¬XiosMOVE|Chapter 1 The Inquest of 1185

In 1185 a survey of Templar properties was undertaken by Geoffrey Fitz Stephen, the master of the Templars in England. The purpose of the Inquest was to establish the extent of Templar holdings in England, their value and the income they generated. It was, as Lees points out, ‘a terrier and rental, not an inventory’.4 Inquest, p. xxx. By 1185 an ageing Henry II was concerned with the partition of his considerable empire between his three quarrelsome sons: Richard, Geoffrey and John. Further, Philip II Augustus, who had succeeded his father to the French throne in 1180, was intent upon the destruction of Henry’s Angevin empire. This was a period of uncertainty. In addition, there was political instability in the Holy Land and the consequent need for financial and military support of the Latin states in the East. In such circumstances, it was prudent for the Templars to record the property they held and the income it generated.

The pattern of Templar holdings on the uplands was by no means uniform. Other than a marked concentration in the southern Wolds and a minor grouping around Goulceby, Templar property in the chalk Wolds was scattered. North of Lincoln the distribution of Templar property on Lincoln Edge was diffuse with a slight concentration around Willoughton, where there were holdings at the foot of the limestone scarp. South of Lincoln there was a far greater density of Templar property on Lincoln Heath, particularly in the vicinity of Temple Bruer. The Kesteven Uplands, too, had a greater density of Templar holdings than the Wolds. As map 4 illustrates, the parts of Lincolnshire (Lindsey, Holland and Kesteven) vary in size considerably. Lindsey, the largest by far, had the most widespread pattern of Templar properties.

In the Inquest, the use of the term bailiwick, referring to a medieval administrative unit, was somewhat variable. Gilchrist refers to a bailiwick as comprising ‘a region, a shire or a group of villages’; she also states that the ‘bailiwick system was highly developed particularly in Lincolnshire’.6 R. Gilchrist, Contemplation and Action: The Other Monasticism (Leicester, 1995), p. 65. While South Witham was a bailiwick which included extra-comital properties in Leicestershire and Rutland, Lindsey was also a bailiwick, within which were the minor bailiwicks of Cabourne, Tealby and Goulceby and the soke of Bolingbroke, all located in the Wolds (map 4).7 Inquest, p. clxvii. Lees states that the ballia or bailiwick was the ‘distinctive administrative area of the Inquest’, adding that within the balliae lay the preceptories, ‘the social and economic centres of the Templars’ local influence’.8 Ibid., pp. xxxii–xxxiii. The term preceptory was not used in the Inquest of 1185 in relation to Lincolnshire, and Lees concedes that the development of the preceptory was still incomplete in the twelfth century, adding that ‘the ballia is more prominent than the preceptory in contemporary documents’.9 Ibid., p. lxix.

The Inquest would have been written at the New Temple, the Templar treasury in Holborn. Lees suggests that it was written as the information was submitted, which would account for inconsistencies in its composition.10 Ibid., xxxiii. What remains uncertain is the role of the minor bailiwicks in the Inquest. In Lindsey there is no separate summa for each bailiwick but there is an overall total for Lindsey exclusive of a separate summa for the more isolated Isle of Axholme. The absence of individual totals suggests that a minor bailiwick such as Cabourne was not a collecting point for income, but rather that there was a single collecting point for Lindsey – hence the Lindsey summa. This points to the early emergence of Willoughton as an administrative centre. In Kesteven, the bailiwick of South Witham, which included extra-comital property, had a separate summa. The remaining totals for Kesteven would suggest centralised collection for that part of the county, and Temple Bruer would be the obvious choice. The implication is clearly that the development of Templar administration in Lincolnshire had yet to reach its apogee of sophistication and efficiency. However, we can also be certain that by 1185 both Willoughton and Temple Bruer were the foci of sizeable agricultural and financial enterprises, and that they had already established their primacy in Lindsey and Kesteven respectively.

