¬XiosMOVE|Chapter 8 The Report of Prior Philip de Thame to Grand Master Elyan de Villanova, 1338

In a sense, the Report was a statement of progress in the convoluted process of reclaiming the former Templar properties, which would have been of critical interest to both Philip de Thame and Elyan de Villanova. The Report differs from the accounts of 1308–13 in a number of respects. It does not give an inventory of deadstock, livestock or the content of granaries; neither does it itemise crop acreage or agricultural personnel, all of which were recorded in considerable detail in the accounts of 1308–13. After a brief description of the format of the Report, this chapter analyses the Lincolnshire content and compares the data relating to property and personnel with that in the accounts of 1308–13. In addition, a comparison is made between the former Templar properties accounted in 1308 and those recorded in the Report of 1338. This establishes the extent to which Templar properties had been transferred to the Hospitallers in Lincolnshire during the intervening years, and the degree to which the Report was comprehensive. The transcription of the Report was completed by Lambert Blackwell Larking, and is accompanied by an introduction by John Mitchell Kemble. The work was first published by the Camden Society in 1857.1 L&K, p. v. This remains the sole survey exclusive to the Hospitaller estates in England.

It can hardly be coincidental that de Thame’s Report was made the year after the outbreak of the Hundred Years War with France, in 1337. Edward III was already questioning the validity of the responsions (payments sent from commanderies to the Hospitaller treasury at Clerkenwell) which the Hospitallers were sending abroad, the king being of the opinion that the money would better serve his war effort than the Hospitallers’ cause in the eastern Mediterranean. The Order was protected by, and ultimately answerable to, the pope, a situation which was not lost on the English king and was the cause of some rancour. In 1338, Pope Benedict III was the third French pope to have resided at the papal palace in Avignon. Both the pope’s nationality and the location of the papal palace in Provence gave rise to the suspicion that he was pro-French. Against the backdrop of the taut relationship with France, the transfer of former Templar lands to the Hospitallers, in England, remained incomplete, and there had been threats of confiscation of both monies and land belonging to the Order by the crown. In such circumstances, a survey of Hospitaller property was prudent at the very least.

The format of the Report was standardised. Thus, for Lincolnshire, recorded under Hospitaller properties were the commanderies of Maltby and Skirbeck, each having belonged to the Order since their foundation by Ranulph, Earl of Chester, and Sir Thomas Moulton respectively.5 Ibid., pp. 57–62. Listed first were house and garden, followed by chapel and land, in order of arable, meadow and pasture. At Maltby and Skirbeck other forms of income included rentals, grants in alms and the perquisites of the manor court. The whole was followed by a sum total.6 Ibid.

Expenses were also presented in a standardised format. The opening paragraph for each of the two commanderies listed personnel in order of their social status, thus preceptor, brethren, clerics and servants, the latter not named.7 Ibid. In addition, there were visitors, again innominate. Fulfilling the obligation of hospitality came at a price. The cost of food, clothing and fodder was itemised. This was followed by the list of corrodians, each with an annual grant, and the wages of staff whose occupations were more specific than that of general labourer. The cost of repairing and maintaining buildings was listed separately. A total expenditure was recorded followed by net income and, finally, a list of brethren and corrodians.8 Ibid.

The former Templar preceptory of Willoughton had fourteen member manors, including Cawkell, which, although in the list of members, was not designated as such. In the case of each member income only was recorded, not expenditure, that income deriving from arable land, meadow and pasture, followed by rents, mills, customary dues, and pleas and perquisites of manor courts as applicable. As a consequence, there was no reference to personnel; they were centrally recorded under estate expenses, and only if they incurred cost through the payment of wages. The primary focus was an account of debits, not a list of personnel. A further four manors were recorded, all of which had been members of the Willoughton estate in the time of the Templars and all of which had been subsequently farmed out and rendered no income.18 Ibid., pp. 152–3. The manors of Keadby and Temple Belwood, both on the Isle of Axholme, had been granted to John, Earl Warenne, and his wife for life.19 Ibid. The beneficiary of Upton was not disclosed.20 Ibid. The fourth manor, Hareby, was granted to Sir Robert de Silkeston for life by Leonard de Tibertis, the third former Templar property for which Silkeston had cause to thank Tibertis.21 Ibid.

