordered by Geoffrey Fitz Stephen, the
master of the Temple, in 1185. (fn. 14) The list includes land in London, and in every part of the
country, Essex, Kent, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Salop, Oxfordshire, Cornwall, Lincolnshire,
Yorkshire, &c., and the holdings were large in
many cases. At this time their possessions were
divided into districts, apparently for the purposes
of revenue, and one of these is called the 'Baillia'
of London. (fn. 15) The master, of course, had his
head quarters here, but the ordinary administration of the house seems to have been carried on
as elsewhere by a preceptor. (fn. 16) There was also a
prior, (fn. 17) whose duties were presumably religious,
for he was warden of the chapel. (fn. 18)
In 1184 the house was transferred to what
was probably a more convenient situation in
Fleet Street, (fn. 19) and was henceforth known as the
New Temple. The church, round like the one
in Holborn, (fn. 20) was dedicated the next year by
Heraclius, patriarch of Jerusalem, to the honour
of God and the Virgin. (fn. 21)
Richard I confirmed to the Templars all the
previous donations made to them, granting them
exemption from all pleas, suits, danegeld, and
from murdrum and latrocinium, (fn. 22) but otherwise
he appears to have come but little in contact
with them, (fn. 23) a striking contrast to the relations
of the Templars and the crown in the next two
reigns. If the papal bull declaring the immunity
of persons and goods within the houses of the
order was issued, as seems most likely, by Innocent III in 1200, (fn. 24) it would largely account
for the use of the New Temple as a place of
deposit for royal treasure which could be drawn
upon as necessary. The other function of a
bank performed by the New Temple, the
advance of money, was made possible by the
accumulation there of the revenues of the order
in England. John had continual transactions of
this kind with the Temple: (fn. 25) in 1212 he had
10,000 marks from which he directed sums to
be paid out, (fn. 26) in 1213 he deposited 20,000 marks
there, (fn. 27) while in 1215 Aymeric, master of the
Temple, lent him 1,100 marks to obtain troops
from Poitou. (fn. 28) Nor did John's dealings with
the Templars end here: he had as almoner a
Templar, Roger, (fn. 29) who in 1215 had charge of
business (fn. 30) not usually associated with his office;
Aymeric, the master, was sent by him as his
envoy to Normandy in 1204 (fn. 31) ; a Templar and
a Hospitaller were employed in a similar capacity
in 1205 (fn. 32) ; it was at the preceptory of Ewell
that he made his submission to the pope, (fn. 33) on
which occasion Aymeric supplied him with the
gold mark for the offering (fn. 34) ; and he was residing at the New Temple when the barons made
their demands (fn. 35) which led to the granting of
Magna Charta at Runnymede, where Aymeric
again figures as one of the king's supporters. (fn. 36)
Naturally, John made several gifts to the order
which he found so useful. The confirmation of
their privileges in the first year of his reign can
hardly be reckoned in this category, seeing that
they paid for it £1,000, (fn. 37) but apart from this he
gave to the Templars the isle of Lundy, (fn. 38) land
at Huntspill and Cameley before 1203, (fn. 39) Harewood, (fn. 40) 'Radenach,' (fn. 41) and some houses in
Northampton in 1215. (fn. 42)
The relations of Henry III with the Templars
are in a greater degree those of his father.
