¬XiosMOVE|Chapter 6 The people: workers, dependants, beneficiaries and the former Templar estates, 1308–13

Generally, the accounts refer to the famuli en masse and so no individual can be identified by name. Neither can the number of famuli on a given estate be more than an estimate as their number is never enrolled; the numbers of livestock are more carefully recorded. The purpose of the accounts was to itemise estate income, expenditure and the value of moveable and therefore saleable property. The famuli were only of interest in that they represented expenditure on wages both in cash and kind, the latter usually in the form of grain and pottage.5 The base of pottage was usually oatmeal, sometimes peas and beans. Dyer, Everyday Life, p. 90. The only famuli enrolled individually are craftsmen who, as a result of their trade, were paid at a higher rate than the general mass of labourers and so were accounted separately. Some activities were accounted together, such as mowing, haymaking and weeding. As a result it is by no means always possible to establish the number of individuals involved in a particular activity.6 TNA, E 358/18, 17/1, lines 38–9.

The status of the famuli varied. Free tenants paid their rent in cash, avoiding the most severe servile burdens of merchet and heriot, fines which the Templars are known to have applied.7 R. H. Hilton, ‘Freedom and villeinage in England’, in Peasants, Knights and Heretics: Studies in Medieval Social History, ed. R. H. Hilton (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 180–1. Merchet was payment on the marriage of a daughter or son; heriot was death duty, usually involving the surrender of a best beast. The villeins, unfree tenants, paid at least part of their rent as customary labour on the demesne. This was rendered either as week works, during each week of the year, or boon works which were performed occasionally as required. In either case, it was an onerous obligation.8 Bennett, Life on the English Manor, p. 106. There were those famuli who were permanently employed for specific agricultural tasks such as stockmen and ploughmen. In addition there were the craftsmen such as smiths and carpenters who fabricated, repaired and maintained carts, wagons and ploughs. Included in the expenses of Temple Bruer, at Easter 1309, were the wages of a smith and a carpenter, in addition to the purchase of iron and nails for the maintenance and repair of ploughs and carts.9 TNA, E 358/18, 16/2, line 1; 16/1, line 56.

A further problem in attempting to estimate either the size of the labour force or the daily rate of payment is that the number of days of customary labour was not itemised, unless expenditure was involved, such as the provision of food by the manor. Customary service was accurately recorded, under income, when boon days were commuted for cash. There were 248 days of autumn customary service which were commuted at a mean cost of 2.9d. each at Temple Bruer by Michaelmas 1308.10 TNA, E 358/18, 19/1, line 24. The commutation of a further eighteen days customary service by 25 July 1309 at Temple Bruer raised 1s. 6d.11 TNA, E 358/18, 16/1, lines 52–3. Postan states that before 1348 ‘the conventional valuation of a “short” or half-day work at ½d. and of a “long” or full-day work at 1d. were also those of corresponding wage rates in the mid-thirteenth century’.12 Postan, ‘The famulus’, p. 42. Dyer gives the daily wage of a late thirteenth-century worker as ‘1d. with food’.13 Dyer, Everyday Life, p. 80. In any consideration of income, a daily rate of 1d. is taken as the norm; however that does not mean that the commutation of customary labour was at a flat rate. The rate of 2.9d. for the commutation of a day’s labour at Temple Bruer indicates that freedom was a profitable commodity. The reduction in customary service evident in the accounts appears to have been very much in accord with the national trend, in which ‘money rent was far advanced in 1250 and had almost replaced labour services by c.1400’.14 Ibid., p. 136. It was surely the case that a contracted worker laboured to greater effect than did a villein who was reluctantly fulfilling a feudal obligation and would pay to escape it could he afford to do so.

During the spring and summer of 1308, the famuli would have been constantly employed in weeding the arable acreage so as to maximise the harvest of grain and legumes. The accounts for Temple Bruer reveal that £1 12s. 6d. was spent on the weeding of 637½ acres of grain. An acre must have taken about half a day to weed, as the mean cost was 0.6d.15 Ibid. Mowing and haymaking, which were more intensive activities than weeding, took place during the summer before the grain harvest and cost a mean of 5.1d. per acre on the Temple Bruer estate or five man-days per acre at a daily rate of 1d.

The weeding of the grain would have been a task undertaken by the famuli; it would not have been contracted out.16 TNA, E 358/18, 17/1, lines 38–9. In contrast, the autumn harvest was completely beyond the capacity of the famuli. At Temple Bruer it cost £13 7s. 7d. to harvest 637½ acres. At Willoughton, harvest required the expenditure of £9 2s. 6d. for the payment of 308 contracted harvesters along with that of a tithe collector and various servants.17 Ibid., lines 44–5. Platt refers to both harvest and ploughing as activities which required ‘seasonal resources in labour that the permanent establishment, however large, could scarcely be expected to meet’.18 C. Platt, The Monastic Grange in Medieval England (London, 1969), p. 84.

Harvesters were contracted in substantial numbers, often with a reaping reeve to oversee the operation. Unlike the famuli, the number of harvesters employed was enrolled in the accounts. South Witham employed 250 reapers during the autumn of 1308, who received part of their payment in food and drink.19 TNA, E 358/18, 18/2, line 10. The availability of a large rural labour force at harvest time suggests that there may have been a very high level of rural unemployment, which would have been unsustainable. More probably, individual tenancies were small enough to allow a tenant not only to harvest his own grain, but also to boost his income by contracting to reap the demesne harvest in addition. Harvesters were paid cash and were fed, both of which would have provided a welcome improvement to an otherwise marginal existence.

Hallam proposes 12 acres ‘in production’, or an equivalent wage, as being necessary to support a family of two adults and three children.20 H. E. Hallam, ‘The life of the people’, in The Agrarian History of England and Wales, vol. 2: 1042–1350, ed. H. E. Hallam (Cambridge, 1988), p. 845. Dyer states that in the east of England ‘from Lincolnshire to Kent […] it was not uncommon to find manors where the majority of tenants held five acres or less’.21 C. Dyer, Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages: Social Change in England, c. 1200–1520 (Cambridge, 1989), p. 119. Assuming that many more tenant holdings were under 10 acres, again insufficient to support a family, the importance of additional paid employment cannot be overemphasised.

The arduous nature of the harvest meant that, during the autumn, the diet of the harvest workers was of much higher quality than the usual labourer’s diet of pottage and bread. The harvest workers’ diet included significant amounts of protein in the form of meat and fish.22 TNA, E 358/18, 55/1, lines 11–13. As the famuli were also involved in harvesting, they too enjoyed an enhanced diet. Dyer is quite emphatic that the ‘autumn diets can be located at the apex of the wage-earning classes, suggesting that the harvest workers formed an aristocracy of labour, much better off than agricultural workers in normal seasons’.23 C. Dyer, ‘Changes in diet in the late Middle Ages: the case of the harvest workers’, AHR, 36 (1988), p. 34. The overriding importance of the success of the harvest encouraged the payment of both cash and an improved diet to the reapers, who were equally aware of how crucial their labour was, but only for the duration of the harvest.

The impact of the harvest upon expenditure, as reflected in the accounts, was substantial as it increased not only the cash-wages bill, but also that for food and drink. The account of Aslackby for Michaelmas 1312 included the allocation of 9 quarters 6 bushels of malt (for ale) for the use of reapers and others in autumn.24 TNA, E 358/18, 55/1, line 20. In the same account, the cost of harvesting 155 acres of grain and legumes was £9 11s. 11d. in cash wages and food for the reapers, which included fish, meat, cheese and milk bought specifically for their consumption.25 Ibid., lines 11–13. At Temple Bruer for the period of Lammas Day (1 August) until Michaelmas (29 September) 1308, £1 13s. 11d. was spent on the food allowance of the famuli to be consumed at the table (ad mensam) .26 TNA, E 358/18, 19/1, lines 40–1. This would indicate that a meal for the workers was provided in the hall of the preceptory, at least during the harvest season if not during the rest of the year. Dyer suggests that the harvest workers ate at least one of their daily meals at the table of the feudal lord in the hall of the manor house.27 C. Dyer, ‘Changes in diet’, p. 28.

Of all accounts, only those of the manor of Upton specified the purchase of 300 herrings in addition to the four wether carcasses, 7 stones of cheese, 1 stone of butter and a quarter of an ox bought for autumn food and wages.28 TNA, E 358/18, 17/2 dorse, line 1. Gainsborough, on the Trent, a short distance from Upton, was involved in seasonal herring fisheries in the Middle Ages – S. Pawley, ‘Maritime trade and fishing in the Middle Ages’, in An Historical Atlas of Lincolnshire, ed. S. Bennett and N. Bennett (Hull, 1993), p. 57. Hallam suggests that three herrings per man-day would have been normal consumption during harvest, but that herrings would not have formed an ‘ordinary part of the diet of the famuli’.29 Hallam, ‘Life of the people’, p. 836. Only the accounts for Temple Bruer allow a calculation of the cost of harvesting an acre of grain; it was variable across the estate but on the two most extensive manors, Temple Bruer and Rowston, the cost was just over 5d. per acre.

