The Knights Hospitaller of the English Langue

14601565
This page intentionally left blank
 The Knights
Hospitaller of the
English Langue
14601565

GREGORY OMALLEY

1
 3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the Universitys objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur
Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With ofces in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
Gregory OMalley 2005
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2005
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data available
Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
Biddles Ltd.
Kings Lynn, Nofolk
ISBN 0-19-925379-x
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
In memory of my Parents, John and Monica:
Requiescant in pace
This page intentionally left blank
 Preface

This book is a study of the activities of those members of the military

and Hospitaller order of St John of Jerusalem born in Britain and Ireland
and active in the period 14601565, when the order was based successively
in Rhodes, Italy, and Malta. It originated in a Cambridge Ph.D. thesis
completed in 1999. This dealt largely with the English Hospitallers
during the same period and only touched on the orders activities in
Ireland and Scotland when they impinged on its English priory and brethren.
I was able to justify this approach to my own satisfaction at the time
for three reasons: rst the orders Irish and Scottish brethren rarely visited
its Mediterranean convent and sent only limited funds there; secondly
the orders Scottish history had been adequately dealt with in recent schol-
arship; and thirdly its priory in Ireland was run by Englishmen after
1497. Since then, research into the orders Irish affairs has broadened
my awareness both of the signicance of the Hospitaller priors of Ireland
in the governance and development of the late medieval lordship of
Ireland and of the possibility that the struggle waged by the English-
and Irish-born brethren for control of the priory might be used to cast
some light on still vexed questions of communal identity in late medieval
Ireland. Furthermore the orders Scottish history, although well understood
in itself, has not been fully integrated with that of the priories of England and
Ireland.
The title has been chosen with care: the old British history is now viewed
with suspicion in some quarters as a centralising vehicle for imposing an
outmoded and anachronistic Anglocentric unity on the richly diverse polit-
ical, social, and economic development of the north-west European island
group on one of whose units (not to be advantaged in any particular over
others such as Eigg or the Calf of Man) this work was written. Yet, given the
insular location of the Hospitals central convent, terming the work the
Knights Hospitaller of the Isles, might have caused confusion, while entit-
ling it the Hospitallers of the Atlantic Archipelago might have suggested
location in the Azores to those unaware of the stimulating work of Richard
Tompson.1 Given these difculties it seems appropriate to fall back on the
orders internal divisions in describing its members. Beginning in the late
thirteenth century, the Hospital of St John began to be divided into langues,
quasi-national associations into which all its members were allocated
according to where they had been born. All those Hospitallers born in

1
N. Davis, The Isles: A History (London, 1999); R. S. Tompson, The Atlantic Archipelago:
A Political History of the British Isles (Lewiston, 1986).
viii Preface

Britain and Ireland during the fteenth and sixteenth centuries, entered the
English langue.
A number of points of presentation should be claried here. As far as
possible, I have sought to refer to persons mentioned in the text by the
modern equivalents of the names they are given in the documents. When
the modern equivalent is uncertain, or where there is a clear scholarly
convention to do otherwise, as in the use of Wydeville rather than Wood-
ville, I have followed the original spelling instead. This goes, too, for Irish
names, where I have adhered to the practices laid down in the New History
of Ireland. When dealing with some of the orders continental brethren,
I have generally given modern equivalents of names such as Jehan, deferring
to the more modern secondary authorities in cases of uncertainty. I have
adhered to the conventions used by the late K. M. Setton when dealing with
Islamic names. References to documents are generally to what has appeared
to be the most modern and/or comprehensive foliation. When providing
references to material in the National Library of Malta, I have preferred the
modern pencil foliation referred to in the recently published Catalogues of
the archives to the several older systems in use. Consequently references may
differ somewhat from those provided by other authorities.
I have incurred many debts in the writing and preparation of this book.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my Ph.D. supervisor, Professor
Jonathan Riley-Smith, for his lasting friendship, inspirational enthusiasm,
and many kindnesses over the years. Thanks are also due to Dr Rosemary
Horrox for her support, helpful comments, and advice on further reading
and to Professor Reinhold Mueller, Dr Helen Nicholson, Dr Simon Thurley,
Mr Jim Bolton, Dr Gerwyn Grifths, Dr Joseph Gribbin, and Mr Stephen de
Giorgio for providing invaluable texts, assistance, information, and/or ref-
erences. The examiners of my thesisProfessor Barrie Dobson and
Dr Anthony Luttrellhave provided me with a great deal of helpful
advice and encouragement. Dr Luttrell has also generously made available
references, photocopies, and his incomparable knowledge of the Maltese
archives.
I would like to thank the staff of the National Library of Malta, the
Cambridge University Library, the Institute of Historical Research, the
British Library, the Public Record Ofce, and the Bodleian Library. Especial
thanks are due to Miss Pamela Willis and the staff of the Museum and
Library of the Venerable Order of St John for their unwearying assistance
and many helpful suggestions.
I am also grateful to those institutions and bodies which have provided me
with nancial support during the course of my research: the British Acad-
emy, the Richard III Society, and Yorkist History Trust, who provided me
with a one-year Fellowship in 19978, and the Master and Fellows of
Christs College, Cambridge. Further assistance towards the cost of research
was afforded by the British Academy, the managers of the Prince Consort
 Preface ix

and Thirlwall Fund, and the managers of various funds administered by

Christs College. My research fellowship at Emmanuel College has proved of
inestimable value in completing this project, and I am grateful to successive
masters and fellows of the college for their friendship and encouragement.
I would also like to thank Sir John Gorman and the Irish Association of
the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, who invited me to give a talk in
Downpatrick in October 2001, and in particular to John and Fiona Belling-
ham and the Honourable Bill and Daphne Montgomery, who treated me
with great kindness during my stays with them in Ireland. John Bellingham
was kind enough to sacrice two days to driving me round Ireland looking at
Hospitaller sites, and proved enthusiastic and unerring in the pursuit of
some of the more obscure and unpromising. Above all, thanks are due to
my familyto my brother Philip for running me backwards and forwards
between Cambridge and Manchester with bags, furniture, and outsized
fridges; to my wife Magda and daughter Mary, whose love and companion-
ship have served as a reminder that man cannot live by books alone, and to
my parents, who did not live to see the publication of this book, but to
whose love, encouragement, and help it owes so much.
This page intentionally left blank
 Contents

List of Maps xiii

Abbreviations xiv

1 Introduction 1

2 The Hospital in England and Wales, c.14601540:

The Prior, his Brethren, and Conventual Life 25

3 The Administration and Finances of the Priory of England 60

4 The Hospital and Society in England and Wales 87

5 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 112

6 The Hospital and the English Crown, 15091540 161

7 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland, 14601564 226

8 The English Langue in Rhodes, Italy, and Malta, c.14601540 267

9 Brethren and Conformists, 15401565 320

10 Conclusion 333

Appendices

I (Grand) Mastersa of the Order of St John, 14611568 338

II Priors of England, 14171540 339

III Turcopoliers, 14491551 340

IV Priors of Ireland, 14201540 341

V Bailiffs of Eagle, 14421540 342

xii Contents

VI Receivers of the Common Treasury in England, 14571540 343

VII Members of the Langue, c.14601565 344

VIII Hospitaller Pensioners after 1540 360

IX Organization and Value of the Orders English and

Welsh Estates, 15351540 362

Bibliography 367
Index 390
 List of Maps

I Hospitaller houses in Britain and Ireland. Courtesy of the

Museum of the Venerable Order of St John of Jerusalem 365
II Hospitaller possessions in the south-east Aegean (after Torr,
Rhodes in modern times) 366
 Abbreviations

Ancient Deeds A Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds in

the Public Record Ofce, 6 vols. (London,
18901915)
AOM Archives of Malta (National Library of
Malta, Archives of the Knights)
APC Acts of the Privy Council of England, ed.
J. Dasent, 2nd ser., vols. ivii, AD I542
1570 (London, 18903)
AOSM Annales de lOrdre souverain de Malte
BDVTE Book of Deliberations of the Venerable
Tongue of England 152367, ed. H. P. Sci-
cluna (Valletta, 1949)
Bekynton Correspondence T. Bekynton, Ofcial Correspondence, ed.
G. Williams, 2 vols. RS (London, 1872)
BIHR Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Re-
search
BL British Library
CCR Calendar of Close Rolls
CDI Calendar of Documents, Relating to Ireland,
Preserved in Her Majestys Public Record
Ofce, London, ed. H. S. Sweetman and G.
F. Handcock, 5 vols. (London, 187586)
CFR Calendar of Fine Rolls, 12721509, 22 vols.
(London, 191162)
CHR Catholic Historical Review
CICRE Calendar of Inquisitions formerly in the Of-
ce of the Chief Remembrancer of the Ex-
chequer Prepared from the MSS of the Irish
Record Commission, ed. M. C. Grifth
(Dublin, 1991)
Claudius E.vi British Library MS Cotton Claudius E.vi
CPCRCIr Calendar of the Patent and Close Rolls of
Chancery in Ireland, of the Reigns of
Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Eliza-
beth, 2 vols., ed. J. Morrin (Dublin, 1861)
CPL Calendar of Papal Registers: Papal Letters
CPR Calendar of Patent Rolls
CS Camden Society
 Abbreviations xv

CSPV Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts

Relating to English Affairs Existing in Ven-
ice and Northern Italy
CYS Canterbury and York Society
DNB Dictionary of National Biography
EETS Early English Text Society
EHR English Historical Review
Excavations B. Sloane and G. Malcolm, Excavations at the
Priory of the Order of the Hospital of St
John of Jerusalem, Clerkenwell, London
(London, 2004)
Extents Extents of Irish Monastic Possessions, 1540
1, from Manuscripts in the Public Record
Ofce, London, ed. N. B. White (Dublin,
1943)
Foedera Foedera, conventiones, litterae, et cujuscun-
que generis, acta publica inter reges angliae,
et alios quosvis imperators, reges, ponti-
ces, principes, vel communitates, ab ineunte
saeculo duodecimo, viz. ab anno 1101
ad nostra usque tempora, ed. T. Rymer,
3rd edn., 10 vols. (London, 173945; repr.
Farnborough, 1967)
HBC Handbook of British Chronology, ed. E. B.
Fryde, D. E. Greenway, S. Porter, and
I. Roy, 3rd edn. (Cambridge, 1986)
Hist. Crusades K. M. Setton (gen. ed.), A History of the Cru-
sades, 5 vols. (Madison, Wis., 196989)
Hospitallers in Cyprus A. T. Luttrell, The Hospitallers in Cyprus,
Rhodes, Greece and the West, 12911440:
Collected Studies (London, 1978)
HSP Harleian Society Publications
JCKAS Journal of the County Kildare Archaeological
Society
JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History
Lansdowne 200 British Library MS Lansdowne 200
Latin Greece A. T. Luttrell, Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and
the Crusades 12911440 (London, 1982)
LPFD Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic of
the Reign of Henry VIII, 22 vols. in 37
parts (London, 18641929)
LPRH Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns
of Richard III and Henry VII, ed.
J. Gairdner, 2 vols., RS (London, 1861)
xvi Abbreviations

Mediterranean World A. T. Luttrell, The Hospitallers of Rhodes and

their Mediterranean World (Aldershot,
1992)
MH Melita Historica
MMR J. Sarnowsky (ed.), Mendicants, Military Or-
ders and Regionalism in Later Medieval
Europe (Aldershot, 1999)
MO, i M. Barber (ed.), The Military Orders, i: Fight-
ing for the Faith and Caring for the Sick
(Aldershot, 1994)
MO, ii H. Nicholson (ed.), The Military Orders, ii:
Welfare and Warfare (Aldershot, 1998)
NLM National Library of Malta
OSJHP Library Committee, Order of St. John Histor-
ical Pamphlets
Otho C.ix British Library MS Cotton Otho C.ix
PPC Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy
Council of England, ed. N. H. Nicholas,
7 vols. (London, 18347)
PRIA Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy
Prima Camera The Cartulary of the Knights of St. John of
Jerusalem in England. Prima Camera,
Essex, ed. M. Gervers (Oxford, 1996)
PRO Public Record Ofce
Report The Knights Hospitallers in England: Being
the Report of Philip de Thame to the Grand
Master Elyan de Villanova, ed. L. B. Lark-
ing, with a historical introduction by J. M.
Kemble, Camden Society, Original Series
65 (London, 1857)
RK Registrum de Kilmainham: Register of Chap-
ter Acts of the Hospital of St John of Jeru-
salem in Ireland, 13261339 . . . , ed.
C. McNeill (Dublin, 1932)
Rot. Parl. Rotuli Parliamentorum ut et petitiones, et
placita in Parliamento, ed. J. Strachey et
al., 6 vols. (London, 176777)
RPCCH Rotulorum patentium et clausorum cancellar-
iae Hiberniae calendarium, ed. E. Tresham,
vol. i, pt. 1, Hen. IIHen. VII (Dublin,
1828)
RS Rolls Series
 Abbreviations xvii

Scotland I. B. Cowan, P. H. R. Mackay, and A. Mac-

quarrie, The Knights of St John of Jerusa-
lem in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1983)
Secunda Camera The Cartulary of the Knights of St. John of
Jerusalem in England. Secunda Camera.
Essex, ed. M. Gervers (London, 1982)
SJG Museum and Library of the Venerable Order
of St John, St Johns Gate, Clerkenwell
SJHSP St John Historical Society Proceedings
SP State Papers, King Henry the Eighth, 11 vols.
(London, 183052)
SRPI Statute Rolls of the Parliament of Ireland,
John to Edward IV, 4 vols. (Dublin, 1907
39)
Stabilimenta Caoursin, Stabilimenta rhodiorum militum,
in id., Opera
Statutes Statutes of the Realm, vols. iiv (London,
181019)
TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Society
Valor Valor Ecclesiasticus temp. Henr. VIII auctor-
itate regia institutis, ed. J. Caley, with in-
dexes by R. Lemon and introduction by
J. Hunter, 6 vols. (London, 181034)
VCH Victoria County History
YASRS Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record
Series
This page intentionally left blank
 C HA P T E R O NE

Introduction

1.1 A Short History of the Order of St John to 1565

Religious orders, like any other corporations, require study both in the light
of their own imperatives and in the social and historical context in which
they operated. In the Middle Ages, religious houses were both numerous and
highly signicant in the functioning of society, acting as powerhouses of
prayer, schools for preachers, theologians, and biblical exegetes, retirement
homes for the pious well-to-do, and dispensers of charity and hospitality to
the poor, needy, and peripatetic. The military-religious orders which
appeared in the twelfth century had in most places little educative or theo-
logical role, but were signicant providers of prayer, hospitality, and paro-
chial services to an often eager laity. A number were linked to the care of the
sick, such as St Lazarus, which began its existence as a leper hospital, and
continued its Hospitaller functions long after its military had fallen by the
wayside. Yet whatever their other roles the participation of these orders in
the defence of the Holy Land against the Muslim states in the near east has
long been held to be their most characteristic and signicant feature. Never-
theless, after 1291, when the last crusader strongholds on the Syrian coast
fell to the Mamluks, all but the three largest military orders operating in
the Holy Landthe Temple, the Hospital of St John, and the Teutonic
Ordergradually reverted to medical and charitable functions. The Temple
was dissolved in 1312 and the Teutonic Order moved to the Baltic, but
the Hospital remained in the eastern Mediterranean until 1523, and con-
tinued to devote itself to an aggressive defence of the Catholic position
there. After 1530, it continued its military activities from its base on
Malta. Its operations were nanced and its brethren derived from its estates
in western Europe, which were organized into preceptories subject to priors
provincial. It is with the orders organization and character in the British
Isles in the period from 1460 to 1564, and with the simultaneous activities of
those of its brethren born in Britain and Ireland in the Mediterranean, that
this book will be concerned. Before beginning examination of these, how-
ever, it seems appropriate to provide a brief overview of the Hospitals
history from its foundation to the siege of Malta in 1565, an event that in
some ways provides a postscript to British involvement in the orders
affairs.
2 Introduction

The Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem, of

Rhodes, and of Malta is now a nobiliary religious order devoted to charitable
work, and specializing in the care of the sick.1 It has its origins in a hospice
founded in eleventh-century Jerusalem and devoted to the care of pilgrims
and later the sick, but for more than 600 years, between 1187 and 1798, it
was more prominent as a military order dedicated to the defence of Christian
settlements and travellers from the Islamic powers ruling the near east,
Anatolia, and north Africa. In c.1070 merchants from Amal founded a
hospice for Latin pilgrims in Jerusalem. This was initially dependent on the
Benedictine monastery of Santa Maria Latina, but after the crusader capture
of Jerusalem in 1099 it became attached to the Holy Sepulchre and the scale
of its operations expanded dramatically. Although donors in western Europe
at rst patronized the Holy Sepulchre and the Hospital together, in 1113
Paschal II granted the Hospital its independence, conrming it in its posses-
sions both actual and potential and granting its members, who were now
considered to be religious, the right to elect their own master.2 As an exten-
sion of its care for pilgrims, the nascent order may have become involved in
military operations by the 1120s but it is not until the 1160s that one can be
certain that any of its brethren had taken on a military role.3 By 1206 they
had been divided into three classespriests, knights, and sergeants.4 Ser-
geants were further divided between sergeants-at-arms and sergeants-at-
ofce, the latter including a mixture of administrators, hospital staff, and
menial servants. Notwithstanding the orders military responsibilities its
hospital remained the primary focus of its operations until the fall of Jerusa-
lem in 1187, and an object of astonishment and wonder to visiting pilgrims.5
While the order had a large hospital in Acre, its headquarters from 1191,
its military functions gradually came to predominate. In the 1230s the
orders knights achieved precedence over the priest-brethren and by the
1270s the magistracy of the order and most of its important conventual
(headquarters) ofces were reserved to knight-brethren.6 The orders mili-
tary functions varied with the location of its headquarters. In the twelfth and

1
For overviews of the orders post-1798 history see H. J. A. Sire, The Knights of Malta
(London, 1994), 24379; H. Nicholson, The Knights Hospitaller (Woodbridge, 2001), 13846.
2
J. Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus c.10501310 (London,
1967; repr. Basingstoke, 2002), 3243; A. T. Luttrell, The Earliest Hospitallers, in B. Z. Kedar,
J. Riley-Smith, and R. Hiestand (eds.), Montjoie (Aldershot, 1997), 3754; A. Beltjens, Aux
origines de lOrdre de Malta: de la fondation de lhopital de Jerusalem a sa transformation en
ordre militaire (Brussels, 1995).
3
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 524; Luttrell, Earliest Hospitallers, 37; A. Forey, The
Militarisation of the Hospital of St John, in id., Military Orders and Crusades (Aldershot,
1994), art. ix, 7589.
4
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 123.
5
Jerusalem Pilgrimage 10991185, ed. J. Wilkinson, J. Hill, and W. F. Ryan (London, 1988),
esp. 217, 2667, 2878; B. Z. Kedar, A Twelfth-Century Description of the Jerusalem Hos-
pital, MO, ii. 326.
6
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 123.
 Introduction 3

thirteenth centuries, it had charge of important fortresses and wide territor-

ies in the Latin East, which were gradually whittled away by the Mamluk
rulers of Egypt between the 1260s and 1291. After the loss of Acre in 1291,
the Hospital was based successively in Cyprus, Rhodes, and Malta. Al-
though the duties of divine service, hospitality, and caring for the sick
continued to be taken very seriously, its naval and fortress-building oper-
ations gradually became the orders most distinctive and striking features.
Following its enforced withdrawal from Palestine, the order re-established
its central convent,7 hospital, and administrative structures at Limassol,
where it remained for a turbulent period which saw conict with its
Lusignan hosts, confusion about its role, criticism of the part of the Military
Orders in the fall of Acre, and the subsequent destruction of the Templars.8
While the Temple was eliminated and the Teutonic order migrated north-
wards, the Hospitallers remained in the Levant, seizing the island of Rhodes
from the supposedly schismatic Greeks between 1306 and 1310.9 This
acquisition was extremely timely, possibly saving the Hospital from sharing
the fate of the Temple, and also giving it a strong case for arguing that the
latters property should be transferred to it to enable the continuation of the
struggle in the east. This was ordered in 1312, although it was many years
before the transfer was anything like complete.10 On Rhodes, too, the order
took care to stress its continued concern for all three of its chief functions.
These were, in descending order of rhetorical positioning, but ascending
order of cost, the maintenance of divine service, care for the sick, and the
defence of Christendom.11 Despite the knightly takeover of the Hospital this
ranking of priorities was maintained in many internal documents issued in
the later Middle Ages, although appeals to western rulers for aid concen-
trated rather on the military aspects of the orders operations.

7
The term convent will be reserved for the orders Mediterranean headquarters.
8
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 198226; M. Barber, The Trial of the Templars (Cam-
bridge, 1978), passim.
9
Riley-Smith, 21516, 225; A. T. Luttrell, Notes on Foulques de Villaret, Master of the
Hospital, 13051319, Mediterranean World, art. iv, 7390.
10
A. T. Luttrell, The Military Orders, 13121798, in J. Riley-Smith (ed.), The Oxford
Illustrated History of the Crusades (Oxford, 1995), 32664, at 327. For the nancial difculties
of the order after 1312, and the exploitation of and delays in handing over the Templar estates
by their occupiers see J. Delaville le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers a Rhodes jusqua la mort de
Philibert de Naillac: 13101421 (Paris, 1913), 536, 635, 6870; C. L. Tipton, The 1330
Chapter General of the Knights Hospitallers at Montpellier, Traditio, 24 (1968), 293308, esp.
2989; Report, lviilix, 21213, 21520; C. Perkins, The Knights Hospitallers in England after
the fall of the Order of the Temple, EHR 45 (1930), 2859; id., The Wealth of the Knights
Templars in England and the Disposition of it after their Dissolution, American Historical
Review, 15 (1910), 25263; E. Gooder, Temple Balsall: The Warwickshire Preceptory of the
Templars and their Fate (Chichester, 1995), 1379.
11
This is true at least of the mission statements issued by the order at the beginnings of
chapters-general, whose contents were, however, often determined by the papal letters licensing
it to hold such meetings. See e.g. AOM282, fos. 6rv, 7v9v. The latter text is transcribed in
J. Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft im Johanniterorden des 15. Jahrhunderts: Verfassung und
Verwaltung der Johanniter auf Rhodos (14211522) (Munster, 2001), 61719.
4 Introduction

The conquest of Rhodes and the expenditure necessary to gain control of

the Templar properties impoverished the Hospital for years to come, but by
the 1330s it was relatively solvent and playing a signicant part in Latin
military actions against the Turkish emirates in the Aegean. Its contribution
to this struggle was primarily at seathe order had begun to build up a eet
during its sojourn on Cyprus and in Rhodes it had acquired an ideal base for
attacks on Muslim shipping.12 By 1320 the Hospitaller eet, alone or in
conjunction with the Genoese, had already inicted a series of defeats on the
Turks,13 and the order continued to maintain an active war eet until its
expulsion from Malta. Its regular navy was supplemented by vessels engaged
in the corso, a limited holy war in which a variety of Hospitaller, Latin, and
Greek captains operating from Rhodes were authorized to attack Muslim
shipping, a calling which they performed zealously across the whole eastern
Mediterranean basin.14 In conjunction with its auxiliaries, the order contrib-
uted galleys to the anti-Turkish crusading leagues of the 1330s and 1340s, to
the campaigns of Peter of Cyprus against the Turks and Mamluks in the 1360s
and to those of western crusaders such as Marshal Boucicaut, while in more
normal times its eet kept the Dodecanese relatively free of Turkish pirates.15
On land the Hospital provided limited support for Cilician Armenia
before its fall in 1375, followed by more substantial involvement in Epirus,
the Morea, and the Isthmus of Corinth between the 1370s and 1404.16 It
also contributed signicant contingents to the Smyrna crusade of 1344, the
Alexandria expedition of 1365, and the Nicopolis campaign of 1396,17 and
was solely responsible for the defence of the fortress of Smyrna from 1374
until its fall to Timur in 1402.18 Having lost Smyrna and withdrawn from

12
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 200.
13
Delaville, Rhodes, 789; A. T. Luttrell, The Hospitallers of Rhodes Confront the Turks:
13061421, Mediterranean World, art. ii, 80116, at 867; id., The Hospitallers at Rhodes,
13061421, Hospitallers in Cyprus, art. i, 278313, at 287.
14
A. T. Luttrell, The Earliest Documents on the Hospitaller Corso at Rhodes: 1413 and
1416, Mediterranean Historical Review, 10 (1995), 17788; L. Butler, The Port of Rhodes
under the Knights of St John (13091522), Les Grandes Escales: Receuils de la societe Jean
Bodin, 32 (Brussels, 1974), 33945, at 3434; N. Vatin, LOrdre de Saint-Jean-de-Jerusalem,
lempire ottoman et la Mediterranee orientale entre les deux sieges de Rhodes (14801522)
(Paris, 1994), 88129, 13743, 2947.
15
Delaville, Rhodes, 1525, 271, 2979; Luttrell, Hospitallers at Rhodes, 13061421,
2935, 2989, 3067, 309.
16
Delaville, Rhodes, 79, 189, 2024, 209, 27781, 3012; Luttrell, The Hospitallers
Interventions in Cilician Armenia: 12911375, Latin Greece, art. v, 11644; id., Hospitallers
at Rhodes, 13061421, 3023, 3079. Material relating to the orders involvement in Greece
can be found in Monumenta peloponnesiaca: Documents for the History of the Peloponnese in
the 14th and 15th centuries, ed. J. Chrysostomides (Camberley, 1995), nos. 204, 206, 210, 213,
2234, 2325, 24259, 265, 26972, 2749, 283, 28990.
17
Delaville, Rhodes, 1524, 2357, 265; C. L. Tipton, The English at Nicopolis, Speculum,
37 (1962), 52840, esp. 53840.
18
Delaville, Rhodes, 185, 2856. For the orders government of Smyrna see J. Sarnowsky,
Die Johanniter und Smyrna (13441402), Romische Quartalsschrift, 86 (1991), 21551; 87
(1992), 4798.
 Introduction 5

Greece, the orders attention shifted to its possessions in the Dodecanese in

the fteenth century. Although it built an imposing and expensive fortress,
the castle of St Peter (now Bodrum), near Halikarnassos on the Turkish
mainland as a demonstration of its continued determination to oppose the
indel by land, this was largely a propaganda and fund-raising exercise, as
the castles location was without any great strategic value.19 More signi-
cant were the attention and money lavished on the fortications on Rhodes
and its subject islands after 1400 and on the construction of a new Hospital
from 1440 onwards. During the fteenth century the number of brethren at
the convent greatly increased, and the masters of the order, often absent in
the west before 1421, made Rhodes their usual residence.20 These develop-
ments demonstrate that the Hospitallers, who had thought of moving their
headquarters to mainland Greece or Achaea in the previous century,21 had
nally come to regard the Dodecanese as their home.
While the order continued to participate in the activities of western
crusading eets in the fteenth century, contributing its galleys and harbour
to Aragonese otillas in 14503, to papal eets in 14567 and 1472,22 and
to the defence of Venices eastern possessions in the wars of 146379 and
14991503,23 its masters and council increasingly sought peace with the
great Muslim powers of the Levant, restricting piracy in the Aegean and
negotiating treaties at both local and regional levels with the Ottoman and
Mamluk sultans and their subordinates.24 This more defensive approach
was necessitated by the growing power of the Turkish and Egyptian sultan-
ates, which deprived the order of both easy prey and worthwhile allies in the
Levant. With Cyprus weakened by strife with the Genoese and Mamluk
invasion, and the Byzantine empire ghting a desperate rearguard action
against the Ottomans the Hospital became, with the exception of Venice, the
only Christian power in the region capable of signicant independent mili-
tary action, although its forces were still too weak to engage the Muslim
powers on land unaided. In the 1440s Rhodes itself came under serious
attack for the rst time since its conquest. A Mamluk eet assailed the

19
Delaville, Rhodes, 28790; A. T. Luttrell, The Later History of the Maussolleion and its
Utilization in the Hospitaller Castle at Bodrum, Jutland Archaeological Society Publications,
15/2 (Copenhagen, 1986), 114214, esp. 145.
20
A. Gabriel, La Cite de Rhodes, 2 vols. (Paris, 19213), ii, Architecture civile et religieuse,
Appendix, documents iixii; S. Spiteri, Fortresses of the Knights (Malta, 2001); F. Karassava-
Tsilingiri, The Fifteenth-Century Hospital of Rhodes: Tradition and Innovation, MO, i. 8996.
21
This was rst proposed by Innocent VI in 13546. Delaville, Rhodes, 1256, 1312.
22
K. M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant: 12041571, 4 vols. (Philadelphia, 197684), ii.
99 n., 1879, 31718; Z. N. Tsirpanlis, Rhodes and the South-East Aegean Islands under the
Knights of St John (14th to 16th Centuries) [in Greek] (Rhodes, 1991), art. iv, summarized in
English at 41617.
23
Setton, Papacy, ii. 251, 293, 31718; Vatin, LOrdre, 25577, esp. 2624.
24
Vatin, LOrdre, passim; Setton, Papacy, ii. 245. I have not consulted Z. N. Tsirpanlis,
Friendly Relations of the Knights of Rhodes with the Turks in the Fifteenth Century [in Greek],
Byzantinische Forschungen, 3 (1968), 191209.
6 Introduction

orders islands of Castellorrizzo and Cos in 1440 and an Egyptian army laid
siege to Rhodes in the late summer of 1444, doing considerable damage
before it was repulsed.25 Peace with Egypt was soon restored, but after the
accession of the aggressive Mehmed II to the Ottoman throne in 1451 the
order was faced with the more formidable threat of Turkish assault and,
with the partial exception of an interlude of relatively good Hospitaller
Ottoman relations between 1481 and 1499,26 the last seventy years on
Rhodes were spent in constant fear of attack. Precautionary measures were
taken whenever a eet issued from Istanbul or Gallipoli, appeals were
dispatched to the west for aid against attacks that rarely materialized,27
the number of brethren at the convent was increased, and summons of those
in the western priories became more frequent.28 If sometimes exaggerated,
the threat was very real. Mehmed II demanded tribute from the order soon
after his conquest of Constantinople and when this was refused his ships
attacked Cos, Syme, and Nisyros and sacked the village of Archangelos
on Rhodes.29 The sultan renewed his demands in the 1460s, and the Hos-
pitals intermittent refusal to pay30 and active support for his enemies led
inexorably to the siege of 1480, which was only resisted with the greatest
difculty.31
Military assault was followed by earthquakes which weakened the is-
lands defences still further, but a respite was provided by the death of the
sultan in 1481, and still more by the ight of Mehmeds son Jem to Rhodes in
1482 following the customary fraternal struggle among the Ottoman princes
over the succession.32 While there was genuine interest in France, Hungary,
and Naples in using Jem to spearhead a crusade against the Porte,33 the

25
E. Rossi, The Hospitallers at Rhodes: 14211523, Hist. Crusades, iii. 31439, at 31920;
Codice diplomatico del Sacro Militare Ordine Gerosolimitano, ed. S. Pauli, 2 vols. (Lucca,
1737), ii. 1213; Setton, Papacy, ii. 878; T. S. R. Boase, The Arts in Frankish Greece and
Rhodes, Hist. Crusades, iv. 22950, at 234.
26
See Vatin, LOrdre, 15687.
27
Ibid. 2903, 1812, 242, 320, 3245; Setton, Papacy, ii. 239; See below, esp. Ch. 6.
28
Vatin, LOrdre, 150. See below, esp. Ch. 6.
29
Rossi, Hospitallers at Rhodes, 321; Tsirpanlis, Rhodes, arts. v & vi, with English
summary at 41718.
30
In the early 1460s, the order had been induced to give the sultan a present of 3,000 ducats
per annum, but still refused formally to acknowledge any subjection to him. Setton, Papacy, ii.
245.
31
The best modern account of the siege in English is Setton, Papacy, ii. 34660. A near
contemporary history by the orders vice-chancellor, Guillaume Caoursin of Douai, was trans-
lated into English by the poet laureate John Kaye and published by Caxton in 1482. G. Caoursin,
Obsidionis rhodie urbis descriptio in id., Opera (Ulm, 1496); id., The Siege of Rhodes, trans.
J. Kaye (London, 1482, repr. New York, 1975).
32
C. Torr, Rhodes in Modern Times (London, 1887), 356; Setton, Papacy, ii. 3634, 3823;
Vatin, LOrdre, 1514, 1613.
33
Initial responses from Hungary and Naples to a magistral plea for their help in a crusade
soon after Jems ight to Rhodes were negative. By 1483, however, Matthias Corvinus was
displaying a keen interest in making use of the fugitive. This was soon emulated by the king of
Naples, the Mamluks, and Innocent VIII. Vatin, LOrdre, 163; Setton, Papacy, ii. 3789, 3867.
 Introduction 7

order contented itself with extorting a pension and a favourable peace from
Bayazid II in return for the fugitives safe keeping.34 The latter was sent to
Europe, and despite tension caused by Bayazids suspicions that the order
would sell their captive, the treaty remained valid and pension payments to
the grand master continued even after Jem was transferred into papal hands
in 1489.35 Order and sultan remained on friendly terms after Jems death in
1495, the truce of 1482 being reproclaimed in 1497.36 During the years of
peace there was considerable commercial intercourse between Rhodes and
the mainland and the order cooperated with local Ottoman governors to
suppress piracy within the limits laid down in the treaty of 1482, while
permitting attacks elsewhere in the Levant. In 1501, however, the Hospital
was dragged against its will into involvement in the TurkishVenetian war
when its master, Pierre dAubusson, was named as papal legate in charge of
the Christian eet in the Orient, a privilege which, as head of a military order
directly subject to the pope, he could hardly refuse.37 Despite its misgivings,
the order threw itself into the struggle with vigour and fought on alone after
Venice had made a separate peace in August 1503.38 Although peace was
renewed with the Turks on the same terms as before, the trust built up in the
1480s and 1490s had dissipated, with breaches of the truce multiplying and
an increasing failure to control piracy by either side. To a considerable
degree this was the Hospitallers own fault. While the limits were still
respected, piracy sponsored from Rhodes increased in other areas under
Ottoman suzerainty, such as the western Aegean, with the result that criti-
cism of the miscreants of the Dodecanese multiplied in Istanbul as the corso
seized shipping, carried off high-prole Muslims and Mecca pilgrims into
captivity, and interrupted grain shipments.39 Fear of Ottoman military
preparations, considerable even while Jem was alive, dominated the con-
vents policy in the rst two decades of the new century.40 The threat of
Turkish raids led to increasingly drastic security measures, large sums were
spent on the fortications, the number of conventual brethren was increased
by a third, and supposedly suspect persons such as Jews were expelled from
Rhodes.41 In 1513, 151517, and 1520 there were genuine invasion scares
and it was said that the new sultan, Selim the Grim, was determined to erase

34
Vatin, LOrdre, 16372, 1738.
35
The pension had been set in 1483 at 40,000 ducats per annum, of which 30,000 were
understood to be reserved to the upkeep of Jem and the payment of his guards, the remaining
10,000 being compensation for the damage suffered by the order and its property during the
recent siege. After 1489, the greater sum was paid directly to the pope, and the lesser to the
knights. Until October 1494, however, Jem remained under the control of guards appointed by
the order. Vatin, LOrdre, 178, 2267, 233; Setton, Papacy, ii. 3834, 387, 458.
36
Vatin, LOrdre, 237.
37
Ibid. 2557.
38
Ibid. 25971; Setton, Papacy, iii. 2.
39
Vatin, LOrdre, 294307, 32942.
40
Ibid. 1812, 2903.
41
See below, 279 Torr, Rhodes, 545; Sarnawsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 365.
8 Introduction

the shame suffered by his grandfather Mehmed in failing to take Rhodes.42

The orders anxieties were nally justied by the Turkish siege of 1522.
Cautious although its policy was, the Hospital was still overwhelmingly
dependent on its western revenues, whose continued collection relied on the
whim of rulers who expected its resistance to the indel to be real as well as
symbolic. In this respect the sieges of 1444 and 1480 proved of positive
benet, prompting the grant of lucrative papal indulgences and gifts from
western rulers such as Philip of Burgundy,43 and creating an image of
Rhodes as a key of Christendom.44 The order did its best to ensure max-
imum publicity for its achievements and was an early and enthusiastic
producer of printed propaganda.45 Yet if success in 1480 almost exempted
it from criticism for a generation, developments in the west during this
period did not augur well for the Hospitals continued presence in the
Aegean. The extinction of Valois Burgundy in 1477 removed its most
traditionally enthusiastic supporter in western Europe, the death of Mat-
thias Corvinus in 1490 diminished Hungarys status as a viable opponent of
Ottoman hegemony in the Balkans, and after 1494 the Italian wars muzzled
the European response to the Turkish advance, pitting the orders most
potentially valuable supporter, France, against its traditional allies, Naples
and Aragon. The victory of 1480 and the relative quiescence of the Turks
under Bayazid II also lulled the west into a false sense of security, even of
cynicism, as demonstrated by Henry VIIIs manipulation of newsletters from
Rhodes to support his claims that the Turks constituted less of a threat to
Christendom than the French.46 As appeals to the west multiplied and no
attack materialized, moreover, they had less and less effect, one account of
the siege of 1522 lamenting that it was holden for a mocke & a by worde in
many places that the turke wold go assyege Rodes.47 Western awareness of
the strength of the orders fortications probably also dulled the response to
the siege of 1522, and may have helped give currency to persistent reports
that the Turks had been driven off.48

42
LPFD, i, no. 1604; ii, nos. 1319, 3814; iii, nos. 614, 784, 791, 8568; The Begynnynge
and Foundacyon of the Holy Hospytall & of the Ordre of the Knyghtes Hospytallers of Saynt
Johan Baptyst of Jerusalem (London, 1524), 7, stresses Selims instructions to his son to take
Rhodes. For Selims awareness of the dishonour caused by the islands successful resistance in
1480 see Vatin, LOrdre, 337.
43
Setton, Papacy, ii. 263 n.; Gabriel, La Cite de Rhodes, i. 1445.
44
LPFD, iii, no. 2771; Begynnynge and Foundacyon, 6. For the use of this image, and of the
related imagery of the antemurale or propugnaculum Christianitatis by other societies on the
frontiers of Christendom, see N. Housley, Religious Warfare in Europe, 14001536 (Oxford,
2002), 1517, 1823, and passim.
45
A. T. Luttrell, The Rhodian Background of the Order of St John on Malta, Mediterranean
World, art. xviii, 314, at 89.
46
See below, Ch. 6.
47
Begynnynge and Foundacyon, 8.
48
M. Balard, The Urban Landscape of Rhodes as Perceived by Fourteenth-and Fifteenth-
Century Travellers, Mediterranean Historical Review, 10 (1995), 2434, at 257; LPFD, iii,
nos. 2559, 2576, 2611, 2670, 2708, 2772.
 Introduction 9

The fall of Rhodes left the order, as in 1291, bereft of a home and a role.
Although it was generally accepted that the defence of the island had been a
heroic one, its conduct still left some room for criticism. The treason and
discord among the orders ofcers during the ghting, the failure of the
master, Philippe Villiers de LIsle Adam, to procure sufcient gunpowder and
provisions to prolong the siege and his departure from the island with great
riches after its surrender provoked comment in contemporary reports and
subsequent criticism.49 Soon after LIsle Adams arrival there, an observer in
Rome reported that he was considered to be of small policy and less weight,
and that Adrian VI had declared him unt to rule such an order and
threatened to appoint co-adjutors of another nation to govern it with
him.50 The emperor Charles V, who was deeply suspicious of LIsle Adams
dependence on the French, had similar views.51 There was criticism of the
master from within the order, too. The bailiff of Casp was imprisoned for
speaking irreverently to him in 1524, and an English brother knight
bewailed the undue inuence over him of his seneschal, Thomas Shefeld.52
Although some rulers stressed their continued support, others took advan-
tage of the orders difculties: at various times between 1522 and 1530,
some or all of its goods and estates were conscated or arrested in Naples,
Portugal, Savoy, England, Spain, and of course the Protestant lands of
northern Europe.53 Even its eet had to be hidden for fear of conscation
by French or imperial forces.54 During this time the convent was itinerant,
moving in turn from Rhodes to Crete, Rome, Viterbo, Corneto, Ville
Franche, Nice, Syracuse, and Malta,55 and harried by shipwreck, plague,
poverty, and war.56 Mortality, at least among the English brethren, was high,
and discipline, too, may have suffered.57 Nonetheless, the Hospital managed
to keep most of the archives, treasure, and relics brought from Rhodes,58
49
LPFD, iii, nos. 2841, 2891, 2919.
50
Ibid., no. 3025.
51
CSPV, iii, no. 797.
52
AOM84, fos. 39v40v; LPFD, iii, no. 3026.
53
See below, Ch. 6, esp. 17686.
54
LPFD, iv, nos. 2810, 4666.
55
The orders governing body, its council, met in Crete in January and March 1523, Messina
in the following May and June, Puzzuoli near Naples in July, Civita Vecchia in August, and
Rome from September 1523 to January 1524. Further meetings are recorded in Viterbo between
February 1524 and June 1527, Corneto between 26 June and 12 August, Ville Franche between
25 September and 5 November 1527, Nice between 13 November 1527 and 14 June 1529, and
Malta in September 1529, but in Syracuse between 11 October 1529 and 22 August 1530. The
order took possession of Malta on 26 October 1530. AOM84, fos. 14r, 22v23r, 23v26r, 26v27r,
27v, 28r, 33r; 85, fos. 28v, 31v, 32v33r, 57v, 61v, 75r; G. Bosio, DellIstoria della sacra religione et
ill.ma militia di San Giovanni Gierosolimitano, 2nd edn., 3 vols. (Rome, 16229, 1602), iii. 89;
A. T. Luttrell, Hospitaller Birgu: 15301536, Crusades 2 (2003), 121151, at 1267.
56
LPFD, iii, no. 3037; AOM84, fos. 21rv, 23v, 25r, 33v, 34v, 42r, 56v, 86v87r; 85, fos. 28v,
31v; 286, fo. 20v.
57
See below, Ch. 8.2.
58
Luttrell, Rhodian Background, 614; M. Buhagiar, The Treasure of the Knights Hospi-
tallers in 1530: Reections and Art Historical Considerations, Peregrinationes, 1 (2000).
10 Introduction

and most importantly, to preserve its administrative structure and depart-

ments and ethos intact.59
The cession of Malta, Gozo, and Tripoli to the order had been mooted as
early as 1523,60 and commissioners had been sent out to view the islands
and fortress in the following year.61 Their report was distinctly unfavour-
able, stressing the barrenness of the islands, their need to import almost
every necessity and their lack of adequate fortications or suitable dwelling
places.62 Hearing this, the knights temporized in the hope of a better offer
from Charles V, while at the same time plotting a return to Rhodes in
conjunction with Greek clergy and disaffected janissaries.63 Support for
this scheme was sought from rulers like Charles, Francis I, John III of
Portugal, and Henry VIII, but its failure, the unsettled conditions in Italy,
the conscation of the orders English property, and the insistence of the
Spanish and German Hospitallers that the emperors proposal be answered
induced the orders legislative body, or chapter-general, to accept Charless
offer in 1527, although nal agreement on the terms was not achieved until
1530.64 Even then, the order professed reluctance to enter its new home,
threatening to abandon it if Rhodes should be regained, and proposing to
move to Sicily instead in 1532, while in the following year the pope and
emperor suggested it transfer instead to Coron, which had recently been
acquired by an imperial eet.65 By this time, however, the convent had
nally departed for Malta, where it centred operations on the Castello
delMare, its associated settlement, Birgu, and the magnicent Grand Har-
bour. There a conventual enclosure, or collachium, was theoretically delin-
eated66 and the orders other distinctive structuresmagistral palace,

Measures were taken for the conservation of the orders treasures and relics on 13 June 1527,
shortly after the sack of Rome by imperialist troops. AOM85, fo. 28v.
59
A. T. Luttrell, Malta and Rhodes: Hospitallers and Islanders, in V. Mallia-Malines (ed.),
Hospitaller Malta 15301798 (Msida, Malta, 1993), 25584, at 25961.
60
The order appears to have rst suggested the grant itself. In April 1523 Marino Sanuto
reported that LIsle Adam had offered to purchase either Brindisi or Malta from Charles V, while
in December the master informed Henry VIII that the pope had sent a nuncio to the emperor to
ask for Malta. By 19 January 1524 the Venetian ambassador to Charles V reported that he was
willing to cede the islands and fortress. V. Mallia-Malines, The Birgu Phase of Hospitaller
History, in L. Bugeja, M. Buhagiar, and S. Fiorini (eds.), BirguA Maltese Maritime City,
2 vols. (Msida, 1993), i. 7396, at 75; LPFD, iii, no. 3610; CSPV, iii, no. 797.
61
AOM411, fos. 202v203v.
62
Bosio, DellIstoria, iii. 301; H. Vella, The Report of the Knights of St Johns 1524
Commission to Malta and Quintinus Insulae Melitae Descriptio, MH 8/4 (1983), 31924;
Mallia-Malines, Birgu Phase, 756, 812; AOM84, fo. 41v. The English Hospitaller Clement
West complained in 1534 that here is nothing but we must have it from other lands. LPFD, vii,
no. 326.
63
LPFD, iv, nos. 22701, 5196; iv, Appendix nos. 101, 214; Vatin, LOrdre, 36871.
64
AOM286, fos. 5rv, 23v24; see below, Ch. 6.
65
AOM286, fo. 25v; LPFD, v, no. 888; CSPV, iv, nos. 742, 749, 904, 943.
66
The construction of a wall dividing the collachium from the town had been proposed in
1533, but nothing appears to have been done until boundary stones were set up in 1562. Mallia-
Malines, Birgu Phase, 7980.
 Introduction 11

conventual church, inrmary, and aubergesactually appeared; and there

the British-born brethren settled.67 There, too, the order resumed its naval
operations in earnest, playing a signicant part in the great Ottoman
Habsburg struggle for dominance of the western Mediterranean between
the 1530s and 1570s.68 Yet the settlement on Malta had in some ways a
rather impermanent character until the late 1560s.69 There was serious
consideration of plans to transfer the convent to Tripoli, which were only
quashed when it was lost in 1551, and repeated invasion scares led to
proposals that Malta be abandoned or its population evacuated.70 Although
a new fort, St Elmo, was built at the tip of the Grand Harbour and forti-
cations elsewhere either rebuilt or newly constructed the new walls were
rather makeshift, the orders conventual church and some of its auberges
remained in rented accommodation, and observers prognosticated gloomily
on the likely fate of the island in the event of a full-scale siege.71 The dry run
of 1551, when Tripoli had fallen to and Gozo been sacked by a substantial
eet of corsairs, had not given much cause for optimism, although it did
concentrate the orders attention on the restoration and defence of what
remained.72 In 1565 an Ottoman armada nally descended on Malta and
was repulsed thanks to misjudgements by the Turkish commander, the
heroism of the defenders, and the eventual dispatch of an imperial relief
force from Sicily.73 Its successful defence prompted the order to regard the
island more fondly, and plans to build a new capital on Mount Sciberras, the
site of the much-battered St Elmo, were realized in the construction of
Valletta, which was initiated in 1566.74

67
Luttrell, Rhodian Background, 5. Most of these structures were rented, but the construc-
tion of a new hospital was begun in 1532. Mallia-Malines, Birgu Phase, 769; P. Cassar,
Medical Life in Birgu in the Past, in Bugeja et al. (eds.), Birgu, i. 32790, at 329.
68
M. Fontenay Les Missions des galeres de Malte: 15301798, in M.Verge-Franceschi
(ed.), Guerre et commerce en Mediterranee: IXeXXe siecles (Paris, 1991), 10319; S. Bono,
Naval Exploits and Privateering, in Mallia-Malines (ed.), Hospitaller Malta, 35195, at
3518, 3779.
69
This interpretation is disputed by Professor Mallia-Malines, who sees increasing signs that
the order was becoming reconciled to its new home from the last months of 1532. Mallia-
Malines, Birgu Phase, 78.
70
A. P. Vella, The Order of Malta and the Defence of Tripoli, MH 6/4 (1975), 36281, esp.
37380; A. Hoppen, The Fortication of Malta by the Order of St John 15301798, 2nd edn.
(Msida, 1999), 33, 367. Many non-combatants were evacuated to Sicily in the 1550s and
1560s. S. Fiorini, Demographical Aspects of Birgu up to 1800, in Bugeja et al. (eds.), Birgu,
i. 21954, at 236.
71
Hoppen, Fortication, 3343.
72
Ibid. 368.
73
There is a vast literature on the siege of 1565. The debate is summarized and an account
provided in Setton, Papacy, iv. 84978. Ernie Bradfords The Great Siege: Malta 1565 (Har-
mondsworth, 1961) provides information on English involvement in the hostilities.
74
Hoppen, Fortication, 33, 415, 4971.
12 Introduction

1.2 The British and Irish Context

In order to support its military and charitable activities, the Hospital relied
heavily on brethren and subventions sent out from its houses in Europe.
A large majority of the brethren at headquarters were drawn from western
Europe, especially from France, Aragon, and Italy, with smaller contingents
from Castile and Portugal, mainland Britain, and Germany. Eastern Europe,
Scandinavia, and Ireland sent few brethren to headquarters. Conventual
service in the east was expected of all military brethren in theory, and
performed by a large proportion in practice, as the grant of livings in the
west was made increasingly dependent on service at headquarters. Brethren
wishing to receive preferment were supposed to serve in the east for at least
three years before they were eligible for promotion, and were often called to
convent in the later stages of their careers as well.75 In times of crisis all
military brethren were summoned, and a large number usually responded.
British Hospitallers, although never very numerous in the east, played a
signicant part in conventual life.76 The English, Irish, and Scottish knight-
brethren at headquarters together made up the sixth of the seven langues,
quasi-national associations whose existence was formalized at the chapter-
general held at Montpellier in 1330, their number being increased to eight in
1462.77 This gave them considerable weight on the orders governing bodies,
the council and chapter-general, which were partly composed of represen-
tatives of the langues. The turcopolier, the head or pilier of the English
langue, was responsible for the coastguard on Rhodes and later Malta.78
The English knights were also appointed to other ofces in the gift of the
master and convent, several serving as captains of Bodrum or of the orders
galleys, as castellans (chief judges) of Rhodes, as proctors of the common
treasury or as ambassadors on the orders behalf.79 The military activities of

75
Delaville, Rhodes, 318, citing a statute of 1410.
76
For the number of British and Irish brethren in the east see below, Tables 8.1 and 8.2.
77
H. Chew, The Priory of St John of Jerusalem, Clerkenwell, VCH, Middlesex, vol. i
(Oxford, 1969), 193200, at 194; Tipton, Montpellier, 2967. For the development of the
langues see J. Sarnowsky, Der Konvent auf Rhodos und die Zungen (lingue) im Johanniter-
orden: 14211476, in Z. H. Nowak (ed.), Ritterorden und RegionPolitische, soziale
und wirtschaftliche Verbindungen im Mittelalter (Torun, 1995), 4365; id., Macht und
Herrschaft, 14769.
78
For the ofce of turcopolier, see A. Mifsud, Knights Hospitaller of the Venerable Tongue of
England in Malta (Valletta, 1914), 8794; L. Vizzari de Sannazaro, The Venerable Langue of
England: A History of the English Branch of the Order of St John of Jerusalem with a Roll of
Englishmen connected with the Order, and an Appendix of Unpublished Documents, unpub-
lished typescript, London, SJG, 1215 and documents 30613; Sarnowsky, Macht und
Herrschaft, 255, 2868, 6323.
79
AOM282, fos. 73rv; 78, fo. 83r; 393, fos. 155v156; 82, fos. 114v, 137v; 73, fo. 99r; 75,
fos. 18v19r, 168v, 176v; 78, fo. 28v; 79, fo. 17rv; 80, fo. 98r; 84, fo. 19r; 86, fo. 54r; 74, fo. 42r;
82, fo. 51r; 73, fo. 139v; 283, fos. 5v, 155v; 76, fos. 145r, 153r; 81, fo. 46v; 406, fos. 220v221r;
412, fo. 206rv; 286, fo. 6r; 86, fo. 128v.
 Introduction 13

the order in the eastern Mediterranean were publicized in letters to mon-

archs and ministers, in proclamations made in parish churches in the west
and in papal letters issued in its favour.
Western monies were as indispensable to the convent as western brethren.
According to a budget drawn up in c.1478, western revenues amounted to
85,450 orins out of a conventual income of 97,000.80 Quite separately
from the convent, the master enjoyed further, substantial, incomes derived
from his possession of Rhodes. The orders European revenues were assessed
by the central convent at periodic intervals and responsions [responsiones],
originally xed at a third of the prots from produce, were levied on its
houses in accordance with the estimates so obtained. The convent raised
additional sums from imposts levied on the brethren themselves.81 After
1358 the monies raised in each priory were administered by a salaried
receiver of the common treasury, who was responsible for their collection
and dispatch to Rhodes.82 Most priories sent their responsions on to the
orders receiver-general in the west in Avignon, but because of the English
crowns intermittent disagreements with the French, from the late fourteenth
century the priories of England and Ireland more commonly dispatched
theirs to headquarters via Venice.83
In the period covered by this study, the orders day-to-day affairs were run
by its master and a council composed of those of its leading ofcers,
its conventual and capitular bailiffs, who were present at headquarters.84
Each conventual bailiff was, at least theoretically, responsible for one area
of conventual business, and each also served as the caput or pilier of one of
the langues.85 The English langue allocated beneces in Britain and Ireland
on the bases of conventual service, seniority, efciency of administration in
the west, and, in the case of competition, proximity of birthplace to the
house in question.86 The master acted as a supplementary fount of honour
for all brethren, as he controlled most appointments on the orders conven-
tual islands and had the right to appoint to one house in each western priory
every ve years. He also possessed one estate, or camera, in each priory
himself, usually leasing it out to a favoured brother of the relevant langue.
Furthermore both receptions of military brethren into the order and move-
ments to and from convent required magistral licence. The masters author-
ity and inuence were thus very considerable but were balanced not just by
the council but also by chapters-general, which met fairly regularly to draw
80
Luttrell, Malta and Rhodes, 272.
81
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 45, 50, 3446; Report, pp. xxx, 178; A. T. Luttrell, The
Hospitallers Western Accounts, 1373/4 and 1374/5, in Camden Miscellany XXX, CS, 4th ser.,
39 (London, 1990), 122.
82
Delaville le Roulx, Rhodes, 136; Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 3302.
83
See below, Ch. 3.2.
84
Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, esp. 4788.
85
Ibid. 276300.
86
See below, Ch. 2.2.
14 Introduction

up legislation and settle important disputes. Capitular bailiffs, who included

western provincial priors, other senior western brethren, and important
ofcers like the grand preceptor of Cyprus sat on both chapters and on the
council and when absent were represented in chapter by proctors. Thus
when the master and council drew up policy for the western priories they
could draw on the experience of western ofcials resident in convent, or the
proctors there of those still in Europe, to inform their decisions.
The orders possessions in western Europe were administered from houses
known as commanderies or preceptories.87 These were grouped into pro-
vincial priories, castellanies, and bailiwicks on approximately national lines.
The order probably received its rst lands in England and Wales in the
1120s, and there was a prior of the English Hospitallers by 1144.88 His
headquarters and chief residence were at Clerkenwell, just to the north of
London. The orders two houses in Wales and the Scottish preceptory
of Torphichen were also under the jurisdiction of the prior of England,
although the latter sometimes threatened to escape from prioral control.89
By the thirteenth century Ireland had its own priory, based at Kilmainham
near Dublin, but the prior was often, and exclusively after 1497, an
Englishman.90
Besides the contribution its houses made to the convent, the order had a
distinctive role to play in western society. The Hospitals considerable
wealth was concentrated in the hands of relatively few brethren, most of
them being, by the fteenth century, laymen from lesser noble or gentle
backgrounds. This wealth, and the connections and afnities of brethren
enabled the order to play a signicant part in political and social structures.
Its provincial heads were usually resident in or near the national or regional
capital and were often signicant gures at court. Priors of England and
preceptors of Torphichen, for example, were habitual members of royal
councils, often undertook diplomatic or judicial business on behalf of their
respective monarchs, and at times held important ofces of state such as
those of treasurer, admiral, or keeper of the privy seal.91 The prior of Ireland
was still more important in Irish political affairs. Kilmainham was the
richest religious house in the country according to the extents taken in
15401, and nearly every prior between the 1270s and 1420s served as
deputy lieutenant, treasurer, or chancellor, many leading armies in defence

87
Brethren in charge of a house are usually termed preceptor rather than commander in
documents written in Latin.
88
The prior may, however, have been subject to the prior of S. Gilles until c.118590. Chew,
Priory of St John, 196.
89
Scotland, pp. xxx, xxxvii, xlxli; C. L. Tipton, The English and Scottish Hospitallers
during the Great Schism, CHR 52 (19667), 2405; W. Rees, A History of the Order of St.
John of Jerusalem in Wales and on the Welsh Border (Cardiff, 1947), passim.
90
C. L. Falkiner, The Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in Ireland, PRIA 26 (1907), C, 275
317; C. L. Tipton, The Irish Hospitallers during the Great Schism, PRIA 69 (1970), C, 3643.
91
See below, Chs. 57.
 Introduction 15

of the lordship.92 The Hospitals wealth, political importance, and crusading

activities sometimes prompted direct royal interference in its affairs. Usually
kings of England contented themselves with approving the appointments of
priors, restricting their movements outside the realm, and exacting loans and
taxation, but at times their interventions were more novel and dramatic.
Edward III, Edward IV, and Henry VIII proved especially vigorous in their
defence and extension of royal claims over the order. Edward III extracted
oaths of allegiance from priors of England, bullied the order into accepting
his candidates as brethren,93 and seized responsions when the convent
threatened the supremacy of the English prior over Torphichen. Edward
IV, as we will see, attempted to install his own candidates in the priory,
beheaded a legitimately elected prior for taking the eld against him at
Tewkesbury, and hindered another from proceeding to the relief of Rhodes
after the Ottoman siege of 1480. Still more dramatically, Henry VIII cons-
cated the Hospitals estates and proposed to divert its resources to the
defence of Calais in 15278, executed two of its brethren for loose talk
overseas, and nally dissolved it in 1540. The relations of kings of Scotland
and royal lieutenants in Ireland with the order might be equally turbulent.
James IV of Scotland granted Torphichen to his secretary in 1512, while
James Butler Earl of Ormond imprisoned prior Thomas FitzGerald and
conscated his assets in 1440.
Yet, despite the temptations to interference provided by the Hospitals
wealth and its international allegiances most rulers continued to allow its
export of men and money, the latter in the form of letters of exchange, to the
eastern Mediterranean. A cynic might remark that this was merely a way in
which they could support a cause to which they paid lip-service at no cost to
themselves, but there may be more to it than that. The defence and expan-
sion of Christendom might increasingly be subordinated to other concerns
but it remained a long-term goal of all catholic governments, which alter-
nated between cynicism, realism, and idealism when considering crusading
issues. As kings, rulers might object to their subjects leaving the realm to
combat the Turks, but as knights they might be expected to approve of such
activities, at least when they themselves were not at war. The Hospital also
had signicant ties with the wider political community. Some brethren were
bound to magnates by ties of clientage or service, and most had a close
relationship with members of the gentry, for whom the Hospital provided a
berth for surplus sons and grants of estates and ofces. Family connections
with the order often extended over two or three generations and sometimes
across centuries. Preceptors in mainland Britain might be signicant gures
in local society, maintaining ties with administrative elites and dispensing
ofces, lands, and liveries. Irish preceptors often played a local military role
in addition. By the fteenth century, most Hospitaller estates were leased,
92 93
Extents, 81120; see below, 2289. CCR13436, 107.
16 Introduction

the beneciaries ranging from yeomen to magnates. Around London, with

the increase in the size of the Tudor court, pressure was put on the order for
leases of plum estates like Hampton Court and Paris Garden. The require-
ments of hospitality established further ties between the order and court, and
the Hospitals shipment of monies and cloth overseas led it into relationships
with Italian bankers and English merchants alike.
Equally signicant was the orders spiritual and pastoral role.94 Although
their primary function was to send men and money to the east, preceptories
were religious houses in their own right, and shared the responsibility of all
such establishments for maintaining divine service and hospitality. The order
everywhere followed the liturgy of Jerusalem and its chapters-general fur-
ther ordained that certain feasts and patrons were to be particularly com-
memorated. In addition, the orders local houses might also erect chantries
or altars in honour of saints fashionable in the regions in which they were
situated. According to the wishes of their founders and patrons, some also
maintained hospitals, such as those at Skirbeck in Lincolnshire and Kilteel in
County Kildare, or choir schools. In parts of central and eastern Europe the
order was made responsible for signicant numbers of collegiate churches
and concentrated its energies on these rather more than on the struggle in the
east.95 A further dimension to Hospitaller spirituality was provided by its
forty-odd houses of nuns, some of which, including its house at Minchin
Buckland in Somerset, enjoyed considerable local support.96 But perhaps
most striking of all was the orders operation of a network of jurisdictional
peculiars. Papal bulls had conveyed considerable spiritual and jurisdic-
tional privileges and exemptions on the Hospital, including exemption
from tithes and procurations, from the jurisdiction of all ordinaries and
ecclesiastical authorities save the pope, and from excommunication and
interdict. Exploiting these to the full, the Hospitallers had their own
churches, courts, and cemeteries and were allowed to hold services in
times of interdict, to bury felons and suicides, and to act as confessors for
their servants and parishioners.97 Their tenants and those who made con-
fraternity payments to the order had a right to share in many of these
privileges, the extension of which to those who were neither tenants nor
confratres was a recurring source of clerical complaint from the twelfth
century onwards.98 Many of the laity, by contrast, evidently welcomed the

94
See below, Ch. 4.
95
A. T. Luttrell, The Spiritual Life of the Hospitallers of Rhodes, The Hospitaller State on
Rhodes and its Western Provinces (Aldershot, 1999), art. ix, 7596, at 79, 889.
96
T. Hugo, The History of Mynchin Buckland, Priory and Preceptory, in the County of
Somerset (London, 1861); M. Struckmeyer, The Sisters of the Hospital of St John at Buckland,
M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge (1999).
97
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 456, 37685; CPL, viii. 513.
98
R. B. Pugh, The Knights Hospitallers of England as Undertakers, Speculum, 56 (1981),
56674; Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 456, 3789, 383, 3859; Concilia magnae brittani-
cae et hibernicae, ed. D. Wilkins, 4 vols. (London, 17337), iii. 6189, 6256, 724, 726.
 Introduction 17

chance to be associated with the order: some thousands of persons in the

British Isles must have been its confratres or consorores, while considerably
smaller numbers sought burial in Hospitaller houses or left bequests to the
order in their wills.99 The order had also been granted various privileges by
the secular authorities. The English and Scottish crowns exempted it from
most taxes and feudal services, from local tolls, from the jurisdiction of the
royal courts, and technically from military service.100 Yet some of these
rights were being eroded or bypassed by the fourteenth century. In the
domains of the king of England, for example, the Hospital was subjected
to parliamentary taxation, while by the late thirteenth century regular
military service was expected of the orders brethren in Ireland, similar
requirements being occasionally imposed on English and Scottish Hospital-
lers in the fourteenth, fteenth, and sixteenth centuries.101
Less clear is what signicance the Hospital enjoyed in a local context by
reason of its international role. In the fteenth and sixteenth centuries the
Hospital was certainly the only military-religious order whose houses in the
British Isles still contributed to the defence of Christendom. Furthermore, in
some senses it was also the last British branch of the fully international
orders founded in the twelfth century still to maintain full ties to its head-
quarters. In the domains of the English crown those houses directly subject
to overseas mother-houses, the alien priories, had been nationalized or
conscated while others, such as the daughter-houses of the Cistercians,
had been almost severed from their parents, becoming virtually exempt
from overseas visitation and paying only nominal sums to headquarters.102
The friars largely retained their international character but, unlike the
Hospital, did not send large sums of money overseas. That is not to say
that the Hospital was immune to the pressures put on other international
orders, or that it did not have to adapt to them. Nevertheless it retained its
functions, organization, and priorities. It seems likely that its peculiar sur-
vival owed everything to its wider role. Had it not been engaged in the
defence of Christendom there is no reason to think that the Hospital in
the domains of the English crown would have been spared separation from
its overseas mother-house, dominated as the latter was by Frenchmen until
the mid-fteenth century. But this begs a number of questions. There is
considerable evidence that crusading, at least against non-Christians, was
regarded by most of the late medieval population of Britain and Ireland
as thoroughly respectable, but it is equally clear that fewer and fewer

