Chapter VII (3)

On the 1st of July, an avowal of guilt was wrung by the inquisitors from Brother John de Stoke, chaplain of the order, who, being brought before the bishops of London and Chichester in St. Martin’s Church, deposed that he was received in the mode mentioned by him on his first examination; but a year and fifteen days after that reception, being at the preceptory of Garwy in the diocese of Hereford, he was called into the chamber of Brother James de Molay, the Grand Master of the order, who, in the presence of two other Templars of foreign extraction, informed him that he wished to make proof of his obedience, and commanded him to take a seat at the foot of the bed, and the deponent did so. The Grand Master then sent into the church for the crucifix, and two serving brothers, with naked swords in their hands, stationed themselves on either side of the doorway. As soon as the crucifix made its appearance, the Grand Master, pointing to the figure of our Saviour nailed thereon, asked the deponent whose image it was, and he answered, “The image of Jesus Christ, who suffered on the cross for the redemption of mankind;” but the Grand Master exclaimed, “Thou sayest wrong, and art much mistaken, for he was the son of a certain woman, and was crucified because he called himself the Son of God, and I myself have been in the place where he was born and crucified, and thou must now deny him whom this image represents.” The deponent exclaimed, “Far be it from me to deny my Saviour;” but the Grand Master told him he must do it, or he would be put into a sack and be carried to a place which he would find by no means agreeable, and there were swords in the room, and brothers ready to use them, &c. &c.; and the deponent asked if such was the custom of the order, and if all the brethren did the same; and being answered in the affirmative, he, through fear of immediate death, denied Christ with his _tongue_, but not with his _heart_. Being asked in whom he was told to put his faith after he had denied Christ Jesus, he replies, “In that great Omnipotent God who created the heaven and the earth!”

On Monday, July 5th, at the request of the ecclesiastical council, the bishop of Chichester had an interview with Sir William de la More, the Master of the Temple, taking with him certain learned lawyers, theologians, and scriveners. He exhorted and earnestly pressed him to abjure the heresies of which he stood convicted, by his own confessions and those of his brethren, respecting the absolutions pronounced by him in the chapters, and submit himself to the disposition of the church; but the Master declared that he had never been guilty of the heresies mentioned, and that he would not abjure crimes which he had never committed; so he was sent back to his dungeon. The next day, the bishops of London, Winchester, and Chichester, had an interview in Southwark with the Knight Templar Philip de Mewes, Preceptor of Garwy, and some serving brethren of the New Temple at London, and told them that they were manifestly guilty of heresy, as appeared from the pope’s bulls, and the depositions taken against the order both in England and France, and also from their own confessions regarding the absolutions pronounced in their chapters, explaining to them that they had grievously erred in believing that the Master of the Temple, who was a mere layman, had power to absolve them from their sins by pronouncing absolution, and they warned them that if they persisted in that error they would be condemned as heretics, and that, as they could not clear themselves therefrom, it behoved them to abjure all the heresies of which they were accused. The Templars replied that they were ready to abjure the error they had fallen into respecting the absolution and all heresies of every kind, before the archbishop of Canterbury and the prelates of the council, whenever they should be required so to do, and they humbly and reverently submitted themselves to the orders of the church, beseeching pardon and grace. A sort of compromise was then made with most of the Templars in custody in London. They were required publicly to repeat a form of confession and abjuration drawn up by the bishops of London and Chichester, and were then solemnly absolved and reconciled to the church.

On the 9th of July, Brother Michael de Baskevile, Knight, Preceptor of London, and seventeen other Templars, were absolved and reconciled in full council, in the Episcopal Hall of the see of London, in the presence of a vast concourse of the citizens. On the 10th of the same month, the Preceptors of Dokesworth, Getinges, and Samford, the guardian of the Temple church at London, Brother Radulph de Evesham, chaplain, with other priests, knights, and serving brethren of the order, were absolved by the bishops of London, Exeter, Winchester, and Chichester, in the presence of the archbishop of Canterbury, and the whole ecclesiastical council. The next day many more members of the fraternity were publicly reconciled to the church on the steps before the south door of Saint Paul’s cathedral, and were afterwards present at the celebration of high mass in the interior of the sacred edifice, when they advanced in a body towards the high altar bathed in tears, and falling down on their knees, they devoutly kissed the sacred emblems of Christianity. The day after, (July 12,) nineteen other Templars were publicly absolved and reconciled to the church in the same place, in the presence of the earls of Leicester, Pembroke, and Warwick, and afterwards assisted in like manner at the celebration of high mass. The priests of the order made their confessions and abjurations in Latin; the knights pronounced them in Norman French, and the serving brethren for the most part repeated them in English. The vast concourse of people collected together could have comprehended but very little of what was uttered, whilst the appearance of the penitent brethren, and the public spectacle of their recantation, answered the views of the papal inquisitors, and doubtless impressed the commonalty with a conviction of the guilt of the order. Many of the Templars were too _sick_ (from the effect of torture) to be brought down to Saint Paul’s, and were therefore absolved and reconciled to the church by the bishops of London, Winchester, and Chichester, at Saint Mary’s chapel near the Tower. Among these last were many old veteran warriors in the last stage of decrepitude and decay. “They were so old and so infirm,” says the public notary who recorded the proceedings, “that they were unable to stand;” their confessions were consequently made before two masters in theology; they were then led before the west door of the chapel, and were publicly reconciled to the church by the bishop of Chichester; after which they were brought into the sacred building, and were placed on their knees before the high altar, which they devoutly kissed, whilst the tears trickled down their furrowed cheeks. All these penitent Templars were now released from prison, and directed to do penance in different monasteries. Precisely the same form of proceeding was followed at York; the reconciliation and absolution being there carried into effect before the south door of the cathedral.[161]

