King Henry the Second, for the good of his soul and the welfare of his kingdom, granted the Templars a place situate on the river Fleet, near Bainard’s Castle, with the whole current of that river at London, for erecting a mill; also a messuage near Fleet-street; the church of St. Clement, “quæ dicitur Dacorum extra civitatem Londoniæ;” and the churches of Elle, Swinderby and Skarle in Lincolnshire, Kingeswode juxta Waltham in Kent, the manor of Stroder in the hundred of Skamele, the vill of Kele in Staffordshire, the hermitage of Flikeamstede, and all his lands at Lange Cureway, a house in Brosal, and the market at Witham; lands at Berghotte, a mill at the bridge of Pembroke Castle, the vill of Finchinfelde, the manor of Rotheley, with its appurtenances, and the advowson of the church and its several chapels, the manor of Blalcolvesley, the park of Halshall, and three fat bucks annually, either from Essex or Windsor Forest. He likewise granted them an annual fair at Temple Bruere, and superadded many rich benefactions in Ireland.44
The Templars, in addition to their amazing wealth, enjoyed vast privileges and immunities within this realm. They were freed from all amerciaments in the Exchequer, and obtained the privilege of not being compelled to plead except before the king or his chief justice. By special grant from the kings of England, they enjoyed free warren in all their demesne lands, also the power of holding courts to judge their villains and vassals, and to try thieves and malefactors; they were relieved from all the customary feudal suits and services, from the works of parks, castles, bridges, the building of royal houses, and all other works; and also from waste regard and view of foresters, and from toll in all markets and fairs, and at all bridges, and upon all highways throughout the kingdom. They had also the chattels of felons and fugitives, and all waifs within their fee.45 In addition to the particular privileges conceded to them by the kings of England, the Templars enjoyed, under the authority of divers Papal bulls, various immunities and advantages, which gave great umbrage to the clergy. They were freed, as before mentioned, from the obligation of paying tithes, and might, with the consent of the bishop, receive them. No brother of the Temple could be excommunicated by any bishop or priest, nor could any of the churches of the order be laid under interdict except by virtue of a special mandate from the holy see. When any brother of the Temple, appointed to make charitable collections for the succour of the Holy Land, should arrive at a city, castle, or village, which had been laid under interdict, the churches, on their welcome coming, were to be thrown open, (once within the year,) and divine service was to be performed in honour of the Temple, and in reverence for the holy soldiers thereof. The privilege of sanctuary was thrown around their dwellings; and by various papal bulls it is solemnly enjoined that no person shall lay violent hands either upon the persons or the property of those flying for refuge to the Temple houses.46
Sir Edward Coke, in the second part of the Institute of the Laws of England, observes, that “the Templars did so overspread throughout Christendome, and so exceedingly increased in possessions, revenues, and wealth, and specially in England, as you will wonder to reade in approved histories, and withall obtained so great and large privileges, liberties, and immunities for themselves, their tenants, and farmers, &c., as no other order had the like.” He further observes, that the Knights Templars were cruce signati, and as the cross was the ensign of their profession, and their tenants enjoyed great privileges, they did erect crosses upon their houses, to the end that those inhabiting them might be known to be the tenants of the order, and thereby be freed from many duties and services which other tenants were subject unto; “and many tenants of other lords, perceiving the state and greatnesse of the knights of the said order, and withall seeing the great privileges their tenants enjoyed, did set up crosses upon their houses, as their very tenants used to doe, to the prejudice of their lords.”