It is clear that the famuli were fed pottage and bread of generally low quality, and were paid in grain and legumes, so much is accounted under expenses. Between 10 January and Michaelmas 1308, £5 3s. 10d. was spent at Temple Bruer on considerable quantities of grain and legumes to be paid to the famuli in wages.30 TNA, E 358/18, 19/1, lines 34–5. Several accounts, including those of the manor of Tealby, included expenditure on salt for pottage.31 TNA, E 358/18, 17/2, line 33. At Temple Balsall, the preceptory in Warwickshire, Gooder is unequivocal that the famuli ‘were paid partly in money, partly in kind, in oatmeal, flour, peas and the like’.32 E. A. Gooder, Temple Balsall: The Warwickshire Preceptory of the Templars and their Fate (Chichester, 1995), p. 31. While not allowing for the calculation of a daily rate paid to the famuli, the accounts establish beyond doubt that the Lincolnshire famuli were paid both in cash and in kind, as Gooder had found at Temple Balsall.33 Ibid.

The Willoughton account covering the period Michaelmas 1308 until Easter 1309 allows a further insight into the makeup of the famuli and their activities. There were thirty-nine individuals listed whose primary tasks were itemised, compared with the thirty-eight generic famuli in the previous account.34 TNA, E 358/18, 17/1, lines 41–2; 15/1, lines 26–8. As the numbers so nearly correspond, it is reasonable to assume that they were the same people. On this premise, the famuli at Willoughton comprised a carpenter, granger, woodward, cowherd, swineherd, cook, two carters, a foreman ploughman, six ploughmen and six drivers (two to a team), and eighteen shepherds for the entire bailiwick of Willoughton.35 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, lines 26–8. In addition, there are those who were itemised individually as having estate-wide responsibility, such as the head shepherd of the bailiwick. He was paid a daily rate of 3d. which included the expense of his lad and his horse.36 Ibid., lines 28–9.

Above the level of general labourer, the daily wage doubled. The income of a head shepherd, 2d. daily at Willoughton, was on a par with that of the clerk who collected rents and tithes.37 Ibid., lines 29–30. The head shepherd and tithe collector were paid for the responsibilities they carried, whereas a carpenter and a smith were paid for their skill. A carpenter and smith may have been permanently employed on a large manor, repairing and replacing ploughs, carts and other items. At a smaller establishment, they would have been contracted as the demand arose. In 1308 the smith and carpenter at Temple Bruer were employed at a daily rate of 2d. to make carts, ploughs and horseshoes.38 TNA, E 358/18, 19/1, lines 47–8. Further, a tradesman could have been based at a preceptory, and worked on other estate manors as necessary. The Willoughton carpenter was able not only to carry out constant maintenance to carts and ploughs but also to repair the windmills at Keal and Limber and fit new millstones to the mill at Keadby, as no additional contracted labour was employed.39 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, lines 21–2.

Carpenters and smiths may have been either permanent or contracted employees, but the same did not apply to those employed in building. Roof repairs were a usual part of building maintenance but roofers were itinerant artisans who were invariably contracted. Neither roofer nor mason was enrolled as a permanent employee on any of the Templar manors but throughout the Templar estates roofs were constantly being repaired. Assuming that similar repairs were carried out with the same regularity on all monastic and secular manors then there would have been no shortage of employment for a roofer and his mate. The account beginning at Michaelmas 1311 for the manor of Rowston recorded the employment of a roofer and his mate for twenty days to repair the roofs of the grange, byre and sheepcote, and the employment of a mason to repair the wall of the grange.40 TNA, E 358/18, 38/2 dorse, line 20. Similarly, repairing the roofs of the sheepcotes at Willoughton and Blyborough and the roof of Willoughton grange also required the contracting of an itinerant roofer.41 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, lines 20–1.

Not all roofs were the same. The account for Temple Bruer beginning Michaelmas 1308 included payment to both a roofer and a tiler, suggesting the use of both thatch and tiles as roofing materials.42 TNA, E 358/18, 16/1, line 58. It is likely that tiles would have been used for the roofs of the more substantial buildings and thatch for the buildings of lower status. With reference to the Oxfordshire village of Cuxham, Harvey notes that ‘there were both tiled and thatched buildings on the demesne’.43 P. D. A. Harvey, A Medieval Oxfordshire Village: Cuxham, 1240 to 1400 (Oxford, 1965), p. 37. He further states before 1310, the Cuxham granary and dovecote were the only farm buildings to have been had been tiled; all others were thatched, which further indicates the distinction between permanent buildings and those of a less substantial nature.44 Ibid.

The Seneschaucy stipulates that the primary responsibilities of the bailiff were to be loyal and to be ‘capable of turning the land to good account’.45 D. Oschinsky, Walter of Henley and Other Treatises on Estate Management and Accounting (Oxford, 1971), p. 269. Routine manorial management was carried out by the reeve and overseen by the bailiff; the term appears to have been interchangeable with the term sergeant. The sergeant referred to in the initial Willoughton account of 1308 was called a bailiff in the subsequent account, but his rate of pay, 3d. per day, remained the same, implying no difference in responsibility.46 TNA, E 358/18, 17/1, line 45; 15/1, line 28. An income of 3d. per day for a sergeant or bailiff appears to have been standard at a preceptory manor in 1308, 50 percent more than a carpenter or head shepherd received.47 TNA, E 358/18, 17/1, lines 45–6. The exception is South Witham, where the bailiff’s wages were reduced to 2d. per day after Michaelmas 1308, from 3d. per day immediately after the arrest of the Order.48 TNA, E 358/18, 18/2, lines 1–2; 14/1 dorse, line 18.

It was not unusual for a sergeant to be responsible for two manors if they were in close proximity.49 This was true of the following manors: Tealby and Claxby on the Willoughton estate; Rowston, Kirkby, Welbourn and Wellingore on the Temple Bruer estate; and Woodhouse and Whisby on the Eagle estate. Bennett refers to instances where ‘officials who oversaw a number of manors were given the rank and pay of a sergeant but there is little to differentiate their duties from those of an ordinary bailiff’.50 Bennett, Life on the English Manor, p. 162. The adjacent manors of Tealby and Claxby, on the Willoughton estate, shared a bailiff who spent time based at each manor. He was paid at the rate of 2d. per day and, in addition, was supplied with a new livery at Christmas valued at 10s.51 TNA, E 358/18, 15/2, line 23. Clearly the size of the manors of Tealby and Claxby did not merit a 3d. daily rate for the bailiff. The implication is that a farm manager’s wages depended on his skills and responsibilities, just as those of the famuli did. As South Witham illustrates, reassessment by the king’s agents resulted in reduced wages where that was felt appropriate.

While it may not be possible to identify members of the famuli by name, nor even to gauge their number, it is possible to appreciate the nature of their toil. The society in which they lived was strictly hierarchical, even within their own numbers. Their place in that society was determined above all by their free or unfree status, which in turn determined the nature of their rent. A freeman would pay rent in cash whereas an unfree man would pay rent partly in cash and partly in labour, in addition to more onerous obligations associated with the servitude of himself and his family. However, where labour was waged, payment was in cash and kind and income depended upon the nature of the employment not the status of the employee. There is no evidence in the accounts to suggest that a villein was paid any less than a freeman for performing the same task; villeinage did not have an impact upon wage rates. The quality of food provision, as part of that income, was dictated by seasonal activity: a base rate of pottage increased in quantity and was enhanced by the addition of meat and fish when hard labour dictated, as during the autumn harvest. The famuli remain nameless but their passing should not go unmarked. The edifice which was medieval society was built upon their labour.

A chantry chaplain conducted Mass for the soul of William Bardolf at Eagle, provision having been made for this by the donation of land and tenements.57 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, lines 30–1. This would almost certainly have been the William Bardolf who held land in Leicestershire, Sussex, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Norfolk in 1275–6.58 TNA, C 133/14/7. A Chancery inquisition regarding the transfer of the manor of Ruskington, Lincolnshire, from Sir William de Bardolf to his son Thomas was recorded in 1382; clearly the family continued to hold land in the county throughout the fourteenth century.59 TNA, C 143/400/10. In all cases, the beneficiaries of the chantry Masses had been landowners of substance, sufficiently prosperous to make donations to the Order that would ensure their spiritual well-being after death (post-mortem).

Income was not derived solely from the churches and chapels which were part of the preceptory, or at least of the demesne manor. In addition there were receipts from the churches of vills, not all of which were on Templar manors. The pensions of the churches of Caythorpe, Rauceby and Normanton were still rendering income to Temple Bruer in 1312 but their manors were not part of the former Templar estate.60 TNA, E 358/18, 38/1 dorse, lines 12–13.

