NOTES ON THE TEMPLE, LONDON. PART II. doubted should Hugo de Paganis, 1129. Robert de Davie, 1191. The Masters of the Temple, in London, may be conveniently divided into three groups: the first comprising those who, under the Grand Master, ruled the English branch of the Order,-that is from 1129 to 1297; the second, the priests appointed as guardians of the Temple Church by the Hospitallers,-that is from 1340 to 1558; and the third, those who have filled the ancient office from 1560,-that is, from two years after the death of William Ermested to the present day. William Ermested was the last appointed before the suppression of religious houses, and there seems to have been a pause of many months before the naming of another Master. Addison, in his "Temple Church," states that, " Edward VI., on the decease of William Ermested, conveyed the lodgings previously appropriated to the officiating ministers to a Mr. Keilway and his heirs." We may here observe that this conveyance of the lodgings must have occurred while Ermested was still living; for by his will, to be seen at Doctor's Commons, it is shown that the year of his death was 1558. As we have said, comparatively little is known concerning the Masters in the first group, and we cannot but think some of their names must have been lost, for we have only two (R. de Pointon and Rocelinus de Fossa) to fill more than the space of time occupied by five Grand Masters. The first Master of the Temple in London whose name we find in the pages of history as one acting and interesting himself in passing events, is Richard de Hastings. He was selected by Henry II. to carry on for him various important negotiations. We read that he offended the King of France in the mattoly of the betrothal of the Freto us Princess Margaret, to Prince B'spitalson of the English King, of the "And a little afterwards,ly, a still of England had his son Henry betrothed to Margaret, daughter of the King of France, while they were yet infants puling in the cradle, in the presence and with the consent of Robert of Piron and Foster of St. Omer, and Richard of Hastings, Templars, who had custody of the above-mentioned castles, and immediately delivered these castles to the King of England; in consequence of which the King of France highly incensed, banished those three Templars from the kingdom of France, and the King of England, receiving them kindly, enriched them with many honours." This passage, cited by Addison, is taken from Roger Heveden, copied from Bede (translation). Richard de Hastings was the friend and confidential adviser of Thomas à Becket. Cavendish, in his life of à Becket, tells us that, during the disputes between the haughty prelate and his king, the archbishop on one occasion withdrew from the council chamber where all his brethren were assembled, and "went to consult with Richard de Hastings, the prior of the Temple at London, who threw himself on his knees before him, and with many tears besought him to give in his adherence to the famous councils of Clarendon." Addison gives an extract from a deed of the year 1155, from which it will be seen that Richard de Hastings was once more for peace. The deed is to the following effect: "Richard de Hastings, Master of all the warriors and brothers of the Temple who are in England, greeting: We make known to you that all dispute which existed between us and the monks of Kirksted was terminated and brought to an end, ath our assent and advice and that yethe warriors and brothers, &c., in receiver of our Lord 1155, January In a small book entitled place o. tion on 'ghts Hospitallers in Eng ties differ, a. land," published by the Camden Society, and containing the report sent in 1338 by Philip de Thame, at that time Prior of the English Hospitallers, to the Chief of his Order, Elgan de Villa Nova, we find one Ralph de Hastings mentioned as having given considerable lands to the Templars. In Tanner's Notitia Monasticon, it is stated that Ralph de Hastings (1152) gave the manor of Temple Hurst, in Yorkshire, to the Knights Templars, who there established a preceptory of their order. And again, that Walter de Hastings and Athawis his wife seem to have been great benefactors, if not the founders, of a small monastery at Oldbury, Warwickshire, in the time of Henry I. In Willis's "Survey of Cathedrals," we read of Robert de Hastings as Abbot of Chester, in 1186. It seems probable that Richard de Hastings, Master of the Temple, belonged to this devout family. Of his successor, Richard de Mallebeench, we only know that he confirmed the treaty of peace with the monks of Kirkested, already mentioned, as follows: "Richard Mallebeench, Master of all the poor warriors and brethren of the Temple of Solomon in England. We confirm the peace and concord which Richard of Hastings made with Walter, Abbot of Kirkested." Landsdowne MS., cited by Addison, E, folio 467 (translation). The next Master, Geoffrey, son of Stephen, received as his guest at the New Temple, London, the Patriarch Heraclius of Jerusalem, on the occasion of the consecration of the Temple Church, just completed. Godfrey's name appears in an old grant of property, thus: "I, Galfrid, son of Stephen, minister of the Order of the Temple in England, with the assent of the whole of our chapter, have