¬XiosMOVE|Chapter 5 Sheep farming and management on the former Templar estates, 1308–13

The first dissenting voice was that of Bowden, who states unequivocally that ‘the production of long-staple wool in England in the Middle Ages was at the most negligible, there being no true, long-woolled breed of sheep in England at this time’, adding that ‘a clear-cut division between long- and short-staple wool […] previous to the eighteenth century did not in fact exist’.6 P. J. Bowden, ‘Wool supply and the woollen industry’, EHR, new series, 9, 1 (1956), p. 44. Stephenson supports Bowden in there being no longwools in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and associates short staple with fine, high-quality fleeces whereas the later long-staple wool was coarser.7 M. J. Stephenson, ‘Wool yields in the medieval economy’, EHR, new series, 41, 3 (1988), p. 374. Bischoff suggests that the earliest longwool breeds appeared in the seventeenth century, but adds the caveat that ‘it seems possible’ that the ‘genetic predecessors of the later longwool breeds’ may have existed in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries as a result of selective breeding.8 J. P. Bischoff, ‘“I cannot do’t without counters”: fleece weights and sheep breeds in late thirteenth and early fourteenth century England’, Agricultural History, 57, 2 (1983), p. 147.

In 1343, Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, of the Italian merchant house of Bardi, ranked Lindsey wool among the best in Europe. This implies that, just as medieval wool merchants differentiated between wools of different quality, so too was there some difference between the types of sheep which produced it.9 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock, pp. 77–8. Among the sheep which produced the best wool were those of Lincolnshire; however, as Bowden points out, the determinant of wool quality was the fineness of the fibre not the length of the staple.10 Bowden, ‘Wool supply’, p. 47. Similarly, Pelham suggests that the medieval criterion of wool quality seems to have been merely fineness of texture, implying that staple length was not a consideration.11 Pelham, ‘Fourteenth century’, p. 244.

A corollary of the development of commercial sheep farming was a growing interest in selective breeding to improve the quality of stock and the degree of profitability, leading to the trade in, and the mobility of, high-quality breeding stock. As early as 1208 and 1210 the Hungerfords, lords of the Downton manor in Wiltshire, were importing Lincolnshire rams and selling an improved ‘Lindsey wool’ as a result.12 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock, p. 111. Bell, Brooks and Dryburgh suggest that ‘throughout the Middle Ages wool from the Welsh Marches, the Cotswolds and Lincolnshire were clearly of a higher quality [than that which was produced elsewhere]’.13 A. R. Bell, C. Brooks and P. R. Dryburgh, The English Wool Market, c. 1230–1327 (Cambridge, 2007), p. 29. Further, they too point out that ‘medieval wool was almost exclusively of a shorter staple than that of modern sheep’.14 Ibid., p. 49 Besides the inter-regional trade in breeding stock an international trade was already established as well. The chronicles of St Albans record the high price paid for the importation of continental sheep; in 1274 the country was swept by an outbreak of sheep scab brought in by Spanish merinos.15 Ibid., p. 113.

Overall, the accepted view is that the wool produced in Lincolnshire in the early fourteenth century was of high quality and so of high value. Next to wool quality, fleece weight was the most important issue to the fourteenth-century sheep farmer and this in turn rested upon two determinants: staple length and wool density. An extrapolation based upon fleece numbers and overall wool weights recorded in the crown accounts of the former Templar lands in Lincolnshire reveals that the average fleece weight of the Templar flocks was 1.5 pounds, a figure not calculated hitherto.16 Calculation based on a wool sack weighing 26 stone and a stone consisting of 14 pounds. TNA, E 358/18, 16/2, line 66; 19/2, line 54. Both refer to woolsacks and fleece numbers at Temple Bruer for the period 10 January 1308 – 25 July 1309. A fleece weight of 1.5 pounds is the product of a sheep which is neither large nor long-woolled. The archaeological evidence which Faith cites based upon excavations of tenth- and eleventh-century occupation levels at Lincoln indicates the existence of a ‘distinctive horned, black-faced sheep’.17 R. Faith, ‘The structure of the market for wool in early medieval Lincolnshire’, EcHR, 65, 2 (2012), p. 683.

Campbell cites the average fleece weight across the bishop of Winchester’s estates at the time as 1.35 pounds.18 B. M. S. Campbell, English Seigniorial Agriculture, 1250–1450 (Cambridge, 2000), p. 155. He further adds that the range of fleece weights on the Winchester estates was ‘1.25–1.75 lbs, and this seems to have been the normal weight range of the predominantly short-woolled medieval fleece’.19 Ibid. Dyer considers medieval fleece weights as being between 1 and 2 pounds.20 C. Dyer, ‘Sheepcotes: evidence for medieval sheep farming’, Medieval Archaeology, 39 (1995), p. 155. In the centre of the range is the average fleece weight of the Templars’ Lincolnshire flocks; a fleece with a longer wool staple would be expected to be heavier. A fleece weight of 1.5 pounds is quite simply too light to be the product of a long-woolled sheep. The sheep which emerges from the foregoing discussion as having grazed the Templars’ Lincolnshire estates in 1308 is a very small, horned animal, with a short fleece of fine, high-quality wool. Further, Grant specifies that ‘there is no archaeo-zoological evidence to suggest any increase in the size of sheep during the medieval period’.21 A. Grant, ‘Medieval animal husbandry: the archaeological evidence’, in Animals and Archaeology, ed. J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, vol. 4: Husbandry in Europe, BAR International Series, 227 (Oxford, 1985), p. 183. This is the animal which the Templars would have recognised as their own and upon which the reputation of Lindsey wool was built.

The evidence is clear that the wool produced in Lincolnshire was among the finest, and there is no reason to suppose that the sheep which constituted the Templar flock were of any lower quality than those reared in the same county by the Benedictines, Cistercians, Gilbertines or secular lords. However, the proposal that the wool was of a long staple is ill founded.

The composition of a flock was all important as this determined both current productivity and future trends; outbreaks of disease could radically alter a flock’s make-up, and were thus greatly feared. Current profitability depended upon the ewes’ ability to produce wool, lambs and milk for cheese production. Wethers (neutered adult males) produced heavier fleeces; Campbell states that a wether’s fleece was twice as heavy as that of a hogg (a male under two years of age) and a third heavier than that of a ewe.23 Ibid., p. 155. Wethers also produced mutton, but only at the end of their useful lives as wool and dung producers. In every case where a larder inventory was included in the accounts, it contained wether carcasses. At Michaelmas 1308, Temple Bruer had sixty wether carcasses of which thirty-four were for autumn use; Willoughton had thirty carcasses of which twelve were for sale.24 TNA, E 358/18, 19/2, line 66; 17/2, line 29. No ewes or lambs were recorded as larder stock.

The immediate future of a flock depended upon the hoggs and gimmers (maiden females), the two year olds which were to become the rams, wethers and ewes of the following year. They were entering the productive cycle but neither was producing full-weight fleeces. However, they were very much part of the calculation in terms of the following season’s wool clip – particularly if a preceptory had entered into advance contracts committing the estate to providing an agreed quantity of wool, at a fixed date and venue, for a previously agreed sum. At least part of that sum may already have been paid by the purchaser. The numbers of yearling lambs and lambs of the current year’s issue gave a basis for predicting the future of the flock and its productivity patterns three years hence. As explained below, an outbreak of murrain could seriously disrupt those calculations, with dire financial consequences.