The nature of a preceptory will be fully considered in the next chapter. Briefly, a Templar preceptory in its fully developed form was associated not only with the farming of its own manor in demesne but also with the management of other manors and properties that constituted the estate. To function, a preceptory needed to have a place of worship, accommodation for visitors, storage for crops and wool, and accommodation for livestock. Above all, the preceptory was responsible for local recruitment to the Order and collection and administration of funds for forwarding to the Holy Land. To perform these functions, each preceptory would have had a preceptor, or nominal head, who would have been a member of the Order. In addition, depending upon the size of the preceptory and the estate it managed, there would have been both a domestic and an agricultural workforce, which would have included artisans.

The location of the most important Templar houses accurately reflected the overall distribution of their property. The much greater concentration of Templar property within the relatively small compass of Kesteven meant that eventually Kesteven supported four emergent preceptories: Eagle, Temple Bruer, Aslackby and South Witham. However, not all preceptories were of the same status or extent. Eagle, with a grant of a church, mill and demesne land, may not have been a preceptory by 1185.11 Ibid., p. xlv. The founding grant was made by King Stephen and the charter ratified by King Henry II. Temple Bruer, founded late in the reign of Henry II by William of Ashby, was certainly functioning, at least partially, as a preceptory by 1185, despite possessing neither a church nor a mill.12 Ibid., pp. clxxi–clxxxii. The church and chapel of Aslackby were given to the Templars in 1164, but Lees suggests that Aslackby did not become a preceptory until later, and that its estates did not produce an income for the Templars which reflected their extent until 1192.13 Ibid., pp. clxxxvi–clxxxvii. Mills writes that Aslackby may not have been a preceptory until the beginning of the thirteenth century.14 D. Mills, The Knights Templar in Kesteven (Lincoln, 1990, rev. and rep. 2009), p. 24. It is more than likely that South Witham, although already established in 1185, did not become a preceptory until the second phase of building, which took place after 1229, as only then would the accommodation have been adequate for the needs of visitors.15 P. Mayes, Excavations at a Templar Preceptory: South Witham, Lincolnshire, 1965–67 (Leeds, 2002), p. 5. The much more extensive area of Lindsey had only one preceptory, which was at Willoughton, jointly founded by Simon de Canci and Roger de Bussei.16 Inquest, p. cxci. However, it was the largest of the preceptories and, assuming that it was responsible for all Templar property in Lindsey in 1185, the one with the greatest logistical problems in terms of collection and distribution.17 Ibid. In addition, Lees tentatively refers to Mere as having been a preceptory, though it later appears ‘only as a member of the larger preceptories of Eagle or of Willoughton’.18 Ibid., p. clxxix. Mere is not included in the list of preceptories in the Victoria History of Lincolnshire and is recorded only as ‘part of the endowment of this house [Willoughton] and did not support a separate preceptory’.19 W. Page, ed., A History of the County of Lincoln, vol. 2, Victoria County History (London, 1906), p. 210. Mills suggests that Mere was only a large house and manor, ‘loosely administered by Willoughton’.20 Mills, Knights Templar in Kesteven, p. 19. Burton refers to five preceptories in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1185, including those of Temple Hirst and Temple Newsam, but finds no recorded preceptories in the East Riding for the same date – not even Faxfleet, which was to emerge as Yorkshire’s most important preceptory.21 J. Burton, ‘The Knights Templar in Yorkshire in the twelfth century: a reassessment’, Northern History: A Review of the History of the North of England and the Borders, 27 (1991), pp. 36–7. She refers to five preceptories in Lincolnshire by 1200 but, as outlined above, they may not all have been fully developed preceptories by 1185.22 Ibid., p. 27.

The whole purpose of the Templar enterprise in England was to support the efforts of the Order in the Holy Land, and so income was paramount. However, the vast majority of settlements where the Templars held property produced a relatively small income; it was only because there were so many of them that they added up to a meaningful whole. Excepting the income from mills and churches, 49.1 percent of settlements where the Templars held land in Lincolnshire produced less than 4s. 11d. per annum; only 17.4 percent, twenty-nine out of 167 settlements, generated an annual income in excess of £1; and only the vill of Willoughton had an income of more than £5.23 Inquest, pp. 100–1. The implication is that the majority of donations of land were small, producing a small income while still ensuring for the donor a degree of spiritual reassurance. The extent of monastic intercession could be enhanced by making donations to several different orders, and, as has already been pointed out, the Cistercians and Gilbertines were very much in the ascendant in twelfth-century Lincolnshire. The Roumare earls of Lincoln were founders and patrons of the Cistercian Revesby Abbey and the Gilbertine Stixwold Priory, besides donating to the Templars.24 Ibid., p. cxcix.