Similar measures had, in the mean time, been prosecuted against the Templars in all parts of Christendom. On the 18th of March, the pope wrote to the kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Portugal, complaining of the omission to torture the Templars in their dominions. “The bishops and delegates,” says the holy pontiff, “have imprudently neglected these means of obtaining the truth; we therefore expressly order them to employ TORTURE against the knights, that the truth may be more readily and completely obtained!” The order for TORTURING the Templars was transmitted to the patriarch of Constantinople, the bishop of Negropont, and the duke of Achaia; and it crossed the seas to the king of Cyprus, and the bishops of Famagousta and Nicosia! The councils of Tarragona and Aragon, after applying the torture, pronounced the order free from heresy. In Portugal and in Germany the Templars were declared innocent: and in no place situate beyond the sphere of the influence of the king of France and his creature the pope was a single Templar condemned to death.[162]

On the 16th of October the general council of the church which had been convened by the pope to pronounce the abolition of the order, assembled at Vienne, near Lyons in France. It was opened by the holy pontiff in person, who caused the different confessions and avowals of the Templars to be read over before the assembled nobles and prelates. Although the order was now broken up, and the best and bravest of its members had either perished in the flames or were languishing in dungeons, yet nine fugitive Templars had the courage to present themselves before the council, and demand to be heard in defence of their order, declaring that they were the representatives of from 1,500 to 2,000 Templars, who were wandering about as fugitives and outlaws in the neighbourhood of Lyons. Monsieur Raynouard has fortunately brought to light a letter from the pope to king Philip, which states this fact, and also informs us how the holy pontiff acted when he heard that these defenders of the order had presented themselves. Clement caused them to be thrown into prison, where they languished and died. He affected to believe that his life was in danger from the number of the Templars at large, and he immediately took measures to provide for the security of his person.

The assembled fathers, to their honour, expressed their disapprobation of this flagrant act of injustice, and the entire council, with the exception of an Italian prelate, nephew of the pope, and the three French bishops of Rheims, Sens, and Rouen, all creatures of Philip, who had severally condemned large bodies of Templars to be burnt at the stake in their respective dioceses, were unanimously of opinion, that before the suppression of so celebrated and illustrious an order, which had rendered such great and signal services to the christian faith, the members belonging to it ought to be heard in their own defence.[163] Such a proceeding, however did not suit the views of the pope and king Philip, and the assembly was abruptly dismissed by the holy pontiff, who declared that since they were unwilling to adopt the necessary measures, he himself, out of the plenitude of the papal authority, would supply every defect. Accordingly, at the commencement of the following year, the pope summoned a private consistory; and several cardinals and French bishops having been gained over, the holy pontiff abolished the order by an apostolical ordinance, perpetually prohibiting every one from thenceforth entering into it, or accepting or wearing the habit thereof, or representing themselves to be Templars, on pain of excommunication.[164]

On the 3rd of April, the second session of the council was opened by the pope at Vienne. King Philip and his three sons were present, accompanied by a large body of troops, and the papal decree abolishing the order was published before the assembly. The members of the council appear to have been called together merely to hear the decree read. History does not inform us of any discussion with reference to it, nor of any suffrages having been taken. A few months after the close of these proceedings, Brother William de la More, the Master of the Temple in England, died of a broken heart in his solitary dungeon in the Tower, persisting with his last breath in the maintenance of the innocence of his order. King Edward, in pity for his misfortunes, directed the constable of the Tower to hand over his goods and chattels, valued at the sum of 4_l._ 19_s._ 11_d._, to his executors, to be employed in the liquidation of his debts, and he commanded Geoffrey de la Lee, guardian of the lands of the Templars, to pay the arrears of his prison pay (2_s._ per diem) to the executor, Roger Hunsingon.

Among the Cotton MS. is a list of the Masters of the Temple, otherwise the Grand Priors or Grand Preceptors of England, compiled under the direction of the prior of the Hospital of Saint John at Clerkenwell, to the intent that the brethren of that fraternity might remember the ancient Masters of the Temple in their prayers.[165] A few names have been omitted which are here supplied. Magister R. de Pointon. Rocelinus de Fossa. Richard de Hastings, (A. D. 1160). Richard Mallebeench. Geoffrey, son of Stephen, (A. D. 1180). Thomas Berard, (A. D. 1200). Amaric de St. Maur, (A. D. 1203). Alan Marcel, (A. D. 1224). Amberaldus, (A. D. 1229). Robert Mountforde, (A. D. 1234). Robert Sanford, (A. D. 1241). Amadeus de Morestello, (A. D. 1254). Himbert Peraut, (A. D. 1270). Robert Turvile, (A. D. 1290). Guido de Foresta, (A. D. 1292). James de Molay, (A. D. 1293). Brian le Jay, (A. D. 1295). WILLIAM DE LA MORE THE MARTYR.[166]