The crown accounts of Michaelmas 1308 attributed a flock of 12,418 sheep to the former Templar estates in Lincolnshire, of which 6,325 were held at Temple Bruer, 4,169 at Willoughton, 1,337 at Eagle and 663 at Aslackby.25 TNA, E 358/18 19/2, lines 45–9; 17/2, lines 5–11. By comparison, the fenland abbeys of Peterborough and Crowland had 16,300 sheep between them in 1303.26 Power, Wool Trade, p. 35. The Cistercian abbey of Fountains stocked at least 20,000 sheep during the early fourteenth century.27 Campbell, English Seigniorial Agriculture, p. 158. The extensive estates of the bishop of Winchester stocked up to 35,000 sheep between 1210 and 1454.28 Ibid., p. 155. The Templars’ Lincolnshire flock was sizeable but not as impressive as the flocks of the greatest monastic sheep producers in early fourteenth-century England. Finally, Campbell writes that the size of the national flock in 1310 was ‘scarcely less than twenty million and is likely to have been far greater’.29 Ibid., p. 158. Monastic and seigniorial sheep may be evident in estate accounts, but peasants’ sheep are untraceable and so twenty million could be a considerable underestimate.

The development of estate accounting practices in the later thirteenth century provided a numerical tool which enabled scrutiny of livestock fertility rates, arable productivity, and the efficiency of the labour force. Once records were kept, comparisons could be made from one year to the next, conclusions reached based upon reliable data, and subsequent decisions made regarding best agricultural practice. The third quarter of the thirteenth century saw the circulation of treatises on husbandry and accounting which provided detailed guidance on how estate managers could maximise profit. Among the most widely known of such treatises are the anonymously written Seneschaucy and Husbandry, and the treatise of Walter of Henley.30 D. Oschinsky, Walter of Henley and Other Treatises on Estate Management and Accounting (Oxford, 1971).

Walter of Henley has much to say about the husbandry of sheep but offers no guidance to the medieval sheep farmer regarding the optimum composition of the flock.31 Ibid., pp. 337–9. Further, the absence of any reference to wool in his treatise is surprising, as wool’s pre-eminence in the economy of the period would suggest the need for a lengthy consideration. Oschinsky suggests that Walter’s thoughts on wool may have been lost, as his treatise has been copied and amended many times. Trow-Smith points out that the purpose of the flock was the main determinant of its composition, so, although the overall aim of an estate’s flock might be to produce wool for sale, a constituent manor might specialise as a breeding station producing animals to replace diseased and unproductive stock elsewhere.32 Trow-Smith, History of British Livestock, p. 149. The priorities of the early fourteenth-century estate’s head shepherd were, in descending order: producing wool; ensuring fecundity to maintain the flock; producing milk for consumption, cheese-making and sale; and, finally, producing mutton from animals that no longer earnt their ‘field room’. In addition, the constant production of dung was crucial to the estate’s arable enterprise. Each manor thus contributed to the overall productivity of the estate, but not necessarily in the same way as the others.33 Ibid.

The impact of these economic priorities upon the nature of flocks was considerable. A modern flock consists largely of ewes, young males having been killed for meat as soon as their carcasses reached the desired weight and quality. In other words, few hoggs live long enough to become wethers; they are killed during their second year. By contrast, a medieval flock had a large proportion of wethers because a wether carried a heavier fleece than a ewe and fleece weight as well as quality determined the income from wool sales. The crown accounts for 1308 show this clearly. On the former Templar estates in Lincolnshire, 19.8 percent of the Temple Bruer flock, 26.4 percent of the Willoughton flock and 33 percent of the Aslackby flock were wethers. According to Trow-Smith, in 1306–7 the manor of Combe on the estates of the Abbey of Bec had a flock that was 37 percent wethers.34 Ibid. Bischoff proposes that ‘flocks consisting solely of wethers were more likely to appear on centralised and commercially organised demesne estates’.35 Bischoff, ‘“I cannot do’t without counters”’, p. 149. Clearly the replacement of wethers that were culled or died from disease depended upon there being a breeding flock elsewhere on the estate, or on replacement stock being purchased from outside.

The Eagle members – the manors of Whisby, Woodhouse and Bracebridge (map 11) – recorded no wethers at all. However, 44.9 percent of the Eagle flock were ewes and 39.8 percent were lambs. The figures suggest that the Eagle estate was a breeding establishment which, although still a significant wool producer, made a major contribution to flock regeneration. This implies that the Templars organised their sheep farming on an inter-manorial basis, which would fit with the sheep accounts being managed centrally for a preceptory and its members. In addition, there was a high degree of cooperation between the preceptories, even to the extent of specialisation of purpose. This is a degree of managerial finesse which far transcends mere manorial flock differentiation, as it points towards a commonality of approach across the Lincolnshire estates, not just across the manors of each separate preceptory.

It is unfortunate that no records exist for the period preceding 10 January 1308, as they would offer an explanation regarding the complete absence of yearlings in the accounts of all four preceptories for the period up to Michaelmas 1308. A combination of an outbreak of murrain coupled with the sale of fit lambs to prevent further infestation would seem the most likely explanation. The lack of yearlings, which would have been the product of the breeding season of 1307, had a direct impact upon flock composition in the following year, when far fewer hoggs and gimmers were recorded. By the summer of 1309, the number of yearlings at Temple Bruer, Willoughton and Eagle was recovering.

The importance of flock regeneration is further reflected in the number of lambs in the accounts of Michaelmas 1308. In no case did the proportion of lambs fall below 23.9 percent of the total. The proportion of ewes in the flocks at Temple Bruer, Willoughton and Aslackby was 31.8 percent, 31.4 percent and 36.6 percent, respectively. This shows a high degree of consistency, and in each case exceeds the proportion of wethers. As a wether could be more valuable because it produced a heavier fleece than a ewe, the higher proportion of ewes could reflect a relatively low fertility rate, requiring a higher proportion of ewes to ensure flock regeneration. This would have been a particularly important concern in 1308, given the complete absence of 1307 issue and the pressing need to restock.

Any analysis of the contribution of hoggs and gimmers to the total flock can be problematic. Trow-Smith points out that medieval accounts sometimes classify both gimmers and hoggs as hoggs, which might explain the complete absence of gimmers at Temple Bruer in 1308.36 Trow-Smith, History of British Livestock, p. 149 footnote. The proportion of hoggs and gimmers in the former Templar flocks covers the fairly narrow range of 16.5 percent at Willoughton to 24 percent at Temple Bruer at Michaelmas 1308. In the succeeding accounts for Temple Bruer, Willoughton and Eagle, the proportion in each case dropped to below 4 percent, as hoggs and gimmers were draughted with wethers and ewes, respectively, but there were no yearlings from the 1307 breeding season to replace them. Draughting, the practice of herding younger animals with older stock of the same gender, is considered in some detail later.

Aslackby is again the exception, being the only preceptory which did not have any members. Further, in the absence of both yearlings and lambs, by 20 February 1309 and subsequently, the number of stock inevitably declined. Stone is at pains to include individual decision-making as an influence upon the practice of medieval farming.37 D. Stone, Decision-Making in Medieval Agriculture (Oxford, 2005). Aslackby does not fare well in the post-Templar period. The decline in flock size from 663 sheep at Michaelmas 1308 to 452 on 20 February 1309, and the absence of both yearlings and lambs, suggests that they were moved elsewhere before the estate was leased to William le Mareschal. The difficult situation was further exacerbated by liver fluke, which had ravaged the wethers.

In all the crown accounts of 1308–9, the number of sterile ewes is recorded along with the number of lambs born and the incidence of murrain. Trow-Smith describes sterility as rife ‘according to medieval accountants’ but adds that the term may have been generic, including incidences of abortion and stillbirth and so covering all occasions where a ewe failed to produce a live lamb.39 Trow-Smith, History of British Livestock, p. 150. The success of the ewes in producing lambs was vital to the continuation of the flock and its ability to generate profitable quantities of wool for sale and, less importantly, milk for cheese. The fertility rate was one of the major determinants of the composition of the flock. If it was low, then more productive ewes were needed to maintain flock numbers; this involved culling sterile ewes and buying in new stock to replace them. Walter of Henley recommended that old and feeble sheep be culled in mid-May, between Easter and Whitsun, and that a second cull be carried out at the end of October, the implication being that the medieval shepherd needed to maintain the quality of his flock through regular disposal of low-grade animals.40 Oschinsky, Walter, p. 185. The author of the Seneschaucy recommended that culling should take place three times a year, which would involve even closer flock supervision than that suggested by Walter.41 Ibid., p. 287.