Unlike Willoughton, which was not classed as a commandery in the Report (although it clearly operated as such), both Temple Bruer and Eagle were recorded as commanderies; the Bajulia de Bruere and the Bajulia de Eycle.22 Ibid., pp. 154, 157. Temple Bruer had only two additional manors, Rowston and North Kirkby, of which only North Kirkby was recorded as a member.23 Ibid., pp. 154–5. North Kirkby was the only Lincolnshire settlement in the Report which had any recorded income, 1 mark (13s. 4d.) from a market.24 Ibid. Further rental income came from property in Wellingore, Ashby, Brauncewell and Cranwell.25 Ibid. In addition, income was also derived from the churches of Ashby, Rowston and Caythorpe and the chapel at Temple Bruer.26 Ibid. Following the sum of expenses and net income, Caldecot was recorded separately having been granted to Thomas de Sibthorpe by way of corrody in the time of Thomas Larcher.27 Ibid., p. 157. Eagle had no manors attributed as members, despite the description ‘cum Membris’ [with members].28 Ibid. Nonetheless there was arable land at Woodhouse and Whisby, both of which had been members of the Templars’ Eagle estate.29 Ibid. There was also the income from the churches at Eagle and Swinderby.30 Ibid., p. 158.

The former Templar preceptories of Aslackby and South Witham were much reduced in status by 1338.31 Ibid., p. 160. Each was recorded separately, having been farmed out to Henry de la Dale and Richard de Ty respectively. Mere, whose sometime status as a Templar preceptory was much more tenuous, was recorded as a member of Willoughton, as it had been in 1308. With the exception of the Gainsborough irregularity detailed above, the format of the Report regarding the former Templar property in the hands of the Hospitallers substantially followed the same pattern as was used for Maltby and Skirbeck.

The Report gives a clear indication of the nature of the land which had been transferred to the Hospitallers by 1338; but of equal interest is that which remained unaccounted for. In the Report references to meadowland, pasture and woodland were quite specific, so generic references to ‘land’ clearly meant arable. On this basis, on the former Templar estates there were 3,950 arable acres in Lindsey and 4,294 acres in Kesteven, giving a Lincolnshire total of 8,244 acres of arable land held in demesne (map 16, appendix 6). Of the thirty-seven vills where the Hospitallers held former Templar property (fifteen in Kesteven and twenty-two in Lindsey), in only four, Blyborough, Yawthorpe, Stallingborough and Ingham, were the demesne holdings smaller than 60 acres (appendix 6). The vills of Stallingborough and Ingham were not included in the accounts of 1308–13 but nonetheless were recorded as former Templar property in the Report of 1338. Both Stallingborough and Ingham were close to other former Templar property administered from Willoughton, so it would have been convenient for them to have been recorded under the heading of Willoughton, even if the land had been acquired by the Hospitallers after the Templar estates had been sequestered. In 75 percent of the settlements where the Hospitallers held land, the holdings were between 60 and 500 acres. In the Inquest of 1185, 51.2 percent of Templar holdings were less than 30 acres and 23.2 percent smaller than 10 acres.33 Jefferson, ‘Lost Treasure of the Templars’, graph 1. The marked difference between the size of landholdings in 1185 and 1338 was due entirely to the policy of acquisition and consolidation which the Templars pursued throughout the thirteenth century. The Hospitallers were the beneficiaries of the Templars’ business acumen insofar as they were able to claim their inheritance.

Darby defined meadow as land ‘bordering a stream, liable to flood and producing hay’, while the term pasture ‘denoted land available all the year round for feeding cattle and sheep’.36 H. C. Darby, The Domesday Geography of Eastern England (Cambridge, 1952), p. 60. There were 486 acres of meadowland recorded in 1338 on the former Templar estates, of which 100 acres were in Kesteven and 386 acres in Lindsey (map 17). The Lindsey total included 148 acres which were leased rent-free. Of the twenty-three settlements where there were meadow holdings only those at Mere and Eagle exceeded 50 acres. With the exceptions of Tealby (with 32 acres of meadow), Keadby (32 acres) and Thorpe in the Fallows (29 acres), all on the Willoughton estate, the remaining eighteen settlements each had fewer than 25 acres of meadowland. As with arable land, the quality of meadow was reflected in its value. While the usual value of an acre of meadow was 2s., the 60 acres of marsh meadow at Mere could only yield 6d. per acre. The importance of the hay crop yielded by meadowland for animal fodder cannot be overestimated: meadowland was even more valuable than the very best arable land in the fens. The 300 acres of arable land at Skirbeck, close to the Wash, were each valued at 2s., double the worth of the next highest valued arable at Gainsborough and Thorpe in the Fallows, the latter on the Willoughton estate. However, even at Skirbeck the value of 20 acres of meadow exceeded that of arable by one penny per acre, at 2s. 1d.37 L&K, p. 60.