The variable nature of medieval land terminology needs clarification before we can go further. The following definitions are those used by Lees. A carucate was 160 acres in Lincolnshire, although it may well have measured 120 acres elsewhere.25 Ibid., p. clxxi. A bovate represented one eighth of a carucate, hence 20 acres. A great bovate, as at Blyton, was 40 acres, and a bovate at Temple Bruer was 24 acres, whereas it was 30 acres on the Isle of Axholme.26 Ibid., p. clxxii. One of the most numerous units of holding was the toft, which Lees argues was equal to 12 acres in the heathland at Temple Bruer on the basis that, as the usual rental for a toft was 12d., then it would be one penny per acre.27 Ibid., p. clxx. The difficulty arises in extrapolation; given that the estates of Temple Bruer were being assarted from low-value heathland, the area designated as a toft may have been comparatively large so as to compensate for its low yield. There are certainly definitions of tofts which cite sizes as between a half an acre and 10 acres; others definitions are more circumspect, for example ‘a peasant’s house or cottage, to which belonged his garden or field’.28 Williams and Martin, eds, Domesday Book, p. 1435. Given these parameters, in any subsequent references, a toft is to be regarded as 4 acres outside the immediate vicinity of Temple Bruer. The term croft is only used once in the Inquest, when it specifies the extent to be 21 acres at Saltfleetby.29 Inquest, p. 107.

In almost a quarter of the settlements in which the Templars held land in Lincolnshire, that holding consisted of fewer than 10 acres. This is in complete accord with Burton’s conclusion that in Yorkshire ‘the general picture is one of the Templars relying on modest benefactions to build up their property’.30 Burton, ‘Knights Templar in Yorkshire’, p. 37. Lees puts it rather differently, suggesting that ‘the influence of the Templars as landlords was widespread rather than deep-rooted’.31 Inquest, p. clxvi. Of the 167 settlements in which the Templars held land, in twenty-six of them they held one toft only. Further, in 28 percent of the holdings, landholdings were between 11 and 30 acres. In total, of the 167 settlements, 78.6 percent of holdings were smaller than 100 acres. The most impressive acreages by far were those of Willoughton, with a holding of 820 acres; Ashby de la Launde, 883 acres; Temple Bruer, 988½ acres; Cranwell, 1,200 acres; and, above all, Aslackby, 1,600 acres (map 6). There was a marked concentration of Templar lands south of Lincoln in the area of Lincoln Heath, which, with the addition of Aslackby and South Witham, meant that the Templars were particularly well represented in Kesteven. Eagle was unusual as, although boasting a church and a mill from which the Templars derived income, no income from land was listed in 1185. This suggests that all land was held in demesne and so generated no rent. The distribution of lands in Lindsey was much more scattered than in Kesteven, with relatively few substantial holdings other than Willoughton. The most important were Limber (628 acres) and Cabourne (288 acres), both in the northern Wolds; Cawkwell (240 acres) and Goulceby (201 acres), in the central Wolds; and Hareby (497 acres) in the southern Wolds. Elsewhere in Lindsey, Upton, on Lincoln Edge, had 444 acres; and Althorpe, on the Isle of Axholme, 268 acres. With the exception of Althorpe, all these lands are above the present 15-metre contour.