Through the New Temple was paid in instalments the money due to Louis of France, (fn. 43) and
there were deposited 500 marks for the expedition to Poitou (fn. 44) in 1221 and for 'the good men
of Rupella' (fn. 45) in 1232, and sums for similar
purposes in 1224 (fn. 46) and 1225, (fn. 47) while the king
obtained loans (fn. 48) from the Temple as occasion
arose. The house acted indeed as the royal
treasury, (fn. 49) the king's wardrobe being located there
in 1225. (fn. 50) The master of the Temple, (fn. 51) Alan
Marcell, was employed by the king in negotiations abroad in 1224, and Robert de Sanford,
master in 1236, was one of those sent by the
king to escort Eleanor of Provence to England (fn. 52) ;
Thomas, a Templar, (fn. 53) was in charge of the king's
great ship in 1225 and 1226, and another
Templar was acting as the king's almoner in
1241. (fn. 54) Henry had such a high opinion of the
order that at one time he intended to be buried
in the New Temple, (fn. 55) where he established in
1231 a chantry of three chaplains with an income
of £8 a year. (fn. 56) In the eleventh year of his
reign he had confirmed all grants made to the
Templars with sac and soc, tol and team, &c.,
exempting them from sheriffs' aids, hidage,
carucage, danegeld, &c., waste, regard and view
of foresters, from tolls in markets and fairs
throughout his realm, and granting them the
amercements of their men. (fn. 57) He gave to them
also a wood in Carlton called Kingswood, (fn. 58) and
the manor and advowson of 'Roel.' (fn. 59)
The king was present with a number of the
chief persons of the kingdom when, in 1240, the
new part of the Temple church was dedicated. (fn. 60)
Relaxation of penance had before this time (fn. 61) been
offered to those visiting the church, some of the
indulgences being perhaps anterior to the foundation in Fleet Street, (fn. 62) but after 1240 several
prelates, among whom were the bishops of Ely,
Waterford, and Ossory, (fn. 63) tried in this way to
attract the alms of the faithful, particularly for
the maintenance of lights. It is uncertain
whether the papal indult of forty days was
granted by Innocent III or Innocent IV. (fn. 64)
The tombs of some of those buried there, among
them the Earls Marshal (fn. 65) and Hugh Bigod, (fn. 66)
and the relics in which the church was very
rich, (fn. 67) may have thus (fn. 68) proved a source of income. The size and situation of the Temple,
and the power of its occupants, recommended it
as a place of residence to other persons besides
John. As early as 1192 the archbishop of York
had stayed there (fn. 69) on the memorable occasion
when he set the rights of Canterbury at defiance
by having his cross held erect at Westminster,
and the Temple church was suspended by the
bishop of London from celebrating divine service
in consequence. The association of the Temple
with the collection of papal grants (fn. 70) in this
country may have been an additional inducement to Master Martin, the notorious papal
agent, to take up his abode there, 1244–5. (fn. 71)
The ambassadors of the king of Castille were
also lodged there in 1255, (fn. 72) when the apartments
of Sanchez, the bishop-elect of Toledo, (fn. 73) must
have presented a curious contrast to those of the
brethren.
The Templars under Edward I hardly appear
to have maintained the dominating position they
had held during the last two reigns in the affairs
of the crown. Guy de Foresta, the master of
the Temple, is certainly represented as going to
Scotland on the king's business in 1273; (fn. 74) the
New Temple is mentioned as a royal treasury
in 1274 and 1276, (fn. 75) and the Temple treasurer
as the receiver of the tallage of London in
1274; (fn. 76) Hugh, the visitor-general of the order,
was moreover appointed by the king in 1299 (fn. 77)
to repay the Friscobaldi for a loan. But instances of this sort were now rare, where before
they were frequent, the Italian merchants taking
their place in the royal finance, and the mendicant orders in diplomacy and other business.
Yet the king's robbery of part of the treasure
there in 1283 (fn. 78) shows that as a place of deposit
for valuables its popularity was still unrivalled
or it would not have been singled out for this
distinction, though a severe shock must then
have been given to the credit it had hitherto
deservedly (fn. 79) enjoyed.
The decline of interest in crusades, the fall of
Acre, and loss of the Holy Land in 1291, and
the rise of new religious orders, would all tend to
decrease the gifts made to the Templars, but
these were numerous (fn. 80) enough during the last
years of Edward I to prove that the knights
were still regarded with favour by many. There
were absolutely no signs of the storm which was
so soon to overwhelm them.