While acreages were invariably recorded for arable and meadowland, the same was not true of either woodland or pasture. Of the ten settlements recorded in the Report as having pasture, only the entry for Caldecot recorded acreage and income: 120 acres of sheep pasture at 4d. per acre (map 18).38 Ibid., p. 157. At Whisby, 400 sheep were pastured on land valued at £1 13s. (or 100 acres at 4d. per acre).39 Ibid., p. 158. An extrapolation on the basis of 4d. per acre, assuming that the rental value of pasture was less variable than that of either arable or meadow, would render a total pastureland area in demesne in excess of 433 acres in Lincolnshire. This would certainly have been insufficient to graze the number of sheep which were recorded in the accounts of the former Templar estates in 1308. The Report does not allow the extent of pastureland which was rented out to be established, nor does it list livestock, which would have at least allowed a comparison with the livestock numbers of 1308. Clearly there must have been far more pastureland rented out than there was held in demesne on the former Templar estates. Gervers suggests that the Hospitallers ‘do not appear to have been greatly involved in pastoral husbandry’ and further points out that, in Essex, stock which was acquired along with former Templar property was ‘leased with the entire holding at term’.40 M. Gervers, The Cartulary of the Knights of St John of Jerusalem in England, ed. M. Gervers, part 2: Prima Camera: Essex (Oxford, 1996), pp. lxxxv–lxxxvi. The absence of a substantial acreage of pastureland in demesne, coupled with the extensive use of fixed rents, in Lincolnshire are entirely compatible with Gervers’s findings in Essex.

When war with France broke out in 1337, Edward III contracted with English merchants that they should take 30,000 sacks of wool from producers and export them to the continent, the king’s share of the profit to be devoted to war preparations.41 H. L. Gray, ‘The production and exportation of English woollens in the fourteenth century’, EHR, 39, 153 (1924), p. 24. Of the 30,000 sacks, 10,700 were to come from Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, which hardly suggests an overall reduction in Lincolnshire sheep pasture.42 Ibid. In such an assured market, it would have made no economic sense for the Hospitallers to have disposed of former Templar pastures in Lincolnshire, had those pastures been in their hands. For the same reason, the temptation for the king not to relinquish former Templar property which he still retained must have been overwhelming. Further, who better to predict the state of the wool market than the king, who was its manipulator? While in possession of charters and muniments relating to former Templar property, the king could retain or dispose of it at will, provided that his response to repeated Hospitaller entreaties was sufficient to satisfy the pope.

The remaining type of land, woodland, was an acutely important natural resource upon which much depended, not least building, firewood and grazing. Platts states that in Lincolnshire woodland was scarce, covering only 5 percent of the county in the eleventh century.43 G. Platts, Land and People in Medieval Lincolnshire, History of Lincolnshire, 4 (Lincoln, 1985), p. 96. By the fourteenth century the wooded area would have been further reduced as consumption exceeded regrowth. Little woodland was recorded on the Hospitallers’ Lincolnshire estates in the Report of 1338. Only Upton had 8 acres of woodland recorded. Elsewhere woodland records were imprecise: pasture including woodland at Maltby and Gainsborough, small woodland at Temple Belwood, and underwood at Eagle, being valued at £5.44 L&K, pp. 152, 57, 144, 153, 158. Platts cites the sale in 1313 of 47 acres 3 roods of former Templar woodland for the sum of £174 15s. Of those, 10 acres raised £5 6s. 8d. each, which indicates the high value in which woodland was held.45 Platts, Land and People, p. 96.

The foregoing discussion is limited to demesne land and that granted by Thomas Larcher because no reference was made in the Report of Philip de Thame to either the type of land farmed out at fixed rent or its acreage. This is surprising, given that the primary purpose of the Report was to produce an extent of the Hospitallers’ lands, and the substantial income from fixed rent would suggest that the acreage of land at farm was not inconsiderable (appendix 7). Further, the data relating to pastureland in the Report is far from complete. Similarly, the accounts of 1308–13 give only the arable acreage under crops, not the entire arable acreage, and pastoral acreage can only be extrapolated on the basis of livestock numbers. However, as the primary wealth of the Templars depended upon the income from their estates, it would seem improbable that the acreage of those estates would have been substantially reduced between 1185 and 1308, when the brethren were arrested. The Templars were active participants in the land market, acquiring land during the thirteenth century as the wealth of the Order increased; therefore it is probable that at the opening of the fourteenth century the Templar lands in Lincolnshire would have been still more extensive than the 17,500 acres which the Order held in 1185.