99
See below, Ch. 4.
100
Chew, Priory, 1945.
101
See below, Chs. 5 to 7.
102
C. W. New, A History of the Alien Priories of England to the Conscation of Henry V
(Chicago, 1916); B. J. Thompson, The Laity, the Alien Priories and the Redistribution of
Ecclesiastical Property, in N. Rogers (ed.), England in the Fifteenth Century (Stamford,
1994), 1941; R. Graham, English Ecclesiastical Studies (London, 1929).
18 Introduction

persons born therein were personally involved in this struggle.103 In this

context, it needs to be determined whether the continued residence of a
contingent of British brethren in the orders central convent on Rhodes was
merely an anachronism, a relic of earlier enthusiasms, or rather an expression
of a still vital tradition. Was it a matter of oversight, of policy, or of zeal?
The activities of the British contingent in the Mediterranean are, of
course, not merely of interest in the context of perceptions of the orders
role at home. Although not particularly numerous, the brethren of the
English langue played a signicant part in the orders government and
military activities. They were represented on its governing bodies, they
held military, administrative, and judicial ofces at headquarters, and they
served in the orders fortications and galleys and in the household of its
master. Most distinctively, the head of the langue, the turcopolier, com-
manded a force of locally recruited cavalry which rode around Rhodes
checking on the alertness of those deputed to keep watch for enemy vessels,
and most dramatically, the brethren of the langue commanded a sector of the
walls where they fought and died in 1480 and 1522.104 Here, at least, the
Hospital and its British-born brethren lived up to their self-representations
in quite dramatic fashion. Yet at other times the order might be accused of
idleness or vainglory and might have to defend its record before western
princes, including kings of England and Scotland. Thus the orders diplo-
macy, in which English Hospitallers played a signicant role at times, also
requires study as a link between its conventual and local operations.
The chapters to follow will therefore deal with the activities of the British
brethren both in the west and at their Mediterranean headquarters. They are
broken down into three constituent areas. First, the orders internal organ-
ization is considered. Chapter 2 looks at the Hospitals organization and the
conventual life of its brethren in England and Wales, and considers the
admission and family background of brethren, the orders career structure
and the relationship between the prior of England and his brethren. It then
moves on to the immediate context in which brethren operatedtheir
conventual life, households and servantsbefore Chapter 3 analyses the
administration of the orders landed estates, the extent and sources of its
income and the dispatch of responsions to Rhodes. Secondly, I examine the
relationship between the Hospital and society in Britain and Ireland. In
Chapter 4, I will discuss how the order has been seen in wider historiograph-
ical treatments of crusading, and assess its development in the light of recent
scholarship on the place of the religious orders in late medieval British
society. The relations between the Hospitallers and the general populace
and clergy are also examined in the light of the orders crusading role, its
extension of spiritual privileges to communities and individuals, and its

103
C. Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 10951588 (Chicago, 1988), passim.
104
See below, Ch. 8.4.
 Introduction 19

dealings with its tenants. It is argued in Chapters 5 to 7 that the Hospitals

relationship with the governing authorities of the British Isles was by far the
most important of these interactions. I will consider the orders place in
national polities, and the tensions arising between kings and priors. Among
the subjects discussed in this context are the employment of priors of
England and Ireland as government servants, the role of the priory during
domestic political upheavals, and the extent of government interference in
prioral elections and in other appointments in the orders gift. Thirdly, in
Chapter 8, I will discuss the place of the English langue in the life of the
convent, with particular attention being given to the langue as a body, to the
varieties of conventual service which British members of the order per-
formed, and to the British involvement in the two Turkish sieges of Rhodes.
The role and functions of the turcopolier are also considered in detail. A brief
nal chapter looks at the careers of the remaining and former Hospitallers in
Malta and England in the years after the dissolution and at the restoration of
the priory in 15578, while appendices list dignitaries of the order, its British
and Irish members active between 1460 and 1565, and its income from its
English and Welsh lands in 1535 and 1540.
Despite the international and national importance of the order of St John,
no detailed discussion of the full range of its activities in the British Isles over
a substantial period has yet been written. A few general histories of the
English or British Hospitallers exist, but most have been populist works
produced by persons connected with the order in some way. Until the years
after the Second World War, there was little academic interest in the order in
the English-speaking world. Partly this is because there was no good general
history of the Hospital covering the later Middle Ages that might have
provided a framework in which to set the activities of its British brethren.
While Hospitaller history between 1310 and 1421 had been narrated by
Joseph Delaville le Roulx in 1913, no reliable and comprehensive institu-
tional history of the order in the years between 1421 and 1522 was pub-
lished until 2001.105 British scholars, moreover, were discouraged from
study of the orders archives by J. M. Kembles statement that there were
but few documents in the orders archives on Malta which related to its
English langue, its chancery registers being unrewarding in this respect.106
By 1914 the Maltese, at least, knew better, but the researches of scholars
such as Mifsud, Galea, Scicluna, and Vizzari de Sannazaro, naturally
enough, focused on the langues activities after its departure from Rhodes,
and only touched incidentally on earlier developments.107 It was not until
105
Sarnowskys magisterial Macht und Herrschaft, remedies this lack.
106
Report, p. vii; See also W. K. R. Bedford and R. Holbeche, The Order of the Hospital of
St. John of Jerusalem (London, 1902), 32: At Malta scarcely anything relating to the English
members of the order is preserved.
107
Mifsud, Venerable Tongue; J. Galea Henry VIII and the Order of St. John, Journal of the
Archaeological Association, 3rd ser., 12 (1949), 5969; BDVTE; Sannazaro, Venerable
Langue.
20 Introduction

the 1950s that extra-Mediterranean scholars such as Lionel Butler and

Charles Tipton displayed much interest in the langue. Like some of his
predecessors as librarians at St Johns Gate, Butler collected considerable
material without publishing very much, but Tipton was able to complete a
thesis and several articles covering the history of the langue between 1378
and 1409 before ceasing production in 1970.108 Since then useful studies of
individual priors based on both English and Maltese materials have been
published by Peter Field, Pamela Willis, and Anthony Gross, while Anthony
Luttrell has looked at the English contributions to the construction of
Bodrum and Jurgen Sarnowsky has examined the relationship between
kings and priors of England between 1450 and 1500.109 If Tipton and
Sarnowsky have produced competent narratives of fairly substantial
periods, their failure to make substantial use of English manuscript materials
has rendered their treatments less complete, than they might have been, and
they concentrate, in any case, on the relationship between the order and the
English crown to the neglect of its other activities in Britain and Ireland. Of
these, only onethe administration of the orders estateshas been the
subject of substantial study. A number of histories of individual Hospitaller
houses in Britain and Ireland have appeared, the best of them based on
locally produced archival materials110 and the most wide-ranging being
the works of William Rees of Michael Gervers and latterly of Barney Sloane
and Gordon Malcolm. Reess study is essentially an examination of the
commanderies of Slebech, Halston, and Dinmore, based on considerable
knowledge of English and Welsh sources, but demonstrating little awareness
of the orders wider role.111 Michael Gerverss work on the Hospitaller
cartulary of 1442 is much more impressive. Besides editing the sections of
the document relating to Essex, Gervers has also analysed both the growth

108
London, SJG, Butler Papers; C. L. Tipton, The English Langue of the Knights Hospi-
tallers during the Great Schism, Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California, 1964; id.,
English and Scottish Hospitallers; id., The English Hospitallers during the Great Schism,
Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 4 (1967), 91124; id., Irish Hospitallers.
109
P. J. C. Field, Sir Robert Malory, Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in England
(14321439/40), JEH 28 (1977), 24964; id., The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Malory
(Cambridge, 1993), 6882; P. Willis, Sir John Langstrother, a Fifteenth Century Knight of St
John, SJHSP 2 (1990), 307; A. Gross, The Dissolution of the Lancastrian Kingship: Sir John
Fortescue and the Crisis of Monarchy in Fifteenth-Century England (Stamford, 1996), 1079,
1213, 12732; A. T. Luttrell, English Contributions to the Hospitaller Castle at Bodrum in
Turkey: 14071437, MO ii. 16372; J. Sarnowsky, Kings and Priors: The Hospitaller Priory of
England in the Later Fifteenth Century, MMR 83102.
110
See in particular Hugo, Mynchin Buckland; id., The History of Eagle, in the County of
Lincolnshire, a Commandery of the Knights Hospitallers of St John of Jerusalem (London,
1876); E. Hermitage Day, The Preceptory of the Knights Hospitallers at Dinmore, Western
Hereford, OSJHP 3 (1930); E. Puddy, A Short History of the Order of the Hospital of St. John
of Jerusalem in Norfolk (Dereham, 1961); E. Gooder, Temple Balsall: From Hospitallers to a
Caring Community, 1322 to Modern Times (Chichester, 1999); S. Thurley, Hampton Court:
A Social and Architectural History (London, 2003).
111
Rees, Wales.
 Introduction 21

and administration of the Hospitals landed estate, and the development of

its archival organization. His work provides a great body of material against
which to measure the orders estate management in the fteenth and six-
teenth centuries. His work is both enriched and complemented by the
exceptionally thorough and highly stimulating archaeological examination
of the prioral headquarters at Clerkenwell recently published by Drs Sloane
and Malcolm under the auspices of the Museum of London. This volume
reveals the priory to have had the character of a palace as much as that of a
religious house, and makes apparent the considerable size and sophistication
of the architectural elements which formerly populated the site.112 Yet only
one study, the Scottish History Societys 1982 volume on the Hospital in
Scotland, attempts to synthesize both local and Maltese archival material to
examine any signicant proportion of the Hospitallers post-1409 British
history in real depth. This collection of previously unprinted sources draws
together a wide range of material, prefaced by a useful study of the orders
history and administration in Scotland, and the activities of its brethren in
England, Rhodes, and Malta.113 A catalogue of documents relating to the
orders Scottish brethren in the orders archives in Malta is appended.
The present volume attempts to take account of a similar range of mater-
ials. The most important sources for the fteenth- and sixteenth-century
history of the order of St John in Britain and Ireland are those produced by
the Hospitallers themselves. The orders archives, housed in the National
Library of Malta, are divided into seventeen classes of document, of which
three have been used extensively in preparing this study. These are the Libri
Conciliorum (minute books of the orders council), Libri Bullarum (registers
of magistral and conventual bulls), and proceedings of chapters-general. The
Libri Conciliorum, which survive from 1459, note the elections of the chief
dignitaries of the English langue, the squabbles of its brethren over seniority
and appointments, the punishment of their breaches of discipline, and their
tenure of conventual ofces and military commands. Light is shed, too, on
the prerogatives and functions of the turcopolier and on the relationships
between the Scottish and Irish-born brethren and their more numerous
English counterparts.114 The Libri Bullarum, which cover most of the period
after 1399, are still more valuable, recording the resolution of the debates
noted in the books of the council and a great many less controversial
decisions besides. Among the issues they document are the movements of

112
M. Gervers, The Hospitaller Cartulary in the British Library (Cotton MS Nero EVI)
(Toronto, 1981); id. (ed.), The Cartulary of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in England.
Secunda Camera. Essex (London, 1982); id. (ed.), The Cartulary of the Knights of St. John
in England. Prima Camera. Essex (Oxford, 1996): Excavations.
113
Scotland.
114
AOM 73 et seq.; discussed in Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 1112. Unless otherwise
stated, I have used the modern pencil foliation rather than the original or intermediate foliations
when referring to the documents in the Maltese archives.
22 Introduction

brethren to and from convent, the appointment of priors, commanders,

visitors, and nancial ofcials to posts in all parts of Britain and Ireland,
payments of monies by British knights in convent, assignments on the
orders English revenues made out to Hospitallers and merchants, and the
instructions issued to ambassadors going to Westminster and Edinburgh.115
The third great class of the orders medieval chancery documents, the
proceedings of its chapters-general, record the work of most of the meetings
held between 1454 and 1565, and besides more generally applicable legis-
lation, include decisions on many of the disputes involving British brethren
referred to chapter by the master and council.116 Other pertinent material is
scattered elsewhere in the archives, particularly in section I, the miscellan-
eous original documents comprising which include Henry VIIIs 1537 char-
ter to the order, a collection of letters from the same monarch to grand
master LIsle Adam dating from 1524 to 1534, the accounts of the English
auberge in Viterbo from 1525 to 1527, and most signicantly the Ricette
dInghilterre, the accounts presented by receivers of the common treasury in
England to the chief nancial ofcers in convent between 1520 and 1536.117
These not only provide a detailed account of the responsions paid and
arrears owing from the whole of the British Isles, but also list the expenses
incurred by receivers and their deputies in the exercise of their ofcers, and
illustrate the exchange operations in which the English brethren were in-
volved.118 The most important documents relating solely to the English
langue to be found elsewhere in the archives are the 1338 extent of its
possessions, income, and outgoings in England and Wales and the minute
book of the proceedings of the English langue between 1523 and 1567, both
of which have long been published.119 From the point of view of this study,
the 1338 extent, like the cartulary of 1442, chiey provides a point of
comparison against which to set later developments, but the minute book
of the langue furnishes a great deal of evidence on the workings and com-
petence of that body, on the interactions between its brethren, and on their
military service.
Along with the products of the orders conventual chancery, a number of
documents produced in Hospitaller houses in Britain and Ireland also sur-
vive. Of these the most substantial and important for the period covered by
this study are the registers of the grants of provincial chapters held in
England between 1492 and 1539.120 These provide evidence of the farming
out of the orders estates, parish churches, and confraternity collections in

115
AOM316 et seq.; discussed in Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 1113.
116
AOM2828.
117
AOM36; 57, cc. 112 (original numeration); 53, fos. 70r72r (49r51r); 54.
118
Further information about exchange dealings can be gleaned from the Libri Bullarum and
various materials in England and Italy.
119
Report; BDVTE.
120
London, BL, MS Lansdowne 200; BL MS Cotton Claudius E.vi; London, PRO, LR2/62.
 Introduction 23

England and Wales,121 besides recording grants of corrodies, chaplaincies,

and ofces to the orders servants and associates, manumissions of servile
tenants, and short-term leases of the commanderies of those brethren resi-
dent in or on their way to convent. They thus illustrate not merely the
organization of the orders estates and the movements of its brethren but
also its connections with English and Welsh society. The evidence they
provide can usefully be set against the 1338 extent, the 1442 cartulary,
and the surviving fteenth- and sixteenth-century estate documents and
court rolls of Hospitaller commanderies and manors, only a selection of
which have been utilized in this study.122 But the lease books are not
comprehensive guides to the orders landholdings or their administration.
The closest we have to such are the crowns great survey of the churchs
holdings in England and Wales, the Valor Ecclesiasticus of 1535, the prot
and loss accounts of former Hospitaller estates produced by the ministers of
the English crown from 15401, and the crown surveys of former Irish
monastic estates in Ireland of the same period.123 None of these is quite
comprehensive, but the Ministers Accounts and crown surveys, in particu-
lar, provide a wide variety of information about the running of most of the
orders estates, and not simply those leased out by its provincial chapters.
A similar, internally produced extent of the orders estates in Scotland was
commissioned by the preceptor of Torphichen, Walter Lindsay, in 1539.124
A miscellany of other documents produced by the Hospital also survives in
repositories in Britain and Ireland. These include copies of its privileges,
grants of confraternity and indulgences drawn up by its brethren or agents,
and even a brief late fourteenth-century chronicle.125
Much information concerning the order, particularly that illustrating its
relationship with wider society in Britain and Ireland, derives from sources
produced by other corporations. The most signicant corporate sources are
the chancery, legal, parliamentary, and exchequer records of the English and
Scottish crowns, bishops registers, and the materials in Venice and Rome
calendared by HMSO, all of which have been used herein. Of these, the chief
runs of royal grants and acts in chancery, council, and parliament have of
course been calendared, but legal records have, by and large, not been, and
recourse has therefore been had to the unpublished records of the English

121
For similar developments in Scotland, see Scotland, lxiilxiv.
122
BL Additional MSS 5493, 5539; BL Cotton Charter xxv, 2; BL Harleian Charter 44E.26,
2831, 33, 39, 40, 435, 47; 57F.18; BL Sloane Ch. xxi, 10; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS
Rawlinson Essex 11.
123
Valor; PRO SC6/Henry VIII/2402, 4458, 72624, 7268, 7272, 7274; Extents.
124
Scotland, lxxxi, lxxvlxxviii, lxxxilxxxvi, 140.
125
BL Sloane Ch. xxxii, 15, 27; BL Cotton Ch. iv., 31; BL Additional Ch.14030, 20679;
E. G. Duff, Fifteenth Century English Books: A Bibliography of Books and Documents Printed
in England and of Books for the English Market Printed Abroad (Oxford, 1917), nos. 2048;
BL Additional MS 17319, fos. 119; M. L. Colker, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Medieval and
Renaissance Manuscripts in Trinity College, Dublin, 2 vols. (Dublin, 1991), ii. 9225.
24 Introduction

courts of chancery, star chamber, and requests. If estate records, particularly

grants of leases, present a generally formal picture of the relationship between
the order and its tenants, surviving legal documents demonstrate what might
happen if this should break down, and illustrate the response the order
adopted when faced with recalcitrant tenants who damaged its property or
refused to vacate their leases. As might be expected, the expansion of the
administrative activity of both British crowns, particularly the English, in
the period covered by this study resulted in increasingly rich and informative
documentation of all the orders activities. Most signicantly, an increasing
concern to retain correspondence and personal papers of interest to the state
resulted in a more substantial body of diplomatic and other correspondence
between both the order and its members and the English and Scottish crowns
surviving from the sixteenth than from any earlier century. These illustrate
some matters, such as the internal tensions and rivalries obtaining between
members of the English langue in the 1530s, very fully.126 Fifteenth-century
correspondence concerning the order is much less substantial, but all the main
collections of family papers surviving from England, with the exception of the
Armburgh papers, contain items relating to the Hospital, as of course does the
surviving correspondence of the English and Scottish crowns. Taken together
with bishops registers, proceedings of church councils, and chronicles, pri-
vate correspondence provides important information about both the orders
relationship with society and its activities in the public sphere. Where corres-
pondence is largely lacking, as in Ireland, the importance of the records of the
state and of the episcopacy becomes still more crucial.
These materials make possible the study of the Hospitallers of the English
langue in some depth. Their individual wealth, status, and mixture of reli-
gious profession and military occupation made them exceptional among
members of religious orders in late medieval Britain and Ireland. They
could, moreover, be seen in various guises. Their continued commitment to
their military functions was exceptional in a British context, and the extent
of their nancial and institutional attachment to their overseas mother-
house was hardly less remarkable. They certainly represented themselves
as active campaigners against the indel, but they also performed a number
of functions only tangentially related to their military operations, and which
probably affected perceptions of them. Thus governments might see them in
terms of the services they could perform on royal behalf, while to the clergy
they might represent an intrusion into their pastoral care for the laity, and to
the populace they were important as a reservoir of spiritual and temporal
privilege, or as landowners and employers. This work will attempt to
examine all of these roles, and to hold them, as the Hospitallers tried to
do, in balance.

126
Of particular importance is BL MS Cotton Otho C.ix, a collection of correspondence
relating chiey to the order of St John and dating from 1510 to 1540.
 CHAPT ER TWO

The Hospital in England and

Wales, c.14601540: The Prior,
his Brethren, and Conventual Life

By the time Paschal II placed it under papal protection in 1113, the Hospital
of St John in Jerusalem was already planning to establish or acquire subsid-
iary xenodochia in Italy and southern France.1 Although these establish-
ments on the pilgrim routes to Jerusalem were to serve as an extension of the
Hospitals charitable functions, the accordance of papal protection and
recognition to the nascent order prompted further grants of lands, rents,
and properties throughout Latin Christendom, a process intensied by the
orders increasing prominence in the defence of the Holy Land after the
second crusade. By conrming the subjugation of the Hospitals overseas
territories to the mother-house in Jerusalem, the bull of 1113 and the
privileges which followed it also helped pave the way for the development
of a centralized international order whose houses in western Europe were
geared towards providing it with men, money, food, and clothing for the
provision of hospitality to sick pilgrims and the defence of the Latin East. By
the thirteenth century a network of regional, priories and subordinate local
preceptories had been established to supply the convent in the Holy Land
with these necessities, a function it continued to full for hundreds of years
to come. Yet the orders local houses were not merely adjuncts to its central
convent in the east. They were also religious houses with resident brethren
and a spiritual and liturgical life of their own, with some inuence on local
political and ecclesiastical affairs and with a close relationship with the laity,
to whom they provided spiritual services such as confession, marriage, and
burial outside the constraints of the parochial system. The following chapter
will examine these characteristics, concentrating rst on the orders brethren
and their recruitment, families, and career structure, before looking at their
conventual life and households.

1
The Rule, Customs and Statutes of the Hospitallers 10991310, ed. and trans. E. King
(London, 1934), 1619, 18. For discussion of these supposed establishments, see Luttrell,
Earliest Hospitallers, 4452.
26 The Prior and his Brethren

2.1 Brethren

The professed brethren of the Hospital were divided into knights, chaplains,
and sergeants, whether sergeants-at-arms or sergeants-at-ofce.2 There were
also Hospitaller nuns, who in the priory of England had been gathered in one
house, Minchin Buckland in Somerset, since 1180, but whose activities will
not be much considered here.3 Among the brethren, chaplains had originally
enjoyed precedence but had been ousted from this by the knights in the
1230s.4 The ceremony for the reception of a brother of any class into the
order was essentially the same as it had been in the twelfth century, although
some renements had been added. The candidate appeared before a chapter
of the order shriven and wearing a white gown to show himself free and
presented himself before the altar, a burning candle in his hand signifying the
re of charitable love. He then heard mass, received the eucharist, and asked
the receiving brother to admit him to the company of the Hospital. The
receiving brother underlined the privileges and hardships involved in mem-
bership and stressed the impediments to reception: a prior vow to another
religion, a marital contract, grave debts to a third party or servile status. If
the candidate professed himself free from these he then swore the three
substantial vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. He further promised
to be a slave of our lords the sick poor and to uphold the Catholic faith in
accordance with the orders Hospitaller and military traditions. In return he
was promised bread, water, humble clothing, and the inclusion of his parents
and kindred in the spiritual benets provided by the orders masses, ofces,
fasting, and alms-giving.5
While the admission ceremony itself was largely unaltered, the profound
changes which had occurred since the twelfth century in the orders own
ethos and those of the societies in which it operated were reected in a host
of regulations surrounding the entry of brethren, especially knight-brethren.
Just as secular knighthood was increasingly conferred only on candidates of
gentle family and legitimate birth, in 1262 the Hospital established that no
brother was to be knighted unless he was of knightly family, a stipulation
followed eight years later by the requirement that knights should be born of
legitimately married parents, unless they were the sons of counts or of
greater nobility.6 In the fteenth century these regulations were interpreted

2
Stabilimenta De receptione fratrum, ii.
3
A Cartulary of Buckland Priory in the County of Somerset, ed. F. W. Weaver, Somerset
Record Society, 25 (London, 1909), p. xviii and no. 7.
4
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 234, 238.
5
Cartulaire general de lordre des hospitaliers de S. Jean de Jerusalem, ed. J. Delaville le
Roulx, 4 vols. (Paris, 18941906), no. 2213 (Usances) #121; Stabilimenta, De receptione
fratrum, i, consuetudo.
6
Stabilimenta, De receptione fratrum, iv, vii (Statutes of Hugh Revel).
 The Prior and his Brethren 27

to mean that both parents of brother knights were to be gentlemanly in

name and arms.7 Chaplains and sergeants merely had to be legitimately and
freely born, although nuns were to have gentle parents.8 Not only were entry
conditions tightened: from the fourteenth century the reception of brethren
was also subjected to closer central control. Originally a candidate had been
able to present himself before any chapter meeting in any Hospitaller house
and be received. While this arrangement may have been suitable for the
provision of the large numbers of chaplains and sergeants-at-ofce required
by the orders charitable establishments in Palestine and for the rapid re-
cruitment of military brethren to replace the numerous casualties suffered in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, it was no longer appropriate in the years
after the conquest of Rhodes, when losses were less dramatic and the order
suffered from severe nancial difculties. In such circumstances the appear-
ance of large numbers of brethren from the west might be unwelcome, so
it was decided that no ofcer or brother of the order was to receive a brother
or donat without express magistral licence, unless there was a local shortage
of brother chaplains or sergeants-at-ofce.9 The reception of brethren
remained subject to magistral licence in the fteenth and sixteenth centuries,
as the surviving enrolments of licences to English knights to receive brethren
into the order testify. Those granted such permissions were to note the
candidates name and date of reception and afx their seals lest more than
the designated number be admitted.10
Statutes were also passed to ensure the suitability of candidates. Those
who knowingly received a religious of another order, a murderer, or some-
one whose previous life had been abominable were to be expelled from the
Hospital and priors, preceptors, and conventual brethren who admitted an
unworthy candidate into knighthood were to be deprived respectively of a
prioral camera (estate), a preceptory, or prospects of promotion. The same
penalties were to be inicted on those who testied inaccurately to the worth
of a candidate.11 In addition, during the mastership of Antoni Fluvia, the
system of requiring proofs of nobility from those intending to become
knight-brethren was instituted. Such men were henceforth to come before
the annual provincial chapter of their local priory, where information would
be presented concerning their origin, gentility, manners, disposition, and

7
Ibid., iv.
8
Ibid., i (consuetudo), v (Statute of Hugh Revel).
9
Ibid., De receptione fratrum, viiii (Statute of Helion de Villeneuve, 131946). The
Hospital had been passing measures to limit recruitment since 1292. A. Forey, Recruitment
to the Military Orders (Twelfth to Mid-Fourteenth Centuries), in id., Military Orders and
Crusades, art. ii, 13971, at 159.
10
Stabilimenta, De receptione fratrum, xvixvii (Statute of Antoni Fluvia, 142137).
11
Rule, ed. King, 6970 (Statute of Hugh Revel, 1265); Stabilimenta, De receptione fra-
trum, xii (Statute of Fluvia), xviii (Statute of Jacques de Milly, 145461. Original text:
AOM282, fo. 21rv). Similar penalties were also stipulated in other Military Orders. Forey,
Recruitment, 142, 1523.
28 The Prior and his Brethren

health in mind and body.12 By the 1480s, however, these provisions were
indifferently enforced, a statute of Pierre dAubusson noting that examin-
ation of the gentility and suitability of knights was rarely made, if ever.
Accordingly it was enacted that candidates for knighthood were to prove
their sufciency within two years of their reception by provincial chapter
and were to present such proofs within the same term to the master and
council ordinary in convent.13 For seven years thereafter these were to be
subject to challenge by such brethren as might object to their legitimacy.14
Those who failed to present sufcient proofs within two years were never to
rise above the grade of sergeant-at-ofce.15 This statute remained in force
throughout the remaining period of the orders existence in Britain and
Ireland.
A nal requirement for reception was sufcient age. In 1433 it was laid
down that no brother was to be received under the age of 14 and that those
received at this age, although they would be clothed and fed by the order,
were not to receive the stipend paid to their elders, to bear arms, or to count
the seniority on which the orders promotion system was based until they
were 18.16 In 1504 it was further ordained that brethren received in the
western priories should be at least 18.17 Similarly, brother chaplains were
not to be received until they had served the order for a year and were subject
to the usual canonical restrictions on the age at which they could be
ordained.18
In 1338 there were 113 or more professed brethren subject to the priory in
England, Wales, and Scotland and one more in France.19 They lived in fty
houses, of which forty-two were bajuliae subject to a preceptor, and eight

12
Stabilimenta, De receptione fratrum, xvi (Statute of Fluvia); Sarnowsky, Macht und
Herrschaft, 198. In 1452 the langue of Italy insisted that a prospective knight provide written
testimony of his suitability from the prior of Pisa, another named brother and several, more of
the priorys brethren within a year. S. Fiorini and A. T. Luttrell, The Italian Hospitallers at
Rhodes, 14371462, Revue Mabillon, 68 (1996), 20931, at 2289.
13
Stabilimenta, De receptione fratrum, xix, xx (Statutes of Pierre dAubusson, 147889).
14
Ibid., xix (Statute of dAubusson).
15
Ibid., xx (Statute of dAubusson).
16
Ibid., xv (Statute of Fluvia); AOM1649, fo. 329rv.
17
AOM284, fo. 77v; Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 199.
18
Stabilimenta, De ecclesia, xiiii (Statute of Revel).
19
Kembles introduction to the Report of 1338 names 116 supposed brethren found therein.
However, Robert de Norfolk, Thomas FitzNeel, and William West, who are listed as in loco
militis and John Baruwe, who appears in loco capellani were corrodians rather than professed
brethren, while Henry of Buckston, Alan Macy, and John de Thame, all of whom Kemble lists
twice, should only appear once. It is also unclear whether Walter Launcelyn, who was described
as a chaplain, was a brother of the Hospital, as Kemble assumed. However, one sergeant,
William Hustwayte, and four brethren of uncertain class whom Kemble does not list among
his 116 names can be added to the overall total, giving a gure of 113 or 114 professed brethren,
to which can be added Richard de Barnewell, who was in charge of the preceptory of Diluge
in France, and the prior himself, who is not named anywhere except in the title of the report.
It is worth noting however, that the Hospitallers themselves counted 119 brethren. Report,
pp. lxilxiii, 214.
 The Prior and his Brethren 29

were camerae governed by a custos.20 Most houses had between one and
three resident brethren, the exceptions being Clerkenwell, where there were
seven, Buckland, with six, and Chippenham, where four Hospitallers cared
for six or seven of their sick brethren in a small hospital.21 Fifty Hospitaller
nuns dwelt at the priory of Buckland in addition to the brethren at the
preceptory there.22 In 1338 chaplains and sergeants played a full part in
both conventual life and administration. Chaplains were about as numerous
as brother knights, while sergeants outnumbered both.23 Seventeen ser-
geants and six chaplains held bajuliae.24
By the late fteenth century this situation had greatly altered. Professed
sergeants, although still existing in small numbers in continental Europe and
on Rhodes,25 had disappeared completely in the priory of England. While an
English brother was licensed to receive two brother sergeants in 1439, and
an agreement of 14401 envisaged provision being made for professed
sergeants or chaplains in the small, priorally held preceptories of Hogshaw,
Greenham, Maltby, and Poling, no reference to a British brother sergeant
can be found in the orders records between 1460 and 1560.26 Professed
chaplains did not fare much better. Although there were still a number
resident at Clerkenwell in the early fteenth century and the 1460s,27 and
the conventual church there continued to be under the jurisdiction of a
professed subprior until the Dissolution, no English, Scottish, or Welsh
preceptory was granted to a brother chaplain after 1460, except perhaps
Clerkenwell, where in the 1440s the subprior held the title of preceptor but
was in effect a salaried ofcer of the prior without control of the revenues of
the house.28 Nor are chaplains recorded at the provincial chapters for which

20
Included in this latter gure are the camerae of Stanton, which was under the rule of the
preceptor of Dinmore, who may not have resided at the smaller house, and of Upleadon, under
the custos Robert Cort. This was probably the same man as the preceptor of Eagle and Temple
Brewer, and Upleadon may thus have been uninhabited. Not included is the camera of Ashley,
which was in the charge of a former Templar, Roger de Dalton. Report, 200, 196, 121.
21
Ibid. 101, 19, 78, 80.
22
Ibid. 19.
23
Kemble in his notes to Thames Report, pp. lxilxiii, divided the brethren into thirty-four
knights, forty-eight sergeants-at-arms, and thirty-four chaplains. Dr Forey has suggested gures
of thirty-one knights and forty-seven sergeants. Forey, Recruitment, 145.
24
Report, passim.
25
A statute of 1467 stipulated that twenty of the brethren expected to live in convent should
be sergeants. In later years the total number of brethren was increased but the contingent of
sergeants, none of whom was to be from the English langue, remained constant. AOM283, fos.
39rv; 144r; 285, fo. 2r.
26
AOM354, fos. 200v, 215r.
27
Between 1417 and 1422 Henry V ordered the prior of England, William Hulles, to make
sure that the prioral church should be fully conventual, as it had been until the time of Edward
III, rather than supporting secular clergy and two or three professed brethren. In 1469 the
subprior and two brother chaplains were among the brethren presenting John Langstrother to
the king. Monasticon anglicanum, ed. W. Dugdale et al., 6 vols. in 8 (London, 181730), vi, II,
839, CCR146876, 1012.
28
AOM355, fo. 168v.
30 The Prior and his Brethren

attendance lists survive between 1492 and 1529, save for an assembly of
1515, at which Robert Parapart, the subprior, and John Blome, brother
chaplain, were present, probably in order to render the gathering quorate.29
References to professed chaplains are indeed so scarce that it is unlikely that
there were ever more than about six or seven residing in England at any time
after c.1460, the last magistral licence to admit English brother chaplains
into the order so that they could serve in Rhodes being granted in 1473.30
The orders appropriated churches were largely staffed by secular clergy,31 as
were its preceptory chapels,32 with the possible exception of Buckland,
leases of which specied that two of ve chaplains to be found by the lessee
were to be de cruce.33 Even at Clerkenwell, only one of the priests or
chaplains appointed to serve and sing in the church of St John between
1492 and 1526 was described as brother.34 Although some of the chaplains
appointed to ofces at Clerkenwell were probably later professed, priests in
the orders service, denied promotion to preceptories, may generally have
avoided taking vows which would no longer enhance their career pro-
spects.35 There were exceptions. John Mablestone was clearly marked out
for advancement from early in his career, and was already a brother when he
was ordained priest in 1510. He received the orders wealthy benece of
Ludgershall in 1511 and was dispatched shortly afterwards to Bologna,
where he took doctorates in each law later in the same decade.36 His absence
from his cure in the meantime was permitted under a papal privilege of

29
Claudius E.vi, fo. 156v. The 1478 chapter-general had ruled that the common seal of
the priory should only be used in chapter and in the presence of four preceptors. AOM283,
fo. 183rv.
30
AOM384, fo. 72rv.
31
Possible exceptions include brother William Corner, who held the rectory of Swarraton,
subject to the preceptory of Baddesley, until his death in 1493, and a brother Stephen Bekley
who died as rector of the orders benece of Knolton in 1487, but it is uncertain whether either
of these was a Hospitaller rather than a regular of another order. The Register of John Morton
Archbishop of Canterbury 14861500, ed. C. Harper-Bill, 3 vols, CYS, 75 (York, 1985); 78, 89
(Woodbridge, 19872000), ii, no. 119; i, no. 370.
32
The registers of the orders provincial chapters note numerous appointments of preceptory
chaplains. John Lyndesey, appointed chaplain of Maltby in 1492, was the only professed
recipient of such a grant. BL MS Lansdowne 200, fo. 4v.
33
Lansdowne 200, fos. 84rv; BL MS Claudius E.vi, fos. 56v57r, 169r. In 1506 the Hospi-
taller prioress of Buckland, Joan Coffyn, and a Freere Thomas Coort witnessed the will of the
farmer of the preceptory of Buckland. Somerset Medieval Wills 13831550, ed. F. W. Weaver,
Somerset Record Society, 3 vols. in 1 (repr. Gloucester, 1983), ii. 105.
34
Claudius E.vi, fo. 254r.
35
Dr Forey has noted that even in the fourteenth century the international orders seem to
have experienced long-term difculties in nding sufcient clerics who wanted to take the
habit. With the decline in population and decrease in admissions to religious houses after the
Black Death, recruitment difculties probably increased. In 1531 the order was having trouble
recruiting secular priests to serve at Clerkenwell. Forey, Recruitment, 158; LPFD, v, no. 111.
36
London, Guildhall Library MS 9531/9, fo. 159r/171r (consulted from Cambridge Univer-
sity Library Manuscript Microlm 8271); A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the Uni-
versity of Oxford A.D.1501 to 1540 (Oxford, 1974), 688; An Episcopal Court Book of the
Diocese of Lincoln 15141520, ed. M. Bowker, Lincoln Record Society, 61 (Lincoln, 1967), 25.
 The Prior and his Brethren 31

1448, which allowed the prior of England to retain eight chaplains in his
own service.37 Yet he does not appear as brother chaplain or brother
priest in the orders internal documents until 1524.38 He was appointed
chancellor of the priory in 1526, and was subprior by the 1530s, a position
he retained until the dissolution.39 But in 1540 only four non-knights,
including Mablestone, were granted a pension, and it is not certain that
the master of the Temple, William Armistead, and his subordinate chaplains
were also professed. A pension had also been granted to the chaplain of the
nuns at Buckland, brother William Mawdesley, in 1539.40
Despite the Hospitals general failure to attract brother chaplains, it was
happy to allow members of other orders to enter its ranks, and may even
have poached them. Two outstanding defectors were John Tynemouth, a
Franciscan doctor of theology admitted to the Hospital without licence from
his superiors in 1506,41 and Philip Underwood, who had been in charge of
the nances of the Charterhouse for some years and was received as a
confrater in 1514.42 Tynemouth was appointed rector of Ludgershall in
1506, and prebendary of Blewbury, perhaps the most important benece
in the orders gift, in 1511.43 Yet if some gifted men were attracted to the
orders service, others were lost. A Hospitaller who became a suffragan
bishop, William Bachelor,44 was so busy on diocesan affairs that it is
unlikely that he did his order, which had presumably trained and educated
him, much service.
Although it was clearly important to the Hospital that its subprior and
perhaps some of its chief benece holders should be professed and educated,
it is often difcult to distinguish its clerical brethren from the priests and
chaplains who staffed its appropriated churches and commandery chapels.45
Far more information survives about the orders knights, a majority among
its brethren from at least the 1370s.46 Recruitment of brother knights was
largely governed by the requirements of the central convent rather than
requests for admittance in England. In accordance with the statutes most
37
Episcopal Court Book, ed. Bowker, 25; CPL x. 189.
38
Claudius E.vi, fos. 238r, 254r.
39
AOM412, fos. 191rv, 197v198r; LPFD, xi, no. 917.
40
Statutes, iii. 780; LPFD, xv, no. 1032, p. 544.
41
CPL, xviii, no. 37. For Tynemouths previous career see A. B. Emden, A Biographical
Register of the University of Cambridge to A.D.1500 (Cambridge, 1963), 602.
42
Claudius E.vi, fo. 132r; AOM404, fo. 146v.
43
Emden, Cambridge, 602.
44
Bachelor, who held a bishopric in partibus, was involved in the administration of Chiche-
ster diocese. Another supposed Hospitaller bishop, Thomas Cornish, was associated rather with
the hospital of St John Baptist in Wells. HBC 286; J. A. F. Thomson, Richard Tollet and Thomas
Cornish: Two West Country Early Tudor Churchmen, Southern History, 19 (1997), 6173, at
67.
45
For these see below, 54, 75, 101.
46
Tipton listed only thirteen of seventy-seven or seventy-eight brethren of the priory of
England active between 1378 and 1409 as priests or chaplains, although some of the remainder
were probably priests. Tipton, English Langue, 1228.
32 The Prior and his Brethren

knight-brethren must have received the habit during a provincial chapter,

following which they were dispatched to the convent. Additionally, magis-
tral licences were occasionally granted to senior brethren to admit specied
numbers of knights or chaplains into the order. Between 1460 and 1511
faculties to receive sixty-six knights and three chaplains into the priories of
England and Ireland were enrolled in the Libri Bullarum.47 The reasons for
their issue are rarely specied but they probably served both as rewards for
prominent knights and as a means of providing manpower quickly. In
December 1471, for example, a licence to William Tornay to admit six
knights was issued at the request of the English brethren in convent, who
were concerned at their low numbers at a time when the order was heavily
committed to war against the Turks. Those received were to be dispatched to
Rhodes with the rst safe passage.48 At other times brethren might be
admitted by request. Thus in February 1467 Robert Botill was empowered
to admit ve knights at the instance of the king and others of the blood royal,
while in 1502 two Italian knights were instructed to investigate the suitabil-
ity of Robert Stewart, the nephew of the seigneur dAubigny, whose admis-
sion was being urged by his uncle and the duke of Nemours.49
Such commissions insisted that the receiving brother establish the suit-
ability of the candidate before a provincial chapter before knighting him,
conferring the habit on him and, with the licence of his superior, dispatching
him to the convent. When the probationary knight reached headquarters he
would be admitted into the English langue on condition that his proofs
follow within two years.50 Brethren who attempted to bypass these proced-
ures, such as Robert Pemberton in 1498 and Humphrey Bevercotes in 1505,
were told to arrange to have their proofs examined before a provincial
chapter like their fellows.51
Although challenges were issued to probationary brethren to prove their
age, and hence their eligibility for the ancienitas (seniority) necessary to
seek promotion, in 1436, 1474, and 1487,52 and one prospective brother,
Thomas Waring, was rejected by the langue as physically invalid and of bad
character, objections to the suitability of prospective brethren for knight-
hood usually focused on the insufciency of the proofs rather than on the

47
AOM370, fo. 142r; 371, fo. 142r; 374, fo. 142v; 375, fo. 102r; 376, fo. 157v; 378, fos.
148v, 149v150r; 380, fo. 137v; 382, fo. 138v; 384, fos. 57rv, 61r bis, 72rv, 72v; 385, fo. 129v;
386, fo. 131r; 388, fo. 134v; 390, fo. 131v; 392, fo. 100r; 395, fos. 142r, 148rv, 148v; 397, fo.
139v; 400, fo. 150v.
48
AOM384, fo. 61r.
49
AOM393, fos. 113rv; 394, fo. 171r (calendared in Scotland, 1712). The Stewarts had
been lords of Aubigny in Berry since 1423. The Seigneur, the aged Beraud Stewart, was serving
as governor of Calabria for Louis XII. Nemours was the commander of the French forces in
southern Italy, where Robert was to be received into the order. G. E. Cockayne (ed.), Complete
Peerage, New edn., ed. V. Gibbs et al., 13 vols. (London, 191059), i. 3278.
50
Stabilimenta, De receptione fratrum, xx (Statute of dAubusson).
51
AOM78, fos. 90v91r; 81, fos. 16v17r.
52
Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 160; AOM382, fo. 136v; 68, fo. 128r; 76, fo. 209r; 389, fo. 134r.
 The Prior and his Brethren 33

failings of the candidate.53 Even when these were rejected by the langue,
however, the brother in question might be given time to produce others
formeable accordyng to the stablishment, as Thomas Rawson was in
October 1528.54 Waring, indeed, seems to have been the only Englishman
whose proofs were so irregular that he was permanently denied entry,
although the turcopolier Clement West claimed that his admission had
been blocked by another senior knight-brother, Giles Russell, whose cousin
Anthony would have held the same ancienitas as Waring had he been
admitted.55
With the possible exception of Bevercotes, who, impelled by the devotion
he felt for the Jerusalemite order, arrived in Rhodes without prior admission
in England,56 it is difcult to say whether probationary knights were motiv-
ated to join the order by a genuine vocation or by the rather contradictory
enticements of military adventure and the subsequent attainment of a com-
fortable living in England. What can be stated with condence is that many
were encouraged by existing family connections with the order. Incidental
references in the orders internal documents, heralds visitations, and family
pedigrees prove a large number of family relationships between members of
the order and hint at many more. Among at least 185 knight-brethren active
in the priory of England between 1460 and 1559 no less than seventy-nine
shared a surname with one or other of their fellows,57 while a fair propor-
tion of others came from families that had provided the Hospital with
brethren in the relatively recent past, such as the Malorys, Multons, and
Wests. Additionally, several more knights appear to have been related to a
sister or professed chaplain of the order58 and close ties of kinship existed
between a number of Hospitaller families. When the orders chief tenants
and ofcers are thrown into the equation sympathy for Fields statement that
the late medieval English Hospitallers always arouse suspicions of nepo-
tism threatens to become overwhelming.59
The exact nature of the family relationships between members of the
order is often unclear. Being celibate and ideally leaving no offspring, pro-
fessed Hospitallers seem frequently to have been omitted from the family
pedigrees given to Heralds, and being required to pass on their effects to the

53
AOM86, fos. 11r, 55r. Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 289.
54
BDVTE, 43.
55
LPFD, xii, I, no.1144. West described Anthony Russell as Giless nephew.
56
AOM81, fos. 16v17r.
57
See Appendix VII. I have included the Scots but not the Irish, as they belonged to a separate
priory, in this total. Excluded from the total of related brethren are Blase and Ralph Villers, who
I think were one and the same, and Robert and Alexander Stewart, as it is not certain that either
of them actually entered the order. Also excluded are James Sandilands junior, who I believe is
identical with John James Sandilands; John Shelley and Thomas Waring.
58
Joan Babington, Thomasina Huntington, and Juliana Kendal all seem likely to have been
relations of Hospitaller knights, as does the professed chaplain Thomas Green. See Appendix
VII.
59
Field, Robert Malory, 258.
34 The Prior and his Brethren

order, they left no wills either. Where they occur in Heralds visitations, the
evidence is sometimes in conict with the orders internal documents, in
which nepos appears to have been used to denote any younger relative. Thus
while Lancelot Docwra appears in later visitation records as the son of
Robert Docwra of Kirkby Kendall, Westmorland, and the third cousin of
Thomas Docwra, the prior of England, in documents emanating from
Rhodes and Clerkenwell he occurs as the priors nepos.60 The priors close-
ness to both branches of the family may help resolve the matter, as it seems
possible that Lancelot, like other Westmoreland Docwras, was brought up
in Thomass household.61 Similar considerations arise when one examines
the family relationships between the four Babington knight-brethren. The
1569 visitation of Nottinghamshire states that John I (d. 1533) was a
member of the branch of the family seated at Dethick in Nottinghamshire,
a contention borne out by family wills and other evidence.62 Although his
younger contemporaries John (junior) and Philip are considered to be mem-
bers of the Devon branch of the family in the visitation, the orders archives
have John junior as John seniors nepos.63 Examination of the visitation and
family records, however, led G. T. Clark to reject the younger knights as
members of the Derbyshire branch and assign them to Devon along with the
fourth knight, James.64
Despite such difculties a number of kinship ties within and between
families connected with the order can be identied with condence. Without
implying that such extended Hospitaller families were typical, it may be
instructive to discuss three groupings involving some of the orders more
prominent knights. The most signicant of these was that centred on the
Weston family. The Westons themselves produced four Hospitallers in
the fteenth centuryThomas (d. 1456), John (d. 1489), William senior

60
The Visitations of Hertfordshire made by Robert Cooke, Esq., Clarencieux, in 1572, and
Sir Richard St. George, Kt., Clarencieux, in 1634, with Hertfordshire Pedigrees from Harleian
MSS. 6147 and 1546, ed. W. C. Metcalfe, HSP, 22 (London, 1886), 139; The Visitation of
Cambridgeshire made in Ao (1575), continued and enlarged wth the Vissitation of the Same
County made by Henery St George, Richmond-Herald, Marshall and Deputy to Willm. Cam-
den, Clarenceulx, in Ao 1619, wth Many Other Descents added thereto, ed. W. Clay, HSP 41
(London, 1897), 445; Claudius E.vi, fo. 173v; AOM393, fo. 143v; 404, fo. 149r. The last
source describes Lancelot as Thomass fraternal nephew.
61
For example, John Docwra, son and heir of Thomas Docwra of Kirkby Kendall, was
granted a messuage and stable just outside the priory gatehouse in 1524 and a corrody in the
same year, and was married in the priorys buttery in 1526. Claudius E.vi, fos. 129v, 129v130r;
Lansdowne 200, fo. 1r.
62
The Visitations of the County of Nottingham in the Years 1569 and 1614, with Many
Other Descents of the Same County, ed. G. W. Marshall, HSP, 4 (London, 1871), 152; North
Country Wills . . . 1383 to 1558, ed. J. W. Clay, Surtees Society, 116 (Durham, 1908), no. 35;
G. T. Clark, The Babingtons, Knights of St John, Archaeological Journal, 36 (1879), 21930,
at 2201, 224. The involvement of the Nottinghamshire Babingtons in the administration of the
orders estates can be traced in Claudius E.vi, fos. 7rv, 69v70r, 158rv, 202r, 258rv, 280rv, 287v;
PRO SC6/Henry VIII/7272 mm.1, 5, 6d, 12d; AOM54, fo. 176r.
63
Visitations of Nottingham, ed. Marshall, 152; BDVTE, 43.
64
Clark, Babingtons, 2279.
 The Prior and his Brethren 35

(d. c.14836), and William junior (d. 1540).65 Thomas Weston was probably
the uncle of John and William senior, who were in turn uncles of William
junior. All of these men were long-serving preceptors and John and Wil-
liam junior became turcopoliers and priors of England. Additionally the
family was related to at least three other Hospitaller families. The maternal
uncle of John and William Weston was the turcopolier William Dawney (d.
1468),66 who may himself have been related to the Dalison and Green families
which produced six or seven Hospitallers between them after 1450, and
through them to the Docwras.67 Moreover, in 1475 William Weston senior
was described by the orders chancery as the germanus of John Botill, the
preceptor of Quenington, and thus was also presumably a relative of Robert
Botill, the prior of England between 1440 and 1468.68 Finally, the son of
William Weston juniors sister Mabel, Thomas Dingley, became a brother
knight in 1526.69
A second network was built up between ve or more families between the
1460s and 1540s. These were the Lincolnshire families of Shefeld,70 Sut-
ton, Upton, and Coppledike, the baronial family of Sutton, Lords Dudley,
and possibly the Grantham and Barnaby families. The Shefelds had pro-
duced one Hospitaller knight, Bryan, by 1463. Another, Thomas, the second
son of Sir Robert Shefeld, entered the order in the 1480s or 1490s and
became receiver of the priory of England, bailiff of Eagle, and magistral
seneschal before his death in 1524.71 The Hospitaller impulse, if it can be so
termed, then passed via Thomas Shefelds sister Margaret, who married
Hamon Sutton of Burton-by-Lincoln, to her son John and daughter Marga-
ret.72 John Sutton became a Hospitaller preceptor and receiver of the priory
65
Thomas Weston was the preceptor of Ribstone between 1422 and 1456. PRO E315/18/14;
AOM366, fos. 115v116r.
66
The Visitations of the County of Surrey made and taken in the Years 1530 by Thomas
Benolte, Clarenceux King of Arms; 1572 by Robert Cooke, Clarenceux King of Arms; and 1623
by Samuel Thompson, Windsor Herald and Augustin Vincent, Rouge Croix Pursuivant, Mar-
shals and Deputies to William Camden, Clarenceux King of Arms, ed. W. Bruce Bannerman,
HSP, 43 (London, 1899), 7.
67
Dawneys niece Johanna married a William Dalison and a Gilbert Green was described
shortly after Dawneys death as his consanguineus. However, it is not at all clear that this Green
was related to the Hospitallers Thomas and James, or that either he or they were related to
Thomas Docwras mother, a daughter of Thomas Green of Gressingham, Lancashire. The
Visitation of Yorkshire in the Years 1563 and 1564, made by William Flower, Esquire, Norroy
King of Arms, ed. C. Best Norcliffe, HSP, 16 (London, 1881), 94; AOM377, fo. 249r; Visitations
of Hertfordshire, ed. Metcalfe, 139.
68
AOM75, fo. 86rv.
69
Visitations of Surrey, ed. Bannerman, 7; BDVTE, 42. See below, 21519.
70
The Shefelds were from South Cave, Yorkshire, but moved to Butterwick in Lincolnshire
after the marriage of Sir Robert Shefeld, the father of the Hospitaller Thomas, to the daughter
of Alexander Laund.
71
AOM374, fo. 139rv; S. T. Bindoff, (ed.), The History of Parliament: The House of
Commons 15091558 (London, 1982), iii. 3045; AOM284, fo. 2r; 394, fos. 177r178r; 409,
fo. 142v; 410, fos. 176rv; 54, fo. 132v.
72
Lincolnshire Pedigrees, ed. A. R. Maddison, 4 vols., continuously paginated, HSP, 502,
55 (London, 19013, 1906), iii. 939.
36 The Prior and his Brethren

like his uncle, while Margaret married rst William Coppledike of Harring-
ton and later became the second wife of Nicholas Upton of Northolme-by-
Waineet.73 Both her own son Thomas Coppledike and her stepson Nicho-
las Upton became Hospitallers.74 It is also probable that links with the
Lincolnshire Suttons prompted George Dudley alias Sutton, the son of
John Lord Dudley, to join the order, as his paternal aunt had married John
Suttons brother Robert. John Sutton, Thomas Coppledike, and Nicholas
Upton were all still alive when Dudley set off for Malta in 1545, and Upton
was there to receive him.75 Sisters of John Sutton also married into the
Barnaby and Grantham families, although it is unclear whether these were
the same branches that produced knights of the order in the 1520s.76
Similarly close relations existed between the Kendal, Tonge, and probably
Langstrother families. The Tonges produced three knight-brethren in the
fteenth century, William (d. after 1446), Robert (d. 1481), and John
(d. 1510), all of whom held preceptories.77 Although the relationship be-
tween the Tonges themselves has not yet been determined, John Tonge was
the nephew of John Kendal, the prior of England between 1489 and 1501.78
Kendal in turn was possibly related to the Langstrother brothers, who
successively held the bailiwick of Eagle for over twenty years before John
Langstrother became prior in 1469. John Langstrother bequeathed certain
goods to Kendal on his death in 1471,79 and the two families, who both
came from Westmorland,80 were also both related to the non-Hospitaller

73
Lincolnshire Pedigrees, ed. A. R. Maddison, 4 vols., continuously paginated, HSP, i. 268;
iii. 10256.
74
BDVTE 412, 201. For the transmission of crusading enthusiasm by women, see J. Riley-
Smith, The First Crusaders, 10951130 (Cambridge, 1997), 93100.
75
See Appendices VII and VIII and below, Ch.9.
76
Lincolnshire Pedigrees, ed. Maddison, iii. 938.
77
By 1428, William Tonge was the preceptor of Beverley, which he had traded for Wil-
loughton by 1440, when he was granted the preceptory of Swingeld in addition. Shortly after
this he swapped Willoughton for Slebech. In the 1440s he was the receiver of the priory of
England, and in 1446 was among the fourteen capitulars of the chapter-general held in Rome.
Robert Tonge was a Hospitaller by 1444, and held the bailiwick of Eagle between 1471 and his
death ten years later. John Tonge was appointed preceptor of Ribston by magistral grace in
1489, of Mount St John by cabimentum in 1494 and of Carbrooke, probably by prioral grace, in
1498 or 1499. SJG, Butler Papers (citing AOM348, old foliation, fo. 172); AOM354, fos. 203rv,
205v; 356, fos. 182rv; Bosio, DellIstoria, ii. 2245; AOM379, fo. 146rv; 76, fo. 70v; 390, fo.
130r; 391, fo. 200v; Lansdowne 200, fo. 57v. For the titles by which brethren held preceptories,
see below, Ch. 2.2.
78
Their relationship is mentioned in several sources. Plumpton Correspondence, ed.
T. Stapleton, CS, 1st ser., 4 (London, 1839), no.92; Documents relating to Perkin Warbeck,
ed. F. Madden, Archaeologia, 27 (1838), 153210, at 1712, 205; AOM391, fo. 199v.
79
Kendal was apparently the only brother to whom Langstrother left property. He had also
acted as Langstrothers proctor in Rhodes in 1470. AOM74, fos. 89v, 46r.
80
Judging by his arms, John Kendal was a member of the Curwen family of Kendal, while the
Langstrother brothers origin can be more certainly ascribed to Crosthwaite. A. Sutton, John
Kendale: A Search for Richard IIIs Secretary, in J. Petre (ed.), Richard III: Crown and People
(Gloucester, 1985), 22438, at 227; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 160, citing AOM352, fo. 130
(old foliation).
 The Prior and his Brethren 37

Clippesbys of Norfolk.81 A further link, although seemingly not a blood

connection, existed with the Plumpton clan. Sir Robert Plumpton was John
Tonges godfather, Edward Plumpton John Westons secretary, and Thomas
Plumpton a Hospitaller knight and preceptor.82 Another Plumpton, Roberts
niece Elizabeth, married John Sothill of Stokerston and was the mother of
the Hospitaller Arthur Sothill.83 At least one Plumpton was buried in the
priory church at Clerkenwell.84
Although other connections are not quite so ramied, a number of rela-
tionships between other Hospitaller families can also be identied. John
Babington of Dethick, for example, was the nephew of Richard Fitzherbert,
stated to be a Hospitaller in Burkes Landed Gentry,85 while Marmaduke
Lumley and Augustine Middlemore were described as brothers secundum
carnem in 1463, and John Bothe was the nephew of an unnamed lieutenant
turcopolier, probably John Boswell or Walter Fitzherbert.86 Three sixteenth-
century knightsBryan Tunstall, Ambrose Layton, and Cuthbert Layton
were nephews of Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of Durham.87 Even in the 1540s,
the families of former Hospitallers continued to intermarry, with unions
taking place between the Tyrrells and Gonsons, Pooles and Caves, and Caves
and Newdigates.88 In 1557 the knights received into the re-erected priory of
England included the Shelley brothers, who were closely related to Edward

81
Writing to Sir John Paston between c.1492 and 1501, John Kendal referred to John
Clippesby of Oby as his cousin. According to a pedigree, the latter was the grandson of
another John Clippesby and the daughter of a Thomas Longstrother of Cheshire. Other
Langstrothers moved to Lincolnshire or Norfolk in the train of William Langstrother, the
preceptor of Eagle and Carbrooke. Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, ed.
N. Davis, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1976), ii. 480, i. 6971; The Visitacion of Norffolk, made and taken
by William Harvey, Clarencieux King of Arms, Anno 1563, enlarged with another Visitacion
made by Clarenceux Cooke, with Many Other Descents; as also the Vissitation made by John
Raven, Richmond, Anno 1613, ed. W. Rye, HSP, 32 (London, 1891), 77.
82
Plumpton Correspondence, ed. Stapleton, no. 93; Stonor Letters and Papers 12901483,
ed. C. L. Kingsford, CS, 3rd ser., 2930 (London, 1919), no. 329; AOM388, fo. 132r. No further
light has been shed on Thomas Plumptons background in the new edition of the Plumpton
letters, which omits Stapletons speculations on the Hospitallers. The Plumpton Letters and
Papers, ed. J. Kirby, CS, 5th ser., 8 (London, 1996), nos. 11718, and pp. 613, 3212;
Plumpton Correspondence, ed. Stapleton, nos. 923, 1334.
83
North Country Wills, ed. Brown, nos. 446; Visitation of Yorkshire, ed. Best Norcliffe,
2901.
84
J. Stow, A Survey of London: Reprinted from the Text of 1603, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1971),
ii. 85.
85
No Richard Fitzherbert occurs in the orders archives, but Walter Fitzherbert was a
Hospitaller by 1470 and the commander of Templecombe between 1478 and 1489. The two
may be identical, or Walter may have belonged to an earlier generation imperfectly recorded in
the pedigree given by Burke. J. Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed
Gentry, 4 vols. (London, 18378), i. 79; AOM386, fos. 128v129r; 390, fo. 129v.
86
AOM374, fo. 139rv; 76, fo. 209r.
87
Visitation of Yorkshire, ed. Best Norcliffe, 3278; AOM414, fo. 249v; See Appendix VII.
88
P. Morant, The History and Antiquities of the County of Essex, 2 vols. (London, 17638),
i. 209; Bindoff, (ed.), House of Commons, iii. 131; The Visitation of the County of Leicester in
the Year 1619, taken by William Camden, Clarenceux King of Arms, ed. J. Fetherston, HSP, 2
(London, 1870), 126.
38 The Prior and his Brethren

Bellingham, the former preceptor of Dinmore.89 It seems likely that if the

sources were more complete a network embracing still more families would
emerge. As candidates for knighthood were commonly presented to provin-
cial chapter by an existing brother, and as licences to admit brethren into the
order very rarely stipulated who they were to be, this is hardly surprising.
Within families, the number of relationships that are absolutely clear is
rather limited, however. Although they were probably close kin to each
other, the Hospitaller Tonges, Daniels, Dalisons, and Newports are not
described as such in the orders archives and, since they do not appear in
family pedigrees either, their relationships remain conjectural. In fact less
than fty brethren can yet be placed with absolute security in a family
background. Although it is possible to make plausible suggestions as to the
family and geographical provenance of many of the others, their non-
appearance in pedigrees or wills makes generalization about the wealth,
status, piety, and other characteristics of their families difcult.90
What is immediately striking about these families is their geographical
origin. Of the forty-seven certain or near-certain English family seats listed
for knight-brethren in Appendix VII, twelve were in Yorkshire or Lincoln-
shire, with a further six in Durham, Cumberland, or Westmorland. If one
considers the almost certainly Yorkshire origins of the Tonges and Multons,
the domination of northerners and north-east midlanders in the orders
hierarchy is apparent. Moreover, several of those families which appear to
be from the south such as the Rawsons and the southern branches of the
Docwras and Westons had migrated from Yorkshire or Lincolnshire only
one or two generations before they produced knights of St John. William
Weston juniors father, for example, had been born in Boston, as had his
Hospitaller uncles John and William. With the possible exception of William
Tornay every prior of England and English prior of Ireland who held ofce
between 1468 and 1540 can be ascribed to a northern or north midlands
family.
There are a number of possible reasons for this predominance. In the rst
place, the order may have preferred to draw upon the stronger military
traditions of the northern counties as more appropriate to its activities in
the Mediterranean than the less martial background of many southern
gentle families.91 It is interesting, that several of the Hospitaller knights
either had connections with the Percy family or saw service on the marches
themselves. The Hildyards of Winestead, from whom William Hillyard was

89
Bindoff, (ed.), House of Commons, i. 4145; iii. 30810.
90
See Appendix VII. I have excluded those families, such as the Malorys, Multons, New-
ports, and Tonges whose probable background can be guessed from their arms or other sources,
but whose exact family seat and relationships are unclear.
91
On the military traditions of the northern gentry, see M. J. Bennett, Community, Class and
Careerism: Cheshire and Lancashire Society in the Age of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
(Cambridge, 1983), 16291.
 The Prior and his Brethren 39

probably drawn, were traditional Percy retainers, while Roland Thornburgh

and Nicholas Fairfax were in the service of earls of Northumberland.92
Robert Multon, a Percy retainer, even served as deputy warden of the east
march in the 1470s and late 1480s, while in a later generation Cuthbert
Layton, a native of Cumberland, can be found defending Norham castle
against the Scots.93
In the second place, it is at least arguable that northern England held a
somewhat deeper attachment to religious houses than the south, and that the
order of St John may have beneted from this. It is noteworthy that in 1537
the farmers of the orders lands in the north were characterized as particu-
larly eager to stir up the populace in defence of the monasteries,94 and many
of these were members of families connected with the Hospital. Thirdly, the
relatively sluggish economy of the north in the fteenth and sixteenth
centuries95 and the lack of other opportunities there may have rendered a
career in the order more attractive to younger sons96 than it might otherwise
have been. Although their families were usually of conventional piety, the
prospect of an austere or contemplative life may have been too much for
these men.97 Advancement in the Hospital, however, offered the possibility
of considerable wealth and prominence for those who were successful,
besides the control of estates which might be leased to family members.
A nal contributing factor may have been the orders system for collating to
beneces. In certain cases a vacant commandery would be adjudged to the
brother who had been born nearest to its site. As seven of the orders twenty
non-prioral commanderies were in Yorkshire or Lincolnshire, and as they
were ranked respectively rst, fourth, sixth, seventh, tenth, fourteenth, and
fteenth in terms of wealth,98 it was probably easier for a Yorkshire or
Lincolnshire man both to get a foot on the career ladder and to avoid a
poor house when doing so. Of course not all these characteristics were
exclusive to northern England. Families with strong military traditions,
ties to local religious houses, and surplus younger sons existed all over the

92
Information communicated by Dr Rosemary Horrox (Hillyard and Thornburgh);
AOM54, fo. 95v; LPFD, Addenda no. 312 (i, iii) (Fairfax).
93
CPR146777, 545; Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII, ed. W. Campbell,
2 vols. (London, 18737), ii. 533, 557; Appendix VII; LPFD, xx, I, nos. 280, 340.
94
LPFD, xii, I, no.192.
95
Schoeld, R. S. The Geographical Distribution of Wealth in England, 13341649,
Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 108 (1965), 483510.
96
Of the Hospitaller offspring of the families discussed above, only Henry Pole/Poole and the
two Docwras seem to have been eldest sons. Most of the rest were second or third sons, while
some, such as Nicholas Hussey (the eighth son of nine) and Blase Villers (the tenth of ten) came
very low down the pecking order indeed.
97
Although the families noted in Appendix VII produced at least ten nuns, and several clerics
between them of the same or immediately preceding generations as Hospitallers, they did not
give rise to many other male religious.
98
I have based this ranking on the responsions levied on each preceptory in 1520. AOM54,
fos. 3v11v.
40 The Prior and his Brethren

country. But it is in the north where preceptories were relatively wealthy and
numerous, where the danger from the Scots was still a real concern, and
where alternative outlets for the energies of young gentlemen may have been
limited that a career in the Hospital proved most attractive.
It is dangerous to generalize about the wealth and status of Hospitaller
families simply from the evidence of those that are known, as by denition
they are likely to be more prominent than those whose origin is unclear.
Some preliminary conclusions can be advanced, however. In the rst place,
the English knights were from gentle rather than noble backgrounds. Of
those active in the order between 1460 and 1540, only Richard Neville, the
son of George, Lord Abergavenny, was from a family of baronial rank.99
The rest were of quite varying pedigree. Some major gentry families were
represented. The Ayscoughs, Babingtons of Dethick, Caves, Eures, Fair-
faxes, Fitzherberts, Massingberds, Plumptons, Shefelds, Tunstalls, and
Tyrrells of Heron were all of some importance and of knightly rank in the
generations before they produced Hospitallers.100 Most were of consider-
able antiquity too. Others such as the Worcestershire Russells and Durham
Lambtons were less prominent, but still of ancient lineage and respectable
local standing.101 Although they seem to have derived from landowning
families that had moved into the towns, some Hospitaller knights were the
offspring of prominent merchants. David Gonsons father William was
Henry VIIIs chief naval administrator and a pioneer in the Levant trade,
which may account for his sons profession.102 Richard Rawson, the father
of the Hospitaller prior of Ireland, John, was an alderman and sheriff of
London, and Edward Brown was the grandson of one mayor of London and
nephew of another.103 The Passemers, who may have come from London or
Essex, perhaps also had mercantile antecedents,104 and the Westons lived in
Boston, the Pooles in Chestereld, and the Caves in Stamford around the
time of the birth of their Hospitaller sons.105
99
The Four Visitations of Berkshire 1532, 1566, 1623, 16656, ed. W. H. Rylands,
HSP, 567 (London, 19078), ii. 181.
100
Lincolnshire Pedigrees, ed. Maddison, 59, 6545; Visitations of Nottingham, ed. Mar-
shall, 1512; Visitation of the County of Leicester, ed. Fetherston, 1256; Visitation of York-
shire, ed. Best Norcliffe, 11112, 11920, 3278; Morant, Essex, i. 209.
101
House of Commons, ed. Bindoff, iii. 236; R. Surtees, The History and Antiquities of the
County Palatine of Durham, 4 vols. (London, 181641; repr. Wakeeld, 1972), ii. 174.
102
D. M. Loades, The Tudor Navy: An Administrative, Political and Military History
(Aldershot, 1992), 66; R. Hakluyt, The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Trafques & Discov-
eries of the English Nation, 2nd edn., 12 vols. (London, 15981600, repr. Glasgow, 19035),
v. 624. Their relationship is conrmed by a letter written by the French ambassador, Marillac,
after David Gonsons execution. LPFD, xvi, no. 1011, p.483.
103
DNB, xlvii. 336; The Visitations of Northamptonshire made in 1564 and 16189, with
Northamptonshire Pedigrees from Various Harleian Manuscripts, ed. W. C. Metcalfe (London,
1887), 167.
104
Visitation of the County of Leicester, ed. Fetherston, 125. In 1461 Marmaduke Lumley
called brother Nicholas Passemer a villein. AOM371, fo. 144v.
105
DNB, lx. 377; Bindoff, (ed.), House of Commons, iii. 130; Visitation of the County of
Leicester, ed. Fetherston, 125.
 The Prior and his Brethren 41

Those Hospitallers who cannot be assigned to a particular family with

certainty probably fall into three categories; offspring of major gentry
families who were omitted from pedigrees because they left no children,
scions of lesser branches of large families, and those whose families, al-
though gentle, were not recorded as such until later, or who died out. At
rst sight, for example, knight-brethren such as John Bothe, William Corbet,
and William Darrell would seem to have come from some of the most
formidable gentry families in the country, but they do not appear in extant
pedigrees of these houses, and it may be that they were either poor cousins of
the main branches or simply left out of the pedigrees. Unless they appear in
chance references in wills or estate and legal records others with more
common names like the Greens, Hills, and Newtons may never be traceable.