The only other Templar in England whose fate merits particular attention is Brother Himbert Blanke, the Grand Preceptor of Auvergne. He appears to have been a knight of high honour and of stern unbending pride. From first to last he had boldly protested against the violent proceedings of the inquisitors, and had fearlessly maintained, amid all his trials, his own innocence and that of his order. This illustrious Templar had fought under four successive Grand Masters in defence of the christian faith in Palestine, and, after the fall of Acre, had led in person several daring expeditions against the infidels. For these meritorious services he was rewarded in the following manner:--After having been tortured and half-starved in the English prisons for the space of five years, he was condemned, as he would make no confession of guilt, to be shut up in a loathsome dungeon, to be loaded with double chains, and to be occasionally visited by the agents of the Inquisition, to see if he would confess _nothing further_.[167] In this miserable situation he remained until death at last put an end to his sufferings.

James de Molay, the Grand Master of the Temple, Guy, the Grand Preceptor, a nobleman of illustrious birth, brother to the prince of Dauphiny, Hugh de Peralt, the Visitor-general of the order, and the Grand Preceptor of Aquitaine, had now languished in the prisons of France for the space of five years and a half. The secrets of their dark dungeons were never brought to light, but on the 18th of March, A. D. 1313, a public scaffold was erected before the cathedral church of Notre Dame, at Paris, and the citizens were summoned to hear the order of the Temple convicted by the mouths of its chief officers, of the sins and iniquities charged against it. The four knights, loaded with chains and surrounded by guards, were then brought upon the scaffold by the provost, and the bishop of Alba read their confessions aloud in the presence of the assembled populace. The papal legate then, turning towards the Grand Master and his companions, called upon them to renew, in the hearing of the people, the avowals which they had previously made of the guilt of their order. Hugh de Peralt, the Visitor-general, and the Preceptor of the Temple of Aquitaine, signified their assent to whatever was demanded of them, but the Grand Master, raising his arms bound with chains towards heaven, and advancing to the edge of the scaffold, declared in a loud voice, that to say that which was untrue was a crime, both in the sight of God and man. “I do,” said he, “confess my guilt, which consists in having, to my shame and dishonour, suffered myself, through the pain of torture and the fear of death, to give utterance to falsehoods, imputing scandalous sins and iniquities to an illustrious order, which hath nobly served the cause of Christianity. I disdain to seek a wretched and disgraceful existence by engrafting another lie upon the original falsehood.” He was here interrupted by the provost and his officers, and Guy, the Grand Preceptor, having commenced with strong asseverations of his innocence, they were both hurried back to prison.

King Philip was no sooner informed of the result, than, upon the first impulse of his indignation, without consulting either pope, or bishop, or ecclesiastical council, he commanded the instant execution of both these gallant noblemen. The same day at dusk they were led out of their dungeons, and were burned to death in a slow and lingering manner upon small fires of charcoal which were kindled on the little island in the Seine, between the king’s garden and the convent of Saint Augustine, close to the spot where now stands the equestrian statue of Henri IV.[168] Thus perished the last Grand Master of the Temple.

The fate of the persecutors of the order is not unworthy of notice.

A year and one month after the above horrible execution, the pope was attacked by a dysentery, and speedily hurried to his grave. The dead body was transported to Carpentras, where the court of Rome then resided; it was placed at night in a church which caught fire, and the mortal remains of the holy pontiff were almost entirely consumed. His relations quarrelled over the immense treasures he left behind him, and a vast sum of money, which had been deposited for safety in a church at Lucca, was stolen by a daring band of German and Italian freebooters. Before the close of the same year, king Philip died of a lingering disease which had baffled all the art of his medical attendants, and the condemned criminal, upon the strength of whose information the Templars were originally arrested, was hanged for fresh crimes. “History attests,” says Monsieur Raynouard, “that all those who were foremost in the persecution of the Templars, came to an untimely and miserable death. The last days of Philip were embittered by misfortune; his nobles and clergy leagued against him to resist his exactions; the wives of his three sons were accused of adultery, and two of them were publicly convicted of that crime. The misfortunes of Edward the Second, king of England, and his horrible death in Berkeley Castle, are too well known to be further alluded to.”

“The chief cause of the ruin of the Templars,” justly remarks Fuller, “was their extraordinary wealth. As Naboth’s vineyard was the chiefest ground of his blasphemy, and as in England Sir John Cornwall Lord Fanhope said merrily, not he, but his stately house at Ampthill, in Bedfordshire, was guilty of high treason, so certainly their wealth was the principal cause of their overthrow.... We may believe that king Philip would never have taken away their lives if he might have taken their lands without putting them to death, but the mischief was, he could not get the honey unless he burnt the bees.” King Philip, the pope, and the European sovereigns, appear to have disposed of all the personalty of the Templars, the ornaments, jewels, and treasures of their churches and chapels, and during the period of five years, over which the proceedings against the order extended, they remained in the actual receipt of the vast rents and revenues of the fraternity. King Philip put forward a claim upon their lands in France to the extent of two hundred thousand pounds for the expenses of the prosecution, and Louis, his son, claimed a further sum of sixty thousand pounds: “J’ignore,” says Voltaire, “ce qui revint au pape, mais je vois evidemment que les frais des cardinaux, des inquisiteurs déléguès pour faire ce procès épouvantable monterent à des sommes immenses.” The holy pontiff, according to his own account, received only a _small portion_ of the personalty of the order, but others make him a large participator in the good things of the fraternity.[169]