This abuse led to the passing of the statute of Westminster, the second, chap. 33, which recites, that many tenants did set up crosses or cause them to be set up on their lands in prejudice of their lords, that the tenants might defend themselves against the chief lord of the fee by the privileges of Templars, and enacts that such lands shall be forfeited to the chief lords or to the king. Sir Edward Coke observes, that the Templars were freed from tenths and fifteenths to be paid to the king; that they were discharged of purveyance; that they could not be sued for any ecclesiastical cause before the ordinary, sed coram conservatoribus suorum privilegiorum; and that of ancient time they claimed that a felon might take to their houses, having their crosses for his safety, as well as to any church. And concerning these conservers or keepers of their privileges, he remarks, that the Templars and Hospitallers “held an ecclesiasticall court before a canonist, whom they termed conservator privilegiorum suorum, which judge had indeed more authority than was convenient, and did dayly, in respect to the height of these two orders, and at their instance and direction, incroach upon and hold plea of matters determinable by the common law, for cui plus licet quam par est, plus vult quam licet; and this was one great mischiefe. Another mischiefe was, that this judge likewise at their instance, in cases wherein he had jurisdiction, would make general citations as pro salute animæ, and the like, without expressing the matter whereupon the citation was made, which also was against law, and tended to the grievous vexation of the subject.”47 To remedy these evils, another act of parliament was passed, prohibiting the Templars from bringing any man in plea before the keepers of their privileges, for any matter the knowledge whereof belonged to the king’s court, and commanding such keepers of their privileges thenceforth to grant no citation at the instance of the Templars, before it be expressed upon what matter the citation ought to be made.48
The Grand Master of the Temple ranked in Europe as a sovereign prince, and had precedence of all ambassadors and peers in the general councils of the church. He was elected to his high office by the chapter of the kingdom of Jerusalem, which was composed of all the knights of the East and of the West who could manage to attend. The western nations or provinces of the order were presided over by the provincial Masters, otherwise Grand Priors or Grand Preceptors, who were originally appointed by the Chief Master at Jerusalem, and were in theory mere trustees or bare administrators of the revenues of the fraternity, accountable to the treasurer-general at Jerusalem, and removeable at the pleasure of the Chief Master. The superior of the Temple at London is always styled “Master of the Temple,” and holds his chapters and has his officers corresponding to those of the Chief Master in Palestine. The latter, consequently, came to be denominated Magnus Magister, or Grand Master. The titles given indeed to the superiors of the different nations or provinces into which the order of the Temple was divided, are numerous and somewhat perplexing. In the East, these officers were known only, in the first instance, by the title of Prior, as Prior of England, Prior of France, Prior of Portugal, &c., and afterwards Preceptor of England, Preceptor of France, &c.; but in Europe they were called Grand Priors, and Grand Preceptors, to distinguish them from the Sub-priors and Sub-preceptors, and also Masters of the Temple. The Prior and Preceptor of England, therefore, and the Grand Prior, Grand Preceptor, and Master of the Temple in England, were one and the same person. There were also at the New Temple at London, in imitation of the establishment at the chief house in Palestine, in addition to the Master, the Preceptor of the Temple, the Prior of London, the Treasurer, and the Guardian of the church, who had three chaplains under him called readers.
The Master at London had his general and particular, or his ordinary and extraordinary chapters. The first were composed of the grand preceptors of Scotland and Ireland, and all the provincial priors and preceptors of the three kingdoms, who were summoned once a year to deliberate on the state of the Holy Land, to forward succour, to give an account of their stewardship, and to frame new rules and regulations for the management of the temporalities.49 The ordinary chapters were held at the different preceptories, which the Master of the Temple visited in succession. In these chapters new members were admitted into the order; lands were bought, sold, and exchanged; and presentations were made by the Master to vacant benefices. Many of the grants and other deeds of these chapters, with the seal of the order of the Temple annexed to them, are to be met with in the public and private collections of manuscripts in this country. One of the most interesting and best preserved, is the Harleian charter, (83, c. 39,) in the British Museum, which is a grant of land made by Brother William de la More THE MARTYR, the last Master of the Temple in England, to the Lord Milo de Stapleton. It is expressed