2.2 Service, Seniority, and Advancement

The route to advancement in the order of St John was fairly clear. On

reception into the order, a junior knight made his way to the Mediterranean
and was received into the English langue. He was then granted ancienitas
(seniority), which was reckoned from the day of his arrival in convent rather
than his reception in England and was provisional until his proofs of nobility
had been accepted by the langue. This was a crucial incentive in getting
brethren to serve in convent, as without ancienitas no brother could be
granted a preceptory at home. Nominally a brother could seek a preceptory
in their home province after three years of conventual service106 but in fact it
was usually necessary to wait much longer for a vacancy. Preceptories were
collated to brethren under four titles: grace, cabimentum, meliormentum,
and ius patronatus. When a preceptory became vacant, the master of the
order, who was allowed to grant one commandery in each priory every ve
years, might, if he had not already utilized this faculty, grant the house to a
brother of his choosing. The recipient would then hold the benece by title
of magistral grace, and would continue to be able to seek preceptories of
cabimentum or meliormentum. While only one preceptory of meliormentum
or cabimentum could be held at once, in theory a knight could be granted
any number of preceptories of grace. Rather different in operation was
prioral grace, by which the priors of England and Ireland were also allowed
to grant one commandery in their respective provinces every ve years,
although those thus provided apparently held by cabimentum or meliormen-
tum. Should the master or prior not claim the right to appoint, the unbene-
ced conventual brethren107 of greatest seniority and those preceptors
who had improved their commanderies could compete for the house, the

106
Delaville, Rhodes, 318.
107
i.e. those resident in the orders Mediterranean headquarters.
42 The Prior and his Brethren

collation of which would be decided by a vote of the English langue. If the

langue opted to confer the house on an unbeneced brother, he would hold it
by title of cabimentum, or rst promotion, and should two or more brethren
of equal seniority seek the same benece, an investigation would be made at
home into who had been born nearest to it, with the nearer granted the
prize.108 This procedure might be avoided if the brethren involved had
already made an agreement as to who should be eligible for which precep-
tories when they fell vacant, as sometimes happened.109 After he was che-
visshed the new preceptor was commonly licensed to return home, as the
ancienitas to exchange his house for one of meliormentum now theoretically
rested on his residing on his preceptory for ve years and improving it.110 In
practice, however, brethren were often retained in convent, or at Clerken-
well as the receiver of the conventual common treasury, or summoned to
Rhodes or Malta before they had completed their residence and melior-
ments. In such cases the langue and council granted them ancienitas as if
they were resident in the west.111 Even if they had not resided on their
benece, however, they were expected to present notarially attested evidence
of the improvements made there for approval by the langue before they
could be promoted.112 The situation was further complicated by the fact
that preceptors could exchange beneces between themselves, provided they
received the approval of the langue, the master, and the convent for this, and
could also sometimes exchange the titles by which they held multiple
houses.113
Ranked above preceptories were the orders bailiwicks. These were its
highest ofces, carrying with them a seat on its councils and chapters-
general, and granted to brethren of at least fteen years standing by vote
of the orders council.114 Preceptors of sufcient seniority, or their proctors,
would put their names forward to the langue before the council voted.115
The four bailiwicks commonly open to members of the English langue were
the turcopoliership, the priories of England and Ireland, and the bailiwick of
Eagle. As a conventual rather than a capitular bailiff, the turcopolier was
expected to reside at headquarters116 and technically had precedence over

108
e.g. AOM81, fo. 151v; 397, fo. 139r; 400, fos. 145v146r; BDVTE 9, 5960; Claudius
E.vi, fo. 70rv.
109
AOM378, fo. 148rv; 388, fo. 134r.
110
Stabilimenta, De collationibus, xii, xv (Statutes of Fluvia, 142137, and Jean de Lastic,
143754). For a protest against Fra Ambrose Caves failure to reside on his preceptory for
the requisite term, see AOM86, fo. 37v.
111
e.g. AOM79, fos. 8v, 18v, 23v; 84, fos. 40r, 57r, 64r; 85, fos. 56r, 62v, 72r, 106r; 86, fos. 46r,
62 ; 377, fo. 142r; 382, fo. 141v; 394, fo. 176rv; 395, fos. 139v40r; 397, fo. 145v.
v
112
AOM82, fos. 157v158r, 172r; 393, fos. 111rv; BDVTE, 1011, 27.
113
Stabilimenta, De collationibus, x (Statute of Philibert de Naillac, 13961421); AOM84,
fo. 38v; 85, fo. 41rv; 371, fo. 141r; BDVTE, 212, 39.
114 Stabilimenta, De electionibus, v, viii (Statutes of Naillac and Lastic).
115
Ibid., xix. (Statute of Giovannbattista Orsini, 146776).
116
Ibid., De bauiliuis, xliiii (Statute of dAubusson).
 The Prior and his Brethren 43

the priors and bailiff of Eagle, but in practice the turcopoliership acted as a
springboard for those seeking the priory of England, which was always held
by a more senior knight. Both the bailiff of Eagle and the turcopolier
commonly held at least two preceptories in order to support the dignities
of their ofce, but some, notably John Langstrother, John Kendal, and
Thomas Newport, accumulated as many as four or ve, a formidable
concentration considering how few houses there were in total.117
The effective head of the British-born brethren was the prior of England.
Unlike the other bailiffs, this dignitary was elected by vote of his compatriots
in provincial chapter. The ve legitimate priors between William Hulles
(elected 1417) and William Tornay (elected 1471) were chosen this way,
their provision being ratied afterwards in convent.118 It was only after the
election in England of the unsuitable Robert Multon in 1474 that the
chapter-general ruled that henceforth elections were to be carried out by
the council in Rhodes.119 The Irish-born brethren claimed the right to elect
their prior in Ireland between 1410 and 1494, although brethren were
sometimes elected prior of Ireland in Rhodes to replace rebellious incum-
bents during this period.120 On election priors generally relinquished their
existing commanderies save for magistral camerae or houses that they had
recovered from seculars or brethren who had forfeited them.121 Sometimes,
however, they would retain commanderies they already held in place of a
prioral camera held by the previous prior, which they would then release to
the disposition of the langue. Their right to do so, however, was often
contested by the langue.
Excluding those in prioral or magistral hands there were only twenty
preceptories open to brethren in England and Wales for most of the period
between 1460 and 1540,122 and the pressure for advancement was further
increased by the fact that they were often in the hands of only fourteen
or fteen men.123 As there were commonly between ten and twenty

117
See Appendix VII.
118
CPR141622, 279; AOM340, fo. 116rv; Field, Robert Malory, 2512, 2578; Bekyn-
ton Correspondence, i. 7881; Annales Rerum Anglicanum, Letters and Papers Illustrative
of the Wars of the English in France, ed. J. Stevenson, 2 vols. in 3, RS (London, 1864), ii. 743
93, at 791; CCR146876, nos. 407, 858; AOM 379, fos. 140r141v, 146r; 74, fo. 88v.
119
AOM283, fo. 183r.
120
Delaville, Rhodes, 315; Tipton, Irish Hospitallers, 423; AOM371, fos. 142v143r; 76,
fo. 132v.
121
AOM282, fo. 21r.
122
These were (1) Ansty and Trebigh, (2) Baddesley and Maine, (3) Battisford and Dingley,
(4) Beverley, (5) Carbrooke, (6) Dalby and Rothley, (7) Dinmore, (8) Eagle, (9) Halston, (10)
Mount St John, (11) Newland, Ossington, and Winkburn, (12) Quenington, (13) Ribston,
(14) Shingay, (15) Slebech, (16) Swingeld, (17) Temple Brewer, (18) Templecombe, (19)
Willoughton, (20) Yeaveley and Barrow. Baddesley and Maine were in separate hands in
14701, while Slebech was in the hands of the prior between 1476 and 1483, with Melch-
bourne, usually in prioral hands, held by John Kendal.
123
Before the deaths of Lancelot Docwra and William Darrell in 151920, for example,
three preceptors held two houses and a fourth, Thomas Newport, held four.
44 The Prior and his Brethren

unbeneced knights waiting in convent for preferment, conventual brethren

might wait for ten or more years for a senior knight to die before they were
granted a benece. When this happened as many as four or ve houses might
become vacant. For example, Thomas Newport senior, who was serving in
Rhodes by 1478, had to wait until the death of John Weston in 1489 before he
could be granted a preceptory, while the same event also brought preceptories
of cabimentum for Robert Daniel, Robert Dalison, and James Ayscough, of
meliormentum to Henry Halley, and of magistral grace to John Tonge.124
Less drastically, the survivors of ve conventual knights who had been in
convent in July 1461 or earlier and of another four who were in Rhodes in
July 1463 all had to wait until news of the deaths of William Dawney and
Robert Botill had reached Rhodes in 14689 before they could be granted
beneces.125 The pressure on preceptories grew with the size of the English
establishment in the mediteranean, which numbered about fourteen in the
1470s, twenty-three by 1508, and thirty-eight in 1513, before falling back to
between seventeen and twenty-two in the period between 1523 and the
1530s.126 Although the number of preceptors among these men rose from
two or three to ve or more, the remainder of the increase was accounted for
by conventual knights competing for preferment.127 Of seven knights re-
ceived in 15056 only Nicholas Fairfax and Edward Hills were ever granted
preceptories, and both had to wait until the 1520s.128 In 1510 this situation
occasioned a petition by the English brethren in Rhodes that bearing in mind
the multitude of religious brother knights of the langue living in Rhodes at
this time, and the paucity of preceptories of the same langue from which the
aforesaid religious expect reward for their labours, so that they might be
rendered more fervent towards the said service the rights of the prior of
England to confer preceptories should be limited.129
124
AOM283, fo. 174v; 390, fos. 129v, 129r130r.
125
William Weston I, Robert Eagleseld, Marmaduke Lumley, and Nicholas Passemer occur
in 1461 and Robert Multon, John Malory, John Turberville, and Bryan Shefeld in 1463.
Passemer and Shefeld died later in the 1460s. The remaining men were all granted preceptories
between 1468 and 1470, save for Lumley, who came to an agreement to take over Templecombe
from the ailing William Dawney in 1466. This was later overturned. AOM371, fo. 144r; 374,
fo. 139rv; 376, fos. 155r156r; 377, fos. 142v, 143r; 379, fos. 142v143r, 144r, 145v146r.
126
AOM75, fos. 122v123r; Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 1137, fo. 113r; AOM402, fo.
103v; BDVTE, passim. See below, Tables 8.1 and 8.2.
127
Seven English preceptors fought in the siege of 1522, but their numbers in convent
declined thereafter. See below, Ch. 8.1, 8.3.
128
These were, besides Fairfax and Hills, James Green, William Haseldon, Charles Lyster,
Geoffrey Militon, and Humphrey Bevercotes. Green, Haseldon, Lyster, and Militon had cashed
letters of exchange in Venice to pay their passage dues to the convent in the winter of 1505.
Fairfax, Hills, Lyster, and Militon were declared to be of the same passage with Humphrey
Bevercotes in March 1506. Bevercotes and Militon were still alive and in convent in 1508, as
was Lyster in 1508, 1513, and 1515, but Haseldon does not appear again. It is likely most
were dead before the siege of 1522. R. Mueller, The Venetian Money Market: Banks, Panics
and the Public Debt, 12001500 (Baltimore, 1997), 347; AOM397, fo. 147v; Bodleian MS
Ashmole 1137, fo. 113r; AOM409, fo. 117r; Appendix VII.
129
AOM399, fo. 146rv.
 The Prior and his Brethren 45

This last was a crucial point. In the period covered by this study there were
a series of disputes between priors and their brethren about the respective
rights of the prior and langue to confer preceptories, and in particular the
right of an incumbent prior, granted by the convent in 1367, to claim a
vacant preceptory as a fth prioral camera.130 Despite the antiquity of this
provision, there was some confusion about when and in what circumstances
the prior might acquire his fth camera. In 1449, Robert Botill and his
brethren in both England and Rhodes agreed that should a preceptor die
within a year after the mortuary year of the previous prior, the prior might
retain any of the dead preceptors houses as a fth camera, remitting any
others held by the deceased to the collation of the master and convent, who
would grant it to a conventual brother. The houses of any other British
brother to decease in the west within the same period were to be conferred
by the prior on a conventual knight. Perhaps most importantly, the prioral
choice of fth camera was to be irrevocable.131 Although the conventual
brethren of the langue complained that this agreement was prejudicial to
them in 1459, their objections were overruled and the distribution of bene-
ces in the remainder of Botills priorate proceeded relatively smoothly.132
Nevertheless, partly as a result of the 1449 documents lack of comprehen-
siveness, there were major disputes between prior and langue in 147783
and 150517 and continued complaints after 1527 about William Westons
acquisition of his fth camera.
Unfortunately, the agreement of 1449 had not provided priors-elect with
scope to retain houses they had held before their promotion as camerae,
insisting that they relinquish their existing beneces and wait until a vacancy
to claim one. This ran contrary both to previous practice and to the under-
standable desire of priors-elect to hang on to favoured residences and
estates. Thus, despite the rules laid down in 1449, in 1470 John Langstrother
was able to persuade the langue to allow him to retain both Balsall and
Ribston, of which he was already preceptor, rather than Melchbourne and
Slebech as his fourth and fth prioral camerae, while in the following year
William Tornay was granted Melchbourne and Slebech as his fourth and
fth camerae by consent of the langue.133 On his provisional appointment to
the priory in 1476, the orders authorities came to a similar arrangement
with John Weston, under which he was to have Balsall rather than Melch-
bourne but to keep Slebech.134 At some point before gaining possession of
the priory, however, Weston agreed to relinquish Slebech to the disposition

130
Delaville, Rhodes, 162; Stabilimenta, De collationibus, vii. Priors had been granted the
right to hold four preceptories as prioral camerae in 1303. Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John,
3512.
131
AOM361, fos. 239rv, 241r242r.
132
AOM282, fos. 64r, 66rv, 69v.
133
AOM379, fos. 140r141v, 146r.
134
AOM383, fos. 142r143v.
46 The Prior and his Brethren

of the langue, without apparently asking for anything in return. Yet once in
post Weston insisted on retaining one of his existing preceptories, Newland,
in place of Slebech and also changed his mind about Melchbourne, which he
wished to retain instead of Balsall. In 14778 complaints were made by the
newly appointed preceptors of Melchbourne and Newland and the proctors
of the langue that Weston was refusing to hand over Newland, Melch-
bourne, and Slebech.135 The langue cited both the 1449 document and
Westons written promise to hand over Slebech in its support.136 Despite
the fact that brethren were strictly forbidden from petitioning for beneces
at the curia, Weston had also secured papal letters in favour of his deten-
tions. A brief of 3 June 1476 permitted him to retain the priory in commen-
dam with Quenington, which had already been granted to John Boswell in
the previous November, and to hold Balsall and Newland for a year after he
entered possession of the priory.137 In the summer and autumn of 1478 both
Boswell and the newly appointed preceptor of Templecombe, Walter Fitz-
herbert, protested that the prior was detaining their houses as well.138
Weston, then, appears to have occupied no less than ve preceptories
which should have been in the possession of his brethren in 1478. He used
every trick in the book to deny them their rights, launching appeals to the
chapter-general, exploiting papal privileges, and keeping his proctors in
Rhodes in ignorance of his claims, so that he had to be repeatedly asked to
provide reasons for his actions, a process for which brethren were allowed
nine months. Although he seems to have relinquished his claims to all the
disputed preceptories except Slebech after the chapter-general of November
1478 had ruled against him, he managed to delay handing this last house
over until 1483, when he reached agreement with the langue that it should
be granted to a conventual knight for cabimentum on condition that the
latter pay him a pension of 15 per annum until he should be provided with
a fth camera.139
This accord, which superseded that of 1449 insofar as it explicitly recog-
nized the right of succeeding priors to retain one of the commanderies they
had held before promotion as a fth camera, nevertheless failed to put an
end to discord between priors and their brethren. In 1505 Thomas Docwra
and the langue each claimed the right to collate to the vacant preceptory of
Halston, the langue according to the 1449 provision that having secured a
fth camera the prior should confer the next vacant house on a conventual
knight by cabimentum, and the prior on the basis that he held his fth
camera rather by vigour of the concord of 1483, and that the 1449 agree-
ment had bound Botill but not his successors. The orders council referred

135
AOM75, fo. 178rv; 385, fo. 129rv; 386, fo. 127rv, 129r; 75, fo. 177v.
136
AOM75, fo. 177v; 386, fo. 129v.
137
CPL, xiii. 61.
138
AOM386, fo. 127r.
139
AOM76, fos. 148v149v.
 The Prior and his Brethren 47

this case to the esguardium fratrum,140 which ruled in the langues favour,
ordaining that Docwra should present an appropriately qualied brother
resident in convent.141 But the langue then exploited this judgement to
collate to Halston without reference to Docwra, who protested at this and
further alleged that the langue had bribed his proctor, Guillaume dAubus-
son, to misrepresent him.142 In the meantime, he kept possession of Halston,
not surrendering it until at least 1508.143 Despite capitular conrmation of
the esguardiums sentence, Docwra continued to argue that the langue had
broken the concord of 1483 and seems also to have convinced himself that
Slebech had reverted to his collation by the langues disregard for his pre-
eminence in the matter of Halston. When his proctor sought conciliar
clarication as to the status of the agreement of 1483 in 1510, he was told
to wait until Slebech became vacant and when it did so the prior detained it
from the appointee of the langue and convent, Clement West, and appears to
have granted it instead to Lancelot Docwra.144 In April 1516 the dispute was
referred to the next chapter-general, but it had still not been resolved by
November 1517, and may have dragged on still further.145 Yet if the remain-
der of Docwras priorate was free of similar disputes, in 1527 the issue was
raised yet again, with Clement West demanding that Thomas Docwras
former fth camera, Melchbourne, be granted to him rather than be retained
by the new prior, William Weston. Despite a conciliar ruling upholding
Westons right to retain his predecessors houses, West continued to demand
Melchbourne and to complain about the injustice done to him by Weston
until well into the 1530s.146
Pettifogging though these contentions may appear to beand the fore-
going is a heavily simplied accountthey at least have the virtue of illus-
trating the workings and limitations of the order of St Johns elaborate
mechanisms for dispute settlement, and the mentalite, in all its concern for
precedent and protocol, which animated them. More, they indicate the
underlying tensions in the twofold division of the order into conventual
langues and provincial priories, both of which brethren belonged to simul-
taneously. In granting the langues, rather than provincial chapters, the right
to appoint to preceptories, the order had created mechanisms by which
conventual service might be encouraged and rewarded, but in doing so it
had compensated priors with faculties which partly overlapped, at least in
England, those of the langue. The results, with conventual brethren being

140
This was a specialist tribunal, headed by a senior brother elected by the council, which
dealt with disputes between brethren. Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 152 and n.; AOM68.
141
AOM81, fos. 20v, 33v; 68, fos. 128r129r.
142
AOM81, fos. 47r, 49rv, 53v54r.
143
AOM81, fos. 90rv, 96v.
144
AOM82, fos. 176rv, 168v.
145
AOM75, fos. 178rv; 406, fo. 166v. West may not have reached the preceptory until 1519,
but his proctors presented to a benece in its gift in April 1518. See below, 201.
146
AOM85, fos. 28v29r, 48r, 53v, 109v.
48 The Prior and his Brethren

denied the promotions their service had merited by priors who had the
advantage of running their provinces practically as corporations sole, was
hardly conducive either to administrative efciency or to a sense of frater-
nity.
Nevertheless, the pressure on houses was somewhat alleviated by the
grant of pensions to supplement the incomes of poor or favoured knights.
Conventual knights holding the same seniority often agreed to pay each
other a pension should they gain a preceptory. So, in 1469, William Weston
senior and John Boswell concorded that should Boswell be provided with a
preceptory before the other knight he should pay him half its clear value
until the latter should be beneced, while if the situation were reversed and
Weston was granted the houses of Quenington, Shingay, or any other he
should render Boswell 10 marks per annum until he too had been pro-
vided.147 A more equal arrangement was struck between Oswald Massing-
berd and John Babington junior, who each promised to pay the other 50 ecus
if he should get a commandery rst.148 Additionally, pensions or small
estates were set aside from preceptories of grace by the master and granted
to worthy junior knights. In 1506, for example, William Weston junior, the
preceptor of Ansty and magistral camerarius, was granted the member of
Sawston, a pertinence of Shingay, which had just been collated by magistral
grace to Thomas Shefeld. Weston agreed that he would lease the estate to
Shefeld for 50 ecus, with the latter retaining its administration.149 Four
years later Weston received a pension of 400 ecus from the preceptory of
Temple Brewer, which had been granted out of magistral grace to William
Darrell, the turcopolier, although he was to remit 150 ecus of this sum to
Rhodes in token of the masters superiority. As a condition of this grant,
Weston released Sawston to John Rawson senior.150 Westons pension from
Temple Brewer was so considerable that it is doubtful that Darrell received
much prot from the preceptory, and it is noteworthy that in 1525 Weston
was only collated by the langue to Dinmore on condition that he remit
26 ecus from the sum the preceptor of Temple Brewer had to pay him.151
Closer study of one particular group received into the order together may
help to illustrate the operation of the orders career structure in practice.
A particularly useful sample is provided by those brethren received at a
provincial chapter in 1499, they being the rst large company of lii
arnaldi152 within this period whose careers can be traced with hardly any
gaps. The rst of this group to arrive in Rhodes was Robert Pemberton in
1498, but he did so without having been received rst in provincial chapter
and, despite royal letters in his favour, was ordered to present his proofs in
England like everybody else. Pemberton reappeared in convent in August

147
AOM378, fos. 148rv. 148
BDVTE, 47.
149
AOM395, fos. 146 147 , 147r148r.
v r 150
AOM399, fos. 143v144r, 144v.
151 152
BDVTE, 33. i.e. brethren of the same seniority.
 The Prior and his Brethren 49

1500 relating that he had been received at a provincial chapter, presumably

the assembly held in the previous November, with eight other knights.153 His
arithmetic seems to have been faulty, for a few months later he and ve of his
fellows appeared in the orders council complaining that the two other
brethren received with them, Richard Passemer and John Russell, had tarried
in Venice rather than take passage to Rhodes, and asking for the ancienitas
of the latecomers to be cancelled.154 Although the council refused to do this,
it is not certain that Passemer ever reached Rhodes, and Russell seems to
have died soon after his arrival.155 The six knights remaining were, besides
Pemberton, Clement West, Roland Baskerville, John Babington senior,
Alban Pole, and Roger Boydell. The rst few years of their careers were
almost certainly spent on Rhodes, as it was not until some years after their
reception that their seniors were all provided with preceptories and they
became eligible for vacant houses. In February 1506 letters were drawn up
collating Halston to whomever of Baskerville, Babington, Boydell, and Pole
had been born nearest to it and on 11 March the receiver, Thomas Shefeld,
was mandated to investigate the matter in England.156 The result was
evidently a foregone conclusion, for Boydell, as preceptor of Halston, was
licensed to go home and rule his preceptory on 15 June.157 At much the same
time, Pemberton was also granted leave to return to England, although being
a conventual knight he was to make his way back to convent within two
years.158 As we have seen, Boydell was unable to get possession of Halston
because of the priors refusal to accept his collation by the langue, and had
returned to Rhodes by 1508 to complain about this treatment.159 The
brethren received together in 14991500 were thus reunited, and all, save
for the absentees of 1501, appear in a list of English knights resident in the
convent drawn up in August 1508.160 Their situation was to change dra-
matically in the next few years. Pemberton and Baskerville disappeared from
the scene in 150910,161 and Boydell again returned home to take posses-
sion of his commandery.162 In 150910, Babington and Pole were provided
with Yeaveley and Mount St John respectively. West dropped any claim to
the latter before the commissioners had reported on whether he or Pole was

153
AOM78, fos. 90v91r, 131r. 154
AOM78, fo. 147r.
155
Passemer is not mentioned again, although Russells family later believed that he had died
at Rhodes. The Visitation of the County of Worcester made in the Year 1569 with Other
Pedigrees relating to that County from Richard Mundys Collection, ed. W. P. W. Phillimore,
HSP, 27 (London, 1888), 119.
156
AOM397, fo. 139r.
157
Ibid., fo. 141r.
158
Ibid., fo. 143r.
159
AOM81, fo. 90rv.
160
Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 1137, fo. 113r.
161
Pemberton was dead by 6 September 1509, and Baskerville is not mentioned again after
Aug. 1508. AOM81, fo. 137v.
162
AOM399, fo. 143r.
50 The Prior and his Brethren

nearer to it.163 The two new preceptors now joined Boydell in England
while West had to wait until 1514 before he was granted the Pembrokeshire
house of Slebech, being compensated in the meantime with the castellany of
Rhodes.164 As West had anticipated, the prior opposed his collation to
Slebech and refused to grant his proctors possession of it, with the result
that he was not able to return home until 1517 or later.165 When he did so, it
was to a house oppressed by the powerful Sir Rhys ap Thomas and his son
Gruffydd ap Rhys and burdened by the debts owed to the previous incum-
bent, Robert Evers.166 The delay was very signicant, as a preceptor was
expected to return home and reside on his commandery for ve years after it
was granted to him, during which time he should make his meliormenta.
It was difcult to make improvements to properties one had never visited,
and Slebech in particular needed personal attention if it was to prosper.
Wests rivals were able to benet from his misfortune and Babington and
Boydell secured acceptance of their meliormenta in 151516.167 The latters
were approved despite Wests objections, as Boydell had accomplished the
required period of residence and presented adequate evidence of the im-
provements he had carried out.168 Meanwhile, Babington served as deputy
for the receiver, Thomas Shefeld, who was in Rhodes from 1513, and as
proctor of the common treasury in England and Ireland.169 He too came into
conict with West, who accused him of refusing to accept payment of his
responsions. West seems to have thought that Babington was attempting to
have him declared a debtor in order to block his chances of promotion, and
the issue recurred ten years later, when West appeared before the council
complaining that although he had paid Babington certain monies, and had
a quittance to prove it, the latter had not recorded it in his books of
accounts.170
By the time West returned home, Roger Boydell had completed his third
term of conventual service and Alban Pole was about to embark on his
second,171 being the only one of the knights received in 1500 to ght during
the 1522 siege of Rhodes. Casualties during and sickness after the siege
prompted a round of promotions in 15234, and Babington, Pole, and
Boydell were all able to secure preceptories of meliormentum in May 1523,

163
Claudius E.vi, fo. 69v; AOM81, fo. 151v; 400, fo. 150v.
164
AOM400, fo. 150v; 403, fo. 162r; 82, fo. 51r. Babington had been in England and
attended provincial chapters in 150910, being described in April 1510 as nominated to
Yeaveley. He then returned to Rhodes before being licensed to go and rule his commandery
in August 1511. Claudius E.vi, fos. 69v, 81v; AOM400, fo. 150v.
165
AOM404, fos. 145r, 145rv; See below, 201.
166
See below, 2012.
167
AOM82, fo. 157v158r; 403, fo. 163rv; 404, fo. 147v; 405, fo. 130r.
168
AOM406, fos. 157v158v.
169
AOM403, fos. 168v169r, 193v194r.
170
AOM405, fos. 131v132r; 412, fo. 197r.
171
AOM406, fo. 166r; 408, fo. 135r.
 The Prior and his Brethren 51

while Wests meliormenta were not accepted until October 1524, and he had
to wait till August 1526 before he was granted ancienitas to seek another
house.172 The brethren received with him at the turn of the century were
now ready to embark on their next stage of their careers. Alban Pole was
granted the bailiwick of Eagle after the death of Thomas Shefeld in 1524,
and John Babington became prior of Ireland in 1527, exchanging it with the
turcopoliership a year later.173 In the meantime Boydell, who had not done
as well as his fellows when he meliored himself in 1523, was granted a
pension of 20 from the fruits of Dinmore out of magistral grace.174 After
Pole died in August 1530, West rather than Boydell secured the turcopolier-
ship, while Babington became bailiff of Eagle.175 Boydell had to wait until
Wests disgrace and removal from his post in March 1533 before being
granted a bailiwick, but died within a few weeks of his promotion.176
After Babingtons death in 1534, West was the sole survivor of the brethren
received in 1500 and, restored to his dignity in 1535, was granted expect-
ancy to the priory of England.177 Although the nal prize was thus in sight,
West was unable to restrain his behaviour and was again deprived of the
turcopoliership in 1539.178 He returned to England after the Dissolution of
1540, and collected his pension from the crown for several years after.179

2.3 Conventual Life, Households, and Servants

Although they continued to provide spiritual services and to be exempt from

episcopal visitation, interdicts, tithes, and most secular taxation, by the
sixteenth century Hospitaller preceptories had lost many of the other char-
acteristics they had shared with similar religious houses. Chief among the
changes was the loss of a communal religious life. Save at Clerkenwell, no
English or Welsh house is known to have had more than one brother in
residence after 1460, although there were still thirteen nuns at Buckland in
1539.180 In such circumstances the observance of the Rule and of the
innumerable ordinances added by successive chapters-general may have
been extremely patchy. Indeed, the mass of regulations was found to be so
unwieldy, anachronistic, and ambiguous181 that Pierre dAubusson (master,
14761503) obtained papal dispensation from the Rule, except the three

172
AOM410, fos. 177v, 178v; 411, fo. 154v; 412, fos. 191v192r.
173
AOM84, fo. 41v; 412, fo. 199r; 413, fos. 23r24r, 25rv.
174
AOM412, fo. 201v.
175
AOM54, fo. 200v; 85, fo. 77v; BDVTE, 1819.
176
AOM54, fo. 237v; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 131.
177
AOM54, fo. 255v; PRO SP2/Q, no. 32, fos. 129b/152b; AOM85, fos. 148r, 153v.
178
See below, 221.
179
See below, Ch. 9.
180
LPFD, xv, no. 1032, p. 544.
181
Stabilimenta, Exordium in stabilimenta, De regula, ii.
52 The Prior and his Brethren

substantial vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, soon after his election
and launched a complete recodication of the statutes in 1482, which
resulted in the printed statutes drawn up in 1489 and given papal approval
in 1492.182
While it had long been ordained that the Rule itself should be read to
brethren four times a year, awareness of the statutes may have been more
limited, and among the new regulations of 1489 was the order that thirty of
the customs and establishments contained therein should be read out too.183
Brethen, therefore, should not have been in ignorance of what was required
of them. Yet although the statutes governing their conduct were still numer-
ous, they gave very little moral guidance save to enjoin modest behaviour in
church,184 and establish penalties for such lapses as concubinage, embezzle-
ment, maladministration, and slander.185 For knights, spiritual guidance
was limited to the requirements to receive communion three times a year,
to observe a number of fasts and feast days and to pray for deceased
brethren.186 Little more than the maintenance of hospitality and divine
worship and efcient administration was expected from brethren when
they were in Europe and visitation of the orders houses, although still
enjoined on its priors, was rmly directed toward these considerations
rather than towards investigation of the personal conduct of individual
brethren.187 In this context it is hardly surprising that most of the evidence
illustrating conventual life in the provinces relates to the administration of
preceptories rather than the personal characteristics of their possessors.
Collectively, the Hospitallers religious preoccupations appear to have
been thoroughly conventional. Both priors and other brethren founded
chantries or endowed masses to pray for their own souls and those of
other members of the order, with the orders priest-brethren and the secular
clerks singing and serving at Clerkenwell increasingly devoted to these
tasks.188 Similar services were provided by the London Charterhouse after
1430, when the Hospitallers became its confratres: one Hospitaller knight,

182
AOM283, fos. 168v169r; Stabilimenta, De regula, iii, Tenor bullarum apostoli-
carum; AOM76, fo. 124r; Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 378.
183
Stabilimenta, De regula, v, vi (Statutes of Fluvian and dAubusson).
184
Ibid., De ecclesia, xxviixxviii (Statutes of Naillac).
185
Ibid., De thesauro, ix, xii (Statutes of Naillac), De prioribus, xviii (Statute of Fluvia);
De fratribus, x (Statute of Nicolas de Lorgne).
186
Ibid., De ecclesia, vi, iiiiv, vii, x, xiii, xviiixviiii, xxiiiixxvi, xxix, xxxxii;
AOM284, fo. 87r.
187
Ibid., De hospitalitate, esp. i, iiii (consuetudo; Statute of Naillac), De ecclesia, xxiii
(Statute of Naillac), De prioribus, xxii, xv (Statutes of Naillac), xviii (Statute of Fluvia), xxi
(Statute of Lastic).
188
Excavations, 41, 69, 91; BL MS Nero E.vi, fos. 5v6v (1434 endowment of separate
masses for priors, priors and preceptors, and all members of the order). In 1494 and 1522
corrodies were granted to clerks of the choir of Clerkenwell on condition they instruct and
teach the choristers of the church in the manner and art of singing the praise of God.
Lansdowne 200, fo. 20r; Claudius E.vi, fos. 230r.
 The Prior and his Brethren 53

John Rawson, can be found donating literature and clothing to a London

Carthusian before 1519.189 The order might also seek the prayers of the
hermits to whom it granted chapels or property.190 Yet evidence of personal
devotions is more difcult to come by. With the exception of generally
conventional expressions of pious good wishes for divine favour and their
correspondents safe keeping, brethren rarely displayed overt religious sen-
timents in their letters, while the requirement that all books among their
effects save breviaries, psalters, and chronicles be sent to convent after their
deaths militated against their accumulation of libraries in the west.191 Nor,
save for those who died after 1540, did Hospitallers leave wills, so that this
avenue of investigation, too, is closed. The few indications of personal
religious devotion that remain cannot be seen as more than suggestions of
what might have been usual. Thus the devotion of William Weston junior
(prior, 152740) to the Virgin Mary, which can be attested from the inscrip-
tions once on his tomb, is not certainly known to be replicated among the
English brethren in this period, although it is most unlikely to have been
unusual.192 The dedications of chantry chapels at Eagle and Clerkenwell to
St Sithe and SS Katharine, Ursula, and Margaret made by Henry Crownhall
and Robert Malory show awareness of contemporary devotional fashions
but are scarcely less conventional, as are the paintings in the chapel sup-
posedly built by the English brethren in Rhodes, which depicted St George,
the Archangel Michael, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and various angels.193
Some brethren left religious items to churches before their death, as was their
right.194 John Tonge, whose custody of his property was in other ways quite
unsatisfactory, left rich vestments bearing his arms to the chapel of the
manor of Temple Dinsley, while Thomas Docwra gave a printed mass
book to the chapel of Temple Cressing.195 The spolia of brethren also

189
E. M. Thompson, The Carthusian Order in England (London, 1930), 188, 3278.
190
Claudius E.vi, fos. 95rv; Excavations, 146.
191
Stabilimenta, De thesauro, ii (Statute of Hugh Revel). Ker did not record any books or
manuscripts originating in the priory in his Medieval Libraries, although he did note a possibly
thirteenth-century Psalter from Minchin Buckland among the manuscripts of the London Society
of Antiquaries. Watsons supplement to Ker notes a late fourteenth-century Brut possibly origin-
ating in Clerkenwell and now in Trinity College, Dublin. This manuscript also contains a series of
memoranda from 13856 recording both national events and those particular to the priory, such
as the wreck of the priors ship, the dispatch of gifts to the king at Epiphany and the visit of Leo
king of Armenia to Clerkenwell; a list of distances from Bruges via Venice to Rhodes and various
short pieces, tracts, and verses. These pages were apparently inserted into the manuscript
containing the Brut, it being unclear whether the latter had anything to do with the order. N.
R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books, 2nd edn. (London, 1964),
14; id., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: Supplement to the Second Edition, ed. A. G. Watson
(London, 1987), 48; Colker, Descriptive Catalogue, ii. 9225.
192
W. Pinks, The History of Clerkenwell, ed. E. J. Wood (London, 1881), 389.
193
Hugo, Eagle, 19; Excavations, 91 F. de Belabre, Rhodes of the Knights (Oxford, 1908),
8892. For the cult of St Sithe, see S. Sutcliffe, The Cult of St Sitha in England: An Introduc-
tion, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 37 (1993), 839.
194
Stabilimenta, De Ecclesia, xxi (Statute of Heredia, 137796).
195
Claudius E.vi, fos. 147r, 151r.
54 The Prior and his Brethren

sometimes provide evidence for the accumulation of modest amounts

of church plate and vestments. An eight-pointed cross was among the
effects of John Babington senior, Thomas Golyns left vestimenti, and
Nicholas Fairfax a chalice, pyx, and cruets of silver gilt.196 The volume
of secular plate somewhat exceeded these items, however. Although
these material evidences of devotion may speak of display as much as
personal piety, as may the improvements made to the orders churches
and chapels by wealthy brethren, in the want of more expressive evidence
they are all that is available. In the general absence of records of their books
that might give a clearer picture of their devotional interests it is worth
noting, however, that after the dissolution both Nicholas Upton and Oliver
Starkey were investigated in Malta for possession of prohibited books in
English.197
The intellectual life of the brethren is also obscure. After the efforts of
John Stillingeet in the 1430s198 no British brother is certainly known to
have penned anything more adventurous than letters or administrative
documents, although an account of the orders origins in a now lost manu-
script edited by Dugdale was perhaps written by a fteenth-century Hospi-
taller chaplain with a grudge against the military brethren.199 The priory
also made copies of its privileges and indulgences and sponsored the English
translation of a history of the siege of 1522.200 Priors were certainly willing
to sponsor the education of priests in the orders service such as Richard
Langstrother, William Tonge, William Armistead, and John Mablestone,
even sending the last two to foreign universities to study, but the theological
or legal training these men acquired does not appear to have encouraged any
great educational or literary leanings.201 Two notable exceptions to this
tendency were John Newton, a secular priest in the orders service who
translated Vegetius De re militari into English while he was in Rhodes in
1459,202 and the humanist William Lily, who travelled to Rhodes to learn
Greek and was provided with a benece in the orders gift on his return.203
Newtons choice of subject matter seems highly appropriate given the prob-
able taste of the English knight-brethren for militaria: reporting the events of

196
PRO SP2/Q no. 32, pp. 131/154; AOM54, fos. 94v, 95v.
197
Mdina, Malta, Cathedral Archive, Archivum Inquisitionis Melitensis, Criminal Proceed-
ings, case 1, vol. 1A, fo. 13r/17r.
198
Monasticon, vi, II, 8319; Gervers, Hospitaller Cartulary, 2930.
199
Monasticon, vi, II, 7878. I am grateful to Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith for pointing
this out.
200
F. Wormald and P. M. Giles, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Additional Illuminated
Manuscripts in the Fitzwilliam Museum, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1982), ii. 432, citing MS
381950, fos. 3b4; BL Add. MS 17319, fos. 1r19v; Claudius E.vi, fo. 147r; Sloane Ch.
xxxii, 15, 27; Begynnynge and Foundacyon.
201
CPL, x. 24; xiv. 305; xvii, I, no. 309; Emden, Oxford 150140, 13, 688; Episcopal Court
Book, ed. Bowker, 25 and n.
202
Tsirpanlis, Rhodes, 354.
203
See below, 289.
 The Prior and his Brethren 55

the 1522 siege of Rhodes, Nicholas Roberts claimed that the Turks had
assembled there the most formidable besieging force seen seins the tyme of
the romans as far as I have red.204 The maps of Rhodes and of the world to
be found at the priory in Clerkenwell were similarly practical.205 It is also
worth pointing out that both John Mablestone and William Armistead
encouraged learning in others after the dissolution, Armistead refounding
the grammar school at Skipton in Craven, and Mablestone leaving books
convenyent to their study to scholars at New College, Oxford, and Kings
College, Cambridge.206
It can also be assumed that both knights and chaplains could read and
write, at least by the sixteenth century. The exigencies of administration
required them to audit accounts and make written reports of what they had
discovered in investigations and visitations. The number of brethren whose
letters have survived from the 1520s and 1530s is considerable, and some
Hospitallers, such as priors John Kendal and William Weston, wrote in
Italian or French as well as English.207 While their hands may have lacked
the elegance and uency of chancery-trained scribes such as Mablestone,
their letters are long enough to suggest that they did not nd the process too
irksome. Where they learned to write is uncertain, but it is probable that
some schooling was expected of candidates for admission, and that further
training of a practical nature was provided in convent, where all brethren
would hold some kind of administrative post within a few years of arriving,
even if this was only to keep or audit the accounts of their langue. Only two
knight-brethren received before 1540, John Lambton and George Dundas,
are known to the author to have been university educated, although another
corresponded with Henry Golde, a Fellow of St Johns, Cambridge,208 and
others were charged with ambassadorial duties which by this period might
have necessitated the delivery of Latin orations. Nevertheless, with the
possible exception of Mablestone, no English brother appears to have had
the breadth of education required for the kind of sophisticated analysis of his
place in the world offered by the Italian knight Sabba da Castiglione.209 Yet
had the order survived longer, it is probable that a higher degree of learning
would have been expected. The few brothers received into the restored

204
Otho C.ix, fos. 39r41r. Text in W. Porter, A History of the Knights of Malta, 2nd edn.
(London, 1883), 71113, at 711.
205
The Inventory of King Henry VIII, ed. D. Starkey (London, 1998), 435 (no. 13804).
206
VCH Yorkshire, vol. i (London, 1907), 458; Emden, Oxford 150140, 689.
207
LPRH, ii. 3236; LPFD, xii, II, no. 663.
208
AOM361, fo. 242v; D. Calnan, Some Notes on the Order in Scotland, AOSM 22 (1964),
5971, at 64; LPFD, iii, no. 2840. Besides Dundas, whose learning was evidently quite
formidable, another Scottish brother, Adam Spens, had achieved an MA by 1486. Spens was
almost certainly a brother chaplain, however. CPL, xv. 567.
209
S. da Castiglione, Ricordi ouero ammaestramenti di S. Castiglione, ne quali con prudenti,
e christiani discorso si ragiona di tutte le materie honorate, che si ricercano a un vero gentil-
huomo (Milan, 1561).
56 The Prior and his Brethren

priory in 1557 included two very highly educated men. Richard Shelley had
studied Greek and Latin at Venice and lived in the household of Reginald
Pole at Padua and Oliver Starkey became the Latin secretary of grand master
Jean de la Valette.210
It must nonetheless be remembered that the Hospitaller vocation was
primarily a practical one and that the administrative training brethren
received in convent was well suited to the running of a preceptory. Their
houses were increasingly indistinguishable from secular properties, except
for the more prominent chapel and cemetery. Like important manors, they
were walled and sometimes moated,211 and often provided with a prominent
gatehouse and other machicolated structures.212 For a long time the more
important buildings, like those of aristocratic and episcopal residences, had
been two storeyed and built of stone.213 These were sometimes arranged
around formal courtyards, but more often as dispersed groups, with the hall
generally close to the chapel, and often situated on the south side of the
principal courtyard or space.214 Unlike many monastic granges and manors,
all preceptories and even quite minor camerae possessed chapels. Within the
precinct dwelt a small household like that of other secular establishments
a chaplain,215 sometimes a steward,216 often a keeper of woods or parker,217
and probably menial household servants. Other ofcers or servants might
lease properties within or just outside the preceptory enclosure. In 1494, for
example, a cottage within the parish of Eagle was let to George Constantine,
whose rent was included in his salary in 1505, while in 1540 the gatehouse
and three closes outside the precinct were let to one Henry Bolande.218
Other servants, while not residing within the preceptory precincts, would
be part of the preceptors council.219 These included the steward, auditor,

210
Bindoff (ed.), House of Commons, iii. 30810, 3789.
211
Medieval Archaeology, 36 (1992), 2423 (Excavations at Beverley by the Humberside
Archaeological Unit); W. Woodman, The Preceptory of the Knights Hospitallers at Chibburn,
Northumberland, Archaeological Journal, 17 (1860), 3547, at 38; W. H. Shimield, On
Shengay and its Preceptory, Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 7 (1893),
13647, site plan at 137; Excavations, 34; R. Gilchrist, Contemplation and Action: The
Other Monasticism (London, 1995), 74.
212
Hugo, Eagle, 1415; Excavations, 4; Gilchrist, Contemplation, 74.
213
Gilchrist, Contemplation, 93, 923, 1045; Excavations, 356, 578.
214
Excavations, 34, 200; M. Spufford, A Cambridgeshire Community: Chippenham
from Settlement to Enclosure, University of Leicester Department of English Local History
Occasional Papers, 20 (Welwyn Garden City, 1965), 16; Woodman, Chibburn, 38; P.
Ritook, Templar Architecture in England, SJHSP 4 (1992), 1422, at 15; Gilchrist, Contem-
plation, 71, 757, 801, 103.
215
Lansdowne 200, fos. 4v, 5r, 7r, 8v, 12v, 39v, 49v bis, 50r bis, 51r, 61r, 73rv, 78r; Claudius
E.vi, fos. 27v, 90rv, 101v, 130v, 140r, 148rv, 180v, 180v181r, 228v, 231r, 232r, 285r, 285rv,
285v, 285v286r, 286v.
216 Lansdowne 200, fos. 27v28r.
217
Ibid., fos. 24v, 27v; Claudius E.vi, fos. 182v183r, 199rv, 256v, 257v.
218
Lansdowne 200, fo. 21rv; Claudius E.vi, fos. 25r26r; Hugo, Eagle, 15, 21.
219
The phrase was used of Thomas Newport in 1505, although admittedly he held four
preceptories at the time and probably needed a council. Claudius E.vi, fos. 25r26r.
 The Prior and his Brethren 57

counsel in law and possibly the bailiffs, parkers, and keepers of woods of
outlying properties.
The volume of business involved in running a preceptory is illustrated by a
letter written by the turcopolier Hugh Middleton to a proctor or servant in
England in about 1448. Middleton, then in Rhodes or Italy, sent a long series of
instructions to his agent on what was to be done to maintain and improve his
properties, stock levels, and nances. He demanded to know whether new
tenants had been put into certain properties and repairs made according to his
instructions, and asked for details of how his farmers and tenants were con-
ducting themselves. Unless some composition could be reached with them,
those who were in arrears were to be prosecuted. Properties requiring it were to
be repaired and new glass, stained with his arms and those of the order,
installed in the clerestory windows at Temple Brewer. Further concern was
directed towards Middletons stocks of malt and corn, livestock, sh, swans,
and wood.220 The attention to detail is impressive throughout. At Fulbeck, for
instance, Middleton instructed his agent to stock two or three hundred tench
and similar numbers of roach, perch, and bream in the dam with all possible
haste and to see that his properties there were repaired. One Allcock was to
make . . . and bind well the gatehouse at Fulbeck, both gables to be plastered,
avising . . . that the windows of the said gate-house be honestly made.221
There are two overriding concerns throughout Middletons letter, the desire
to know what his livelihood was worth, and the associated requirement that
it chevyth and increase. Similar cares are expressed in the 1530s corres-
pondence between members of the order.222 When brethren were less diligent
in their charge of property, however, calling them to account could be a slow
business. In 1504, for example, John Tonge was rebuked for neglecting the
fabric of his third and poorest commmandery, Carbrooke, following which he
set some wood aside to make repairs. Later he changed his mind, sold the
timber instead, and left the preceptory and its buildings in the accustomed
ruin. By 1510 the house was so dilapidated that the English brethren in
convent reported that unless remedy was made promptly no brother would
seek it for his cabimentum.223 In response, the chapter-general instructed the
prior of England to appoint visitors to see what needed to be done and give
Tonge a certain term to complete the repairs without fail.224
The practical concerns of business were also paramount at Clerkenwell.
Here a large complex of conventual and domestic buildings including the
church, chapter-house, great hall, great chamber, priests dorter, yeomens
dorter, counting house, and armoury was arranged around a formal great

220
E. J. King, A Letter from Brother Hugh Middleton, Knight of the Order of St. John and
Turcopolier of Rhodes, to his agent in England, written about 1448, OSJHP 4 (1930), 118.
221
Ibid. 16.
222
LPFD, xiv, II, nos. 4045; xv, no. 490; Addenda, no. 684.
223
AOM284, fo. 78v; 399, fos. 145v146r.
224
He was probably dead before he had to do so. Ibid.
58 The Prior and his Brethren

court225 and walled off from the rest of the estate, which was composed
largely of gardens and tenements, but also included the lodgings of the bailiff
of Eagle and other brethren.226 Access to the inner precinct was controlled,
after 1504, by the imposing gatehouse built by Thomas Docwra, which still
stands.227 In some ways this arrangement reected that of the conventual
enclosure or collachium in Rhodes, with the inner precinct corresponding to
the magistral palace, and the outer the rest of the area of town reserved for the
brethren. There are similarities, too, with the Teutonic knights headquarters
at Marienburg, and closer to home with episcopal residences such as Lam-
beth palace and York place.228 Within the walls of the inner precinct dwelt
the prior, subprior, probably the priests serving in the church, the turcopolier
when he was in residence, and the yeomen and other servants of the prior.229
In the outer enclosure resided the other brethren at headquarters, including
the bailiff of Eagle, the chief ofcials of the priory, and lesser servants and
tenants who included brewers, tilers, and industrial workers.230 Properties
were permanently reserved for the turcopolier and bailiff of Eagle, an agree-
ment between prior and brethren of 1440 having established that both they
and other brethren residing in Clerkenwell should pay xed amounts for their
board.231 A number of corrodians held tenements in the outer part of the
complex but were fed at the great hall within at tables gradated according to
rank. Corrodies were sometimes granted to relatives such as Lancelot Doc-
wras nephew John and the similarly named son of James Docwra of
Hitchin,232 but more often to servants ranging from the likes of the chief
steward Thomas Dalby233 and solicitor Richard Hawkes234 to the ofcials of
local Hospitaller manors, butchers, tilers, carpenters, and stable boys.235
Other ofcials of the priory, even if they did not rent tenements or hold
corrodies there, were provided with robes of its livery, as were the stewards
of Hospitaller manors in the provinces.236 Both servants and tenants might
also share in the spiritual benets and exemptions enjoyed by the order and
might choose burial in its churches. Quite a number, including Thomas Cotes,
John Lamberd, William Yolton, and Francis Bell, did just this.237
225
Excavations, esp. 1326, 1669 and gs. 99, 101.
226
See Excavations, 13645; LPFD, xxi, I, no. 970 (1).
227
Excavations, 1356, 16972.
228
Compare plans in Luttrell, Military Orders, 3445 with Excavations, 2002 and gs.
989, 142.
229 AOM354, fo. 214v; Excavations, esp 92, 1356, 1679 and gs. 99, 101.
230
Excavations, esp. 923, 1037, 129, 13345, 18890, 2034.
231
AOM354, fo. 214v.
232
Claudius E.vi, fos. 129v130r, 60r.
233
Lansdowne 200, fo. 71r.
234
Claudius E.vi, fo. 229v.
235
Lansdowne 200, fos. 20rv, 45r; Claudius E.vi, fos. 182v183r, 183r, 183rv, 283v284r.
236
e.g. Lansdowne 200, fo. 42r; Claudius E.vi, fos. 136rv, 241r, 253v, 280r.
237
Stow, Survey, ii. 85; J. C. C. Smith, Index of Wills Proved in the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury 13831558, 2 vols., continuously paginated (London, 18935), 49, 62, 143, 162,
192, 237, 247, 276, 322, 325, 529; North Country Wills, ed. Clay, 271.
 The Prior and his Brethren 59

Surrounded by their largely lay households and ofcials, brethren of the

Hospital in England and Wales appear not to have lived a fully regular or
conventual life. Yet their failure to do so was itself a result of the orders
policy, which required little more of brethren resident in the west than
conventional piety, the maintenance of divine service, hospitality and prop-
erty, and the forwarding of responsions to headquarters. These were un-
heroic, but not entirely unworthy goals, and it is perhaps on their diligence
and effectiveness in pursuing them, rather than on their production of saints
or scholars, that we should judge the orders members. Crucial to doing so is
to understand the orders administrative system and how far and in what
degree this was geared towards the dispatch of men and monies to the east.
It is to this subject that we now turn.
 CHAPTER THREE

The Administration and Finances

of the Priory of England

The Hospital steadily acquired lands and rents in England and Wales be-
tween the 1140s and the enactment of the Statute of Mortmain, which made
grants to religious houses subject to royal licence in 1279.1 A renewed
process of acquisition began in 1312, when the order was granted the former
properties of the Templars. Getting hold of these was to involve the expend-
iture of much time and treasure and was still not complete in 1338, when a
survey of the properties subject to the priory of England listed Templar
estates worth a supposed 1,145 marks per annum that were still in the
hands of lay possessors.2 Most of these were never to be acquired and the
extent of the orders landed estate underwent only minor variations there-
after, the most signicant after 1460 being the exchanges of 14801 and
152732.3 The order possessed properties in every county in England, but
the largest concentrations were on its eastern side, in and around London,
and in Cambridgeshire, Essex, Kent, Lincolnshire, and Yorkshire. Between
them these areas accounted for about half the income from land of the priory
and its dependent preceptories. In Wales, where Anglo-Norman settlers were
the main donors to the order, its estates were concentrated in the south,
particularly in Pembrokeshire.
The main lines of the orders administration in 1338 are relatively clear. Its
properties were grouped into bajuliae, large houses administered by a pre-
ceptor, and smaller camerae either administered by resident brother-cus-
todes or lay bailiffs or let to farm. Those brothers who had charge of
houses were responsible for managing their estates, maintaining divine
service in their chapels and appropriated churches, dispensing hospitality,
and authorizing expenditure.4 Having collected the revenues of the bailiwick
or camera, they then paid their own expenses and others such as for the
wages, victuals, and robes of their administrative ofcials, household
servants, chaplains, and corrodians, for building and repairs and for the
1
S. Raban, Mortmain Legislation and the English Church (Cambridge, 1982), passim;
Secunda Camera, p. xlvii.
2
It is likely that this gure was overestimated. Report, 21213.
3
See below, 139, 17980, 182, 1967.
4
Report, p. xxxi and text, passim.
 Administration and Finances 61

provision of hospitality. The remainder was then submitted to the treasury in

Clerkenwell. A further round of expenses, including those of the prior and
his household, were met there before the remainder was set aside for dis-
patch to Rhodes. Despite the 1303 statute allowing each prior four prioral
camerae for his upkeep,5 the prior was not presented as holding any of the
properties mentioned in the Report in his own name, but instead drew a
personal allowance of 20 shillings per day, payable by the treasury when he
was at headquarters and by the bajuliae when on visitation.6 It is probable
that some estates not mentioned in the Report were set aside for the prior,
however,7 and the exceptionally heavy charges incumbent on the bajulia of
Clerkenwell indicate some overlap between prioral and preceptorial house-
holds and expenses. The corrodies or stipends of ofcials such as the orders
general procurator in the courts, and the expenses involved in the provision
of hospitality were met from the revenues of Clerkenwell in 1338,8 and were
probably a charge on the prior in later days. Other corporate expenses were
met out of the funds remitted to the priory by the orders other houses.
By the 1430s the organization of the orders estates had been greatly
altered. Although the camerae and lands let to farm in 1338 may well
have been under some kind of prioral supervision, the prior appears not to
have derived any income from them himself. A papal conrmation of the
lands held by Robert Malory (prior, 143239/40) in 1438, however, shows
that the prior now had control not only of four or ve prioral camerae,9 but
also seven membra formerly classed as bajuliae or camerae, nine other
estates, and a further ve parish churches.10 The papal letter, which reects
Malorys petition, suggests that his predecessors had held these for some
time, while his own lack of title to the lands was perhaps the result of the
combustion of some of the priory buildings in 1381.11 One of Malorys
preceptories, that of Buckland and Bothmiscombe, had been transferred to
the priory by the langue in return for the surrender of prioral visitation fees,
while other estates were added to the priors in return for the cession of
prioral rights to the spolia of deceased brethren.12 In 1440, after Malory
had excluded his brethren from a number of their estates, the new prior,
Robert Botill, and the preceptors came to a concord under which
Botill would be granted the small preceptories of Greenham, Hogshaw,
Maltby, Skirbeck, and Poling in return for his granting 300 marks to the

5
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 3512.
6
Report, 211 and passim.
7
Prima Camera, pp. xxvii, xxxix.
8
Report, 96101.
9
For the prioral right to hold multiple camerae, see above, Ch. 2.2.
10
CPL, ix. 3; discussed in Field, Robert Malory, 2556.
11
The Peasants Revolt of 1381, ed. R. B. Dobson, 2nd edn. (London, 1983), 40, 158, 170,
185, 188, 200, 209, 224, 262, 389.
12 Field, Robert Malory, 252 (citing AOM350, fos. 221v222r); Mifsud, Venerable Tongue,

44, 66 n.
62 Administration and Finances

preceptors and promising to maintain non-knightly brethren in the ceded

houses.13 Subsequent priors retained these grants. By the 1470s the prior
was specically and personally in control of about 40 per cent of the orders
estates14 which, although often leased by the prior and preceptors in pro-
vincial chapter, paid their prots to the priors receiver-general rather than
the receiver of the common treasury. Four former bajuliae, Clerkenwell,
Cressing, Sandford, and usually Balsall, were set aside for his maintenance
as prioral camerae and subject to payment of a responsion set at 70 after
1501,15 while he was entitled to claim a fth on or after his election. The
fth camera and the ve other preceptories held by the priorBuckland,
Greenham, Hogshaw, Maltby-cum-Skirbeck and Polingwere taxed by the
order at the rate paid by other preceptors.16 The other scattered properties
which were accounted for under the priory in 1535 and 1540 had a net
income of perhaps 1,000. On these the prior paid no responsions at all.
The bajuliae had been subjected to a similar process of amalgamation and
consolidation. Those that had not been absorbed by the priory had largely
been united with preceptories in the same or neighbouring counties.17
Preceptors of the paired houses probably kept some kind of household at
both sites, however.18 Like the prior, rather than simply administer their
estates and send their prots on to the treasury preceptors were now taxed at
a rate individually assessed on the value of their houses by the common
treasury. After paying responsions and sums towards the expenses of pro-
vincial chapters and of the English auberge in Rhodes, and providing for the
maintenance of hospitality, chaplains, and of such servants as were necessary
to run their estates, preceptors were free to do what they liked with their
money until they died, when their possessions reverted to the order.19 They
were bound to maintain the fabric of their houses by the orders statutes and