The chaplain’s payment reflected not only the value placed upon his work but also the social status it accorded him – equal to that of a sergeant and above that of a tradesman. The reliability of the income was, however, not guaranteed. On 5 July 1312, William de Spanneby, ‘keeper of the Templars’ house of Eicle’ was ordered to pay Thomas de Wigsley, corrodian and chaplain, 3d. daily for his food and ‘to pay him any arrears from the time since his appointment as keeper’.61 CCR, 1307–13, p. 430. Wigsley is today a small settlement 3 miles north of Eagle Hall. On 25 October 1313, the keeper of the Templars’ manor of Willoughton was ordered to pay Nicholas, vicar of Thorpe in the Fallows, 5 marks yearly to augment his stipend ‘and the arrears from the same time from the time of the keeper’s appointment’.62 CCR, 1313–18, p. 18. Failure to pay clerics was by no means restricted to Lincolnshire: on 20 October 1313, Henry de Cobham, keeper of the late Templars’ manor of Ewell (Surrey), was ordered to pay Henry de Driffield, the vicar of the church of Ewell, the small tithes of all the beasts in the parish – which de Cobham had been withholding since his appointment.63 Ibid., p. 25. The allocation of a stipend did not necessarily mean that the allowance was paid.

The corrodians were each entitled to a corrody, the size of which depended upon the extent of the donation they had made to the Templars, usually in the form of land (appendix 3). Having donated a messuage and 24 acres at South Witham to Brother William de la More, who received the donation on behalf of the Order, William Rynel was granted a corrody at Temple Bruer (appendix 3).64 TNA, E 358/18, 19/1, lines 56–7. He was awarded food for life at the table of the brethren to the value of 3d. per day, 1 mark per year for his expenses, an old garment to be received each Christmas, and an allowance for his groom.65 CCR, 1307–13, 12 October 1312 (see appendix 3 for the full text). The reference to his dining at the table of the brethren is made in TNA, E 358/18, 19/1, lines 56–7. Alan de Swaynton, a corrodian at Eagle, was awarded food for life at the table of the squires to the value of 2d. per day (appendix 3).66 Ibid., line 73. Evidently Alan de Swaynton’s donation to the Templars had been less significant than Rynel’s, hence his smaller ration and seat at a table of lower status.

There were two female corrodians: Agnes, wife of Richard de Weston, at Eagle; and Alice de Swinethorpe, daughter of Robert de Swinethorpe, at Temple Bruer, where her father was likewise a corrodian (appendices 3, 4). The nature of the corrody awarded to a woman was entirely different from that granted to a man. In the examples quoted above, both Rynel and de Swaynton ate at a table in the hall, according to their status, their diet determined by the table at which they ate. In the cases of both Agnes and Alice, references in the Close Rolls as late as 8 March 1312 are very precise as to their corrodies and further illustrate the relationship between the value of the donation to the Templars and that of the corresponding corrody, as outlined in appendix 3.67 CCR, 1307–13, p. 408. Female corrodians would not have eaten in the hall with the men; their allocation of food and accommodation would have been entirely separate. As a result, the food given to a female corrodian was precisely recorded in the accounts; for a male corrodian, it was sufficient to know at which table he sat as that determined what he ate.

The nature of maintenance agreements on secular manors similarly depended upon the size of the area of land surrendered to the lord by the corrodian. Dyer gives the examples of two women from Langtoft, Lincolnshire, in 1330–1.68 Dyer, Standards of Living, pp. 153–4. Beatrice atte Lane ‘was promised 1½ quarters of maslin and 1½ quarters of drage, sufficient for an ample diet of bread and ale’ in exchange for 24 acres.69 Ibid. Sara Bateman, who surrendered 4½ acres, ‘received a quarter of maslin and four bushels of barley, the ingredients of a menu of bread and pottage accompanied only by water’.70 Ibid. This further implies that female corrodians were not unusual across the landowning class of society.

Corrodies did not always work out well. Michael de la Grene contracted with William de la More, Master of the Templars, to give to the Order 60 acres of land and 8 acres of meadow in Wycombe (Buckinghamshire) in return for his maintenance in food, drink and robes.71 CCR, 1307–13, p. 216. He did not receive his corrody so reoccupied his land, and an order was issued on 5 June 1311 for his lands to be restored to him.72 Ibid. Two entries in the Close Rolls dated 25 November 1311 and 1 December 1312 list twenty-nine individuals with debts outstanding against various keepers of Templar manors. Included among the creditors was William, son of Roger de Crescy of Claypole, from South Witham, a corrodian. The Calendar Roll entry dated 8 March 1312 addressed to the keepers of the Templars’ manor of Willoughton ordered them to pay John de Whitenton, clerk, a corrody which ‘it appears by certificate of the treasurer and the barons of the exchequer, he ought to receive for life in consideration of sixteen acres of land in Thevylby, a messuage and three acres of land in Methyngby’ that he had given to the Order.73 Ibid., p. 410. John de Whitenton, whose name appears with various spellings, was involved in the survey of the Earl of Lancaster’s lands in 1322 and was recorded in the Report of Philip de Thame in 1338. The implication is that although de Whitenton was due a corrody, he was not in receipt of it. A further thirteen corrodians, including ten others based at former Lincolnshire preceptories, were included in the same order.74 CCR, 1307–13, p. 410. The corrodians found themselves in exactly the same position as the clerics, the payment of their allowances depended upon the keepers of the Templar manors, and they were reluctant to pay.

The incarceration of the Templars was by no means administered with a uniform degree of stricture. On 14 December 1309 an order was sent to the sheriff of Kent to ‘arrest all Templars wandering about in his bailiwick, and send them to London, there to be delivered to the constable of the Tower, as the king understands that divers Templars are wandering about in secular habit, committing apostasy’.75 Ibid., pp. 187–9. A further order, issued to the sheriff of York on 12 March 1310, has more than a hint of royal exasperation.76 Ibid., pp. 203–8. The sheriff was enjoined to:

The interrogations of the Templars imprisoned in Lincoln Castle began in the chapter house of the cathedral on 31 March 1310 and ended on 1 June 1310.78 Gooder, Temple Balsall, p. 98. The outcome of the interrogations was unsatisfactory for the authorities. John de Dalderby, Bishop of Lincoln, was not convinced of the Templars’ guilt and ‘from then on took no further action on his own initiative’.79 C. Clubley, ‘John de Dalderby, Bishop of Lincoln, 1300–1320 (Ph.D. thesis, University of Hull, 1965), p. 162. During the previous year, even the papal commissioners had shown little enthusiasm for the task of enquiring into the charges against the Templars.80 Ibid. On 10 December 1310 an order was issued to the sheriff of Lincoln, Thomas de Burnham, to receive, from the constable of Lincoln Castle, the Templars imprisoned there, and to deliver them to the constable of the Tower of London in accordance with the decision of the provincial council.81 CCR, 1307–13, p. 292; TNA, C 241/62/185. Sir Thomas de Burnham was Constable of Lincoln Castle in 1309 but may not have been in the following year. A more rigorous inquisition was conducted in London between 30 March 1311 and 2 April 1311.82 H. J. Nicholson, The Knights Templar on Trial: The Trial of the Templars in the British Isles, 1308–1311 (Stroud, 2009), p. 123. An entry in Dalderby’s register, dated 17 July 1311, states that ‘the Templars had been convicted, excommunicated and assigned to various religious houses to work out their penances’.83 C. Clubley, The Book of the Memoranda of John de Dalderby, Bishop of Lincoln, 1300–1320, fol. 222v, pp. 422–3. Lodged in Lincoln City Archives, this is a bound, hand-typed, transcription and translation of the Register of John de Dalderby. The transcription and translation were completed by Clubley and later drawn upon for his doctorate, ‘John de Dalderby, Bishop of Lincoln, 1300–1320’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of Hull, 1965). Dalderby’s frequent apologies for absence from meetings related to the Templars – usually citing ill-health and pressure of work – suggest that he preferred to send a proctor as his representative rather than be personally involved. He was not sympathetic to the proceedings. By 30 July 1311, the provincial council at York decided to send the Templars at York to do penance at various monasteries in the York province; the same was effected in the Canterbury province.84 Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, p. 187. The trial was over and during the autumn of 1311 the Templars were dispersed to ecclesiastical houses.