In total, the Templars held 17,531 acres in Lincolnshire in 1185. This included 332 tofts, each counted as 4 acres except for the 32 tofts at Temple Bruer, each of which is taken as 12 acres. If the tofts are excluded, the Templars’ Lincolnshire landholdings amounted to 15,947 acres. In addition, there were 449 acres of land included within the bailiwick of South Witham which were out of county. Of the total area, 10,976 acres were within Kesteven if both Lincoln and environs and the South Witham estate within the county are included; this generated an income of £41 17s. 3d. The Templar presence in Lindsey was of the order of 6,500 acres, which includes the 153 tofts and the 417 acres on the Isle of Axholme, yielding an income of £40 14s. 2d. In Holland there were 58 acres giving an income of £1.32 H. Healey, ‘The Templars in the Fens’, Lincolnshire Past and Present, 23 (Spring 1996), pp. 6–7, in which the Holland acreage is identified. Overall the Lindsey holdings were the most profitable per acre, perhaps reflecting the marginal nature of the Lincoln Heath in 1185.

Temple Bruer had thirty-six tenants on its 988½-acre estate. The largest single holding was that of Thomas the shepherd, who rented 2 bovates, 3 acres and 1 toft for 5s. 5d., four hens and four days customary service – an indication of the significance of sheep-rearing on Lincoln Heath. Nine tenants rented one toft each and a further nine each rented a toft and a bovate. In thirty-two instances, a toft was mentioned specifically as either the complete rented unit or an integral part of it.33 Inquest, pp. 94–5. There was a significant difference in the pattern of landholding in the vill of Willoughton. Of the twenty-four discrete rental units listed, only three were tofts, seven were each made up of a toft and half a bovate, and a further nine constituted a toft and a bovate; the remainder were larger holdings, so the average size of a landholding was considerably greater in Willoughton than Temple Bruer.34 Ibid., pp. 100–1. In the bailiwick of South Witham, bovates and half bovates were the usual holdings; there were very few individual tofts.35 Ibid., pp. 112–15. Of the thirty-six tenants in the bailiwick of Goulceby, eleven held tofts and a further fourteen each held a toft and a bovate.36 Ibid., pp. 107–8. The implication is clearly that there was an overall standardisation of approach from the viewpoint of the Templar administration, and that this in turn was modified by local conditions. Lees asserts that the Templars ‘were energetic and competent landlords, with a flexible land policy, which was peculiarly well-suited to the small holdings of Lincolnshire’.37 Ibid., p. cxcviii. Individual settlements did not have random sizes of rented holdings. Rather, for each settlement they were within very limited parameters reflecting what was most agriculturally productive, given the social mix within the vill, or what was most efficient in raising rent, or perhaps an appropriate compromise.

Rent was not paid in money alone. An integral part of rent could be paid in hens, and 118 hens were due at Temple Bruer in addition to £4 7s. 7d. for 988 acres. At Willoughton, 100 hens were due supplementary to the £5 5s. 6d. for 820 acres. Labour in the form of customary service was another common way of paying rent, though Lees suggests that cash payment was encouraged.44 Inquest, p. lxxi. The extra-comital properties in the bailiwick of South Witham not only demanded the labour of customary feudal dues (forty-four days in the case of Empingham), but also specified that it was to be in the busy agricultural season of autumn.45 Ibid., p. 112.

On the Templar estates of Temple Bruer and Willoughton, customary service amounted to 119 and 100 days respectively. At Temple Bruer, a rate of four hens and four days’ labour in addition to monetary rent was paid by twenty-nine of the thirty-six tenants regardless of the area of their holding. An exceptional case was that of Roger, son of Hugh, who rented 2 bovates and a toft for 6s. and a piglet.46 Ibid., pp. 94–5. In the vill of Willoughton, without exception the addition of four hens and four days’ labour to monetary rent was an obligation attached to each holding.47 Ibid., pp. 100–1. The uniformity of the labour charge as an integral part of rental payment gives an insight into the operation of demesne lands. In the case of Temple Bruer it also implies that the heath was being assarted, in an approach similar to that of the contemporaneous Cistercians. In the bailiwick of Goulceby, rents reflected the social structure. Here the standard rate of four hens and four days’ labour, in addition to 12d., was applicable only to those small tenants who held just one toft, such as Siwardus or Herbertus.48 Ibid., pp. 107–8. For larger holdings, rent was entirely monetary: Gilbertus paid 6s. for a bovate and a toft.49 Ibid. Payment of rent in kind was by no means restricted to the Templar estates in Lincolnshire. Burton mentions payment in kind at both Temple Hirst and Temple Newsam, where rents included the surrender of both hens and eggs, besides such customary services as cutting hay, washing and shearing sheep, and repairing mill ponds.50 Burton, ‘Knights Templar in Yorkshire’, p. 36.

