The Templars.

THE TEMPLARS .

I have recently seen the communication _ of "Enrol , "at page 7 , which contains the following very positive , and somewhat remarkable statement : " There is not one single document or historical reference ( of dates between 1232 and 1700 ) which indicates the existence of a Templar , always

excepting the members of the Middle Temple , London . The direct successor of the martyred William de la More is the new Master , Dr . Vaughan . " Your correspondent concludes with a caution to disputants in general , and bids them " answer , do not reiterate . "

I am a stranger to these pages , but I will avail myself of the caution , with a diffident hope that my small contribution may not offend " Enrol" by its manner , or disappoint him in its contents . First , As to the existence of a Templar after 1232 . In that year Robert Mountforde , was Grand Prior of England . He was succeeded as follows : —

Robert Sandford 1234 Amadcus tie Morestello 1241 Himbert Peruaut 1254 Robert Turville 1270 Guido de Foresta 1290 James tic Molay 1292 Brian la Jay ' 1293 William de la More 1295

the last-named Grand Prior dying in the ' 1 owcr in 1310 . Seven Grand Masters were elected after 1232 , the last of whom perished at the stake , on the 11 th of March , 1313 . The confirmatory statue for confiscating the Templars' lands was followed , in 1334 , by writs directed to the Sheriffs , commanding them

to enforce the execution of the acts ofthe legislature . After this we read that the surviving brethren of the dissolved Order were treated with the utmost inhumanity and neglect . The ecclesiastical council had assigned to each of them a pension of fourpence per day for subsistence , but this small

pittance was not paid , and they were consequently in great danger of dying of hunger . Edward III ., ( who had been one ofthe confiscators of their property , ) wrote to the Prior of the Hospital of St . John of Clcrkenwell , earnestly requesting him to take the Templars' hard lot into his serious

consideration , and not suffer them to come to beggary in the streets . The Archbishop of Canterbury sent letters to the possessors of the Templars' property , reproving them for the non-payment of the allotted stipends ; and the Archbishop of York caused many of them to be supported in the different monasteries

of his diocese , ( Addison . ) Wc have here , historical proofs of the existence of the Templars for more than a century after the date asserted by " Errol . ' ' I assume that in fixing his latter date , 1700 , '" Errol " refers to the Masonic Templars ; and here 1 must agree with him . I am not aware of any evidence of

the Order's existence in England so early as 1700 . Bro . Yarker . in his excellent little hook , tells us that the history of the Jerusalem Enc . impmcnt , Manchester , commences in 17 S 6 ; and he says : " Previously to about 1725 , all degrees were conferred in Grand Lodge onlv . " 1 , however , do not quite

understand if this is intended to infer that the Grand Lodge then conferred chivalric degrees , including the Templar . One writer has positively asserted that the Order of Masonic Templars was introduced on the 19 th November . 1779 : but he offered no evidence , nor did he sav whence was the

introduction . It is , however , clear that this writer was in error , as a document is preserved at the Baldwin Encampment , Bristol , dated 20 th December 17 S 0 , which contains reference to a previously existing document called "a charter of compact . ' ' and also refers to then previouslv existing

Encampments . 1 here is also , I believe , evidence of a "' Grand Encampment " having been held in tlie Isle of Wight , in 17 S 0 . It therefore appears only a reasonable inference , that no such organisation as a" Grand Encampment" could have been effected

if the Order had been introduced only 111 November 1779 . Another proof of earlier existence than this , is that there is reasonable evidence of the foundation in Scotland , by Englishmen , ofthe present Order in 1800 .

Secondly : 1 would now ask why is an exception made for the members of the Middle Temple ? or of either Temple ? And why is Dr . Vaughan ( to whom be all respect and honour ) the direct , or even lhe indirect successor of the martyred William de la More ? Let us see what Mas the fate of the

lemplar possessions . In " 307 the persecution and spoliation of the Templars was commenced . On the 16 th May , 1311 , the Pope addressed bulls to Edward II ., and to all the earls and barons ofthe kingdom , setting forth a papal decree vesting all the property of the Templars in the brethren of the

Hospital of St . John . The King and his nobles resisted this assumption , and on the 21 st of August the King wrote to the Prior of Clcrkenwell , telling him that tlie pretensions of the Pope were derogatory to the dignity of the Crown and the royal arf . horif .. In the fr-lli-v . in ' ver . i-, ! 2 . Edward I I .