By 1311, of the original seventeen Templars first imprisoned in Lincoln in 1308, four had died, two were unaccounted for, eight were sent to dioceses other than Lincoln and three remained within Lincoln diocese. Simon Streche, late preceptor of Eagle, was allocated to the Priory of St Catherine’s without Lincoln (appendix 5).85 Clubley, Memoranda, fol. 223, p. 423. John de Saddlecombe and Robert de Bernwell proved problematic. A letter from the bishop of Lincoln to the archbishop of Canterbury, dated 10 August 1311, informed him that ‘his order regarding the Templars had been carried out with the exception of Bros. John of Sadelescumb and William of Barnwell’.86 Ibid., p. 424; Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, appendix 1, p. 211. One wonders whether Robert de Bernwell and William of Barnwell are the same man? The two brethren were ‘lying at Boston infirm, and could not be moved without danger to their lives’.87 Clubley, Memoranda, fol. 223, p. 424. The archbishop was dissatisfied and wished them to be sent to their assigned monasteries of Swineshead and Wardon forthwith. The impasse was resolved by the convenient deaths, at Boston, of Saddlecombe on the Sunday after St Giles’s day and Bernwell on 24 August 1311.88 Clubley, ‘John de Dalderby’, p. 170. A letter to the archbishop dated 14 October 1311 informed him of the demise of the two Templars.89 Clubley, Memoranda, fol. 232, p. 442.

While the Lincolnshire Templars, with the exception of the three mentioned above, were assigned to religious houses outside the diocese, Lincoln received Templars from elsewhere to be assigned to religious houses within the diocese (appendix 5). Included among the eighteen Templars who were to do their penance in the diocese of Lincoln were William de la Forde, William de Sautre and Roger Norreis, the former preceptors of Denny (Cambridgeshire), Sandford (Oxfordshire) and Cressing (Essex); and John de Stoke, the ex-treasurer of the Order from New Temple, London (appendix 5). The full list is given in Dalderby’s memoranda, dated 24 August 1311.90 Ibid., fol. 232, p. 423.

Not all Templars were welcomed at the house to which they had been assigned. On 1 August 1311, the prior and convent of St Andrew’s Priory, Northampton, were ordered to receive without delay Brother William of Pocklington, who had been assigned to them.91 Ibid., fol. 224, p. 425. Their refusal to accept Pocklington resulted in their excommunication three days later.92 Ibid. From 6 August the fruits of appropriated churches were withheld for as long as the excommunication was in place.93 Ibid., fol. 225v, p. 426. By 12 August 1311, the prior and convent of St Andrew’s had yielded and were ‘absolved from the excommunication incurred by their disobedience’.94 Ibid., fol. 227v, p. 427.

The refusal to accept Pocklington may have stemmed from resentment of earlier impositions. On 25 June 1310, along with other religious houses, the priory had been ordered to provide victuals for the support of the king’s Scottish expedition.95 ‘Houses of Cluniac monks: The priory of St Andrew, Northampton’, in A History of the County of Northampton, vol. 2, ed. R. M. Serjeantson and W. R. D. Adkins, Victoria County History (London, 1906), pp. 102–9. Available through British History Online (www.british-history.ac.uk); CCR, 1307–13, pp. 260–9. In April 1311 the king granted Benedict de Watford, a royal servant of many years standing, a corrody at St Andrew’s Priory consisting of food and clothing, according to his estate, and a suitable chamber within the precinct.96 Ibid. All this at the priory’s expense, not paid for from the royal exchequer.97 Ibid. The order to receive Pocklington on 1 August 1311, albeit coming from Canterbury, not Westminster, may have been a step too far. Memory of the dispute between the priory and the Templars over the church of Hardwick, which had been presented to the king’s court in the octave of All Saints 1199, may have added further rancour to an already fraught situation.98 Ibid. Forey points out that the ‘monasteries to which the brothers were sent were not unused to having individuals thrust upon them by the king or others, nor to protesting against such impositions’.99 A. J. Forey, ‘Ex-Templars in England’, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 53, 1 (2002), p. 23. Forey cites reasons why religious houses may have been reluctant to receive Templars. The Templars were accused of serious offences and there were those in England who believed the accusations.100 Ibid. They might prove to be difficult inmates, and the religious houses to which they were allocated were to be ‘responsible for their conduct’.101 Ibid.

The Templars’ penances varied according to the sins they had admitted. However, in all cases, the Templars were enclosed in monastic cells and ‘may not go out of the said cells except to the church or cloister at due times to hear the Divine Office, and, once a week, to some places near, within the enclosure of the monastery, for four hours of the day for the purpose of taking purer air’.102 Clubley, ‘John de Dalderby’, p. 166. Effectively the Templars were imprisoned within the confines of the monasteries to which they had been assigned, incarceration which they may have bitterly resented if their admissions had been elicited under duress and they believed themselves innocent of the heinous sins of which they were accused.

Roger de Wyngefeld was the custodian of the ex-Templar lands throughout England, but each county had its own keeper. In Lincolnshire, the keeper was William de Spanneby. The king’s edict, entered in the Close Rolls of 16 July 1311 (appendix 5), instructed Roger de Wyngefeld to pay ‘out of the Templars’ lands in his custody’ to various bishops including John, Bishop of Lincoln, 4d. daily for the maintenance of each Templar doing penance in their dioceses.103 CCR, 1307–13, p. 365. The order added, tellingly, ‘as they were wont to receive previously, satisfying them also for the arrears of the same due to them’.104 Ibid. A later entry, of 1 September 1311, was addressed to ‘Roger de Wyngefeld, keeper of the lands of the Templars in the king’s hands, or to his under-keeper in co. York’.105 Ibid., p. 372. One would assume that for the Lincolnshire Templars, any demand for payment received by de Wyngefeld would have been handed on to de Spanneby, who would in turn have appropriated payment from the home preceptory of the Templar concerned. Of the Lincolnshire preceptories, only Temple Bruer recorded any Templars in the surviving accounts after 1311. There were nine of them, all still awarded 4d. daily from Michaelmas 1311 until 2 July 1312 at a total cost of £41 8s.106 TNA, E 358/18, 38/1 dorse, lines 43–6. After the distribution of the Templars to various religious houses at the end of the trial, the bishops of the dioceses in which the penitent ex-Lincolnshire Templars were accommodated would have been paid maintenance, which they in turn would have paid to the houses of their dioceses as appropriate. When, on 19 December 1311, William de Spanneby, along with other keepers of the Templar lands, was ordered to pay the receipts from the issues of the Templar estates to the exchequer ‘on the morrow of St Hilary’, Roger de Wyngefeld would have been the recipient.107 CCR, 1307–13, p. 391.

By 1313, William de Spanneby was no longer the sole keeper of the Templar lands in Lincolnshire as Robert de Luthteburgh was ‘keeper of certain of the Templar lands in the same county’, which included Willoughton.108 Ibid., p. 512. Both were ordered to pay the wages assigned for the maintenance of the Templars doing penance.109 Ibid. The Templars for whom Robert de Luthteburgh carried financial responsibility (appendix 5) were not included in the accounts of William de Spanneby as he was not responsible for their maintenance. The reliability of de Spanneby’s payments of maintenance is challenged by a Close Roll entry of 20 November 1311 in which he was specifically ordered to pay the bishop of Lincoln ‘the arrears of the wages assigned for the maintenance of Simon de Streche, a Templar delivered to him to do penance in the monastery of St Catherine’s without Lincoln, […] from the time of his appointment as keeper and to continue to do the same’.110 Ibid., p. 326. A final order to William de Spanneby, issued on 20 November 1313, instructed him to pay the bishop of Lincoln the wages of Simon de Streche from the time of his appointment, again indicating that payment was in arrears.111 Ibid., p. 26.

The frequency of enjoinders to pay maintenance, recorded in the rolls, would suggest that de Spanneby was by no means alone in his reluctance to meet his financial obligations, as a result of which some Templars were reduced to penury. King and Luke go so far as to say that ‘the pensions were never paid by the holders of their [the Templars’] forfeited estates’.112 E. J. King and H. Luke, The Knights of St John in the British Realm (London, 1924, 3rd edn rev. and cont. 1967), p. 44. In the first week of December 1311 alone, orders were issued to the keepers of Templar property in Hertfordshire, Yorkshire, Somerset and Warwickshire regarding the non-payment of the maintenance of thirty-six Templars to the ecclesiastical houses where they were doing penance.113 CCR, 1307–13, pp. 383–4, p. 391. Failure to pay wages was not restricted to the Templars and their corrodians; a Close Roll entry of 4 October 1308 ordered the sheriff of Nottingham to pay to five Scottish prisoners in Nottingham Castle ‘their wages from the time of his appointment as sheriff, and to continue to pay the same’.114 Ibid., p. 77.