Less common forms of rent could be environmentally specific. In the bailiwick of Bolingbroke, at Coningsby, the rent of 24 acres involved half the fishing rights in the River Bain besides 6s. 4d.51 Inquest, pp. 110–11. At Sibsey, which would have been on the edge of marshland in 1185, the rental of a mark for 28 acres was supplemented by wild birds, presumably waders, which would have been plentiful.52 Ibid., p. 108. Finally, John de Sarci paid one pound of pepper on the festival of Saint Botolph for the rent of half a carucate of land, in Mere, of the fee of John d’Aincourt.53 Ibid., p. 84.

There were eighteen churches and the chapel of Burnham in Haxey in which the Templars had a financial interest in Lincolnshire in 1185 (map 8). In addition there were a further five extra-comital churches which had an association with South Witham, namely, Stretton in Rutland, Marnham and Sibthorpe in Nottinghamshire, and Botolph Bridge and Gedding Engayne in Huntingdonshire. The seven Lindsey churches were scattered and to be found in the Wolds at Hareby, in the bailiwick of Bolingbroke, but no further north than Goulceby, despite significant holdings in the bailiwick of Cabourne. Willoughton, Gainsborough and Thorpe in the Fallows formed a small group in the east, and both Althorpe and the chapel of Burnham in Haxey were on the Isle of Axholme. Holland was not represented. However, as with Templar holdings generally, there were more churches in Kesteven than in the rest of the county, eleven in all. They constituted four distinct groups: in the north-west, Eagle, Swinderby and North Scarle; in a belt across Lincoln Heath, Ashby de la Launde, Rowston, Cranwell, Caythorpe and Normanton; on the edge of the fenland, Aslackby and Billingborough; and South Witham in the extreme south of the county, close to the Rutland church of Stretton. The three most profitable churches were those of Eagle, Gainsborough and Thorpe in the Fallows, each with an income of 4 marks. In addition, both Eagle and Gainsborough enjoyed the income from the altars and corn tithes. Of the remainder, only South Witham, where the Templars held a moiety, and Rowston had incomes in excess of £2. With the exception of Goulceby, which had an income of £1 10s., all other churches produced substantially less; in seven cases, two of which were in Huntingdonshire, no income was recorded. Overall, the total spiritual income within Lincolnshire was £15 2s., rising to £15 6s. if all extra-comital incomes within the bailiwick of South Witham are included. This is equivalent to 18.5 percent of income from land rents.

Kesteven appears to have been better served, with a total of seventeen mills in two groups: one on Lincoln Heath in the north of Kesteven, which included Eagle and Mere; and the second, by far the greatest concentration, in the south, on the Kesteven Uplands, which included South Witham. However, at Welbourn, on Lincoln Heath, the Templars were given the fifth and the seventh of the Welbourn mills, indicating that there was a concentration of at least seven mills. As it was not until the late twelfth century that windmills were introduced into England, it is probable that of the twenty-four mills attributed to the Templars in 1185, the majority would have been watermills, as in Yorkshire.59 Burton, ‘Knights Templar in Yorkshire’. The earliest recorded reference to a windmill was that of the post mill at Weedby, a Templar site near South Cave in East Yorkshire, indicating that the Order was familiar with technical innovation.60 Inquest, p. 131; J. S. Lee, ‘Weedley not Whitley: repositioning a preceptory of the Knights Templar in Yorkshire’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 87 (2015), pp. 101–23; Historic England , Mills, Introductions to Heritage Assets (Swindon, 2018), p. 10. The concentration of a number of mills at one location was not unusual. Given the fragmentation of medieval land ownership, a village might include more than one manor, and each manor would have had its own mill, mills being both essential for the grinding of corn and lucrative for the feudal lord. Further, in an area lacking surface water, such as Lincoln Heath, it is not surprising that where there was a stream with sufficient discharge to drive a mill, it was utilised by more than one; such was the case at Welbourn. Holt refers to the ‘many mill clusters in Lincolnshire’ evident in Domesday as a result of ‘the pressure of demand on a relatively limited number of streams that were suitable for milling’.61 R. Holt, The Mills of Medieval England (Oxford, 1988), p. 11.