On the imprisonment of the Templars in England, the Temple at London, and all the preceptories dependent upon it, with the manors, farms, houses, lands, and revenues of the order, were placed under the survey of the Court of Exchequer, and extents were directed to be taken of the same, after which they were confided to the care of certain trustworthy persons, styled “Guardians of the lands of the Templars,” who were to account for the rents and profits to the king’s exchequer. These guardians were directed to pay various pensions to the old servants and retainers of the Templars dwelling in the different preceptories, also the expenses of the prosecution against the order; and they were at different times required to victual the king’s castles and strongholds. In the month of February, A. D. 1312, the king gave the Temple manors of Etton and Cave to David, earl of Athol, directing the guardians of the lands and tenements of the Templars in the county of York to hand over to the said earl all the corn in those manors, the oxen, calves, ploughs, and all the goods and chattels of the Templars existing therein, together with the ornaments and utensils of the chapel of the Temple. But on the 16th of May the pope addressed bulls to the king, and to all the earls and barons of the kingdom, setting forth the proceedings of the council of Vienne, and the publication of a papal decree, vesting the property late belonging to the Templars in the brethren of the Hospital of St. John, and he commands them forthwith to place the members of that order in possession thereof. Bulls were also addressed to the archbishops of Canterbury and York and their suffragans, commanding them to enforce by ecclesiastical censures the execution of the papal commands. King Edward and his nobles very properly resisted this decree, and on the 21st of August the king wrote to the Prior of the Hospital of St. John at Clerkenwell, telling him that the pretensions of the pope to dispose of property within the realm of England, without the consent of parliament, were derogatory to the dignity of the crown and the royal authority. The following year the king granted the Temple at London, with the church and all the buildings therein, to Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke; and on the 5th of May of the same year, he caused several merchants, from whom he had borrowed money, to be placed in possession of many of the manors of the Templars.[170]

Yielding, however, at last to the exhortations and menaces of the pope, the king, on the 21st of Nov., A. D. 1313, granted the property to the Hospitallers, and sent orders to the guardians of the lands of the Templars, and to various powerful barons who were in possession of the estates, commanding them to deliver them up to certain parties deputed by the Grand Master and chapter of the Hospital of St. John to receive them. At this period many of the heirs of the donors, whose title had been recognised by the law, were in possession of the lands, and the judges held that the king had no power of his own sole authority to transfer them to the order of the Hospital. The thunders of the Vatican were consequently vigorously made use of, and all the detainers of the property were doomed by the Roman pontiff to everlasting damnation. Pope John, in one of his bulls, dated A. D. 1322, bitterly complains of the disregard by all the king’s subjects of the papal commands. He laments that they had hardened their hearts and despised the sentence of excommunication fulminated against them, and declares that his heart was riven with grief to find that even the ecclesiastics, who ought to have been as a wall of defence to the Hospitallers, had themselves been heinously guilty in the premises.[171]

At last (A. D. 1324) the pope, the bishops, and the Hospitallers, by their united exertions, succeeded in obtaining an act of parliament, vesting all the property late belonging to the Templars in the brethren of the Hospital of St. John, in order that the intentions of the donors might be carried into effect by the appropriation of it to the defence of the Holy Land and the succour of the christian cause in the East. This statute gave rise to the greatest discontent. The heirs of the donors petitioned parliament for its repeal, alleging that it had been made against law, and against reason, and contrary to the opinion of the judges; and many of the great barons who held the property by a title recognised by the common law, successfully resisted the claims of the order of the Hospital, maintaining that the parliament had no right to interfere with the tenure of private property, and to dispose of their possessions without their consent. This struggle between the heirs of the donors on the one hand, and the Hospitallers on the other, continued for a lengthened period; and in the reign of Edward the Third it was found necessary to pass another act of parliament, confirming the previous statute in their favour, and writs were sent to the sheriffs (A. D. 1334) commanding them to enforce the execution of the acts of the legislature, and to take possession, in the king’s name, of all the property unjustly detained from the brethren of the Hospital of St. John.[172]

Whilst the vast possessions, late belonging to the Templars, thus continued to be the subject of contention, the surviving brethren of that dissolved order continued to be treated with the utmost inhumanity and neglect. The ecclesiastical council had assigned to each of them a pension of fourpence a day for subsistence, but this small pittance was not paid, and they were consequently in great danger of dying of hunger. The king, pitying their miserable situation, wrote to the prior of the hospital of St. John at Clerkenwell, earnestly requesting him to take their hard lot into his serious consideration, and not suffer them to come to beggary in the streets. The archbishop of Canterbury also exerted himself in their behalf, and sent letters to the possessors of the property, reproving them for the non-payment of the allotted stipends. “This inhumanity,” says he, “awakens our compassion, and penetrates us with the most lively grief. We pray and conjure you in kindness to furnish them, for the love of God and for charity, with the means of subsistence.” The archbishop of York caused many of them to be supported in the different monasteries of his diocese.[173]