The crown accounts of Michaelmas 1308 show that the fertility rates of the four former Templar estates ranged from 65.4 percent at Willoughton to 83 percent at Eagle. This falls well within the favourable range of 64 to 88 percent given by Campbell for the early fourteenth century.42 Campbell, English Seigniorial Agriculture, p. 155. The success of the lambing season at Eagle, unfortunately later blighted by murrain, supports the idea of it being a breeding station. Stone suggests that ‘in this period [the early fourteenth century] the impact of farm management can be seen most clearly in the changing fertility of the ewes’.43 Stone, Decision-Making, p. 75.

The medieval expectation was for each ewe to produce one lamb per year. The anonymous Husbandry specifies that ‘every cow ought to bear one calf in the year and every ewe one lamb’.44 Oschinsky, Walter, 425. Trow-Smith says that ‘twin lambs appear to have been unknown or unsought in the medieval period’, arguing convincingly that this was due to the inability of a ewe to feed two lambs.45 Trow-Smith, History of British Livestock, p. 125. He points to the insufficiency of the ewes’ diet as the cause of the problem.46 Ibid., p. 151. Trow-Smith’s assertion may indeed be well-based, but it is difficult to see how it accords with the evidence of the ex-Templar estates for the lambing season of 1308.

There was a clear disparity between the total number of ewes giving birth in 1308 and the number of lambs born on the Lincolnshire estates. On each estate, the number of lambs born exceeded the number of ewes giving birth to them. The mismatch was due to the birth of twins, which ranged from 6.8 percent of total births at Eagle to 24.6 percent of total births at Willoughton. It would appear that on the Lincolnshire estates twin births were by no means a rare occurrence. On the Wisbech manor of the bishop of Ely, Stone refers to ‘several occasions in the early fifteenth century [when] a few of the ewes even gave birth to twins’, adding in a footnote ‘There has previously been no medieval evidence for twinning in sheep’.47 Stone, Decision-Making, p. 41. The statistics supporting the existence of twins on the former Templar estates in Lincolnshire are indisputable and may be the first evidence of twinning in medieval sheep.

For the lambing season of 1309, no lambs were recorded for Aslackby. However, the fertility rates for the remaining three preceptories were 76.2 percent at Eagle, 75.5 percent at Temple Bruer and at 51.7 percent at Willoughton. Were the low fertility rate for Willoughton part of a cyclical pattern of highs and lows, then the reason could be the quality of the rams, but only three accounts exist for the preceptory, so to venture such a proposal would be speculative in the extreme. Overall, for the two lambing seasons of 1308 and 1309, the fertility rate was 73.2 percent. This means that the Lincolnshire flock on the ex-Templar estates was not replacing itself, and so culling and buying new stock was essential if the production of wool was not to diminish. For the period fifteen years later, 1327–33, Stone cites a fertility rate of 99–101 lambs per 100 ewes for the bishop of Ely’s manor at Wisbech, which was clearly much more successful.48 Ibid. In the years preceding 1322, the Crowland manor of Wellingborough had maintained a flock of up to 300 ewes which had a fertility rate ranging from 47 percent to 98 percent.49 Trow-Smith, History of British Livestock, p. 127 As the fertility rate was determined by a number of factors including the quality of the food supply, the incidence of disease, the robustness of the ewes, the virility of the rams, and the manorial policy on culling and stock replacement, then it is no surprise that there were variations between seasons and between manors.

From the foregoing discussion it is apparent that other monastic manors and estates had higher fertility rates than did the former Templar estates in Lincolnshire during the lambing seasons of 1308 and 1309. However, it would be unwise to draw a sweeping comparative conclusion based upon the limited data, particularly given the vagaries of the early fourteenth-century climate and the unpredictable occurrence of disease. Further it is clear that fertility rate was only one concern of the medieval shepherd; another, equally important, consideration was the survival of the lambs during their first year of life.

Among the most prominent sufferers in the flock of each estate were the lambs, which were not shorn during their first year and so were prone to infestation. Of the 3,683 lambs in the former Templar flock at Michaelmas 1308, 527 (14.3 percent) suffered from murrain. Gimmers were even more susceptible: 29.2 percent of the gimmers had murrain in the accounts of Michaelmas 1308.52 TNA, E 358/18, 17/2, line 9. Such a high number of infestations would have been very concerning, as the gimmers constituted the following season’s breeding stock of ewes, responsible for the issue of lambs and the continuity of wool production. Overall, despite the variations between the numbers of animals affected by murrain at the four Lincolnshire preceptories, it is clear that the sheep were most prone to infestation during their first two years of life and before shearing.

With reference to the Crowland estates, Trow-Smith cites localised variation in murrain incidences between the manors south of the Wash, which had a mortality rate of 56.4 percent, and the Holland flocks, where mortality stood at 17.8 percent. The latter figure he classes as ‘normal’.53 Trow-Smith, History of British Livestock, p. 154. If a mortality rate of 17.8 percent was normal over a wider compass than that of Crowland’s Holland flocks, then overall, the flocks of the ex-Templar estates in Lincolnshire were managing well.

Despite the best efforts of shepherds, murrain was a constant threat to the flock. Expenditure on mercury from southern and central Europe, verdigris from the wine-growing regions of Europe, bitumen ointment from Scandinavia and other medications for sheep was listed in every account of each preceptory.54 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, line 23. Donkin refers to tar being bought in large tubs and mixed with grease to make sheep salve.55 R. A. Donkin, The Cistercians: Studies in the Geography of Medieval England and Wales (Toronto, 1978), p. 88. The impact of the disease was disastrous as damaged fleeces were much reduced in value. However, it was usual to sell the sheepskins (with wool attached), pelts (without wool) and carcasses of sheep which had succumbed to murrain.56 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, line 15. Some of the mortalities may have resulted not from murrain directly, but rather from the animal being slaughtered while the carcass still retained some value.57 Trow-Smith, History of British Livestock, p. 155.

Murrain was mentioned in every account, but there was little consistency in the pattern. At Temple Bruer, which had the largest flock in both accounts, 8.6 percent of the flock was suffering from murrain at Michaelmas 1308, and 7.8 percent on 25 July 1309. The proportion infected at Willoughton increased from 11.2 percent at Michaelmas 1308 to 18.4 percent at Easter 1309. Perhaps the transfer of 160 ewes from Temple Bruer to Willoughton was to increase the number of healthy breeding stock on the latter estate.58 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, line 59. The most dramatic increase in diseased sheep was at Aslackby, where 131 of the 173 wethers were itemised as suffering from rot (putredine) in the account covering the period from Michaelmas 1308 to 20 February 1309.59 TNA, E 358/18, 14/2 dorse, line 54 This is the only recorded instance of rot, which was most probably liver fluke. Campbell makes the point that during the early fourteenth century severe winters and wet springs left pastures sodden, which created ideal conditions for the spread of liver fluke.60 Campbell, English Seigniorial Agriculture, p. 417. Stephenson proposes a correlation between liver fluke and ‘the amount of rainfall between May and October each year’.61 Stephenson, ‘Wool yields’, p. 382. Clearly inclement weather gives shepherds little option but to use wet pastures, the danger of which is clearly stated in the Seneschaucy: ‘the film of the autumn fog and the small white snails between the two feasts of Our Lady [15 August and 8 September] will cause them [sheep] to rot and die’.62 Oschinsky, Walter, p. 275. The fresh-water snail is a host of the embryo fasciola hepatica, from which the flat fluke emerges to occupy wet grass and be consumed by its final host, the sheep.63 Trow-Smith, History of British Livestock, p. 157. As a result of infection, the liver of the animal putrefies, while the voided eggs of the fluke renew the cycle.64 Ibid.