South Witham was not the only former Templar holding which had fallen into disrepair during the thirty years since the arrest of the Order. On the Willoughton estate, both Limber and Mere were in a ruinous condition but each had valuable land. The income of Mere included that of the garden, dovecote, 700 acres of arable, 12 acres of meadowland, 60 acres of marsh meadow and a turbary, and amounted to a not inconsiderable £10 4s. 8d.50 Ibid., p. 147. Kemble notes that few of the recovered preceptories were in a fit state to accommodate preceptors of the Hospital.51 Ibid., p. lviii. What was true of the preceptories was also true of the manors. However, the high proportion of income which the fixed rents represented in 1338 (42.1 percent of gross income) indicates that the rental acreage must have been sizeable (appendix 7). The income from property leased at a fixed rental represented 63.5 percent of the total income from land and rented property (appendix 7). Gervers concluded that ‘the leasing of property at a fixed rent for less than life term does not appear to have been Hospitaller policy before the acquisition of Templar lands’, subsequently adding that ‘the Hospitallers were predominantly farmers of rents and tithes’.52 Cartulary, ed. Gervers, pp. lxxxii, cix.

On the Hospitaller properties of Maltby and Skirbeck there was land in demesne which had to be worked and managed; the same was true of the former Templar properties of Willoughton, Temple Bruer and Eagle. Willoughton in particular had retained all the attributes of a Templar preceptory and estate, including a number of member manors. To enable the demesne land to be worked, the third form of rent was customary service, or manorial labour, an onerous feudal obligation which constituted an important part of the labour dues, particularly those owed by the poorest on the manor.

Nine of the former Templar properties included customary dues, recorded under receipts of income, clearly denoting that labour had a monetary value. Only for the commandery of Skirbeck was there a more precise list of receipts, which included the work of mowing, harrowing, harvesting, and carting corn with a total value of £2 13s. 1d. and a further sum of £2 rental paid by tenants.55 L&K, p. 60 No indication of the size of the small tenant plots or their number is given in the Report. Land which had been rented by the Templars to add to their Kesteven estates was not recorded in the Report of 1338 for Temple Bruer, Eagle or Aslackby. As land which was rented by the Templars was not owned by them, and therefore not transferred to the Hospitallers, then it was not within the remit of the Report.

The transfer of churches would suggest that it was easier to establish financial interest in ecclesiastical property than agricultural land, probably because the muniments were retained by the diocese and so were locally accessible. It is also manifest that the relationship between the Templars and their churches was one of long-term stability as sixteen of those churches which had been transferred to the Hospitallers by 1338 were recorded as Templar property in the Inquest of 1185 (map 10). Of those recorded in 1185, only the churches of Claypole, Cranwell, Althorpe and Haxey, on the Isle of Axholme, were no longer in the hands of the Military Orders by 1338. The overall income of the church property in the Report was £162 15s. 4d., not including the church of South Witham, which was 37 percent of the net income of the former Templar properties in Lincolnshire. The two original Hospitaller commanderies in the county, Skirbeck and Maltby, each had a chapel but only Maltby included a church in its holdings (map 19).

Rent was also paid to the Priory of St Catherine, which was adjacent to Holy Innocents’, for lands and tenancies held of the priory by the Templars.64 TNA, E 358/18, 17/1, lines 20–1. In the Report of 1338 there was no entry for Bracebridge, neither the manor nor its watermills; perhaps they had been claimed by the priory.65 L&K, pp. 157–9. Similarly, the moiety of the windmill at Mere, from which the Templars had derived income in 1308, was not mentioned in the report of 1338.66 Ibid., p. 147. The mill had either been taken over by the holder of the remaining moiety or, as Mere was described in the Report as having a ruined manor (mansum ruinosum), the mill may have been likewise derelict, in which case it would have fallen into disuse and been of no economic value.67 Ibid.