We have already seen (ante, p. 298) that the Temple at London, the chief house of the English province of the order, had been granted (A. D. 1313) by king Edward the Second to Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke. As Thomas earl of Lancaster, the king’s cousin and first prince of the blood, however, claimed the Temple by escheat, as the immediate lord of the fee, the earl of Pembroke, on the 3rd of October, A. D. 1315, at the request of the king, and in consideration of the grant to him by his sovereign of other land, gave up the property to the earl of Lancaster. This earl of Lancaster was president of the council, and the most powerful and opulent subject of the kingdom, and we are told that the students and professors of the common law made interest with him for a lodging in the Temple, and first gained a footing therein as his _lessees_. They took possession of the old Hall and the gloomy cells of the military monks, and converted them into the great and most ancient Common Law University in England. From that period to the present time the retreats of the religious warriors have been devoted to “the studious and eloquent pleaders of causes,” a new kind of TEMPLARS, who, as Fuller quaintly observes, now “defend one Christian from another, as the old ones did Christians from Pagans.”

Subsequently to this event the fee simple or inheritance of the place passed successively through various hands. On the memorable attainder and ignominious execution before his own castle of the earl of Lancaster it reverted to the crown, and was again granted to Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, who was shortly afterwards murdered at Paris. He died without issue, and the Temple accordingly once more vested in the crown.[174] It was then granted to the royal favourite, Hugh le Despenser the younger, and on his attainder and execution by the Lancastrian faction, it came into the hands of the young king Edward the Third, who had just then ascended the throne, and was committed by him to the keeping of the Mayor of London, his escheator in the city. The mayor closed the gate leading to the waterside, which stood at the bottom of the present Middle Temple Lane, whereby the lawyers were much incommoded in their progress backwards and forwards from the Temple to Westminster. Complaints were made to the king on the subject, who, on the 2nd day of November, in the third year of his reign, (A. D. 1330,) wrote as follows to the mayor:--“The king to the mayor of London, his escheator in the same city. Since we have been given to understand that there ought to be a free passage through the court of the New Temple at London to the river Thames, for our justices, clerks, and others, who may wish to pass by water to Westminster to transact their business, and that you keep the gate of the Temple shut by day, and so prevent those same justices, clerks of ours, and other persons, from passing through the midst of the said court to the waterside, whereby as well our own affairs as those of our people in general are oftentimes greatly delayed, we command you, that you keep the gates of the said Temple open by day, so that our justices and clerks, and other persons who wish to go by water to Westminster may be able so to do by the way to which they have hitherto been accustomed.” The following year (A. D. 1331) the king wrote to the mayor, his escheator in the city of London, informing him that he had been given to understand that the pier in the said court of the Temple, leading to the river, was so broken and decayed, that his clerks and law officers, and others, could no longer get across it, and were consequently prevented from passing by water to Westminster. “We therefore,” he proceeds, “being desirous of providing such a remedy as we ought for this evil, command you to do whatever repairs are necessary to the said pier, and to defray the cost thereof out of the proceeds of the lands and rents appertaining to the said Temple now in your custody; and when we shall have been informed of the things done in the matter, the expense shall be allowed you in your account of the same proceeds.”[175]

Two years afterwards (6 E. III., A. D. 1333) the king committed the custody of the Temple to “his beloved clerk,” William de Langford, “and farmed out the rents and proceeds thereof to him for the term of ten years, at a rent of 24_l._ per annum, the said William undertaking to keep all the houses and tenements in good order and repair, and so deliver them up at the end of the term.” In the mean time, however, the pope and the bishops had been vigorously exerting themselves to obtain a transfer of the property to the order of the Knights Hospitallers of Saint John. The Hospitallers petitioned the king, setting forth that the church, the cloisters, and other places within the Temple, were consecrated and dedicated to the service of God, that they had been unjustly occupied and detained from them by Hugh le Despenser the younger, and, through his attainder, had lately come into the king’s hands, and they besought the king to deliver up to them possession thereof. King Edward accordingly commanded the mayor of London, his escheator in that city, to take inquisition concerning the premises.

From this inquisition, and the return thereof, it appears that many of the founders of the Temple Church, and many of the brethren of the order of Knights Templars, then lay buried in the church and cemetery of the Temple; that the bishop of Ely had his lodging in the Temple, known by the name of the bishop of Ely’s chamber; that there was a chapel dedicated to St. Thomas-à-Becket, which extended from the door of the TEMPLE HALL as far as the ancient gate of the Temple; also a cloister which began at the bishop of Ely’s chamber, and ran in an easterly direction; and that there was a wall which ran in a northerly direction as far as the said king’s highway; that in the front part of the cemetery towards the north, bordering on the king’s highway, were thirteen houses formerly erected, with the assent and permission of the Master and brethren of the Temple, by Roger Blom, a messenger of the Temple, for the purpose of holding the lights and ornaments of the church; that the land whereon these houses were built, the cemetery, the church, and all the space enclosed between St. Thomas’s chapel, the church, the cloisters, and the wall running in a northerly direction, and all the buildings erected thereon, together with the hall, cloisters, and St. Thomas’ chapel, were sanctified places dedicated to God; that Hugh le Despenser occupied and detained them unjustly, and that through his attainder and forfeiture, and not otherwise, they came into the king’s hands.[176]