The paucity of suitable streams not only led to the clustering of watermills but also encouraged their shared tenure. As Holt pints out, ‘lords found it advantageous to develop scarce water resources in cooperation with their neighbours’.62 Ibid. This tendency to divide mill ownership was reflected in their donation. By no means all mills were donated to the Templars in their entirety; as noted above, the Templars held a third of the mills at Thorpe in the Fallows and Halton Holegate, which generated 9s. and 10s. respectively.63 Inquest, p. 80. However, these were the two highest-earning Templar mills in Lindsey, so a third share was well worth having. In some cases, leasing was further complicated by exchange. Nigel, son of Alexander, held the seventh mill at Welbourn in exchange for the moiety of the mill at Harrowby.64 Ibid., p. 81. Of the emergent preceptories, Willoughton, Eagle, Mere and South Witham all had their own mills, but no mill is listed in the Inquest for Temple Bruer. Overall, the income from the Lindsey mills was £2 8s. 8d. The Kesteven mills yielded a recorded £5 10s. 4d., but no income was listed for six of the mill sites, including Eagle, so clearly this was an underestimate. By far the greatest income – £3 6s. 8d. – was derived from the mill at Girton in Nottinghamshire, and the six extra-comital mills yielded £5 16s. 11d. in total. The grand total of £18 15s. 11d., most certainly an under-representation, was equal to 22.8 percent of the total Templar earnings from land rentals in Lincolnshire.

Powerful figures were represented in the persons of Ranulf, Earl of Chester; his half-brother, William de Roumare, Earl of Lincoln; and Alan, Earl of Richmond and Count of Brittany.66 Inquest, p. cxcviii. The earl of Chester gave the church at Goulceby and 3 bovates, land in both Stenigot and Cawkwell, and 1½ carucates and an inn in Lincoln; the earl of Lincoln donated Hareby church, a bovate and 2 tofts in Sibsey, and a toft in West Keal; and Count Alan gave a meadow in Leadenham which yielded half a mark and a toft in Boston. These were major landholders in other counties besides Lincolnshire and, as such, their gifts were widespread both geographically and across monastic orders.

Given the extent of their estates, none of the above were major donations. A much more important tier of society was the baronial rank. Simon de Canci gave a moiety of the church at Willoughton and a considerable amount of land in the same vill with Roger de Bussei.67 Ibid., p. 100–1. Simon Tuschet gave 38⅓ bovates in Ashby de la Launde and the church of Ashby with Jordan de Ashby.68 Ibid., pp. 96, 78. Roger de Mowbray, a crusader of renown, donated to the Templars from his Isle of Axholme estates; the benefactions included land in both Althorpe and Keadby, the church at Althorpe, the chapel at Burnham by Haxey, fishing rights in demesne, and the mill of Marrestret, yielding an income of £5 1s. 2d.69 Ibid., pp. 111–12; ibid., p. 112, footnote 10: ‘Mare Dyke Staith, between Amcotts and Keadby [Isle of Axholme], was made in the reign of Edward III.’ Although localised, this was merely a part of Mowbray’s overall benefactions to the Military Orders, which included extensive lands in Yorkshire and, in addition, the foundation of Burton Lazars, the house of the Order of St Lazarus in Leicestershire. The Templars showed their gratitude for his munificence by paying Mowbray’s ransom following his capture at the disastrous battle of the Horns of Hattin, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, in 1187.70 M. Roberts, The Mowbray Legacy (Scunthorpe, 2004, rev. 2012) p. 36.