The occurrence of liver fluke specifically in wethers at Aslackby suggests the single-sex flock management outlined by Power and implicit in the advice offered in the Seneschaucy.65 Power, Wool Trade, p. 7; Oschinsky, Walter, p. 277. Trow-Smith cites manors of Wiltshire estates and of Crowland which ‘kept only wethers for wool production’.66 Trow-Smith, History of British Livestock, p. 144. Elsewhere, Bischoff refers to two types of flock on the demesne granges of the de Lacy estates: the grazing flocks of wethers only, and the breeding flocks made up of male and female animals of all ages.67 Bischoff, ‘“I cannot do’t without counters”’, p. 149. Although Aslackby was only one manor, that would not preclude the flock being divided on the basis of sex and age, each being folded separately.

Veterinary science was rudimentary in the early fourteenth century, and although considerable sums were expended on unctions and medications for the treatment of diseases suffered by sheep, they were at best palliatives and never curatives. At Temple Bruer, the accounts for Michaelmas 1308 show an expenditure of £3 7s. on mercury, verdigris and sheep medication; by contrast, in the same accounts, the cost of washing and shearing 4,571 wethers, ewes and hoggs was £1 19s.68 TNA, E 358/18, 19/1, lines 39–40. At a daily rate of 2d., this constitutes 234 man-days and a washing and shearing rate of 190 sheep per day. Further, over the duration of the account from 10 January 1308 until Michaelmas of the same year, the head shepherd for the bailiwick of Temple Bruer together with his servant had a joint income of £3 5s. 6d.69 TNA, E 358/18, 19/2, lines 53–4. Although the best available treatment may have been applied to the livestock on the former Templar estates in Lincolnshire, the soundest advice in the event of an outbreak of ovine illness was that offered by the author of the Seneschaucy: ‘all sheep found to be diseased […] ought to be sold together with the wool’.70 Oschinsky, Walter, p. 275. There was no effective treatment for sheep disease and the only response was to cull the flock at regular intervals so as to maintain a base of healthy and productive stock.

Movement of livestock between preceptories was by no means unusual and, as has been seen above, single-sex flock management is repeatedly implied. As Dyer points out, ‘one can only note the careful categorisation of sheep in the manorial accounts’.77 Dyer, ‘Sheepcotes’, p. 150. Willoughton received 160 ewes from Temple Bruer before Easter 1309, and, as elsewhere, movement of sheep between preceptories, when recorded, is of flocks of animals all of a single age and sex, which would accord with Power’s model.78 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, line 59. Britnell describes the same centralised accounting, reflecting similar segregation among the Holderness flocks of Isabella de Forz and the estates of the abbeys of Crowland and Peterborough.79 R. H. Britnell, The Commercialisation of English Society, 1000–1500 (London, 1993), pp. 118–19. Sheep and shepherds were only recorded in the accounts of the four Lincolnshire preceptories, not in those of subsidiary manors; as a result, inter-manorial stock movement can only be surmised.

The bailiffs of the estates of both Temple Bruer and Willoughton were each paid 3d. daily for the period between Michaelmas 1308 and Easter 1309, amounting to a total of £2 5s. 6d. each80 TNA, E 358/18, 16/2, lines 3–4; 15/1, line 28. Bailiffs were responsible for the running of the estate, but the head shepherd was responsible for the deployment of shepherds, the welfare of the flock and the organisation of seasonal activities. At Temple Bruer the head shepherd was also paid 3d. per day, but this was to cover the expenses of his servant and horse in addition to his own wages.81 TNA, E 358/18, 16/2, line 6. The head shepherd at Temple Bruer was responsible for the deployment of twenty-four shepherds over nine manors and for the care of 6,325 sheep.82 Ibid., lines 2, 46–63. At Willoughton over the same period, eighteen shepherds looked after 4,169 sheep spread over an estate of fifteen manors.83 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, lines 27, 53–61; 15/2, lines 1–7. The head shepherd at Willoughton was paid 2d. a day, which was equal to the income of John, the collector of rents, fines, obits and perquisites of the manor court.84 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, lines 28–30. This shows that the head shepherd was an individual of considerable importance in the hierarchy of estate management. If not quite on a par with the estate manager, the bailiff, then he was at least the equal of the collector of rents and fines. Of the four preceptories, only Aslackby did not employ a head shepherd. Its three shepherds, enrolled only in the account of Michaelmas 1308, looked after the welfare of a smaller flock, 587 sheep. As a preceptory without members, Aslackby had no need for any further management.85 TNA, E 358/18, 18/2, line 3; 18/1 dorse, lines 27–32.

The draughting of livestock was practised throughout the former Templar estates. This involved herding younger animals together with older stock of the same sex. During the spring of 1309, 206 hoggs were draughted with wethers at Willoughton, and 178 gimmers were draughted with 1,279 ewes.86 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, lines 53–61; 15/2, lines 1–3. At Temple Bruer, 405 hoggs were draughted with 1,208 wethers and 750 gimmers with 1,904 ewes.87 TNA, E 358/18, 16/2, lines 34–42. This same-sex herding indicates a high degree of flock management and, like the movement of Lincolnshire rams to Wiltshire, points towards selective breeding. This further emphasises the importance of the head shepherd in maintaining the quality of the flock and its productivity.

During the spring of 1308, 1,543 lambs were born to a flock of 2,011 ewes at Temple Bruer.88 TNA, E 358/18, 19/2, lines 47 and 49. This necessitated the purchase of 1,180 gallons of milk to feed them, while the following year only 451 gallons were needed.89 TNA, E 358/18, 19/1, line 38; 16/2, line 1. A ewe would have yielded between 30 and 50 litres of milk during a lactation period of 200 days.90 J. N. Pretty, ‘Sustainable agriculture in the Middle Ages: the English manor’, AHR, 38, 1 (1990), p. 3. Power refers to ‘the pails of milk carried from the dairy for the weakly lambs, and the great earthenware pots in which it was heated’.91 Power, Wool Trade, p. 25. Dyer suggests that the smaller buildings associated with sheepcotes may have been used in part for the storage of ‘containers for the cows’ milk sometimes given to lambs’.92 Dyer, ‘Sheepcotes’, p. 153. Assuming that the ewes each produced sufficient milk to suckle one lamb, then, other than the incidence of twins, the only reason for buying milk would be so that the lambs could be weaned early, thereby maximising the ewes’ milk production for cheese-making. Trow-Smith points out that milking often began immediately after lambing, the colostrum being processed into cheese or butter and the lambs reared on whey.93 Trow-Smith, History of British Livestock, p. 119. Cows’ milk has a lower fat content than ewes’ milk, but would have compared favourably with the ovine whey the lambs would otherwise have been fed when weaned early.

A further consideration is the quality of the bovine stock, which Trow-Smith summarily dismisses as the ‘wholly despicable milch cow’ of the fourteenth century.94 Ibid., p. 123. The cow was primarily the source of the plough oxen, and only incidentally a source of milk, which implies that large quantities of surplus cows’ milk would not be available for purchase. If supplementary ovine milk was purchased, then the source of such large quantities as were bought by the former Templar estates is difficult to identify. Both Willoughton and Eagle followed a similar pattern of milk purchase. No milk purchases are recorded for Aslackby, which had by far the smallest flock.