given, &c., all that tenement in the town of Scanbrum, which Emma, wife of Walter Chamberlain, holds of our gifts, &c." Passing over Thomas Berard, we find Amaric St. Maur appearing as an attesting witness to the deed executed by King John in 1203, granting a dowry to his young queen, the beautiful Isabella of Angoulême. King John resided. for weeks together in the Temple, many of his letters being dated from that safe haven. He was there with Amaric St. Maur when" the barons," as Matthew Paris, the monk of St. Alban's tells us, 86 came to him in a very resolute manner, clothed in their military dresses, and demanded the liberties and laws of King Edward." Amaric St. Maur and his monks basked in the sunshine of royal favour, King John depositing his treasures in the secure custody of the Templars. The next Master, Alan Marcel, received a letter from Peter de Montaigu, telling of a disastrous campaign in the Holy Land. The Grand Master addresses him as "our vicegerent and beloved in Christ, Alan Marcel, Preceptor of England." Henry III., who was for a time resident at the Temple, employed Alan Marcel to negotiate a treaty of marriage for him with the daughter of the Duke of Austria. 66 We send you," the King writes, "our beloved brother in Christ, Alan Marcell, Master of the Order of the Temple in England, &c. Witnessed by me at the New Temple, London, in the presence of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Hubert de Burgh, Justiciary, and the Bishops of Bath and Sarum." Acta Rymer, I. 270, ▲.D. 1224 (translation). On many occasions also, he had recourse to Alan Marcel for help and advice. Amberaldus, Alan Marcel's successor, nobly defended the treasures committed to the charge of the Templars by Hubert de Burgh. Henry III. demanded that they should bring forth and place in his hands the money and gems belonging to his Justiciary, who was under the cloud of royal displeasure. Amberaldus sternly but respectfully refused to obey. "Money confided to the trust of the Templars," he said, "would be delivered to no man without the permission of him who had entrusted it to be kept in the Temple." The King did not venture to take it by force, and the Templars could not be prevailed upon to give it up until Hubert de Burgh himself desired them to do so, when they immediately handed over the money, and the treasures consisting of gold and silver vases, and many precious gems. Searching in vain for any mention of Robert de Mountford, we come upon a letter written in 1240 to his successor, Robert Sanford, by the Grand Master, Hermann de Perigord "Brother Hermann de Perigord, the humble minister of the poor knights of the Temple, to his beloved brother in Christ, Robert de Sanford, Preceptor in England." In this letter the Grand Master tells the joyful news of the re-occupation of the Holy City by the Christians. Again, William de Sonnac, successor to Hermann de Perigord, writes to Robert de Sanford announcing another triumph of the Christians. Henry III., although displeased with the Templars in the early part of his reign, subsequently showered benefits on them, and was at one time accompanied to France by Robert de Sanford, whose counsel and companionship he desired. It was during the mastership of Robert de Sanford, that, on Ascension Day, 1241, Henry III., with all his court, went to assist at the consecration of the nave or oblong portion of the Temple Church. On this occasio the King appointed three chaplonly to say masses there daily "fe to us King, for all Christian peopleospitalthe faithful departed." Pas of the Himbert Peraut, we will.oly, a still - mark of Robert Turvile that he probably belonged to the family of that name mentioned in Dugdale's Warwickshire," where we read of Turviles, lords of Wolston, and where a pedigree is given of the Turvile race, a Robert Turvile occurring in the reign of Edward I. Concerning the next Master Guida de Foresta-we meet with a deed, dated 1293, whereby" Guida de Foresta, magister &c., militae Templi in Angli," leased out certain lands in Pampeworth, county of Cambridge, the rent to be paid "domitio Templi in Duxworth, the same county," in which last parish is still a manor called Temple Manor. The seal of the deed bears the stamp of the Holy Lamb with its nimbus and banner, and around the impression is inscribed, "Sigillum Templi." This ancient deed is mentioned in the "Archæologia; or, Miscellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity, published by the Society of Antiquaries of London." Then we have Jacques de Molay, whose sad destiny it was, after ruling the Templars in England, to close the list of the Grand Masters. Dur ing his residence in England, he held several chapters or assemblies of the brethren of the Temple at London, and at the different preceptories, where he framed and enforced various rules and regulations for the government of the English provinces of the Order. Shortly after his appointment to the office of Grand Master he crossed over to France, where he arrived just in time to hold at the font the infant son of Philipe le Bel. He then went to Cyprus, the grand central resort of the Templars at that time, and the place of residence for the Grand Masters. In Taaffe's "History of Order of St. John of Jerusalem," yetve a description of the last receis between the Grand Master place o.spitallers, and Jacques de tion on Grand Master of the ties differ, a. Templars this was after the siege of Acre, 1304, when both Orders were driven to the necessity of quitting the Holy Land. Then it was that the two chiefs met in sad consultation. 