The Templars.

granted the Temple to Aymer de Valence , Earl of Pembroke ; but as Thomas , Earl of Lancaster , the king ' s cousin and first prince of the blood , claimed the Temple by escheat as the immediate lord of the fee , the king granted other lands to the Earl of Pembroke in consideration of his giving up the Temple to the Earl of Lancaster , which he

accordingly did on the 3 rd October , 1315 . Under the Earl of Lancaster , a society of lawyers rented the Temple as lessees , and were nothing more than his tenants . Their landlord had the misfortune to be attainted and beheaded in 1322 , when the Temple reverted to the crown . It was then again granted to Aymer de Valence , who was shortly afterwards

murdered in Paris . He left no issue , and once more the Temple vested in the crown . It was next granted to the royal favourite , Hugh le Despenser the younger , and again did misfortune follow the landlord of the lawyers ; Hugh le Despenser was attainted and executed by the Lancastrian faction , and the Temple fell into the hands of Edward III .,

who committed it to the keeping of the Mayor of London , as his cscheator in the city . The mayor it appears did not treat the tenants with much civility ; he shut the gate leading to the waterside , and so gave them much inconvenience in getting to Westminster , and he allowed the pier to become so broken and decayed that they were prevented going

there by water . In 1333 , the King committed the custody ofthe Temple to "his beloved clerk , " William de Langford , and farmed out the rents and proceeds thereof to him for the term of ten years , at a rent of , £ 24 per annum , "the said William undertaking to keep all the houses and tenements in good order and repair , and so to deliver them up at

the end of the term . " In the meantime , however , the Pope and the bishops had been using their efforts to obtain the Temple for the Knights Hospitallers of St . John . Their united endeavours had obtained the passing of the celebrated " Statutum de Terris Templariorum " in 1324 , by which all the Templar property was confiscated , and vested in the brethren

of the . Hospital , and the Hospitallers now besought the King to deliver up to them the possession of the Temple . The King ordered an inquisition to be taken , with the particulars of which I need not occupy your space , and after its return the Temple was granted to the Knights Hospitallers in 1340 , in consideration of _ £ ioo , which they promised to

contribute to the expense of his expedition to France . We now find the lawyers as tenants of the Knights of St . John . It appears that when the Temple was first confiscated , one Robert Styfford was chaplain of the Temple Church , and he was granted by Edward II . two deniers a day for his maintenance , and five shillings a year for necessaries ,

provided he did service in the Temple Church ; and when he was unable to do so , he was only to receive his food and lodging . Three other retainers of the establishment also received small allowances , and continued to live at the Temple . These are the persons who kept alive within the old walls a few slight remnants ofthe Templars'

customs and observances , which were to a small extent adopted by the new inhabitants , and linger yet amongst the honourable societies of the Middle and Inner Temple . The Knights Hospitallers continued owners of the Temple for two centuries , and endeavored to promote in its church a dignity and splendour of divine service equal to that which had been

observed by the Templars . At length , however , the days ofthe Hospitallers became numbered , and by the Statute 32 , Henry VIII ., c . 24 , ( 1540 ) , the Order of the " Knights of St . John of Jerusalem " was declared "' utterly dissolved and void to all intents and purposes , " and all the property of the Order was vested in the King and his "heirs and successors

for ever , lo use and employ by his most excellent wisdome and discretion , at his own free will and pleasure . " Thus the Temple once more reverted lo the crown , and the lawyers again became the immediate lessees of the sovereign . They so continued for exactly a century , when a Scotchman attempted to obtain from James 1 . a grant of the

fee simple of the Temple . The lawyers , however , heard of this proceeding , and forwith made " humble suit " to the King , and obtained a grant in their own favour . The letters patent , granting the Temple lo tlie two societies , bear date 131 I 1 August 1609 , the Benchers paying an annual sum to the crown of , £ 10 for the Inner Temple , and . £ 10 for the Middle

1 emple . Having thus slightly traced the succession of the Temple since the fall of lhe grand old Order by which it was founded , I am still at a loss to see why an exception was made by " Errol " in favour of the Middle ( or the Inner ) Temple ? These societies were the tenants only , until a comparatively modern date ; they never had any complicity

whatever with the ancient Order , and could have been ejected from lhe tenancy at any proper time , if cither of their landlords had required the property for other purposes . I have a friend who is the owner ( not tenant ) of an ancient Preceptors - ; is he a Preceptor , and " direct successor , '' of the mice mi-d-. tv Order ofthe Ter >; oIe ? In mv own coiintv .

The Templars.

within a few miles of where I now write , are estates which still bear the old names of the Order , and upon which members of it , whose last sleep is in our venerable cathedral , once lived and died . The present owners , and the tenants , az-e known to me ;

are they direct successors in the Order also ? If the clever attempt of the cannie Scot had succeeded , and he had , as he probably would , have served the lawyers with a notice to quit , I suppose he would immediately have become Grand Prior of England . LUPUS .

Reports Of Masonic Meetings.

Reports of Masonic Meetings .

¦ — ?—THE CRAFT .

METROPOLITAN . Grand Slaoards' Lodge . —This lodge met on Wednesday , at the Freemasons' Hall under the presidency of Bro Henry Norman , the immediate P . M . ( in the unavoidable absence of Bros . Edward J . Page ; W . M . ); Ralph M . Smith , S . W ., and Jabez Tepper , J . ~ W ., when six brethren were unanimously elected members , and a vote of five guineas for the Boys' School was passed . After the

business was over , the brethren adjourned to the tavern , and partook of the bread of plenty and the cup of cheerfulness . Visitors , Bros . Sir Patrick Colquhoun , Knt ., Q . C ., LL . D ., late Chief Justice of the Ionian Islands ; Malcolm O . Sim , Prov . G . D . for Cambridgeshire ; Samuel Glover , P . M ., and Treasurer of the Tuscan Lodge , No . 14 ; and also the Worshipful Master of the Coachmakers Company of London ; Stevens , P . M ., and Matthew Cooke , P . M The lodge has now thirty-seven members .