On 13 October, 1307, the Templars in France
were all arrested by King Philip. (fn. 81) Edward II,
far from crediting the accusations made against
them, at first expressed himself strongly in their
favour. (fn. 82) But on the receipt of a letter from
Pope Clement V in November, (fn. 83) he abandoned
their cause, and on 8 January, the Templars in
England were by his order suddenly seized and
imprisoned. (fn. 84) The process before the papal inquisitors, Deodatus, abbot of Lagny, and Sicard
de Vaur, canon of Narbonne, did not begin until
20 October, 1309. (fn. 85) The charges may be
summed up as blasphemy, apostasy, idolatry, and
heresy: they were said to deny Christ at their
reception into the order, to trample the cross
under foot and spit on the crucifix, to adore the
image of a cat, to believe that the grand master
and the preceptors, many of whom were laymen,
could absolve them from their sins, to make
sacrilegious mockery of absolution, and to be
guilty of the vilest immorality. (fn. 86) Misconception
of symbolic ceremonies may account for some
of the accusations, most of which, however, cannot be explained in this way, and seem too
improbable to be true, (fn. 87) since it is difficult to see
how such acts imputed, not to a few individuals,
but to the whole body, could have long remained
undiscovered, especially when the hospitality
exercised at the various houses is remembered.
The examination lasted until 18 March, 1310, (fn. 88)
but elicited nothing derogatory to the order.
The king then, urged by the pope, ordered the
constable of the Tower to deliver his prisoners
to the sheriffs of London (fn. 89) to be disposed of by
them in various places in the City so that the inquisitors might have easy access to them. (fn. 90) In
spite of the tortures inflicted, only three, of whom
one, John de Stoke, (fn. 91) appears to have been the
treasurer of the New Temple, confessed the
truth of the articles. Testimony obtained by
torture is always doubtful, and that given voluntarily must on this occasion be regarded with
suspicion, for it was supplied by secular priests,
monks and friars, (fn. 92) the enemies and rivals of the
accused, (fn. 93) and even then it was often mere hearsay. The majority of the Templars, among
them those of the New Temple, acknowledged
themselves guilty of heresy, especially as to the
efficacy of the absolution given by the master,
submitted, and were reconciled to the Church. (fn. 94)
The master, William de la More, however, refused
to confess crimes of which he was innocent, (fn. 95)
and remained in the Tower until his death. (fn. 96)
The number of Templars belonging to the
New Temple at the time of their arrest may
have been thirteen, (fn. 97) excluding the master. Of
these, three were serving brethren, two, brothers,
John de Stoke was treasurer, Michael de Baskervile, preceptor, and Ralph de Barton, priest, prior
and warden of the chapel. (fn. 97a) Some of these
probably survived the suppression of the order in
1312 to subsist as best they could, for the pensions of 4d. a day were not regularly paid, (fn. 98)
until they were received into various monasteries. (fn. 99)
The Templars at the time of the suppression
owned in London and the neighbourhood the
manor of Cranford (fn. 100) which had been given
to them by John de Cranford, (fn. 101) the manor of
Lilestone or Lisson Green (fn. 102) granted by Otho
son of William in 1237, (fn. 103) lands in Hampstead
and Hendon belonging to that manor, (fn. 104) the
manor of Hampton the gift of Lady Joan
Grey, (fn. 105) and land in Hampton and 'Wyke'
given by Cristiana Haiwode; (fn. 106) pastureland in
Isleworth, (fn. 107) meadowland in Hackney, co. Middlesex, (fn. 108) a tenement at Charing, (fn. 109) which appears
to have been granted by Gilbert Basset before
1185; (fn. 110) tenements in Southwark valued in
1308 at £6 9s. 8d. net per annum; (fn. 111) lands and
rents in the parishes of St. Clement Danes, (fn. 112)
St. Dunstan West, (fn. 113) where they had a holding
in the 12th century, (fn. 114) St. Bride, (fn. 115) St. Mary
Somerset, (fn. 116) St. Sepulchre, (fn. 117) a messuage in
'Godrunlane' in the parish of St. John Zachary,
the bequest of John de Valescines in 1256, (fn. 118) and
a tenement in Holborn, (fn. 119) and a quay and mills
on the Fleet, (fn. 120) probably the most valuable of
their property in London. They seem to have
received a further grant of land here shortly after
1185, since the gift of Walter son of Robert of
land under Castle Baynard is not mentioned in
the return to the inquisition of Fitz Stephen. (fn. 120a)
The rents from the property in the City and
suburbs alone from 10 January to Michaelmas,
1308, amounted to over £50, although deductions
were made for tenements unoccupied. (fn. 121) The
principal possession of the order in London was
of course the New Temple itself, which is
constantly referred to as a manor, (fn. 122) and from
the size of the buildings (fn. 123) and extent of the
ground (fn. 124) well deserved the term. The church
contained altars to St. Nicholas and St. John
besides the high altar, and appears to have been
well provided with books, (fn. 125) plate and ornaments (fn. 126) of silver, silver gilt, ivory and crystal,
altar-cloths and frontals and vestments.