A further omission was that of South Witham mills. In 1308, South Witham drew income from the rent of a watermill at Woolsthorpe, but there must have been a windmill too as 12 ells of canvas were bought to repair the sails.68 TNA, E 358/18, 18/1, lines 50–1; 18/2, lines 6–7. Further expenditure on two locks for the door of a mill imply that theft was an issue.69 TNA, E 358/18, 18/2, line 5. Thirty years later, South Witham was derelict.70 L&K, p. 160. If the former preceptory had fallen into such a severe state of disrepair, then the first buildings to suffer from lack of maintenance would have been the mills. The same fate of gradual deterioration may have befallen the watermill and windmill at Aslackby, which were no longer recorded in the Report of 1338.71 Ibid. Conversely, some manors had additional mills by 1338: Cabourne had gained a windmill, as had Temple Bruer.72 Ibid., pp. 146, 154. Further, whereas in 1308, Eagle had a windmill with additional mills at Stapleford and Beckingham, by 1338 it would appear that centralisation, or clerical simplification, had occurred as three mills were listed at Eagle only.73 Ibid., p. 157. The total income of the former Templar mills in 1338, of which eight were windmills, was £5 19s. 4d (appendix 10). The windmills at Willoughton, Limber and Temple Bruer each generated an income of £1, which would obviously signify an assessed rental.

While there was no evidence of widespread alienation of former Templar mills, the examples of Bracebridge and possibly Mere would suggest that it occurred. The loss of a functional mill at South Witham involved the loss of the income which it would have generated, suggesting that an alternative means of milling must have been available. If tenants milled their own grain, a practice landholders discouraged because it reduced their revenues, then that further points to the loss of social control already suggested by the ruinous state of the former preceptory. Platts states that ‘every king after Edward I was deeply concerned with public order […] lawlessness was rife in the fourteenth century’.74 Platts, Land and People, p. 253. The reduction in the number of Templar mills between 1185 and 1308 was due to the technological advance represented by windpower. The further reduction in mills between 1308 and 1338 was much more likely to have been due to dilapidation and lack of maintenance, exacerbated by this general lack of social order. In the Report, expenditure on maintenance was not high. However, dovecotes had survived and remained a valuable source of protein and income. Each of the former Templar preceptories had a dovecote, and Eagle had two, each valued at 5s. Willoughton’s dovecote had in income of 6s. 8d.75 L&K, pp. 144, 154, 157. Limber, Tealby and Mere, all members of the Willoughton estate, had dovecotes, as had the camerae of Horkstow and Bottesford. In the latter cases, income was not recorded separately.76 Ibid., pp, 146, 147, 148, 116.

The preceptor was not the only Hospitaller resident at a Lincolnshire commandery. In each case there was at least one other member of the Order. At Maltby were Br. Robert Loterel, knight, and Br. Richard de York, squire; at Skirbeck, Br. John de Sutton, chaplain; at Willoughton, Br. Reginald de Coventry, squire; at Temple Bruer, Br. John de Werkelee, squire; and at Eagle, Br. John de Wytlefford.81 Ibid., pp. 59, 62, 151, 156, 159. Thus, in 1338 there were ten members of the Order of St John, commanders, knights, chaplains and squires, who were resident in Lincolnshire of a total of 119 brethren recorded in the English province.82 Ibid., p. 214 Within the social hierarchy of the Order, the knights were regarded as the elite.

Maltby had three corrodians. Gilbert de Sprotlee, esquire, and Simon de Hegh, forester, had each been awarded 15s. annually by deed of chapter.83 Ibid., p. 59. Alexander de Harpour, door-keeper, had a smaller income of 13s. 4d.84 Ibid. In each case, as was usual, they would have carried out their duties for as long as they were physically able to do so. When they became too old or infirm to render service, the corrody would have continued, though perhaps in reduced form, to the end of life (ad terminam). At Skirbeck the two corrodians were John de Skirbeck, chaplain, and William de Staunford (Stamford), chaplain.85 Ibid., p. 62. In neither case was a pension recorded; however, included in the introductory list of personnel were two secular chaplains whose income the clerk had omitted.86 Ibid., p. 61.