to be made by him, with the common consent and advice of his chapter, held at the Preceptory of Dynneslee, on the feast of Saint Barnabas the Apostle, and concludes, “In witness whereof, we have to this present indenture placed the seal of our chapter.” A facsimile of this seal is given at the head of the present chapter. On the reverse of it is a man’s head, decorated with a long beard, and surmounted by a small cap, and around it are the letters TESTIS SVM AGNI. The same seal is to be met with on various other indentures made by the Master and Chapter of the Temple.50 The more early seals are surrounded with the words, Sigillum Militis Templi, “Seal of the Knight of the Temple;” as in the case of the deed of exchange of lands at Normanton in the parish of Botisford, in Leicestershire, entered into between Brother Amadeus de Morestello, Master of the chivalry of the Temple in England, and his chapter, of the one part, and the Lord Henry de Coleville Knight, of the other part. The seal annexed to this deed has the addition of the word Militis, but in other respects it is similar to the one above delineated.51
The Master of the Temple in England sat in parliament as first baron of the realm, but that is to be understood among priors only. To the parliament holden in the twenty-ninth year of King Henry the Third, there was summoned sixty-five abbots, thirty-five priors, and the Master of the Temple.52 The oath taken by the grand priors, grand preceptors, or provincial Masters in Europe, on their assumption of the duties of their high administrative office, was drawn up in the following terms: – “I A. B., Knight of the Order of the Temple, just now appointed Master of the knights who are in – , promise to Jesus Christ my Saviour, and to his vicar the sovereign pontiff and his successors, perpetual obedience and fidelity. I swear that I will defend, not only with my lips, but by force of arms and with all my strength, the mysteries of the faith; the seven sacraments, the fourteen articles of the faith, the creed of the Apostles, and that of Saint Athanasius; the books of the Old and the New Testament, with the commentaries of the holy fathers, as received by the church; the unity of God, the plurality of the persons of the holy Trinity; and the doctrine that Mary, the daughter of Joachim and Anna, of the tribe of Judah, and of the race of David, remained always a virgin before her delivery, during and after her delivery. I promise likewise to be submissive and obedient to the Master-general of the order, in conformity with the statutes prescribed by our father Saint Bernard; that I will at all times in case of need pass the seas to go and fight; that I will always afford succour against the infidel kings and princes; that in the presence of three enemies I will fly not, but cope with them, if they are infidels; that I will not sell the property of the order, nor consent that it be sold or alienated; that I will always preserve chastity; that I will be faithful to the king of – ; that I will never surrender to the enemy the towns and places belonging to the order; and that I will never refuse to the religious any succour that I am able to afford them; that I will aid and defend them by words, by arms, and by all sorts of good offices; and in sincerity and of my own free will I swear that I will observe all these things.”53
Among the earliest of the Masters, or Grand Priors, or Grand Preceptors of England, whose names figure in history, is Richard de Hastings, who was at the head of the order in this country on the accession of King Henry the Second to the throne, (A. D. 1154,) and was employed by that monarch in various important negotiations. He was the friend and confidant of Thomas à Becket, and vainly endeavoured to terminate the disputes between that haughty prelate and the king.54 Richard de Hastings was succeeded by Richard Mallebeench, who confirmed a treaty of peace and concord which had been entered into between his predecessor and the abbot of Kirkested; and the next Master of the Temple appears to have been Geoffrey son of Stephen, who received the patriarch Heraclius as his guest at the new Temple on the occasion of the consecration of the Temple church. He styles himself “Minister of the soldiery of the Temple in England.”55
In consequence of the high estimation in which the Templars were held, and the privilege of sanctuary enjoyed by them, the Temple at London came to be made “a storehouse of treasure.” The wealth of the king, the nobles, the bishops, and of the rich burghers of London, was generally deposited therein, under the safeguard and protection of the military friars. The money collected in the churches and chapels for the succour of the Holy Land was also paid to the treasurer of the Temple, to be forwarded to its destination: and the treasurer was at different times authorised to receive the taxes imposed upon the moveables of the ecclesiastics, also the large sums of money extorted by the rapacious popes from the English clergy, and the annuities granted by the king to the nobles of the kingdom.56 The money and jewels of Hubert de Burgh, earl of Kent, the chief justiciary, and at one time governor of the