The Westminster estate of Stevenage sheds some light on the issue of the sale of ewes’ milk.95 Ibid., p. 126. In 1274 on this estate, ewes were farmed out for milk at 2d. per head and, as a result, 18 gallons of milk had to be bought for the lambs at 1d. per gallon.96 Ibid. There is no record of ewes being farmed out for milk in the accounts of the former Templar estates for 1308–9, but, were that the case, it would explain the need to purchase additional milk. Perhaps the size of the ewe flock, 2,645 animals at Temple Bruer, necessitated farming out because of the immensity of the milking task. In addition, the sale of ewes’ milk at 1d. per gallon compared more than favourably with the sale value of cheese, cited below at 7d. per stone. Clearly milk could be converted into butter or cheese as a means of preservation, but selling it was more profitable. The farming out of ewes reduced the task of milking the manorial flock to manageable proportions.

Four women were contracted to milk the ewes at Willoughton, presumably after the lambs had been weaned, as the contract also specified that they should help with the harvest.97 TNA, E 358/18, 17/1, line 39. The period during which ewes were milked was very clearly defined; Trow-Smith gives the beginning of milking as 23 April on the Canterbury Priory estates, and the first week of April on the Battle manor of Wye in Kent.98 Trow-Smith, History of British Livestock, p. 119. He further states that ‘for both cheese and butter the milk of both cows and ewes was mixed if the milking stock contained both animals’.99 Ibid. The Seneschaucy is just as precise in naming the end of the milking period as ‘the feast of the Nativity of Our Lady [8 September] because they [the ewes] are then slow to mate in the following year and the lambs will be worth less’.100 Oschinsky, Walter, p. 287. At Temple Bruer, seventeen women were contracted to milk ewes from the Feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross on 3 May 1308 until the feast of the Nativity of Our Lady, 8 September 1308, coinciding precisely with the dates associated with best practice outlined above.101 TNA, E 358/18, 19/1, lines 44–5. No such contracts were enrolled for either Eagle or Aslackby. A dairymaid had to know not only how to make and salt cheese, but also the day on which cheese-making should begin, and when the weights and numbers of cheeses being made should increase.102 Oschinsky, Walter, p. 289. The quantity of milk produced varied over the course of the commercial lactation season, and this was reflected in the number and weight of cheeses produced each week.

The accounts of Michaelmas 1308 show that the dairy at Temple Bruer contained 308 cheeses weighing a total of 204½ stones, while that at Willoughton contained 186 cheeses weighing 82 stones.103 TNA, E 358/18, 19/2, line 69; 17/2, line 32. Most of the cheese produced was retained for autumn use, when the labour force was increased by the hire of large numbers of harvesters. The surplus was sold, Willoughton cheese being worth 7d. per stone.104 TNA, E 358/18, 17/1, line 33. There is only one specific reference to cheese from ewes’ milk, which is in the accounts for Tealby, a member of Willoughton preceptory, where 18 stones of the total of 56 stones of cheese were made from the milk of ewes.105 TNA, E 358/18, 17/2, lines 47–8. However, given the preponderance of ewes over cows (1,310 ewes as against eleven cows at Willoughton), even allowing for the tenfold greater milk yield of a cow, the probability is that ewes’ milk cheese was the norm as elsewhere.106 Campbell, English Seigniorial Agriculture, p. 154; Power, Wool Trade, p. 25. This would correspond with the lucrative income which ewes’ milk cheese provided for the bishop of Winchester during the period.107 Campbell, English Seigniorial Agriculture, p. 154.

On all the Templar estates the washing and shearing of the sheep was a major undertaking during summer.108 S. Sancha, The Luttrell Village: Country Life in the Early Fourteenth Century (London, 1982), p. 35. In the bailiwick of Temple Bruer, the processing of 4,571 sheep cost £1 19s. in 1308.109 TNA, E 358/18, 19/1, line 40. The implication is that at least some shearers were contracted for the task as shearing was itemised separately for both Eagle and Aslackby as well.110 TNA, E 358/18, 18/2 dorse, line 5; 18/2, line 65. Clearly the absence of a reference to washing and shearing in the Willoughton accounts was an error of omission, as wool merchants expected to buy well-cleaned fleeces.111 Donkin, Cistercians, p. 88. Accommodation for wool merchants, or their agents, and indeed contracted shearers, would be best and most conveniently afforded at the preceptory. An astute wool merchant would wish to view the processes of washing, shearing and packing in accord with the centralised shearing identified by Dyer in the Cotswolds.112 Dyer, ‘Sheepcotes’, p. 154. The significance of wool and the wool trade to the Lincolnshire preceptories is dealt with in the next section.

The accounts do not allow a detailed analysis of folding practice, but it is reasonable to assume that the sheep were folded so as to provide dung for the fertilisation of arable land. It is equally reasonable to assume, on the basis of the foregoing, albeit indirect, evidence, that folding was differentiated by sex and age. Although the stock’s diet was generally insufficient, especially given the complete absence of root crops, compensatory steps were taken. Willoughton bought in four cartloads of hay for the ewes during the spring of 1309.113 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, line 24. If buying hay when there was a shortage of fodder was general policy, then the absence of hay purchases across the other three preceptories may suggest that they had sufficient food for their animals, within the limitations of the period.

There is no evidence of mass slaughter in the autumn, so one must suppose that the estates were able to support all their animals through the winter. The implication is not only that winter fodder stocks were sufficient to ensure survival, but also that sheep could be housed if necessary to protect them from the winter weather. Stock mortalities were attributed to murrain and the larder inventories list wether carcasses only. The unproductive wethers which were not culled would have been fattened and killed for mutton only after their economic lives were over. There were no incidences of the lighter ewes’ carcasses in the preceptories’ larders. Presumably, the advice given in the Seneschaucy had been heeded and the unproductive ewes had been sold, as living animals would have yielded higher returns than carcasses.

Dyer is adamant that the term bercaria should be translated as sheepcote, meaning the entire sheep-keeping unit including buildings and pasture, not sheepfold, which implies ‘a temporary, open, fenced enclosure’.114 Dyer, ‘Sheepcotes’, p. 136. His references to the sheepcotes of Temple Guiting, the Templar preceptory in Gloucestershire, describe long stone buildings, each sufficient to accommodate up to 300 sheep, with a cruck-framed roof space for hay storage; associated smaller buildings for storage; and paddocks and pens.115 Ibid., p. 140. In Lincolnshire, both the chalk of the Lincoln Wolds and the limestone of Lincoln Edge would have provided accessible building stone for the structures described, and the absence of large-scale winter culling points to their existence despite the absence of archaeological evidence.

The Willoughton accounts of Easter 1309 record expenditure to repair the roof of the sheepcote of Blyborough and granges; similarly, in the accounts of Eagle for 25 July 1309, repair to the sheepcote roof was listed under expenses.116 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, line 20; 15/2 dorse, line 50. Maintenance of the sheepcotes was a recurring expense, appearing again four years later, in 1313. Eagle incurred further expenditure on sheepcote roof repairs, as did Aslackby for repairs both to the roof of the sheepcote and to the byre.117 TNA, E 358/18, 39/1 dorse, line 57, 55/1, line 40. Dyer refers to the thatched roofs of sheepcotes as needing frequent attention.118 Dyer, ‘Sheepcotes’, p. 156.

It would seem clear that the sheep were housed during the winter in accordance with the advice of Walter of Henley: ‘Looke that your sheepe be howsed from Martynsdaye [11 November] tille Easter’.119 Oschinsky, Walter, p. 337. On occasions, the carry-over of identical numbers of stock from one account to the succeeding one would further suggest winter housing of sheep, at least if the weather was adverse. Walter adds a caveat to his recommendation for winter housing: ‘I meane not soe, if the lande be drye and the fold be pitched and used as it ought to bee and in faire weather’.120 Ibid. Trow-Smith refers to sheepcotes of stone or timber with thatched roofs and with different classes of stock housed separately on the pastoral estates of Wiltshire.121 Trow-Smith, History of British Livestock, p. 113. The intention, clearly, was for the flock to survive the winter. The housing of the sheep when the weather was inclement was an important stratagem towards that end. It is interesting to note that, as with the Holderness estates of Isabella de Forz, maintenance costs on the former Templar estates were kept down. As one might expect where estates had undergone such a recent and dramatic change in ownership, there was no investment in agricultural improvement.122 M. Mate, ‘Profit and productivity on the estates of Isabella de Forz (1260–92)’, EHR, new series, 33, 3 (1980), p. 328.