13
AOM354, fo. 215r.
14
With the exception of two commanderies in Kent, virtually all the orders properties in the
Home Counties were placed under prioral control, as were important estates in Cambridgeshire,
Lincolnshire, and Oxfordshire, and smaller ones elsewhere.
15
AOM393, fos. 109v110v; 54, passim. Their real value was at least 1,050. Valor, i. 4036.
16
AOM54, passim.
17
Thus, for example, the Yorkshire preceptory of Newland had absorbed the bajuliae of
Ossington and Winkburn in Nottinghamshire, and the camera of Stydd in central Lancashire;
another Yorkshire house, Mount St John, had been united with the Northumberland house of
Chibburn, and the former Templar preceptory of Garway in Herefordshire had been joined to
the commandery of Dinmore in the same county.
18
Except when a preceptor was in or on his way to the Mediterranean, in which case paired
houses were quite often let separately, there are only two long-term leases before 1528 of the
second house of a twin in the lease books. These grants were of Trebigh, which was united to
Ansty, and of Garway. Not only did preceptors not usually lease their subsidiary commanderies,
at least one, Giles Russell, is known to have resided at both his houses of Battisford and Dingley
at various times while he was preceptor. Claudius E.vi, fos. 260rv, 276rv; LPFD, v, no. 88; xiv,
II, no. 405.
19
They were, however, not to grant pensions to secular persons, a stipulation relaxed in
1527, when each brother holding a benece in the priory was permitted to grant one pension of
up to 10 ducats. AOM286, fo. 15v.
 Administration and Finances 63

were sometimes expected to perform expensive conventual service, but

brethren with long careers and multiple preceptories could accumulate
considerable personal wealth.
The administration of wide estates by a small number of nancially
independent brother knights was the result of gradual change. In part, this
was a response to complex economic and social pressures, but it is also clear
that it was encouraged by the order, whose statutes made provision for the
absorption of smaller houses by greater.20 The convent placed demands on
both nances and manpower that could not be met by smaller houses unless
they were held in plurality. As rents fell after the Black Death and the cost of
military service increased, the necessity for the amalgamation of houses
became more acute, and the smaller preceptories were gradually absorbed.21
Thus, in 1414, the conventually appointed visitors of the priory agreed, for
the utility of the common treasury and convent, and by the consent of many
preceptors and brethren, to unite the Oxfordshire house of Claneld with
Quenington, while in 1454 the langue in Rhodes voted to attach Dingley to
Battisford when it should next vacate.22
The new structure was made possible by a more devolved system of
administration, with greater reliance on lay farmers as intermediaries be-
tween the order and its tenants. Although a large proportion of peripheral
estates had already been rented out in 1338, demesnes, although given a cash
value in the Report, had probably been kept in hand,23 and labour services
had still been signicant.24 By the late fteenth century nearly all properties
were rented, although some labour services or payments in kind were still
exacted on leased estates.25 Particularly noticeable was the practice of
granting out lands on long lease under the conventual seal. This was espe-
cially marked among the prioral estates, over 80 per cent of which were
leased by 1540.26 On preceptorial estates, the tendency was for appropriated
churches, mills, and the confraria to be leased while smaller tenants held
their lands by copy or freehold. This process had been going on for some
time. Nearly 10 per cent of the Hospitals properties had already been let
under the common seal in 1338, and the order had received papal licence to
rent out its churches in 1390.27 A number of earlier leases are referred to in

20
Delaville, Rhodes, 163; Stabilimenta, De prioribus, xiiii (Statute of Naillac).
21
Dates of their absorption based largely on information supplied by Tipton are given in
D. Knowles and R. N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales, 2nd edn.
(London, 1971), 3018.
22
AOM339, fos. 142v143r; 365, fo. 119v.
23
Spufford, Chippenham, 30. For the presentation of payments in kind as cash sums in
accounts, see R. A. Lomas, The Priory of Durham and its Demesne in the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Centuries, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 31 (1978), 33953, at 3434.
24
Kemble calculated that they were worth 184 16s. 8d. in total. Report, p. xxix.
25
Spufford, Chippenham, 34.
26
Long leases of prioral estates were worth 2,068 9s. 0d. in 153940. PRO SC6/Henry VIII/
2402, passim.
27
Delaville, Rhodes, 263 n. 1.
64 Administration and Finances

the act books of provincial chapters after 1492, and the movement towards
leasing is further corroborated by other sources28 and by the practice of
other religious houses, although some of these appear to have begun grant-
ing substantial numbers of leases for terms of years, rather than for life, only
in the 1530s, when their dissolution was imminent. Such grants were often
made after receipt of heavy entry nes, but set rents at a low level in return, a
practice the Hospital was also following by the end.29
The movement towards leasing was still continuing in the sixteenth cen-
tury. On several occasions between 1503 and 1526 copyhold rents were
leased out by provincial chapter or numbers of small rents were bundled up
together and let to farm for a xed sum.30 Leases were granted by provincial
chapters or assemblies of the order under the conventual seal, and terms
were relatively long. Evidence from other religious houses suggests that they
increased in length in the fteenth century,31 and twenty-one, twenty-nine,
thirty, forty, and even sixty-year leases, as well as more traditional grants for
life or in survivorship, abound in the orders registers even in the 1490s.
Lessees were usually local men. Naturally enough, knights and gentry
tended to be granted the larger manorial or ecclesiastical properties, yeomen
and priests the smaller, while husbandmen were given tenements and mes-
suages. In the capital and its environs, citizens, guildsmen, and brewers
predominated, with royal ofcials also on the lookout for grants of stra-
tegically placed properties. In and around the priory precincts in Clerken-
well numerous properties were leased, or granted as part-corrodies, to
servants and relatives of brethren. This was mirrored by the situation in
the provinces, where family members of preceptors or their servants and
associates were often granted the leases of preceptory demesnes or outlying
estates. Probably for reasons of trust, the three-year leases of preceptory
estates granted to enable brethren to go to or maintain themselves at the
convent were almost exclusively made out to Hospitaller brethren, relatives

28
e.g. BL Additional MS 5539 nos. 301 (leases of Sutton-at-Hone, 1450s and 1460s,
mentioned); Harleian Charter 57 F.18 (dispute over twenty-four-year lease of Great Wilbraham
drawn up in June 1401); VCH, Wiltshire, ix. 66 (Chirton leased by 1379); Secunda Camera, pp.
lxii, lxxi (Maplestead probably leased 13657; the Sampfords c.1389); Prima Camera, pp. xlvi,
lxxv, 257 (twelve-year lease of rectory of Roydon, 1390), 424 (Sutton, Essex by c.1395); A
Kentish Cartulary of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, ed. C. Cotton, Kent Archaeological
Society, Records Branch: Kent Records, 11 (Ashford, 1930), 132 (thirty-eight-year lease of
Temple Dartford, 1388).
29
D. M. Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1971), ii. 3234;
Lomas, Durham, 33940, 3448, 352; R. W. Hoyle, Monastic Leasing before the Dissolution:
The Evidence of Bolton Priory and Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 61
(1989), 11137, esp. 11416; J. Youings, The Dissolution of the Monasteries (London, 1971),
50, 578, 60, 77, 337; J. H. Bettey, The Suppression of the Monasteries in the West Country
(Gloucester, 1989), 712; PRO LR2/62, passim.
30
Claudius E.vi, fos. 32v33r, 108r, 119v120v, 196rv.
31
Lomas, Durham, 348, 352; C. Dyer, Warwickshire Farming 1349c.1520: Preparations
for Agricultural Revolution, Dugdale Society Occasional Papers, 27 (Stratford-upon-Avon,
1981), 5; VCH, Wiltshire, iii. 183.
 Administration and Finances 65

of the preceptor concerned, and leading servants of the order.32 Occasionally

leases were made out to the brethren themselves. In 1498 John Tonge
received the Hertfordshire manor of Temple Dinsley from his uncle, John
Kendal, and the provincial chapter, while Robert Newport was granted the
Leicestershire manor of Heather, which Thomas Newport had recovered
from the hands of seculars, in 1505.33
An examination of the leases granted in the chapter held in May 1526 may
illustrate some of these points. This meeting provides a fairly large and
diffuse sample of grants:34 it made seventy-six in all, of which eight were
of the advowson of churches in the orders gift, one was of a pension, four
were of ofces, and thirteen were of corrodies, some with an ofce or
chaplaincy attached. The fty remaining grants were leases, of which some
twenty-ve pertained to the prioral preceptories, camerae, and estates, and
the rest to the other preceptories. They ranged across the whole spectrum of
property types and values. Excluding three-year leases of the preceptories of
Swingeld, Dalby and Rothley, and Yeaveley and Barrow, and that of a
pertinence of Beverley of which the farmer was to pay the accustomed and
unspecied farm to the auditor there, the total annual value of the properties
granted was 535 7s. 5d. The most important of these was the large prioral
camera of Balsall, leased to Martin Docwra at a rent of 200 per annum.35
Docwra was also given the reversion of the Berkshire manor of Greenham,
and another member of the family, John, the prebendary of Blewbury, was
granted a close in the Essex manor of Rainham-Berwick.36 Nineteen of the
lessees were described as yeomen, and thirteen as gentlemen or esquires.37
There were also a citizen of London, a grocer, a smith, a waterman, and a
tiler. Virtually all resided in the same township or county as the property
they were leasing and several had previous connections with the Hospital.
The three preceptories leased were granted to the usual recipients.38 The
Genoese merchant Antonio Vivaldo was co-lessee of all three, the prioral
chancellor John Mablestone was co-lessee of Swingeld and Dalby, and John
Babington, preceptor of Dalby, was co-lessee of Swingeld and Yeaveley
despite being himself on his way to Italy. Two London gentlemen, William
Bowes and Thomas Redeman, were among the farmers of Swingeld and
Yeaveley respectively, and Babingtons brother Humphrey was joint farmer
of Dalby. With the exception of the preceptories, the properties let ranged in
value from a noble to 33, and included grants or reversions of eight

32
See e.g. Claudius E.vi, fos. 4v5r, 6v7r, 16rv, 28rv, 28v29r, 44rv, 81v82r, 83rv, 98r,
98 99v, 243rv.
v
33
Lansdowne 200, fos. 54rv; Claudius E.vi, fo. 14v15r.
34
Claudius E.vi, fos. 264r291r.
35
Ibid., fos. 265v266v.
36
Ibid., fos. 266v267r, 270v271r.
37
I have excluded lessees of preceptories from this gure. Seven farmers were not described.
38
Claudius E.vi, fos. 264rv, 264v265r, 265rv.
66 Administration and Finances

courses of confraternity payments, eight manors, six rectories, and one

combination of the two. Several of the smaller grants were of properties in
London or within the priory precincts.39
That it leased out its property did not mean that the order was without
concern for its state. Leases laid down the responsibilities of farmers in some
detail. Rent was to be paid on time on pain of nancial penalties usually
amounting to about twice the annual farm. When a manor had been
granted, the farmers were usually bound to pay the salary of the manorial
chaplain, and the expenses of ministers and stewards coming to survey the
property or to hold courts. They were also typically expected to maintain the
buildings in coopertura, daubatura et straminis and to repair hedges,
ditches, mill-workings, river banks, and ood defences when necessary. In
1496, for example, Thomas and Elizabeth Seyman promised to repair all the
walls and buildings then in existence at Temple Grafton40 and to maintain
any new edices they might construct. The prior and his successors were
only to pay for the rebuilding of the chancel of the manorial chapel, an
expense incumbent upon them as its appropriators.41 Often there was a
division of responsibility according to the scale and type of maintenance to
be carried out. Leases of the Kentish camera of Sutton-at-Hone in 1493 and
1499 specied that while the farmers were to maintain houses, walls,
hedges, ditches, and the banks of the Thames, as well as, in 1499, stock
levels and the ornaments of the chapel, all repairs requiring the use of stone,
lead, tiles, and great timber were to be at the priors expense.42 In the case of
those taking on dilapidated properties, major repairs or rebuilding were
sometimes stipulated. Thus in 1506, Thomas Bassett of Painswick obliged
himself to build at the Gloucestershire manor of Wishanger a chamber in the
hall of the mansion, besides a storeroom, a pantry with a solar above, a
stable for six horses, a bakehouse, and a malthouse.43 When the property
was granted to new farmers in 1514 they were required to construct a stone
barn roofed in slate within seven years.44 At the same time, the farmer of the
capital tenement of Suffytur, also a dependency of Quenington, promised to
spend 40 on rebuilding the property, which was now in great ruin.45 To
encourage him to do so, a very low rent was set. Similarly, in 1519 John
Huntyngdon promised to provide a new roof, oor, wattle walls, and doors

39
e.g. ibid., fos. 272rv, 273rv, 273v, 273v274r.
40
These were a hall of two bays with two adjacent chambers each of one bay, an old kitchen
of two bays with an appended structure of the same size, an oxhouse, a barn, a sheepcote, and a
dovecote.
41
Lansdowne 200, fos. 33v34r.
42
Ibid., fos. 15rv, 62v63r.
43
Claudius E.vi, fos. 31rv.
44
Ibid., fos. 128v129r.
45
Ibid., fo. 129r. Similar obligations to construct new buildings or rebuild old in ibid.,
fos. 32rv, 80r, 89v90r, 107v108r, 123v124r, 124rv, 129v, 199v200r, 233v, 234v, 240v241r,
247rv; Lansdowne 200, fos. 3v, 6v, 34rv, 35r, 51v52r.
 Administration and Finances 67

for the orders tithe barn at Sawston, in return for which his rent was reduced
by 10 in his rst two years of occupation.46 Occasionally the order prom-
ised to do the building itself.47 Apart from this obvious concern for the fabric
of its properties, the order also drew up inventories of the stock and utensi-
liae belonging to some major properties before leasing them, copies of which
were kept in the house or camera belonging to the common treasury at
Clerkenwell.48
To ensure compliance with the provisions of leases, the orders ofcials
visited its estates, and those who failed to maintain their properties or who
fell heavily into arrears could be evicted.49 It was not always easy to remove
recalcitrant tenants or to recover debts, however, and much of the orders
time and effort was spent on the attempt to achieve these aims in the courts.
Suits were prosecuted in the priors name, as only the priory was incorpor-
ated in the common law, although expenses seem to have been born at least
in part by the preceptor who held the property.50 In 1338, the order paid fees
to a host of legal ofcers both at court and in the provinces, and while the
burden may have lessened somewhat by the fteenth century, the records of
chancery and Star Chamber often show the order prosecuting high-prole
actions against its tenants. The most signicant of these were the disputes
over Balsall in 1496, 15014, and 152736, but other attempts to recover
properties, monies, and documents from tenants occurred in relation to the
orders estates at Slebech, Dalby, and Dinmore.51 Often suits were unsuc-
cessful. The prosecution for debt of ex-farmers of the estates of Slebech after
1514 had been abandoned by 1520, while the order eventually lost its long
action against Martin Docwra for the recovery of Balsall, despite a clause in
his lease by which the latter had promised to vacate the property on a years
notice.52 Even when the courts ruled in the orders favour it might be years
before the desired goods or property could be recovered.53 Often the order
was on the defensive, sometimes against descendants of former benefactors
who claimed that the grants made by their ancestors had been invalid. These
disputes could be lengthy and a cause of lasting bitterness. In the 1520s
Thomas de la Laund complained about the difculty of a pore Gentilman

46
Claudius E.vi, fos. 199v200r. Other examples of allowances made against rent for repairs
can be found in ibid., fos. 116rv, 222rv, 247v248r; Lansdowne 200, fo. 6v.
47
e.g. Claudius E.vi, fos. 153v154r, 269rv, 274rv.
48
Although inventories are often mentioned in the lease books, their details are only rarely
recorded, save for leases of a few important estates, such as Hampton Court, and of inns. e.g.
Lansdowne 200, fos. 30rv; Claudius E.vi, fos. 8v, 139v140r, 143v, 147rv, 149v, 151r; PRO
LR2/62, fos. 7rv.
49
Claudius E.vi, fos. 191rv, 219rv, 227v228r, 243rv.
50
AOM54, fos. 13v, 18r, 42r, 45rv, 95r.
51
PRO REQ 2/10/76; STAC2/33/40, 1/1/50/12, 1/2/109/15, 2/17/401/15, 2/26/175; C1/
588/36, 598/12, 778/303, 925/35; SP2/R, pp. 2902; STAC2/22/290/14, C1/732/38, 932/30
1, 132/1011.
52
AOM54, fo. 13v; See below, Ch. 6.
53
See below, Ch. 6.
68 Administration and Finances

such as himself suing a corporation such as the order, for that they do dryve
such as do sew the law wyth them, for lyke theyr Ryght, to an extreme Cost
of Labor & that all they of theyr Religion bere theyr Charges of Sute in
common; & that they have so meny of the best lerned men retayned of theyr
Councell & Parte.54
While the order demonstrated some aggression in maintaining its rights,
the leasing of so many estates probably made their defence more difcult by
weakening formerly robust links with the localities. Prioral ofcials visiting
once or twice a year were no substitute for the presence of a resident
preceptor who might enjoy real clout in his country. The ease with which
even the upstart Martin Docwra was able to defy the order and its ofcers at
Balsall revealed the dangers of the orders land-management policies, par-
ticularly in cases where important estates had been granted to relatives of
brethren. Both at Balsall and at Dalby, where Henry Poole attempted to evict
Humphrey Babington from a lease of the manorial demesne granted him by
his brother John, it proved difcult for a new incumbent to revoke a grant
manifestly not in the orders interest. In such circumstances the service of
best lerned men was always going to be necessary and it is no surprise to
nd the provincial chapter of 1522 granting a corrody to the orders solici-
tor of business and causes, Richard Hawkes, who was to engross all pro-
cesses and pleas pertaining to temporal actions, or that another such grant
was made two years later to Richard Bruge, one of our council in the law.55

3.1 Income

In 1338, according to its own gures, the orders estates in England and
Wales brought in 6,839 9s. 9d., of which, the expenses of preceptorial
households having been deducted, 3,826 4s. 6d. reached the treasury in
Clerkenwell.56 After the payment of expenses, pensions, and corrodies the
treasury was left with 2,303 15s. 2d. for submission as responsions to
Rhodes.57 As the responsion was set at a third-annate at the time, this sum
corresponded fairly neatly with a third of the sum submitted gathered in the
orders estates. In fact the gures are not entirely convincing, and their
presentation seems to have been inuenced by a desire to show that the
order was submitting a third of the value of its estates to headquarters rather
than by a strict desire for accuracy. Nevertheless they prove clearly that the
priory had a clear income comparable to that of the very greatest lay
magnates or richest bishops in the mid-fourteenth century. Moreover,

54
BL MS Additional 4937, fos. 80r, 78v79r, 86r.
55
Claudius E.vi, fos. 229v, 253v.
56
Report, 213, 202.
57
Ibid. 211.
 Administration and Finances 69

when it is borne in mind that in return for the acquisition of the Templar
estates the Hospital had had to grant many of their holders life tenure rent
free, and to advance lands and pensions to courtiers, lawyers, and creditors,
it is clear that its potential wealth was considerably underestimated by the
report. Michael Gervers has even suggested that it only records a third of the
orders real wealth, but his conclusions may only hold true for properties in
prioral hands.58
Whatever its real dimensions, it is unlikely that this wealth could ever be
concentrated and exploited with complete effectiveness. The Black Death
and the sustained fall in population which occurred thereafter eventually
reduced the revenues of most landowners, and may have hit the order
particularly hard, as much of its land was marginal59 and may have been
abandoned by its tenants. The fteenth century saw continued decline in the
population of some of the orders estates, so much so that one of its two
parish churches in the Norfolk village of Carbrooke was closed for lack of
parishioners in 1424, and when the buildings and tenements pertaining to
another, the Cambridgeshire bajulia of Chippenham, were destroyed by re
in 1446 many of them were never rebuilt and reoccupied.60 The number of
households in Chippenham fell from 143 in 1279 to fewer than eighty in
1377 and only sixty in 1544.61 Although conditions varied according to time
and place, in general the fall in population led to increased wages and
perquisites for labourers, the widespread commutation of labour services,
and, especially in the fteenth century, a considerable decline in rents.62 The
orders resort to the farming out of many estates on long lease needs to be
seen as an attempt to ensure itself a stable income in this context of falling
agricultural revenues and population decline, the latter possibly affecting the
recruitment of brethren as well as numbers of tenants. A number of smaller
properties had, admittedly, been leased out by 1338,63 but the more sub-
stantial estates had still been kept in hand. By the 1490s as many as half its
properties may have been leased. Although this certainly saved on the

58
Prima Camera, p. xxxix. Some estates in Essex and Middlesex were heavily undervalued in
1338, but it is much harder to argue this with respect to properties elsewhere which, although
certainly valued more highly in the inquests into Templar property in 13079 than in 1338, do
not show such massive discrepancies in valuation as in the cases he highlights, as can be seen, for
instance, from a comparison of the values Perkins gives for churches appropriated to the Temple
with the revenue the hospital derived from them in 1338. Perkins, Wealth, 256; Report, 136,
137, 161, 163, 172.
59
Marginal land was often given to the Hospitallers or Templars, but was made attractive by
the privileges that their tenants enjoyed. R. Studd, A Templar Colony in North Staffordshire:
Keele before the Sneyds, North Staffordshire Journal of Field Studies, 22 (19825), 56, 910.
60
Puddy, Norfolk, 19; Spufford, Chippenham, 367, 312.
61
Spufford, Chippenham, 5. For depopulation and rent reductions on some Hospitaller
properties in Oxfordshire, see VCH, Oxfordshire, xii. 19, 262.
62
J. Hatcher, England in the Aftermath of the Black Death, Past and Present, 144 (1994),
335; Dyer, Warwickshire Farming, 89; Spufford, Chippenham, 334, 37.
63
Report, 1223, 1256, 143, 1523, 157, 1602, 167, 1704, 178, 1935.
70 Administration and Finances

expense of maintaining a large number of independent households, the gain

was partially offset by the low level at which leases were set. The value of
the orders estates may have continued to fall until the last quarter of the
fteenth century. At Sutton-at-Hone/Dartford, for example, the annual
payment for the lease of the manor was twice reduced in the third quarter
of the fteenth century, rst from 63 to 50, and secondly from 50 to 46
13s. 4d. Recent farmers of the property had clearly been unable or unwilling
to pay and still owed over 160 to the prior in the mid-1470s. The lessees of
the priorys appropriated churches in Kent were also heavily in arrears.64
By the 1490s, however, the sums the order could raise by leasing its estates
appear to have stabilized. The registers of the acts of the orders provincial
chapters contain serial leases of many of the orders properties and appro-
priated churches, and the value of these did not vary greatly between 1492
and 1539. If anything there was an upward trend after about 1510: the farm
of Sutton-at-Hone and Temple Dartford was increased to 48 in 1514 and
50 in 1522, and its lessees were made responsible for major repairs, and the
rent of the former camera of Keele was raised from 16 13s. 4d. to 18 in
1519.65 Rents of estates around London were particularly likely to increase,
a development that can probably be associated with the contemporary rise in
grain prices in the capital.66 Many of the increases were also associated with
improvements to the fabric of the properties in question. In London espe-
cially a number of tenements were rebuilt and then let at signicantly higher
rents. It needs to be stressed, however, that most properties were leased for
the same sums in 1535 as they had been twenty, thirty, or forty years before.
Income, then, was probably fairly stable between the 1480s and the onset
of the anti-ecclesiastical measures of 152936, which severely reduced the
orders revenues.67 Yet some of its spiritual perquisites were still in place to
be noticed in the Valor Ecclesiasticus of 1535, which provides brief sum-
maries of the sources and extent of the income of its houses, and of expend-
iture on servants, chaplains, and sometimes on responsions. Rather more
detailed are the Ministers Accounts of the Hospitaller estates after their
expropriation by the crown in 1540, which give complete lists of the tenants
of many properties. Yet both the Valor and the Accounts have deciencies as
guides to the nature and extent of the orders income. The survey of 1535
varied in thoroughness according to the peculiarities of the local commis-
sioners, so that the income of some preceptories was listed manor by manor
and source by source, while the entries for others are much more abbrevi-
ated. The entries for Beverley, Halston, Peckham, Shingay, and Temple

64
BL Additional MS 5539 no. 31. Sutton had been let separately from Dartford until 1460.
Ibid., nos. 627.
65
Claudius E.vi, fos. 118v119r, 214v215v, 13r, 191rv.
66
I. W. S. Blanchard, Population Change, Enclosure, and the Early Tudor Economy,
Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 23 (1970), 42745, at 433 and n.
67
See below, Ch. 6.
 Administration and Finances 71

Brewer only provide details of the net income or annual farm of the house,
although that for Temple Brewer mentions that the lessee had an annual
allowance of 23 10s. to pay the stipends of servants and chaplains. More
seriously, the entry for Dinmore is missing and that for Battisford and
Dingley is heavily damaged and can give no indication of the complete
value of the house. However, the Valor does provide a partial idea of the
orders income from confraternity payments and the oblations made in its
churches, both of which are unmentioned in the Ministers Accounts.
The net values given in the Valor are noted in Appendix IX, although all
should be reduced because the commissioners refused to allow some ex-
penses against the value of preceptories when they estimated their worth.
These included 12 paid to maintain six poor boys at Carbrooke, oblations
to the poor at Willoughton, and the salaries of chaplains celebrating in
chantries at Ribston and Quenington.68 Claims that responsions should be
allowed against the taxable value were universally refuted. Moreover, even
when these charges are taken into consideration, the expenses listed in the
Valor do not include those of the brethren themselves. If these, especially
those of the priors household, were added the clear value of the orders
estates might well be lower than that given in 1338.
The Ministers Accounts are also incomplete. Most of the earliest surviv-
ing accounts are for the nancial year 15401 rather than 153940 and,
because of the rapid alienation or leasing of monastic lands after the dissol-
ution, probably represent a fall on the gures that could have been expected
even a year earlier. Moreover, the 15401 accounts for the preceptories of
Slebech and Ansty show that they had already been let by the crown at
relatively low rents,69 the commanderies formerly held by the attainted
Thomas Dingley paid only a tenth based on their 1535 assessment to the
crown, otherwise submitting no account, and several houses were farmed
out shortly before or after the dissolution for rather low considerations.
Nevertheless, the sums given in the Accounts do provide a corrective to the
Valor because, despite the loss of spiritual revenues, those given for 153940
are considerably higher than the gures for 1535 and are based on actual
receipts rather than assessed income.70 The overall picture provided by these
sources, both of which show a net income of well over 5,000, is illustrated
in Appendix IX.
Breakdown of this income into its constituent elements is difcult, espe-
cially considering that manors and churches were often let together, so that it

68
Valor, iii. 340; iv. 137; ii. 463; v. 256. At Yeaveley and Newland the commissioners did
accept that the houses distribution of alms should be set against its valuation. Ibid. iii. 168; v.
68.
69
PRO SC6/Henry VIII/7262 mm. 6, 12.
70
For the suggestion that the Valor underestimated the receipts of ecclesiastical lands,
especially those deriving from casual income, see F. Heal, Of Prelates and Princes: A Study of
the Social and Economic Position of the Tudor Episcopate (Cambridge, 1980), 558.
72 Administration and Finances

is difcult to assess the relative value of temporalities and spiritualities

accurately. Similarly courses of the confraria, although often leased on
their own, might also be farmed as a parcel of other estates. Nevertheless,
it is possible to come to some conclusions about the nature of the Hospitals
income. The most characteristic source of revenue, the confraria, had been
worth 888 4s. 3d. in 1338, apparently a considerable decline from the days
of old.71 Although total revenue from this source is impossible to calculate in
the fteenth and sixteenth centuries, comparison can be made between the
revenues of certain collecting areas in 1338 and in the period between 1492
and 1526.
It should be stressed that the collection of confraternity payments was
generally farmed out by county or diocese after 1492, while in 1338 the
geographical area covered by the frary clerks of each bajulia was rarely
specied. Some of the identications given in Table 3.1 are therefore con-
jectural. For example, confraternity payments made to Chibburn and

Table 3.1. Confraternity payments, 1338 and 14921535 ( s. d.)

Area Value 1338 Value 14921526/1535

Berkshirea 10 4/6/8
Cumberland save Copeland,
Westmorland, South Yorks,
North Lancsb 20 23/6/8
Derbyshire, Staff, Cheshire, n 27/10/0 (151426)
20/10/0
South Lancsc 21/10/0 (1535)
Devon, Somersetd 82/13/4 92
Gloucestershire, Oxfordshiree 40 24/8/0 or 28/2/8
Lincolnshiref 53/6/8 35
London, Middlesex, Surreyg 26/13/4 12/6/8
Norfolkh 86/13/4 53/6/8
Northamptonshire, Rutlandi 37/6/8 26
Northumberland, North
Yorkshire, Durhamj 21/13/4 22/6/8
Suffolkk 50 27/6/8
Warwickshire, Worcestershirel 16 (Warws only?) 13/13/8
Wiltshirem 30 20 (1495) 24 (1496)
total 494/16/8 Maximum: 389/6/4
Minimum: 381/11/8
a
Report, 4; Claudius E.vi, fos. 181rv, 270v.
b
Figures are those for Newland in 1338, and for the four courses of the fraria in the counties of
Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumberland, and Westmorland pertaining to Newland let in 1524, along
with a course pertaining to Beverley in Copeland. The Valor Ecclesiasticus gives the value of

71
Report, pp. xxx, 4, 7, 13, 52.
 Administration and Finances 73

payments to Newland in Lancashire, Cumberland, and Westmorland as 17. Report, 45;

Claudius E.vi, fos. 259v, 260r; Valor, v. 68.
c
The 1338 gure is for the bajulia of Yeaveley. In various leases granted between 1492 and
1526, confraria payments to Yeaveley were farmed for 53s. 4d. (South Lancashire), 6 16s. 8d.
(Derbyshire), 8 (Staffordshire), and 10 (Cheshire). The gures for Derbyshire, Lancashire,
and Staffordshire are repeated in the Valor, although payments in Cheshire are stated there to be
worth only 4. Report, 43; Claudius E.vi, fos. 127rv, 140v, 200rv, 278rv; Valor, iii. 168.
d
In 1338 confraternity payments raised 44 marks in the collection area administered from
Bothmescomb, Devon, and 80 marks in that run from Buckland, Somerset. In 1508 and 1516
the lessee of Buckland estimated the prots of the confraria at 92. Report, 13, 17; Claudius
E.vi, fos. 56v57r, 168v169v.
e
The gure given for 1338 is the combined value of the confraria collected by clerks operating
from Quenington, Gloucestershire, and Claneld, Oxfordshire, which was united to Quening-
ton in 1414. The smaller gure for 14921526 has been arrived at by adding the farm of the
payments made in the portion of Oxfordshire in the diocese of Lincoln to those of the rst and
second courses of Gloucestershire. It is possible that there was a third course in this county, as a
small course of the confraternity in Gloucestershire was let in 1526 for 5 marks. Alternatively
this may be the same as the second course leased in 1512 for 6 8s. Report, 28, 26; Claudius
E.vi, fos. 84v, 100rv, 279r, 279rv.
f
Collection in Lincolnshire was administered from Maltby both in 1338 and in the sixteenth
century, when it was divided into four courses. Report, 57; Claudius E.vi, fos. 106v107r, 178rv,
274r.
g
Collection was administered from Clerkenwell. Report, 94; Claudius E.vi, fos. 126v127r,
259r.
h
Collection was administered from Carbrooke. Report, 81; Claudius E.vi, fos. 161v162r.
i
Report, 66; Lansdowne 200, fo. 89r; Claudius E.vi, fo. 63v.
j
In 1338 confraternity payments to the bajulia of Chibburn, Northumberland were worth 12
marks, while those to Mount St John were valued at 13 6s. 8d. The lease books give values of
7 6s. 8d. for the bishopric of Durham, 4 for Northumberland, 11 for Yorkshire, and 11 for
Cleveland and Richmondshire. It is likely that the last two represent the same course differently
described. In 1535 payments for Cleveland were said to be worth 8 and Northumberland 9.
Report, 52, 47; Lansdowne 200, fo. 36rv; Claudius E.vi, fos. 210rv, 260v261r; Valor, v. 94.
k
Report, 84; Claudius E.vi, fos. 290v291r.
l
Collections in Warwickshire and Worcestershire were organized from Balsall in the sixteenth
century. The sum of these has been compared with that given under Grafton in 1338. Although
Grafton had later been absorbed by Balsall, it is not certain whether the gure given for the
receipts there included only Warwickshire or both counties. Report, 41; Lansdowne 200, fo. 12r;
Claudius E.vi, fos. 21v22r, 145r.
m
Report, 7; Lansdowne 200, fos. 27r, 32r.

Mount St John in 1338 have been compared to the sum of the farms of those
for Richmondshire and Cleveland, County Durham, and Northumberland
given at various times in the lease books, as these were payable at Mount St
John. Although it is difcult to be certain, the gures presented here seem to
indicate that confraternity payments had fallen by about a fth since 1338,
with the decline being particularly pronounced in the Home Counties. The
reasons for the decline are unclear, but among others may be attributable to
a weakened sensitivity to the orders work in combating the indel, erosion
of the privileges attendant upon making payments, or the competing attrac-
tions of other guilds and confraternities. The collapse of payments in
74 Administration and Finances

London clearly demonstrates that a fall in population was not wholly to

blame for the decline, although the seeming rise in parts of the north may be
partly due to economic recovery after the Anglo-Scottish wars. Even a
decline of 20 per cent would still have made the payments worth about
700 in the sixteenth century, however, and it should also be remembered
that by farming out the confraria the order no longer had to pay the wages of
the frary clerks who collected it. It is consequently hardly surprising that
the langues brethren objected to the papal suspension of the orders confra-
ternity collections and indulgences during the Jubilee year of 1500.72
The most signicant proportion of the Hospitals income from spiritual-
ities was that derived from the tithes and glebe lands of its appropriated
churches, to which should be added limited revenues derived from pensions
from those churches where it possessed the advowson but not the appropri-
ation, such as Blewbury and Ludgershall. Excluding the churches appro-
priated to Minchin Buckland, these sources were probably worth at least
1,600 in 1338.73 Although the farming out of a great number of manors
and rectories together makes a similar assessment more difcult in the
sixteenth century, it is likely that gross revenue from spiritualities suffered
a decline in the period between Thames report and the dissolution. After
allowance has been made for the farmer paying the stipend of the vicar, and
for wine, candles, oil, procurations, and synodals the drop in net revenue
may not have been very pronounced. Nevertheless, uctuations in the values
of appropriated churches could have a drastic effect on the revenues of
individual commanderies. The value of the rectories at Carbrooke had
collapsed from 40 in 1338 to 4 4s. 2d. in 1535,74 while the value of
Cardington in Shropshire had fallen from 20 to 6 13s. 4d. by 1505,75 and
that of Marnham in Nottinghamshire from 20 to 11 6s. 8d. by 1526.76
With the exception of Minwear, the value of the numerous churches appro-
priated to Slebech had also suffered a considerable decline.77 This tendency
was not universal, however. The rectory of Langford in Bedfordshire was

72
Hearing their protests about this in January 1499, the orders council refused to solicit the
pope and cardinals to rescind the suspension, as it was merely a temporary measure, and insisted
that the payment of the dues of the treasury should not be allowed to suffer as a result. They did,
however, agree to write to ask Henry VII to intervene in the hope that it will be easier for him to
obtain such (revocation). Leases of Buckland granted after 1500 specied that should confra-
ternity payments be so suspended, the lessee was to pay a greatly reduced farm. AOM78, fo. 95v;
Claudius E.vi, fos. 56v57r, 168v169v.
73
Excluding churches in the hands of the sisters, and also rectories leased with attached lands
or manors, the sum of the values of appropriated churches and ecclesiastical pensions listed in
the Report is 1,465 15s. 1d. The churches or chapels of Aslackby, Blakesley, Ewell, Gildis-
burgh, Hareeld, South Witham, Sutton (Essex), and Weston were let along with various lands
and rents of unspecied value, for a total of 245 13s. 4d. It is likely that most of this sum was
accounted for by spiritualities. Report, passim, and 117, 125, 160, 170, 172, 173.
74
Report, 81; Valor, iii. 340.
75
Report, 199; Claudius E.vi, fos. 60v61r.
76
Report, 161; Claudius E.vi, fos. 277v278r.
77
Report, 345; Valor, iv. 3889.
 Administration and Finances 75

worth 13 6s. 8d. in the fourteenth century and leased at 16 in the

sixteenth,78 and a similar improvement, from 46 13s. 4d. to 55, occurred
at Ellesmere in Shropshire.79
The overall fall in spiritual revenues was partly compensated for, more-
over, by the transfer of several beneces to the order in the fourteenth and
fteenth centuries, notably the moiety of Dareld in 1357, and the whole
rectories of Gainsborough, Normanton, and Boston in 1399, 1413, and
1480 respectively.80 Other occasional income may have been derived from
the sale of the advowsons of the orders appropriated churches. Although no
cash sums were mentioned in grants of advowsons, the increasing number of
such documents in the lease books after c.1510 probably indicates some
pecuniary advantage in the transaction. In 1455 the vicar of Dareld had
petitioned for absolution from any simony he might have been involved in
paying 120 orins to a certain knight for presentation to it.81
The revenue the order derived from the provision of extra-parochial
spiritual services, oblations, and indulgences is very difcult to quantify,
but could be considerable. The prots from the provision of burial, mar-
riage, and sanctuary to non-Hospitallers varied between houses, but were
signicant enough to irritate the secular clergy, and to prompt the protests of
preceptors and lessees when the value of pardons collapsed in the 1530s.82
The overall income from oblations is also unknown, although some specic
examples can be given. Oblations at the priory church at Clerkenwell were
boosted by the grant of indulgences to those who made donations to it,83
and in 1535 were still worth 15 14s. 2d. per annum in common years,
although it is likely that they had been much higher in previous gener-
ations.84 The orders church at Slebech was a relatively important pilgrimage
centre and oblations at the former Templar church in Dunwich had been
worth 4 beyond the maintenance of a chaplain in 1338.85 Yet in most
Hospitaller churches, the oblations seem to have been allowed to the vicar or
chaplain along with the lesser tithes as part of his portion.86 An interesting
exception is provided by the church of Temple Holy Cross in Bristol, where
the farmer and the preceptor of Templecombe were to share monies depos-
ited in St Johns box.87 More occasional were grants of plenary indulgences
78
Report, 171; Claudius E.vi, fos. 21rv, 208v209r, 242v243r.
79
Report, 39; Valor, iv. 456.
80
E. W. Crossley, The Preceptory of Newland, YASRS 61, Miscellanea, 1 (1920), 183, at
12; CPL, v. 199; CPR14136, 567; CPR147585, 182, 230, 235, 241; CCR147685, nos.
733, 741, 778; Rot. Parl., vi. 20915.
81
M. M. Harvey, England, Rome and the Papacy 14171464 (Manchester, 1993), 11314.
82
LPFD, vi. 1665. See below, 210.
83
CPL, x. 189; xiv. 45; Registrum Ricardi Mayew Episcopi Herefordensis A.D.MDIV
MDXVI, ed. A. T. Bannister, CYS, 27 (London, 1921), 1115.
84
Valor, i. 403.
85
Rees, Wales, 31; Report, 167.
86
e.g. Valor, iii. 19, 21, 99, 104, 122, 128.
87
Claudius E.vi, fo. 48r.
76 Administration and Finances

to the order. Those collected in 14545 and 147982 produced considerable

revenues. In November 1457, John Langstrother was acquitted of 3,562 8s.
8d. he had expended or committed to the order out of the part of the Jubilee
owing to the Religion, while the papal camera received nearly 3,000 for
Nicholas Vs half of sums collected in England after expenses were
deducted.88 The later collection was entrusted to the turcopolier, John
Kendal, who was able to make use of printed indulgences produced by
Caxtons press. Although its total proceeds are unknown, at least 150
was paid to Kendal by the papal collector in England from monies received,
and voluntary contributions towards the defence of Rhodes in Worcester
diocese amounted to over 60. It is likely that total donations, while less
than in the 1450s, amounted to a few thousand pounds.89
As court prots and the sale of woods were no longer very valuable by the
sixteenth century and prots from labour services were rarely mentioned,
the remainder of the orders temporal income was chiey comprised of farms
and rents of its landed estate. It probably amounted to over 3,000 in the
sixteenth century, and was contributed by manors, mills, messuages, or
tenements let at farm on long lease by provincial chapter, and free, ad
voluntatem and copyhold rents of smaller properties. In London collection
was probably the responsibility of two collectors of rents, one for originally
Templar properties and one for those that had always belonged to the
Hospital.90 Elsewhere, the rents from the various classes of property were
collected in bailiwicks usually covering a number of parishes, and sometimes
more than twenty. A preceptory with very scattered estates, such as New-
land, might be divided into as many as sixteen bailiwicks.91

3.2 The Receiver of the Common Treasury and the Submission of

Responsions

The Hospitals conventual common treasury derived most of its revenue

from four ancient dues levied on its properties or brethren: responsions;
mortuaries; vacancies; and spolia. The most signicant and regular of these
were responsions, payments of a specic proportion of their net value levied
on most of the orders beneces. Although they had sometimes been xed at

88
AOM367, fos. 152v153r; W. R. Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England
13271534, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 193962), ii. 5812.
89
Ibid., ii. 5913.
90
Robert Bailly was collector of the rents of the Temple in 1499, and there are subsequent
references to collectors of rents in London in the lease books. Quittances issued by several
receivers and collectors of rents in London and its suburbs survive in the British Library.
Lansdowne 200, fo. 65r; Claudius E.vi, fos. 227v, 227v228r, 273v, 273v274r; BL Harleian
Charters 44 E24, 26, 2831, 33, 39, 40, 435, 47.
91
Crossley, Newland, 10. This gure excludes most of the orders property in Nottingham-
shire, which was also accounted for under Newland, but which was organized into manors.
 Administration and Finances 77

a quarter earlier in the fteenth century, between 1467 and 1540 they were
always set at a third or a half, and an augmentation was often added to the
responsion proper. The level of payment was set by chapter-general for the
period until the next such meeting, and was renewable by the council
complete in the event that no chapter was held.92 At irregular intervals
general or local surveys of the orders properties were conducted in order
to update the assessments according to which responsions were calculated.
Registers of visitations were kept by the receiver, perhaps partly so that he
could allocate responsions between the various preceptories.93 Although
few of their ndings survive, general visitations of the orders European
property were ordered in 1449, 14935, and 153940, resulting in new
assessments on which subsequent partitions of responsions were made. In
1495 visitors were instructed to make an average of good and bad years as
the basis for their assessment.94 A visitation of the priories of England and
Ireland by John Langstrother and the prior of Rome in the early 1460s may
have resulted in the onerous assessment for the half-annate imposed by the
Rome chapter-general of 14667.95 The responsions imposed on the priory
of England from 1498 onwards were probably based on the visitation
ordered in 1495, although the slightly differing proportions of their income
paid by different preceptories as augmentations in the 1520s and 1530s
may indicate a continuous process of reassessment linked to prioral visit-
ations.
The other three categories of payment were all incidental, arising from the
death of a prior or preceptor. Mortuaries seem to have been levied from the
day of death of the incumbent until the following 24 June, while vacancies
were payable for the twelve months after this.96 Both were supposed to
comprise the whole net revenue of the vacant benece(s) over the period of
their operation, although the vacancy years of preceptories in the masters
gift were often leased for rather less than the assessed net value. Finally, with
some exceptions, the spolia or personal effects of deceased brethren were
92
Stabilimenta, De thesauro, i (Consuetudo); J. Sarnowsky, The Rights of the Treasury:
The Financial Administration of the Hospitallers on Fifteenth-Century Rhodes, 14211522,
MO, ii. 26774, at 268, 271 nn.
93
AOM283, fo. 171r.
94
Sources Concerning the Hospitallers of St John in the Netherlands, ed. J. M. van Winter
(Brill, 1998), 392562; Bosio, DellIstoria, ii. 1778; Sarnowsky, Rights of the Treasury, 271;
SJG, Butler Papers, Box III, citing AOM391. In 1478 the assessment of responsions was
specically based on the new estimate arrived at in the chapter of 14667. The assessment
laid down by the chapter of 1498 was also adhered to for a number of years, still being the
benchmark for the payments of many priories, including England, in 1514. AOM283, fo. 188v;
284, fo. 67r; 285, fo. 10v.
95
CPR14617, 52.
96
AOM54, passim. Dr Luttrell has suggested that mortuaries were due from the date of
death to that of the following provincial chapter, and vacancies were payable for the following
nancial year. As provincial chapters were usually held as close to 24 June as possible, it is
possible that payments of mortuaries and vacancies had become xed on that date in the same
way that responsions had. Luttrell, Western Accounts, 45.
78 Administration and Finances

also earmarked for the conventual common treasury. Their recovery was
facilitated by the requirement that sick brethren draw up a dispropriamen-
tum of their effects whenever they were seriously ill and by the threat that
anyone found to have embezzled them was to lose the habit.97
Although the records of the common treasury from the Rhodian and early
Maltese periods are almost all lost, numerous other documents having a
bearing on the nances of the order in the British Isles survive among the
convents chancery registers. The total responsion payable by the priories of
England and Ireland was specied in the chapters-general held between
14667 and 1478, and was again referred to in 1493. Furthermore, many
references to the responsion or vacancy payments of individual preceptories
survive, often in the form of orders for or agreements about the payment of
arrears issued on behalf of the ofcers of the common treasury. Preceptory
leases granted by provincial chapters in England often mention the respon-
sion owed by the benece, although not always accurately, as lessees were
sometimes only expected to pay a third-annate when a half-annate was due.
Taken together with the accounts of 15206 and 15316, these records
enable an assessment of the overall level of responsion payable by the priory
of England for most of the period covered by this survey, as can be seen in
Table 3.2.
Two things are striking about these gures. First, it is clear that despite the
consolidation of the orders estates in the fourteenth and fteenth century,
the value of the responsions submitted to the convent had declined consid-
erably, so that a third-annate, which had been worth 2,303 or 2,280 in
1338, now brought in scarcely half that sum, even with an augmentation
added. Second, the prior was paying a much smaller fraction of the value of
his estates than his brethren of theirs. The overall decline in responsions
clearly owed a great deal to the exemption of many of the priors estates
from payment, but the exact changes in assessment are elusive, not least
because it is not entirely clear how responsions were calculated in the
fourteenth century. The Report does not make it clear whether the priory
was simply expected to submit all of its net income to the convent, or a third
of the gross value of its estates, as gures are given for both, and both are
declared to be the sum remaining for responsions. Neither is it entirely
certain whether assessments in the 1520s and 1530s were based on gross
or net values. The values given in the Valor and Ministers Accounts must
differ considerably from those calculated by the order. However, if one
compares the responsion payable by the preceptories of England and
Wales in 1535 with the Valor and with a third source, a list of values of
the orders properties in east and west of circa 1478,98 one can see that in
most cases a half-annate in 1520 or 1535 amounted to about 40 per cent of

97
Stabilimenta, De Hospitalitate, vi; De Thesauro, iv, vi.
98
BL Add. MS 17319, fos. 20r38r.
 Administration and Finances 79

Table 3.2. Responsions payable by the priory of England, 14671535

Total annual
contribution of Contribution of
Date Level of responsion priory of Englanda prior of England

146772 Half-annateb 1,560 clothc Unknown

(8,500 ecus)
147382 Half-annated 1,416/12/0 Unknown
(7,083 ecus)f
14839 Half-annatee
14901501 Third-annateg 944/12/0h Unknown
(4,723 ecus)
15024 Half-annatei
150516 Third-annatej (1,109/19/6 less 7/6/8)?k
151720 Half-annate 1,521/3/9 313/3/5 15/18/10
additional levyl 92/13/8 less 7/6/8m less 7/6/8
15216 Third-annate 1,109/19/6 242/14/10
additional levy 350/11/7 less 7/6/8o 59/1/9 less 7/6/8
of 15,000 ecusn
152735 Half-annate 1,613/7/10q 329/2/3 less 7/6/8
15,000 ecusp
a
Including the Scottish preceptory of Torphichen, but excluding the priory of Ireland which, although
paying its responsions through the receiver of the order in England, was assessed separately. The Irish
priory was ordered to pay 320 ecus in 1467 and 1478, although its usual responsion was 26 13s. 4d.,
which was payable in the 1440s, 1520s, and 1530s. AOM283, fos.31r, 144v; Ancient Deeds, iii. C3613;
AOM54, fos.8v, 32v, 55v, etc.
b
AOM283, fos.29v32v; For rates of responsion payable in 14601522 see Sarnowsky, Macht und
Herrschaft, 53651.
c
AOM283, fo. 30v; CPL, xii. 2823.
d
Imposed successively in of 1471, 1475, and 1478. AOM283, fos.87v91r, 148r, 149v, 188rv.
e
Sarnowsky, Macht Und herrschaft, 5467.
f
AOM283, fo. 88v;
g
AOM31, no. 13 (bull of chapter, 10 Oct. 1489, imposing third-annates for 14902); 391, fos.199r
(1493), 114v (14945; priory of Venice); 284, fo. 5r.
h
AOM391, fo. 199r (third-annate to be paid in June 1493). This assessment may have increased in the
later 1490s to the same as that paid after 1521, as the preceptories of Carbrooke and Swingeld were
paying the same responsion in 1501 as in 15216. Lansdowne 200, fos.86rv, 87v88r; AOM54,
fos.35v, 32v.
i
AOM284, fos.19v22r, 22r25r.
j
AOM284, fos.60v61r, 66v69r; 32, no. 1; 285, fos.1r12r, esp. 2r.
k
The preceptories of Dalby, Eagle, and Newland paid virtually identical responsions in 1506 and 1513
to those levied on them from June 1521 onwards, but without the augmentation then imposed.
Claudius E.vi, fos.44rv, 113v; AOM54, fo. 29v.
l
This was laid down in chapter on 20 July 1517. AOM54, fo. 2v.
m
AOM54, fos.1r20r.
n
The chapter-general held in November 1520 laid down a responsion of a third-annate unacum
subsidio to be paid in the nancial years ending 24 June 1521 and 1522. This was progressively
extended until 1526. AOM54, fos.27v, 77v, 105v.
o
AOM54, fos.27v45v.
p
Imposed by the chapter of spring 1527 for 15279. The levy was successively extended by the council
complete to 1530, 1531, and 1532, and then by the chapter-general of February 1533. AOM286, fos.9r,
23r; 54, fos.173v, 207v; 85, fo. 94v; 286, fo. 37v et seq.
q
AOM54, fos.173r183v; 207v218v.
Table 3.3. Responsions compared with assessed income

Gross value Net value Assessed value Responsion 1520, 15315 Responsion 15216
House 1535 (/s. d.) 1535 (/s. d.) 1478 ()a (/s. d.) (/s. d.)

Prioral camerae None 70 70

Fifth camerab (210) 89/16/7 5/14/0 63/13/8 12/2/4
Prioral preceptories
Buckland Prioris 120 51/4/11 3/5/11 36/7/3
Greenham 69 29/8/6 1/16/0 20/16/4
Hogshaw 11 17/2/1 1/4/0 12/4/3
Maltby 100 42/6/8 3/0/11 30/5/034
Poling 31 13/4/8 0/18/0 9/8/5
Other houses
Ansty & Trebigh 90/1/9 81/8/5 86 (3254) 37/0/10 2/0/4 26/6/1034 8/18/3
Baddesley & Maine 131/14/1 118/16/7 89 (5435) 42/16/7 2/15/6 29/14/9 10/2/4
Battisford & Dingley Entry Entry 112 (6052) 48/8/2 3/5/11 34/9/534 11/14/9
incomplete incomplete
Beverley Not given 164/9/10 158 67/9/4 4/11/6 48/0/7 16/9/0
Carbrooke 76/5/3 65/2/9 67 28/8/2 1/17/6 20/4/5 4/18/3
Dalby & Rothley 274/11/2 231/7/8 193 80/18/1 5/8/0 57/10/834 19/11/5
Dinmore & Garway n/a n/a 154 65/10/0 4/4/0 46/9/4 15/6/2
Eagle 137/2/0 124/2/0 101 43/0/13 2/16/634 30/11/034 10/9/4
Halston 160/14/10 150 64/0/2 4/5/5 45/10/5 15/9/10
Mount St John 137/2/0 102/13/9 103 44/5/7 2/15/6 31/7/434 10/13/4
Newland & Ossington 202/3/8 129/14/11 194 (11084) 83/0/0 5/9/6 58/19/8 20/1/4
Quenington 146/17/1 137/7/1 None 49/16/2 3/6/0 35/8/1 12/2/4
Ribston 224/9/7 207/9/7 2? (180?) 76/19/2 5/2/0 54/14/1 18/12/10
Shingay 175/4/6 166 69/16/2 4/11/6 49/11/9 16/17/4
Slebech 206/9/10 184/10/11 181 77/12/6 5/2/0 55/3/0 18/15/4
Swingeld 104/0/2 87/3/3 80 38/8/8 2/8/7 27/4/734 9/5/4
Temple Brewer (207/16/8) 184/6/8 141 61/19/7 3/17/11 43/18/5 14/18/9
Templecombe 120/10/3 107/16/11 110 47/0/4 3/1/6 33/7/10 11/6/9
Torphichen None 33/6/8 33/6/8
Willoughton 195/3/0 174/11/1 160 68/12/4 4/11/6 48/15/1034 16/12/4
Yeaveley & Barrow 107/3/8 93/3/4 149 36/14/11 2/9/5 26/2/11 8/18/4
Magistral camera (Peckham) N/A 60 3/6/8 None None
Chilcombe & Toller (Nuns) None 42/15/6 2/14/0 30/6/4 10/6/6
total 1521/3/9 92/13/8
a
BL Add. MS 17319, fo.37rv. Values were given in this document in ecus de soleil of the kingdom of France and aspers reckoned at 62 aspers to an ecu,
although totals were reckoned in orins of Rhodes. Ecus were worth 4 shillings sterling according to the orders usual assessment, but might cost as much as
4s. 5d. or 4s. 6d. when purchased by exchange. AOM54, fos.68r, 96r, 151r.
b
This was Balsall in 1478 and Melchbourne, a rather richer property, between 1501 and 1540.
82 Administration and Finances

the assessed value of the house given in 1478, which seems to have corre-
sponded more nearly to the net values of the orders estates given in 1535
than the gross.
The ofcer responsible for the collection and dispatch of responsions was
the receiver of the common treasury, who was usually a junior preceptor and
was appointed in convent and directly answerable to the treasury ofcials
there.99 Receivers had been established in each of the western priories in
1358 in an effort to check prioral misuse of funds, and had considerable
independence and wide powers.100 Their duties were essentially to collect
and dispatch all the dues and arrears owed to the central convent in the
Mediterranean. In pursuance of this aim they were empowered to seek
payment from debtors; to issue quittances to those who had paid; to go
before kings, princes, corporations, lords, and the courts to prosecute or
defend actions and to exhort and compel the prior and preceptors to proceed
against non-payers.101 The receiver was aided in these tasks by a proctor,
also a professed Hospitaller, who was to solicit brethren to pay their arrears
and debts in provincial chapter or elsewhere, to seek justice against non-
payers and to collect the spolia of deceased brethren in cooperation with the
receiver.102 The receiver was further supplemented by the clerk and nuncio
of the common treasury, who were salaried and were usually laymen. The
clerk, or scribe, was appointed by the prior with the consent of provincial
chapter, and held ofce for life. He was responsible for issuing quittances
and setting down the accounts submitted to the convent. The clerkship was
held successively by Richard Passemer (14591500), William Yolton (1500
1516/22), Francis Bell (1516/221526), and Mablestone (152640).103 Both
Bell and Mablestone were chancellors of the priory as well as clerk of the
treasury, and Mablestone, at least, had the responsibility of writing to
preceptors informing them of what had been decreed in convent concerning
payments and urging them to pay their responsions.104 The right to appoint
the clerk was jealously guarded by successive priors; a grant of the expect-
ancy to it by John Weston and the provincial chapter was overturned at the

99
Although not consistently in their hands, the governance of the common treasury had
been granted to masters of the order since 1429, giving them the right to levy all the arrears and
revenues due to the common treasury in east and west and to appoint or dismiss its ofcers,
including the receivers of the western priories. While the master was absent, and usually until
the next chapter after he arrived, the orders nances were administered by the grand preceptor
and the two proctors of the common treasury. These continued to exercise their ofces while the
master was in charge of the treasury, but he could then dismiss or appoint them as he saw t.
Sarnowsky, Rights of the Treasury, 2704; AOM282, fos. 13r15r; 283, fos. 184v186v; 284,
fos. 22r25r, 57v66r; 285, esp. fos. 1r3v; 286, fos. 9v12v, etc.
100
Delaville, Rhodes, 136; Sarnowsky, Rights of the Treasury, 270; id., Macht und
Herrschaft, 331.
101
See e.g. AOM382, fos. 148v149v.
102
See e.g. AOM395, fo. 151r.
103
AOM369, fo. 198v; 393, fos. 112rv; 407, fos. 150v151r; 412, fos. 191rv, 197v198r.
104
LPFD, v, no. 999.
 Administration and Finances 83

request of John Kendal in 1493, and Thomas Docwra importuned the order
both for the right to grant it on Yoltons resignation or death and for the
conrmation of this grant by chapter.105
The scribe of the treasury was in fact far more than a mere clerk. Both
Passemer and Yolton held property in the outer precinct of the priory, and
were described as gentlemen.106 Passemer was controller of the Petty Cus-
toms during the Readeption government of 14701, and was involved in
various nancial dealings on the orders behalf, while Yolton conducted the
negotiations over the procuration fees supposedly owed to the bishop of
Hereford from Garway, appearing before the archbishops court of Audience
in 15068.107 Bell spent a great deal of time shuttling forth between England
and the convent with letters of exchange and consignments of cloth, tin, and
silver.108 Mablestone and Yolton, as we have seen, advanced money to
preceptors leaving the country in return for leases of their estates.109
The most routine of the receivers business was the collection of respon-
sions, which were supposed to be paid on the feast of St John Baptist or in
provincial chapters. Although late payment was common, as the accounts of
152036 and admonitions to debtors in the Libri Bullarum demonstrate,
before 1530 English brethren were rarely in arrears for more than a year, and
those who did fall into debt were mostly newly appointed priors or pre-
ceptors struggling to complete their vacancy payments. More serious and
long-term debts arose in connection with estates in Ireland, Scotland, and
Wales, and in England after 1533. The priory of Ireland almost never
submitted responsions between 1466 and the 1490s and Robert Evers, the
prior appointed in 1497, paid only about half of his.110 Except for the rst
few years after John Rawson had gained denite control of the priory in
about 1520, payments from Ireland continued to be erratic until the dissol-
ution.111 Considerable debts owed to Evers from Slebech also had to be
written off after his death. In 1520 Sir John Wogan, Sir Gruffydd ap Rhys,
Sir Thomas Philip, and William Jones ap Thomas owed over 112 between
them for farms of the commandery, or portions thereof, held between 1507
and 1515. Although the vice-receiver, John Babington began proceedings
against them at the common law in about 1516, these had proved to
be drawn out and wasteful by 1520, and were dropped.112 With the
exception of the 20 owed by ap Thomas, which had been paid by August

105
AOM391, fos. 200rv; 405, fos. 130v131r; 406, fos. 158v159r.
106
Lansdowne 200, fos. 14v, 15r; Claudius E.vi, fos. 51v52r; Excavations, 133, 140, 143,
1634.
107
CPR146777, 168, 231; CCR147685, no. 546; Registrum Mayew, ed. Bannister, 20, 32.
108
AOM54, fos. 77r, 98v, 124v; 404, fos. 193v194r; LPFD, iv. 765, 9234.
109
See e.g. Claudius E.vi, fos. 4v5r, 6v7r, 16rv, 28rv, 44rv, 81v82r, 83rv, 98r99v, 238r,
264r265v; PRO LR2/62, fos. 1v2v.
110
AOM54, fo. 13v.
111
Ibid., fos. 174v175r, 208v, 226v227r, 244v245r, 267v268r, 286v287r.
112
Ibid., fos. 12v, 13v, 38v.
84 Administration and Finances

1524113 the debts were never recovered.114 The Scottish house of Torphi-
chen also fell into arrears after the exclusion of the legitimate preceptor,
George Dundas, from possession between 1510 and 1518. In accordance
with the orders statutes, which required incoming preceptors to pay the
debts of their predecessors, the proctors and auditors of the common treas-
ury insisted that Dundas satisfy the responsions for these years, only drop-
ping their demands in 1525. Rather spitefully, they also demanded that
Dundas pay the expenses of the servant sent to Scotland to negotiate this
settlement.115
The collection of the other levies due to the treasury called for rather more
activity. The receiver was responsible for collecting the rents and leasing the
estates of deceased brethren, for the payment of their servants and for the
defence of the lands and rights of the preceptory in the courts. Although this
was sometimes delegated to the proctor, the receiver was also supposed to go
to the preceptory in question and collect the deceaseds effects in company
with another brother or a notary.116 Inventories of these were to be drawn up
and witnessed by a notary. Responsions continued to be paid by the houses of
the deceased during their mortuary and vacancy years, and were extracted
from the total receipts and accounted for separately. The remainder of the
income, after expenses, was also reserved for the common treasury.
Out of the sums collected from these levies, the receiver was responsible
for the payment of long-standing pensions amounting to just over 35, his
own stipend (24) and those of the scribe and nuncio of the common
treasury.117 A further payment of 13s. 4d. was made to the priests celebrat-
ing the annual mass for the souls of confratres and benefactors of the order,
and a further shilling was given in oblations on the same occasion.118 More
occasional payments such as those for recovering Thomas Newports effects
after his ill-fated voyage to relieve Rhodes in 1522/3 might also be neces-
sary.119 Once these sums had been paid the receiver was bound to satisfy
letters of exchange drawn on the orders revenues in England and to send the
remainder to the convent. In fact the submission of monies to headquarters
was rather irregular and the receiver was often several thousand pounds in
arrears. The erratic nature of payments is illustrated in Table 3.4.
The great majority of these monies were submitted as letters of exchange
rather than as cash or goods. On 18 September 1532, for example, Clement
West paid the Genoese merchant Antonio Vivaldi 2,592 5s. 10d., which the
latter was to pay to the use of the common treasury in ducats on the
following 1 March, as appeared per chirographum et litteras excambii
quas idem Anthonius de dat presencium fecit.120 This was by far the largest

113
AOM54, fos. 37v38r, 61v62r, 116v117r.
114
Ibid., fos. 13v, 38v, 62v, 89v, 117v, 147v, 199v. 115
Ibid., fos. 148v149r, 151v.
116
Ibid., passim; Stabilimenta, De Thesauro, ix (Statute of Naillac).
117
e.g. AOM54, fo. 21v. 118
Ibid.; BL MS Nero E.vi, fos. 6rv.
119
AOM54, fos. 93v94r. 120
Ibid., fo. 186r.
 Administration and Finances 85

Table 3.4. Receivers payments to convent, 1520156 (s. d.)