king and kingdom of England, were deposited in the Temple, and when that nobleman was disgraced and committed to the Tower, the king attempted to lay hold of the treasure. Matthew Paris gives the following curious account of the affair: – “It was suggested,” says he, “to the king, that Hubert had no small amount of treasure deposited in the New Temple, under the custody of the Templars. The king accordingly, summoning to his presence the Master of the Temple, briefly demanded of him if it was so. He indeed, not daring to deny the truth to the king, confessed that he had money of the said Hubert, which had been confidentially committed to the keeping of himself and his brethren, but of the quantity and amount thereof he was altogether ignorant. Then the king endeavoured with threats to obtain from the brethren the surrender to him of the aforesaid money, asserting that it had been fraudulently subtracted from his treasury. But they answered to the king, that money confided to them in trust they would deliver to no man without the permission of him who had intrusted it to be kept in the Temple. And the king, since the above-mentioned money had been placed under their protection, ventured not to take it by force. He sent, therefore, the treasurer of his court, with his justices of the Exchequer, to Hubert, who had already been placed in fetters in the Tower of London, that they might exact from him an assignment of the entire sum to the king. But when these messengers had explained to Hubert the object of their coming, he immediately answered that he would submit himself and all belonging to him to the good pleasure of his sovereign. He therefore petitioned the brethren of the chivalry of the Temple that they would, in his behalf, present all his keys to his lord the king, that he might do what he pleased with the things deposited in the Temple. This being done, the king ordered all that money, faithfully counted, to be placed in his treasury, and the amount of all the things found to be reduced into writing and exhibited before him. The king’s clerks, indeed, and the treasurer acting with them, found deposited in the Temple gold and silver vases of inestimable price, and money and many precious gems, an enumeration whereof would in truth astonish the hearers.”57
The kings of England frequently resided in the Temple, and so also did the haughty legates of the Roman pontiffs, who there made contributions in the name of the pope upon the English bishoprics. Matthew Paris gives a lively account of the exactions of the nuncio Martin, who resided for many years at the Temple, and came there armed by the pope with powers such as no legate had ever before possessed. “He made,” says he, “whilst residing at London in the New Temple, unheard of extortions of money and valuables. He imperiously intimated to the abbots and priors that they must send him rich presents, desirable palfreys, sumptuous services for the table, and rich clothing; which being done, that same Martin sent back word that the things sent were insufficient, and he commanded the givers thereof to forward him better things, on pain of suspension and excommunication.”58
The convocations of the clergy and the great ecclesiastical councils were frequently held at the Temple, and laws were there made by the bishops and abbots for the government of the church and monasteries in England.59
CHAPTER IV
The patriarch Heraclius quarrels with the king of England – He returns to Palestine without succour – The disappointment and gloomy forebodings of the Templars – They prepare to resist Saladin – Their defeat and slaughter – The valiant deeds of the Marshal of the Temple – The fatal battle of Tiberias – The captivity of the Grand Master and the true cross – The captive Templars are offered the Koran or death – They choose the latter, and are beheaded – The fall of Jerusalem – The Moslems take possession of the Temple – They purify it with rose-water, say prayers, and hear a sermon – The Templars retire to Antioch – Their letters to the king of England and the Master of the Temple at London – Their exploits at the siege of Acre.
“The foes of the Lord break into his holy city, even into that glorious tomb where the virgin blossom of Mary was wrapt up in linen and spices, and where the first and greatest flower on earth rose up again.” —S. Bernardi, epist. cccxxii.
The Grand Master, Arnold de Torroge, who died on his journey to England, as before mentioned, was succeeded by Brother Gerard de Riderfort.60
On the 10th of the calends of April, a month after the consecration by the patriarch Heraclius of the Temple church, the grand council or parliament of England, composed of the bishops, earls, and barons, assembled in the house of the Hospitallers at Clerkenwell in London. It was attended by William king of Scotland and David his brother, and many of the counts and barons of that distant land. The august assembly was acquainted, in the king’s name, with the object of the solemn embassy just sent to him from Jerusalem, and with the desire of the royal penitent to fulfil his vow and perform his penance; but the barons were at the same time reminded of the old age of their sovereign, of the bad state of his health, and of the necessity for his presence in England. They accordingly represented to King Henry that the solemn oath taken by him on his coronation was an obligation antecedent to the penance imposed on him by the pope; that by that oath he was bound to stay at home and govern his dominions, and that, in their opinion, it was more wholesome for the king’s soul to defend his own country against the barbarous French, than to desert it for the purpose of protecting the distant kingdom of Jerusalem.61