At Willoughton, John de Whitenton, corrodian, ate at the table of the brethren, in addition to which he was granted £1 annually for his robe and 6s. 8d. for his servant.87 Ibid., p. 149. John de Whitenton, clerk, was recorded in the accounts of 1308 as having been granted a corrody by William de la More in consideration of 16 acres of land at Thevylby, a messuage and 3 acres of land at Methyngby, and the promise of 20s. to be given to Willoughton on his death (appendices 3, 4). Assuming that this was the same individual, in 1322, he had provided information on the rebel lands in Lincolnshire, including Templar properties, to Robert de Silkeston, who was one of the auditors of the accounts of the late Thomas, Earl of Lancaster.88 CCR, 1318–23, p. 442. This was the same Silkeston who later received the manor of Hareby and the camerae of Horkstow and Bottesford of the gift of Leonard de Tibertis, as cited above.89 L&K, pp. 152–3, 116 In addition, he held Marnham church, in Nottinghamshire, once a property of the preceptory of South Witham.90 Ibid., p. 161. The remaining two Willoughton corrodians, Peter de Bedford and Richard de Sprotlee, each were in receipt of a less generous 13s. 4d. annually.91 Ibid., p. 150. Peter de Bedford was also recorded as a corrodian in the accounts of 1308, having been granted a corrody by Hugh de Perando dependent upon the promise to leave a moiety of his goods to Willoughton on his death (appendices 3, 4).

There were five corrodians at Temple Bruer. Robert Darcy had a pension of £3. 6s. 8d. and Robert de Whitwell, £2. 13s. 4d., both granted by Thomas Larcher.92 Ibid., p. 156. Thomas de Berneston had a pension of £2 granted by Leonard de Tibertis, and Richard de la Planetre received a more modest 13s. 4d., all for life.93 Ibid. Alice de Swinethorpe was a further corrodian who had survived from the Templar period having been granted a corrody with her father, Robert de Swinethorpe, by William de la More (appendices 3, 4). In the estate accounts of 1308 the pension of the same Alice was accounted in the form of sustenance; thirty years later it was rendered as the cash sum of £3 6s. 8d. for life.94 CCR, 1307–13, p. 408; L&K, p. 156.

Finally, the entries for the corrodians at Eagle were inconsistent. In the initial paragraph of the expenses, Philip de Beverley, Henry de Baneby, Nicholas de Leybourne and Adam de Sprotlee were all recorded as corrodians.95 L&K, p. 158. This does not correspond with the list of corrodies and expenses recorded at the end of the Eagle account. Hugh de Longeton had a considerable corrody of £5 6s. 8d. for life.96 Ibid. John, the vicar of the church of Swinderby, Nicholas de Leybourne and Philip de Beverley had all been granted corrodies by Thomas Larcher totalling £4 10s.97 Ibid., p. 159. John de Weston, a further survivor from the Templar period, had been granted a corrody by William de la More, in his case an annual income of £2 13s. 4d., in consideration of 100 marks, a wood and 80 acres of land given to Eagle by his parents, Richard and Agnes (appendices 3, 4).98 Ibid. However, no corrody was recorded for either Henry de Baneby or Adam de Sprotlee.

With the exception of Waddington on the Willoughton estate, all remaining properties which had neither bailiff nor reeve were farmed out. Elsewhere, the bailiffs at Rowston and North Kirkby, in the jurisdiction of Temple Bruer, were each paid £2, and the bailiff at Maltby was paid 10s. At Skirbeck both a reeve and a harvest reeve were employed, each at 6s. 8d. annually. With reference to the Hospitaller manors of Rainham and Fryerning in Essex, Gervers states that ‘these properties included a considerable demesne, and the Order must have been responsible for its exploitation. It could have been achieved by leasing the properties at term or by a more direct form of management. The PC [Prima camera] is entirely silent on the subject’.104 Cartulary, ed. Gervers, p. lxxxiii. In Lincolnshire the Hospitallers farmed their demesne lands at minimal cost if it was accomplished only by customary service under the supervision of a bailiff or reeve. Were this the case, then it is reasonable to assume that the Lincolnshire estates would have been farmed less productively than they had been while in the hands of the Templars. Similarly, while expenditure on maintenance was recorded, such as the £3 expended on the maintenance of the house at Eagle, there was no indication of the nature of the work, nor of the craftsmen who completed it, which implies no great interest in the matter.105 L&K, p. 158.