Year Receiptsa Payments Arrearsb

1520 1,858/10/11 688/14/6 2,992/14/5

1521 1,913/4/5 121/16/1 4,784/1/9
1522 1,362/9/234 6,212/19/8 Credit of 66/9/334
1523 1,870/1/1 261/4/1134 1,599/16/234
1524 1,517/4/11 2,079/17/0 1,037/4/2
1525 1,517/5/8 1,408/2/8 1,146/7/234
1526 1,655/18/3 1,236/19/2 1,565/6/334
1531 976/15/2 2,864/14/2 0
1532 1,601/13/534 1,610/7/3 91/6/2
1533 906/11/9 996/17/934 1/0/0
1534 2,550/15/5 2,201/17/5 348/18/1
1535 1,800/1/1 1,869/3/5 279/15/10
1536 1,137/8/1 1,167/6/8 249/17/334
a
Receipts have been calculated by subtracting the arrears of the previous years account from
the sum of receipts and arrears given in each year.
b
Arrears are those calculated by the ofcials of the common treasury in convent, which often
differed slightly from the sums suggested by the receiver as some of his payments might be
disallowed. Some of the discrepancies in the gures can be accounted for because of this.

payment accounted for in the turcopoliers accounts for 1531, although

201 0s. 13d. was paid to the London citizen Edward Browne for cloth
provided for the use of the common treasury.121 Similar patterns occur in
other years. The accounts for 1535 show Vivaldi and Francis Galliardetto
being paid over 1,900 in London in accordance with letters of exchange
under which they were obliged to pay similar sums in Messina for the use of
the convent.122 Unlike the situation which can be seen in many of the
mandates to receivers of the priory to satisfy letters of exchange recorded
in the Libri Bullarum of the Rhodian period, Vivaldi and Galliardetto had
not yet paid the convent the monies which they had promised it. They were
thus acting as factors carrying monies to the convent rather than as creditors
lending to it on the basis of repayment from its English revenues.
Although relatively substantial quantities of cloth and tin were shipped
from Southampton for the use of brethren at headquarters or in satisfaction
of responsions or vacancy payments,123 letters of exchange were the orders
preferred way of collecting money from England. Both exchange operations

121
Ibid.
122
PRO SP2/Q no. 32, fos. 135b/158b136b/159b.
123
CCR138992, 126; CPR146777, 506; CPR147585, 58; The Overseas Trade of Lon-
don. Exchequer Customs Accounts 14801, ed. H. S. Cobb, London Record Society, 27 (Bristol,
1990), 2827, 31415; AOM54, fos. 22v, 44v45r, 67v, 93r, 96r; LPFD, Addenda, no. 789;
A. Ruddock, London Capitalists and the Decline of Southampton in the Early Tudor Period,
Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 2 (1949), 13751, at 142.
86 Administration and Finances

and commodity shipments were usually conducted through Venice or using

Venetian shipping rather than through Avignon, where the orders receiver-
general in the west had his headquarters.124 In 1503 it was ordered that all
responsions and other dues of the common treasury should be submitted to
the receiver of Venice, Andrea Martini.125 Although the Hospital undoubt-
edly lost considerable sums by its reliance on exchange operations, it was at
least able to anticipate the issues of its British estates by this device, and as
exchanges were taxed at a penny a ducat in England, the crown made a small
prot on the transactions too.126
Both the mechanisms by which the estates of the priory of England were
administered and defended, and the evidence for its dispatch of substantial
sums to its Mediterranean convent, indicate that its brethren took their
duties to maintain the orders property and to support the struggle in the
east seriously. Particularly telling is the dispatch of more than 6,000 over-
seas in 1522, after news that Rhodes was under siege had reached England.
Yet the activities of unprofessed ofcials, tenants, confratres, donors, and
merchants were clearly indispensable to its success, or otherwise, in admin-
istering its properties and supporting the convent. The next chapter will
consider the orders relationship with these persons in more depth.
124
Responsions or other dues were being sent or ordered to be via Venice or on Venetian
shipping in 1389, 1391, 1395, 1409, 1427, 14425, 1459, 1493, 15034, 15056, and 1521.
Tipton, English Hospitallers, 1201; Luttrell, English Contributions, 166; SJG, Butler Papers
(citing AOM347, fo. 217v); AOM356, fos. 182r183r; 357, 198v199r, 201v202r; Sarnowsky,
Macht und Herrschaft, 333; AOM391, fos. 199v; 394, fo. 226r; Mueller, Venetian Money
Market, 347; AOM54, fo. 52r. A Florentine merchant was used to send money by exchange
in the 1440s, and Genoese shipping to transport cloth to Rhodes in the mid1450s. AOM357,
fos. 198v199r; 367, fo. 152v.
125
AOM394, fos. 177r178r.
126
e.g. AOM54, fo. 222v.
 CHAPTER FOUR

The Hospital and Society in

England and Wales

Christs College, Cambridge, has the laudable custom of inviting graduate

students, in rotation, to dinner with members of the Fellowship. At one such
gathering I attended those present included Sir John Plumb, the notable
eighteenth-century historian, who came to sit next to me when the Fellows
changed places after dessert. Having asked what I was studying he followed
up with one of the brisk but pertinent questions which were his trademark:
Werent they all decadent by then?
This characterization of the late medieval Hospitallers might still nd
some takers. It was not, perhaps, based solely on a desire to provoke, but
it was characteristic of a British view of the crusades and of the military
orders shaped by those, such as Hume, Gibbon, and Runciman, who wrote
within an enlightened and broadly Whiggish tradition which saw history as
an uneven progress towards a secular society freed from the mental and
physical shackles imposed by the medieval Church.1 In essence, they con-
tended that the crusades were exercises in folly, barbarism, and cupidity
directed by fanatics and perpetrated by unlettered thugs considerably infer-
ior to the cultured sybarites they assaulted. In a specically English context,
historians tended to play down the signicance of crusading to illustrate the
habitual resistance of their homeland to the dangerous currents of fanati-
cism perpetually springing anew from the continental waters where they
originated. Although remaining popular with an educated public highly
suspicious of religious fundamentalism, such views are now given little
credence in academic circles. Recent works by Simon Lloyd and Christopher
Tyerman have demonstrated that crusading was a thoroughly respectable
and carefully planned activity sponsored and organized by the English
crown and Church and supported and participated in by wide sections of
English society.2 Steamrollering the objections of Terry Jones, Anthony
Luttrell and Maurice Keen have convincingly extended the era of active
and convinced English participation in crusading into the late fourteenth

1
Discussed in Tyerman, England, 56; id., The Invention of the Crusades (Basingstoke,
1998), 11113, 1245.
2
S. Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade, 12161307 (Oxford, 1988); Tyerman, England.
88 The Hospital and Society

century, while Drs Tyerman and Macquarrie have pointed out that small
numbers of English, Welsh, and Scots volunteers continued to serve in Spain
and the east in the fteenth.3 As late as 1511 a considerable force of English
crusaders was dispatched to assist a projected Spanish campaign in north
Africa. If this expedition showed itself more concerned to grapple with the
bottle than with the indel, later in the century gentlemen volunteers from
Britain and Ireland took part with apparent sobriety in the defences of
Rhodes in 1522 and Malta in 1565, the assault on Tunis in 1535, and the
Portuguese crusade in north Africa in 1578.4 Crusading resonances, along
with an active knight errantry, can even be found in the autobiographies of
Elizabethan and Jacobean adventurers like Captain John Smith, who was
captured by the Turks in 1602 while ghting alongside Habsburg soldiers in
Transylvania.5
Well into the sixteenth century, moreover, crusading rhetoric remained
important in diplomatic exchanges, and the public was kept aware of events
on the front lines of Christendom through preaching, the publication of
indulgences and newsletters, the money-raising tours of Greek refugees, the
reports of pilgrims returned from the Holy Land, and the continued appear-
ance of Moors and Turks as stock villains in romances and plays.6 If some
despaired of the Holy Land ever being recovered, prophecies, romances, and
newly printed editions and translations of histories of the early crusades
encouraged optimism in many others.7 Nevertheless, even those writers who
have located crusading rmly within the mainstream of the religious, cultural,
and political development of the British Isles have admitted that active par-
ticipation in crusading was becoming an increasingly marginal feature of lay
devotional activity even in the fteenth century.8 Such a gulf between senti-
ment and action was not unique to this region, but it nevertheless requires
explanation in a British context. If there was such a healthy interest in the
defence of Christendom why did numbers of British crusaders decline?

3
T. Jones, Chaucers Knight: The Portrait of a Medieval Mercenary, 2nd edn. (London,
1994); M. Keen, Chaucers Knight, the English Aristocracy and the Crusade, in his Nobles,
Knights and Men-at-Arms (London, 1996), 10120; A. T. Luttrell, Chaucers Knight and the
Mediterranean, Library of Mediterranean History, 1 (1994), 12760; A. Macquarrie, Scotland
and the Crusades 10951560 (Edinburgh, 1985), 935, 106; Tyerman, England, 278, 3079.
See also D. Ditchburn, Scotland and Europe: The Medieval Kingdom and its Contacts with
Christendom, c.12151545, i: Religion, Culture and Commerce (East Linton, 2000), 689.
4
Tyerman, England, 3523; Bradford, Great Siege, 151; LPFD, ix, nos. 459, 490; see below,
Ch. 8.3.
5
J. R. Goodman, Chivalry and Exploration, 12981630 (Woodbridge, 1998), 198207.
6
Tyerman, England, 3502, 3046, 30819, 31213, 2878, 296; Lunt, Financial Relations,
ii, passim; J. Harris, Greek Emigres in the West 14001520 (Camberley, 1995), passim; R. N.
Swanson, Religion and Devotion in Europe, c.1215c.1515 (Cambridge, 1995), 70.
7
Tyerman, England, 302, 281, 3036, 347; L. A. Coote, Prophecy and Public Affairs in
Later Medieval England (York, 2000), passim.
8
Tyerman, England, 2656, 288, 302, 324. Macquarries chapters on Scottish involvement
in crusading after 1410 are entitled The Long Decline and Castles in the Air. Macquarrie,
Scotland and the Crusades, 92121.
 The Hospital and Society 89

First it must be admitted that for most of the fteenth century crusading
opportunities were rather limited. The main theatres of anglophone partici-
pation in the previous century had been Spain, north Africa, and the Baltic
region.9 The crusade in the Baltic, however, effectively ended for the English,
Scots, and French with the Teutonic knights calamitous defeat at Tannen-
berg in 1410 and the belated realization in the west that the latest Lithuanian
conversion to Christianity was genuine.10 The Spanish front was dormant
rather than moribund and would revive in 1482, as to some extent would the
participation in crusading there of those born in the British Isles, but British
crusading in the Peninsula had always been rather sporadic.11 A third area in
which there had been some fourteenth-century British involvement was the
eastern Mediterranean.12 Crusading warfare here was largely waged by sea,
and continued to be so in the fteenth and later centuries, but while a few
English, Welsh, and Scots crusaders and mercenaries fought in the Balkans
and Asia Minor during the fteenth century, there is little evidence of
British participation in naval crusading operations save for limited involve-
ment in the Burgundian expeditions of 14434 and 14634 and the service
of some stipendiary soldiers and volunteers with the Hospitallers.13 Besides
the difculties posed by distance and the expense of ghting in the eastern
Mediterranean, the reasons for this failure may include unfamiliarity with
galley warfare and Levantine waters and the fact that such expeditions were
not always well publicized in north-western Europe. It is also surely signi-
cant that the partly English mercenary companies operating in Italy that had
contributed so many men to the campaigns of the 1360s had largely
been replaced by native condottieri by the fteenth century, and so were
no longer on the spot when crusading expeditions set out from the penin-
sula.14 Most important of all, crusading energies were increasingly directed
elsewhere, into royal service. From the thirteenth century onwards, but
particularly during the Hundred Years War and later, kings claimed an
enhanced authority over their leading subjects, forcing them to advantage
patriotic over confessional military activity. Although lesser lights made
their way to the east in small numbers well into the fteenth century,
magnates and knights were more or less compelled to organize their crusad-
ing activities during lulls in the ghting such as occurred in the 1360s and

9
Ditchburn, Religion, Culture and Commerce, 6971, 95; Macquarrie, Scotland and the
Crusades, 759, 848; Tyerman, England, 26780.
10
Tyerman, England, 2656, 271.
11
Ditchburn, Religion, Culture and Commerce, 68; Macquarrie, Scotland and the Crusades,
106; Tyerman, England, 308, 3512.
12
See n. 3 above.
13
Macquarrie, Scotland and the Crusades, 95; Tyerman, England, 304, 308; AOM79,
fo. 11v; 364, fo. 175r; 366, fos. 119v, 174v; 367, fos. 118v, 201v, 215v, 382, fo. 138rv; 387,
fo. 202r; 395, fo. 196r.
14
Tyerman, England, 2912; M. Mallett, Mercenaries in M. Keen (ed.), Medieval Warfare:
A History (Oxford, 1999), 20929, at 219, 221.
90 The Hospital and Society

1390s.15 Even after the end of the war, strained foreign relations and
domestic dynastic conicts continued to leave the government unenthusias-
tic about crusading schemes, or the participation of its subjects in them.
Only at the very end of the fteenth century was there a sustained revival of
royal interest.16 Nevertheless, even in mid-century, writers as diverse as
George Neville, Sir John Fortescue, and the alchemist George Ripley were
all keen to promote crusading as a way to heal the divisions in society and
launch it on a common and glorious enterprise.17 Thereafter such arguments
were taken up with especial force by Caxton, whose publications included
John Kayes account of the 1480 siege of Rhodes and several older texts with
a crusading or chivalric theme, and who took care to stress the relevance of
these as a spur to contemporary action.18 Anti-clericalism was certainly no
bar to crusading plans: the possibly noble author(s) of a 1529 scheme
arguing for the partial disendowment of the English Church proposed to
devote the proceeds to war against the Turks while shortly afterwards the
lawyer Christopher St Germain incorporated a call for a crusade in his
radical reformist tract, Salem and Bizance.19
One way in which both crown and society should have been able to
support devotional violence was by assisting the order of St John, which
maintained a small body of British and Irish brethren in the eastern Medi-
terranean. But the ability of its English langue to meet these aspirations has
never been examined in any depth. If the long-established opinion that the
crusades were of only marginal signicance in the medieval political and
social history of the British Isles has been largely overturned, the view that
the British knights of St John were decadent in the fteenth century has
remained largely unassailed. To Gibbons dictum that the Military Orders
neglected to live, but were prepared to die, in the service of Christ20 can be
added, in a specically British context, the charge that in the fteenth and
sixteenth centuries the Hospitals houses were little more than rent-collect-
ing agencies, their estates leased out to provide a comfortable life for their
few remaining brethren.21 There have certainly been writers who have
challenged this view, mostly by emphasizing the orders military exploits in
the Mediterranean, but few of them have been professional historians and

15
Tyerman, England, 266, 2689, 284, 3089.
16
Ibid. 3503.
17
J. Hughes, Arthurian Myths and Alchemy: The Kingship of Edward IV (Stroud, 2002),
1989, 202.
18
Tyerman, England, 3046, 347.
19
R. W. Hoyle, The Origins of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, Historical Journal, 38
(1995), 275305, at 285, 3034; J. Guy, Thomas More and Christopher St German: The Battle
of the Books, in A. Fox and J. A. Guy (eds.), Reassessing the Henrician Age: Humanism,
Politics and Reform 15001550 (Oxford, 1986), 95120, at 978.
20
Cited in M. Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cam-
bridge, 1994), 316.
21
DNB, xl. 360 (William Archbolds biography of Thomas Newport [d.1523]).
 The Hospital and Society 91

their opinions have had little inuence on academic perceptions of the

order. Scholars such as David Knowles and Claire Cross have appeared
more comfortable with the monastic and mendicant orders than with the
military, both maintaining an almost complete silence on the subject.22 In
discussions of the dissolution of the monasteries, the order is largely ignored,
some scholars appearing to be completely unaware of its existence.23 Rob-
erta Gilchrist, who has examined the archaeology of the military orders in
the British Isles in some detail, has nevertheless minimized the signicance
of the Hospitals activities after 1291, suggesting that the order never recov-
ered the prosperity it had enjoyed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.24
Moreover, Knowless depiction of late medieval monasticism was generally
unenthusiastic, and recently some scholars have gone further than he in
presenting a picture of religious houses as unfashionable institutions under
assault by both the laity and secular churchmen, who attempted to refashion
them into chantries and educational or charitable facilities in line with
more utilitarian conceptions of their role and functions. Those institutions
which could not be proved to be useful might be suppressed, particularly if
their founders had no living descendants,25 while even larger monasteries
which escaped such conversion were increasingly subject to lay takeover of
their outlying estates and of monastic ofces. At its boldest, such writing
suggests that all the older-established religious orders were suffering from
the same malaise, compounded of lack of zeal, lack of relevance, and
laicization, and comes close to claiming that the laity had lost sympathy
with monasticism to such an extent that those holding monastic leases
and ofces were only waiting for their moment to turn possession into
legal title.26
Yet this line of argument has rarely been extended to cover those forms of
religious community which exercised an active ministry among the laity,
such as friaries. The evidence suggests that these enjoyed substantial, if

22
Knowles, Religious Orders; C. Cross, Monasticism and Society in the Diocese of York,
15201540, TRHS, 5th ser., 38 (1988), 13145; ead., The Dissolution of the Monasteries and
the Yorkshire Church in the Sixteenth Century, in A. J. Pollard (ed.), Government, Religion and
Society in Northern England 10001700 (Stroud, 1997), 15971.
23
Cross, for example, includes friaries but not Hospitaller preceptories among the religious
houses she lists as dissolved, her assertion that monasticism in Yorkshire was at an end by
January 1540 suggesting indifference towards both the order and those hospitals which main-
tained a regular regime thereafter. J. H. Bettey not only ignores the orders west country
preceptories but also transforms its nunnery at Buckland into a house of Augustinian canon-
esses. Joyce Youings mentions the hospitals inclusion in the 1534 proposals to disendow the
church and the date of its dissolution, but does not go much beyond this. Cross, Dissolution,
159, 163; Bettey, Suppression, 142; Youings, Dissolution, 34, 146, 90.
24
Gilchrist, Contemplation, 62105, 68.
25
S. D. Phillips, The Recycling of Monastic Wealth in Medieval Southern England, 1300
1530, Southern History, 22 (2000), 4571; B. J. Thompson, Monasteries and their Patrons at
Foundation and Dissolution, TRHS, 6th ser., 4 (1994), 10325, at 11417; id., Laity, esp. 30,
345, 3941; Hoyle, Origins, 2767, 2813.
26
Phillips, Recycling, 68; Thompson, Monasteries, 1223.
92 The Hospital and Society

hardly universal, lay support.27 Nor have critics of late medieval monasti-
cism paid much attention to the contrary evidence of vitality provided by the
Bridgettines and Carthusians,28 or given credit to the continuing attraction
of the larger and older houses for some of the laity, their major role in
charitable and chantry provision, and their vigorous justication of their
activities.29 Despite these caveats, however, it is clear that there were strong
external pressures both on religious houses and their estates in the later
Middle Ages, and that smaller and poorer houses were particularly affected
by these. Most vulnerable of all to lay takeover were those alien priories
owing allegiance to an overseas mother-house, especially those among them
which were poor, not fully conventual, or whose heads were not formally
inducted.30
On the face of it, the order of St John might appear to have been vulner-
able to a similar remodelling of its houses. Its fourteenth-century masters
were overwhelmingly French speakers, its receivers-general based in Avi-
gnon, and its English, Welsh, and Irish houses barely conventual in 1338,
and mostly reduced to maintaining a single lay preceptor a century later.
Many of them also had incomes sufciently low to be considered unviable as
religious communities according to the criteria laid down by parliament.
After 1312, moreover, several of the families which had endowed the Temp-
lars demanded that their endowments be restored to them rather than pass to
the Hospital, and mounted physical and legal challenges even after the latter
had gained possession. Nonetheless, once legally acquired, the order man-
aged to avoid surrendering any of its estates permanently, save by exchange,
and its amalgamations of houses, while resulting in occupancy by lay farm-
ers, appear to have been encouraged by economic considerations and con-
ventual policy rather than lay pressure.31 Partly the Hospitals defence of its
possessions was successful because all its houses were considered to be
legally incorporated under its head,32 who was thus enabled to throw the
whole weight of its resources behind their defence, just as the great cath-
edral-monasteries were able to do with their dependent cells and granges.
The fact that the order was under direct papal protection also probably
helped it to escape the conversion of its houses into schools and hospitals by
the episcopate. Still more signicant was the support of the crown, which

27
Cross, Monasticism and Society, esp. 132, 1356, 1401.
28
An exception is Phillips, Recycling, 589.
29
Cross, Monasticism and Society, passim; J. Hughes, Pastors and Visionaries: Religion
and Secular Life in Late Medieval Yorkshire (Woodbridge, 1988), 489, 715; J. G. Clark,
Selling the Holy Places: Monastic Efforts to Win back the People in Fifteenth-Century Eng-
land, in T. Thornton (ed.), Social Attitudes and Political Structures in the Fifteenth Century
(Stroud, 2000), 1332.
30
Thompson, Laity, passim.
31
See above, 63.
32
A point made explicit in fourteenth-century licences to priors to appoint attorneys, and
elsewhere. CPR, passim; AOM54, fo. 38v.
 The Hospital and Society 93

was usually willing to conrm the orders privileges and which protected its
estates, customary rights, and dispatch of responsions from rebels, tenants,
and the commons in parliament during difcult times such as the last quarter
of the fourteenth century. In any case, Hospitaller military brethren had
always been laymen, and knight-brethren had dominated the order since the
mid-thirteenth century, so that the order had always been, in a sense,
laicized. Nor, although its members were accused of arrogance and luxuri-
ous living on occasion, does the Hospital appear to have been as vulnerable
to imputations of inaction, redundancy, or evil living as many other orders
were. Was this because the order managed to meet the expectations of a
military class whose aspirations it embodied, or was it simply because the
order and its abuses were not as visible as those of larger and better-known
establishments?
These questions are difcult to answer for the period after 1400. As a
corporation, the order of St John was virtually ignored by fteenth- and
early sixteenth-century writers and chroniclers. Dramatic events involving
Hospitallers, such as prior John Langstrothers execution after the battle of
Tewkesbury and prior Thomas FitzGeralds proposed duel with the earl of
Ormond, were sometimes noticed, but few conclusions were drawn from
them about either the characters of those involved or the nature of their
order.33 The Hospitals activities in the east, similarly, went virtually unre-
marked. A parliamentary petition demanding the Genoese be treated as
enemies of Christendom for assisting the Mamluks in attacking Rhodes in
1442 was probably motivated by hostility to Italian merchants rather than
crusading zeal34 and even the siege of 1480 provoked notice only in a
solitary chronicle, although the curmudgeonly Thomas Gascoigne, who
followed the confessional struggle in the Balkans with some interest, was
aware of both the Hospitals military and charitable responsibilities, and
concerned to make sure that its brethren continued to resist those pagans
who wished to enter Christian territories.35 In part the general lack of
comment can be attributed to the English priorys inability to produce a
history of the 1480 siege drawing attention to the deeds of its own members,
a failing not repeated in the wake of the siege of 1522. Once Rhodes had
fallen, however, writers such as Thomas More showed an increased aware-
ness of its former value to the hole corps of Cristendome.36

33
An exception is Robert Bales chronicle, which makes three allusions to the orders
unpopularity in mid-fteenth-century London. Six Town Chronicles of England, ed. R. Flenley
(Oxford, 1911), 11819, 140 1.
34
Rot. Parl., v. 61; J. L. Bolton, Alien Merchants in England in the Reign of Henry
VI, unpublished B.Litt. thesis, University of Oxford (1971), 7981 and passim.
35
Six Town Chronicles, ed. Flenley, 86, 185; T. Gascoigne, Loci e libro veritatum, ed. J. E.
Thorold-Rogers (Oxford, 1881), 2.
36
John Kayes English translation of Caoursins history was written in Italy, and members of
the English langue do not appear to have been consulted in its preparation. T. M. Vann, John
Kay, the Dread Turk and the Siege of Rhodes, forthcoming in W. Zajac (ed.), The Military
94 The Hospital and Society

Other evidence by which one might gauge the orders popularity or

otherwise is not entirely lacking, but needs to be used with care. Wills
perhaps present the most unambiguous picture, showing that the Hospital,
with the partial exception of the nunnery at Buckland, was not a particularly
attractive repository for bequests,37 although a few substantial donations
were made, usually in conjunction with the provision of obits or chantries.38
By contrast, the plenary indulgences granted the order by the papacy were
taken up with enthusiasm and produced fairly substantial returns.39 Such
material, however, does not provide unchallengeable evidence of the orders
popularity or that of its mission. Indulgences were generally popular in late
medieval England, plenary indulgences especially so, and although those
connected with the defence of the faith may have been seen as particularly
worthwhile, this cannot be proved and clerical commentators, at least, were
concerned by the abuses which followed from the grants of indulgences to
the Hospital in 1445 and 1454.40 Echoing clerical complaints from the
1360s and 1370s, the Lollard John Purvey even accused the orders quaes-
tors of forbidding masses and preaching until they had announced the
orders papally derived privileges and elicited alms.41
When considering the most usual manner in which the laity supported the
order, by becoming confratres and consorores, still greater discrimination is
needed. It is impossible to say whether many confratres vowed their goods
or bodies to the order and were formally received in local chapters, as had
been the case during the orders early history, but it seems unlikely.42 Most
seem rather to have purchased letters of confraternity from the orders
agents, known as nuncios or frary clerks, to whom the collection of the
confraria was leased in courses, and to have then been bound, like more
formally admitted confratres, to contribute annually to the order. Some of
those who acquired such letters are also known to have been members of
other, similar associations, which suggests that the Hospitals confraternity,
while successful, was only one among a number of competing good
causes.43 As we have seen, confraria payments certainly contributed a

Orders, iii: History and Heritage; T. More, A Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation, ed.
L. L. Martz and F. Manley, The Complete Works of St Thomas More (New Haven, 1963), xii. 8.
37
I have based this conclusion mainly on printed material and those wills (of associates of the
order) I have consulted on microlm. See also Excavations, 91.
38
BL MS Cotton Nero E.vi, fos. 4rv, 4v5r, 5v6v; AOM406, fo. 189v; B. G. Charles, The
Records of Slebech, National Library of Wales Journal, 5 (19478), 17989, at 183; AOM 406,
fo. 189v.
39
See above, Ch. 3.1.
40
Gascoigne, Loci, 1256; Six Town Chronicles, ed. Flenley, 141. The author of the Gough
London 10 chronicle, by contrast, commented on the popularity of the 1454 indulgence,
although without linking it to the order. Six Town Chronicles, ed. Flenley, 158.
41
Lunt, Financial Relations, ii. 559.
42
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 2434.
43
e.g. R. N. Swanson, Letters of Confraternity and Indulgence in Late Medieval England,
Archives, 25 (2000), 4057, at 478.
 The Hospital and Society 95

large proportion of the orders income in England, probably exceeding 700

in the early sixteenth century, and as many payments were small it is likely
that some thousands of persons contributed annually.44 So what motivated
them to do so? Like those of other military orders, the orders representatives
were permitted to visit parish churches once a year to solicit alms,45 an
activity difcult to distinguish from the recruitment of confratres in this
period. When doing so they appear to have drawn attention to two areas: the
Hospitals continued efforts on behalf of the faith, and the indulgences
attached to confraternity. A proclamation produced by the order in English
in the fteenth century stressed the readiness of brethren to spende ther
blode and lyf ayenst turks sarazins and other Indelis and claimed that the
Hospitals defence and augmentation of cristen faith at Rhodes was a gret
cause to moue all cristen people to help the sayd noble religion and knyghtes
of throdys by becoming bredern and sustern of the frary of Saint John and
giving ther subsidie thereto ones in the yere as is accustumed. In return,
prayers would be offered up for them in all the orders churches around the
world and the gret Indulgence and pardon granted to confratres by various
popes, and summarized in the text, would be made available to them. Priests
were especially encouraged to exhort their parishioners to become confra-
tres.46 A similar document, designed to be read out by the orders proctor in
church, and datable to the mid-fteenth century, ignores the orders military
role and instead lays exclusive stress on the papally derived privileges
granted to confratres.47
As these sources imply, and as Prior Philip de Thame pointed out in 1338
when justifying a fall in contributions, gifts in return for confraternity were
technically voluntary, but other evidence suggests that the confraria also
comprised numerous xed annual payments owed by particular properties
or families48 which had presumably been donated in perpetuity by previous
holders or ancestors. Sometimes distraint might even be used to secure
payment: a sixteenth-century account of the second course of the confraria
in Essex stipulated that if the vicar of Boreham failed to pay 40 shillings to
the frary clerk for his dewtie the latter might go to Dunmow priory and
take the chalice, mass book, or any other ornament in recompense.49 Many
contributors, moreover, must have been motivated to become confratres as
much to claim the privileges which association with the order might bring in

44
See above, Table 3.1 and Ch. 3.1.
45
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 3768; A. Forey, The Military Order of St Thomas of
Acre, Military Orders and Crusades, art. xii, 481503, at 491; D. Marcombe, Leper Knights:
The Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem in England, c.11501544 (Woodbridge, 2003), 180.
46
BL Sloane Ch. xxxii, 15.
47
Ibid., 27. For the use of similar sales techniques during the reign of Henry VIII, see Lunt,
Financial Relations, ii. 494.
48
Report, 4; Rees, Wales, 224; Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson Essex 11, fos. 9r15r;
Cartulary of Buckland Priory, ed. Weaver, nos. 91, 94, 968; Secunda Camera, p. lxvi.
49
Rawlinson Essex 11, fo. 9r. Cf. Rees, Wales, 24.
96 The Hospital and Society

this world as to enjoy its more enduring spiritual benets. In return for gifts
to the Hospital, and sometimes with its active encouragement, property-
holders put up its cross on their dwellings and claimed to be its tenants,
seeking access to some of the considerable spiritual and temporal exemp-
tions to which they might thus be entitled.50 These included freedom from
all aids and tallages, pontage and pavage, army service and defensive works
pertaining to castles and towns, and freedom from amercement in the royal
courts.51 In 1284 tenants of other lords afliated to the Hospital in Wales in
this way were liable for only half the customary payments of their fellows
elsewhere, while in 1381 a trader from Ludlow staying in Staunton claimed
to be free of scot and lot because he paid 13d. per annum to be a Hospitaller
confrater.52 From very early days, however, the crown and other authorities
were concerned to limit the persons and properties enjoying the rights of
confraternity or tenure with the Hospital. These might be limited to a
particular area or a few properties in any particular city or township,53
and in any case to those who held from the order as their superior lord.
Bondsmen of other lords needed the permission of their superior to become
confratres, and some superiors were prepared to remove its cross from the
houses of tenants they claimed as their own.54 By a statute of Edward Is
reign the crown ordered the seizure of any property on which Hospitaller or
Templar crosses had been erected illegally, and this measure was still being
enforced in the fteenth century. A Warwickshire man who put the Hos-
pitals cross up over his dwelling at Balsall without authorization had his
house conscated in the reign of Henry V, while in the early 1490s a pasture
which had been similarly adorned in Suffolk was also seized until it could be
proved that the tenant held of the order.55
Hard though the Hospital tried to raise awareness of the struggle in the
east, it is also the case that many seem to have identied the order as a whole
with its frary clerks and their activities rather than with the distant adven-
tures of its few dozen military brethren. By the early fteenth century,
indeed, the order was popularly known as the frary.56 This is not entirely
surprising. The annual visit of the Hospitals nuncios or frary clerks, clad in

50
Cartulary of Buckland Priory, no. 94; VCH, Lancashire, iii. 120; The Register of Edward
the Black Prince Preserved in the Public Record Ofce, 4 vols. (London, 19303), iv. 17980.
Tenants of the Hospital who failed to erect a double crosse on their properties could be ned in
its courts. The Testamentary Documents of Yorkshire Peculiars, ed. E. W. Crossley, YASRS 74,
Miscellanea, 2 (1929), 4686, at 67. At least some tenants also wore crosses on their caps. VCH,
Shropshire, ii. 87.
51
Rees, Wales, 11; Secunda Camera, p. lxxvii.
52
Rees, Wales, 24, 23.
53
CDI, ii, 125284, no. 120; Chartularies of St Marys Abbey, Dublin, ed. J. T. Gilbert, 2
vols., RS (London, 1884), i. 269; Borough Customs, ed. M. Bateson, vol. ii (London, 1906),
204; Black Princes Register, i. 48.
54
Rees, Wales, 24; Secunda Camera, p. lv.
55
Statutes, i. 87; CFR142230, 46; CCR14851500, no. 690.
56
Pugh, Undertakers, 56674, at 569.
 The Hospital and Society 97

its livery and perhaps accompanied by pardon crosses, must have been a
notable feature of the liturgical year. Its provision of burial for executed
felons and the excommunicate was still more memorable, its priests, clerks,
or agents waiting below the scaffolds of the condemned with a frary cart
draped in a black cloth bearing the orders eight-pointed cross.57 In com-
parison Hospitaller military brethren must by the fteenth century have
been a relatively rare sight outside the immediate localities of their estates
and of the court. But if many were only partially aware of the orders wider
activities, at least some of those who became confratres must have been
inspired by its achievements in the east, perhaps related to them by Hospi-
taller brethren whom they knew. Among those admitted into confraternity
with the order were James Butler, earl of Wiltshire and Ormond, and several
Somerset gentlemen in 1458, the earls of Derby and Somerset in 1517, the
Willoughbys of Nottinghamshire in 1522, and possibly the duke of Norfolk
before 1481.58 Some of these persons received formal grants of confraternity
on the lines of that usual in the thirteenth century, and registered by the
orders chancery on Rhodes.59 The grants made in 1458 and 1517 appear to
have been prompted by personal ties between leading Hospitallers and the
recipients. William Dawney, the preceptor of the Somerset house of Tem-
plecombe and a man with ties to the Lancastrian government, encouraged
Butler and the other west country landowners to become confratres, while
Somerset had served on diplomatic commissions with Thomas Docwra
before 1517. Such associations might be formed at court or in the counties,
but they might also be linked to travel in the Levant. Several of those
Lancastrian notables who apparently contributed to the construction of
the Hospitaller castle of St Peter at Bodrum had enjoyed the orders hospi-
tality in Rhodes.60 Even though the number of prominent personages trav-
elling to the Holy Land via Rhodes appears to have fallen after the onset of
the Veneto-Ottoman war of 146379, the kindness of the English Hospital-
lers in caring for pilgrims was commented on in print in 1511 and 1517.61
Longer-lasting personal ties lay behind the decision of many of the orders
leading servants and associates to seek burial in its houses. Only privileged
or trusted associates appear to have been buried within these precincts,
however.62 Othersconfratres, others who had given alms to the order,
and executed felonswere often interred by the orders ofcers in outside

57
Stow, Survey, ii. 81; Pugh, Undertakers, passim.
58
AOM367, fo. 118r; The Household Books of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, 146271,
14811483, 2 vols. (Roxburghe Club, 18414, repr. with an introduction by A. Crawford,
Stroud, 1992), ii. 22; AOM406, fos. 155rv, 156r; Swanson, Letters, 47.
59
AOM367, fo. 118r; 406, fos. 155rv, 156r.
60
Luttrell, English Contributions, passim.
61
See below, 289.
62
For burials in the priory church see Stow, Survey, ii. 85; Excavations, 55, 91. These may,
however, have been lower status burials outside the priory church but within the inner precinct
of the priory. Excavations, 1846.
98 The Hospital and Society

repositories such as the churchyard of Holy Innocents in Lincoln or the

specially purchased pardon churchyard in Islington.63
Thus, just as the Hospitals confraternity was bound up with its relation-
ship with its tenants, so too it was closely tied to its administration of a
network of peculiars extending over most areas of the British Isles. Its
appropriated churches were generally subject to episcopal oversight, but
its preceptories and their dependent chapels were not, and tenants of the
Hospital wherever located had certain exemptions from ecclesiastical sanc-
tions. At least in theory, the orders chapels provided spiritual services chiey
to its brethren, their household servants, and the tenants of their dependent
manors, but in practice these were extended to a great many other persons,
as repeated clerical complaints make clear. Besides its burial of executed
felons,64 a practice which appears to have been generally accepted by the
fteenth century, the order also, and more controversially, saw t to extend
confession, marriage, and burial not only to confratres and tenants, but even
to those with no previous connection to the order or outside the Church. Its
sanction for doing so appears to have been an argument that those papal
privileges allowing it to offer spiritual services to its confratres might be
extended to any who provided alms.65 Such activities both undermined the
authority of the clergy over their parishioners and hit them in the pocket,
which naturally prompted complaints. Thus, in 1460, convocation objected
to the orders usurpation of the administration of the Eucharist and matri-
mony from other ordinaries and attacked its practice of burying excommu-
nicates and suicides, while in 1489 the same body complained not only that
marriages had been solemnized in the orders chapels without banns but that
its chaplains were pretending the right to absolve persons excommunicated
by their ordinary.66 Marriages made without the consent of parish priests
were a particular bone of contention. Sometime before 1530, for instance, a
wedding was conducted in the Hospitaller chapel at Temple Grafton in
Warwickshire without the licence of the couples parish priest or the publi-
cation of any banns or dispensation and despite letters inhibitorial issued by
the archbishop of Canterbury. When the case went to the Rota the marriage
was nevertheless upheld, although it was later ruled invalid in England when
the brides previous promise to marry someone else caught up with her.67
Sometimes the secular clergy got the better of these exchanges, as in 1519,
when the chaplain of Dingley was forced to sue the bishop of Lincoln for
absolution from excommunication incurred by his marrying two couples
without the publication of banns.68 Yet the orders marriage of members of

63
Pugh, Undertakers, passim.
64
Ibid. 572.
65
Ibid. 5701; Lunt, Financial Relations, ii. 494.
66
Concilia, ed. Wilkins, iii. 57780; Register Morton, ed. Harper-Bill, i, no. 107.
67
LPFD, iv, no. 6127.
68
Episcopal Court Book, ed. Bowker, 11213.
 The Hospital and Society 99

other parishes was so common that in 1529 convocation prohibited such

ceremonies save by licence of the ordinary and under pain of the excommu-
nication of those who acted otherwise. Further complaints about abuses in
the orders chapels were presented to the same assembly in March 1531.69
Extra-parochial chapels were not only attractive to the laity because of the
orders practice of asking no questions. Often they were a convenient place
of spiritual recourse to those who lived miles from the nearest parish church.
In 1439 the bishop of Exeter was in dispute with the order over its chapel at
Templeton in Devon, where it had recently brought in a friar-bishop to
consecrate the church and cemetery and started offering baptisms and
burials in deance of the rights of the parish church of Witheridge. Despite
his efforts, Templeton had achieved parochial status by 1535.70
Other clerical grievances against the order concerned its occasional failure
to maintain the chancels of its appropriated churches, to remunerate its
vicars adequately, or to pay procurations. The laity might also sometimes
accuse it of failing to maintain chantries in its churches and chapels. Al-
though neither was unknown in England,71 the order was more frequently
accused of neglecting its responsibilities to buildings and vicars in Ireland,
where the archbishops of Armagh sequestrated the fruits of Hospitaller
beneces in their archdiocese on several occasions in the fteenth century
as a result.72 Disputes over tithes and procurations, and whether they were
owed by particular churches, also cropped up from time to time both in
mainland Britain and in Ireland.73 The best documented is the orders long-
running spat with successive bishops of Hereford over the former Templar
church of Garway. At some stage during his episcopacy (147492), Thomas
Milling had had difculty securing these, and after his death the archbishop
of Canterburys vicar in spiritualities had begun legal action against the
order before John Kendal had agreed to pay up.74 In c.1501, during Thomas

69
Concilia, ed. Wilkins, iii. 724, 726.
70
N. Orme, Church and Chapel in Medieval England, TRHS, 6th ser., 6 (1996), 75102,
at 93.
71
M. Bowker, The Secular Clergy in the Diocese of Lincoln, 14951520 (Cambridge, 1968),
135, notes that the order was accused of dilapidating ve churches in the diocese in early
sixteenth-century diocesan visitations.
72
A Calendar of the Register of Archbishop Fleming, ed. H. J. Lawlor, PRIA 30 (191213),
C, 94190, at 153; The Register of John Swayne Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland
14181439, ed. D. A. Chart (Belfast, 1935), 11819; Registrum Johannis Mey: The Register of
John Mey Archbishop of Armagh, 14431456, ed. W. G. H. Quigley and E. F. D. Roberts
(Belfast, 1972), 2545; Registrum Octaviani, alias Liber Niger: The Register of Octavian de
Palatio Archbishop of Armagh 14781513, ed. M. A. Sughi, 2 vols. (Dublin, 1999), no. 551
(i. 130; ii. 6778).
73
See below, nn. 7476. See also e.g. CPL, xiii. 284.
74
Registrum Mayew, ed. Bannister, 1934, at 28, 312. In 1508 Archbishop Warham
recalled that in 1492 the prior of the church of St John, Thomas Kendal, had promised to pay
procurations in order to halt the incipient legal proceedings, although it seems likely either that
he meant John Kendal, or that Thomas Kendal, who is otherwise unknown, was acting on his
namesakes behalf. Ibid. 32.
100 The Hospital and Society

Docwras absence in Rhodes, the farmer of Garway had agreed to pay half
the sum requested because he wished to avoid bishop Audleys displeasure
but after his return the prior instructed his ofcers to refuse payment. Three
years of expensive legal action followed. In 1508 Docwras servants, includ-
ing the farmer of Garway and the scribe of the common treasury, were
summoned before the archbishops court of audience, where evidence was
presented that procurations had been paid regularly in the period from 1492
to 1504.75 The dispute was renewed in 1521, when the prior asserted that
the order had no responsibility to pay the bishop anything for Garway and
would donate only the sum which had been agreed in the time of bishop
Booths predecessor for the tithes of its other Herefordshire estate at Uplea-
don. If the bishop insisted on any more, said Docwra, he would pay nothing
at all. Booth responded by placing Garway under interdict in 1524, and the
dispute was still unresolved in 1529, when it was raised in convocation.76 It
was no wonder that in 1511 Bishop Mayew had convocations protest
against the orders misuse of its privileges copied into his register, and that
in 1532 Bishop Ghinucci of Worcester made sure he had a look at the
privileges recently granted the order by Clement VII.77 As this case demon-
strates, the Hospital maintained an active defence of its privileges, real or
imagined, against the secular clergy throughout the later Middle Ages. In
order to do so, it maintained a proctor in the court of Arches, and appointed
conservators of its privileges to defend it before both church and lay courts
and indeed remove cases from them into its own jurisdiction where applic-
able.78 Despite these precautions, and despite their exemption from epis-
copal authority, members of the order and their personal servants might at
times be excommunicated by irate diocesans. William Knollis, preceptor of
Torphichen, was excommunicated for his failure to pay tithes in 1506, while
the turcopolier, John Kendal, and two members of his household were
similarly dealt with in 1484.79
Despite the animus felt by the clergy against some of the Hospitals claims
and practices, the clerical estate was generally supportive of its fund-raising
activities. Although the clergy were often irked by the sales techniques
employed by Hospitaller nuncii, quaestores, or pardoners, the order was
among a very few major institutions routinely licensed to collect alms on a
provincial rather than local basis by the episcopate, which was concerned to
limit those institutions offering pardons.80 The clergy might also be urged to

75
Registrum Mayhew, ed. Bannister, pp. iii, 33, 1934.
76
Registrum Caroli Bothe Episcopi Herefordensis A.D.MDXVIMDXXXV, ed. A. T. Ban-
nister, CYS, 28 (London, 1921), 8692, 92; Concilia, ed. Wilkins, iii. 717.
77
Registrum Mayhew, ed. Bannister, 502; Archives de lOrient Latin, ed. P. Riant, vol. ii
(Paris, 1884), 202.
78
The order had the right to judge cases involving its own tenants and servants, although it
was forbidden to remove cases from the royal courts into its jurisdiction. Statutes, i. 923.
79
CPL, xviii, no. 625; xv, no. 48 (pp. 267).
80
Lunt, Financial Relations, ii. 4789.
 The Hospital and Society 101

contribute themselves. In 1480, for example, the archbishop of Canterbury

ordered his suffragans to convoke their clergy and read letters from order,
pope, and king outlining the danger to Rhodes and inviting contributions.81
Some individual clerics, and not just those it employed, were also close to
members of the order. John Kendal, for instance, was associated with several
expatriate clergymen during his residence in Rome in the late 1470s and
1480s, including Cardinal Morton, who intervened on his behalf with the
king in 1490.82 Possessing about a hundred appropriated churches in Eng-
land and Wales, and the advowson of a number of others, the order also
provided a great deal of employment for members of the clerical estate. If
some of these livings were relatively poor and suffered from a high turnover
of incumbents,83 others were sufciently desirable for the order to be placed
under pressure to dispose of their presentments, presumably for some con-
sideration, in the early sixteenth century. The most important, however,
were evidently reserved for prioral chaplains and brethren of the order.
A few thousand people would have attended divine service in the orders
appropriated churches and preceptory chapels in the British Isles, and the
order did its best to ensure that its churches reected its particular devo-
tional concerns. In common with several other orders founded in the Holy
Land, the liturgy used in Hospitaller houses was based on that of the church
of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.84 In addition, feast days and practices
observed in Rhodes or Malta were followed in all the orders European
churches, and prayers were offered up in them for its master and brethren.85
The chief devotional cult was that of St John the Baptist. The orders
commandery chapels were commonly dedicated to its patron and depictions
of him were common therein. An image of the Baptist is mentioned in the
inventories of the chapel of Hampton Court drawn up in 1495, 1505, and
1515.86 Similarly, oblations ad ymaginem Sancti Johannis are recorded at
Garway, as is the bequest of a cow to maintain Seynt Johnis light at
Yeaveley in 1503 and 1509 and a bell with the inscription Ora pro nobis
Sancte Iohannes Baptista at Keele.87 The Weston triptych, a late fteenth-
century Flemish work probably commissioned or purchased by John Weston
(prior of England, 147689), depicts the Baptist and the Presentation of
Christ on one side, and the Trinity and the Presentation of the Virgin on the

81
Ibid. ii. 593.
82
See below, Ch. 5.3.
83
Bowker, Secular Clergy, 79.
84
C. Dondi, The Liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem (XIIXVI Century): With
Special Reference to the Practice of the Orders of the Temple and St John of Jerusalem, Ph.D.
thesis (London, 2000), 23, 11819.
85
Stabilimenta, De ecclesia, esp. xxiiii, xxxxii (Statutes of Naillac and dAubusson) and
passim.
86
Excavations, 33; Lansdowne 200, fo. 30v; Claudius E.vi, fos. 8v, 139v/40r.
87
Valor, iii. 19; Claudius E.vi, fos. 7v, 70v; C. Harrison, The Coming of the Sneyds, North
Staffordshire Journal of Field Studies, 22 (19825), 2346, at 41.
102 The Hospital and Society

other. Other saints were honoured too.88 A triptych of the Virgin, the
Crucixion, and St John the Evangelist is mentioned in an inventory of the
chapel of Temple Cressing, and images of Our Lady and St Nicholas, as well
as a depiction of Christ, at Hampton Court.89 In general the order took good
care of its churches and chapels and many brethren seem to have made
improvements to them. At least at Clerkenwell, these were of considerable
architectural sophistication and of advanced design, the most notable ex-
amples in this period being the erection of an exceptionally nely crafted
chantry chapel in or after 1501 and the remarkable hipped bell tower rebuilt
or erected after 1484,90 which John Stow remembered as a most curious
peece of workemanshippe, grauen, guilt and inameled to the great beautify-
ing of the Cittie, and passing all other that I have seene.91 A wealthy
preceptor like Thomas Newport, too, could rebuild the commandery chapel
at Newland in 1519 and have his arms placed in the windows of at least
three Lincolnshire churches, including Temple Brewer.92 The arms of other
preceptors are recorded at others of the orders appropriated churches or
preceptory chapels.93
As has been suggested, the orders tenants are not always easy to distin-
guish from servants, confratres, and the parishioners of its appropriated
churches, between which categories there might be considerable overlap.
In addition to enjoying peculiar rights and exemptions, it is clear that many
Hospitaller tenants held their properties on distinctive terms determined by
a mixture of contingency and conventual policy. As Michael Gervers has
shown, the Hospitals landed estate was built out of a very large number of
individual donations, a great many of them of modest rents or small parcels
of land.94 While the order pursued a policy of acquisition and exchange to
round out these territories, even in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries its
brethren were too few to farm more than their more important estates
directly.95 From the very beginning, therefore, smaller holdings were rented
out, although on manorial estates, and particularly those with resident
brethren, demesnes were kept in hand until well into the fourteenth cen-
tury.96 Partly because many of its properties were situated on unproductive

88
The adoption of local devotions by Hospitaller houses in the west is discussed in Dondi,
Liturgy, 11929.
89
Claudius E.vi, fo. 151r; Lansdowne 200, fo. 30v; Claudius E.vi, fos. 8v, 139v/40r.
90
Excavations, 132, 1467, 151, 1956, 1989 and gs. 100, 1038, 110; CPL, xiv. 7.
91
Excavations, 196; Stow, Survey, ii. 84.
92
Dodsworths Yorkshire Church Notes, ed. A. S. Ellis, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 8
(1884), 130, 481522, at 1; Lincolnshire Church Notes made by Gervase Holles, A.D.1634 to
A.D.1642, ed. R. E. G. Cole, Lincoln Record Society, 1 (Lincoln, 1911), 237 n., 242.
93
Kentish Cartulary, ed. Cotton, 60; Shimield, Shengay, 1402; Puddy, Norfolk, 82;
J. Nichols, The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester, 4 vols. in 8 parts (London,
17951811), iii, I, 256; VCH, Hants, iii. 465.
94
Secunda Camera, pp. xxviixxxix, xliiixliv.
95
Ibid., pp. xlxlv, lxviiilxix, lxxv.
96
Ibid., pp. lxxi, lxxiii.
 The Hospital and Society 103

terrain, the Hospital offered a combination of inexcessive rents and rela-

tively light labour services to prospective tenants, who were further attracted
by the scal and jurisdictional freedoms associated with the order, prompt-
ing some persons to seek transfer to its overlordship.97 In return, however,
the order usually levied an obit of a third part of chattels on the death of a
tenant98 and by the 1390s this imposition had become resented enough to
provoke a campaign of resistance by the bondsmen of the Warwickshire
preceptory of Balsall, where the obit was a half.99 Similar grievances perhaps
encouraged the sack of the orders manors in south-eastern and eastern
England during the Peasants Revolt of 1381 and the burning of the magis-
tral camera of West Peckham during the Cade rising of 1450.100
The Peasants Revolt has inspired some to suggest that the Hospital was a
harsh landlord, but the truth of this is doubtful.101 The orders relationship
with its tenants had certainly changed since the thirteenth century, the
practices of letting many manors out to farm on long lease and of appointing
laymen as collectors of confraternity payments and stewards of the orders
manorial courts removing the tenants of many holdings from frequent
contact with their landlords. By the late fteenth century, at least, manors,
rectories, and mills pertaining to the prioral estate were almost always let on
long lease by provincial chapter, as were a great many other properties in
London and Clerkenwell. London had its own dedicated rent collectors,
who traversed the city fullling their functions, but otherwise those granted
prioral estates on long lease were expected to render the farm at Clerken-
well. This brought more signicant tenants into the Hospitals headquarters,
but also left those holding long leases as effectively the orders intermediaries
with large numbers of its subordinates. Similar arrangements obtained
between preceptories and their dependent estates, which were commonly
divided into bailiwicks whose bailiffs accounted for their jurisdictions at the
chief mansion of the preceptory.
The orders increasing detachment from direct administration might have
mixed results. The former Templar house of Keele in Shropshire, which had
a resident brother custos in 1338, was thereafter transferred to the jurisdic-
tion of the preceptors of Halston, who let it to farm from the 1370s
onwards, but these changes had little effect on the actual running of the
estate, which was largely managed by its tenants, a self-assured group who
initiated major changes in the agricultural organization of the manor them-
selves and took advantage of Keeles status as a jurisdictional peculiar to
found and maintain a parish guild through which many of their affairs were

97
Studd, Keele, 56, 910, 18; Secunda Camera, pp. xli, lxxvilxxvii.
98
Secunda Camera, pp. xli, lxxviilxxviii.
99
Gooder, Temple Balsall, 1719; CPR13916, 525; CPR13969, 11213. Resistance to
heriots also occurred at Halston in the 1420s. VCH, Salops, ii. 87.
100
AOM363, fo. 158v.
101
Tyerman, England, 356.
104 The Hospital and Society

regulated.102 Yet, here as elsewhere, the orders relationship with the lay
farmer was sometimes problematic, a suit by the order against Nicholas
Coleman, the lessee of Keele between 1404 and 1409, maintaining that he
had destroyed the conventual buildings on the site.103 Disputes between the
order and its farmers were especially common following the death or resig-
nation of a prior or preceptor, or during the latters absence: in such periods
tenants might fall behind in their rent, mislay estate documents, dilapidate
buildings or refuse to vacate their leases; while newly appointed priors or
preceptors might wish to evict tenants in order to bestow the holding on
their own nominees.104 Nevertheless, the relationship between the order and
its chief tenants generally appears to have been amicable, not least because
many were persons already associated with the order by blood, marriage, or
service. This is particularly true of those who were granted short-term leases
of those houses whose preceptors were in or on their way to the convent,105
but it also applied to many others. Through the lease books of 14921539
we can trace the careers of a number of men who combined blood relation,
service, and tenancy. The association of some with the order appears to have
predated the admission of their relatives as Hospitallers. The Derbyshire
knight Sir Thomas Babington of Dethick, for instance, was granted the life
stewardship of the nearby preceptory of Yeaveley in 1493, six years before
his third son, John, entered the order. Over the next thirty years, Johns
connections and ofces were exploited so that the family held the precep-
tories of Willoughton, Yeaveley, and Dalby at farm for short periods,
retained the stewardship of Yeaveley after Sir Thomass death, and was
granted a twenty-nine-year lease of Rothley in 1529.106 More often, the
entry of a family into service or tenancy appears to have been coeval with or
post-dated the profession of relatives in the order. The Chetwoods, Dalisons,
Docwras, Dorset Husseys, Langstrothers, Malorys, Passemers, Pecks, Pick-
erings, Plumptons, Pooles, Rawsons, and Tonges107 who were granted
ofces, corrodies, preceptory leases, manors, rectories, and collectorships
of confraternity payments all beneted from the profession of relatives who
had become, as preceptors, signicant landholders. Such rewards and con-
nections might signicantly enhance a familys existing local prestige and
position, as has been argued in the case of the Malorys of Newbold Revel,108
or lead to branches of a family establishing themselves in a new location
associated with the hospital. Besides the Langstrothers in Lincolnshire and

102
Studd, Keele, passim.
103
Ibid. 13.
104
See below, 110, 193, 196, 201.
105
See above, 645.
106
Lansdowne 200, fo. 13rv; Claudius E.vi, fos. 7v8v, 69v70v, 158rv, 202r, 264v265r;
LR2/62, fos. 1rv, 31rv.
107
I mention only those families of which two or more lay members were the recipients of
grants in provincial chapter between 1492 and 1528.
108
Field, Sir Robert Malory, 259; id, Life and Times, 779.
 The Hospital and Society 105

Norfolk, for example, one can also nd several Rawsons in Ireland and an
Anthony Tonge in Rhodes.109 Although some such families, most notably
both branches of the Docwras, might lose ofces or inuence after the death
of a professed relative, such an event need not herald the end of the orders
generosity. Grants were made to members of the Malory family for at least
fteen years after the death of the last Malory preceptor in 1481,110 while
the Hertfordshire gentleman George Dalison of Clothall, a servant of the
order since the 1480s, continued to receive grants and ofces after the death
of his presumed relatives, the Hospitallers Richard and Robert, in 1498 and
1504.111 His importance must have helped to keep the family connection
alive in following years, so that John Dalison became a Hospitaller before
1519, and Robert (II) in 1524.112 Those of the orders leading servants who
appear not to have had pre-existing family connections with brethren were
often also rewarded for their pains with corrodies, properties within the
prioral precinct, and grants elsewhere. The latter might include manors,
rectories, and, in the case of Francis Bell, who was granted the farm of the
magistral camera of Peckham, even whole preceptories.113 Most such grants
were of properties within striking distance of the priory, but some were
considerably more far-ung, and must have been made over to assigns.
The order provided accommodation and employment throughout Eng-
land and Wales. The Hospital seems to have been a good employer, and
looked after its own. The number of men whose careers in its service can be
traced for twenty years or more is considerable. Its chief ofcersthe
auditor, chief steward, prioral steward, prioral receiver, and scribe of the
common treasuryheld their posts for life and were rewarded with small
salaries, corrodies, tenements within the priory complex, and leases of land
on which they might make considerable prot. Ofcers such as chaplains,
bailiffs, keepers of woods, and stewards of courts also customarily had life
tenure and were provided with their salaries, robes, and other perquisites
even if they should be inrm. Details of the recruitment of such ofcers are
practically impossible to come by, but it seems likely that many had served
the order in its preceptories or in Rhodes before they took up residence in
Clerkenwell. This is suggested by the fact that their number included several
Rhodiots, of whom three in particularFrancis Bell, Constans Bennett, and
Francis Galliardettobecame both prominent and prosperous in prioral
service. Hospitaller brethren could sometimes demonstrate a quite touching

109
Paston Letters, ed. Davis, i. 6971; CICRE, 8990; AOM404, fo. 230v.
110
AOM388, fo. 132r; Claudius E.vi, fo. 299r; Lansdowne 200, fo. 44v.
111
Claudius E.vi, fo. 88v; Lansdowne 200, fos. 27r, 32r, 38rv, 40v, 43v44r; Claudius E.vi,
fos. 46r, 78rv, 87v88r, 88v, 142r143r, 243rv; Excavations, 140, 1434.
112
AOM408, fo. 136rv; BDVTE, 38, 412. The order also presented Dalisons to the
Hertfordshire vicarage of Standon in 1486 and 1536. J. E. Cussans, History of Hertfordshire,
3 vols. (187081, repr. Wakeeld, 1972), i. 181.
113
Claudius E.vi, fos. 202v203v.
106 The Hospital and Society

paternalism towards their subordinates. Having thought to reward William

ap Rhyss long service by appointing him his chief auditor, for example,
William Weston was aghast at Thomas Cromwells attempt to pressure him
into appointing the monastic visitor, William Cavendish, instead. Weston
also intervened with Giles Russell, preceptor of Battisford, on behalf of John
Launde, an old servant of the former preceptor, Adam Chetwood, and
whose rent Russell was trying to increase.114
Just as with relatives and servants, the hospital did its best to bring those
other persons to whom it leased its estates into close and long-lasting afnity.
Gentlemen granted leases of former preceptories and camerae would be
expected to nd chaplains to celebrate there and to receive the orders
ofcials when they came to survey the property or hold court. In return
they were often granted robes of the orders livery, might act as its attorneys
in local business and might rarely be granted corrodies as was the farmer of
Hogshaw, Ralph Lane, at Clerkenwell in 1508.115 The most prestigious of
the orders local ofces, the stewardships of its courts were, like its major
estates, granted largely to local notables, such as Sir Thomas Burgh at
Willoughton in 1493, Sir Thomas Tyrrell at Cressing in 1495, and John
Villers the younger at Dalby in 1498.116 Tyrrell, at least, was appointed
because of the good favour and special love he had demonstrated to the
order in the past. That these men were all from families who supplied the
hospital with brethren is also telling.
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to suggest that the order was always
able to distribute estates and ofces as it wished. In Wales and the Welsh
Marches, for instance, some gentlemen were effectively paid protection
money.117 The large number of grants made to various categories of royal
servant across this period also indicates that the hospital felt it necessary to
acquire inuence at court and suggests that pressure was put upon it to make
grants. In 1518, for example, Henry VIIIs intimate Sir Thomas Boleyn was
granted the orders Cambridgeshire estate of Great Wilbraham, while in the
same year the Lancashire gentleman James Anderton vacated his newly
granted lease of Much Woolton in favour of Roland Shakelady, a royal
clerk in chancery to whom the preceptor of Yeaveley had promised it.118
The orders properties in the immediate environs of the capital and of royal
palaces such as Richmond were particularly attractive to courtiers and royal
ofcers, and with the expansion in the activities and personnel of the crown
under the Tudors considerable pressure was brought to bear on the order for
grants. The important estate of Hampton Court, for example, was held by
successively grander personages between the 1470s and 1530s: John Wood,

114
LPFD, xi, no. 419; v, no. 901.
115
Claudius E.vi, fo. 60r.
116
Lansdowne 200, fos. 13r, 23r, 50v.
117
AOM54, fo. 42r; Claudius E.vi, fo. 257v.
118
Claudius E.vi, fos. 176v177r; 185rv.
 The Hospital and Society 107

Sir Giles Daubeney, Cardinal Wolsey, and nally the king himself. Both
Daubeney and Wolsey sought a permanent grant of the manor, which the
order was reluctant to allow, and got the crown to intervene on their behalf
with the central convent.119 Yet the order might also nd it politic to grant
the requests of even relatively minor ofcials, or their connections. Writing
to the preceptor of Baddesley in 1533, the orders subprior asked him to
grant a property held by copy to a London merchant whose brother was a
clerk of the crown and could do the order some good.120
But what might this good consist of? Above all, the order sought the
continuance and extension of royal favour. While its priors, as lords of
parliament and royal councillors, were important public gures they did
not reside at court, and were rarely close intimates of the king. In attempting
to gain licence to leave the realm, to acquire benets for their order, to
defend their estates and to pursue their own private interests professed
Hospitallers directed begging letters, gifts, and pensions to royal councillors
and courtiers. Thus when prior John Kendal wanted to go to Rhodes in
c.1500 he made a present of kirtles adorned with crystal gold and silver to
the chancellor, Morton, while in the following reign Wolsey and Cromwell
were offered Turkey carpets and pensions for their uncertain favours.121 Yet
for all the attractions of exotic manufactures, property was what many
courtiers were most eager to acquire from their association with the order,
and many were able to achieve their wishes.
In seeking Hospitaller properties in and around London, courtiers were
not just competing with the orders relatives and servants, but with the
citizens and other inhabitants of the capital. The prior of St John, whose
properties in London and Middlesex were rated at more than 600 in 1540,
could be described in 1528 as a very great personage, the chief in that city,
and his order had close commercial and social ties with the capital.122 Its
tenants included the lawyers of the Temple area, the clerks of Chancery
Lane, and numerous citizens and guildsmen. London merchants sold cloth
and lent money to the order and its brethren, and their presence as co-lessees
of the estates of those preceptors travelling to convent indicates their im-
portance in providing the capital to nance such journeys. In 1506, for
instance, the draper William Stalworth, was among those granted the farm
of the Lincolnshire preceptory of Willoughton.123 Such ties begat a certain
amount of affection and intimacy in some. Both the liverymen and yeomen
of the Merchant Taylors belonging to their twin fraternities of St John
Baptist were confratres of the Hospital, and attended an annual mass in
the priory, where at least one prominent liveryman was buried. A few