The sheep farming enterprise of the Templar estates in Lincolnshire is fully representative of large-scale commercial wool production of the early fourteenth century, and is in complete accord with the Cistercian model described by Donkin. Donkin refers to the careful preparation of the Cistercian wool clip; washing the wool before shearing is recorded in every account of the former Templar estates.123 Donkin, Cistercians, p. 86. Similarly, Donkin describes how the Cistercians supplied wool in bulk, used long-term contracts, enjoyed numerous toll exemptions, employed suitable carts and wagons for wool transportation, and drew on the labour of unsalaried famuli, all of which were equally integral to the organisation of the Templar estates.124 Ibid. The centralised organisation based upon the preceptory and reflected in the accounting method was the most efficient means of management and suggests the manorial specialisation within the inter-manorial system described by Power. This is in contrast to the manor-based arable accounts of the former Templar estates. The concentration on wool production was lucrative and the fleece size compared favourably with that produced by other estates, such as those of the bishop of Winchester. The proximity of Boston must have been advantageous to the Templars in their pursuit of the international wool trade, the washing of the wool ensuring that the best price possible was secured. Murrain was a constant threat and the purchase of sheep medication was recorded in every account. Ewes’ milk cheese was produced in quantity and the surplus sold – even the carcasses, sheepskins and pelts of stock which had died from disease were sold to maximise profit. Dyer points out that shepherds were expected to produce a skin for each dead sheep and that this order was enforceable by auditors so as to reduce theft.125 Dyer, ‘Sheepcotes’, p. 154. Above all, sheep farming was a highly lucrative commercial enterprise linked to an international trade network in the early fourteenth century. Indeed, this period was the apogee of the wool trade, where the primary product, wool, was exported via merchants to European textile manufacturers. Subsequently, the emphasis changed; with the emergence of a domestic textile industry developed the cloth trade.

In developing the two foregoing themes of this chapter, the nature of the ex-Templar sheep and flocks and the management of those sheep during 1308–9, only passing references have been made to the wool trade. Wool was in a unique situation: it was a source of tax, a significant item of international financial exchange and, in addition, a political chess piece, for ‘wool, alone among agricultural products, was purchased in bulk by international dealers’.128 Campbell, English Seigniorial Agriculture, p. 157. Although Edward II may have been reluctant to arrest the Templars on 10 January 1308, he was not slow to appreciate the value of their estates and their goods and chattels.

The crown accounts of Michaelmas 1308 are particularly revealing regarding the sale of livestock and livestock products, including wool. In the Michaelmas accounts of Willoughton, the livestock sales were very low, compared with the number of stock held. Two palfreys were sold, previously the property of Brother John de Grafton, formerly the preceptor of Willoughton, who was then languishing in Lincoln Castle.129 TNA, E 358/18, 17/1, lines 31–2. Also sold were 183 sick lambs (1,068 had been born that year); this sale would have been part of the culling process advocated by the agricultural treatises.130 Ibid. The total sale of livestock realised £17. 5s. 4d.131 Ibid. Equally, the sale of wool was surprisingly small during the first nine months of sequestration. From a flock of 3,042 sheep at Willoughton, excluding lambs, only 283 fleeces and fifty-six pelts were sold.132 Ibid. This was an almost negligible wool sale from a preceptory, which, along with Temple Bruer, Eagle and Aslackby, depended upon wool for its income.

The Templars, like other monastic houses, dealt in forward contracts in which they would undertake to sell wool in advance of its production, at a set price, for the coming season or longer. At the outset the vendor received either the entire sum, or part of it, the balance to be paid upon the completion of the transaction. Bell, Brooks and Dryburgh say that the Templar preceptories of Temple Bruer, Eagle and Willoughton had advance contracts with the Italian merchant houses of Bardi and Portenare, and these were still current in 1308.133 Bell, Brooks and Dryburgh, English Wool Market, pp. 157, 160.

During the early fourteenth century, the Italian merchant houses not only dealt in commodities such as wool, but also acted as royal bankers. John Vanne was the agent for the Society of Merchants of the Ballardi of Lucca, one of the foremost mercantile houses of the period. An entry in the Close Rolls of 20 May 1308 orders ‘the treasurer and barons of the exchequer […] to go through the accounts of John Bellard and John Vanne and their fellows of the Society of the Ballardi of Lucca, and to pay them what the late king owed them for money borrowed from them’.134 CCR, 1307–13, p. 36. In fact, the wool which was enrolled on 28 February 1308 as being passed to the Ballardi of Lucca was precisely that wool which the Templars had contracted to deliver to the Bardi and Portenare.135 Bell, Brooks and Dryburgh, English Wool Market, p. 160. It is not known how much money had changed hands as an advance payment; however, the transfer of the remaining wool contract to the Ballardi meant that the king defaulted on the agreement made by the Templars with the Bardi and Portenare. This was in payment of part of the £200,000 debt which Edward II inherited from his father, Edward I, when he acceded to the throne in 1307.136 M. Prestwich, The Three Edwards: War and State in England, 1272–1377 (London, 1988), p. 82. Weir refers to Edward II’s inheritance as ‘a kingdom nearly bankrupted by a war [against the Scots] that looked unwinnable, with a great portion of his future income mortgaged to Italian bankers’.137 A. Weir, Isabella: She-Wolf of France, Queen of England (London, 2005), p. 22.

In the accounts of Michaelmas 1308, John Vanne was in receipt of 3,002 fleeces, from Willoughton, weighing 13 sacks and 16 stones in part payment of the king’s outstanding debt to the Ballardi.138 TNA, E 358/18, 17/2, line 16. For the same period, Temple Bruer handed over 18 sacks 7 stones of wool, Eagle five sacks, and Aslackby 1 sack 21 stones.139 TNA, E 358/18, 19/2, lines 54–5; 18/2 dorse, lines 57–60; 18/1 dorse, line 33. The wool sacks of Eagle were particularly large, weighing 31 stones each rather than the more usual 26 stones. Included in the Eagle clip were 557 fleeces received from the sheriff of Nottingham.140 TNA, E 358/18, 18/2 dorse, lines 56–9. Further, Nicholson cites an instruction to the sheriff of Leicester, issued on 8 May 1308, to have the Templar sheep shorn and sent to Temple Bruer, but they are not listed in the Temple Bruer grange inventory.141 H. J. Nicholson, The Knights Templar on Trial: The Trial of the Templars in the British Isles, 1308–1311 (Stroud, 2009), p. 78. Clearly, the preceptories in Lincolnshire were being used to collect additional Templar wool from nearby counties in order to repay the king’s debt to the Ballardi.

A sack of wool in this period consisted of between 220 and 250 fleeces depending upon the weight of the fleece (which averaged 1½ pounds). The sale value of wool in 1308 was 14 marks per sack at Boston, so the total 38 sacks 18 stones surrendered to John Vanne was valued at £370 3s. 1d.142 TNA, E 358/18, 17/2, line 17. Had the value of the wool forwarded to John Vanne been included in the receipts of the four preceptories then they would have totalled £846 9s. 7d. at Michaelmas 1308, rather than £476 6s. 6d. It is not possible to say how much of the £846 9s. 7d. would have already been received by the Templars from the Bardi and Portenare as a down payment. However, it is clear that at the end of the first accounting period since the attainder of former Templar property, 43.7 percent of potential receipts had gone directly to the Society of Merchants of the Ballardi in part payment of the king’s debts. Such practice was not restricted to Lincolnshire.