At Temple Bruer, the personnel included the commander’s squire, paid £1; two chaplains, each paid £1; eight free servants, each paid 10s.; six servants, each paid 6s. 8d.; and three pages, each paid 3s.110 Ibid., p. 156. Beyond the commandery, bailiffs were employed at Rowston and Kirkby, each being paid £2 annually.111 Ibid. Consistent with other commanderies, no agricultural workers were recorded; however, the absence of specific domestic staff implies that they were simply grouped together and recorded as servants.112 Ibid. Eagle recorded no bailiff. Presumably none was required given the absence of member manors and the proximity of its lands at Whisby and Woodhouse. However, Eagle did employ a forester, cook, baker, bursar and keyholder, each at 13s. 4d. per year, two pages at 3s., and a washerwoman at 2s.113 Ibid., p. 159. In the accounts of 1308 the absence of dormitories pointed towards the lack of accommodation for the famuli (labourers), the agricultural workers and others, who must therefore have resided outside the preceptories. While the Report of 1338 did not record the nature of buildings or accommodation at the commanderies, neither did it record agricultural workers other than the isolated examples cited above. However, the people who were recorded were household servants or domestic and personal staff, and they may well have dwelt within the confines of the commanderies where they were employed.

Even allowing for the eight settlements which were attributed to the Templars in the Report of 1338, but which were not recorded in the accounts of 1308, there was a far more substantial loss of former Templar property than merely that of the manor of Carlton. The reduction was by no means uniform across the former Templar estates. The number of settlements where Willoughton had interests actually increased from nineteen to twenty-four over the thirty-year period from 1308 to 1338, not including the camerae of Horkstow and Bottesford. Willoughton no longer had property at Dunstal but had acquired land at Waddington, Ingham, Yawthorpe and Stallingborough and property in both Lincoln and Grimsby, none of which was included in the accounts of 1308 (appendix 8).132 Ibid., pp. 144–53. Further, Walcot was a member of the Willoughton estate in 1338. In 1308 fixed rent from Walcot had been collected at Willoughton for forwarding to the preceptory of Faxfleet on the north bank of the Humber.133 Ibid., p. 149.

Whereas Willoughton and its Lindsey properties appear to have made the transfer to the Hospitallers while retaining their integrity, the same is not true of the Kesteven estates, where the number of holdings had dropped from thirty-three to nineteen. In 1338 the Temple Bruer estate no longer included the manors of Welbourn and Holme, but neither were they listed among properties which had not been transferred to the Hospitallers (appendix 8).134 Ibid. The same is true of property at Navenby, Woolsthorpe, Bytham, Leadenham and Heriherdeby, all of which were included in the Temple Bruer accounts of 1308.135 Ibid. The Eagle extent for 1338 no longer included the manor of Bracebridge nor land at Morton but there was the addition of property at Sibthorpe which was rented out for £6 13s. 4d.136 Ibid., p. 158.

Of the former Templar properties not transferred to the Hospitallers, the Report explicitly listed only those occupied by the king and other magnates – individuals of the highest social rank. It would thus have excluded lands held by any person of lower social status. One must assume either that the Hospitallers were not aware of all the former Templar land which had not been transferred, or that they felt some of the land was not worth pursuing and therefore not worth recording. Further, there were those lands which were not recorded either in the 1308 accounts or in the Report of 1338, for example 3 bovates of land at Stenigot in Lindsey.137 TNA SC 8/91/4529 [c. 1322]. The land had been donated to the Templars by the family of Nicholas de Leke.138 Ibid. Following the arrest of the Order it was occupied, without title, by Thomas, Earl of Lancaster. De Leke petitioned for the return of the land after the forfeiture and subsequent execution of Lancaster in 1322. The absence of Stenigot in the Report of 1338 leads one to assume that the petition was successful, and to wonder how many other donations found their way back into secular hands.

The Report depended for its accuracy upon reference to deeds and muniments, the documentation which provided proof of ownership. Philip de Thame would not have had access to the accounts of 1308, therefore he did not have a definitive list of the properties which the Templars had held at the moment of their arrest. Any manor for which he had no proof of ownership could not be included in the Report. Similarly, the only properties which were listed as having belonged to the Templars, and not transferred to the Hospitallers, were those for which he had the deeds proving ownership, but was unable to evict the initial occupants and their successors. The likelihood of being able to persuade the earl of Arundel, earl of Gloucester, countess of Pembroke, or, in the case of watermills at York, Edward III to vacate former Templar properties which they occupied was remote in the extreme (appendix 12).139 L&K, p. 212. However, it may have been that these properties were necessary concessions so as to facilitate the Hospitallers’ pursuit of former Templar properties elsewhere. In any event, it was important to the status of the Order that claim was made to land occupied by those foremost in the kingdom.