119
See below, 157, 173 and Thurley, Hampton Court, ch. 1.
120
LPFD, vi, II, no. 166.
121
AOM79, fo. 116v; see below, Ch. 6.
122
PRO SC6/Henry VIII/2402, mm. 113d; CSPV, iv, no. 380.
123
Claudius E.vi, fos. 44v45r.
108 The Hospital and Society

Londoners also left the order money in their wills, the most notable bequest
after 1400 being the 100 bequeathed in 1511 by the Merchant Taylor John
Kyrkby towards the bell tower rebuilt after 1484, in return for which the
order promised to keep an obit in his honour.124 Relations were not always
amicable, however. The corporate cohesion of the order and its servants and
their exemption from secular jurisdiction and penalties prompted some
resentment among the citizens of the capital, so that in 1453 a wrestling
match between champions of the priory and the city degenerated into a
battle in which several people were killed or injured.125 There were occa-
sional disputes, too, between the order and the corporation of London.
The same mixture of intimacy and resentment can be found elsewhere.
Several individual Hospitallers can be seen to have had close friendships and
associations outside the order. While travelling round his favoured estates,
for instance, John Weston went hawking with and provided gode chere to
his friends, and visited the houses of lay persons such as Richard Cely the
elder. Richard the younger, a close companion of the prior, accompanied him
both on his local travels and his embassy to France in 1480 and was the
Bedfelow of the younger Hospitaller Roland Thornburgh, while his
brother George provided the prior with news, gowncloth, rich saddles, and
hawks from the marts of Calais and Flanders.126 Similarly, the letters of
relatives and servants provide news about members of William Westons
household and family at Rainham-Berwick and Sutton Temple (Essex),
Melchbourne (Bedfordshire), and Clerkenwell.127 In 1526 the orders
right trusty and lovyng frende Antonio Vivaldi was granted the right to
take two bucks and two does from the park at Berwick annually as well as to
take out the priors boats and sh.128 The orders preceptors indulged in
similar pursuits. Leases of East Stafford mill in Dorset granted in 1512 and
1526 specied that the commander of Maine and his friends were to have the
right to sh there when they should visit.129 Besides such frivolous inter-
actions, preceptors were well enough integrated into local society to act as
feoffees and arbiters, to witness marriages, and to join guilds.130 Given the
124
C. M. Clode, The Early History of the Guild of Merchant Taylors of the Fraternity of St
John the Baptist, London (London, 1888), 11112, 63; The Merchant Taylors Company of
London: Court Minutes 14861493, ed. M. Davies (Stamford, 2000), 24, 288; Claudius E.vi,
fo. 86v.
125
Six Town Chronicles, ed. Flenley, 107, 140; J. Stow, A Summarie of the Chronicles
of England (London, 1604), 373; Excavations, 92.
126
The Cely Letters 14721488, ed. A. Hanham, EETS, 273 (London, 1975), esp. nos.
19, 25, 37, 3940, 47, 52, 55, 58, 74, 78, 83, 84, 90, 946, 989, 102, 104, 108, 121, 123, 134.
127
LPFD, xi, no. 849; Addenda, no. 1095.
128
Claudius E.vi, fo. 289r.
129
Claudius E.vi, fos. 101rv, 280v281r.
130
BL Additional Ch. 7386; Ancient Deeds, iv, A7907; Nichols, Leicester, iii, II, 953; The
Register of the Guild of Corpus Christi in the City of York: With an Appendix of Illustrative
Documents, Containing some Account of the Hospital of St. Thomas of Canterbury, without
Micklegate Bar, in the Suburbs of the City, ed. R. H. Skaife, Surtees Society, 57 (Durham, 1872),
45, 189.
 The Hospital and Society 109

largely secular environment in which they operated and the necessity of

defending their estates, it is not surprising that both priors and preceptors
could sometimes be accused either of personal immorality or of abusing their
positions in favour of themselves and their relatives. According to the hostile
Thomas de la Laund, brother John Boswell kept not only the customary
household at Temple Brewer but also adopted John Amwyk as his Fole and
Ydyot, besides keeping a mistress and having a son to whom he gave
Amwyks estate.131 At least one other English preceptor, Thomas Golyns,
had a mistress and child,132 and there must be a suspicion that some of the
Docwras with whom prior Thomas surrounded himself, especially Martin of
Balsall, were more closely related to him than was canonically licit.133
Whether before or after the dissolution, brother Henry Poole is also
known to have fathered a bastard.134 Concubinage may have been rife
among the Hospitallers of Scotland and Ireland, where brethren were virtu-
ally unsupervised. William Knollis, preceptor of Torphichen, had an illegit-
imate son,135 and a number of Irish priests claimed to be sons of Hospitallers
in petitions to Rome.136 The English prior of Ireland, John Rawson, emu-
lated the native-born brethren in fathering a daughter.137 Some such rela-
tionships might involve coercion. In 1534 Edmund Hussey was accused of
having borne off a Bristol servant girl into captivity at Templecombe,138
while William Langstrother, the bailiff of Eagle, colluded in his lay relative
Roberts pursuit of Jane Boys, which ended up in her abduction to Lincoln-
shire and rape in 1452.139
At least among male heads of families, legal cases probably caused longer-
lasting resentments than any sexual misdemeanours. Successive preceptors
of the Lincolnshire house of Temple Brewer had a dispute with the de la
Laundes of nearby Ashby which had its origins in the latters objections to
the transfer of their donations to the Temple to the Hospital after 1312. The
last round of litigation between the family and the order began in 14701
and dragged on until the 1520s, the pretext for action being Ashby church,
which Robert de la Laund claimed had been granted to the Temple illegally
by an ancestor. Although Roberts suit against brother Miles Skayff col-
lapsed because of his death it may have prompted the next preceptor, John
Boswell, to attempt to deprive Thomas of his rights as lord of the manor of
Ashby by seizing deeds and forging a will giving him title to a messuage

131
BL Add. MS 4937, fos. 78r79r.
132
Episcopal Court Book, ed. Bowker, 123.
133
Martin Docwra does not appear either in the family pedigrees recorded by the Heralds or
in the wills of members of the two main branches of the family.
134
Bindoff (ed), House of Commons, iii. 130.
135
CPL, xviii, no. 684.
136
CPL, xii. 284; xiii. 6234; xiv. 148, 224, 255, 300; xv, no. 891; xvi, no. 931.
137
DNB, xlvii. 336.
138
PRO STAC2/6/93.
139
Paston Letters, ed. Davis, i. 6970.
110 The Hospital and Society

there. Launds determination to pursue this suit before the common law
courts and Margaret Beaufort also led Thomas Newport, who became
preceptor on Boswells death in 1495, to adopt strong-arm tactics. Laund
complained that in 1502 or 1503 Newport had withheld land in Ashby from
him and instructed his tenants not to pay him joysment. Relations had
deteriorated to such an extent by the time that John Babington (I) was
farmer of the commandery in 151920 that he allegedly caused his servants
to bait and make off with Launds sheep, destroy his corn, and usurp his
jurisdiction over the Ashby leet courts. When Laund complained about these
latest outrages to the courts, Babington supposedly suborned his counsel so
that the latter passed him documents and ensured the exclusion of Launds
patron Sir Christopher Willoughby from the Assizes at which the case was to
be determined.140 Besides his orders legal clout, a Hospitaller able to secure
a preceptory near his family estates would also be able to call on physical
muscle, as Edmund Hussey apparently did during his confrontation with the
corporation of Bristol in 1534.141 Yet the family interests of one preceptor
could sometimes complicate matters for the next incumbent. After Thomas
Docwra installed his relative Martin in the important prioral preceptory of
Balsall shortly before his death, the latter became the subject of eviction
proceedings by the next prior, while in the 1530s Henry Poole attempted to
evict the Babingtons, relatives of the former preceptor John, from their
interests in Dalby.142
As these examples suggest, the tendency of the Hospitals family and
personal connections to perpetuate themselves rarely led to the establish-
ment of prolonged family interests in particular preceptories, although more
peripheral estates might become the preserve of a family over several gener-
ations. The orders promotion system, by which brethren would move
between houses and usually had no say in the appointment of their succes-
sors, worked against any such developments, as did the fact that preceptors
could choose their own ofcers and tenants without reference to provincial
chapter. The order was in any case too signicant and far-ung a corpor-
ation, and too dependent on lay service, support, and counsel to become a
closed shop. Its landed administration was partly dependent on the good will
of the gentlemen who leased its manors, acted as stewards of its courts, and
who also served the crown in shire government. Its shipment of men and
monies to the Mediterranean required the goods and credit of English
merchants and the expertise of Italian. Priests, legal ofcers, bailiffs,
receivers, scribes, frary clerks, parkers, and menial servants all had to be
recruited and paid for, and could hardly be sourced simply among the

140
BL Add. MS 4937, fos. 76v89v. Babington spent 8 7s. for actions at law in defence of a
great part of the demesne at Temple Brewer in the year from 25 Mar. 1521. AOM54, fo. 45r.
141
PRO STAC2/6/93.
142
PRO C1/588/36; /732/38.
 The Hospital and Society 111

families and friends of the few dozen professed brethren. In granting tenan-
cies and appointing to at least some ofces, the order showed itself suscep-
tible to pressure from inuential persons, especially those connected with
the court. In doing so, it sought to secure the approval of those about the
king for its activities, the perpetuation of which complemented some trad-
itional elements of royal policy, but contradicted other, often more pressing,
considerations.
 CHAPT ER FI VE

The Hospital and the English

Crown, 14601509

Royal support had always been necessary to the order of St Johns operations
in England and Wales. Yet there had also always existed potential conicts of
interest between crown and order. From the thirteenth century, kings of
England had emphasized their right to control the movements of their
subjects overseas, had limited transfers of bullion out of the country, and
had clamped down on corporations which had allegiances to bodies or
persons outside the realm. Monarchical claims and nationalist rhetoric
became more wide-ranging and explicit as a result of the Hundred Years
War and the state building of the late Middle Ages, and were sometimes
employed to justify limiting, impeding, or even halting contacts between the
Hospitaller priory of England and its Mediterranean convent. Usually, how-
ever, the crown fell well short of submitting the order to any comprehensive
system of restrictive legislation, and acted only when it considered its mem-
bers to have slighted the royal dignity or breached royal prerogatives in some
way. In this chapter I will attempt to establish what the crowns usual
attitude to the Hospital was, what theoretical and practical bases underlay
royal perceptions, and what the normal patterns of interaction were between
the two. I will then trace the development of the relationship between
individual kings and priors of England on a reign-by-reign basis, paying
particular attention to the conicts which occasionally arose between crown
and order, and the context in which these occurred.

5.1 The Framework of Interaction before 1460

In June 1459 Henry VI forbade his trusty and welbeloved counsailler

Robert Botill, prior of the Hospital in England, to travel to Rhodes to attend
the forthcoming chapter-general of the order. His grounds for doing so were
Botills age and sickness and the belief that his presence in England was to us
full necessarie for many causes. Informing the English brethren in Rhodes of
his decision, he proceeded to instruct them that as ye wol we shal take you
for our trewe subgittes they must in noowise suffre as ferre as ye may and in
esp(ec)iall yeve noo consent to any g(ra)unts imposicons or charges that may
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 113

be thought or taken p(re)judiciall or hurte to the lawes of this o(u)r

reaume.1 Henrys instructions to his Hospitaller subjects reect two peren-
nial elements in royal policy: a dislike of the imposition of taxes on the realm
by foreign authorities, and a desire to limit the movement and activities of
subjects overseas.2 From the fourteenth century such considerations had led
to the restriction of papal authority to tax the English Church, to the
diversion of ecclesiastical taxation to fund the war effort against France,
and to occasional prohibitions on people leaving the country on business
other than the kings.3 Suspicion of all things French had further led to the
seizure or Anglicization of those alien priories and cells which owed
allegiance to foreign mothers and were run and staffed by French monks,4
and to bans on their sending payments (apportum) overseas.5 Although the
brethren of the Hospitaller priory of England were overwhelmingly anglo-
phone, their allegiance to an institution whose masters were usually French,
whose French provincial priors supported the enemy war effort,6 and whose
receiver-general was based in Avignon left them potentially vulnerable to
punitive legislation or even suppression. Preceptories, which were barely
conventual in the early fourteenth century and still less so by the fteenth,
might even have been in particular danger of being suppressed as alien
cells.7 The threat was especially great in the rst decade of the Hundred
Years War and during the papal schism. In 1337 Edward III lumped the
dispatch of responsions to Rhodes together with the apporti paid by the alien
priories to their overseas mothers, and forbade it, while also requiring
military service and loans from the prior of England, Philip de Thame.8 In
1339 he reproved Thame for sending responsions in contempt of this order,
alleging that by sending monies abroad he had destroyed the goods of the
Hospital, which ought rather to be employed in defence of the realm.9 The

1
PPC, vi. 301.
2
M. J. Barber, The Englishman Abroad in the Fifteenth Century, Medievalia et Humanis-
tica, 1st ser., 11 (1957), 6977.
3
Lunt, Financial Relations, ii, esp. 1045, 113, 11718, 1234.
4
Recent studies of the legislation against alien priories include A. K. McHardy, The Alien
Priories and the Expulsion of Aliens from England in 1378, in D. Baker (ed.), Church, Society
and Politics, Studies in Church History, 12 (1975), 13341; B. J. Thompson, The Statute of
Carlisle, 1307, and the Alien Priories, JEH 41 (1990), 54383; id., Laity.
5
This legislation was introduced by Edward I in 1307, and conrmed in 1330, but was rarely
applied to the Hospital before Edward IIIs insistence in 1335 that no religious man carry
sterling out of the realm. Statutes, i. 151, 263, 273. For a pre-1335 enforcement of the statute
see CCR13303, 323. In 1335 the prior of England, Philip de Thame, paid his responsions at a
chapter-general of the order. H. Nicholson, The Hospitallers in England, the Kings of England
and Relations with Rhodes in the Fourteenth Century, Sacra Militia, 2 (2001), 2545, at 27 n.
I am grateful to Dr Nicholson for sending me a copy of this article.
6
Hermitage Day, Dinmore, 9.
7
For the division of such houses between viable conventual priories and unviable cells, see
Thompson, Laity, 212, 289, 323, 357.
8
CCR13379, 140, 240, 290, 436, 500, 632, 635, 643; CCR133941, 114, 119, 123, 1245,
185; Nicholson, Hospitallers in England, 368.
9
CCR133941, 256; Nicholson, Hospitallers in England, 37.
114 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

confrontation reached its height in 1341, when the priors compliance was
again investigated, the conscation of the priory threatened under the legis-
lation against alien houses, and the arrest of the hospitals visitors as adher-
ents of the kings enemies beyond the seas ordered because they had exported
bullion, urged their brethren to leave the realm, and caused its secrets to be
discovered by conducting visitations.10 Thereafter licences for Hospitallers to
depart continued to insist that they take no apportum, Edward attempting to
justify the detention of responsions in October 1342 as necessary for the
defence of the Hospital.11 By the late 1350s, however, the order appears to
have convinced the king that it should be treated differently from the alien
priories, with responsions being submitted once more.12 Thereafter, while
individual Hospitallers were sometimes subject to restrictions or outright
prohibitions on travelling or sending responsions abroad, there was no
attempt to put a stop to the orders activities until Edwards adverse but
short-lived reaction to the convents attempt to detach the preceptory of
Scotland from English allegiance in 13745.13 The crown even continued to
support the order during the papal schism, when the allegiance of its convent
to the Avignonese lines of popes provided the perfect pretext to conscate its
estates.14 Despite a parliamentary petition in 1383/4 that responsions be put
to the ease of the poor commons of the realm, despite the orders inclusion in
a 1410 Lollard proposal to disendow the Church, and despite increasing
royal impecunity under Richard II and Henry IV, the order continued to be
allowed to transmit men and money to Rhodes as before.15
To some extent, the crown probably left the Hospital alone because it was
not seen to constitute a threat in the same way as the alien priories and cells,
staffed by religious of an enemy allegiance, were.16 Its members were, after
all, English, and the master of the order was supposed to reside in the eastern
Mediterranean. Such difculties as occurred arose primarily from its ship-
ment of money overseas, which was both abhorrent to the bullionist thought

10
CPR13413, 203; CCR13413, 1378; Nicholson, Hospitallers in England, 37. Cf.
Marcombe, Leper Knights, 767.
11
CCR13413, 1378, 668, 670; CPR13458, 50 bis; CCR13469, 456, 554; CCR1349
54, 379.
12
CPR135861, 187.
13
CPR136974, 568 bis; CCR13747, 2978; CCR13815, 12; Cambridge University
Library, MS. Dd. III. 53, fo. 121; Bekynton Correspondence, i. 8790; PPC, vi. 299301;
Scotland, pp. xxxvxxxvi.
14
Tipton, English Hospitallers during the Great Schism, passim. Helen Nicholson has
recently modied Tiptons thesis, arguing convincingly that in the mid-1380s, at the height of
anti-Avignon feeling in England, the priory entered into dialogue with the anti-master Carac-
ciolo in Rome, but she nevertheless accepts that the English Hospitallers remained loyal to
Rhodes throughout the schism. Nicholson, Hospitallers in England, 414.
15
Rot. Parl., iii. 179, 213, 6701; CPR13859, 95. The 1410 petitions statement that
Clerkenwell and its members were collectively worth 20,000 marks must surely refer to the
Hospital rather than, as Dr Hudson has stated, to the nunnery there. Selections from English
Wyclifte Writings, ed. A. Hudson (Cambridge, 1978), 135 and index.
16
McHardy, Alien Priories, passim; Thompson, Laity, esp. 234, 37.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 115

of the fourteenth and fteenth centuries17 and a source of anxiety to those

who feared that funds dispatched to Avignon might end up in French royal
coffers.18 To satisfy public opinion, it might not only be necessary for
Clerkenwell to prove it was not funding the French, but also that it was
actively employing its monies in defence of the faith. Thus in 1411 it was
reported in convent that Henry IV had insisted that responsions be employed
solely in Rhodes, while more generally the order evaded suspicion by sub-
mitting its dues as letters of exchange to be cashed in Italy or, less usually, in
the form of goods such as cloth and tin.19 Even in the form of letters of
exchange, however, the size of the sums involved might cause concern,
particularly if the convent ordered a signicant increase in payments or
attempted to impose any new forms of taxation. In the fteenth century,
responsions often amounted to more than 1,000 per annum, a sum con-
siderably greater than that sent to Rome by the papal collector in usual years
and which dwarfed the amounts sent to overseas mother-houses by other
English religious orders.20 A second irritant was the possibility that Hospi-
taller brethren might be provided to beneces by the pope. Such eventualities
were covered by the statutes of Provisors, but the crown sometimes saw t to
remind brethren not to seek preferment in Rome or to punish those who
had.21 Only one piece of English evidence certainly indicates that any
pressure was placed on the order to conform to the conditions by which
some of the alien priories escaped conscation. The legislation against alien
houses exempted conventual priories from action, and given this context it
is interesting that at some point between 1417 and 1422 Henry V ordered
prior William Hulles to transform the orders chief church in Clerkenwell,
which was largely served by secular priests, into a fully conventual estab-
lishment, as it had been until the reign of Edward III.22
Nevertheless, the crowns refusal to act against the Hospital even during
the schism perhaps requires further explanation, especially in view of the
fact that during the fourteenth and fteenth centuries the English houses of
military or hospitaller orders such as St Thomas of Acre, St Lazarus, and
St Anthony of Vienne became autonomous, acquiring the right to elect their
own masters without reference to their headquarters, ceasing to support
their former mother-houses nancially, and concentrating instead on local

17
For bullionism, see J. H. Munro, Wool, Cloth and Gold: The Struggle for Bullion in the
Anglo-Burgundian Trade, 13401478 (Toronto, 1972); J. L. Bolton, The Medieval English
Economy 11501500 (London, 1980), 7980, 297300, 311, 328, 330.
18
Lunt, Financial Relations, ii. 113.
19
Luttrell, English Contributions, 166.
20
Payment to Rome by the papal collector, when not swollen by indulgence receipts, usually
amounted to about 250 per annum between 1417 and 1464, while the Cistercians collectively
sent a princely 76 to Cteaux. Harvey, England, Rome and the Papacy, 75; Knowles, Religious
Orders, iii. 312.
21
CCR13815, 75; CPR14416, 134.
22
Thompson, Alien Priories, esp. 268, 358; Monasticon, vi, II, 839.
116 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

devotional and charitable activities.23 The Hospital might easily have fol-
lowed a similar path. That it did not can partly be explained by royal
pronouncements in its favour. Although these tended to be somewhat un-
imaginative and conventional, they nevertheless reveal rst monarchs
apparently sincere belief that their predecessors had been among the found-
ers of the order, whose houses had been established for the defence of the
faith, and secondly a continued commitment to the defence of Christendom,
one perhaps ultimately grounded in their responsibility, enshrined in the
coronation oath, to protect the Church.24 Judged by the materialistic criteria
of foundations, endowments, and donations the order of St John had never
been an especial favourite of any English monarch.25 Yet when Brother John
Stillingeet drew up his list of donations to it in the mid-fteenth century he
drew attention to royal grants, singling out Richard I and Richard II in
particular for their love of the Hospital.26 Richard I, he said, had the order
in special affection because its master and brethren had conferred plurima
benecia ac commoda on him and his entourage during his crusade, as
appeared from his conrmation of the Hospitals liberties. Yet the Lion-
hearts territorial benefactions to the order were modest, amounting to the
grant of two small hospitals and a hermitage, a fact which suggests that
despite or perhaps indeed because of his dealings with the order in the Latin
east he still saw it primarily in the context of its medical rather than its
military work.27 Two centuries later Cur de Lions less impressive name-
sake had apparently also shown especial favour in increasing the orders
liberties at the request of prior Robert Hales (137181) and protecting it in
the aftermath of the Peasants Revolt, when its properties had been
destroyed and its brethren ed incognito to hide amongst laymen.28 Given
that it was Haless implementation of the poll tax on the crowns behalf that
prompted much of the animus against him and his order, and that Hales was
himself murdered during the rising, it might, however, have been churlish for
Richard II to have done otherwise.29 In fact there had been a steady if
unspectacular stream of royal donations to the order from the reigns of
Henry II until that of Edward I, but these had most characteristically taken
the form not of grants of property but of privileges and exemptions such as

23
Marcombe, Leper Knights, 767, 837, 923, 99100; Forey, St Thomas, 496503. The
London house of St Thomas had earlier resisted moves made by its Acre convent to amalgamate
with the Temple. Forey, St Thomas, 4945.
24
For these views see, inter alia, CCR13303, 67; PPC, vi. 145.
25
H. Nicholson, The Military Orders and the Kings of England in the Twelfth and Thir-
teenth Centuries, in A. Murray (ed.), From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader
Societies 10951500 (Turnhout, 1998), 20318, at 204.
26
Monasticon, vi, II, 8319. Stillingeets writing(s) are discussed in Gervers, Hospitaller
Cartulary, 2930.
27
Monasticon, vi, II, 839.
28
Ibid. Royal protection was extended to the order, its brethren, and its property in July and
August 1381. CCR13815, 3, 5; CPR13815, 32.
29 CPR13815, 23.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 117

the right to hold markets and fairs and grants of free warren.30 The ow had
tailed off towards the end of the thirteenth century, and some of the orders
claimed privileges had begun to be questioned by the 1250s, but the milk of
kingly kindness did not entirely curdle until well into the reign of Henry VIII,
the Hospitals most remarkable, if reluctant, royal benefactor before then
being that unlikely holy warrior, Edward II, who granted it the former
Templar properties in November 1313.31 Many Hospitaller properties had
originally been granted to the Temple by the crown, which had effectively
founded several Templar houses, and the Hospital took care to remember
the masters and patrons of its defunct sister order.32 It also made sure that
kings were aware of the chantries and obits it maintained in remembrance of
past royal benefactors, hence Henry VIs claim in July 1453 that his progen-
itors were numbered among its rst founders by the religious of the order.
This, the king said, made it incumbent upon him to expend every effort to
provide for the quiet of its brethren and to act to the best of his power to
prevent their being offended in any way.33
More potent, perhaps, was the orders continued role in the defence of the
Latin East. It is true that few English monarchs, the last being Henry IV, had
rst-hand experience of the Hospitals activities in the east, and that English
enthusiasm for crusading appears to have declined somewhat in the fteenth
century, if chiey through lack of accessible outlets.34 Nevertheless, if the
crusading adventures of its subjects accorded ill with the crowns increasing
desire to control movements of persons and bullion out of the realm, and its
insistence that the place of leading subjects was by the kings side, they tted
perfectly well with rulers strivings, as chief chivalric warlords, to promote
and celebrate the pursuit of honourable deeds of arms.35 Naturally, kings
expected that knightly excursions should be performed in their own service,
but there were long periods when they were not engaged in military activity
themselves. When Edward III and Richard II were at war with France they
therefore demanded the service of their leading subjects in the eld, but
during periods of truce, especially the 1390s, crusading activity might be
actively promoted.36 If the ideals of Christian brotherhood in arms and of
knight errantry were being eroded during the fteenth century and replaced

30
These are conveniently listed and summarized in Monasticon, vi, II, 8319.
31
CPR13137, 52; Monasticon, vi, II, 809; Statutes, i. 1946. On Edwards transfer of
former Templar properties to the Hospital see now Nicholson, Hospitallers in England, 2833.
32
Monasticon, vi, II, 8319; Secunda Camera, nos. 9589; Prima Camera, p. cx.
33
Robert Botill, the prior of England and a leading counsellor of the king -who was still in
possession of his faculties at this stage -may have suggested the form of words used in this letter.
PPC, vi. 145.
34
See above, ch. 4.
35
See, e.g. R. Kaeuper, War, Justice and Public Order: England and France in the Later
Middle Ages (Oxford, 1988), 1, 7, 12, 199211; M. Keen, Chivalry and the Aristocracy, in
M. Jones (ed.), New Cambridge Medieval History, vi: c.1300c.1415 (Cambridge, 2000), 20922.
36
J. J. N. Palmer, England, France and Christendom, 13771399 (London, 1972), esp.
180210; Tyerman, England, 294301.
118 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

by national chivalries they had not yet been entirely eclipsed and some of
their force can still be glimpsed in the careers of noble gadabouts such as
Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick.37 Nor can the effect on royal sens-
ibilities of the monarchs responsibility to uphold and defend the faith be
entirely discounted. Crusading tracts, mirrors for princes, romances, ser-
mons, papal envoys and letters, and prophecies reminded kings of their
duties in this sphere, and of the increasing Turkish danger to Christendom.38
Their effectiveness can only have been enhanced by the appearance at court
of eastern dignitaries such as Leo of Armenia and the emperor Manuel II.39
Such exalted visitors were rare, but Byzantine envoys made their way to
England relatively frequently and the numbers of Greek refugees in the west
increased dramatically after the fall of Constantinople.40 Those who made
their way to the English court and attempted to raise money for the ransoms
of their enslaved families presented at least an incitement to pity, if not
necessarily to action, and rulers sometimes responded generously.41
The French war, the mutual suspicion between England, France, and
Burgundy which was its legacy, and subsequent upheavals in the English
polity meant that there were formidable obstacles in the way of direct royal
participation in holy war in the fteenth century, and few monarchs made
serious moves towards such an enterprise.42 And while the crown was
willing to allow men of less than baronial rank to ght in Spain, the Balkans,
and the eastern Mediterranean, it would not easily countenance the involve-
ment of magnates in crusading warfare. The fteenth-century nobility were
expected to be on hand to serve the king in war and offer him counsel in
peace, even if in practice the royal council was often largely composed of
non-noble experts. Leading nobles who did attempt to set out overseas as
crusaders or to the Holy Land as pilgrims might nd themselves forbidden to
depart, like Salisbury in the 1420s, impeded and criticized like Rivers in
1471, or summoned home from their travels, like Tiptoft in 1461.43 The
very chivalric lustre which crusading could add to a noble reputation might
even lead rulers to obstruct the more illustrious subjects who sought to

37
M. Keen, War, Peace and Chivalry, in id., Nobles, 120, esp. 1820; J. H. Wylie,
A History of England under Henry the Fourth, 4 vols. (London, 188498), iii. 1789.
38
Tyerman, England, 297, 3038, 347, 3501; Lunt, Financial Relations, ii, passim; Coote,
Prophecy, passim; A. Fox, Prophecy and Politics in the Reign of Henry VIII, in A. Fox and
J. Guy (eds.), Reassessing the Henrician Age: Humanism, Politics and Reform 15001550
(Oxford, 1986), 7794.
39
Tyerman, England, 296, 31213; D. M. Nicol, A Byzantine Emperor in England. Manuel
IIs Visit to London in 14001401, University of Birmingham Historical Journal, 12/2 (1971),
20425.
40
Harris, Greek Emigres, 4550, 52, 1067, 1213.
41
For Byzantine refugees and emigres in the British Isles, see Harris, Greek Emigres, 12,
4, 1823, 338, 601, 68, 71, 734, 909, 1067, 13449, 1645, 181, 1837.
42
Harris, Greek Emigres, 66, 108; Tyerman, England, 3213.
43
CPL, vii. 43940, 468; Tyerman, England, 308; Paston Letters, ed. Davis, i. 5667;
R. J. Mitchell, The Spring Voyage: The Jerusalem Pilgrimage in 1458 (London, 1964), 122.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 119

undertake them, as Richard II seems to have done with Henry earl of Derby
in 1390.44
For both ideological and practical reasons, the crown was also reluctant to
allow the imposition of papal crusading levies on the English Church.
Having wrested control over taxation of the Church from the papacy in
the fourteenth century, kings of England had no intention of relinquishing it
again in the fteenth.45 Moreover, the Lancastrians in particular badly
needed the fruits of clerical tenths to swell their own coffers, and despite
the papacys return to Rome there was a lingering suspicion that sums sent
there would not be used properly.46 It was only grudgingly, therefore, that
kings sometimes asked the clerical estate for grants in response to papal
attempts to impose crusading tenths, although the clergys response to these
appeals was often still more niggardly than rulers would have liked it to
be.47 Monarchs were rather more willing to sanction the proclamation of
crusade indulgences, but even these could be objected to on bullionist
grounds. Thus, when asked to agree the levy of a crusading tenth in 1481,
Edward IV refused, complaining that an innite amount of money had
already departed the realm as a result of the recent grant of indulgences to
the Hospitallers.48
National and self-interest, as well as dislike of sending money out of the
realm, therefore militated against a really effective English royal response to
the threat posed by the Turks. Yet other fteenth-century rulers were active
in funding and planning crusades and some, such as Philip the Good of
Burgundy and Alfonso V of Aragon, even sent small eets to the eastern
Mediterranean.49 In the face of such activity it behoved the crown to offer at
least some assistance to the defence of Christendom. One of the more
effective ways of doing so was to support the order of St John. Once the
problem of its receiver-general residing in Avignon had been circumvented,
one could at least be reasonably sure that monies sent to Rhodes were being
expended in the defence of the faith,50 and the order did its best to demon-
strate that this was so by building substantial fortications designed as
much to impress western visitors as to deter the Turks.51 Periodically,
royal envoys were sent to the eastern Mediterranean, partly perhaps to
check that there was substance to the orders claims. Formal embassies
were supplemented by the visits of pilgrims to the Holy Land. Such travellers

44
Tyerman, England, 27980.
45
Lunt, Financial Relations, ii, esp. 11718, 1234.
46
Tyerman, England, 354.
47
Lunt, Financial Relations, ii. 13240, 14550, 153; Harris, Greek Emigres, 68.
48
Lunt, Financial Relations, ii. 1534. See also CSPV, i. 1423.
49
J. Paviot, La Politique navale des ducs de Bourgogne 1384/1482 (Lille, 1995), esp. 105
51; A. Ryder, The Eastern Policy of Alfonso the Magnaminous, Atti della Accademia Ponti-
cana, 28 (1979), 725.
50
For English attempts to ensure this, see Luttrell, English Contributions, 166.
51
Luttrell, Maussolleion, 145; id., Military Orders, 341.
120 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

often had connections with the royal household, and from the earliest days
of the orders sojourn on Rhodes many had stopped there.52 They, and their
masters, appear to have been satised, for many royal letters to the order or
to other rulers on its behalf commented approvingly on its military activ-
ities.53 A corollary of this approval, however, was the danger that should the
order become or appear to become inactive its possessions might come under
threat.54
Moreover, monarchs could appear to support the Hospital without any
undue effort or expense. Simply by conrming the orders privileges and
allowing its brethren and their responsions to travel to Rhodes, the crown
could pose as a facilitator of its work, making a small prot into the bargain
from the tax levied on exchange operations. At minimal extra cost kings
could go further in writing stern letters supporting the order in its clashes
with the Venetians and Genoese, an activity which could also be calculated
to please the anti-Italian lobby in parliament.55 Additionally, in supporting
the English langue, the government was explicitly upholding the honour of
the English nation and ensuring that its subjects had some say in the
government and honours of an ancient, distinguished, and noble corpor-
ation which embodied the very highest ideals of chivalry, far though these
were from the spirit of its rule.56 In particular, doubtless prompted by the
langue, the crown was encouraged to see the turcopoliership as an ofce
anciently vested in the English, the preservation of the prerogatives of which
might merit repeated royal intervention, as a royal letter of 1440 demon-
strates.57 The langue also constituted the only permanent English commu-
nity east of Italy, and its presence in Rhodes was much cherished by English
pilgrims who visited the island.58 For all these reasons, it made sense for
rulers to continue to offer the Hospital their support.
In fact they went somewhat beyond the strictly necessary in doing so. The
English tower at the Hospitaller castle of Bodrum on the Turkish mainland,

52
Bekynton Correspondence, i. 82; CPR131317, 274, 277; CCR13436, 106. Issues of the
Exchequer, ed. F. Devon (London, 1837), 159; Foedera, v, I, 14, 35, 167, 175, 186. Tyerman,
England, 246, 283, 296.
53
CCR13604, 3940; The Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II, ed. E. Perroy, CS, 3rd
ser., 48 (London, 1933), 11415; Bekynton Correspondence, i. 7980; CPR147585, 1934,
230; AOM57, cc. 2, 4, 9, 13, 16 [original numeration: 2, 1, 5, 9, 12].
54
Hoyle, Origins, 2823.
55
Rot. Parl., v. 61; PPC, vi. 1446; CSPV, i, nos. 3978; Bolton, Alien Merchants, esp.
617, 23678.
56
Bekynton Correspondence, i. 82. For the English nation as a component of the universal
church see L. R. Loomis, Nationality at the Council of Constance: An Anglo-French Dispute,
American Historical Review, 44 (1939), 50827, esp. 511, 51820, 5236.
57
This dispatch drew attention to earlier calls for the restoration of the prerogatives of the
turcopoliership in c.14212 and 1435. Bekynton Correspondence, i. 813. In letters written
home in 1561 and 1575, brother Richard Shelley laid explicit stress on the turcopolierships
importance as a goodly. . . preheminence whose loss would constitute an abasinge of our
nation. R. Shelley, Letters of Sir Richard Shelley. . . (n.p., 1774), 2, 10.
58
See below, ch. 8.1.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 121

adorned with the royal arms among those of the leading English contribu-
tors to its construction, provides impressive testimony for the fashionability
of support for the order in the rst half of the fteenth century, and direct
royal grants to it, whether of lands, churches, equipment or cash, were not
unknown.59 On occasion, the crown was also prepared to permit brethren
and benefactors of the Hospital to ship arms and even bullion to Rhodes.60
The size of the sums leaving the realm in responsions and indulgences also
provides powerful support for arguing that the crown actively approved of
the Hospitals work. The assessments on which the convent based its impos-
ition of responsions were, moreover, based on visitations usually conducted
by a foreign and a native Hospitaller in tandem.61 In the fteenth century,
when the crown was supporting the efforts of the English branches of other
international orders to free themselves from the jurisdiction of their mother-
houses, the active welcome extended to foreign knights of St John provides a
real indication that the Hospitals overseas links were felt to be worth
preserving.62
Royal support, however, came at the price of stricter regulation and
increasing nancial impositions. Like other religious corporations, after
1279 the order was forbidden to acquire more land without royal licence.63
At about the same time Hundred Roll and Quo Warranto investigations
began to examine the extent of its claims to jurisdiction and exemption,
while from the fteenth century onwards, judges challenged its claims to
provide sanctuary.64 Despite royal grants of exemption from tallages and
tolls, which enshrined at least the principle that the order should not be
taxed, it was also subjected to the payment of parliamentary taxation from
1290 onwards, although for some years both Hospital and Temple com-
pounded for this rather than have their property investigated by laymen.65
Some concessions were made. As its brethren were both laymen and exempt
from ecclesiastical taxation they were usually asked to pay fteenths on their
moveable, non-ecclesiastical goods, while they only paid the tenths imposed
in convocation on their appropriated churches.66 The priors own estates
also appear to have been exempt from taxation until 1474.67 Taken across

59
Luttrell, English Contributions, passim.
60
Ibid. 1667; Foedera, v, I, 14, 35, 104; CCR14229, 280; CPR142936, 452; Calendar of
French Rolls, Henry VI, The Forty-Eighth Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public
Records (London, 1887), 217450, at 301, 343.
61
See above, Ch. 3.2.
62
Knowles, Religious Orders, iii. 2830, 34; Lunt, Financial Relations, ii. 63.
63
Raban, Mortmain Legislation, passim; Secunda Camera, p. xlvii.
64
I. D. Thornley, The Destruction of Sanctuary, in R. W. Seton-Watson (ed.), Tudor Studies
Presented . . . to Albert Frederick Pollard (London, 1924), 182207, at 1978, 2001.
65
J. F. Willard, Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property, 1290 to 1334 (Cambridge, Mass.,
1934), 967, 100, 130, 135, 136, 167.
66
CCR13348, 100, 128, 148, 186; CCR136974, 2512; Rot. Parl., iii. 21718; AOM54,
fo. 17r.
67
Rot. Parl., vi. 115.
122 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

the whole period it was levied on the order, the burden of parliamentary
taxation was not particularly onerous, but it nevertheless constituted a much
greater charge than the order had hitherto been accustomed to bear, and at
times a very substantial one.
Besides direct taxation, the Hospital was also encouraged to make gifts
and loans to the crown. Edward III, in the early years of the Hundred Years
War, and the nancially embarrassed Lancastrian kings were particularly
heavy users of its credit facilities.68 On occasion, it was also expected to
provide hospitality to the king and his entourage or to visiting foreign
dignitaries. With the exception of Edward V, whose residence the Hospital
nearly became, it is probable that every reigning monarch between Henry IV
and Henry VII either visited the prioral headquarters at Clerkenwell, or
spent time on other Hospitaller preceptories and estates.69 Besides the
occasional sojourns of kings, princes, and diplomats, the Hospital was also
expected, like other religious houses, to provide a corrody for retired royal
servants, and even caps to the ministers of the exchequer and receipt, an
obligation which it bought its way out of in 1370.70 As we have seen,
pressure might also be put on the order by courtiers and royal servants for
grants of leases, particularly of properties in and around London.71
Most importantly of all, the crown expected the service of Hospitaller
priors and, to a lesser degree, preceptors resident in England and Wales. This
was understandable. Although not always particularly well educated, by the
time they became priors brethren of the Hospital were widely travelled, had
considerable naval and administrative experience, and might well be pro-
cient in French and Italian. If the extent of their duties did not rival that of
the more important administrator-bishops andabbots of the later Middle
Ages, most priors nevertheless served the crown in a number of different
capacities. In the rst place, although originally summoned as an ecclesias-
tical lord, by 1389 the prior of England was evidently considered to be a
temporal lord and appears to have been a royal councillor ex ofcio.72
68
Nicholson, Hospitallers in England, 378; CPR13348, 186, 549; CPR133840, 99, 108,
116; CCR13469, 263, 269, 270, 383; CPR141622, 279; PPC, ii. 32; A. Steel, The Receipt of
the Exchequer, 13771485 (Cambridge, 1954), 157, 161, 188, 2545; AOM357, fo. 162rv.
69
Memorials of King Henry VII, ed. J. Gairdner, RS (London, 1858), 109; Chronicle of the
Grey Friars of London, ed. J. G. Nichols, CS, 1st ser., 52 (London, 1852), 13; PPC, iii. 71; The
Crowland Chronicle Continuation: 14591486, ed. N. Pronay and J. Cox (London, 1986),
1867; Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field, ed. P. W. Hammond and A. F. Sutton (London,
1985), 1989; Memorials, ed. Gairdner, 129; H. W. Fincham, The Order of the Hospital of
St. John of Jerusalem and its Grand Priory of England, 2nd edn. (London, 1933), 212.
70
Report, 93, 127; CCR13413, 660; CCR135460, 393; CCR13604, 244; CCR13747,
524; CCR137781, 141; CCR14618, 99. John Pavely paid 300 marks towards the charges of
the kings wars in order to be released from the obligation to provide caps. CPR136770, 456.
71
See above, 1068.
72
CCR, passim. In 1389 the prior was listed between the earl of Northumberland and
various barons in council minutes, while in 1400 he was explicitly stated to be a temporal
lord. Priors can often be found attending the council in the surviving records dating from after
1386. PPC, i. 12, 17, 1056, and passim.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 123

As such, he might occasionally hold important ofces of state. Three

priorsJoseph de Chauncey, Robert Hales, and John Langstrother
(146871)served as royal treasurer and another, Robert Botill (1440
68), as privy seal, while Hales and his successor John Radyngton also held
the post of admiral of the western eet.73 More usual, however, were service
on the council, in parliament as a trier of petitions, on commissions of the
peace and of sewers in counties where the prioral estates were concentrated,
and in particular on diplomatic business, whether at home or abroad.74 At
times Robert Botill came close to becoming a professional diplomat on
behalf of the crown, and Thomas Docwra (prior, 150127) was even more
notable in this capacity in the rst quarter of the sixteenth century.75 Pre-
ceptors and simple brethren, too, were occasionally employed on local
commissions and on diplomatic work, although they were more likely to
be used as envoys, couriers, and escorts to dignitaries on their way to court
than to be fully constituted ambassadors with power to treat.76 Despite their
military experience and the orders reluctant concessions that brethren might
ght either in self-defence (1235) or (1367) on behalf of a natural lord,
English brethren, unlike their Irish counterparts, appear to have avoided
military service outside the realm on behalf of the lay power until 1513.77
Thus when Philip de Thame sent a small contingent of men-at-arms to serve
in Scotland at royal request in 1337 he was careful to stress that this should
not serve as a precedent78 and in 1346, summoned to assist in the siege of
Calais, he preferred to bribe his way out of involvement.79 Otherwise the
military contribution the order was expected to make to the war consisted of
arraying troops to defend the realm against invasion or garrisoning vulner-
able coastal towns.80
It is clear that competing royal and conventual claims to prioral loyalties
might lead to conicts of interest. The appointment of a foreigner, Leonardo
de Tibertis, as prior of England in 1330 provided Edward III with an

73
HBC, 1045, 107, 139; CCR13747, 495, 506, 555; CPR137781, 26, 589; CCR13815,
523; CCR13859, 424; Catalogue des rolles normans, gascons et francais, ed. T. Carte, 2 vols.
(London, 1743), ii. 120, 148.
74
J. F. Baldwin, The Kings Council in England during the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1913), 123,
1656, 197, 423 n., 429, 4434, 4989, 504, 517; PPC, passim; Calendar of French Rolls, 110
Henry V, The Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records
(London, 1883), 543638, passim; Calendar of French Rolls, Henry VI, passim.
75
Sarnowsky, Kings and Priors, 89; see also, below, Chs. 56.
76
R. Graham, The English Province of the Order of Cluny in the Fifteenth Century, in ead.,
English Ecclesiastical Studies (London, 1929), 6290, at 70; PPC, iii. 89.
77
Delaville, Rhodes, 163. Their service at sea was presumably conceived of in terms of the
defence of the realm.
78
CPR133840, 11.
79
CPR13458, 211. Nicholson, Hospitallers in England, 38, interprets this episode some-
what differently.
80
See, e.g. CCR133941, 114, 119, 123, 1245, 1556, 185, 21617, 288; CCR13604, 99;
CPR136974, 568. In February 1400, however, the prior was among those lords promising to
provide men for the kings wars. PPC, i. 1056.
124 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

opportunity to demand fealty as a condition of allowing him seisin, and

kings then proceeded to extract an oath of fealty, which they always swore
under protest, from Tibertiss successors.81 Vassalic status, however con-
tested, brought the further danger that it enabled royal ofcials to argue that
the orders temporalities, like those of bishops, should be taken into the
kings hand during vacancies. On Tibertiss death, therefore, royal eschea-
tors seized the orders estates and it was only when the new prior protested
that the Hospital had been granted them in free alms and that the seizure
was unprecedented that their actions were halted.82 No further attempt to
argue that the prior held his lands by fealty appears to have occurred until
146870, but subsequent royal claims to supervise prioral elections and the
administration of the priory during vacancies, although vague, may have
derived from those advanced by Edward III. The order, indeed, took care to
record both its protest against the oath of fealty and Edwards letter ordering
his escheators to remove their hand from the priory in the cartulary it
assembled in 1442.83
By Henry VIs reign a compromise had been reached and the oath was
more clearly linked to the priors standing and functions in the English
polity. Particularly pertinent in this regard was his status as a lord of
parliament. In 1440 Henry VI claimed that as such he was rst and foremost
a royal councillor, and, while elected by his brethren, should be chosen for
those qualities that suited him for royal service.84 It is perhaps signicant
that it was during the same monarchs reign that prioral visits to Rhodes,
frequent until the 1440s, began regularly to be impeded. Prior Botill was
refused licence to go to Rhodes when summoned in the wake of the fall of
Constantinople, and was again forbidden to proceed there in 1459, as we
have seen.85 The king and councils reluctance to allow the prior out of the
country should be seen in the context of the end of the Hundred Years War
and growing political tensions within the realm. Particularly after the
losses of 144953, continued hostilities with France and pique at Philip
of Burgundys betrayal of the king in 1435 led Henrys government to
refuse to cooperate in papal and Burgundian crusading projects until it
achieved satisfaction of its continental claims, and keeping the prior of
St John at home appears likely to have been calculated to drive this message

81
CCR13337, 3634; CCR135460, 54; CCR13815, 208; Nicholson, Hospitallers in
England, 35. Despite the orders assertions to the contrary, it is nevertheless worth noting that
the kings representatives claimed in September 1330 that Tibertiss predecessors had done fealty
for both their own and the Templars former lands. CCR13303, 1545.
82
CCR13337, 3634, 453, 5012, 638.
83
BL MS Cotton Nero E.vi, fos. 7r, 7rv.
84
Bekynton Correspondence, i. 789; Sarnowsky, Kings and Priors, 91.
85
Z. N. Tsirpanlis, Anecdota eggrapha gia te Rodo kai te Noties Sporades apo to archeio ton
Ionniton Ippoton (Unpublished Documents concerning Rhodes and the South-Eastern Aegean
Islands from the Archives of the Order of St John) [in Greek], (Rhodes, 1991), docs. 309, 309A;
Codice diplomatico, ed. Pauli, ii, no. cxvi; see above, 11213.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 125

home.86 Furthermore, in 1459 the crown was determined to associate the

whole body of the nobility with its parliamentary denunciation of the
Yorkist lords,87 and might even have been afraid that if Botill were allowed
to leave he would join them, which indeed he did in 1460. If the last of the
Lancastrians, or his governing clique, kept the prior away from Rhodes for
particular reasons rather than out of principle, Edward IV, who had little
sympathy for the overseas excursions of his magnates, seems to have taken
this practice as a welcome precedent.
Despite the close regulation of priors of the order, and occasional restric-
tions on the export of brethren and responsions, most monarchs supported
and appeared to approve of the hospitals activities. Given that its deance of
the Turks appealed to the most respectable religious and chivalric sensibil-
ities of the age, this is hardly surprising. Nevertheless, it is clear that there
were potential tensions between the English Hospitallers temporal and
spiritual allegiances. On several occasions during the period between 1460
and 1540 these were to rise to the fore and force both monarchs and
Hospitallers to question which of their loyalties was paramount.

5.2 The Yorkist Kings and the Order of St John, 14601485

In July 1460, as a Yorkist army approached London, Robert Botill was

expounding the royal will to convocation.88 He was one of Henry VIs
longest-serving and most trusted councillors, of whom he had been among
the rst admitted to witness the kings recovery of his wits in December
1454, a restoration at which, not inappropriately, Botill burst into tears.89
Nevertheless, past service, old affection, and oaths of allegiance did not
prevent the prior, along with several other prelates, from throwing in his
lot with the Yorkists and accompanying them towards Northampton, where
Warwick defeated the royal army and captured the royal person.90 Botills
reasons for this volte-face can only be conjectured, but royal refusals to
permit him to go to Rhodes, royal contempt for papal crusading initiatives,
the presence by the side of the Yorkist lords of the papal legate, the crusading
enthusiast Coppini, and the overwhelming facts of Henry VIs incapacity to
rule and subjection to a partial and vindictive governing clique must all have
conspired to provide the prior with powerful incentives to support Richard
duke of York and his allies.

86
J. T. Ferguson, English Diplomacy 142261 (Oxford, 1972), 32.
87
R. A. Grifths, The Reign of King Henry VI (repr. Stroud, 1998), 825.
88
Registrum Thome Bourgchier Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi A.D.14541486, ed. F. R. H.
Du Boulay, CYS, 54 (Oxford, 1957), 77; C. L. Scoeld, The Life and Reign of King Edward IV,
2 vols. (London, 1923), i. 78.
89
Paston Letters, ed. Davis, ii. 108.
90
Scoeld, Edward IV, i. 87.
126 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

Botills active involvement in regime change appears to have been without

parallel among his predecessors, and was potentially dangerous for his
person and his order, but at rst it appeared to have been vindicated. The
Yorkists, impressively personied by Edward IV, were victorious, and their
opponents forced into exile, with resistance continuing only in the north-
east and north Wales.91 After his accession, Edward IV continued to trust the
ageing prior, who was treated, as before, primarily as a royal servant. Botill
briey had custody of the privy seal in the early 1460s and served on the
council and on commissions of array and of the peace until his death.92
He also continued to be employed on diplomatic business, although he was
now largely conned to treating with foreign ambassadors within the
realm.93 During these years, moreover, the king expressed his support
for the Hospital in a number of ways: by licensing the prior of Rome and
the castellan of Rhodes, John Langstrother, to conduct a visitation of Eng-
land, by reproving the Venetians for their attack on Rhodes in 1464, and
probably by supporting the removal of Thomas Talbot as prior of Ireland
and his replacement with James Keating.94 Although support for the order
sat well with Edwards attempt to rule in accord with chivalric expectations
of royal conduct in his rst years as king,95 such expressions of approval
required little exertion and were quite conventional. And there is other,
contrasting, evidence which suggests that the king had a distinct and unsen-
timental vision of the order barely compatible with its priorities and
purposes.
Convinced though he was of Botills reliability, Edward appears to have
been less sure of the loyalties of some of the other brethren. In 1463 he had
supported, and perhaps even proposed an arrangement by which the turco-
polier, William Dawney, a former associate of the fervently Lancastrian
James Butler, earl of Wiltshire, was to surrender his preceptory to a conven-
tual knight, Marmaduke Lumley.96 Moreover, in the following year, Daw-
neys lieutenant as turcopolier, John Weston, who had complained to the
orders council about Lumleys conduct in this matter, was summoned home
from Rhodes on a charge of disloyalty.97 Evidence against him had perhaps
been provided by a conventual knight, John Boswell, who had gone to
Crete on the service of John Langstrother in March 1464 and while there

91
C. Ross, Edward IV (Berkeley, Calif., 1974), 2263.
92
Baldwin, Kings Council, 422, 423 n., 429; Select Cases before the Kings Council 1243
1482, ed. I. S. Leadam and J. F. Baldwin, Selden Society, 35 (Cambridge, Mass., 1918), 11415;
CPR14617, 567.
93
CPR14617, 102, 115; Catalogue des rolles, ed. Carte, ii. 357, 358.
94
Foedera, v, II, 105 (calendared in CPR14617, 52); CSPV, i, nos. 3978; see below, Ch. 7.
95
M. A. Hicks, Idealism in Late-Medieval English Politics, in id., Richard III and his Rivals:
Magnates and their Motives in the Wars of the Roses (London, 1991), 4160; Hughes, Arthur-
ian Myths, passim.
96
AOM374, fo. 139rv.
97
AOM73, fo. 158r; mentioned in Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 1945.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 127

had absconded on a Venetian galley travelling to England.98 There is no

direct evidence as to what might have motivated Boswells ight, for which
he was deprived of the habit, but it is suggestive that he was pardoned and
readmitted into the order at the specic request of the king in December
1466.99 No further action appears to have been taken against Weston, but
the suspicion that the king saw the langue as unsound is intensied by a
licence granted to Botill in 1467 to admit ve brother knights at royal
request.100 Might this have been an attempt to ensure the loyalty of future
Hospitallers to the Yorkist dynasty?
On Botills death in September 1468 the kings distrust and desire to
reduce the order to his will became fully apparent. According to the pro-
Neville pseudo-William Worcestre, the very greatest disturbance occurred
when Edward suddenly attempted to impose his wifes brother, Richard
Wydeville, on the order as prior, the brethren at once electing John Langstr-
other in response.101 The dramatic and unprecedented nature of this inter-
vention should be emphasized. No previous king of England had interfered
so directly in a prioral election, and Wydeville, a youth of about 20 who was
not even professed, was hardly a suitable candidate to govern a military-
religious order whose promotion system was accustomed to reward conven-
tual service, seniority, and experience rather more than birth and royal
favour. Langstrother, by contrast, was everything that Wydeville was not.
He had been received into the Hospital as a brother knight by 1435 and had
enormous diplomatic and administrative experience in its service. Most of
his career had been spent in the east, where he held at various times the
important conventual ofces of castellan of Rhodes, captain of Bodrum,
proctor of the common treasury, magistral seneschal, and grand preceptor of
Cyprus.102 He had also served as a diplomat, visitor, and collector of the
Jubilee indulgence in various western priories, and receiver of the priories of
England and Ireland.103 By 1468, moreover, he held no less than six of the
twenty-one English preceptories not in prioral hands, including the baili-
wick of Eagle.104 His collection of beneces brought him considerable
wealth, much of which he disbursed to the orders hungry creditors, which

98
AOM374, fos. 141v, 141v142r; 73, fos. 133v134r, 135v136r.
99
AOM374, fos. 141v142r; 376, fo. 155r.
100
AOM376, fo. 157v.
101
Annales rerum anglicarum, ed. Stevenson, 791; Ross, Edward IV, 96 n. E. J. King, The
Knights of St. John in the British Realm, 3rd edn., revised and continued by H. Luke (London,
1967), 72, misdates Botills passing to 1467.
102
AOM351, fo. 135r; 361, fo. 352rv; 363, fos. 234v, 285v; 364, fo. 119r; 283, fo. 5v.
103
AOM362, fos. 126v127r, 127v, 132v133r, 192v193r; 363, fos. 184v185r and 265v,
261v262r; 364, fos. 119r, 133r136r, 138v139r; 369, fos. 217v, 271v272r; Tsirpanlis, Anek-
dota, 6634; Foedera, v, II, 53, 57; CPL, x. 2613, 265; AOM358, fo. 229r; 362, fos. 126v127r.
104
Besides Eagle, these were the preceptories of Balsall, Beverley, Halston, Ribston, and
Yeaveley. Grants in AOM73, fo. 128r; 374, fo. 141r; 357, fo. 150r; 358, fos. 226v227v; 361, fo.
243 ; 365, fos. 117v118r; 366, fos. 115v116r, 117r.
v
128 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

can only have increased his standing in convent.105 Langstrothers seniority,

experience, and afuence virtually precluded any other candidate.
The king, as we have seen, had apparently trusted Langstrother enough to
allow him to conduct a visitation in 14612, and in the following year he
had been appointed to a commission to arrest Humphrey Neville and bring
him before the council.106 But, leaving aside the possibility that he had been
implicated in the charges against John Weston, a conjecture for which there
is no supporting evidence, there were two reasons in particular why Edward
might have changed his mind about the bailiff of Eagle. Most importantly,
Langstrother had been associated with Warwick in the 1450s and by 1468
the king was quite determined not to improve the earls position any fur-
ther.107 Instituting Wydeville instead both strengthened the kings own hand,
and also tted neatly with the policy of providing for his wifes relatives
which was so marked a feature of the period after 1464. A primary condition
for their advancement seems to have been that it should not be at the crowns
expense, hence the Wydeville stranglehold on the aristocratic marriage
market in the late 1460s, and the advancement of young Richard to one of
the richest beneces in England fullled this criterion admirably.108 Sec-
ondly, there are indications that the king opposed the decision of the
Rome chapter-general to increase responsions from a third-to a half-annate
in February 1467. Langstrother had had an important part in deciding this,
for he had sat on the committee that drafted the 1467 statutes, and was
elected proctor of the common treasury during the course of the chapter.109
The convents later censure of William Tornay, the receiver of the priory of
England between 1461 and 1471, drew attention to discrepancies among his
accounts for the years following this meeting and the English representatives
at the next chapter, held in 1471, promised to pay the half-annate then
reimposed themselves but refused to bind their fellows in England to do
the same.110 Reluctance to consent to the imposition of a half-annate prob-
ably increased the kings determination to reduce the order more closely to
his will.
Existing accounts have accepted that Langstrother was in England at the
time of his election, but in fact he was in the east.111 His absence from

105
Between October 1467 and November 1468, for example, he handed about 2,200 to
various of the orders creditors. AOM 377, fos. 181r, 182v, 190r191r, 207r.
106
CPR14617, 52; Willis, Langstrother, 35.
107
M. A. Hicks, False, Fleeting, Perjurd Clarence: George, Duke of Clarence 14491478
(Gloucester, 1980), 48.
108
J. R. Lander, Marriage and Politics: The Nevilles and the Wydevilles, BIHR 36 (1963),
11952; M. A. Hicks, The Changing Role of the Wydevilles in Yorkist Politics to 1483 in id.,
Richard III, 20928, esp. 21117.
109
AOM283, fos. 30v, 11r, 5v; CPL, xii. 2823.
110
AOM74, fo. 152r; 283, fo. 61v.
111
He had been appointed preceptor of Cyprus on 8 Nov. 1468, but was still in Rhodes on
about 14 December. AOM377, fos. 241r242r, 242rv.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 129

England, and the custom that the priory be governed by its president and
convent during vacancy years gave the order breathing space in which to
devise a strategy by which Wydevilles appointment could be overturned.
Although an unnamed prior of the order, presumably Wydeville, was
present in the royal council on 15 November 1468, six days later the
president and convent of the vacant priory were recorded presenting to a
benece, which may indicate that they had persuaded the king to delay
instituting Wydeville as prior until the representations of the convent should
be heard.112
The response to these events in Rhodes was distinctly cautious. Although
news of Botills death had arrived by January 1469, nothing was done about
the disputed succession to the priory until 5 April.113 Langstrother was then
appointed lieutenant and vicegerent of the master and convent in England
and Ireland and instructed to examine the knights of the English priory and
institute a worthy and sufcient brother into possession.114 Given charge
of the priorys nances on 14 April, on the 16th he was licensed to leave
Rhodes and instructed to go before Edward IV, present the masters letters,
and explain that because of the vacancy in the priory he had been dispatched
to order its affairs and to supplicate that it should be provided to an
appropriate knight-brother, instituted according to its statutes and customs.
These, he was to point out, had been violated by the king, whose institution
of Wydeville both breached the promises of his predecessors and would set a
bad example to other princes. Langstrother, therefore, was to request that
the collation to the priory be remitted to the order.115 The convents reaction
to the disputed election was thus both rm and exible: the master and
council insisted that the priory should be in the orders gift rather than the
kings but were probably willing to countenance the election of someone
other than Langstrother as long as the correct form was upheld.116 The latter
was even, on 2 August 1469, given power to admit Wydeville as a professed
knight.117 It was only on 5 April 1470, by which time the convent must have
been certied of Langstrothers acceptability by the king, that bulls were
issued appointing him prior.118

112
CPR146777, 1312; Registrum Bourgchier, ed. Du Boulay, 294. The patent roll does
not supply the name of the prior.
113
AOM377, fo. 143r.
114
AOM378, fo. 148r.
115
AOM378, fos. 162r163v, 163v164v, 231rv.
116
The lack of council records between 1467 and March 1470 makes it difcult to determine
the intentions behind the orders issued in April 1469, but from the analogous case of Weston
versus Multon in 14747 it appears that the convent, while anxious that undeserving candidates
should not be raised to the priorate, refused to give explicit support to their more worthy rivals
until these should be acceptable to the king.
117
AOM378, fos. 149v150r.
118
AOM379, fos. 140r141v.
130 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

How the king might have responded to Langstrothers mission in the

absence of any more urgent business cannot now be known, as the latter
arrived in England at a time of acute political turmoil. On 12 July 1469
Warwick issued a manifesto from Calais condemning various aspects of
government policy for which he blamed those around the king. It is not
known whether Langstrother returned home via Calais, and still less if he
had reached it by this time, but among the manifesto articles was one
criticizing Edwards advisers for the kings seizure of crusading levies for
his own purposes, which might perhaps indicate Hospitaller inuence.119 In
any case Langstrother and Warwick were soon as thick as thieves. They later
shared a place on the list of those accused of responsibility for the murder of
the Wydevilles at the end of July, and with the king then effectively War-
wicks captive Langstrother prospered, being summoned to parliament as
prior on 10 August and appointed treasurer of England in place of the
executed Rivers six days later.120 After his recovery of power in mid-
September, Edward showed his distrust by removing Langstrother from
the treasurership and waiting until 18 November to admit him as prior.121
He also insisted on enrolling the new priors oath of fealty, a practice not
followed since the reign of Richard II, and may even have laid claim to the
fruits of the priorys vacancy year, for which Langstrother was required to
answer on 21 February 1470.122 This was not only virtually unprecedented,
but it must have also have imposed a very heavy nancial burden on the
prior, who was also expected to make mortuary and vacancy payments to
Rhodes. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that Langstrother remained
one of Warwicks most loyal adherents throughout the upheavals of 14701.
On 7 March 1470, the day after the king left London to deal with risings in
the north of England, Clarence, Welles, Langstrother, and others kept theire
counseill secretly at Saynt Johannez before Clarence left the capital to
rendezvous with Warwick.123 On Edwards return to the capital at the end
of the month, with the other conspirators dead or exiled, Langstrother was
arestyd and yood a seson undyr suyrte of the archbishop of Canterbury. Yet
in view of the rebels escape overseas the prior was too dangerous to remain
under clerical oversight and was moved to the tower, where he remained
until Henry VIs restoration at the beginning of October.124 A further
dimension to Langstrothers involvement in the Lincolnshire rising is pro-