66 And towards the end of 1304," Taaffe writes, "when the two Grand Masters, of whom one was the glorious but unfortunate Molay, who had now succeeded to Gaudin," spoke to each other for the last time, the greatest difficulty was got over, it is said, by their mutual generosity. They were ready each to abdicate for the whole mixed body to elect their chief, who as long as any of the existing Templars lived, was to be of their Order, and after then, that things were to be as before. The Grand Master of the Hospitallers disclosed his secret to Molay, namely, that he had fixed upon Rhodes as a place of refuge. Better," he said, "in our island of roses than at Paris, in whatever splendour." He entreated Molay, after the proposed union of the Orders, to go with him to Rhodes. Molay, knowing his knights would never consent, replied, "We have both our duties: you must cleave to your knights, I to mine. The Morea and the glories of Constantinople are the dreams of mine." And the generous pair parted never to meet again. Taaffe tells us he compiled the account of this conversation-part of which we have quoted from Paoli's Osservazioni Vertot, and the Coda Diplomatica Gerosalemma. De Molay and his knights embarked that same evening for the Piraeus, and the hospit allers went cruising about several of the neighbouring islands. The cruel end of Jacques de Molay is too well known to require repetition here. Meantime, as soon as De Molay had left his station at the Temple, London, Brian le Jay was elected in his stead. He, as well as the Master of the Templars in Scotland, was slain at the battle of Falkirk, in 1298. Lastly, we come to William de la More, who has been called the "Martyr." In his day the wealth, power, luxury, and indolence of the Templars had risen to a climax. Since their expulsion from Palestine, a change had gradually stolen upon them, and no longer possessing the rare self-denial, earnestness and humility of the early knights of the Order they gave universal offence by a great display of wealth and splendour. As soon as the machinations of Philip le Bel were complete, the blow fell suddenly on the unsuspecting knights of the Temple. Every Templar in France was seized and cast into prison, the same fate soon afterwards overtaking those in England. "On the Wednesday after the Epiphany, 1377," as we read in Kennet's "Parochial Antiquities," "all the Knights Templars were seized and imprisoned, and their lands escheated to the king." Those few who still hung about the Temple Church in London, and its surroundings, after the suppression of the Order, were left in a state of pitiable desolation, the Knights Templars being succeeded in the occupation of the Temple by a body of learned lawyers. The venerable hall and the gloomy cells of the military monks were converted into what Addison calls a "Common Law University." "For more than five centuries," he writes, "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 remarks, 'now defend one Christian from another, as the old ones did Christians from Pagans."" Meanwhile, the Pope and the bishops, watching the vicissitudes of fortune which befell the late possessions of the Templars, exerted themselves to promote a transfer of the property to the Hospitallers, and partially succeeded in doing so. The Hospi tallers petitioned the king, Edward III., representing that the cloisters and many portions of the Temple enclosure were consecrated. The king commanded an inquisition to be made by the Lord Mayor, and it was shown that many of the founders of the Temple Church, also many of the Order lay buried within and around the sacred building; that the Bishop of Ely had lodgings in the "Bishop's Chambers;" that there was a church there, dedicated to Thomas à Becket; and that there were thirteen houses consecrated for the purpose of holding the lights and ornaments of the church. After this inquisition, these consecrated places were assigned by the king to the hospital and brethren of St. John: this was in 1338. Two years later, Edward III., in consideration of £100, which the prior of the hospital, Philip de Thame, promised to pay towards the expenses of his expedition into France, "granted to the said prior all the residue of the Temple." Philip de Thame, on gaining these additional possessions of the Templars, made the pious resolve of restoring the divine service of the Temple Church as much as possible to its former dignity and splendour. He called together his brother Hospitallers, and with the unanimous consent of the whole chapter of St. John's, Clerkenwell, granted to Brother Hugh de Litchfield, priest, and to his successors, guardians of the Temple Church, towards the improvement of the lights and the celebration of divine service.id, the said church, all the land canen "Ficketzfeld," and two yearservicewards, he made a grant thousand fagots a year fhat only wood of Lilleston "to kedown to us therein." In a book me Hospitaltioned "The Knighnship of the in England,"-we Possibly, a still |