In Lincolnshire there were only two commanderies which were Hospitaller properties by right of the initial donation, those of Maltby and Skirbeck. In addition there were the camerae of Horkstow and Bottesford, both enrolled as Hospitaller properties. The great majority of Hospitaller property in Lincolnshire listed in the Report had formerly belonged to the Templars. This included the former preceptories of Willoughton and Temple Bruer and their estates, and the smaller former preceptory of Eagle. By 1338 both South Witham and Aslackby were much reduced in status and had been farmed out. It is clear that the former Templar estates of Willoughton, Temple Bruer and Eagle had yet to be fully integrated into the more distant form of estate management practised by the Hospitallers.140 Nicholson, Knights Hospitaller, 79.

The format of the Report was standardised: for each property income was followed by expenditure. Property leasing and fixed rentals accounted for a high proportion of income and so must have involved the leasing of a considerable acreage. This practice was in line with the usual Hospitaller policy of leasing rather than becoming directly involved in estate management. Nonetheless, much land remained in demesne. The recording of land was by no means complete. Arable in demesne was most comprehensively recorded and varied in value according to quality, the fenland of Skirbeck being the most valuable. Neither meadowland nor woodland was well recorded, but each was valuable. Meadowland invariably exceeded arable in value because of its importance in providing hay for winter animal feed. Woodland was valuable because of its multitude of uses and because it was in short supply in medieval Lincolnshire. Pastureland in particular was poorly recorded. The little pastureland in demesne which was recorded would have been wholly insufficient to support the number of sheep farmed on the estates. Hence, a considerable area of pastureland must have been rented out, but the acreage is unknown.

Most of the churches which had belonged to the Templars were transferred to the Hospitallers, but the same was not true of the mills. It may well have been the case that during the thirty years since the arrest of the Templars mills had fallen into disrepair as a result of poor maintenance. During the same period both the former preceptory of South Witham and the manor of Mere had fallen into a ruinous state. All five of the Hospitaller commanderies enjoyed the income from the pleas and perquisites of their manor courts. Willoughton also gained income from a further five manor courts on its estate, a unique benefit signifying the primacy of this former Templar preceptory.

Personnel accounted for the majority of the expenditure itemised in the Report. Individuals recorded other than the brethren and corrodians were the domestic servants and staff, who were probably resident in their respective commanderies. Unlike in the accounts of 1308, no famuli were recorded in the Report, but the appointment of bailiffs and reeves suggests that the farming of the demesne land was carried out by servile tenants as the customary service portion of their rental payment. In such a circumstance it is doubtful that the Hospitaller estates would have reached the same level of productivity as was achieved during Templar occupancy, for no other reason than lack of labour investment. The Report sheds no light on the nature of the crops grown but the extent of the arable land shows that they existed. Comparison with the accounts of 1308 would suggest that it was necessary to hire additional workers during the harvest period in autumn, but no such expenditure was accounted in the Report. The lack of direct involvement of the Hospitallers in agriculture is obvious, just as Gervers had identified in Essex. This was in stark contrast to the close involvement of the Templars in their estates as illustrated in the accounts of 1308.

The former Templar lands transferred to the Hospitallers were enrolled separately, as were the former Templar properties known not to have been transferred. To date, little published work refers to the Report of 1338. No published work compares the former Templar properties enrolled in the accounts of 1308 with those enrolled in the Report of 1338. Such a comparison for the county of Lincolnshire reveals that there were both manors and mills which were enrolled in the accounts of 1308 but were not recorded in 1338. Further, as only the acreage of demesne land was recorded both in 1308 and 1338, there was no extent of the land which was rented out. Philip de Thame would not have been privy to the accounts of 1308, which would have given him a full list of all properties the Templars had held prior to their arrest. He depended for proof of ownership upon the deeds and muniments transferred to the Hospitallers from the exchequer. It is generally held that the deeds to former Templar properties were transferred to the Hospitallers in 1324. Whether all the deeds were transferred to the Hospitallers is a matter open to debate. Finally, of the former Templar properties not transferred to the Hospitallers, the Report listed only those which were occupied by the king and other magnates. It did not list any properties reclaimed by the descendants of former Templar benefactors, nor any land which was lost to illegal occupation, as the example of Stenigot illustrates.

The foregoing Lincolnshire evidence would suggest that there were serious omissions in the Report of 1338. Not only are properties identifiable in the accounts of 1308 which were not transferred to the Hospitallers by 1338, but the nature of the Report would have allowed for further property not to have been recorded. If the same were true for other counties where the Templars had held property, then the extent of former Templar property which was not transferred to the Hospitallers was far greater than has been thought hitherto.