The Close Roll entry of 28 November 1313 unequivocally ordered the transfer of former Templar lands and property to the Hospitallers in the persons of Albert de Negro Castro, Grand Preceptor of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, and Leonard de Tibertis, Prior of Venice.115 CCR, 1313–18, p. 8. With the transfer of lands and property, however incomplete that may have been, came financial obligations. A Close Roll entry dated 8 February 1314 ordered the prior of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem in England to pay ‘4d. a day out of the issues of the Templars’ lands for the wages of each of the Templars placed in monasteries to do penance’.116 Ibid., p. 40. The final order issued to keepers was to Alexander de Cave and Robert de Amecotes, ‘late keepers of the Templars’ lands in the county of York’, to pay the arrears of William de Grafton, who was serving penance in the monastery of Selby; it is dated 3 January 1314.117 Ibid., p. 35. The close rolls actually name William de Graston, which is clearly a misprint.

By 17 December 1318, Pope John XXII had ‘been informed that several former Templars have returned to the secular life, and, regarding themselves as lay folk, wear lay clothing, and some have married, despite the vows which they made on entering the order’.118 Clubley, Memoranda, fol. 427v, pp. 977–8. Bishops were enjoined to summon the former Templars to appear before them and to order them to transfer within three months to religious houses of their choosing.119 Ibid.

While Pope Clement V may be regarded as a compliant prelate whose actions with regard to the Templars were in response to the initiatives of King Philip IV of France, his successor was of a different nature. Pope John XXII sought greater power and autonomy for the Catholic Church, which had been undermined by both Clement V and his predecessor, Benedict XI. John would have seen the return of former Templars to a secular life as indicating weakness in the papacy. As such, it was not to be countenanced, regardless of what his personal view on the Templars may have been.

The return of former Templars to the secular life is in itself an interesting conundrum. They were men who had previously lived according to the monastic vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, but their Order, which had imposed discipline and given life meaning, no longer existed. They were rudderless in stormy seas. It is uncertain whether the penances assigned them were for life, in which case they were escapees, or for a fixed duration, after which they may have been discharged from their places of penance. It is, however, abundantly clear that their allotted pensions of 4d. per day became increasingly unreliable with the passage of time. Perhaps the return to the secular life was necessitated by the need to survive. If this were the case, then the opportunity to return to the religious life, and to do so no longer as a penitent, would have been more than welcome as a way of regaining structure and, perhaps, a pension.

By 10 December 1319, twelve former Templars, including Simon Streche, had appeared before the bishop of Lincoln in accordance with the pope’s directive, eight of them referred to as laymen in Dalderby’s memoranda (appendix 5). One must assume that all twelve were living a secular life and wished to return to life within a religious order, which they duly did, having chosen the religious houses where they preferred to live. Only three former Templars wished to return to the houses where they had first been committed to do penance. They were William de Thorpe, who returned to Thornton Abbey; William de Burton, who chose Barlings Abbey; and William de Chelsea, who went to Kirkstead Abbey. Thomas de Chamberlain, who had originally been allocated to Spalding Priory, opted to enlist with the Hospitallers. Simon Streche chose to go to Spalding Priory, not St Catherine’s without Lincoln where he had initially served his penance. William de Sautre, who had served his penance at North Ormsby Priory, chose to return to his home county of Oxfordshire to end his days at Bicester Abbey. There is no record of those former Templars who did not respond to the bishop’s summons and continued to live in the world. The Report of Philip de Thame of 1338 lists twelve surviving former Templars (appendix 5).120 L&K, p. 209. Of the twelve, only four – William de Chelsea, William de Burton, Thomas de Standon and Alan de Neusom – had any association with the diocese of Lincoln.121 Ibid.

Expenditure on the corrodians and prisoners was a fixed outgoing that was beyond the managerial control of the bailiff, and, as an ongoing commitment, had to be accounted within the preceptorial budget. In the initial accounts, almost a third of Temple Bruer’s outgoing expenses went on the corrodians. If the maintenance of both corrodians and prisoners is taken into account, together they amounted to 57.5 percent of total expenditure at Eagle, which resulted in an overall deficit of £18 17s. 1d. With the passage of time, the sums expended on maintenance diminished, and it would be easy to assume that this was due to mortality. However, it is evident in the accounts that these commitments were not always met and that individuals were called upon to pay outstanding debts. The account ending on 2 July 1312 for Temple Bruer includes only four corrodians of the thirteen listed in the account of 1308, implying that the remaining nine had died in the intervening period (appendix 4). However, the order issued to Ebulo de Montibus, keeper of Temple Bruer, dated 12 October 1312, enjoined him to make payment to a further six pensioners, four of whom had been included in the account of 1308 (appendix 4).122 CCR, 1307–13, p. 480. They had not died but had been omitted from the accounts, which presumably means they were not paid. Further, the final account for Aslackby, ending on 8 December 1313, and following a period of leasehold by William Marmion, outlined non-payment to Robert de Thurgarton, chaplain, Richard de Garway, corrodian, and of the customary 2 marks to Belvoir Priory.123 TNA, E 358/18, 55/1, lines 74–81.

There is irrefutable evidence that the Templars did not always pay their priests’ allowances and the corrodies owed to those who had donated to the Order. In addition, it is clear that the Templars themselves were by no means always paid the allowances they were due. It is significant that attempts to address the question of arrears were made after 20 March 1310, when the committee of Lords Ordainers was formally elected to reform the royal government and household.124 S. Phillips, Edward II (New Haven, CT, 2011), p. 171. On 27 September 1311 the forty-one ordinances stating changes necessary in the interests of good governance were publicly read, and on 11 October 1311 they received the royal assent.125 Ibid., pp. 176–7. It was in this atmosphere of reform and reduction of the king’s influence, particularly in terms of his largesse towards his favourites, that the finances of the former Templar estates were reviewed. The Templars were yesterday’s men and the payment of their wages to ecclesiastical houses was clearly irksome, as were the contracts into which the Templars had entered with corrodians and chantry priests. The reluctance to pay obligatory commitments increased as the former Templar estates were used for the exercise of royal patronage.

Before the election of William de Clapton as abbot of Thorney, William de Spanneby was already acting on behalf of the abbey, as noted in a Patent Roll entry of 5 July 1304. He would therefore have been of considerable value to the incoming abbot.130 CPR, 1301–07, 5 July 1304, Sterling ‘Grant to the abbot and convent of Thorneye, in consideration of a fine made for them at the Exchequer by William de Spanneby, king’s clerk that they may hold the hundred of Normancross co. Huntingdon’. In 1306, on the death of Roger le Bygot, Earl of Norfolk and Mareschal of England, the office of marshal in the exchequer, which he had also held, was made over to William de Spanneby, king’s clerk.131 T. Madox, The History and Antiquities of the Exchequer of the Kings of England (London, 1711), pp. 720–7. By the time of his appointment as keeper of the Templar lands in Lincolnshire in early 1308, William de Spanneby was already well versed in matters of both finance and ecclesiastical estates, and so would have been an obvious candidate for the post. His lack of financial rectitude, as illustrated by his work for William de Clapton at Thorney Abbey, would not have been a major drawback when self-interest was a powerful driving force among the ruling class.

The Templar estates of which de Spanneby became custodian in 1308 had evolved during the twelfth century. The small parcels of land recorded by the Inquest of 1185 had been consolidated into coherent agricultural estates.132 Inquest. The Templars managed their holdings through ‘direct or demesne farming’, by which the Order, through the offices of their bailiffs and sergeants, took complete control of the mixed arable and livestock farming which characterised their estates.133 C. Platt, Medieval England: A Social History and Archaeology from the Conquest to 1600 AD (London, 1978, rep. 1988), p. 45. If ‘consolidated demesne farming [was] the key to a successful grange’, it was even more crucial on an estate consisting of several manors.134 Platt, Monastic Grange, p. 13. The Hospitallers, in contrast, generally adopted a different approach to their lands. They were content to lease their properties, deriving an assured income without direct managerial involvement. As Gervers describes, ‘the Templars were staunch manorialists [demesne farmers]: the Hospitallers were predominantly farmers of rents and tithes’.135 The Cartulary of the Knights of St John of Jerusalem in England, ed. M. Gervers, part 2: Prima camera: Essex (Oxford, 1996), p. cix.

William de Spanneby’s initial accounts of the former Templar estates give a degree of insight into the Templars’ approach to estate management, but this was, nonetheless, the beginning of a transitional period, as the agents of Edward II began to impose a managerial style based upon short-term realisation of assets. Farming of demesne land had been but one aspect of the Templar enterprise, for their relationship with land had been complex. They both rented out land to their tenants and, on a smaller scale, rented land themselves. In addition, the Order had derived income from churches, not all of which were on Templar manors, and from the proceedings of courts on their manors.