Fabian, in his chronicle, gives the following quaint account of the king’s answer to the patriarch, taken from the Chron. Joan Bromton: “Lasteley the kynge gaue answere, and sayde that he myghte not leue hys lande wythoute kepynge, nor yet leue yt to the praye and robbery of Frenchemen. But he wolde gyue largely of hys own to such as wolde take upon theym that vyge. Wyth thys answere the patryarke was dyscontente, and sayde, ‘We seke a man, and not money; welnere euery crysten regyon sendyth unto us money, but no land sendyth to us a prince. Therefore we aske a prynce that nedeth money, and not money that nedeth a prynce.’ But the kynge layde for hym suche excuses, that the patryarke departed from hym dyscontentyd and comforteless, whereof the kynge beynge aduertysed, entendynge somwhat to recomforte hym with pleasaunte words, folowed hym to the see syde. But the more the kynge thought to satysfye hym with hys fayre speche, the more the patryarke was dyscontentyd, in so myche that at the last he sayde unto hym, ‘Hytherto thou haste reygned gloryously, but here after thou shalt be forsaken of hym whom thou at thys tyme forsakeste. Thynke on hym what he hath gyuen to thee, and what thou haste yelden to him agayne: howe fyrste thou were false unto the kynge of Fraunce, and after slewe that holy man Thomas of Caunterburye, and lastely thou forsakeste the proteccyon of Crystes faith.’ The kynge was amoued wyth these wordes, and sayde unto the patryarke, ‘Though all the men of my lande were one bodye, and spake with one mouth, they durste not speke to me such wordys.’ ‘No wonder,’ sayde the patryarke, ‘for they loue thyne and not the; that ys to meane, they loue thy goodes temporall, and fere the for losse of promocyon, but they loue not thy soule.’ And when he hadde so sayde, he offeryd hys hedde to the kynge, sayenge, ‘Do by me ryghte as thou dyddest by that blessed man Thomas of Caunterburye, for I had leur to be slayne of the, then of the Sarasyns, for thou art worse than any Sarasyn.’ But the kynge kepte hys paycence, and sayde, ‘I may not wende oute of my lande, for myne own sonnes wyll aryse agayne me whan I were absente.’ ‘No wonder,’ sayde the patryarke, ‘for of the deuyll they come, and to the deuyll they shall go,’ and so departyd from the kynge in great ire.”62
According to Roger de Hoveden, however, the patriarch, on the 17th of the calends of May, accompanied King Henry into Normandy, where a conference was held between the sovereigns of France and England concerning the proposed succour to the Holy Land. Both monarchs were liberal in promises and fair speeches; but as nothing short of the presence of the king of England, or of one of his sons, in Palestine, would satisfy the patriarch, that haughty ecclesiastic failed in his negotiations and returned in disgust and disappointment to the Holy Land. On his arrival at Jerusalem with intelligence of his ill success the greatest consternation prevailed amongst the Latin Christians: and it was generally observed that the true cross, which had been recovered from the Persians by the Emperor Heraclius, was about to be lost under the pontificate, and by the fault of a patriarch of the same name. A cotemporary writer of Palestine tells us that the patriarch was a very handsome person, and, in consequence of his beauty, the mother of the king of Jerusalem fell in love with him, and made him archbishop of Cæsarea. He then describes how he came to be made patriarch, and how he was suspected to have poisoned the archbishop of Tyre. After his return from Rome he fell in love with the wife of a haberdasher who lived at Naplous, twelve miles from Jerusalem. He went to see her very often, and, not long after the acquaintanceship commenced, the husband died. Then the patriarch brought the lady to Jerusalem, clothed her in rich apparel, bought her a house, and furnished her with an elegant retinue.63
Baldwin the fourth, who was the reigning sovereign of the Latin kingdom at the period of the departure of the patriarch Heraclius and the Grand Master of the Temple for Europe, was afflicted with a frightful leprosy, which rendered it unlawful for him to marry, and he was consequently deprived of all hope of having an heir of his body to inherit the crown. Sensible of the dangers and inconvenience of a female succession, he selected William V. marquis of Montferrat, surnamed “Long-sword,” as a husband for his eldest sister Sibylla. Shortly after his marriage the marquis of Montferrat died, leaving by Sibylla an infant son named Baldwin. Sibylla’s second husband was Guy de Lusignan, a nobleman of a handsome person, and descended of an ancient family of Poitou in France. Her choice was at