Egyptian Lodge , Ao . 27 . —1 he usual monthly meeting of this lodge was held at Anderton's Hotel , Fleet-street , on Thursday , the 3 rd inst . Bro . J . B . Poole , the W . M ., assisted by his officers , Bros . Sheppard , S . W . ; Palmer , J . W . ; Todd , P . M . and Treas . ; Buss , P . M . and Sec . ; Harrison , S . D . ; Atkins , J . D . ; Lamble , l . G . ; very ably performed the ceremonies of initiation , passing , and

raising . The lodge voted £ 5 towards the assistance of the widow of a recently deceased member , and recommended her petition to the Lodge of Benevolence . A sum of . £ 10 10 s . was also voted to the Masonic Boys' School , to be placed on the list of Bro . Buss , P . M . ' and Sec , who has undertaken the office of Steward for the forthcoming festival of that institutionand the brethren very liberally

, added their personal subscriptions to that brother ' s list . After the dispatch of other ordinary business and the proposition of several candidates , the brethren adjourned to a banquet , provided by the Bros . Clemow , after which the usual loyal and Masonic toasts were given and responded to , and the meeting was enlivened by some excellent singing

by Bros . Ilepburne , Skidmore , II . lhomas S 61 , & c . The meeting adjourned until the 1 st Thursday in the ensuing month . Amongst the visitors present were : Bros . Alex . J . D . Filer , P . M . 28 , and 657 ; Frederick Walters , P . M . 73 , & c . ; J . Purdy , P . M . 861 ; GeorgeLittlewood , W . M . 780 ; II . Thomas , 861 , and H . B . Wrangham , 511 .

Temple Lodge , A o . 101 . —The members of this flourishing and highly respectable lodge met at the Ship and Turtle Tavern on Tuesday 1 st inst ., under the presidency of their highly esteemed and efficient Master , the W . Bro . F . J . Cox , who was well supported by Bros . Grimbly , S . W . ; Voulc , J . W . ; Bond , P . M ., Treasurer ; Tanner , P . M . Secretary ; Reynolds , S . D . ; Prince , J . D . ; Farthing ,

jun ., l . G . ; . villi P . M . ' s Ilastelow , J . II . Wynne ; S . May , Farthing , Henry , Scolt , and W . W . Wynne . The W . M . in a very feeling manner , initiated his brother , Mr . T . Cox , and Mr . James Lake into the Order , and admitted lo lhe second degree Bro . Peltifcr , after which the lodge was closed and the W . M . and brethren adjourned to one of liro . G . Painter's elegant banquet rooms for

refreshment . The W . M . proposed the usual toasts ; the initiates returning thanks in unusually appropriate terms for that of " Our Newly-Initiated Brethren ; " Bro . Bond giving the V .. A . Song , accompanied hy the W . Bro . P . M . Farthing on the piano and singing three very capital songs himself . Bro . A . Vales also in very good style gave "Sally , Sally , in the Valley . '' In returning thanks fur the toast of "The Masonic Charities , " Pro . Tanner , who is Steward for the

Girls' and Bro . Farthing , I . G ., who is steward for the Boys' next Festival , both expressed their thanks for the liberal lists which the brethren had assisted them in forming for presentation at the respective Festivals . The visitors present were : Bro . Hyde ( W . M . 192 ) , Porilo ( P . M . 860 ) , Shepperd ( 49 ) , Webb ( 187 ) , Ilogard ( J . D . 205 ) , and Ingram ( See . S 60 ) . After a very pleasant evening the brethren separated al ten .

Lodge La Tolerance , A ' o . 538 . — -The last regular meeting of this distinguished lodge , prior to the autumn , was held on Thursday , the 3 rd day of March , at Freemasons ' Hall . The W . M ., Bro . Jas . Kcnch took the chair , and was supported by the following officers , viz : —Bros . T . ]• :. Hardy , S . W . : II . l . iiidiis , J . W . ; G . Shaw , Treas . ; ( . Sly , Sec . ; J . Hart , S . D . ; J . Steward , J . D ., and A .

Smylhe , I . d ., and the following members : \\ . J . ' 1 hicke , C . ( . Thickc , Leech , Frank Steadman , Kirkaldie , Wilson " , P . M ., ami others . The lodge was opened in the first degree and die minutes of the last lodge were read and confirmed ; the amendments of lhe By-laws agreed to al the lasl meeting were also unaniniosly confirmed . The lodge was then opened in lhe second and third degrees ,

and Bro . Norton was raised lo the sublime degree of a M . M . The manner iu which the W . M . performed the ceremony gave great gratification to lhe whole of the members and brethren present . The lodge being resumed to the first degree , several brethren were proposed as joining members and several notices of motion were given . " After which Pro . I . indus , J . W ., rose to move ihnl the recommendation ol tin- lodge should be given