The demesne farming that the Templars favoured was to change dramatically, beginning with the sale, on Lammas Day (1 August) 1308, of the standing crop on eight of the ten Willoughton manors and of three churches, though not the one at Willoughton itself.136 TNA, E 358/18, 17/2, lines 63–9; 17/1 dorse, lines 10–15, 22–7, 32–6, 39–40, 54–6; 15/1 dorse, line 38; 15/2 dorse, line 26. No standing crops were sold on the Kesteven estates. By Easter 1309, each purchaser handed over a proportion of the grain which they had purchased for the payment of the manor famuli. The provision of food for the famuli was stipulated in the initial sales contracts, and the quantities and type of grain would have been specified. Roger Love paid £5 16s. 8d. for 111 acres of standing grain and peas, at the manor of Limber, on Lammas Day 1308.137 TNA, E 358/18, 17/2, lines 64–9. Part of the agreement specified that he provide the food for the famuli until the following Lammas Day, 1309, and that during that period he must sow crops for the 1309 harvest.138 Ibid. He also entered into a similar contract with the same obligations at Cabourne.139 TNA, E 358/18, 17/1 dorse, 10–15

The contracts regarding both Limber and Cabourne appear to have been terminated early, as the livestock, contents of the granary and the arable land sown by Roger Love were all handed over at Easter 1309. During the period between Michaelmas 1308 and Easter 1309, 7 quarters of rye were paid to the Limber famuli at Easter, but no such payment is recorded for Cabourne.140 TNA, E 358/18, 15/2, lines 60–1. Perhaps Love was defaulting on the agreements and, as a consequence, the manors were reclaimed by the king’s agents. By July 1312, Roger Love was a corrodian at New Temple, London.141 CCR, 1307–13, p. 429. On 5 July 1312, the keeper of the Templars’ manor at Willoughton was ordered to pay Love the arrears for his food at the clerks’ table and his robe at Christmas for life upon the promise of a bequest of a moiety of his goods to the house at his death.142 Ibid. Roger Love had paid for his corrody by promising that half of his goods would be handed over to Willoughton upon his death; however, he was clearly not in receipt of his dues.

In the case of the eight Willoughton manors where standing crops were sold, no expenses were recorded, suggesting the purchaser was responsible for maintaining the manor as well as for sowing crops for the following harvest and the payment of the famuli. The purchase of the standing crop was effectively a short-term lease, hence the lessee would be responsible for maintenance during his period of tenure and would wish to keep maintenance expenditure at an absolute minimum. The sale of a standing crop was not a new introduction by the agents of Edward II. It is apparent that the last preceptor of the Willoughton estate, William de Grafton, was well acquainted with the practice having sold all the grain of the manor of Cawkwell to John Cat for 13 marks recorded in the account of Michaelmas 1308.143 TNA, E 358/18, 17/1 dorse, lines 22–4. There was an initial income of 13s. 4d. at Goulceby which was outstanding from the sale of the standing crop (omnimod blad in terr pdtis crescentibz) to William de Loughborough.144 Ibid., lines 32–6. The sale price had been 10 marks.145 Ibid. At the manors of Keadby and Temple Belwood, too, standing crops had been sold. The initial sale by William de Grafton stipulated that the sowing of the following year’s crop and food for the famuli was the responsibility of the purchaser.

The rarity of outright payments suggests that the purchaser intended to pay for the standing crop from the proceeds of the following harvest. The level of risk incurred by the vendor of wool futures and of standing crops differed markedly.146 The sale of wool to merchants years in advance of its production was common practice on the estates of both the Cistercians and the Templars. The risk of fulfilling the wool contract, both in quality and quantity, rested upon the vendor, who had already been paid. A penalty clause in the contract would have ensured that the purchaser was paid compensation if the vendor could not meet his obligations. The successful sale of wool futures depended upon the quantity and quality of wool handed over to the wool merchant being as prescribed in the sale agreement. The risk for the vendor was always that the contract could not be met because of adverse circumstances such as a murrain epidemic.147 The greatest risk to a wool producer was the outbreak of a murrain or sheep scab epidemic. Murrain was a fly infestation which was debilitating for the animal and ruinous for the fleece. Outbreaks of murrain were both common and unpredictable. The sale of a standing crop at Lammas Day carried no such risk to the vendor; he was guaranteed an income, albeit deferred until after the harvest. It was the purchaser who risked inclement weather, poor harvest or a fall in grain prices turning his investment into a loss. On completion of the contract, the entirety of the Willoughton estate was handed over at Easter, 30 March 1309, to William de Melton, who was comptroller of the wardrobe to Edward II and a future archbishop of York.148 R. Hill, ‘Melton, William (d. 1340)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Online (Oxford, 2004). It is significant that the standing crops were sold exclusively on the Willoughton estate; this approach was not adopted by the three Kesteven preceptories.

By Easter 1309, significant policy changes had been implemented to maximise income. In the majority of cases, with the notable exception of Willoughton, manorial receipts had increased and expenditure had been reduced. While profitability was undoubtedly assisted by the return of the wool clip to sale, after the initial sequestration to repay debts to the Ballardi of Lucca, sales of livestock and larder contents further increased receipts. In addition, expenditure on maintenance and employment had been reduced wherever possible. Between Michaelmas 1308 and Easter 1309, the sum of expenses at Willoughton had been reduced by 26.9 percent from £75 3s. to £54 11s. 9d.149 TNA E 358/18, 17/1, line 59; E 358/18, 15/1, line 39. The apparent progress towards a more efficient enterprise was underlain by factors which would not have been immediately problematic but would certainly have become so. The reduction in maintenance expenditure could not have been continued without a deterioration of both buildings and equipment, a problem which would not necessarily have emerged within a year of the cut-back. Further, the sale of produce and the content of larders and dairies could not have been maintained at the high levels indicated in the accounts during the first year of the king’s administration, as reserves would have been severely reduced, if indeed they remained at all. This was short-term profit-making without consideration of long-term consequences.

There was a further issue, that of prises and purveyance. This was the means by which agents of the king were able to purchase goods, by right of the ‘royal prerogative’, to provide food for the royal household as it moved around the country.150 Phillips, Edward II, p. 162. However, both Edward I and Edward II extended the system to provide for the armies and garrisons in Scotland.151 Ibid. Payment to the vendor was ‘often inadequate and long delayed’.152 Ibid. The Temple Bruer account of 28 September 1308 illustrates the point.153 TNA, E 358/18, 19/2, lines 65–8. The larder contained ten ox carcasses, forty flitches of bacon and sixty wether carcasses.154 Ibid. Of those, half an ox carcass, four flitches of bacon and thirty-four wether carcasses were allocated for autumn use, and the remainder was handed over to Thomas de Burnham for forwarding to garrisons in Scotland.155 Ibid. The use of prises was understandably unpopular, and particularly so in 1308 and 1309 when purveyancing took place on a vast scale to provision Scottish campaigns which never took place.156 Phillips, Edward II, p. 162. The Templar estates must have been a particularly valuable source of victuals as they were already in the king’s hands and the contents of the preceptory larders could be taken without incurring either further debt or, indeed, the wrath of reluctant vendors.

By 25 July 1309 most of the Temple Bruer and Willoughton flocks had been handed over to individuals in the form of gifts.157 TNA, E 358/18, 16/2, lines 46–62; 15/1, lines 53–61; 15/2, lines 1–7. The value of the animals involved was listed in the grange inventories, but at neither Temple Bruer nor Willoughton was there a record of receipt of payments. It is significant that the handover of wethers and ewes to Thomas de Burnham and Robert Bernard at Temple Bruer (3,084 sheep in total) was after they had been sheared, rendering to Temple Bruer the income from wool sales.158 TNA, E 358/18, 16/2, lines 46–54. The 2,189 sheep at Willoughton were handed over to William de Melton, John de Blyborough and Stephen de Stanham before shearing and so Willoughton gained no income from the sale of their wool.159 TNA, E 358/18, 15/1, lines 46–54; 15/1, line 1. Willoughton had been literally fleeced. Postan draws attention to the fact that ‘the royal commissioners who often administered monastic estates during the vacancies were apt to make their profit by running down the capital equipment, including the flocks and herds’.160 M. M. Postan, The Medieval Economy and Society: An Economic History of Britain in the Middle Ages (London, 1972), p. 102. After the death of Anthony Bek, Bishop of Durham, in March 1311, his lands and goods were taken into the hands of the king by William of Gloucester, escheator beyond the Trent, and were drawn upon to make part payment of the debt owed to the Ballardi of Lucca.161 CCR, 1307–13, p. 311. The practice of selling off the issue of estates and reducing maintenance costs was by no means restricted to the Templar properties in Lincolnshire after the arrest of the Order.