The Temple was granted by the king to
Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, but
Thomas, earl of Lancaster, claiming it as his
fee, Aymer de Valence surrendered it to him on
1 October, 1314. (fn. 127) On the execution of Lancaster the manor again fell to the crown, and was
made over a second time to Aymer de Valence
in 1322, (fn. 128) but when he died without issue in
1324 it lapsed to the king according to the terms
of the grant. The bull of Pope Clement V
granting the lands of the Templars to the Knights
Hospitallers (fn. 129) had been unheeded in England,
but after the statute to the same effect in 1324 (fn. 130)
the knights of St. John were put in possession
of the Temple with a great deal of the other
property of the late order. It seems probable
that they already held the consecrated portions
such as the church and cemetery, since the
claim of the prior to some houses erected by
him on a portion of this ground, which had been
seized by the younger Despenser, and escheated
to the crown after his forfeiture in 1326, was
evidently quite distinct from his right to the
other portion of the manor. (fn. 131) William de
Langford, to whom the king had let the Temple,
had part of his rent remitted for giving up these
tenements, (fn. 132) and in June, 1338, Edward III
made a grant of the whole manor to the Hospital in
frankalmoign. (fn. 133) The history of the Temple as
a religious house however had really ended with
the fall of the original owners. The prior of
Clerkenwell appointed one of his brothers to keep
the church, and the allowance to him and the
other chaplains figures in the expenses of the
Knights of St. John in 1328. (fn. 133a) The accounts
of 1338 show that there were then eight chaplains besides the warden, and that these eight
were not of the order of St. John, but seculars
like the thirteen who served the church in the
time of the Templars. (fn. 133b)
In 1338 a definite sum was allotted to the
warden, but the next year Ficketsfield and Cotells
Garden were assigned him by the prior for his
maintenance, and that of the lights and services
of the church. (fn. 134)
The priests needed only part of the Temple
buildings, and the others were let to the lawyers
by the priory, it is said, in 1347, (fn. 135) at any rate
about the middle of the fourteenth century.