In addition to the instruction issued to William de Spanneby, keeper of the Templar lands in Lincolnshire, and those issued to the sheriffs of Nottingham and Leicester, cited above, Nicholson writes that the sheriffs of York, Surrey and Sussex were also being ordered to hand over Templar wool to John Vanne and the Society of the Ballardi.143 Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, p. 78. The Templar wool clip was thus directed to the Ballardi almost immediately after the attainder of the Templar properties, which suggests that servicing the Ballardi debts was a high priority.

By Michaelmas 1308, Edward II must have repaid the most pressing part of his debt to the Ballardi as the subsequent accounts for Temple Bruer, Willoughton and Eagle show a return to wool sales. This also signifies that the advance contract between the Templars and the Bardi and Portenare was for one season only, unless the king’s default was also a cancellation, as the wool from the former Templar estates returned to the open market.

Between Michaelmas 1308 and 25 July 1309, Temple Bruer had receipts of £165 0s. 2d. for wool sales in excess of 15½ sacks.144 TNA, E 358/18, 16/1, lines 47–51. The total receipts from the sale of wool, fleeces and 898 stock realised £198 18s. 6d.145 Ibid. During the same period Willoughton sold wool in excess of 2½ sacks for £26 and a further 6 sacks 6 stones of wool, with an estimated value of £56, were handed over directly to Roger de Wyngefeld, the king’s clerk.146 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, lines 16–17; 53/1, lines 10–11. Itemised in the expenses of Willoughton is the purchase of 42 ells of canvas to make the six woolsacks for the delivery of the 1,440 fleeces to Wyngefeld, which amounts to 240 fleeces per sack.147 TNA, E 358/18, 53/1, lines 32–3. Eagle sold over three sacks of wool for £28 8s. at the same time.148 TNA, E 358/18, 15/2 dorse, line 43. By early 1309, Aslackby had experienced a decline in fortunes, the healthy flock of the estate having been reduced to 311 sheep from the previous 510 animals. The only sales were those of pelts and carcasses of stock which had died of murrain.149 TNA, E 358/18, 14/2 dorse, lines 54–6.

In the initial accounts of the four Lincolnshire preceptories for the period 10 January 1308 until Michaelmas of the same year there was no recorded movement of stock between preceptories and no farming out of sheep. In the accounts beginning 30 September 1308 and ending at varying points in 1309, of a total Lincolnshire flock of 12,813 sheep, 8,260 animals (64.5 percent of the total) had been farmed out on the estates of Temple Bruer, Willoughton and Aslackby. The exception was Eagle, which retained its integrity. The singular composition of the Eagle flock – 641 ewes and 795 lambs and yearlings, a combined 92.3 percent of the estate’s flock of 1,556 sheep – further indicates Eagle’s position as a breeding station. The farming out of ewes or yearlings would have seriously undermined its specialist function.

As early as 20 February 1309, Aslackby was leased to William le Mareschal, and with it a flock of 281 sheep worth £18 10s. 9d. This was a much diminished flock as murrain and liver fluke had killed 141 animals.150 TNA, E 358/18, 14/2 dorse, line 7. On 30 March 1309, the estate of Willoughton was leased to William de Melton, keeper of the king’s wardrobe and future archbishop of York, but during the previous six months there had already been considerable farming out of stock.151 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, lines 4–6. In the account for Willoughton covering the period from Michaelmas 1308 until Easter 1309, the number of livestock sales, particularly sheep, was again insignificant: 67 wethers, 169 ewes and 105 lambs were sold during the half-year period, from a total of 4,359 sheep and lambs.152 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, line 14. However, the low sale number does not include the 3,274 sheep and lambs which were handed over to three men of national or local standing: William de Melton, a man of national importance whose political star was in the ascendant; Stephen de Stanham, sometime mayor of Lincoln; and Thomas Burnham, sheriff of Lincoln until 25 October 1308.153 A. Hughes, ed., List of Sheriffs for England and Wales, TNA Lists and Indexes, 9 (London, 1898, rep. New York, 1963), p. 78. William de Melton, the most influential of the three, received 725 ewes, varying in value from 2s. 3d. to 1s. 2d.154 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, lines 53–61; 15/2, lines 1–7. Stephen de Stanham received 336 ewes valued at 1s. 3d. each.155 Ibid. The least fortunate was Thomas de Burnham, whose 140 ewes had been shorn before being handed over and so were worth only 1s. each.156 Ibid.

As with the ewes, wethers were also farmed out within the estate of Willoughton. John de Blyborough was given 120 wethers and Stephen de Stanham eighty-two, both receiving their respective livestock at the manor of Mere, the only Kesteven manor to be a member of the Lindsey preceptory of Willoughton.157 Ibid. William de Melton received 830 wethers varying in value from 2s. 6d. to 1s. 3d.158 Ibid. Lambs doubled in value over their first year, so to receive lambs was to expect a substantial financial gain during the succeeding twelve months. Between them, William de Melton and Thomas de Burnham received 508 of the 762 lambs born during the accounting period, whose value ranged from 7d. to 10d. each.159 Ibid. Of the 628 yearling lambs born the previous year on the Willoughton manors, none was worth less than 1s. 2d. The 122 hoggs were worth 1s. 10d. each.160 Ibid. Overall, William de Melton was in receipt of a flock worth £233 19s. 4d. The total handover, including the stock given to Thomas de Burnham and others and that farmed out to William de Melton, was a flock of 2,434 sheep valued at £281 4s. 10d.161 Ibid. The numbers of sheep were considerable, and the value of the livestock was carefully enrolled in the grange inventory. Significantly, however, no payment was recorded at this stage. The final account for Willoughton covers the period from 31 March 1309 until 30 July 1309, on which day, after a lease of only four months, William de Melton handed over the lease to Thomas de Burnham. The brevity of the de Melton lease may be explained by the fact that between the end of March and the end of July 1309, the size of the Willoughton flock had been substantially reduced from 4,359 sheep to 2,426 – a 44.3 percent reduction. By no means all of this can be accounted for by sales (341 losses) or murrain (800 losses). Perhaps de Melton had moved stock to property elsewhere, but no such movement was recorded.

A similar pattern emerges for Temple Bruer in the account covering the period from Michaelmas 1308 until 25 July 1309. Of a flock of 6,446 sheep and lambs recorded during the financial year 1308–9, 4,705 were farmed out.162 TNA, E 358/18, 16/2, lines 46–62. The three major beneficiaries were Thomas de Burnham, Stephen de Stanham and Robert Bernard. Thomas de Burnham alone received 3,662 animals valued at £195 5s. 10d.163 Ibid. The total value of the stock handed over was £254 7s. 2d. As with the Willoughton accounts, the value of the livestock was recorded in the grange inventory, but no payment was recorded under receipts. On 25 July 1309 the Temple Bruer estate was leased to Thomas de Burnham; unfortunately, there is no concurrent account which might have shed light on the fate of the sheep, so we cannot tell whether they disappeared like the Willoughton animals.

On the same date, 25 July 1309, the estate of Eagle, in its entirety, was also leased to Thomas de Burnham.164 TNA, E 358/18, 15/2 dorse, line 33. The accounts are less conclusive than those discussed above as no individual stock valuation was given. However, assuming that stock values would be similar to those of Temple Bruer, then Thomas de Burnham was in receipt of 1,556 sheep worth an estimated £56 14s. 9d.165 TNA, E 358/18, 14/1, lines 44–51. Five days later, on 30 July 1309, William de Melton handed over the estate of Willoughton to Thomas de Burnham.166 TNA, E 358/18, 53/1, lines 3–4.

Although sheep were accounted centrally on the former Templar estates, while arable farming was accounted by manor, the two aspects of agriculture were certainly integrated. Just as the sheep were dependent upon hay and legumes for winter feed, and were folded upon stubble in summer for their fodder, so arable productivity depended upon the fertility gained from dung. This being the case, the movement of farmed-out stock to a different estate would clearly have been detrimental to both to the pastoral regime and the arable farming of the depleted estate.