first approved of by the king, who received his new brother-in-law with favour, loaded him with honours, and made him regent of the kingdom. Subsequently, through the intrigues of the count of Tripoli, the king was induced to deprive Guy de Lusignan of the regency, and to set aside the claims of Sibylla to the throne, in favour of her son the young Baldwin, who was then about five years of age. He gave orders for the coronation of the young prince, and resigned his authority to the count of Tripoli, who was appointed regent of the kingdom during the minority of the sovereign, whilst all the fortresses and castles of the land were committed to the safe keeping of the Templars and Hospitallers. The youthful Baldwin was carried with vast pomp to the great church of the Holy Sepulchre, and was there anointed and crowned by the patriarch in the presence of the Grand Masters of the Temple and the Hospital. According to ancient custom he was taken, wearing his crown, to the Temple of the Lord, to make certain offerings, after which he went to the Temple of Solomon, where the Templars resided, and was entertained at dinner, together with his barons, by the Grand Master of the Temple and the military friars. Shortly after the coronation (A. D. 1186) the ex-king, Baldwin IV., died at Jerusalem, and was buried in the church of the Resurrection, by the side of Godfrey de Bouillon, and the other Christian kings. His death was followed, in the short space of seven months, by that of the infant sovereign Baldwin V., and Sibylla thus became the undoubted heiress to the throne. The count of Tripoli refused, however, to surrender the regency, accusing Sibylla of the horrible and improbable crime of poisoning her own child. But Gerard de Riderfort, the Grand Master of the Temple, invited her to repair to Jerusalem, and gave orders for the coronation. He sent letters, in the queen’s name, to the count of Tripoli and the rebellious barons who had assembled with their followers in arms at Naplous, (the ancient Shechem,) requiring them to attend at the appointed time to do homage, and take the oath of allegiance, but the barons sent back word that they intended to remain where they were; and they despatched two Cistercian abbots to the Grand Master of the Temple, and the patriarch Heraclius, exhorting them for the love of God and his holy apostles to refrain from crowning Isabella countess of Jaffa, as long as she remained the wife of Guy de Lusignan. They represented that the latter had already manifested his utter incapacity for command, both in the field and in the cabinet; that the kingdom of Jerusalem required an able general for its sovereign; and they insisted that Sibylla should be immediately divorced from Guy de Lusignan, and should choose a husband better fitted to protect the country and undertake the conduct of the government.
As soon as this message had been received, the Grand Master of the Temple directed the Templars to take possession of all the gates of the city of Jerusalem, and issued strict orders that no person should be allowed to enter or withdraw from the Holy City without an express permission from himself. Sibylla and Guy de Lusignan were then taken, guarded by the Templars, to the great church of the Resurrection, where the patriarch Heraclius and all his clergy were in readiness to receive them. The crowns of the Latin kingdom were kept in a large chest in the treasury, fastened with two locks. The Grand Master of the Temple kept the key of one of these locks, and the Grand Master of the Hospital had the other. On their arrival at the church, the key of the Grand Master of the Temple was produced, but the key of the Grand Master of the Hospital was not forthcoming, nor could that illustrious chieftain himself anywhere be found. Gerard de Riderfort and Heraclius at last went in person to the Hospital, and after much hunting about they found the Grand Master, and immediately demanded the key in the queen’s name.
The powerful Superior of the Hospitallers at first refused to produce it, but being pressed by many arguments and entreaties, he at last took out the key and flung it upon the ground, whereupon the patriarch picked it up, and proceeding to the treasury, speedily produced the two crowns, one of which he placed upon the high altar of the church of the Resurrection, and the other by the side of the chair upon which the countess of Jaffa was seated. Heraclius then performed the solemn ceremony of the coronation, and when he had placed the crown on the queen’s head, he reminded her that she was a frail and feeble woman, but ill fitted to contend with the toil and strife in which the beleaguered kingdom of Palestine was continually involved, and he therefore exhorted her to make choice of some person to govern the kingdom in conjunction with herself; whereupon her majesty, taking up the crown which had been placed by her side, and calling for her husband, Guy de Lusignan, thus addressed him: – “Those whom God hath joined, let no man put asunder. Sire, receive this crown, for I know none more worthy of it than yourself.” And immediately Guy de Lusignan was crowned king of Jerusalem, and received the blessing of the patriarch.