After the return of this inquisition, the said sanctified places were assigned to the prior and brethren of the Hospital of Saint John; and the king, on the 11th of January, in the tenth year of his reign, A. D. 1337, directed his writ to the barons of the Exchequer, commanding them to take inquisition of the value of the said sanctified places, so given up to the Hospitallers, and of the residue of the Temple, and certify the same under their seals to the king, in order that a reasonable abatement might be made in William de Langford’s rent. From the inquiry made in pursuance of this writ before John de Shoreditch, a baron of the Exchequer, it further appears that on the said residue of the Temple upon the land then remaining in the custody of William de Langford, and withinside the great gate of the Temple, were another HALL and four chambers connected therewith, a kitchen, a garden, a stable, and a chamber beyond the great gate; also eight shops, seven of which stood in Fleet Street, and the eighth in the suburb of London, without the bar of the New Temple; that the annual value of these shops varied from ten to thirteen, fifteen, and sixteen shillings; that the fruit out of the garden of the Temple sold for sixty shillings per annum in the gross, that seven out of the thirteen houses erected by Roger Blom were each of the annual value of eleven shillings; and that the eighth, situated beyond the gate of entrance to the church, was worth four marks per annum. It appears, moreover, that the total annual revenue of the Temple then amounted to 73_l._ 6_s._ 11_d._, equal to about 1,000_l._ of our present money, and that William de Langford was abated 12_l._ 4_s._ 2_d._ of the said rent.[177]

Three years after the taking of this inquisition, and in the thirteenth year of his reign, A. D. 1340, king Edward the Third, in consideration of the sum of one hundred pounds, which the prior of the Knights Hospitallers promised to pay him towards the expense of his expedition into France, granted to the said prior all the residue of the Temple then remaining in the king’s hands, to hold, together with the cemetery, cloisters, and the other sanctified places, to the said prior and his brethren, and their successors, of the king and his heirs, for charitable purposes, for ever. From this grant it appears that the porter of the Temple received sixty shillings and tenpence per annum, and twopence a day wages, which were to be paid him by the Hospitallers. At this period Philip Thane was prior of the Hospital; and he exerted himself to impart to the celebration of divine service in the Temple Church, the dignity and the splendour it possessed in the time of the Templars. He, with the unanimous consent and approbation of the whole chapter of the Hospital, granted to Hugh de Lichefield, priest, and to his successors, guardians of the Temple Church, towards the improvement of the lights and the celebration of divine service therein, all the land called Ficketzfeld, and the garden called Cotterell Garden; and two years afterwards he made a further grant, to the said Hugh and his successors, of a thousand fagots a year to be cut out of the wood of Lilleston, and carried to the New Temple to keep up the fire in the said church.[178]

King Edward III., in the thirty-fifth year of his reign, A. D. 1362, notwithstanding the grant of the Temple to the Hospitallers, exercised the right of appointing to the porter’s office, and by his letter patent he promoted Roger Small to that post for the term of his life, in return for the good service rendered him by the said Roger Small.[179]

It appears that the lawyers in the Temple had at this period their purveyor of provisions as at present, and were then keeping commons or dining together in the hall. The poet Chaucer, who was born at the close of the reign of Edward II., A. D. 1327, and was in high favour at court in the reign of Edward III., thus speaks of the MANCIPLE, or the purveyor of provisions of the lawyers in the Temple:--

“A gentil Manciple was there of the TEMPLE,
Of whom achatours mighten take ensample,
For to ben wise in bying of vitaille.
For whether that he paid or toke by taille,
Algate he waited so in his achate,
That he was aye before in good estate.
Now is not that of God a full fayre grace,
That swiche a lewed mannes wit shal pace,
The wisdome of an hepe of lerned men?”
“Of maisters had he mo than thries ten,
THAT WERE OF LAWE EXPERT AND CURIOUS;
Of which there was a dosein in that hous
Worthy to ben stewardes of rent and lond
Of any lord that is in Englelond,
To maken him live by his propre good,
In honour detteles, but if he were wood,
Or live as scarsly, as him list desire;
And able for to helpen all a shire,
In any cas that mighte fallen or happe;
And yet this manciple sette hir aller cappe.”[180]

At the period of the dissolution of the order of the Templars many of the retainers of the ancient knights were residing in the Temple, supported by pensions from the crown. These were of the class of free servants of office, they held their posts for life, and not having been members of the order, they were not included in the general proscription of the fraternity. On the seizure by the sheriffs and royal officers of the property of their ancient masters, they had been reduced to great distress, and had petitioned the king to be allowed their customary stipends. Edward II. had accordingly granted to Robert Styfford clerk, chaplain of the Temple Church, two deniers a day for his maintenance in the house of the Temple at London, and five shillings a year for necessaries, provided he did service in the Temple Church; and when unable to do so, he was to receive only his food and lodging. Geoffrey Talaver, Geoffrey de Cave, clerk, and John de Shelton, were also, each of them, to receive for their good services, annual pensions for the term of their lives. Some of these retainers, in addition to their various stipends, were to have a gown of the class of free-serving brethren of the order of the Temple each year; one old garment out of the stock of old garments belonging to the brethren; one mark a year for their shoes, &c.; their sons also received so much _per diem_, on condition that they did the daily work of the house.[181] These domestics and retainers of the ancient brotherhood of the Knights Templars, appear to have transferred their services to the learned society of lawyers established in the Temple, and to have continued and kept alive amongst them many of the ancient customs and observances of the old Knights. The chaplain of the Temple Church took his meals in the hall with the lawyers as he had been wont to do with the Knights Templars; and the rule of their order requiring “two and two to eat together,” and “all the fragments to be given in brotherly charity to the domestics,” continued to be observed, and prevails to this day; whilst the attendants at table continued to be, and are still called _paniers_, as in the days of the Knights Templars.[182]