119
J. Warkworth, A Chronicle of the First Thirteen Years of the Reign of King Edward the
Fourth, ed. J. O. Halliwell, CS, 1st ser., 10 (London, 1839), 4651, at 49; Gross, Dissolution,
130.
120
Hicks, False, 48.
121
CCR146876, no. 407; Hicks, False, 53.
122
CCR146876, no. 407; CPR146777, p. 189.
123
Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire, ed. J. G. Nichols in Camden Miscellany I,
CS, 1st ser., 39 (London, 1847), 8.
124
The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley (London, 1938),
21011.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 131

vided by the pardon issued to William Tornay, the bailiff of Eagle and
receiver of the common treasury, on 28 July 1470 for all offences committed
before the eleventh of that month.125 Although as receiver Tornay probably
resided in London, the farmer of Eagle, John Barton, was also granted a
general pardon in January 1472, as again was Tornay in February.126 While
these pardons were granted in connection with the events of 1471 it seems
highly likely that Barton or Tornay acted as a link between Langstrother and
the Lincolnshire rebels in the previous year.
On his release from prison, the prior committed himself fully to the
restored Lancastrian regime. On 20 October 1470 he was reappointed
treasurerthe only main ofce of state that did not go to a Nevilleand
on 24 February 1471 joint warden of the exchange and mint, while he also
served on the commissions of the peace appointed in January. The prior was
trusted enough by both the old Lancastrian nobility and Warwick himself to
be asked to accompany Queen Margaret and Prince Edward home from
France in February, and it was in two of his own ships that the Lancastrian
party sailed from Honeur on 13 April, landing at Weymouth on Easter
Sunday. Langstrother then remained with the queen during the march to
Tewkesbury. He shared command of the Lancastrian centre during the battle
and took refuge after the defeat in the abbey. Neither this sanctuary nor his
regular status could save him from being dragged out and executed on
6 May.127
Langstrother had compromised himself hopelessly by his support for
Warwick in 146971, yet it was surely Edwards treatment of him and his
order which had driven him to such deance. The king had attempted to
deprive him of the ofce which his seniority and distinguished service
merited, had forced him to swear fealty and to account for the revenues of
the Hospital, and had caused these humiliations to be enrolled in the ofcial
records, something he resented enough to procure their cancellation during
the Readeption.128 Finally, the prior had been incarcerated in the tower for
several months before Henry VIs restoration. It is scarcely surprising that he
took the eld at Tewkesbury.
Nevertheless, from the convents point of view, Langstrothers actions had
scarcely been wise, and might have prompted Edward to take more stringent
action against the order than in fact followed. That is not to say that he gave
the Hospital an easy ride. Langstrothers successor, William Tornay, appears
to have succeeded him with little difculty. He was elected by the council
on Rhodes on 28 August 1471 but this merely conrmed a previous vote in
England, for Tornay, as prior, had sworn fealty to Edward prince of Wales on

125
CPR146777, 217.
126
Ibid. 316, 306.
127
Foedera, v, II, 189; Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV in England, ed. J. Bruce, CS, 1st
ser., 2 (London, 1838), 22, 28, 31.
128
CPR146777, 2312.
132 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

3 July.129 Tornay, a member of the order since the 1440s, had been receiver
of the common treasury since 1461 and bailiff of Eagle since Langstrothers
promotion to the priorate, and might have been considered a safe pair of
hands after the excesses of his predecessor. On 22 December 1472, however,
he was cited to Rhodes to justify his accounts for 146672, in which very
grave discrepancies had been found. Large sums had been expended on gifts
for obtaining graces, payments to lawyers and envoys at times when the
priory had been void, on the liquidation of Langstrothers debts, and on
excessive and exorbitant payments made at Clerkenwell when the priory
was vacant and its expenses should have been less. Until Tornay had made
proper satisfaction Renier Pot, preceptor of Chalons, was appointed proctor
of the Hospital in England, with power to seize those camerae pertaining to
the priory itself and all Tornays other assets. Their rule was to be committed
to the bailiff of Eagle, Robert Tonge, and Tornays successor as receiver of
the priory, Miles Skayff, was also to be removed from his post.130 Discrep-
ancies in Langstrothers spolia also resulted in proceedings being instituted
against John Kendal by the ofcers of the common treasury in January
1473.131
Tornays summons to Rhodes and the threatened sequestration of his
assets were a signicant vote of conventual no condence in the administra-
tion of the priory of England. But it seems likely that the priorys relations
with the crown, rather than mismanagement, were at the heart of the
dispute. Tornay, indeed, had such a reputation for probity and competence
that in 1472 parliament had appointed him an overseer of the collection of
the fteenth and tenth designated for war with France, which the commons
were suspicious the king would appropriate for other ends.132 Moreover, the
heavy expenditure on bribes, and payments to lawyers and messengers and
the fact that as wealthy a knight as Langstrother had left signicant debts
would all seem to reect royal pressure both during the disputed vacancy
and afterwards. Royal acceptance of his position may have cost Langstr-
other heavily in 146970, and his incarceration in the tower not three weeks
after he had been granted its revenues cannot have helped him collect them.
They may even have been seized by the crown. Additionally, Langstrother
may have been ned for his part in the Lincolnshire risings, as also may
Tornay, who secured a second royal pardon on 18 February 1472 and was
put under a bond of 300 at the same time as those implicated in the Bastard
of Fauconbergs attack on London. Three prominent prioral servants,
Richard Passemer, John Fermour, and Richard Sheldon, were pardoned at
the same time and were party to the same obligation. Passemer had been

129
AOM74, fo. 88v; CCR146876, no. 858. Bulls were issued naming Tornay as prior on
29 Aug. AOM379, fo. 146r.
130
AOM381, fos. 158v160r, 161v162r, 163rv; CPL, xiii. 216.
131
AOM74, fos. 154v155v.
132
Gross, Dissolution, 128; Ross, Edward IV, 215.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 133

particularly heavily involved in the events of 146971, having served as

controller of the petty custom and of tunnage and poundage in London
and adjacent ports during both Langstrothers terms as treasurer.133
Despite the dramatic tone of the convents letters of 1472, Tornay was
able to reach agreement with Pot over his disputed accounts, for on 20 April
1474 news of a concord between the prior and the proctors of the common
treasury was signied to the orders council.134 Certainly there is no evidence
that Tornay went to Rhodes to defend himself, for on 2 December 1473 and
24 May 1474 he is to be found in England, presenting to beneces in the
priorys gift. This would also suggest that Pot had not been allowed to
sequester Tornays assets and preceptories.135 Yet nancial problems con-
tinued to dog the priors relationship with the convent. On 19 April 1474, a
new receiver, William Weston, was appointed, with the usual instructions to
collect revenues and compel debtors to payment. More pointedly, Robert
Multon was commissioned on the 14th of the same month to require
payment of the substantial arrears owed for the nancial years ending
June 1473 and 1474 so that creditors granted assignments on the priorys
revenues might be reimbursed.136
Tornays death, probably in early August 1474, occasioned another ser-
ious split between Edward IV and the Hospital. On 21 August Robert
Multon, having been elected by its brethren in England, was presented to
the king as prior and swore fealty.137 Although he was put forward by
several preceptorsJohn Malory, Marmaduke Lumley, John Turberville,
and John Kendalthe new prior was unacceptable to the convent on
Rhodes. Multon seems to have been marked out for advancement, as the
commission of April 1474 and his service as a representative of the English
langue on the council complete between 1470 and 1473 demonstrate, but he
lacked the seniority and experience appropriate to the dignity of prior, and
had only been a preceptor since April 1470.138 Knights like Robert Tonge
and John Weston, who had served since before 1450 and held signicant
administrative posts, were unquestionably more qualied. Westons vigor-
ous conventual service as turcopolier and the past service of his family to the
order were particularly strong arguments in his favour.139

133
CPR146777, 306; CCR146876, 2267; Ross, Edward IV, 183; CPR146777, 168,
231. Passemer was the scribe of the orders common treasury in England from 1459 and
Fermour, on his demise c.1489, the farmer of the preceptory of Quenington, while Sheldon
was the priors chief auditor until his death in 1496. AOM369, fo. 198v; 393, fo. 112rv; 390,
fos. 134rv; Lansdowne 200, fo. 42r.
134
AOM382, fo. 136r.
135
Registrum Bourgchier, ed. Du Boulay, 315, 317.
136
AOM382, fos. 148v149v, 147r148r.
137
CCR146876, 380.
138
AOM382, fos. 147r148r; 74, fos. 20v, 31v32r, 56r, 56v57r, 59rv; 75, fos. 23v24r; 379,
fos. 142v143r. Multon rst appears as a conventual knight on 7 July 1463, along with twelve
other brethren of the langue, at least nine of whom were still alive in 1474. AOM374, fo. 139r.
139
See above, Ch. 2.1, and below, Ch 8.4.
134 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

Yet Multon was eminently agreeable to the king. Langstrother, Tornay,

and, at least initially, John Weston were kept at arms length as far as
employment on government business was concerned and none was ever
employed on an important domestic commission by Edward. By contrast,
within a year of his appointment Multon was commissioned to take muster
of soldiers proceeding to France and was appointed temporary warden of
the east and middle marches towards Scotland until the earl of Northum-
berland should return from France.140 Multons activities on behalf of the
crown and his relative obscurity before his election suggest that he was a
royal candidate promoted over the heads of his fellows. In particular, he
appears to have had close ties to the earl of Northumberland. In addition to
serving as his deputy in 1475, Multon was at the head of Northumberlands
feed-men when Henry VII made his entry into York in 1485.141
Royal and aristocratic approval alone did not make Multon any more
acceptable in Rhodes than it had Wydeville. Yet the response to his appoint-
ment, perhaps understandably given recent events, was still more cautious
than that to the disputed election of 1468. On 27 February 1475, John
Weston, the turcopolier, and Multons proctors appeared in Rhodes to
press their claims to the priory.142 It was decided that neither should be
issued with title to it until the kings will was known, but this did not mean
that the convent had assumed a neutral stance. At the same meeting it was
decided that for the honour and favour of the turcopolier, he should be
made lieutenant of the order in Italy, Germany, and England, and that letters
of commendation should be drawn up for him so that he, or anyone he
should appoint to lobby for him, might obtain the priory.143 Yet, perhaps
because the order was waiting for news from England, it was some time
before these recommendations were implemented. Westons procuration in
the west was not formally issued until 21 March, and he was not licensed to
leave the convent until 17 June.144
In the meantime, Multon continued to occupy the priory undisturbed, as
the evidence of bishops registers demonstrates.145 Protected no doubt by
conventual fear of incurring Edward IVs displeasure, he was neither ordered
to remove himself from the priory nor cited to Rhodes. Active measures

140
CPR146777, 526, 545.
141
Plumpton Correspondence, ed. Stapleton, p. xcvi; J. Leland, De rebus brittanicis collec-
tanea, ed. T. Hearne, 6 vols. (London, 1770), iv. 185.
142
AOM75, fos. 69v70r. Robert Tonge, bailiff of Eagle, who had protested in 1471 that he
was as ancient as Tornay, and that the latters election to the priorate should not be to his
prejudice, appears to have lost interest in the dignity by 1474. AOM74, fos. 88v89r.
143
AOM75, fos. 69v70r.
144
AOM382, fos. 153r, 139r.
145
The Registers of Robert Stillington Bishop of Bath and Wells 14661491 and Richard
Fox Bishop of Bath and Wells 14921494, ed. H. C. Maxwell-Lyte, Somerset Record Society, 52
(London, 1937), nos. 311, 341, 358, 362; Registrum Thome Myllyng, Episcopi Herefordensis.
A.D.MCCCCLXXIVMCCCCXCII, ed. A. T. Bannister, CYS, 26 (London, 1920), 187.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 135

against him commenced only in June 1475, as Weston prepared to travel to

England. On 14 June all licences to English brethren to receive knights into
the order were cancelled, while six days later Multons commission as
proctor of the common treasury in England was revoked, depriving him of
his only conventually derived claim to any form of authority over his
brethren.146 Moreover, with one exception, in which he was styled pre-
ceptor, assignments made on the orders English revenues by a hopeful
convent between May 1475 and January 1476 were addressed to an un-
named prior and receiver rather than to Multon. These may not have been
honoured, for no more were issued until September 1477, by which time a
new prior and receiver had been appointed.147
While Multon was being snubbed, his rival was accorded every mark of
respect and favour. Westons debts to the convent were remitted to a later
date, he was assured that when he was granted a commandery of grace he
could hold it in conjunction with the priory, and he was provided with letters
in his favour addressed to Edward IV and requesting that collation to the
priory should be remitted to the convent on Rhodes.148 The turcopolier
seems to have returned to England by way of Rome. He had been instructed
to seek papal dispensation for leaving the convent when licensed to depart in
1475, as the orders brethren at headquarters had been ordered to remain
there during the Jubilee Year, and on 18 September Sixtus IV granted him
membership of the papal household, with a safe conduct whenever he should
be on papal business.149 By the time he reached England, probably in early
1476, Sixtus had also appointed him prior. Given the traditional English
hostility to papal provisions, Westons acquisition of papal letters was
foolish, but the king appears to have blamed the issuer rather than the
recipient. On 25 February 1476 he wrote to Rome complaining that Wes-
tons import of letters recommending him as prior was an infringement of
the rights of the crown. The usual procedure, he stated, was for the prior to
be elected in England, presented to and conrmed by the king, and then
conrmed at Rhodes by magistral bull.150
The letters the turcopolier was carrying from the master and convent
appear to have been of more value to him. Although Multon continued to
exercise the ofce of prior until at least November 1476, after he had
received their letters the king seems to have accepted the principal that the
collation to the priory should ultimately be in the hands of the master and
convent. On 27 May 1476 Westons proctors appeared in Rhodes and
reported that Edward had written that he was content to grant the turcopo-
lier possession should he obtain bulls providing him with the priory. The

146
AOM382, fos. 138v, 139rv.
147
Ibid., fos. 177v, 172v173r, 177rv, 175v176r, 176r; 385, fo. 162r.
148
AOM382, fos. 139v140r, 138v139r; AOM75, fo. 117r.
149
AOM75, fo. 83v; CPL, xiii. 281.
150
CSPV, i, no. 452.
136 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

orders council, however, was suspicious, considering that Edward had taken
so long to reply to the letters dispatched with Weston, and it was decided
that no further action should be taken until the kings response was certainly
known.151 Thus, despite Westons claim to have royal approval and the issue
of further papal letters conrming his collation on 1 June, he was not elected
and conrmed as prior until 24 July 1476.152 His preferral was, moreover,
hedged about with conditions. In case the king raised further objections, no
provision was to be made of the turcopoliers bailiwick or preceptories until
the convent was certied of his having taken possession of the priory.
Furthermore, rather than send the bulls collating him directly to the new
prior, they were to be entrusted to an ambassador who would show them
rst to the king and assure him that they would not be consigned to the
turcopolier without royal assent.153 The ambassador, the draper Nicholas
Zapplana, appointed on 8 August, was further instructed to arrange for
payment of the 9,000 ecus owed for Tornays mortuaries and vacancies
before Weston was given possession.154 In the event of the king refusing to
accept Weston, Multon was to be collated on condition he promised to
satisfy the mortuary and vacancy payments.155
By October 1477 Weston was in post and fullling his prioral func-
tions.156 No further action was taken against Multon, who retained his
preceptory until his death in 1493, but was not granted any further dignities
or ofces in the order and was not summoned to Rhodes during the crisis of
147981.157 He may have been too busy to leave the realm. His career in the
royal service revived in the reign of Henry VII; he was appointed surveyor of
the port of Newcastle in August 1487; granted 20 by privy seal in the
following year; and made deputy lieutenant of the east and middle marches
towards Scotland in December 1490. Multon was styled variously our
trusty and well beloved knight and counsellor and oon of the knightes of
Sainct Johns of Jerusalem in these documents.158 His royal service perhaps
shielded him from the actions of his religious superiors again, for he had
been summoned to convent to account for arrears in his responsions in
October 1489, and appears not to have obeyed.159
151
Registrum Myllyng, ed. Bannister, 187; AOM75, fo. 117r.
152
AOM383, fos. 142r143v; CPL, xiii. 62.
153
AOM75, fos. 131r132v. An (imperfect) transcript of this document made by H. Finc-
ham, a former librarian at St Johns Gate, is translated and discussed in Grosss Dissolution,
1312, 12730. It does not wholly support Dr Grosss contention that rival elections by the
English brethren threw up Multon and Weston as opposing candidates. The election of Weston
referred to in the original text is that by the master and council of the order on Rhodes. He may
have been elected by the English langue rst, but this is not mentioned in the text.
154
AOM383, fos. 170v171v, 184v185r, 249v250r. The draper was the conventual bailiff
of the langue of Aragon.
155
AOM75, fos. 131r132v.
156
Registers Stillington and Fox, ed. Maxwell-Lyte, no. 649.
157
AOM391, fo. 200v.
158
Materials . . . Henry VII, ed. Campbell, ii. 163, 393, 533, 557.
159
AOM390, fo. 133v.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 137

The reasons behind Edward IVs initial support for Multon and procras-
tination over Westons appointment must remain conjectural, but Multons
military service and the charges of disobedience laid against Weston in 1465
certainly suggest royal involvement in the affair, a conjecture corroborated
by the decision of the chapter of 1478 to hold subsequent elections to all the
orders European priories in Rhodes.160
The election of the prior in England per se does not seem to have been the
problem. Whatever the orders statutes said to the contrary, all priors of
England were elected there and (probably) presented to the monarch before
conrmation in Rhodes in the period between 1417 and 1471, and in this
case, too, the convent did not formally appoint Weston until it had made
sure of royal approval.161 Sixtus IV was not so concerned to uphold the
royal prerogative, and may have contributed to the delay in Westons acce-
ptance by the king. Besides suspicion of Weston, and a desire to demonstrate
his authority over the order, the king perhaps also opposed the dispatch of
the fruits of the vacancy of the priory overseas, as he seems to have done in
14689. By mid-1476 Multon had paid no part of Tornays mortuaries and
vacancies, which might indicate royal refusal to allow these out of the
country, although licences to John Kendal in 1475 and John Weston in
1477 to ship cloth to the Mediterranean at least demonstrate that some
dues were being sent to Rhodes.162
After his initial suspicion the king appears to have become quite trusting
of the new prior. In many ways, his was a model priorate. Despite the
political upheavals of the time Weston maintained cordial relations with
Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII without apparent difculty, although
his absence from the country in 1483 must have facilitated this. He also
retained the favour of Sixtus IV, and between 1481 and 1484 travelled to
Italy and Rhodes, the last visit to the convent by an incumbent prior before
the dissolution. Yet there is evidence that he suffered nancial difculties
throughout his priorate, possibly as a result of the burden imposed on him in
1476, which his exclusion from the prioral dignity cannot have helped him
to meet. Thus Westons occupation of virtually every English preceptory
which became vacant during the rst years of his priorate, while chiey

160
ne ad eos promoveantur qui minus apti et ignari rerum ordinis sunt . . . statuimus . . . quod
baiulivi aut priores seu Castellanus Emposte in prioratibus vel castellania Emposte In Capitulis
provincialibus vel extra nullo pacto elegi possint sed tantum dictes electiones per Magistrum et
consilium ordinarium eri debeant. AOM283, fo. 183r. A further adverse comment on Mul-
tons administration was provided by an enactment that the common seal of the prior and
brethren of the order in England was not to be used except in provincial chapters at which at
least four brethren, besides the prior, should be present. Ibid., fos. 183rv.
161
Thus William Hulles, appointed in Constance in July 1417, appears in England as prior in
the preceding month; Robert Mallory, appointed in Rhodes in May 1433, appears in England as
prior in July 1432, and Robert Botill, elected by his brethren in England in April 1440, was
formally provided in Rhodes on 29 Nov. AOM340, fos. 116rv; CPR141622, 279; Field, Sir
Thomas Malory, 70; Bekynton Correspondence, i. 801; AOM354, fos. 207v208r.
162
AOM383, fos. 184r185r; CPR146777, 506; CPR 147785; 58.
138 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

occasioned by his disagreement with the langue over their respective rights
to allocate houses, probably also served a useful nancial purpose in allow-
ing him to exploit the occupied estates. His determination to maximize
income and minimize expenditure is further evidenced by the issue in De-
cember 1479 of papal letters rebuking him for failing to maintain proper
hospitality and for felling timber belonging to the priory. Additionally, he
continued to withhold preceptories from his brethren until his arrival in
Rhodes in 1482, and ignored letters obligatory under which he was bound to
pay 223 to the Catalan merchants Lluis and Guillem Badorch.163 As late as
October 1483, Weston was in dispute with the common treasury over sums
still owed for Tornays vacancies.164 Had he not been excluded from the
priory and its fruits for so long, it is doubtful whether he would have faced
such difculties.
Nevertheless, his relations with Edward IV became relatively cordial. On
24 August 1480 Weston was substituted onto an embassy sent to Louis XI to
demand the solemnization of the union of the dauphin and the lady Eliza-
beth, presumably because he would then also have the opportunity to lobby
the French king on behalf of the beleaguered island of Rhodes. Returning to
the royal presence in mid-November, Weston held the spice plate during the
christening of the kings daughter Bridget.165 Despite this new-found con-
dence, however, the kings reaction to the siege of Rhodes was, if not
ungenerous, rather ambivalent. Certainly, the turcopolier John Kendal was
allowed to publish indulgences and collect indulgence money for the relief of
the island throughout the crowns dominions, and some printed indulgences
survive as evidence of his activity.166 Furthermore, on 30 April 1480, the
master and convent of Rhodes were taken under the kings protection, given
the right to display the royal arms, and assured that should they be attacked
by Christian pirates the king would issue letters of marque against their
assailants.167 Practical material assistance was also afforded towards the
defence. Edward wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury in August 1480 to
inform him that he was contributing an 800-ton ship, the Margaret Howard,
to the order and lending another. He urged the archbishop and clergy to
contribute too, and more than 60 was raised in the diocese of Worcester
alone.168 Although there is no indication in the records that the vessels ever
reached Rhodes, which suggests that they were detained when news came to

163
CPL, xiii. 253; AOM76, fo. 80v; AOM387, fo. 117r.
164
AOM76, fos. 160r161r.
165
Foedera, v, III, 112; Cely Letters, ed. Hanham, nos. 98, 102, 108.
166
Foedera, v, III, 103; Preston, Lancashire Record Ofce, RCHy 3/16 (31 Mar. 1480/1 to
John Hawardyne); Duff, Fifteenth Century Books, nos. 2048. The text of one of Kendals
indulgences, granted to Dame Joan Plumpton on 22 April 1480, is given in Plumpton Corres-
pondence, ed. Stapleton, 11819. I am grateful to Dr Joseph Gribbin for providing details of the
indulgence issued to Hawardyne.
167
CPR147785, 1934 (my italics).
168
Lunt, Financial Relations, ii. 5923.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 139

England of the raising of the siege at the end of the year,169 the king also
granted the order the parish church of Boston on 5 May, for which he
recompensed the abbey of St Marys, York, the former impropriators, with
80 marks per annum from the fee-farm of the duchy of Lancaster. In return
for this benefaction the Hospital was expected to hand over its rather less
valuable estate at Beaumont Leys in Leicestershire to the crown.170 Finally,
on 1 November 1480, the king licensed Weston and Kendal to export 320
grainless cloths from Southampton without payment of subsidy.171
Nevertheless, the king was unsympathetic to the urgent requests from the
convent for Westons presence there. On 24 July 1479 the prior and four
named preceptors were summoned to Rhodes and required to present them-
selves by April 1480. Another order, to Weston and nine of his fellows,
followed in November, and on 28 May 1480, shortly after the appearance of
a substantial Turkish eet before the island, all the orders brethren were
instructed to come to the relief of the beleaguered convent with munitions
and victuals. A further mandate of 23 September 1480, promulgated in the
belief that a second siege was imminent, required the presence of Weston,
eight English preceptors and the preceptor of Torphichen, the prior of
Ireland, James Keating, and six commanders whom he should deem
worthy.172
The response of Weston and his brethren to the earlier of these summons is
difcult to gauge but the news from Rhodes was certainly taken seriously.
Richard Cely the Younger, writing to his brother George in Calais in June
1480, asked for more news for Weston, who sent to him each week for
tidings. And whilst government business kept the prior from obeying the
summons between August and October, he attempted to comply with the
mandate of that September, for a letter of January 1481 reported that he had
been summoned by the master of Rhodes but refused permission to leave by
the king, and was instead engaged in examining the royal ordinance in the
tower.173 It is grimly ironic that, as the convent of his order lay half ruined
and bereft of munitions after a savage siege and subsequent earthquake, the
prior of St John of Jerusalem was prevented from going to the aid of his
brethren because he had to assess the materiels in the Tower of London to

169
The records of the orders council note the arrival in Rhodes of vessels of several
nationalities during and after the siege, and Edward IVs are not among them.
170
CPR147785, 230, 235, 241; CCR147685, nos. 7334, 741, 778; Rot. Parl., vi.
20915.
171
Overseas Trade of London, ed. Cobb, no. 282. These were packed in London and taken
by cart to Southampton. Ibid., nos. 2827, 31415.
172
Besides Weston, Thomas Green, Marmaduke Lumley, William Weston, and the preceptor
of Torphichen, William Knollis, were summoned in July 1479. In November were added the
prior of Ireland, James Keating, the bailiff of Eagle, Robert Tonge, John Boswell, Miles Skayff,
John Turberville, and Robert Eagleseld. In the following May John Kendal, who had been on
the orders business in Italy and England in 147980, was added in place of Tonge. AOM387,
fos. 126v, 9v, 5v, 26rv.
173
Cely Letters, ed. Hanham, nos. 90, 114.
140 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

make sure that they were adequate to the conduct of war against the
Christian Scots. Doubtless the king intended this to be an instructive dem-
onstration of priorities. Frustrated of his purpose, Weston requested that
George Cely, who was on his way to Bruges, report any tydyngys of the
Rodys he might get from the Venetians and Florentines there.174
On 4 June, Weston again came into London to plead for leave to depart.
This time it was granted, and after holding a provincial chapter to arrange
for the administration of the priory while he was away, he left the capital on
3 August, in the company of John Kendal and other brethren.175 Although
the prior was only issued with letters of passage for himself and one com-
panion, he travelled with a considerable fellowship, and he certainly made
substantial nancial provision for his journey, amounting to 800 to 1,000
in cash and letters of exchange. So magnicent was his entourage, indeed,
that Weston, writing to Richard Cely from Rome in October, boasted that he
and his fellows were ryt welcome, wyth euer nobleman saying that thay
sawe not thys C yer so lequelly a felychyppe for so manny and in at aray
come howte of Ynglonde.176
Westons mission was partially hijacked by both the crown and the
pope, for before proceeding to Rhodes he visited Rome and Naples rather
than taking the quicker route via Venice, which seems to have been his
intention earlier on. He was greeted in some state when he reached Rome
on 15 October. Sixtus IV, he reported, made me gret cher and would have
absolved him of any obligation to the contrary had he not insisted on
continuing his journey to Rhodes. Instead, he was to proceed there as the
popes ambassador, entrusted wyth materis of gret inportansse. It was
presumably in this capacity that he enjoyed a ryall ressevyng and . . . grett
presentys in the following month in Naples. While in Rome he had also
assisted the kings proctor in his attempt to resolve the ancient dispute
between Richard Herron and the Staple.177
Weston did not arrive in Rhodes until June 1482, when he presented
Edward IVs letters and for the honour of the Apostolic See and of the
king was admitted onto the orders council with precedence over all mem-
bers save the master and his lieutenant. The prior remained at the convent
until sometime after 9 June 1484178 and in the interim served on a variety of
commissions and prosecuted or defended various actions on his own behalf,
as is discussed elsewhere.179 Unusually, all three English bailiffs of the order
were present in convent in 14823, which must have given them consider-
able clout on the council and at the chapter-general of 1483.

174
Cely Letters, ed. Hanham, no. 114.
175
Claudius E.vi, fos. 299r300r; Cely Letters, ed. Hanham, nos. 11718, 1213.
176
Ibid., nos. 11819, 1212, 129.
177
Ibid., nos. 118, 129, 178.
178
AOM76, fos. 103r, 170r.
179
See above, Ch. 2.2.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 141

The administration of the priory during Westons absence was entrusted

to his brother William,180 who presided over a tranquil period in its affairs,
although the English brethren were the driving force behind the conventual
attempt to unseat the prior of Ireland, James Keating.181 On 18 December
1482 Keating was formally deprived, and Marmaduke Lumley, who had
failed to secure permanent possession of Templecombe, was granted the
priory and the magistral camera of Kilsaran.182 Yet despite the support of
the archbishops of Dublin and Armagh, Lumley was unable to dislodge
Keating, who resorted to armed force to deny his rival. The crowns pre-
occupation with other matters in 14835, and Keatings alliance with the
earl of Kildare were probably crucial to Lumleys failure to secure posses-
sion. In contrast to the turmoil in Ireland, the Hospitaller brethren in
England managed to avoid signicant involvement in the political upheavals
of 14837, their prior and turcopolier were internationally respected ser-
vants of crown, curia, and convent, the priorys nances appear to have been
sound, and disputes over promotions were infrequent and amicably reso-
lved. Attacks on the abuse of Hospitaller privileges by the clergy, and the
continued deance of Keating, appear to have been the sole clouds on the
horizon.
By the time Weston reached England, after tarrying in Rome over Christ-
mas 1484,183 Edward IV had been dead for nearly two years. It is difcult
to escape the conclusion that he had been at the least doubtful of the order of
St John, which lurched from one crisis to another as a result of his heavy-
handed interventions between 1468 and 1481. Despite his actions on its
behalf in 1465 and 1480 his attitude to the Hospital was often unsympa-
thetic and overbearing.184 He had attempted to foist an unsuitable candidate
on the order as prior in 1468, defended brethren considered incompetent or
inappropriate by the convent against the legitimate actions of their super-
iors, and refused licence for the prior of England to go to the defence of
Rhodes. The king was probably responsible for the nancial trouble which
dogged the priory throughout the 1470s, ensuring that Langstrother had
debts when he died, that Tornay was summoned to Rhodes for maladmin-
istration, and that John Weston saw t to extract every last penny out of his
brethren and his own resources in the rst years of his priorate. His snubs to
the convent went somewhat beyond the traditional hostility of the crown to

180
The Register of Thomas Rotherham Archbishop of York 14801500, ed. E. E. Barber,
CYS, 69 (Torquay, 1976), no. 912.
181
AOM388, fos. 136rv.
182
Ibid., fos. 134v, 136r137r. Lumley disputed title to Templecombe with various rivals
between 1463 and 1479. AOM374, fos. 139r140r; AOM377, fo. 141v; AOM380, fo. 136r;
AOM386, fos. 128v129r; CPL, xiii. 2556.
183
The prior was granted a papal safe conduct for himself and a company of up to twenty-
ve persons on 31 Dec. 1484. CPL, xiv. 5.
184
In 1465, he had written at the instance of Botill to protest against the attack of the
Venetian eet on Rhodes in the previous year; CSPV, i, nos. 3978.
142 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

the interference of foreign agencies in English affairs and have to be seen

against his sceptical attitude to crusading and foreign adventure. The king,
like his Lancastrian predecessors, was rmly opposed to the levy of papal
crusade tenths, and although he permitted the clergy to make a grant of
sixpence in the pound for Pius IIs crusade in 1464, some of this seems to
have found its way into the royal coffers, while in 1466 and 14812 he
actively opposed any grant.185 He may have regarded the Hospitallers
responsions, especially the increased levy decided on by the advice of a
papally appointed committee in the chapter of 14667, as papal taxation
by the back door. Edwards jaundiced view of the foreign jaunts of his
nobility, and the collapse of the number of licences to noble pilgrims to
visit the Holy Places during his reign, may also shed light on his dealings
with the Hospitallers.186
Nevertheless, Edward IVs distrust of the order was neither complete nor
immutable. While clearly wishing to remind his Hospitaller subjects that
their rst duty was to him, he was willing to offer signicant assistance to the
defence of Rhodes in 1480, and seems to have appreciated the orders success
in resisting the indel. John Kayes dedication of his translation of Caoursins
account of the siege to Edward indicates at the least that he believed that the
king might be interested in the subject,187 and if the decoration of a sub-
stantial chamber in the royal apartments at Windsor with scenes of the siege
can be attributed to the same monarch, it surely indicates that his earlier
scepticism had become real enthusiasm.188 It is arguable, indeed, that the
orders success in 1480 greatly reduced criticism of its activities for a gener-
ation, and that the relatively placid relationship priors of England enjoyed
with successive kings after the siege bears witness to the effects of the victory
on royal perceptions of the Hospital. Certainly, Richard IIIs attitude to the
order was not as bullying and interfering as his predecessors. Admittedly,
the new king was unsure of his support, especially in southern England, and
the Hospitallers must have been worthwhile potential allies both at home
and abroad, which made it sensible to maintain good relations with them,
especially when both the turcopolier, John Kendal, and Weston were out of
the country and in potential contact with Henry Tudor. The king wrote an
enthusiastic letter of welcome to Leonard du Prat, the conventual visitor, in
December 1484, stressing in it his affection, zeal and devotion for so great
185
Lunt, Financial Relations, ii. 14551, 153.
186
For Edwards objections to such travel, see above, n. 43. Only one nobleman, Henry Lord
Fitzhugh, is known to have visited Jerusalem in this reign, in contrast to those of his predeces-
sors. Whether this was due to royal disapproval or the Veneto-Turkish war of 146379 is
unclear, but it is signicant that numbers of noble pilgrims did not recover thereafter. Mitchell,
Spring Voyage, 122; Tyerman, England, 308; G. J. OMalley, The English and the Levant in the
Fifteenth Century, M.Phil. thesis (Cambridge, 1994), 412, 97101.
187
Caoursin, Siege of Rhodes, trans. Kaye.
188
The author of the decoration of the Roodis Chambre, which was not described as such
until 1533, is unclear. W. St John Hope, Windsor Castle: An Architectural History (London,
1913), 2534. I am indebted to Dr Anthony Luttrell for this reference.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 143

an order.189 He further recalled Prats sincere affection and great love for
Edward IV.190
Richards relationship with John Kendal was also cordial. On 16 December
1484, the turcopolier and the bishop of Durham were appointed to give the
kings allegiance to the new pope, Innocent VIII, although Kendals residence
in Italy at the time makes the appointment a matter as much of convenience
as of trust.191 More telling evidence is provided by a Venetian letter of April
1485, which reported that when papal bulls of interdict against the Republic
had been taken to England, Kendal had exerted himself in such wise that the
king tore them up.192 Furthermore, Richard not only visited the priory
himself, but also used it to stage one of the more important public events
of his reign when he held an assembly of London worthies in its Great Hall
to refute rumours that he was planning to marry his niece Elizabeth. He
must have felt that it was friendly territory.193

5.3 Henry VII and the Hospital, 14851509

Despite his amicable relationship with Richard III, John Weston was not so
heavily identied with the Yorkist regime that he was unable to serve the
Tudor. Within a couple of years of his accession Henry VII was employing
Weston on as much government business as any of his predecessors. It is a
feature of the relationship between the order and the Tudor monarchs that
the priors of England, always subordinate to the crown, now became little
more than public servants, albeit valued and respected ones. This process
began in the very early days of Henry VIIs reign. The prior appeared to
testify to the degree of the kings blood relationship with his bride-to-be the
lady Elizabeth in 1486, stating that he had known the latter for ten years and
the former since 24 August 1485.194 Weston was in Rome by May 1487,

189
Letters of the Kings of England, ed. J. O. Halliwell, 2 vols. (London, 1848), i. 1512;
quotation after British Library Harleian Manuscript 433, ed. R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond,
4 vols. (Gloucester, 197983), iii. 123.
190
Ibid. I have not come across any evidence that Prat had met Edward.
191
Kendal arrived in Italy in February 1484. A letter written from Rome by him and the prior of
Champagne was read out in convent on 4 May, and Kendal was appointed to present the orders
allegiance to Innocent VIII on 18 October. He had already played a prominent part in the
ceremonies surrounding the papal election in August and September. AOM76, fos. 167rv, 177r;
CSPV, i, nos. 489, 493; J. Burckardi, Liber notarum ab anno MCCCCLXXXIII usque ad annum
MDVI, ed. E. Celani, 2 vols., Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, 32 (Rome, 190613), i. 20, 55, 80.
192
CSPV, i, no. 493. Sixtus had placed Venice under interdict on 23 May 1483. Setton,
Papacy, ii. 376 & n.
193
Crowland Chronicle Continuation, ed. Pronay and Cox, 1767; Richard III, ed. Ham-
mond and Sutton, 1989; A. Hanham, Richard III and his Early Historians 14831535
(Oxford, 1975), 51, 53.
194
CPL, xiv. 1920. This was two days after Bosworth, indicating that Weston had either
hurried north to proffer his allegiance to the new king or had been in the vicinity at the time of
the battle.
144 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

having been sent by Henry to do homage to the pope and, being delayed at
Calais on his return journey in January 1488, can hardly have had time to
return to Clerkenwell before he was placed at the head of a commission to
treat for peace with Isabella and Ferdinand of Castile-Aragon.195 Although
clearly valued as a diplomat, Weston was equally prominent in the govern-
ments service at home, serving on commissions of the peace in Essex, Kent,
Middlesex, and Warwickshire between 20 September 1485 and 10 Novem-
ber 1488.196
Elected prior of England in Rhodes on 22 June 1489,197 John Kendal was
the outstanding English knight of his generation. Already an immensely
experienced diplomat, who had served as the convents procurator-general
at the curia since 1478, and lieutenant general of the order in the west to
collect the indulgence of 147981, he had conducted negotiations with the
rulers of England, France, Naples, Burgundy, Venice, and Savoy on the
orders behalf in the 1480s, chiey on the difcult matter of the custody of
Jem Sultan, the Turkish prince who had ed to Rhodes in 1482.198 His
passage between Venice, Rome, and Paris at various times between 1485
and 1488 also made him useful as an emissary to the Republic, the Holy See,
and the English crown at various times. In January 1488, for example, the
Venetian ambassador in France reported that Kendal, who had arrived in
Paris as the representative of the convent and curia, was now retained there
on the business of Henry VII.199 The Venetians valued his friendship so
highly that they ordered public receptions to be provided for him in the
towns of the contado when he left the city on his way to Rome in May
1485.200
From the point of view of both order and crown, Kendal would thus
appear to have been an ideal candidate for the priory of England. Yet Henry
VII, despite his evidently friendly relationship with John Weston, was no less
concerned to uphold his prerogatives in the appointment of a new prior than
Edward IV had been, as the turcopolier found out to his cost between 1489
and 1491. On 21 July 1489 the archbishop of Canterbury, John Morton,
wrote to Innocent VIII reporting the arrival of the papal collector, Adriano
Castellessi, in England and saying that he would do his best for John Kendal,
whose merits he well knew, but that the king nevertheless resented the
turcopolier having usurped the name and title of his priory without having
asked his advice or tendered allegiance to him. Clearly, the new prior had
followed neither the traditional procedure of election in England, presenta-
195
Burckardi, Liber notarum, i. 195; Cely Letters, ed. Hanham, no. 240; Foedera, v, III, 189.
196
CPR148594, 486, 490, 493, 5034.
197
The bull conrming the priors appointment was dated 20 June, before Kendals election
by the council. AOM77, fo. 18r; AOM390, fos. 128r129r.
198
AOM386, fos. 146v148r, 149v51r; CPR147785, 194; CSPV, i, nos. 489, 4934,
4967, 518, 523, 526, 5334; iv, Appendix, no. 993; AOM386, fos. 157rv.
199
CSPV, i, no. 526.
200
Ibid., no. 497.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 145

tion to the king, and conrmation in Rhodes, nor waited for election in
Rhodes in accordance with the statute of 1478. He had probably assumed
the title in Rome on learning of Westons death. Henry VII could hardly have
objected to his appointment as early as July 1489 if it had taken place in
Rhodes the previous month, so Kendal must have either arrogated the priory
to himself without formal appointment by the order, or been provided by the
pope.201 It is conceivable that he had already been granted the expectancy of
the priory in Rhodes, but there is no record of this.
Morton assured Innocent that the king would bear all tranquilly in the
matter because of his devotion to the pope, but a year later Kendal was
probably still in bad odour at court, for Castellessi, returning to Rome in
July 1490, was instructed to acquaint his master with Henrys opinions on
the priory of St John.202 In the following month, Kendal was granted licence
to leave Rome for his urgent causes by dAubusson, and the prior of
Auvergne was appointed to various commissions in Italy in his place. Des-
pite getting permission to go home, the prior was still in Italy in the early
months of 1491, for he was commissioned to admit an Italian protege of the
cardinal of Parma into the order and a preceptory on 23 February 1491, and
was granted membership of the papal house of Cibo on 1 March.203 Al-
though Kendals name appears as patron of an English benece in the
Hospitallers gift in May, which may indicate a brief visit home, in August
and October Robert Eagleseld was acting as his lieutenant while he was in
remotis, as he had done in 1490.204 It seems unlikely that he took up
permanent residence in the priory before the last months of 1491. It was
not until the following January that he was pardoned for bringing magistral
bulls preferring him to the priory into England without royal licence or
election by his fellows in England.205
If Kendal, like his predecessor, had some difculty getting possession of his
priory, like Weston he nevertheless became a valued public servant and dealt
with a considerable range of government business. In June 1492 he was
appointed a commissioner to treat for peace with Charles VIII; in February
1496 he was among those deputed to arrange a treaty with the Archduke
Philipthe so-called Intercursus Magnus; and in May 1500 he was with the
king at his meeting with the archduke at Calais.206 On this occasion,
reported the king, particular honour was done the prior, who visited Philip

201
CSPV, iii, Appendix, no. 1475. Morton did indeed know Kendals merits, having
employed him as one of his proctors in the curia in 1490. Register Morton, ed. Harper-Bill,
i, no. 61.
202
CSPV, iii, Appendix, no. 1475; i, no. 577.
203
AOM390, fos. 131v132r, 141r142v, 147r, 154r; CPL, xiv. 2734.
204
The Register of Thomas Langton Bishop of Salisbury 148593, ed. D. P. Wright, CYS, 74
(n.p., 1985), nos. 352, 124, 274, 326; Register Morton, ed. Harper-Bill, ii, no. 52.
205 CPR148594, 368.
206
Foedera, v, IV, 45, 82; LPRH, ed. Gairdner, ii. 87; The Chronicle of Calais, in the Reigns
of Henry VII and Henry VIII, ed. J. G. Nichols, CS, 1st ser., 35 (London, 1846), 3.
146 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

in St Omer with the royal secretary, Thomas Ruthall. The pair were received,
asserted Henry, In such honourable wyse that the lyke thereof hath not been
seen In tyme passid, and rode on either side of the archduke in procession
through the town.207 It was, however, on government business in England
that Kendal was more frequently employed. Traditionally, priors of St John
sat on commissions of the peace in Essex, Middlesex, and sometimes Lin-
colnshire, counties where there was a heavy concentration of Hospitaller
properties. Both John Weston and his successor served in these shires and in
1493, at a time of administrative experiment, Kendal was appointed JP in no
less than twenty jurisdictions, including all the administrative divisions of
Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Subsequently, following a reversion to the prac-
tices of Henry VIs reign, Kendal sat only on commissions of the peace in
Essex and Middlesex.208 Other government service was more occasional:
commissions of walls and ditches in Lindsey in 1497, of sewers in Essex and
Middlesex, and of inquiry into the recent insurrection in the West Country in
June 1497.209 A bare list of the employment of the prior on royal business
does not tell us much about relations between crown and order but it serves
to demonstrate that Kendal was a trusted government servant. His appoint-
ment to inquire into recent rebellions, and the reception at St Omer, are
particularly telling of the esteem and condence in which he was held.
It is all the more extraordinary then that on 14 March 1496 a French
servant of the prior, Bertrand de Vignolles, made a public deposition accus-
ing Kendal of masterminding a series of bizarre and convoluted plots to
murder Henry VII and, more recently, of complicity in Perkin Warbecks
activities in the Low Countries.210 According to Vignolless statement, Ken-
dal, together with his Hospitaller nephew John Tonge and William Hussey,
the archdeacon of London, had conspired over a period of several years to
kill the king, his children, and others about his person. The plot had been
hatched in Rome, where the conspirators, said Vignolles, hired a Spanish
astrologer, a Master John Disant, to accomplish their design. Although
Disant demonstrated his credentials by eliminating a Turk of the household
of Jem Sultan, Kendal returned home without providing the astrologer with
enough money to ensure his continued service. Nevertheless, after two years
the prior sent Vignolles to Rome to urge Disant to carry out his task and to
murder another astrologer, whom Kendal had also approached to arrange

207
Great Chronicle of London, ed. Thomas and Thornley, 2923.
208
CPR148594, 482, 484, 486, 48993, 4958, 500, 5038; CPR14941509, 638; J. R.
Lander, English Justices of the Peace, 14611509 (Gloucester, 1989), 28, 11219.
209
CPR14941509, 90, 118, 1801.
210
This document, contained in British Library MS Cotton Caligula D.vi, was edited by
Madden in his Documents relating to Perkin Warbeck, at 2059, and by Gairdner in LPRH, ii.
31823. Gairdner also appends letters from Kendal to some of the parties involved, notably
Noion and Vignolles. The most sensible recent discussion of Kendals part in the Warbeck
conspiracy is I. Arthurson, The Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy 14911499 (Stroud, 1994) rather
than A. Wroes [otherwise interesting] Perkin: A Story of Deception (London, 2003).
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 147

the kings death and who was now beginning to talk. Disant was to come to
England dressed as a friar, under pretext of a pilgrimage to Santiago, but
again the prior failed to furnish him with sufcient funds for the task.
Instead, the astrologer supplied Vignolles with a box of ointment which, if
smeared on a doorway through which the king was to pass, would cause
Henrys friends and relations to turn against him and murder him. Returning
home, Vignolles threw this away and replaced it with a harmless mixture
purchased from a Parisian apothecary. He gave this to Kendal, telling him
that it was dangerous to handle, and the prior instructed him to get rid of
it.211
Vignolles further stated that on his return to England he had seen letters,
partly in code, from a Hospitaller and servant of the priors in Flanders,
Guillaume de Noion,212 giving news of Perkin Warbecks progress on the
Continent. Warbeck was given the code name of the Merchant of Ruby in
the letters and as such, Vignolles reported, attempted to sell stones at the
courts of Margaret of Burgundy and Maximilian. Noion was also the agent
for Kendal in his attempts to raise money for Warbeck by bills of exchange
drawn up between the prior and a prominent merchant of Bruges, Daniel
Beauvivre. The prior had also, it was alleged, had advance warning of
Warbecks descent on England in July 1495, in which James Keating took
part, and prepared jackets of his livery at Melchbourne, to which Yorkist
emblems he had prepared might be sown as occasion demanded. He also
shared his intelligence of the landing, and of the imposters other doings,
with the bishop of Winchester, Thomas Langton, and his fellow conspir-
ators, Husseys nephew John, and Sir Thomas Tyrrell, another member of
the order.213 Kendal had discussed the possibility of a son of Edward IV
visiting Tyrrell one day, as the father had done. Others acquainted with the
treason were Kendals secretary, William Yolton, and two servants of the
archdeacons, William Lily and John Water, who had both been in Rome at
the time of the original plot.214 By this stage, Vignolles claimed, he had been
determined to unmask the conspirators, but was unfortunately taken ill for
six months. On his recovery, he asked Kendals permission to visit his
brother in Dieppe, so that he could reveal the plot without fear of bodily
injury from ceulx qui ont conpille ceste traison.215

211
Documents relating to Perkin Warbeck, ed. Madden, 2057.
212
Noion was a professed sergeant-at-arms and the farmer of the magistral camera of the
priory of France between June 1491 and June 1496. AOM391, fos. 102r103r; AOM392, fos.
114 115r.
r
213
He is not mentioned in the orders archives as such, but may have been a confrater.
214
Documents relating to Perkin Warbeck, ed. Madden, 2079, 1778. Arthurson also
links Kendal and a conspirator executed in 1495, the Warwickshire knight Sir Simon Mount-
ford. Mountford had purchased an indulgence from the then turcopolier in 1480. Arthurson,
Perkin Warbeck, 85, 901.
215
Documents relating to Perkin Warbeck, ed. Madden, 207.
148 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

Despite its wealth of detail and allegations, it would be simple to dismiss

this statement as an elaborate fantasythe malicious gossip of an embit-
tered servant, or perhaps a French plot to destabilize Henry VII. Vignolles
was vague about dates, and had to go to considerable lengths to explain why
the conspirators had failed to make an actual attempt on the kings life. Yet
there is circumstantial evidence that might suggest to the suspicious mind
that Kendal had been intriguing in Rome at some time between 1485 and
1491, and more substantial material suggesting that he was at the very least
involved in treasonable correspondence with Warbecks court in the Low
Countries. The rather nebulous poison plot which Vignolles alleged that the
prior had masterminded against Henry can presumably, if it existed, be
dated to c.1489 to c.1492, as Kendal returned home during its course. As
this was precisely the period when the king was hindering his promotion to
the priorate, he may well have been disgruntled and might conceivably have
plotted to kill his monarch. He had, after all, loyally served the Yorkist
crown for years and may not have ever met the Tudor king. He was,
moreover, in an environment where people could more safely speak their
mind about the new dynasty than at home. Several of the other alleged
plotters, including William Hussey, were with him in Rome in the 1480s
and early 1490s, and Kendal, the two Husseys, and Thomas Langton were
all members of the Confraternity of the Hospice of St Thomas in Rome.
Between 1486 and 1491, indeed, Kendal was its chamberlain.216
The Holy City, moreover, was notorious for poisonings at this time, and
Kendal was certainly in a position to procure the murder of members of
prince Jems household, as he had been appointed the captain and prefect of
his guard in 1488.217 Rumours that Jem had been poisoned in 1495 can only
have helped strengthen the case against him.218 Yet despite this attractive
mixture of fact, supposition, and common prejudice, Vignolles produced
precious little evidence to support his claims of an attempt to poison Henry
VII, which even he had to admit did not actually take place. The priors
involvement in the Warbeck conspiracy is more plausibly attested. Shortly
after Vignolless deposition was made, letters of the English priors to the
prior of France, to Noion, and to Stefano Maranycho, a Sardinian servant of
Kendals, were seized by the crown, possibly along with Kendal himself.219
At rst sight the correspondence seems innocuous enough. Kendal wrote to
Noion and the prior of France in April 1496 recommending Vignolles, who
had left England two months before to nd his brother. While awaiting the
arrival of his absent relative he had met two of Kendals friends, who had
something to sell. Vignolles was instructed to meet the two merchants, who
were wont to sell stones at Rome, and who wished to know whether
Kendal wanted any of their merchandise. He was to take them to Noion,

216 217
Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck, 76, 232 n. 54. AOM389, fos. 209v10r.
218 219
Setton, Papacy, ii. 482. LPRH, ii. 3236.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 149

who was in Artois, and would assess the quality of the jewels, and then
return to England bearing his response. One of the merchants was probably
Maranycho, also accused of complicity in the poison plot, for another letter
of Kendals was addressed to him, instructing him to trust Vignolles and
suggesting he sell his good things at the fair of Antwerp, where he would
also nd Noion.220
The language of the letters is deliberately obscure, and would seem to
suggest nancial dealings rather than treason were it not for the fact that
Noion and Maranycho had already been mentioned in Vignolless accusa-
tions, and that the references to gems are clearly reminiscent of the code
allegedly used for Warbeck. The letter to Maranycho is particularly suspi-
cious. The Sardinian had travelled all the way from the kingdom of Naples,
yet the prior evinced no desire to meet him and encouraged him to sell his
goods in Flanders rather than bring them to England. Arthurson even
suggests that good things may have been code for poison, and Antwerp
for Margaret of Burgundy. Kendals reluctance to buy such wares would t
with his instruction to Vignolles to throw away the poison he had brought
from Italy.221
The key link in the supposed plot, however, is Noion. It is not difcult to
demonstrate his closeness to the prior: the letters seized in April 1496 alone
do that. In addition, three English knights, including Kendals nephew
Tonge, had stood surety for Noion when he was granted the farm of the
preceptory of Flanders, and when he fell into debt in 1492 he was able to set
payments he had made to Kendal against his arrears.222 Yet, besides Vignol-
less testimony, no further proof of any link between Noion and Warbeck has
been found. If this had been as close as he had alleged Sir Robert Clifford,
who returned from Malines with a long list of English plotters in December
1494, would surely have brought down the prior, Tonge, the Husseys, and
Langton. Although Kendal may have been under suspicion, and was put
under a bond of 100 in March 1495, he was certainly not tried either at this
time or in 1496. Indeed, his appointment to negotiate with Burgundy in
February 1496, which Arthurson describes as splendid cover for his other
activities could hardly have been possible if he had been mistrusted, unless
he was some kind of double agent.223
The king, in any case, was suspicious of uncorroborated testimony,224 and
may have decided that Vignolless accusations, delivered in public before
representatives of the French crown, had been engineered to cause trouble.
The letters seized by the crown are suspiciously opaque, but correspondence
between business partners was often unspecic, treasonable talk was

220
Documents relating to Perkin Warbeck, ed. Madden, 205; LPRH, ii. 3236.
221
LPRH, ii. 3236; Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck, 137.
222
AOM391, fos. 102r103r, 159rv.
223
CCR148594, no. 792; Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck, 836, 137.
224
Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck, 77.
150 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

common, and Kendal did not make the mistake either of mentioning the
Merchant of Ruby, or of referring to Scotland, where Warbeck was then
staying. Although the prior was pardoned on 1 July 1496 of all offences
committed before 17 June, the king cannot have believed he was guilty of all
the charges against him or he would not have trusted him with sensitive
business again.225
As it was, Kendal continued to serve on commissions of the peace, on
diplomatic missions, and on the royal council. He even investigated the
Cornish rising of 1497, an affair which Arthurson considers to have been
linked with the Warbeck conspiracy.226 Besides these formal activities on
behalf of the crown, there is evidence that Kendal was personally favoured
by the king both before and after 1496. He was licensed to hold a market and
fairs at Baldock and to import Gascon wines in 1492, and was cleared of his
and the priorys debts to the crown. King and prior actively cooperated in the
removal of the traitor and rebel James Keating from the priory of Ireland,
and Henry did not punish the Hospitallers for Keatings treason.227 Hence-
forth, priors of Ireland were to be English preceptors, something which
suited both the langue and the crown, to whose better service the act
forbidding the priory to the Irish brethren drew specic attention. And if
Henrys intervention in Ireland was largely a result of self-interest, a clearer
mark of genuine favour was provided by his dispatch of hobbies and artil-
lery, the latter to be placed on the ante-mural or bouleverde defended by the
English langue, to Rhodes in 1499. The gift represents the most signicant of
a number of diplomatic exchanges between Rhodes and Westminster con-
cerning the priory of Ireland, the proposed exchange of lands between the
order and Giles Lord Daubeney, and the Jubilee Indulgence of 1500.228 The
Veneto-Turkish war which began in 1499, and which the order entered in
1501, prompted considerable crusade enthusiasm in the West: a French eet
was dispatched to the Levant in 1499, the Spanish were also considering
military involvement in the area, and Henry VII, besides his support for the
Hospitallers, contributed 20,000 crowns of his own revenues to the crusade
fund in Rome, to the astonishment of the curia. The kings support for the
order needs to be seen in this context.229
The internal history of the priory during Kendals incumbency is less
dramatic than the priors personal vicissitudes, but is not without interest.
There is little sign in the Maltese archives that the problems surrounding his
appointment caused any great concern in convent, yet there are indications
that his exclusion from his dignity may have disrupted the functioning of the
225
CPR14941509, 49.
226
CPR14941509, 638; Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck, 1625.
227
CPR148594, 375, 405; Foedera, v, IV, 47; Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck, 214; Rot. Parl.,
vi. 482b3a.
228
AOM78, fos. 37r, 95rv; Porter, Knights of Malta, 294.
229
Setton, Papacy, ii. 518; LPRH, ii, pp. lxiilxv, 116. For the orders involvement in the war,
see above, Ch. 1.1.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 151

priory during his absence. No provincial chapters seem to have been held in
Kendals name during his continued residence in Italy230 and neither are any
orders to Hospitaller brethren enrolled in the Libri Bullarum between
November 1489 and February 1492. In August 1490 there was even worry
in Rhodes that the prioral seal might be misused during the dissension
concerning the priory and a letter was dispatched to the receiver on the
subject.231 Moreover, when the convent did begin to issue orders to Kendal
to act in England, in October 1492, he was instructed to compel his brethren
to pay substantial arrears owed to the common treasury: John Boswell,
Robert Peck, Robert Evers, and Robert Dalison owed over 600 between
them. By the same February, Henry Halley had still not paid any part of the
responsions of the preceptory he had been granted in 1489.232 In April 1493,
the receiver, Thomas Newport, was ordered to collect, besides the 4,723
ecus owed by prior and brethren for that years responsion, a total of 5,679
ecus owed by the prior, eight English preceptors, and the prioress of Buck-
land, of which 2,785 ecus was still owed for the prioral vacancy year of 1489
to 1490.233 Although Evers had by now apparently paid his debts, Boswell,
Peck, and Dalison were still in considerable arrears, as was John Tonge, who
owed 170 for the vacancy year of Ribston.234 Newport was to collect the
monies, buy cloth with them, and ship it on the Venetian galleys which
would be travelling between England and Messina in 1494. The type and
quality of textiles he was to purchase were rigidly dened.235
Although it was common for at least some English brethren to owe money
to the common treasury, the debts accumulated by 1493 were unusually
large, and would have been far greater had the convent not, usant de
moderance et non pas de severite et Rigueur, agreed to limit the vacancies
of the priory to 4,000 ecus, a sum considerably lower than its net annual
income.236 The fact that of the men granted preceptories during the round of
promotion which accompanied Kendals accession to the priorate in 1489
only the receiver had paid his vacancies in full by April 1493 probably
indicates administrative disruption during the period before Kendal gained
possession. The convents leniency on the question of the priors debts
suggests genuine difculties in collection, partly, perhaps, caused by his
earlier exclusion from the priorate. Kendals absence certainly cannot have

230
The rst chapter recorded in the lease book of the English Hospitallers dating from
Kendals priorate was held in June 1492, after his return from Italy. The rst chapter recorded
in Docwras began on 20 July 1503, while he was still in Rhodes. Lansdowne 200, fos. 2r9r;
Claudius E.vi, fos. 3r5v.
231
AOM77, fo. 27r.
232
Boswell owed 139/9/9, Green 75/4/10, Peck 83/18/7, Evers 341/17/6, Dalison
82/0/11, and Halley 198/11/4. AOM390, fos. 134rv; AOM391, fos. 100r101r, 103rv.
233
AOM391, fos. 106r107v, 199rv.
234
Ibid., fos. 107v, 106r.
235
A worthy man was to accompany the cargo to its destination. Ibid., fo. 199v.
236
Ibid., fo. 199v.
152 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

helped him regain control of the Warwickshire preceptory of Balsall, a

prioral camera and favourite residence of John Weston which between
1489 and 1496/7 was in the hands of a secular usurper, Robert Bellingham
of Kenilworth. In 1487 Bellingham had abducted the daughter and heir of
the farmer of Balsall, John Beautz, from her parental home by force, but
despite a considerable scandal eventually acquired Beautzs consent to
marry her.237 On Beautzs death in 1489, Bellingham entered into posses-
sion of Balsall and remained there until at least the last months of 1496,
ignoring an order by the royal council that he vacate.238 The order was able
to remove him shortly afterwards, but signicantly Kendal then granted the
lease to Robert Throckmorton, the head of one of the most substantial
gentry families in the county. It is interesting to note that Beautz, Belling-
ham, and Throckmorton all held signicant posts in the administration of
Warwickshire, and it might be speculated that it was only with the assistance
of such notables that the orders more desirable properties could be retained
in its grasp. Such recoveries were not only difcult and time-consuming; they
were expensive too, so that it is not surprising that both Kendal and his
successor, Thomas Docwra, asked to be allowed a pension against their
responsions on account of the heavy legal costs incurred in defence of the
priory.
Kendal remained in arrears throughout his priorate. In October 1495, in
the presence of the grand master, the turcopolier, the priors secretary, and
others a declaration was made touching his accounts. He was quit of seven
items amounting to 4,990 Venetian ducats which the chapter of 1493 had
remitted to magistral judgement, but a further twenty-three payments,
amounting to perhaps 360, which the prior had made in Italy were not
allowed against his arrears, as he had claimed, but were to be submitted to
the next chapter for arbitration, as were 1,000 ecus (200) which he claimed
should be subtracted from his vacancy payments. A further claim for 300
over which Kendal pretended he was prejudiced by an error in Thornburghs
accounts, which he said he had not seen, was disallowed because he had
signed the documents in question in London in the presence of a notary. The
prior remained 1,567 ecus in debt.239 Although the Libri Bullarum for
14971500 are missing, Kendal had not paid his debts by September 1498,
for Richard Boswell then appeared before the council in Rhodes protesting
that he should not be granted the preceptory of Carbrooke, as he owed the
common treasury 1,500 ecus. Although the proctors of the treasury said they
were condent of its payment and the collation of Carbrooke was granted to

237
E. W. Ives, Agaynst taking awaye of Women: The Inception and Operation of the
Abduction Act of 1487, in E. W. Ives, R. J. Knecht, and J. J. Scarisbrick (eds.), Wealth and
Power in Tudor England (London, 1978), at 269.
238
PRO/STAC2/33/40.
239
AOM392, fos. 104v107r.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 153

the prior, Kendal was still in debt when he died,240 probably in early
February 1501.241
Kendals demise was reported to the council on Rhodes on 12 June.242 The
turcopolier, Thomas Docwra, who was in Rhodes, seems to have been the
only candidate for the priory, despite the greater seniority of Thomas Green,
the aged bailiff of Eagle.243 Although the orders council initially deferred
the election of a new prior because of certain legitimate respects concerning
the utility and honour of the whole religion, on hearing of Kendals death it
granted immediate licence to the English langue to meet so that the prioral
fth camera, Melchbourne, could be granted to Thomas Docwra, who gave
up his preceptory of cabimentum, Dinmore, in return. The election to the
priorate was suspended until the chapter-general should meet, for on the day
after its inception, 6 August, Docwra appeared before the council to petition
for the priory, having rst been granted the right to exchange it for the
turcopoliership by the English langue. Despite a protest by the proctors of
the common treasury,244 he was duly elected prior, retaining Melchbourne
as his fth camera.245 The provision to the turcopoliership, claimed by
Henry Halley, Robert Dalison, Thomas Newport, and Robert Daniel,
was remitted to the sixteen capitulars, who on 26 August allocated it to
Newport.246
There is little remarkable in the bull providing Docwra to the priory,
although the farm of his four prioral camerae was, unusually, specied at
350 ecus until such time as commissioners should be appointed to revalue
them.247 A later conrmation of the terms of his appointment set the farm of
the priorys vacancy year at 4,000 ecus, and that of Melchbourne, the fth
camera, at 950.248 Although these sums considerably undervalued all his
estates save Melchbourne, the new prior was eager to reduce his burdens and
240
AOM78, fos. 93rv; 79, fos. 89rv.
241
The editors of Dugdales Monasticon state that Kendal died in November 1501 but a later
dispute about his spolia states that they were executed on 10 February 1501. The priors death
seems to have been sudden. He had presided over a provincial chapter held on 20 January and
was apparently planning to visit Rhodes shortly before his demise, hardly the intention of a sick
man. Monasticon, vi, II, 799; Lansdowne 200, fo. 84r; AOM79, fos. 114v117v.
242
AOM79, fos. 11v12r.
243
Green had been a Hospitaller for longer, having attended the chapter-general of 1459. He
had been a preceptor since 1471 and bailiff of Eagle since 1481. Docwra rst appears as a
conventual knight in 1474. Green does not appear to have visited Rhodes after the early 1480s,
however, and took little part in the orders affairs after 1489, dying early in 1502. AOM282, fo.
54r; 378, fos. 148v149v; 76, fo. 70v; 388, fos. 132rv; 382, fo. 136v; 394, 171r.
244
The treasury ofcials held that no one should be elected prior without rst swearing to
uphold the ordinance made in the 1498 chapter concerning the dues owed to the treasury from
England. Docwra replied that the statute had ruled that the prior should be given time to prove
his right to certain of these monies, and petitioned that the matter should be examined by
the chapter. AOM 284, fos. 5r, 9r11r; 79 fos. 117v, 118r.
245
AOM79, fos. 11v12r, 22v.
246
AOM79, fos. 23r, 23v; AOM284, fo. 35v.
247
AOM393, fos. 109v110v.
248
AOM394, fos. 174v175v.
154 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

renewed Kendals claim for a pension of 630 ecus, averring that this was
necessary to support the heavy burden of litigation on the English priory,
and also demanding a smaller sum from the preceptory of Scotland. Not
only were these demands rejected, the prior and the more senior English
knights were later forced to swear to uphold the capitular ordinance on the
matter, to seek no pension from the common treasury in lieu of the sums
claimed, and not to impede responsions from Scotland.249
What is perhaps most interesting about Docwras appointment was that it
proceeded without any apparent hitch and that it was neither preceded by
election in England nor accompanied by the issue of papal letters in his
favour. These facts seem to indicate that the statute of 1478 insisting that
priors should henceforth be elected in Rhodes was now uncontroversial and
that the order and the crown had come to a working arrangement which
respected the rights and claims of each. Docwra appears to have been
unopposed as prior and there is no sign either that Henry VII found him
unacceptable, or that the king was unhappy at his absence in Rhodes, which
extended until 1504. Docwra had an impressive record of service in the east,
having been, while turcopolier, visitor of Cos, captain of Bodrum, and
captain of the orders galleys. With the orders entry into the Veneto-Turkish
war in 1501, practised commanders such as he became indispensable, and
accordingly he was twice appointed the captain of one of the orders galleys
patrolling the Aegean in 1501, although on the rst of these occasions his
vessel was among two defeated off Syme by a Turkish squadron. The master
of the order, the still formidable Pierre dAubusson, conducted the war
vigorously, and called on other Christian powers to contribute ships or
money should they not be able to enter the lists themselves. If the main
targets of his appeals were the rulers of Hungary and Venice, more distant
potentates like Henry VIII were not forgotten. Writing to Ladislas VI of
Hungary in January 1502 the master professed himself hopeful of securing
naval aid from England, the pope, and the king of France.250 Duplicates of a
letter informing Louis XII of events in the east had been dispatched to Henry
VII in the previous December.251 A further letter was sent to the king of
England in October 1502, reporting a Turkish naval build-up in the Helle-
spont and requesting some of the money which the order had heard he had
set aside for the faith. This would, it was promised, be used to arm galleys or
barques which would be marked with Henrys royal insignia and maintained
in his honour until the subsidy ceased. The letter, together with general
supplications for the royal favour, was to be presented at court by Thomas
Newport.252 There is no record that Henry VII responded to this plea with