The prior of Clerkenwell occurs twice in an
interesting connexion with the Temple: in
1373, when he was engaged in a dispute with
the City over a right-of-way through the Temple
Gate to the Temple Bridge; (fn. 136) and in 1381,
when the rebels did a great deal of damage out
of hatred to the same Prior Robert Hales, then
the king's treasurer. (fn. 137)
At the suppression of the order of Knights
Hospitallers in England by Henry VIII in 1540
the New Temple, which in 1535 had been
valued at £162 11s., (fn. 138) passed to the crown. (fn. 139)
The master of the Temple and chaplains
were still, however, allowed their stipends, and
retained their posts, and a lease made by the
master in 1542 of a messuage, and the master's
lodging adjoining the church, stipulated that the
four priests of the Temple should have two
chambers in the house. (fn. 139a)
The re-establishment of the order by Mary
seems to have made no change at the Temple,
except that the rent of £10 due from the two
societies of lawyers was again paid to the prior,
for Ermested, who had been master in 1540,
continued to hold office. (fn. 139b) When Elizabeth
succeeded provision was made for the payment
of the master, four priests, and the clerk, as in
the last year of Edward VI, but how long the
staff of priests was maintained it is difficult to
say. There are no further references to them,
though they seem to have been there in Stow's
time. (fn. 139c)
Masters of the Temple
Richard de Hastyngs, 1160 (fn. 140)
Richard Mallebeench (fn. 141)
Geoffrey son of Stephen, occurs 1180 (fn. 142) and
1185 (fn. 143)
William de Newenham (fn. 144)
Thomas Berard, occurs 1200 (fn. 145)
Aymeric de St. Maur, occurs 1200, (fn. 146) 1205,
and 1216. (fn. 147) He died abroad (fn. 148)
Alan Marcell, occurs 1220 (fn. 149) and 1228 (fn. 150)
Amberaldus, occurs 1229 (fn. 151)
Robert Mounford, occurs 1234 (?) (fn. 152)
Robert Saunforde, occurs 1231, 1232, (fn. 153)
1234, (fn. 154) 1239–40, (fn. 155) and 1247 (fn. 156)
Rocelin de Fosse, occurs 1250–1, (fn. 157) 1253 (fn. 158)
Amadeus de Morestello, occurs 1254, (fn. 159) and
1258–9 (fn. 160)
Imbert Peraut, occurs 1267 (fn. 161) and 1269 (fn. 162)
William de Beaulieu, occurs 1274 (fn. 163)
Robert Turvile, occurs 1277, (fn. 164) 1281, (fn. 165)
1285–6, (fn. 166) and 1289 (fn. 167)
Guy de Foresta, occurs 1290, (fn. 168) 1293, (fn. 169) and
1294 (fn. 170)
James de Molay, occurs 1297 (fn. 171)
Brian le Jay, occurs 1298, (fn. 172) died 1298 (fn. 173)
William de la More, occurs 1298, (fn. 174) and at
the suppression
Preceptors of London
William de Bernewode, occurs temp. Geoffrey
Fitz Stephen (fn. 175)
Alan, occurs 1205 (fn. 176) and 1221 (fn. 177)
Ralph de Leukeworth, occurs 1232 (fn. 178)
Ranulph de Bremesgrave, occurs 1272 (fn. 179)
Richard de Herdewyk, occurs 1294 (fn. 180)
John de Mohun, occurs c. 1296 (fn. 181)
Ralph de Barton, c. 1300 (fn. 182)
Michael de Baskervile, occurs 1303 (fn. 183) and
1308 (fn. 184)
Wardens under the Knights Hospitallers
Hugh de Lichfield, occurs 1339 (fn. 185)
John Almayn, occurs 1374 (fn. 186)
John Bartylby, occurs 1378–9 (fn. 186a)
John Burford, occurs 1380–1 (fn. 186b)
William Ermested, occurs 1540 and 1542;
died 1560 (fn. 186c)
There is a seal attached to a charter of the
twelfth century. (fn. 187) It is light brown in colour,
and has on the left a representation of the Agnus
Dei. Legend:—
SIGILLVM TEMPLI
The seal (fn. 188) of Robert de Saunford, master of
the Temple c. 1241, is dark green, and bears
on the right an Agnus Dei with nimbus.
Legend:—
SIGILLVM TEMPLI
The obverse of a seal used by William de la
More, master, 1304, (fn. 189) resembles the above.
The reverse, a small oval counter-seal, with
beaded borders, shows on the right a couped
bust of a bearded man wearing a cap. Legend:—
TESTIS SVM AGNI
There is also a seal of the preceptor or master
1303. (fn. 190) It is dark green, and represents a
crescent inclosing a cross formy fitchy; below,
a lion passant of England, and between two
stars. Legend:—
S' PRECEPTOR' MILI . . . T . . .