A more localised example of donations is provided by the d’Aincourt family of landed gentry, whose chief manor was Blankney. Walter d’Aincourt was listed in the Inquest as having given half a carucate in Potter Hanworth, 18 bovates and a toft in Blankney, 2 bovates in Scopwick, 2 tofts in Kirkby and a bovate in Martin by Timberland, all within a closely circumscribed area.71 Inquest, pp. 84–5. The d’Aincourts were rooted in Lincolnshire, as were all their benefactions.

The Anglo-Norman houses of Bayeux, Boulogne and Caux were well represented. Hugh de Bayeux donated 13 bovates and 7 tofts in Cabourne; Robert de Bayeux gave a toft in Tealby; Ranulf de Bayeux, a toft and a bovate in Kelstern; and Matilda de Bayeux, a toft in Burgh on Bain. The Bayeux family also gave mills both at Stainby and Welbourn.72 Ibid., pp. 105–6.

Blyborough provides two examples in which donations to the Templars were made by individuals who, in turn, held land from feudal lords. Hugh de Cauz gave one toft to the Templars; by 1212, he held a knight’s fee in Blyborough of the earl of Chester. Similarly, Roger de Saint Martin, a tenant of the manor of Blyborough on the Mowbray fee, gave a toft; he was one of seven Mowbray tenants who were patrons of the Templars.73 Ibid., p. 101. In each of these cases, the tenants made small donations to the Templars with whom their landlords had sympathy. In Yorkshire the Mowbray tenants of Hugh de Malebisse, Gilbert de Meinhill, Richard Cruer, William de Surdeval and William de Stonegrave donated land, and two Lacy tenants were responsible for the foundation of Temple Hirst and Temple Newsam.74 Burton, ‘Knights Templar in Yorkshire’, p. 34.

The complexities of medieval tenure is illustrated by the Lincolnshire example of Rauceby, where Wilbern rented from the Templars 2 bovates and 1 toft; Jordan, 1 bovate and 1 toft. Both these were from the considerable gift of Galfridus Perun, who, in turn, was a tenant of Robert de Stafford.75 Inquest, p. 92. Given the labyrinthine nature of twelfth-century land tenure, and the tendency to accumulate small parcels of land distributed over a wide area, consolidation took place for the sake of efficiency: for example, Robert rented a toft, a bovate and a saltpit at Fulstow, which had been exchanged for land in Eresby.76 Ibid., p. 105. Consolidation of estates and rationalisation of administration were characteristics of Templar seigniorial management throughout the following century. Besides the Lincolnshire evidence, the Ribston charters illustrate the consolidation of a Yorkshire manor by gift, purchase, exchange and rent during the thirteenth century.77 Burton, ‘Knights Templar in Yorkshire’, p. 38.

While it is clear that the patronage of the Military Orders was of great personal interest to Roger de Mowbray, Walker states that ‘as far as the majority of patrons were concerned this aspect [crusading] of the two orders [Templars and the Order of St Lazarus] was not especially significant’.78 E. J. Walker, ‘The Patronage of the Templars and the Order of St Lazarus in England in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of St Andrews, 1990), p. 59. Burton cites a lack of correlation between those who went on crusade and those who endowed the Military Orders.79 Burton, ‘Knights Templar in Yorkshire’, p. 34. However, she does suggest that there was a ‘fluctuation of interest’ in the Templars, which could indicate some correlation with the crusades, not least the foundation of several Templar houses after Richard I joined the Third Crusade in the 1190s.80 Ibid., pp. 31, p. 33. The geographical nature of benefactions had a closer relationship to the social status of the benefactor than to the topography. Thus, the widespread gifts of the earls of Chester and Lincoln display the Anglo-Norman nobility’s broad national interest, as compared to the more local interest of the county families of Caux and d’Aincourt. In addition to the established members of the nobility and the baronial and knightly class, there was also an emergent class of wealthy, urban merchants who became benefactors. Godwin the Rich, of Lincoln, having accumulated his wealth in trade, invested in land and was a benefactor of the Templars at Broughton.81 Inquest, p. cciii. Godwin, however, was also a donor to the Gilbertines, spreading his monastic patronage, whereas the benefactions of five members of the Caux family showed considerable dynastic support for the Templars in the twelfth century.82 Walker, ‘Patronage’, p. 101.