In the sixth year of the reign of Edward III., (A. D. 1333,) a few years after the lawyers had established themselves in the convent of the Temple, the judges of the Court of Common Pleas were made KNIGHTS,[183] being the earliest instance on record of the grant of the honour of knighthood for services purely civil, and the professors of the common law, who had the exclusive privilege of practising in that court, assumed the title or degree of FRERES SERJENS or FRATRES SERVIENTES, so that an order of knights and serving-brethren was most curiously revived in the Temple, and introduced into the profession of the law. It is true that the word _serviens_, _serjen_, or serjeant, was applied to the professors of the law long before the reign of Edward III., but not to denote a _privileged brotherhood_. It was applied to lawyers in common with all persons who did any description of work for another, from the _serviens domini regis ad legem_, who prosecuted the pleas of the crown in the county court, to the _serviens_ or _serjen_ who walked with his cane before the concubine of the patriarch Heraclius in the streets of Jerusalem. The priest who worked for the Lord was called _serjen de Dieu_, and the lover who served the lady of his affections _serjen d’amour_. It was in the order of the Temple that the word _freres_ serjens or _fratres_ servientes first signified an honorary title or degree, and denoted a powerful privileged class of brethren. The _fratres servientes armigeri_ or _freres serjens des armes_, of the chivalry of the Temple, were of the rank of gentlemen. They united in their own persons the monastic and the military character, they were allotted one horse each, they wore the cross of the order of the Temple on their breasts, they participated in all the privileges of the brotherhood, and were eligible to the dignity of Preceptor. Large sums of money were frequently given by seculars who had not been advanced to the honour of knighthood, to be admitted amongst this highly esteemed order of men. These _freres serjens_ of the Temple wore linen _coifs_, and red caps close over them.[184] At the ceremony of their admission into the fraternity, the Master of the Temple placed the coif upon their heads, and threw over their shoulders the white mantle of the Temple; he then caused them to sit down on the ground, and gave them a solemn admonition concerning the duties and responsibilities of their profession. The knights and Serjeants of the common law, on the other hand, have ever constituted a privileged _fraternity_, and always address one another by the endearing term _brother_. The religious character of the ancient ceremony of admission into this legal brotherhood, which took place in the Temple Church, and its striking similarity to the ancient mode of reception into the fraternity of the Temple, are curious and remarkable. “Capitalis Justitiarius,” says an ancient MS. account of the creation of serjeants-at-law, “monstrabat eis plura bona exempla de eorum prædecessoribus, et tunc. posuit les _coyfes_ super eorum capitibus, et induebat eos singulariter de capital de skarletto, et sic creati fuerunt _servientes ad legem_.” In his admonitory exhortation, the chief-justice displays to them the moral and religious duties of their profession. “Ambulate in vocatione in quâ vocati estis.... Disce cultum Dei, _reverentiam superioris, misericordiam pauperi_.” He tells them the coif is sicut vestis _candida_ et immaculata, the emblem of purity and virtue, and he commences a portion of his discourse in the scriptural language used by the popes in the famous bull conceding to the Templars their vast spiritual and temporal privileges, “_Omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum desursum est descendens a patre luminum_,” &c. &c.[185] It has been supposed that the coif was first introduced by the clerical practitioners of the common law to hide the _tonsure_ of those priests who practised in the Court of Common Pleas, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical prohibition. This was not the case. The early portraits of our judges exhibit them with a coif of very much larger dimensions than the coifs now worn by the serjeants-at-law, very much larger than would be necessary to hide the _mere clerical tonsure_. A covering for that purpose indeed would be absurd.

From the inquisition into the state of the Temple, taken 10 E. III., A. D. 1337, it appears, as we have already seen, that in the time of the Knights Templars there were TWO HALLS in the Temple, the one being the hall of the knights, and the other the hall of the _freres serjens_, or serving-brethren of the order. One of these halls, the present Inner Temple Hall, had been assigned, the year previous to the taking of that inquisition, to the prior and brethren of the Hospital of Saint John, together with the church, cloisters, &c., as before mentioned, whilst the other hall remained in the hands of the crown, and was not granted to the Hospitallers until 13 E. III., A. D. 1340. It was probably soon after this period that the Hospitallers conceded the use of _both halls_ to the professors of the law, and these last, from dining apart and being attached to different halls, at last separated into two societies. When the lawyers originally came into the Temple as lessees of the earl of Lancaster, they found engraved upon the ancient buildings the armorial bearings of the order of the Temple, which were, on a shield argent, a plain cross gules, and (_brochant sur le tout_) the holy lamb bearing the banner of the order, surmounted by a red cross. These arms remained the emblem of the Temple until the fifth year of the reign of queen Elizabeth, when unfortunately the society of the Inner Temple, yielding to the advice and persuasion of Master Gerard Leigh, a member of the College of Heralds, abandoned the ancient and honourable device of the Knights Templars, and assumed in its place a galloping winged horse called a Pegasus, or, as it has been explained to us, “a horse striking the earth with its hoof, or _Pegasus luna on a field argent_!” Master Gerard Leigh, we are told, “emblazoned them with precious stones and planets, and by these strange arms he intended to signify that the knowledge acquired at the learned seminary of the Inner Temple would raise the professors of the law to the highest honours, adding, by way of motto, _volat ad æthera virtus_, and he intended to allude to what are esteemed the more liberal sciences, by giving them Pegasus forming the fountain of Hippocrene, by striking his hoof against the rock, as a proper emblem of lawyers becoming poets, as Chaucer and Gower, who were both of the Temple!”

