HOUSE OF KNIGHTS TEMPLARS
23. THE PRECEPTORY OF SANDFORD
The beginning of the rich possessions of the
Templars in Oxfordshire was in 1136, when
Queen Matilda granted them a manor in Cowley,
where they built a church and established a preceptory. (fn. 1) Some twenty years later Simon, earl
of Northampton, gave them Merton, or at least
7 hides of it, and there, too, there appears to have
been temporarily a preceptory. (fn. 2) About the year
1153 they had obtained the whole manor of
Sibford Ferris, and the chapel of Sibford Gower, (fn. 3)
and as early as 1142 a manor in Hensington of
2½ hides. (fn. 4) Before 1185 they were granted by
Alan de Limesy 5 hides in Bradwell in Oxfordshire, and also the church, as well as many
smaller gifts. (fn. 5) Early in the next century the
manors of Littlemore and Warpsgrove came to
them; (fn. 6) and in 1225 the two manors of Horsepath were obtained on a perpetual lease, (fn. 7) while
in 1239 or 1240 they were given the important
manor of Sandford-on-Thames. Here they
established tbeir head preceptory, and, to judge
from the chartulary, (fn. 8) they managed from this
centre their properties in Hants and Berkshire as
well as most of their possessions in Oxfordshire.
Their lands, however, at Bradwell seem to have
been under some other preceptory, perhaps that
of Temple Guiting, Gloucestershire. After this
Cowley and Merton appear to have been reduced to the status of camerae or granges, but
though the preceptor resided at Sandford he was
often called 'preceptor de Couele,' as well as
'preceptor de Sandford,' even as late as 1279.
By obtaining the manor of Sandford the Templars became the patrons of the priory of Littlemore, and another curious prerogative which
they had was the right to a bed in the Hospital
of St. John at Oxford, granted them by Drogo
de Barentin.
In 1338, though their former possessions in
Oxfordshire—then in the hands of the Hospitallers—had been somewhat reduced by that time,
they were still worth over £170 per annum. (fn. 9)
When the order was suppressed in 1308
William Sautre, preceptor of Sandford, was
amongst the knights seized and brought up for
trial, as were William de Warrewyk, priest, an
inmate of the same house for three years, and
Richard de Colingham, who had been one of the
brethren there for the past six years. (fn. 10) Sautre
was one of the principal witnesses examined by
the commissioners for the trial of the Templars,
as he had been present at the annual chapter
every year save once for the previous twenty
years, and was acquainted with a very large
number of the knights, of whom he mentioned
Robert de Waus, Michael de Baskevile, William
de Chalesey, Walter de Rokele, Richard de
Colingham and William de Warrewyk, as known
to him at Sandford. He gave important evidence
on the alleged granting of absolution by the
president of the chapter (fn. 11) ; Richard de Colingham spoke on the subject of the mystic girdles
which the brethren were said to wear, saying
that they used certain belts called 'girdles of
chastity'; (fn. 12) William de Chalesey described his
admission at Sandford five years earlier, when he
took an oath to live in chastity and poverty, to
serve the Holy Land to the best of his power,
and to maintain the good customs of the order; (fn. 13)
and similar evidence was given by Ralph de
Malton, who had been admitted twenty-six years
before in the chapel at Cowley in the presence
of John de Dokesworke, then 'claviger' of
Cowley. (fn. 14) A foreign knight, Robert de Sancto
Justo of Beauvais diocese, declared that when he
was admitted at Sandford by Imbert, 'called
Iderand,' the grand master, he was ordered to spit
upon the cross and to deny the Christ; evidently
wishing to damage his order with the least risk
to himself, he said that he did deny Christ, but
only with his mouth and not with his heart, and
spat upon the ground near the cross. (fn. 15) Another
brother, Thomas de Walkington, who had been
admitted in the same house boldly stood up for
his order, and said that he did not believe the
alleged confessions of his brethren were ever
made, or if they were it was only through fear of
torture. (fn. 16)