The king used patronage as a means of garnering support, gaining favour, recognising services rendered and above all ensuring continuing loyalty in turbulent times. The recipients of the king’s patronage noted above were, at the very least, men of substance and influence within the county, and the highest among them was an officer of the king himself. William de Melton had been comptroller of the wardrobe to Edward as prince of Wales (1304–7), and as king (1307–14), when he became keeper of the wardrobe until his election as archbishop of York in 1316, a post which he held until his death in 1340.162 Hill, ‘Melton’, ODNB. De Melton was a pluralist who was in receipt of the income from several ecclesiastical benefices where he was not resident; royal patronage from the produce of the Templar estates would have been a means of further enhancing his income.163 Ibid. Sir Thomas de Burnham had considerable influence in 1307, being both sheriff of Lincolnshire and constable of Lincoln Castle, and as such was fully involved in the issue of the Templars until his death in 1309.164 TNA, C 241/55/60. Burnham is today a small hamlet 2 miles west of Thornton Curtis on the site of a disappeared medieval village. N. Pevsner and J. Harris, revised by N. Antram, The Buildings of England: Lincolnshire (London, 1964, 2nd edn 2001), p. 762. Stephen de Stanham was the mayor of Lincoln on a number of occasions, a burgess and merchant of the city and latterly a citizen of London.165 TNA, C 241/63/35; C 241/89/33. The estate of Stephen de Stanham (deceased) was claiming £66 13s. 4d. from Sir Edmund Foliot before Stephen de Stanham, mayor of Lincoln, on 20 June 1320. Obviously the son had followed in the footsteps of the father. Robert Bernard was the sequestrator of John de Dalderby, Bishop of Lincoln, a position which would have made him well aware of the consequences the arrest of the Templars would have on their estates. Sequestration was Bernard’s stock in trade.166 Clubley, ‘John de Dalderby’, p. 102.

By Michaelmas 1309 there had been three significant changes on the ex-Templar estates. First, the sale of standing crops on the Willoughton estate, on Lammas Day 1308, ensured income and minimised risk while allowing prosperous individuals to invest. Second, the reduction of maintenance expenditure and the sale of produce by Easter 1309 emphasised the short-term approach of the king’s officers. Third, the exercise of royal patronage in the form of gifts of livestock further exploited the former Templar estates for the benefit of influential men above the social level of those who had bought the standing crops.

While the recipients of livestock were the beneficiaries of royal patronage, there were others who had a financial interest in the former Templar estates, namely the landowners who had rented property to the Order. The complexity of land tenure on the ex-Templar estates in Lincolnshire should not be underestimated. There is no evidence of the manors of the Willoughton estate, other than Limber, renting additional land in Lindsey. But Willoughton was the exception, as renting additional acreage was commonplace on the Templar estates in Kesteven. Temple Bruer itself did not rent land and property but some of its member manors did. Kirkby paid rent to Edmund d’Aincourt for lands in Scopwick, Blankney, Metheringham, Duston, Marton, Timberland and Billinghay.167 TNA, E 358/18, 19/1 dorse, lines 35–6. The d’Aincourt family was well established among the Lincolnshire gentry, the chief manor of their fee lying at Blankney.168 Inquest, pp. 84–5. Walter d’Aincourt is recorded, in the Inquest of 1185, as having given 21 bovates and 2 tofts to the Templars, all within close proximity of Blankney.169 Ibid. Welbourn paid rent to Isabella de Vesci but the accounts do not specify for what. Isabella de Vesci was custodian of Bamburgh Castle and a close associate of Queen Isabella.170 CCR, 1307–13, p. 6. South Witham paid rent for arable land and tenancies to William de Crescy of Claypole, who appears again among the creditors owed money from the various former Templar properties in December 1311.171 TNA, E 358/18, 19/2 dorse, lines 24–5. Sir Thomas de St Laund was paid rent for tenancies at Witham and Lobthorpe.172 TNA, E 358/18, 14/1 dorse, lines 14–16; CCR, 1307–13, p. 388. In 1308 he held part of the fee of Ingoldsby (Aswardhurn Wapentake), Gonerby (Winnibriggs Wapentake), Skillington (Beltisloe Wapentake) and Claypole (Loveden Wapentake).173 TNA, C 241/57/71.

Aslackby was a preceptory unique in 1308 in that it did not hold any member manors, but it compensated for this lack by renting land.174 TNA, E 358/18, 18/2, line 40; 18/1 dorse, line 46. The preceptory paid rent resolute to Robert Clifford for land and tenancies which the Templars held of him at Dunsby.175 TNA, E 358/18, 18/2, lines 50–4. The first Lord Clifford was a magnate of some considerable importance. He fought with Edward I at Falkirk in 1298 and was rewarded with the governorship of Nottingham Castle. He was killed at Bannockburn, 25 June 1314. See H. Summerson, ‘Clifford, Robert, first Lord Clifford’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Online (Oxford, 2004). Further tenancies were held of William Hateyn at Hawthorpe and of the Priory of Sempringham at Aslackby.176 TNA, E 358/18, 18/2, lines 50–4. In addition sheaf tithes and land tithes of 2 marks annually were paid to the Priory of Belvoir for grants which the prior and convent had made to the Templars.177 Ibid., lines 56–7.

The estate of Eagle had three member manors, those of Whisby, Woodhouse and Bracebridge. As at Aslackby, expenditure included the rental of additional property. Rent resolute was paid to Baldwin Pycot for Bassingham Park.178 TNA, E 358/18, 18/2 dorse, lines 1–3. Pycot was obviously a landowner of some standing: a Close Roll entry for 25 February 1308 acknowledges that he owed a debt of £20 to John de Drokensford ‘to be levied in default of payment, against his lands in co. Lincoln’.179 CCR, 1307–13, p. 52. A further bovate of arable and 4 acres of pasture were rented from Alexander de Whisby, presumably at Whisby; and 4 bovates of land we rented at Scarle from the Priory of Wilsford.180 TNA, E 358/18, 18/2 dorse, lines 1–3.

Land had been rented by the Templars to enhance the productivity of their estates, which reinforces the view that they were more interested in farming their lands than farming them out. Had they been farmed out, it would have been incumbent upon the tenant to rent additional land under separate contractual arrangements. Renting of land was an extension of the consolidation of the Templar estates which had taken place during the thirteenth century so as to increase their profitability. In 1185 the Templars had held land in 167 settlements in Lincolnshire, but 23.2 percent of those holdings were smaller than ten acres.181 J. M. Jefferson, ‘The Lost Treasure of the Templars: The Templar lands in Lincolnshire and What Happened to them, 1185–1560’ (M.A. diss., University of Nottingham, 2007), p. 22. By 1307 they held land in twenty-nine manors, such had been the scale of rationalisation. It is equally apparent that where land had been rented by the Templars in the early fourteenth century, it was close to the manors which they already held, thereby increasing productivity without the penalty of additional travel.

The landowners from whom the Templars rented land were both ecclesiastical and secular. Of the Lincolnshire ecclesiastical houses, the Benedictine priories of Wilsford and Belvoir and the Gilbertine priory of Sempringham were not of the same size or wealth as either the Benedictine or the Cistercian abbeys. The Priory of Wilsford would have welcomed the income from rental as it was a small cell originally endowed to support just two or three brethren.182 W. Page, ed., A History of the County of Lincoln, vol. 2, Victoria County History (London, 1906), p. 240. The priory was founded by Hugh Wake during the reign of Stephen. The original endowment included the manor of Wilsford, an additional nine bovates of land, and the advowson of the church of Wilsford. Of the secular landlords, Edmund d’Aincourt, Sir Thomas de St Laund and Baldwin Pycot were all landowners whose property was restricted to Lincolnshire, where d’Aincourt and St Laund, in particular, were men of some influence.183 N. Bennett, ed., The Registers of Henry Burghersh, 1320–1342, vol. 3, Lincoln Record Society, 101 (Woodbridge, 2011), p. 159, footnote 448. Edmund Deyncourt died before 8 January 1327 (footnote 451); Thomas de Luda, late Treasurer of Lincoln, died before 19 April 1329. However, Isabella de Vesci and Robert de Clifford were figures of national importance, and their Lincolnshire holdings would have been part of much more extensive portfolios. Further, a difference in approach is evident between the management of the solitary Lindsey estate, Willoughton, and that of Temple Bruer, Eagle and Aslackby in Kesteven. While the rental of additional land from both secular and ecclesiastical sources was common practice in Kesteven, in Lindsey, with the exception of the manor of Limber, additional land was not rented at all.

While rental outgoings generally constituted less than 10 percent of the total expenditure of the former Templar manors where it was practised, at all four Lincolnshire preceptories over a third of the receipts were derived from rental income in the account beginning 10 January 1308 (appendix 7). However, the sequestration of the wool clip to pay outstanding debts to the Ballardi of Lucca meant that agricultural receipts were substantially reduced and, as a consequence, the proportion of gross income represented by rents was exaggerated. The return to wool sales, in 1309, substantially reduced the proportion of the estates’ receipts generated by rental income. Yet these were not simply proportional reductions in rental income following the return of wool sales. The reductions were actual. The 1309 accounts record fewer named individuals to whom land was farmed out. Of the five named tenants paying a combined fixed rent of £10 10s. at Temple Bruer at Michaelmas 1308, none were recorded in the subsequent account.184 TNA, E 358/18, 19/1, lines 27–9. Perhaps the tenants took the opportunity to withhold payment until it was demanded by the new regime, or perhaps the fixed rents were terminated while they were reassessed and even reallocated.