The Society of the Middle Temple, with better taste, still preserves, in that part of the Temple over which its sway extends, the widely-renowned and time-honoured badge of the ancient order of the Temple.

On the dissolution of the order of the Hospital of Saint John, (32 Hen. 8,) the Temple once more reverted to the crown, and the lawyers again became the immediate lessees of the sovereign. In the reign of James I., however, some Scotchman attempted to obtain from his majesty a grant of the fee simple or inheritance of the Temple, which being brought to the knowledge of the two law societies, they forthwith made “humble suit” to the king, and obtained a grant of the property to themselves. By letters patent, bearing date at Westminster the 13th of August, in the sixth year of his reign, A. D. 1609, king James granted the Temple to the Benchers of the two societies, their heirs and assigns for ever, for the lodging, reception, and education of the professors and students of the laws of England, the said Benchers yielding and paying to the said king, his heirs and successors, ten pounds yearly for the mansion called the Inner Temple, and ten pounds yearly for the Middle Temple.[186]

There are but few remains of the ancient Knights Templars now existing in the Temple beyond the CHURCH. The present Inner Temple Hall was the ancient HALL OF THE KNIGHTS, but it has at different periods been so altered and repaired as to have lost almost every trace and vestige of antiquity. In the year 1816 it was nearly rebuilt, and the following extract from “The Report and Observations of the Treasurer on the late Repairs of the Inner Temple Hall,” may prove interesting, as showing the state of the edifice previous to that period. “From the proportions, the state of decay, the materials of the eastern and southern walls, the buttresses of the southern front, the pointed form of the roof and arches, and the rude sculpture on the two doors of public entrance, the hall is evidently of very great antiquity.... The northern wall appears to have been rebuilt, except at its two extremities, in modern times, but on the old foundations.... The roof was found to be in a very decayed and precarious state. It appeared to have undergone reparation at three separate periods of time, at each of which timber had been unnecessarily added, so as finally to accumulate a weight which had protruded the northern and southern walls. It became, therefore, indispensable to remove all the timber of the roof, and to replace it in a lighter form. On removing the old wainscoting of the western wall, a perpendicular crack of considerable height and width was discovered, which threatened at any moment the fall of that extremity of the building with its superincumbent roof.... The turret of the clock and the southern front of the hall are only cased with stone; this was done in the year 1741, and very ill executed. The structure of the turret, composed of chalk, ragstone, and rubble, (the same material as the walls of the church,) seems to be very ancient.... The wooden cupola of the bell was so decayed as to let in the rain, and was obliged to be renewed in a form to agree with the other parts of the southern front.”

“Notwithstanding the Gothic character of the building, in the year 1680, during the treasurership of Sir Thomas Robinson, prothonotary of C. B., a Grecian screen of the Doric order was erected, surmounted by lions’ heads, cones, and other incongruous devices. In the year 1741, during the treasurership of John Blencowe, esq., low windows of Roman architecture were formed in the southern front. The dates of such innovations appear from inscriptions with the respective treasurers’ names.”

This ancient hall formed the far-famed refectory of the Knights Templars, and was the scene of their proud and sumptuous hospitality. Within its venerable walls they at different periods entertained king John, king Henry the Third, the haughty legates of the Roman pontiffs, and the ambassadors of foreign powers. The old custom, alluded to by Matthew Paris, (ante, p. 203,) of hanging around the walls the shields and armorial devices of the ancient knights, is still preserved, and each succeeding treasurer of the Temple still continues to hoist his coat of arms on the wall, as in the high and palmy days of the warlike monks of old. Here, in the time of the Knights Templars, the discipline was administered to disobedient brethren, who were scourged upon their bare backs with leathern thongs. Here also was kept, according to the depositions of the witnesses who brought such dark and terrible accusations against the Templars before the ecclesiastical tribunal assembled in London, the famous black idol with shining eyes, and the gilded head, which the Templars worshipped! and from hence was taken the refractory knight, who having refused to spit upon the cross, was plunged into the well which stood in the middle of the Temple court! The general chapters of the Templars were frequently held in the Temple Hall, and the vicar of the church of St. Clements at Sandwich, swore before the Papal inquisitors assembled at London, that he had heard that a boy had been murdered by the Templars in the Temple, because he had crept by stealth into the Hall to witness the proceedings of the assembled brethren.