It must be stressed that the value of these animals which were farmed out was recorded in the grange inventories, but not in the receipts of the respective preceptories. This implies either that these were examples of royal patronage or that payment was deferred. There is no evidence of subsequent payment in the summary of debts for 1309. However, the detailed annotation of the second copy of the accounts listing outstanding debts would have been pointless had payment not been expected.167 TNA, E 358/19; E 358/20.

There are no accounts extant for the ex-Templar properties in Lincolnshire for the period from July 1309 until Michaelmas 1311. In 1308, after the arrest of the Order, the pope had issued a bull which entrusted the care of the ex-Templar estates to ‘the patriarch of Jerusalem [Antony Bek, Bishop of Durham], the archbishops of Canterbury and York and the bishop of Lincoln’.168 Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, p. 80. They were charged with full papal authority to prevent anyone removing anything from the Templar estates.169 Ibid. The arrival of two papal inquisitors in late summer 1309 to review the condition of the former Templar estates in England must have caused Edward II some consternation, and presumably the guardian archbishops and bishops were similarly discomfited.170 Ibid. It remains debatable whether the visitation of the inquisitors had a bearing on the absence of accounts from 1309 to 1311. It is not unreasonable to assume that, to be thorough, they would have been in England for some time, perhaps two years, in which case they may have taken the missing accounts to Rome as proof of their findings. A darker interpretation could be that the missing accounts were hidden or even destroyed on the orders of the king to prevent just such an eventuality – particularly as ‘Roger Wingfield, the royal clerk who was appointed general keeper of the Templars’ English lands saw to it that his own master did not go unrewarded’.171 M. McKisack, The Oxford History of England: The Fourteenth Century, 1307–1399 (Oxford, 1959), p. 292.

Having first used the wool clip of the former Templar estates to pay off inherited debts to the Ballardi, Edward II ensured that subsequent profits were paid into the king’s wardrobe and exercised his patronage to farm out former Templar estates and their stock to men of local, regional or national importance – Stephen de Stanham, Thomas de Burnham and William de Melton. However, as with debts in the wool trade, where repayment could be woefully slow, the men of influence were in no hurry to pay the leases on their newly acquired property, be it sheep or entire estates. The crown accounts for Lincolnshire recommence in 1311, and convey an urgent need for the hasty payment of debts and rapid finalisation of affairs.

The most obvious response to the outbreak of murrain at Eagle was to slaughter badly infected animals. In fact, only twenty wethers and ten ewes were slaughtered – the only recorded incidence of ewes being slaughtered for the larder for autumn use. Healthy sheep were moved away from Eagle to Aslackby. Aslackby’s flock had reduced to just 44.1 percent of its 1308 level (down to 286 sheep from 663), but the incidence of murrain was a mere 3.1 percent. In other words, Aslackby was under-stocked and almost murrain free. The Eagle estate transferred to Aslackby 266 wethers and 101 ewes, to utilise the spare grazing capacity and benefit from the much reduced risk of disease. In addition, a further 412 sheep were sold.

At what must have been a later date in the year, when the threat of murrain was considered to have passed, Eagle was restocked. In all, 415 wethers and ewes were transferred to Eagle from Temple Bruer and Aslackby. The evidence is clear that there was an integrated response to a local crisis to prevent it becoming a catastrophe. This is the only example in the accounts where the response to a serious outbreak of murrain can be followed. What it shows above all is that the head shepherds were perfectly able to manage such a situation. Further, the strategy adopted to deal with the crisis would suggest that this was not the first time that a serious outbreak of murrain had to be confronted.

The subsequent account for Eagle covering the period 30 September 1312 until 6 June 1313 shows a reduction in flock size to 1,179 sheep; murrain and its consequences had taken their toll. However, the outbreak of murrain had peaked and the proportion of the flock suffering from the disease was reduced to 13.6 percent. The impact of stock transfer upon Aslackby was not as favourable, as the rate of murrain infestation increased from 3.1 percent to 10.2 percent, implying that not all the stock transferred from Eagle had been free of the disease. With the exception of the 174 sheep sold, all the remaining flock at Eagle were now farmed out, so clearly the devastation of the murrain outbreak had rendered leasing impossible during the previous year. On 6 June 1313 the estate of Eagle was leased to Sir David Graham and no further accounts exist.

Between 30 September 1311 and 16 June 1312, with the exception of nine sheep with murrain and twenty-eight sheep sold, the remaining 225 sheep at Aslackby (78.7 percent of the total flock of 286) were farmed out to William Marmyon. From 16 June 1312, William Marmyon leased the entire estate. In the succeeding two accounts for Aslackby no sheep were recorded as being farmed out, which implies that William Marmyon continued to lease the entire estate. The number of sheep accounted at Aslackby at Michaelmas 1313 was 278. When the lease of Aslackby was transferred to Thomas de Derby on 8 December 1313 the number of sheep involved was 162, a far cry from the Aslackby flock of 663 at Michaelmas 1308. It seems probable that somewhere in the transfer of the lease, 116 sheep had failed to materialise. No further accounts exist for Aslackby after 8 December 1313 but, given the reduction in the size of its sheep farming operations since 10 January 1308, the outlook was not good.

The Templar flock was sizeable and probably subdivided between manors on the basis of age and gender, with the associated draughting and inter-manorial movement which was typical of estates with centralised accounting and management of sheep farming. Of the four Lincolnshire preceptories, Eagle and its members concentrated on breeding so as to maintain the size and health of the Lincolnshire flock. Only Aslackby, as a preceptory without members, operated with a degree of isolation reflected in the singular approach to stock management.

The fecundity of the flock was variable but well within the accepted norm for the period. While twin births were not usual, as they are today, they were not rare either. Murrain was endemic and the statistical evidence proves beyond doubt that ovine murrain was sheep scab which afflicted sheep before they were sheared. As at Aslackby, liver fluke could also ravage a flock. There was considerable expenditure on sheep medication and culling of the flock was practised, but there is no evidence of mass slaughter in the autumn. The purchase of fodder and the constant repair of sheepcotes indicate an intention to ensure the survival of the flock through the winter.

While the production of cheese and butter was important, wool production was paramount. Expenditure on washing and shearing ensured that wool was sold in good condition so as to maximise income. Following the sequestration of the Templar estates on 10 January 1308, Edward II took full advantage of the Templar wool clip from Lincolnshire and elsewhere to repay part of the debt he owed to the Italian merchant house of the Ballardi of Lucca. It was only thereafter that wool from the former Templar estates returned to the open market.

Within a year of the attainder of Templar properties, estate management practice changed as sheep were farmed out; the Willoughton accounts suggest that this involved some movement of the leased stock away from the home estate. Subsequently, estates were leased in their entirety so that by 30 July 1309, all four Lincolnshire preceptories and their lands were leased: Temple Bruer, Willoughton and Eagle to Thomas de Burnham, and Aslackby to William le Mareschal.

Overall, the Templars in Lincolnshire did not farm sheep on the same scale as the Cistercian abbeys in Yorkshire, but neither did their Lincolnshire acreage compare with that of the Cistercians in Yorkshire. Nonetheless, the Templars were significant wool producers who practised the best animal husbandry available to ensure a successful sheep-rearing enterprise which was fully integrated with arable agriculture on their mixed farming estates. After 10 January 1308, the beneficiary of the Templars’ acumen was undoubtedly Edward II. Only the accounts for Eagle and Aslackby are extant for 1313 and so it is not possible to calculate the size of the entire flock on the former Templar estates in Lincolnshire at that time. However, it is evident that in the final account of each of the four preceptories the flock was substantially smaller than it had been when it first fell into the hands of the king.