Fixed rents had the advantage of guaranteeing predictable income for periods up to and beyond the lifetime of the tenant if a further entry fee was paid. The desire for such predictable fixed income points towards long-term stability being part of the Templars’ financial strategy. The drawback of fixed rents was their inability to respond to inflation. However, the produce of mixed farming on the demesne land of the Templar estates would have been sold at prevailing market prices, providing a counterbalance to the fixed rental income. This equilibrium would have been seriously upset by the initial confiscation of the wool clip and the subsequent farming out of crops and livestock through royal patronage.

During 1309 the Templar manors and the estates themselves were farmed out. By 20 February 1309, the Aslackby estate had been handed over to William le Mareschal, that is, livestock, deadstock, and the contents of the granary.185 TNA, E 358/18, 14/2 dorse, lines 6–8; CCR, 1307–13, p. 432. An order of 20 July 1311 forbade Nicholas de Segrave to come to parliament with an armed force because of his dissent with William le Mareschal. Three days later, on 23 February 1309, the manors of South Witham and of Mere had been handed over to Stephen de Stanham.186 TNA, E 358/18, 14/1 dorse, lines 5–7. The initial exception to these proceedings was Eagle, where the burden of paying corrodians and maintaining prisoners must have made the estate a less attractive proposition. These payments accounted for 77.3 percent of receipts on 28 September 1308, leaving a deficit of £18 17s. 1d.187 TNA, E 358/18, 18/2 dorse, line 30. However, by the Feast of St James (25 July) 1309, Eagle had been taken over by Thomas de Burnham and the Temple Bruer estate had undergone fragmentation. The stock and standing crop of the estate had been divided between Thomas de Burnham, Stephen de Stanham and Robert Bernard, Thomas de Burnham being the major beneficiary.188 TNA, E 358/18, 16/2, lines 34–62; 16/1 dorse, lines 3–4.

In the final account for the Willoughton estate, which ends at 30 July 1309, William de Spanneby was paid £5 for custody of the Willoughton manors for the period from Easter 1309, a rate of almost 10d. per day.189 TNA, E 358/18, 53/1, line 35. The income from rents was a remarkably diminished 4s. 9d., all from the vill of Normanby by Spital.190 Ibid., lines 6 and 8. The total income from the preceptory of Willoughton was reduced overall to a paltry £10 4s. 9d. and there was no income whatsoever from the estate’s member manors.191 Ibid., line 12. Further, the expenditure for all the Willoughton manors was centrally accounted in a particularly abbreviated style unlike the previously fulsome account for each manor.192 Ibid., lines 25–30. However, the grange inventory for each manor was precise in the extreme and included deadstock for the first time; the entire estate was handed over to Thomas de Burnham on 30 July 1309. This was no longer an account of income and expenditure, as had previously been the case; it was much more an evaluation of what remained which was moveable and, given the combination of livestock and standing crops which Thomas de Burnham received, there is no doubt that a subsequent account, were it to exist, would illustrate a considerable increase in income. Thus, by the end of July 1309, all four of the Templar preceptories with their associated estates had been used in royal patronage. The greatest beneficiary was Thomas de Burnham, constable of Lincoln Castle, who would become sheriff of the county for a second time the following year. However, as with all royal patronage, the exercise of munificence was not in perpetuity but was at the king’s pleasure.

By Edward II’s second regnal year (8 July 1308 – 7 July 1309), the royal favourite, Piers Gaveston, had been banished to Ireland, much against the king’s will. As Hamilton points out, the policy of Edward II during that time ‘was centred on obtaining Gaveston’s return from exile in Ireland’.193 J. S. Hamilton, ‘King Edward II of England and the Templars’, in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. J. Burgtorf, P. F. Crawford and H. J. Nicholson (Farnham, 2010), p. 219. Hamilton cites the use of gifts and promises as means of garnering support for the return of the unpopular Gascon, and that these ‘very likely included the lands and/or wealth of the Templars’.194 Ibid. The Lincolnshire evidence shows clearly that the Templar estates were leased, initially to one of the most powerful men in the county.

By 1312 the impact of the Scottish wars on the king’s patronage had become evident – and not only in Lincolnshire. On 8 February 1312, Alexander de Cave and Robert de Amecotes, keepers of the Templars lands in Yorkshire, were ordered to hand over the goods and chattels of the manors of Etton and Cave to David, Earl of Athole, who had been granted custody.195 CCR, 1307–13, p. 400. On 1 June 1312, William de Spanneby was enjoined to ‘deliver into the king’s wardrobe forthwith the £100 that he has in his hands of the issue of the Templar manors of Bruer and Aycle in that county’.196 Ibid., p. 424. On 11 June 1312, de Spanneby was ordered:

The clerics, corrodians and prisoners were, or in the case of the Templars, had been, of higher social status than the famuli. The clerics, largely unnamed in the accounts, either conducted regular services for the congregation or had specific responsibility to conduct chantry Mass for a deceased benefactor to the Order. In each case the cleric would have been paid an allowance. The corrodians identified in the accounts received a pension according to the size of the donation they had made to the Order for that purpose. The corrodies were either sizeable and did not involve performing services, or required the recipient to perform service as long as health would allow, after which the pension continued for life, albeit in a reduced form. In each case the pension contract had been drawn up between the corrodian and the master of the Order who had received the donation. As the Close Rolls repeatedly illustrate, once the Templar properties had been transferred to the king, following the arrest of the Order, the continued payment of obligations previously contracted with the Templars became problematic. Numerous orders were issued to the keepers of the Templars’ lands throughout the country, charging them to pay the allowances of clerics and corrodians including the arrears since their appointments as keepers. This was the case particularly from 1311 onward.

After their arrest, the Templars named in the accounts were each awarded a daily allowance during their incarceration in Lincoln Castle. Following the end of the Order’s trial, the majority of Lincolnshire brethren were sent to ecclesiastical houses in other dioceses to do penance. Similarly, Templars from elsewhere were sent to ecclesiastical houses in the Lincolnshire diocese. It was incumbent upon Roger de Wyngefeld, the keeper of the Templars’ lands in England, and through him the keepers throughout the country, to continue to pay 4d. daily to the appropriate bishops for the Templars’ keep. Again, the frequency with which the keepers were enjoined to pay the arrears of the brethren illustrates that they were reluctant to fulfil their obligations.

Without doubt, the greatest beneficiary of the Templar estates was King Edward II, into whose hands they fell after the arrest of the Order on 10 January 1308. He was not slow to sequester the entire wool clip to pay off debts to the Ballardi, or to sell grain, livestock and the contents of the preceptory larders and dairies. The sequence of events thereafter follows a distinct pattern. The sale of standing crops of grain on the Willoughton estate on Lammas Day 1308 not only further realised income by liquidating assets, but also allowed landowners to invest in the former Templar property. By Michaelmas 1309 livestock had been given to influential men in the county like Stephen de Stanham, mayor of Lincoln, and to men of national importance like William de Melton, keeper of the king’s wardrobe. It is notable that a more exploitative approach was adopted towards Willoughton than the other three Templar estates. By July 1309 all Templar properties had been used in exercising the king’s patronage, the chief beneficiary being Thomas de Burnham, one time sheriff of the county of Lincoln and constable of Lincoln Castle, and as such custodian of the Templars.

The king had used his patronage and the Templar estates as political tools to exert influence and create ties of obligation in Lincolnshire. The estates were given at pleasure until the king chose that the patronage should end. By 1311 the custodians of the former Templar estates had changed, reflecting the changing political picture. The custodian of Temple Bruer was Sir Ebulo de Montibus and that of Eagle, Sir David Graham, who had both rendered service in the Scottish wars.

There is no record of William de Spanneby having benefitted financially from his pivotal role as keeper of the Templar lands in Lincolnshire. The accounts do not record a salary. However, in common with other keepers, there was a reluctance to pay the continuing obligations of clerical wages, corrodians’ pensions and the allowances owed the Templars themselves. One suspects that somewhere between the accounts submitted to the exchequer under the name of William de Spanneby and the broad acres of Lincolnshire, the keeper made a tidy income. William de Spanneby died in 1318.198 Bennett, Registers of Henry Burghersh, p. 130, footnote 342.

On 22 March 1312, Pope Clement V dissolved the Order of the Temple.199 Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, p. 188. On 2 May 1312 the papal bull Ad providam was issued, instructing that, except for properties in the Iberian Peninsula, the assets of the Templars were to be transferred to the Hospitallers.200 Ibid. As the next chapter demonstrates, this transfer was a tortuous process that remained incomplete even as late as 1338.