249
AOM284, fo. 9r11r; 79, fos. 117v, 118r.
250
AOM79, fos. 51v52r; Vatin, LOrdre, 2667.
251
The letter was to be carried to England by Thomas Shefeld, the preceptor of Beverley.
AOM79, fos. 47r, 49v50v.
252
Newport was already in England. AOM79, fos. 103v104r.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 155

material assistance but the orders later attery might indicate that he sent
some help.253
Although the prior of England does not seem to have played any great part
in the naval operations of 15023, he could not be spared to return home
until after the arrival of the new master, Aimery dAmboise, in September
1504.254 In the meantime he served on the council and was employed on a
number of commissions, especially after the death of dAubusson in July
1503. Some of these were of considerable delicacy and importance. In late
July, for example, Docwra was one of three commissioners appointed to
draw up letters announcing the death of the former master to Korkud, the
governor of southern Anatolia.255 In the following month he was given the
task of reporting on the state of the harbour defences at Rhodes, and in
February 1504 he was among four senior brethren deputed to treat with the
captors of one of Korkuds chief servants, Kemal Beg, who had been taken
prisoner in the Aegean.256
Despite the signicance of these activities, the new prior was keenly aware
of his responsibilities to the king. In April 1503 he wrote to inform Sir
Reginald Bray that he had sought licence to leave Rhodes but had been
refused because the Turks were preparing a eet and army against the order
now that the Venetians had pulled out of the war. He asked Bray to approach
the king, excuse his absence, and stress his delity. He also asked Bray to
favour the priorys affairs while he was away.257 During his absence the
priory was administered by Thomas Newport, the receiver and turcopolier,
acting as president during Kendals vacancy year (June 1501 to June 1502)
and as Docwras lieutenant thereafter.258 Despite his initial failure to uphold
the priors prerogatives in the case of Kendals dispropriamentum,259 New-
port exercised a relatively vigorous lieutenancy. He held provincial assem-
blies in Docwras name, presented to beneces in prioral gift, served on royal
commissions and in April 1502 presided with Thomas Shefeld over the

253
See below, 158.
254
The plague of 14991500 and war against the Turks left the order short of manpower
until Amboises arrival. All permission to leave had been rescinded on 26 August 1503. Docwra
was granted licences to depart on 11 and 20 September 1504, but was still in convent on 24
September. Vatin, LOrdre, 258, 274; AOM80, fos. 110r, 56v, 143v, 142r143r.
255
AOM80, fo. 43r; Vatin, LOrdre, 279.
256
AOM80, fo. 55r. For the latter episode, see Vatin, LOrdre, 2803.
257
Westminster Abbey Muniments 16072. On Bray, see M. M. Condon, From Caitiff and
Villain to Pater Patriae: Reynold Bray and the Prots of Ofce, in M. Hicks (ed.), Prot, Piety
and the Professions in Later Medieval England (Gloucester, 1990), 13768.
258
The Registers of Oliver King Bishop of Bath and Wells 14961503 and Hadrian de
Castello Bishop of Bath and Wells 15031518, ed. H. C. Maxwell-Lyte, Somerset Record
Society, 52 (London, 1937), nos. 395, 444, 472, 542.
259
This was a declaration of assets made by a sick brother of the order. Kendal had drawn his
up in an irregular manner in conjunction with his nephew, John Tonge, erring further by making
several bequests and endowing a chantry to pray for his soul even though he remained a debtor.
AOM79, fos. 114v117v.
156 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

re-examination of Kendals spolia.260 Combining the duties of lieutenant

prior and receiver may have been too much of a strain, however, and on 14
July 1503 Shefeld was appointed receiver in Newports place.261 Certainly
Newport had plenty to keep him occupied. There are signs that the priors
absence may have hampered the orders defence of its property and privil-
eges. In 1501 the order was in dispute with Charles Booth, the vicar-general
of Lincoln diocese, over its encroachment on episcopal jurisdiction. Booth
met prioral representatives to discuss the matter at St Pauls, but without
reaching any denite resolution.262 A more serious dispute concerned Bal-
sall. In November 1495 it had been leased to Sir Robert Throckmorton for a
three-year term, renewable on its expiry. This arrangement was to continue
for twenty years, or until the prior died, when the order had the option to
buy out Throckmortons interest, but on Kendals death the farmer refused
to vacate the property. Although the lease had not been renewed in 14989
he was still in possession in 1503, when the order agreed to regrant it for the
year to that midsummer on condition that he pay his arrears and render up
the property to Lancelot Docwra on his return from Rhodes. But when the
latter and Thomas Shefeld came to make Balsall ready for the prior they
found that the Throckmortons had fortied it and that they were refused
admission.263 By the time the case was brought to Star Chamber, the
Throckmortons had put a chaplain and other persons into the manor, sold
its hay, done other damage, and run up arrears of more than 150.264 In
their defence the family alleged that the knights had breached the Statute of
Retainers by coming to Balsall with a large following clad in their livery,
none of whom was their servant or a member of their order.265
The dispute of 14956 over the same house had been resolved rather less
dramatically,266 and the absence of the prior may have weakened attempts
to safeguard his property and encouraged the farmer to defy his ofcers.
Certainly Newport did his best to avoid litigation during his lieutenancy,
acceding to the bishop of Herefords demand for payments from the orders
church at Garway,267 and only proceeding against Throckmorton when
there appeared to be no other option. On his return the prior initially
seems to have been unsure how to restore Balsall to his authority, for a
lease of the manor of Chilvercoton dated June 1505 and stating that its farm
260
AOM79, fos. 89rv.
261
AOM394, fos. 177r178r.
262
Registrum Bothe, ed. Bannister, p. vii.
263
PRO STAC1/2/109/5.
264
Ibid., 1/2/109/15; 1/1/50 (12). The case is noticed in VCH Warwickshire, ii (London,
1908), 99; M. C. Carpenter, Locality and Polity: A Study of Warwickshire Landed Society,
14011499 (Cambridge, 1992), 129. Neither the grant of 1495 nor the renewal of the lease in
1503 is recorded in the orders lease book.
265
PRO STAC1/2/109/4, 2; Select Cases in the Council of Henry VII, ed. C. G. Bayne, Selden
Society, 75 (London, 1958), p. cxxiii; Statutes, ii. 65860.
266
PRO STAC 2/33/40.
267
Registrum Mayew, ed. Bannister, pp. iii, 1934.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 157

should be paid to Docwra at Balsall, implies that he had decided to take the
preceptory in hand, while another Warwickshire lease granted in the same
chapter required payment of rent to the preceptor or farmer of Balsall.268
This might indicate a desire to come to an agreement with Throckmorton,
but within a few months Docwra had petitioned the convent for licence to
restore Balsall to the hands of his fellow religious, on account of the dilapi-
dation caused by the exploitation of successive farmers since the days of
Robert Botill.269
In June 1505 Docwra held his rst provincial chapter. There was much
business to transact. The three assemblies held by Newport in 1503 and
1504 had only granted short-term leases of those preceptories whose incum-
bents were in or on their way to Rhodes,270 and had not let any prioral
properties. As opposed to only nine leases granted in the meetings of 1503
4, at Docwras rst chapter in 1505 thirty-ve separate properties were
leased.271 The most important grant was the renewal of a lease of the
manor of Hampton Court to Giles Lord Daubeney, the kings chamberlain,
who had petitioned the order to exchange it for his manor of Yeldon as long
ago as 1495, and secured royal and prioral letters in his favour at that
time.272 The authorities on Rhodes had appeared to cooperate, appointing
commissioners to view both properties to ensure that the exchange was in
the orders favour, as the statutes required, but the chapter-general alone
could authorize the alienation of Hospitaller estates and there was consid-
erable institutional reluctance to do so.273 While Kendal was waiting for a
decision on the permanent grant of the property, he had done the next best
thing and granted an eighty-year renewable lease, which was now ex-
changed for one with a ninety-nine-year term, also renewable.274 This was
hardly in keeping with the orders policy, which was to discourage attempts
to gain permanent possession of its property, and the terms of the grant were
to cause some embarrassment later.275
Once in England, Docwra became more a servant of the crown than of his
order and was involved in a heavy volume of government business from
shortly after his arrival. Initially Docwra served in traditional ways, on
commissions of the peace or on the royal council,276 although the
scope and variety of his employment began to increase after the death of
Henry VII. The most characteristic manifestation of his royal service was

268
Claudius E.vi, fos. 22rv, 21v22r.
269
AOM397, fo. 140rv.
270
Claudius E.vi, fos. 3r7v.
271
Ibid., fos. 8r27v. Two grants were of the same property to the same man, at slightly
different rents. Ibid., fos. 16rv.
272
Claudius E.vi, fo. 8r; AOM78, fo. 37r.
273
AOM78, fos. 37r, 79v; 392, fos. 103v104r.
274
Lansdowne 200, fos. 30rv, Claudius E.vi, fo. 8r.
275
See below, 173.
276
CPR, 14941509, 639, 650, 663; Select Cases, ed. Bayne, pp. cvi, 46.
158 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

diplomatic business. On 4 March 1506 he was among those appointed to

treat with Philip the Fair of Burgundy-Castile, a parley which resulted in the
Intercursus Malus, a one-sided agreement which collapsed after Philips
death.277 The experience was not wasted, however, for in October 1507
the prior travelled to Picardy to treat for the marriage of the lady Mary and
the young duke of Burgundy, the future Charles V.278 When the Burgundian
ambassadors paid a return visit to England in December Docwra was among
the noblemen who met them at Dartford and he entertained the Burgundians
splendidly and festively to a banquet at Clerkenwell in the following
February.279
Even before Docwras building programme was completed, the priory
seems to have been a desirable stopping place. The king himself had visited
in 1486, and the Scottish ambassadors were lodged there in 1501. An even
more pointed display of the royal favour was Henrys stay in the country in
the buildings of St. Johns, where he received the French ambassador in the
summer of 1508. Henry may even have gone hawking with the prior, for in
1506 the common treasury had accepted Docwras claim that two falcons
purchased as presents for the king should be allowed against his accounts,
and his visit to the orders estates would seem an ideal time for Henry to
deploy the birds.280 Relations between crown and order had apparently
never been friendlier. On 27 May 1506 the convent bestowed the title of
protector of the order on Henry VII.281 Whether this honour was granted in
recognition of favours already received or in anticipation of more it is
difcult to say. The letter is general in tone, stressing the orders constant
struggle against the Turks, the precariousness of its position in the east, and,
perhaps signicantly, bemoaning the difculty the Hospital had in collecting
its rents in the west and stressing its need for protectors there. This may have
been a veiled plea for royal support in matters such as the Balsall case, or for
a reconsideration of the kings insistence on levying taxes on Hospitaller
properties.282

277
Calendar of Letters, Despatches and State Papers, relating to the Negotiations between
England and Spain, preserved in the Archives at Simancas and Elsewhere, vols. ixiii (London,
18621954), i. 384, 447.
278
Chronicle of Calais, ed. Nichols, 6; Memorials, ed. Gairdner, 100; The Reign of Henry
VII from Contemporary Sources, ed. A. F. Pollard, 3 vols. (London, 191314), i. 302.
279
The Spousells of Princess Mary, 1508 in Camden Miscellany IX, CS, 2nd ser., 53
(London, 1895), 6; Memorials, ed. Gairdner, 109.
280
CCR14851500, no. 67; Great Chronicle, ed. Thomas and Thornley, 315; Memorials,
ed. Gairdner, 129; AOM397, fo. 142v.
281
LPRH, i. 2878; AOM397, fos. 139v140r; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 186.
282
The preceptor of Baddesley, Robert Peck, was in debt to the king on his death in 1505,
which, to take an uncharitable view of Henry VII, may indicate a royal levy on his person or
property. Furthermore, in 1503, Thomas Newport asked to be excused 32 of his responsions
for Dalby and Rotheley because tenths granted to the crown in convocation were being levied on
Boston church, which had been appropriated to the preceptory since 1482. AOM397, fos. 143r,
145r.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509 159

Although the kings sojourn in the orders estates in the summer of 1508
speaks highly of the good relations between Henry and the prior, Docwra,
having been summoned to attend the chapter-general to be held in August
1508, should really have been in the eastern Mediterranean instead.283
When the king died in April 1509, Docwra was still in England. Henry
may have felt that with two of the three English bailiffs of the langue already
in Rhodes,284 the order could afford to leave the prior at home. Docwra,
who was conducting a dispute with the bishop of Hereford in 1507 while
simultaneously quarrelling with the English langue and the convent over the
collation of Halston, may himself have felt disinclined to travel.
Henry VII died on 22 April 1509. His relationship with all three priors of
England during his reign had been relatively fruitful. All had performed the
customary service of priors on royal commissions, the kings council, and
particularly on the diplomatic business for which they were so well suited. In
return, although he had been determined to uphold the royal prerogative
with regard to John Kendals appointment, Henry took little or no action
against Kendal when he was accused of treason in 1496, sent artillery to
Rhodes, and may conceivably have been prepared to allow the prior to go
there at the turn of the century.285 The new prior, Thomas Docwra, was
refused permission to perform conventual service but the king may have felt
that as he had only arrived in England in late 1504, the order for him to
return by 1508 was rather precipitous. In the meantime, the king was heavily
involved in crusade schemes, and donated funds from his own pocket
towards them. His interest in the order is perhaps further indicated by his
disgraced councillor Sir Richard Guildfords journey to the Holy Land in
1506. Besides making expiation for his nancial misdeeds, Guildford may
have been asked to make contact with the English langue in Rhodes: his
chaplain was certainly impressed by the warmth of the English brothers
hospitality there.286 The orders nomination of the king as its protector can
be seen both as a culmination of these contacts and an encouragement to
more.
Nevertheless, if Thomas Docwras priorate in some respect represents the
most active period of cooperation between crown and order since the 1430s,
the fervent royal embrace in which the more prominent English Hospitallers
found themselves after about 1500 proved at times to be stiing, and
certainly constituted a brake on their freedom of action. The ideological

283
AOM397, fos. 140v141r. The chapter was not held until early 1510. AOM399, fo. 146v.
284
The bailiff of Eagle had been summoned to Rhodes in 1504, and had arrived by 7 May
1506. He was given licence to leave on 4 September 1508. The turcopoliers Robert Daniel (to
1508) and William Darrell were also resident, as was usual. AOM395, fos. 139v140r; AOM81,
fos. 44r, 108r.
285
See above.
286
R. Guylforde, The Pylgrymage of Sir Richard Guylforde to the Holy Land, ed. H. Ellis,
CS, 1st ser., 51 (London, 1851), 57.
160 The Hospital and the English Crown, 14601509

underpinnings, administrative personnel, and institutions of the early Tudor

state may not have been all that different from those of its Yorkist predeces-
sor, but the new regime did preside over a larger and more lavish court, a
more intrusive and interventionist government, and a growing insistence on
the duties of subjects to the crown.287 These developments had a more
noticeable impact on the Hospital in the reign of Henry VIII, but some of
them are foreshadowed in the reign of his father, whose addiction to diplo-
matic intrigue kept Weston, Kendal, and Docwra extremely busy on his
service, and whose decisive intervention in the orders Irish affairs began
the transformation of the notoriously independent priory of Ireland into an
arm of the state. Closer ties to court appear to have enhanced the prestige
bestowed on the order by its defence of Rhodes, but also led to some
brethren, particularly those from families prominent in royal service such
as the Westons, being singled out for favour and even attached to the court as
gentlemen pensioners. The physical growth of the court, too, led to in-
creased competition for grants of the orders property, such as Daubeneys
for Hampton Court. It is certainly true that earlier priors had been promin-
ent as diplomats, that kings had sometimes pressed the order to admit or
favour particular brethren, and that courtiers had often sought leases of its
property. The difference is more of degree than of kind, of tone than of
substance, but there are indications that all of these pressures were intensi-
fying from the 1490s onward. During the next reign they were to become
very pronounced indeed.
287
Recent views of Henry VIIs regime include M. C. Carpenter, Henry VII and the English
Polity, in B. J. Thompson (ed.), The Reign of Henry VII (Stamford, 1995), 1130; J. Watts,
A Newe Ffundacion Of is Crowne: Monarchy in the Age of Henry VII in ibid., 3153; and
S. J. Gunn, Early Tudor Government 14851558 (Basingstoke, 1995).
 C HA P T E R S I X

The Hospital and the English

Crown, 15091540

With hindsight it is readily apparent that Henry VIII was no great friend of
the order of St John, whose English, Welsh, and Irish houses he dissolved in
1540. Nevertheless, in his rst fteen or so years on the throne, during which
he posed on occasion as the champion of papal foreign policy against the
French and of Catholic orthodoxy against Luther, relations between the
crown and the Hospital were generally friendly, following the pattern estab-
lished during the reign of his father. The son, indeed, showed a positive and
gratifying interest in Levantine and crusading matters in the rst years of his
reign. He rewarded a hermit who had visited the Holy Sepulchre, patronized
the friars of Sion and monks of Sinai, and even dispatched a body of English
crusaders to assist Ferdinand of Aragon in north Africa.1 It was during this
reign, too, that the tentative English mercantile contacts with the eastern
Mediterranean begun in the reigns of Edward IV and Henry VII became an
ordinarie and usuall trade.2 The permanent community of Hospitaller
brethren in Rhodes was an important component in the embryonic English
network in the region and from the start Henry kept himself informed both
of the orders affairs as a whole and of the langues in particular. His
keenness to do so is indicated by a collection of Hospitaller and other
Levantine letters in the British Library which allows us to trace the corres-
pondence between crown and convent in unprecedented detail.3 In recogni-
tion of this interest, and hope that he would emulate his fathers active
support, Henry was appointed protector of the convent two years after his
accession to the throne.4 Fulsome letters were exchanged between England
and Rhodes, gifts of balsam and Turkey carpets dispatched to Henry and
Wolsey, and the wealthy prior of England, Thomas Docwra, allowed in
return to send large consignments of goods to convent in advance of his
responsions. In consideration of his qualities, Docwra was very nearly

1
LPFD, i, nos. 885 (7), 3586, 3587; E. Hoade, Western Pilgrims to the Holy Land (Jerusa-
lem, 1952), 96; Tyerman, England, 3512.
2
A. A. Ruddock, Italian Merchants and Shipping in Southampton 12701600 (Southamp-
ton, 1951), 21819, 231; Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, v. 624.
3
Otho C.ix.
4
LPFD, i, no. 767.
162 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

elected grand master in 1521, which would have constituted a considerable

coup for both langue and crown.5
Nevertheless, the new king could sometimes be cynical about the reports
of Turkish advances in the letters reaching him from Rhodes, and his
primary concerns when dealing with the English brethren of the order
appear to have been to remind them of their responsibilities as subjects
and to make them useful in his service. From the beginning the priors of
England and Ireland were treated as government servants and habitually
refused licence to go to the convent, while their brethren were sometimes
required to ght in France, and the order as a whole to contribute contin-
gents to royal armies. Some brethren were actively groomed for service,
being appointed gentlemen pensioners and recommended to the authorities
on Rhodes, but a corollary of such favour was that the king demanded his
proteges receive early preferment, which might cause disruption in the
langue. Above all, there was an insistence, reminiscent of Edward IVs,
that when the crowns priorities conicted with those of the order in any
respect the latter must give way. Accordingly royal interventions on behalf of
the English brethren in their struggle to subject the orders houses in Scotland
and Ireland to the authority of the langue ceased when the orders interests
no longer coincided with Henrys own. John Rawson, for instance, was
helped to secure possession of Kilmainham because a strong priory of
Ireland was a useful adjunct to the crowns authority there, but Henrys
insistence that those born in Ireland were ipso facto unt to hold any dignity
at all in the priory possibly contributed to Edmund Seyss rebellion against
his superior. Moreover, when Rawson tried to go to Rhodes to prosecute his
case against his brothers and to perform his conventual service, he was
denied permission to leave Ireland. Henrys withdrawal of support from
George Dundas, the favoured candidate of langue and convent for promo-
tion to Torphichen, in the hope of a slight strengthening of Margaret
Tudors position in Scotland provides an even more telling insight into
royal priorities.6
Yet the kings reservations about the Hospital had not become apparent in
the rst days of his reign and the order evidently held out hope of his
assistance in its struggles. In late September 15107 Amboise wrote to the
king congratulating him on his accession, encouraging him to work towards
the expedition planned by his father, and reporting the orders destruction
of the Mamluk eet on 23 August. The victory, warned the master, brought

5
J. Fontanus, De bello rhodio, libri tres, Clementi VII, Pont. Max. dedicati (The Hague,
1527), 1314 (Bii-Bii verso); Setton, Papacy, iii. 203.
6
See below, 24950, 2634.
7
Misdated in LPFD to 1 October 1509. The content of the letter is identical to that of
one enrolled in the Liber Bullarum for 151011, but dated there 28 September 1510. LPFD, i,
no. 191 (Otho C.ix, fo. 1); AOM400, fos. 223v224v; text in Codice diplomatico, ed. Pauli, ii.
1745.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 163

new dangers, for it had brought the Turkish and Mamluk rulers together in
determination to avenge the insult. It was therefore necessary for the order
to summon its brethren to Rhodes to meet the threat and the king was
requested to release Thomas Docwra for conventual service. In the following
May, the order petitioned Henry, like his father, to act as the orders pro-
tector, a title he retained until the dissolution.8
This letter is the rst of a series of bulletins on Levantine affairs directed to
the king, to Wolsey, and later to Thomas Cromwell. Although their content
and tone altered with events, the conclusionthat prompt and substantial
help should be sent to combat the Turkish menaceremained the same
throughout the period before 1522. In the rst few years of the reign the
order was fairly bullish, reporting the victories of Shah Ismail (the Sophi)
in Anatolia in 1511 and 151415 with some hope that these could provide a
platform for the overthrow of Turkish power in conjunction with western
crusading armies and Christian revolts.9 But when these dreams were shat-
tered by Ismails defeat at Chaldiran in 1515, the need for action against the
Turks became more pressing, particularly after Selim Is seizure of Egypt and
Syria in 151617. The Hospital spent the last six or seven years of its sojourn
on Rhodes in a state of invasion phobia, and the letters of masters Carretto
and LIsle Adam to Henry VIII and Wolsey document the evolution of its
fears.
Besides stressing the danger to the Christian east and consequently the
whole of Europe, the letters naturally emphasized the specic threat to
Rhodes, and the need for the presence of Hospitaller brethren, and especially
Docwra, at the convent, where his experience and prudence would be
invaluable.10 At the same time, the prior was requested or ordered to appear
in time for the chapters-general held in 1510, 1514, 1517, and 1520, and at
other times as well.11 Although Henry VIII refused to let Docwra leave the
realm, he was not completely insensitive to the orders needs. In 1513, in
response to a major invasion scare,12 the bailiff of Eagle, Thomas Newport,
the receiver, Thomas Shefeld, and a large contingent of conventual knights
were permitted to go to Rhodes.13 Having served in the royal army in France
in July and August, they probably travelled on without returning home, for

8
LPFD, i, no. 767; Galea, Henry VIII and the Order of St. John, 62.
9
LPFD, i, nos. 7667, ii, nos. 17, 23, 76, 715.
10
Docwras presence was requested in October 1509, November 1513, November 1515, and
August 1517. After 1515 there were repeated pleas that all available brethren should be sent to
Rhodes. LPFD, i, nos. 191, 2447; ii, nos. 1138, 3607, 3695, 4252.
11
AOM398, fo. 116v; 400, fos. 143r144r; 401, fo. 160rv; 404, fo. 146v; 408, fo. 135r; 405,
fo. 134r.
12
In January 1513 an Ottoman eet had gathered in the ports opposite Rhodes and an army
paraded before Bodrum. In fear of imminent attack the convent instructed its English brethren
to send 2,700 (12,000 ducats) by exchange to Rome to meet the threat. Claudius E.vi, fo. 112v.
13
On 10 April the master, Blanchefort, had requested that Docwra, Newport, and Shefeld
be dispatched to headquarters. LPFD, i, no. 1765.
164 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

on 3 September Newport and Shefeld were being received in Venice as

Henrys ambassadors.14 On 15 November the lieutenant master and council
wrote acknowledging the kings wish to keep Docwra with him and request-
ing that he should be sent when he could be spared. Newport and Shefeld
would be kept in Rhodes in the meantime.15 Although the prior had been
retained, the two younger knights had at least been allowed to proceed to the
convent with a considerable company and large sums of cash, although this
was probably provided by exchange rather than bullion export.16 Both were
retained on conventual service until 1518, when they were sent to the west as
ambassadors.17 Newport served as a proctor of the common treasury and as
an active naval commander, and sent several reports on eastern affairs to
England, while Shefeld was captain of Bodrum castle between 1514 and
1517.18 Judging by the variety and volume of the business they were asked to
undertake, the English contingent in Rhodes exercised an unusual degree of
inuence during these years.
Besides keeping the king appraised of events in the east the order also, at
Newports suggestion, dispatched gifts of balsam and carpets to Henry by
Edward Hills in January and further luxuries by the merchant Hugh Ball in
July 1515.19 These tokens may have been intended to encourage Henry to
allow Newport and Shefeld, who were refused permission to depart in July,
to stay in Rhodes, and to permit Docwra to travel thither. While not
permitting his departure, the king nevertheless allowed Docwra to make a
remarkable donation to the order in late 1515. On 7 December Lancelot
Docwra and the priors Rhodiot servant Francis Bell handed over 20,000
ducats in unworked silver and cash to the common treasury as a gift from
their master, with instructions that it should only be spent if the Turks laid
siege to the orders possessions. Should the prior need to, he was also to be
permitted to set the donation against his responsions, although there is
no sign this was ever done.20 Moved by this generosity, in 1517 the
order sent Hills back to England with gifts of carpets and camlet for king
and prior.21

14
See below, 170; LPFD, i, nos. 2234, 2254, 2263.
15
LPFD, i, no. 2447.
16
There were thirty-eight English knights present at the assembly held to elect a new master
on 15 December 1513, whereas only sixteen were at a similar gathering on 22 November 1512.
Newport, at least, brought plenty of ready money with him, and paid the responsions of his four
preceptories due in June 1514 in cash on his arrival. See below, Table 8.1; AOM82, fo. 38r; 402,
fo. 103v, 164rv.
17
LPFD, ii, no. 4485; AOM407, fo. 150v.
18
AOM81, fo. 46v; 406, fos. 220v221r; LPFD, ii, nos. 1756, 3814, 2760, 2898, 3611,
3814; AOM82, fos. 114v, 137v.
19
LPFD, ii, nos. 17, 715; AOM404, fo. 234v; Bosio, DellIstoria, ii. 615.
20
AOM404, fos. 149r150v. The prior continued to pay the responsions of his prioral
camerae until his death. His debts to the common treasury in 1520 dated from before 1504,
and only amounted to 82 8s. AOM406, fo. 160rv; 54, fos. 1v3r.
21
AOM406, fos. 155v156v.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 165

Evidence for a close relationship between Rhodes and England in this

period is, however, mostly provided by letters written in convent, which
were naturally, given the orders need of his support, rather fulsome in their
praise of the king. The lack of surviving correspondence from England
makes it difcult to ascertain exactly how the Hospitallers were viewed at
court but other evidence hints of a certain cynicism towards news from
Rhodes, and that views of the order current at Westminster or Greenwich
were quite different from its perception of itself. Despite Henrys early
enthusiasm for eastern Mediterranean affairs, by the late 1510s the prospect
of Turkish attacks on the Christian east and calls for a crusade were some-
times treated with amusement at court. When Sebastian Giustinianini
informed the king about Turkish military preparations in March 1518
Henry replied that he had had news from Rhodes that there was nothing
to fear from the sultan in the current year, and, laughing, said that Venice
was on such good terms with the Turks that she had little cause for alarm
anyway. The real threat to Christian peace, he said, was provided by
Francis I.22 In fact, Carrettos recent letters had reported that, although
Selim was delayed in Egypt by an uprising, he was building eets in Egypt
and Rumelia, and that his dispatch of an ambassador to Rhodes to make
peace was probably a ruse before attack. Carretto was alarmed enough to
request that all brethren be sent to Rhodes to cope with this emergency.23
News from Rhodes was similarly misrepresented in December 1515, when
Wolsey wrote to the bishop of Worcester, then in Rome, to justify the kings
refusal to allow the collection of a half-tenth to support Hungary. Carrettos
last letters, he asserted, had mentioned nothing of any threat to Hungary and
had stated that the Turk was afraid of the Sophi, so Christendom had
nothing to fear.24 The orders belief that Ismails advances in Asia Minor
represented a rare opportunity for an offensive crusade had evidently pro-
duced only complacency in England. As late as May 1521, the Venetian
ambassador reported that the king and his courtiers had a quite different
perception of the way eastern affairs were progressing from Thomas
Docwra, who based his views on letters from Rhodes.25
A similarly cynical view was taken of the Hospitallers internal organiza-
tion. In common with other European rulers Henry VIII appears to have
regarded the orders system of promotion as an inconvenient obstacle to be

22
LPFD, ii, no. 4009. The king had expressed similar opinions in 1512. Housley, Religious
Warfare, 1423.
23
LPFD, ii, nos. 3607, 3695.
24
LPFD, ii, no. 1280. Wolsey was probably referring to optimistic reports of the Shahs
progress sent from Rhodes in the rst two months of 1515. A magistral missive of mid-July,
which should have reached England by December, had been much more gloomy, reporting that
although the issue was still in doubt, Selim would turn against Italy and Rhodes if he was
victorious, and that therefore Newport and Shefeld had been refused licence to depart. LPFD,
ii, nos. 17, 23, 194, 715.
25
CSPV, iii, no. 206.
166 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

bypassed rather than an essential component of its discipline and organiza-

tion. The king took a personal interest in the careers of English brethren such
as Richard Neville, Lancelot Docwra, and William Weston, and requested
their advancement by the master and council on Rhodes.26 He was particu-
larly insistent in the case of Neville, who was the brother of George Lord
Abergavenny, and a royal annuitant.27 Although Amboise wrote to the king
in October 1510 stating that he had received the young man as a novice of
his chamber, this failed to satisfy Henry, who requested that Neville be
provided with a preceptory forthwith.28 Frustrated of these wishes, the
king went over Carrettos head in July 1515, writing to Leo X. The letter
provides a real insight into the kings attitude, and early evidence for the
Hospitals role as a nishing school for naval ofcers and ambassadors.29
Complaining that he had written to three successive masters on the subject
and been ignored, Henry requested that since Neville had now nished his
military education at Rhodes, he should be provided to the rst vacant
preceptory in the orders gift.30 The kings appreciation of the orders mili-
tary utility but lack of understanding of or regard for its internal dynamic
were to receive further illustration as the reign progressed. His viewpoint
was apparently shared by Neville, who pleaded sickness so he could return
to England in late 1514,31 used the opportunity to make a complaint about
the turcopolier to Henry,32 and failed to return when promised.33
The acid test of the Hospitals relationship with the crown was the siege of
Rhodes in 1522. Unfortunately it is difcult to gauge what, if any, support
Henry VIIIs government gave to the Hospitallers in their hour of need.
Although it had been urging available brethren to come to the convent for
years, the order had less immediate warning of the sultans intentions than
had been the case in 1480, when a general citation had been issued nine
months before the siege began.34 Only on 19 March 1522, following the
return of spies from Constantinople, did LIsle Adam write to Henry VIII and
Wolsey pleading for the dispatch of the remainder of the English knights to
the convent, and stressing rather disingenuously that the orders chief hope
was in the king. Even then, the master admitted that he could not absolutely
verify that the assault was directed against Rhodes, although he pointed out

26
LPFD, i, no. 591; ii, no. 1138.
27
LPFD, i, no. 190 (36).
28
Ibid., no. 591; ii, no. 737.
29
See D. Allen, The Order of St. John as a School for Ambassadors in Counter Reforma-
tion Europe, MO, ii, 36379.
30
My italics: LPFD, ii, no. 737.
31
AOM404, fo. 147r.
32
LPFD, ii, no. 1264. The turcopolier, William Darrell, responded that he had had to
discipline Neville for immoderate speaking in a meeting of the orders council. Magistral lettersv
to the king and council upheld Darrells actions. Ibid., nos. 113940; Otho C.ix, fos. 27rv/34r .
33
Neville eventually returned to Rhodes in 1516 and was provided to Willoughton in 1519.
He fought in the siege of Rhodes in 1522. AOM405, fo. 130v; 408,fos. 135v136r; 410, fo. 177rv.
34
See above, Ch 5.2.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 167

that precautions had been taken on that basis and members of the order in
the west cited to come to Rhodes with ships.35 Further letters followed on 17
June, reporting that the Turkish eet was in sight, sending a French transla-
tion of Suleimans letter demanding the orders surrender, and requesting
that Docwra and Newport be allowed to export the coin they had collected
to Rhodes.36 This last point was signicant. Docwra, more aware of the
danger than the king and Wolsey, bought up large quantities of cloth and tin
in 1521, doubtless because he could not obtain licence to send cash, and sent
it to Rhodes. On 30 October Francis Bell agreed a composition with the
proctors of the treasury for 20,000 ducats worth of kersey and unworked tin
that Docwra had sent over and above his responsions to Rhodes. This
consignment was effectively an interest-free loan to the order to tide it
over any forthcoming siege.37 As the prior was not to be repaid until
1527, and was already old, it might almost be termed a gift. Furthermore,
in letters to the straticus and merchants of Messina in mid-October LIsle
Adam explained that due to the restrictions on the export of bullion from
England the prior and receiver of England had been commissioned to buy
cloth and tin for the use of the convent, the latter for both domestic use and
for the orders artillery. The responsions for 1521 had, they understood, just
reached Sicily in this form and they therefore requested that they be sent to
Rhodes without payment of duty, as the orders privileges required.38 It is
difcult to say whether there was any overlap between Docwras loan and
this other consignment of goods, but the commodities involved were much
the same, even if the quantities specied were not. Whether they were of as
much use to the order in 1522 as cash would have been is another matter.
In a sense, the cargoes of cloth and tin shipped to Rhodes were far more
crucial in determining the effectiveness of the English response to the siege
than any measures that could have been taken after news of it was received
in England. The English Hospitallers had been preparing for this event for
years, paying the increased responsions ordered by the convent in 1517,39
increasing the rents of selected estates,40 selling reserved assets,41 and sup-
porting an English contingent in Rhodes in 1522 that was more numerous
than it had been forty years before, and was also equipped with Henry VIIs
artillery.42 Docwras gift of 1515 is particularly noteworthy in this regard.
By contrast, the crowns reaction to the news of the siege was disappointing.
While a multitude of letters from Rome, Venice, and the Low Countries

35
LPFD, iii, nos. 211718.
36
Ibid., nos. 23245.
37
AOM409, fos. 117v118v.
38
AOM409, fos. 195v196r, 197v198r.
39
AOM54, fo. 2v.
40
See above, 70 and below, n. 55.
41
The order sold 40 acres of wood at Halse in 1519. Claudius E.vi, fo. 190rv.
42
There were probably more than twenty English brethren present at the siege of 1522. See
below, Ch. 8.3.
168 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

demonstrate that the government was kept abreast of every report and
rumour about the progress of the siege, there is no prima-facie evidence
that anything was done to help. Admittedly, Henry VIII had just renewed
the war with France when LIsle Adams letters reached England, and in
such circumstances it was difcult to prepare a military response yet there
is no evidence even that indulgences were offered for the order, and
no royal grants were issued to it. Indeed, far from helping nancially, in
1522 the crown included the prior in the assessment of an annual loan
to be devoted to the recovery of France. Docwra was to pay 1,000.43
Evidence from other sources may indicate more active Hospitaller involve-
ment in the English war effort too. The rst, a draft in the hand of the earl of
Surrey listing the ships which were to compose the navy to be sent against
France, includes the ship of the lord of St Johns in its number.44 The
second, the Dover harbour accounts, record that between 8 August and
2 September more than a hundred men of the lord of St. Johns were
shipped over to France at precisely the time when Surrey was building up
his troops for the operations which he undertook in September and Octo-
ber.45 Although both the priors inclusion in the loan and the troop move-
ments may have been set in motion before certain news of the siege reached
England in late August,46 the king did not show himself helpful in other
respects, as he refused to allow the export of bullion to aid the islands
defence despite LIsle Adams plea that he do so.47 The only indication that
the king intended to send help to the convent himself is provided by a letter
of 14 January 1523 written by Henrys ambassadors with the emperor to
their master. They thanked him for his promise of aid to Rhodes but told him
that the emperors chancellor, Gattinara, had said that there was no need of
it as the siege had been lifted.48 Conicting and often erroneous rumours of
the succour or premature fall of Rhodes bedevilled the Christian response to
the siege throughout and gave the governments of western Europe ample
excuse for not sending aid thither, but the kings lack of sympathy for the
masters requests that any monies sent to its aid should be submitted as cash
is very telling.
The orders response to the crisis was naturally rather more vigorous. On
10 September the priors men were followed across the Channel by the
horses of the receiver, John Babington, and a French Hospitaller.49 Although
there is no record of the receivers presence at the siege of Rhodes and he
does not appear in the minutes of the English langue from meetings in Italy

43
LPFD, iii, no. 2483.
44
Ibid., no. 2480.
45
LPFD, iv, Appendix no. 87, p. 3108; Chronicle of Calais, ed. Nichols, 312.
46
AOM54, fo. 67r.
47
AOM54, fos. 70r, 68r, 70v.
48
LPFD, iii, no. 2772.
49
LPFD, iv, Appendix no. 87, p.3109.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 169

in 1523 it is most probable that he was involved in nancial transactions on

the orders behalf rather than royal service on this occasion, as by mid-
October he seems to have been in southern France to pick up monies he
had exchanged for bankers drafts in London. These sums were mostly
handed over to deputies appointed to receive them by the master.50 News
of the siege, and a magistral letter of 17 June addressed to Babington, had
reached Clerkenwell on 28 August, and couriers had immediately been
dispatched to summon the English preceptors and prior of Ireland to a
provincial chapter,51 which was held on 18 September.52 With Babington
still absent, the gathering was composed of the prior and the ve other
preceptors resident in England and Wales.53 In accordance with the masters
instructions, they prepared to go to Rhodes, and leased their command-
eries.54 The order also managed to let other estates worth nearly 400, some
of them for higher rents than before.55 On 10 November a quittance was
issued for 1,766 13s. 4d. (8,000 ecus) which Babington had paid the
Genoese merchant Antonio Vivaldi, who sent the equivalent sum to the
receiver of the priory of Auvergne in Lyons. A further 13,000 ecus
(2,925) was transferred to Babington, again using Vivaldis ofces, when
he reached Lyons later in the year and was then handed over to the com-
mander of Ville Franche.56 The Nazi company of Lyons were also given
6,000 ducats (1,400) which they sent by exchange to the receivers of the
priories of Barletta and Venice,57 and Babington consigned 1,649 ecus to
Fr. Jean Yseran in Marseilles for the use of individual English brethren in
Rhodes and of Thomas Newport when he should reach Provence.58 But this
descent was never to occur. The order nally managed to dispatch a ship in
December 1522 or January 1523, possibly the one in which Surrey had been
ferrying troops over to France in the summer. Commanded by Newport, it
emulated the considerable misfortunes of earlier attempts to relieve Rhodes
by foundering off the coast of Spain on 24 January 1523, along with

50
AOM54, fos. 68r, 70v, 70r. At least some of these letters were sent by courier, however.
Ibid., fo. 68r.
51
Ibid., fos. 70r, 67r.
52
Claudius E.vi, fo. 212r.
53
Ibid. These were Thomas Newport, Edward Roche, Roger Boydell, Clement West, and
Thomas Golyn. The English preceptors in Rhodes were John Bothe, the turcopolier, Thomas
Shefeld, William Weston, Alban Pole, Nicholas Fairfax, Edward Hills, and Richard Neville. As
several preceptories were vacant due to the recent deaths of Lancelot Docwra and William
Corbet this left only the prior of Ireland and John Babington as holders of English preceptories
absent from the meeting.
54
Claudius E.vi, fos. 212r214v.
55
The farm of Hareeld was increased from 19 to 20, that of six cottages in London from
3 3s. 4d. to 4 13s. 4d., that of Sutton-at-Hone from 48 to 50, and that of Edgeware from 9
6s. 8d. to 10. Claudius E.vi, fos. 163v164r, 225v226r, 227v228r, 214v215r, 218v219r.
56
AOM54, fo. 68r.
57
Ibid., fo. 68v.
58
Ibid., fo. 70v.
170 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

its captain and most of its contingent.59 The other preceptors, despite farm-
ing their estates, may not have set off for the convent by the time that news
of the fall of Rhodes reached England in the early months of 1523.
If the response of the Hospitallers in England to news of the siege was on
an impressive scale it was also rather ponderous, and it seems probable that
some of their resources were diverted into the French war at exactly the time
when they should have been used to aid the beleaguered convent. Certainly it
would not have been the rst time Henry VIII had required the order to
provide a contingent in the royal army. The two Docwras, Newport, Shef-
eld, and William Weston had been appointed to raise and lead a force of
300 men to serve in the vanguard of the royal army in France in 1513,
although in appointing them the king was careful to stress that he had been
expressly requested to ght by Julius II.60 While there are no other certain
instances of English Hospitallers serving in a military capacity for the crown
until the 1540s, save in Ireland, the cost of providing contingents for the
royal army in 1513 and 1522 appears to have prompted the order to require
some of its tenants to provide armed men at their own expense in the event
of further expeditions.61 Henry VIIIs government also found plenty of other
occasions to employ the priors of England and Ireland, and occasionally
other brethren as well. John Rawson was kept in Ireland almost continu-
ously between 1511 and 1525, and consistently refused licence to go and
perform his conventual service. Moreover when he did go to Italy, and in
1527 exchanged the priorate for the turcopoliership held by John Babington,
the king, cutting off his incipient career as a conventual bailiff, ordered him
to reassume his former dignity.62 Thomas Docwra was in a similar position.
The prior of England became a career diplomat after 1509 and was abroad
on diplomatic business in 1510, 1511, 1514, and every year from 1517 to
1521. He served on commissions to ratify the renewal of the treaty of
Etaples and receive Louis XIIs oath to pay the arrears of the French pension
to the English crown in 1510,63 to congratulate the pope on his accession in
early 1514,64 to convey the lady Mary to France and witness her marriage to
Louis XII in the same year,65 and to witness Francis Is signature to the
Treaty of London and surrender Tournai to the French in the winter of
151819.66 With Thomas Newport, he accompanied the king to France in
59
The account book of the priory of England relates that Newport had morte e siperso su la
mer dispagna. Ibid., fos. 93v, 107r.
60
In the event the priors retinue numbered only 200 or 205 men. LPFD, i, nos. 1836 (3),
2052, 2053 (2), 2392; Chronicle of Calais, ed. Nichols, 1011.
61
PRO LR2/62, fo. 18r.
62
See below, Ch. 7.
63
LPFD, i, nos. 455, 508, 519 (47), 538, appendix, nos. 10, 11.
64
LPFD, ii, p. 1467. Docwra had been appointed to go to the Lateran council in 1512, but
the ambassadors had remained at home because of the war in Italy. LPFD, i, nos. 1048, 1067.
65
LPFD, i, nos. 3226 (21), 3186, 3193, 3240, 3298, 3324 (33), 3361, 3424; ii, no. 68.
66
LPFD, ii, nos. 4564, 4582, 4617, 4649, 46523, 4661, 4663, 4669, iii, nos. 58, 71;
Chronicle of Calais, ed. Nichols, 1718.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 171

June 1520 and played a prominent part in the festivities which accompanied
their meeting on the Field of the Cloth of Gold, acting as a judge of the jousts
and other competitions which enlivened the proceedings.67 The prior also
attended on the king and Wolsey when they met Charles V in the following
month68 and in October and November 1521 he headed his rst embassy, to
the emperor at Courtrai, in a last-ditch English attempt to restore the peace
agreed in 1518. He must have been cruelly aware that his failure to get
Charles to agree to the French peace terms might doom Rhodes to fall, as
arguably it did.69
Even when Docwra was in England, much of his time was taken up with
diplomatic and ceremonial business. He attended important public occa-
sions such as Henry VIIs funeral, his sons coronation, Wolseys procession
to celebrate his promotion to cardinal in 1515, and Charles Vs landing at
Dover in May 1522.70 He was sometimes in the company of foreign ambas-
sadors. During May 1516, for example, Docwra was one of three ecclesiasts
who accompanied the Scots ambassadors to dinner at Wolseys, while in the
same month he acted as an interpreter between the duke of Suffolk and the
Venetian ambassador.71 More formal diplomatic employment was provided
in May 1524 when he was commissioned to treat with the imperial ambas-
sadors for a joint invasion of France.72
None of this was new, and nor was the priors attendance at parliament
and on the council, which seems to have been fairly assiduous.73 But
the sheer weight of diplomatic and judicial business laid on Thomas Doc-
wras shoulders was without recent precedent, reecting an appreciation
of his worth as a talented homme daffaires, as well as the expansion
of the Tudor state. Besides the usual commissions of the peace, of sewers,
and of walls and ditches, the prior was placed in charge of conducting
searches for suspicious persons in the Islington ward of London in 1519
and 15245, and other members and servants of the order were also named

67
LPFD, iii, nos. 704 (pp. 240, 243), 869 (pp. 304, 308, 313); Rutland Papers: Original
Documents Illustrative of the Courts and Times of Henry VII and Henry VIII, ed. W. Jerdan,
CS, 1st ser., 21 (London, 1842), 302, 45.
68
LPFD, iii, no. 906; Rutland Papers, ed. Jerdan, 73.
69
LPFD, iii, nos. 1705, 17078, 1712, 171415, 1727, 1733, 1736, 1738, 17501, 1753,
1768, 1777, 1778.
70
LPFD, i, no. 20 (p. 14); H. Miller, Henry VIII and the English Nobility (Oxford, 1986),
923; LPFD, ii, no. 1153.
71
LPFD, ii, nos. 1864, 1870.
72
LPFD, iv, nos. 363, 365.
73
Docwra was present in council in sessions in autumn 1509, October 1510, June 1514, May
1516, August 1520, and October 1525, and was also often present when the council sat as a
court in Star Chamber. He sat in virtually every parliament which occurred while he was prior,
and served as a trier of petitions in the assemblies of 1515 and 1523. LPFD, i, nos. 190 (25), 257
(37), 3018; J. A. Guy, The Cardinals Court: The Impact of Thomas Wolsey in Star Chamber
(Hassocks, 1977), 379, 42; G. R. Elton, Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government,
3 vols. (Cambridge, 197483), i. 319; LPFD, ii, no. 1856; Addenda, no. 160; iii, Appendix, no.
12; iii, no. 2956.
172 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

to them.74 More occasional employment was also offered to Docwra on

commissions of gaol delivery in 1511, to muster soldiers at Southampton in
May 1512, to inquire into the extortions of the late masters of the mint in the
same year and as an assessor of loans and collector of the subsidy for the
recovery of France in 1522 and 1523, a similar demonstration of priorities to
that offered by Edward IV in 1480.75 The prior was employed on judicial
business, too, being appointed to hear various suits in 1519 and 1524 and to
determine disputes between English and French merchants in 1517.76 He
was also among the peers who passed judgement against the duke of Buck-
ingham in 1521.77
Royal service was not entirely without its rewards. The prior was able to
obtain small grants and mortmain licences from the crown in the early years
of Henry VIIIs reign and was made guardian of Kildares heir, Thomas
Fitzgerald, when the latter remained in England as a hostage for his fathers
good behaviour.78 Although it is not known when he joined the order, the
fact that Thomass uncle, John Fitzgerald, had become a Hospitaller by 1527
might indicate some family affection for the order.79 At any rate Bucking-
ham, who purchased Fitzgeralds wardship from the crown in 1519, was
sufciently impressed with Docwras care of the boy to consign his illegit-
imate son Francis to the prior when he was arrested in the following year.80
It was natural that the priors service at court and overseas should bring
him closer to the peers and gentlemen serving the crown and there are signs
that Docwra did his best to turn this to his advantage. In 1517 the convent
on Rhodes conrmed grants of confraternity made by an English provincial
chapter in the previous year to Thomas Stanley, earl of Derby, and to the
priors colleague on diplomatic work, Charles Somerset earl of Worcester.81
Another courtier who had served with the prior overseas, Sir Nicholas Vaux
(created Lord Vaux in 1522), was buried at the priory in 1523,82 and
Docwra also had dealings with the earl of Northumberland, who was
related to the Hospitaller knight Nicholas Fairfax, and to whom the prior
lent money in the early 1520s.83 But links with court might also have helped
74
The prior was regularly named to commissions of the peace in Middlesex, Essex, Hert-
fordshire, Warwickshire, and Bedfordshire. LPFD, passim. His service as a commissioner of the
search is recorded in LPFD, iii, no. 365; iv, no. 1082; Addenda, nos. 4302.
75
LPFD, i, nos. 731 (27), 969 (17), 1083 (24), 1221 (6); iii, nos. 2485, 3504; iv, no. 214 (82).
76
LPFD, iii, no. 571; Addenda, no. 422; ii, no. 3861.
77
LPFD, iii, no. 1284 (p.493).
78
LPFD, i, no. 414 (13), iii, no. 2482 (11), no. 1070 (30).
79
AOM412, fo. 201v.
80
C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham 13941521
(Cambridge, 1978), 137; LPFD, iii, no. 1285, pp.5024.
81
AOM406, fos. 155rv, 156r.
82
Miller, English Nobility, 18; Smith, PRO PROB11/21 (PCC 11 Bodfelde).
83
LPFD, Addenda, no. 312 (i, iv); iv, no. 3380. Fairfax was one of the earls attorneys
appointed to receive the prots of his courts in Lent 1521. On Fairfaxs death in 1523
Northumberland acted as the executor of his spolia. LPFD, Addenda, no. 312 (i); AOM54,
fo. 95r.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 173

to attract the unwelcome attention of those seeking grants of the orders

property or the ofces in its gift. The Hospitaller estates in and around
London were particularly attractive to land-hungry crown servants in
Henry VIIIs reign, as the court expanded. Thus an orchard and gardens
belonging to the priory in Fleet street, which had been demised to Richard
Empson for a term of ninety-nine years, were regranted to Thomas Wolsey
by the rst provincial chapter held after Empsons execution.84 Similar
alacrity was demonstrated by the cardinal when another of the orders
houses fell vacant by the death of Thomas Layeland in 1523. Wolsey
asked it should be given to Thomas Tonge, Norroy Herald, in recompense
for the services of his brother, father, and ancestors to the religion.85 In the
same year the cardinal sent a rather stronger letter on the subject of the
orders house at Bridewell, which the king had asked should be allocated to
the justices Sir John Fineux and John Roper, who needed a convenient house
to keep their records in. Docwras reply that a reversion of the property had
already been granted to Sir Thomas Neville under capitular seal, and could
not be revoked, brought a sharp response. Neville, said Wolsey, had remitted
all interest in the matter to the king, with the tenor of whose letters the prior
should comply without excuse or delay.86 Further requests for property were
initiated by Richard Lord Darcy and others.87
The most blatant pressure from court for a grant of Hospitaller property
in fact came from the cardinal himself. Although Hampton Court had been
leased to him on much the same terms as Daubeney had held it in 1514, the
cardinal sought a permanent grant of the property. In return he proposed to
give the order enough to be able to purchase a replacement estate of equal
value, but when his proposal was put to the chapter-general in 1517, it
replied sternly that the original grant of 1495 was in breach of the statutes
and refused to countenance anything as unseemly as exchanging estates for
cash. Instead it was ordained that the cardinal should only have a permanent
grant of the manor if he could supply in exchange a property free from
litigation and worth a third more than Hampton Court.88
Although some of his business was doubtless nominal, there remains the
impression that Docwras workload in the royal service was exceptional,
and must have affected the running of the priory. It seems likely that the
prior found it difcult to discharge his duties, particularly with respect to his
defence of the orders rights in the courts. After 1516 the vice-receiver, John
Babington, and Clement West were prosecuting the farmers of Slebech for
over 90 which had been owing on Robert Evers death,89 and the Hospital
was also defending its rights over Halston,90 and against the earl of Devon in
the courts.91 Despite his claims to be allowed a pension against his legal

84 85 86
LPFD, i, no. 357 (43). LPFD, iii, no. 3679. Ibid., no. 3678.
87 88
LPFD, Addenda, no. 211; iii, no. 1669. AOM406, fos. 162v164r.
89 v 90 91
AOM54, fo. 13 . PRO REQ2/4/212. LPFD, iv, no. 771 (p. 341).
174 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

costs, the priors liberal distribution of loans and gifts to the convent in the
1510s and 1520s show that the difculty in prosecuting such actions was not
lack of money to execute them. Yet the orders legal business was evidently
being neglected. On 27 March 1517 the convent complained to the prior
that it had learned that much business touching the religion was in great
peril in England because of a lack of solicitors and promoters in the kings
courts and that it expected the prior to act in these matters.92 Furthermore,
when Thomas Newport was appointed the orders ambassador to Henry
VIII in June 1518 he was instructed not only to ask for the kings help in
furthering the crusade planned by Leo X, but also his aid in conserving the
Hospitals liberty and property in its many and various actions in Eng-
land.93 Whether Docwra was too busy to attend to affairs properly or was
neglecting those actions that did not directly concern the prioral estates
because of pique at the convents refusal to grant him a pension to uphold
his legal costs is unclear.
In addition to legal actions against the farmers of its estates, in 151819
the order was also forced to defend its rights of sanctuary against the crown.
These had already come under attack from royal justices in the reigns of
Edward IV and Henry VII, but an important test case begun in 1516 was to
destroy the Hospitallers claims in this eld.94 The affair was triggered by the
murder of John Pauncefote, a Gloucestershire justice shot and mutilated on
his way to the sessions in 1516. One of the murderers, Sir John Savage,
sheriff of Worcester, took sanctuary at Clerkenwell after the killing but was
seized a month later and taken to the Tower. He recited the priorys title to
sanctuary by prescription, papal bull, royal conrmation, and allowance in
the reigns of Henrys VII and VIII in his defence.95 Although by the following
year Savage had waived his plea, the prior was nevertheless summoned to
justify the claims of his house. On 10 November 1519, in a session of the
Inner Star Chamber at which the king himself presided, Wolsey and the two
chief justices argued over the priorys rights. Henry, who seems to have taken
a personal interest in this matter, stated that sanctuary had never been
intended to serve for voluntary murder and vowed that he would reduce
the privilege to the original plan intended by its founders.96 Other rulings

92
AOM406, fos. 155v156r.
93
AOM407, fos. 176r177r.
94
Thornley, Sanctuary, 1978, 2001; The Reports of Sir John Spelman, ed. J. H. Baker,
2 vols. (London, 19768), ii. 3424. The text of the 151619 action is provided in Reports
dascuns cases . . . de Robert Keilwey Esquire, ed. J. Croke (London, 1688), 188a192b.
95
The justices had declared in 1399 that the king could not alienate the royal prerogative of
pardoning felony, although those who already held such rights by prescription supported by
allowance in eyre might legitimately continue to exercise them. By the time of Henry VIII no
sanctuary could be maintained in law, unless the owner could show a royal grant as the basis of
the privilege, supported by usage and by allowance in eyre. The pleading of papal bulls was not
only useless but dangerous, as it left those resorting to such expedients liable to the penalties of
praemunire. Thornley, Sanctuary, 1978.
96
Reports of Sir John Spelman, ed. Baker, ii. 3434; Thornley, Sanctuary, 2001.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 175

against felons who took sanctuary on the orders property followed and by
1520 its privileges had effectively been lost, an important factor in Docwras
defeat being his failure to produce sufcient evidence of a royal grant of
sanctuary rights to the order.97
Another important challenge to the order was, like the attack on sanctu-
ary, not aimed chiey at the Hospital but a matter which nevertheless came
to involve it. The 1517 inquisition into rural depopulation and enclosure
laid down that where houses had decayed or been destroyed and agricultural
land converted into pasture since the statutes passed against enclosure in
1489, 1514, and 1515 the tenant would be required to pay half the value of
the same houses and lands to the king or lord of the fee until they were
rebuilt or restored to their original usage.98 A substantial number of mag-
nates fell foul of this inquiry, the prior of St John prominent among them.99
The order or its farmers were found to have enclosed land at Shingay in
Cambridgeshire, Greenham and Woolhampton in Berkshire, at Hogshaw
and Addington in Buckinghamshire, Kirby in Northamptonshire, and
Ryton-on-Dunsmore in Warwickshire, an impressive showing considering
that returns only survive for eleven counties and are not always complete.100
Subsequent proceedings against Docwra in chancery and the Exchequer
survive in the cases of Greenham, Woolhampton, and Hogshaw. The priors
servant Thomas Layeland appeared in chancery to answer for the enclosures
at Greenham and Woolhampton in 1518. Although Layeland pleaded that
land use there alternated between tillage and pasture, the prior was never-
theless put under a bond of 100 to rebuild the devastated messuages in
each.101 The case against the farmer of Hogshaw, Ralph Lane, was rather
stronger. Eight messuages belonging to the Hospital had been allowed to
decay during his occupation of the property and 213 acres of land, worth
15 per annum, had been enclosed.102 Under the statute of 1489, when Lane
failed to repair the damage to the decayed houses, the moiety of their prots
fell to the crown. Accordingly, the moieties of certain messuages, worth

97
LPFD, Addenda, no. 208; Reports of Sir John Spelman, ed. Baker, 344.
98
E. Kerridge, The Returns of the Inquisitions of Depopulation, EHR 70 (1955), 21228,
at 21213; Statutes, iii. 127, 1767.
99
Nine lay peers, three bishops, thirty-two knights, and fty-one heads of religious houses
(including Docwra) were proceeded against. J. J. Scarisbrick, Cardinal Wolsey and the Com-
mon Weal, in Ives et al. (eds.), Wealth and Power in Tudor England, 4567, at 63, 60.
100
Scarisbrick, Cardinal Wolsey, 60; I. S. Leadam, The Inquisition of 1517: Inclosures and
Evictions, Part III, London and Suburbs, TRHS, 2nd ser., 8 (1894), 253331, at 304; The
Domesday of Inclosures 15171518, ed. I. S. Leadam, 2 vols., consecutively paged (London,
1897), 11718, 150, 1925, 2001, 2945, 429. An incomplete entry also indicates that at least
some of the orders estates at Sandford in Oxfordshire had been enclosed. Ibid. 3623.
101
Scarisbrick, Cardinal Wolsey, 60; Kerridge, Inquisitions of Depopulation, 216. Scar-
isbrick says Melchbourne here, citing Kerridge, but it seems clear that Kerridge is referring to
Greenham and Woolhampton, as he states that the enclosed lands amounted to 46 acres and two
messuages in two Berkshire villages, which is equivalent to the returns for the latter settlements
given by the inquisition of 1517. Domesday of Inclosures, ed. Leadam, 11718, 150.
102
Domesday of Inclosures, ed. Leadam, 1925.
176 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

69s. 4d. per annum, were granted to one of the enclosure commissioners,
Roger Wigston, in May 1527.103 Moreover, the grant was backdated to
November 1515, and in 1531 the prior ordered to pay all that was thus
owing from the previous fteen years.104 This was a considerable sum, and if
the rest of the orders property at Hogshaw was dealt with in a similar way,
the prior would have been left with a bill of over 100 from only one of his
estates. Half the prots of other Hospitaller estates under investigation in
1517 may also have been seized, although placing the offending landlord
under a bond to repair decayed properties was a more common penalty.
Even if the sequestration was not repeated elsewhere, it illustrated the
potential dangers of the orders allowing or even encouraging its tenants to
enclose their lands. Clauses allowing enclosure were common in leases
granted in provincial chapter, and Ralph Lane had been so licensed in two
leases granted to him since the relevant statutes had passed.105
In the aftermath of the fall of Rhodes, the extent of the priors involvement
in English affairs almost certainly militated against his visiting Italy and
participating in conventual business there. Yet his closeness to the court
must also have helped him advocate the orders interests there at an uncer-
tain time during which the convent migrated around Italy without a per-
manent home, harried by war, ravaged by plague, and threatened with
the conscation of its eet and, worse still, its lands in Portugal, Naples,
and Germany.106 Initially, the orders existence was not threatened in Eng-
land, despite reports from English agents in Rome that the master, Philippe
Villiers de LIsle Adam, was held in contempt by Adrian VI and that
Thomas Shefeld, the masters seneschal, and bailiff of Eagle, had disre-
garded the royal will.107 Although the evidence is uncertain, Henry may
even have allowed Docwra a brief visit to the convent in 1523. On 22
September LIsle Adam wrote to the king saying that he had sent our
prior and the turcopolier, William Weston, to England the previous
month, but that they had been delayed by the orders entry into Rome.108
It seems unlikely, however, that the dignitary in question was Thomas
Docwra rather than another prior of the order. In July 1523 Docwra was
reported to be supporting one Swift in a suit for the lands of Lord

103
LPFD, iv, no. 3142 (18); Domesday of Inclosures, ed. Leadam, 4902.
104
Domesday of Inclosures, ed. Leadam, 4902.
105
Claudius E.vi, fos. 38rv, 110rv.
106
LPFD, iv, 2810, 2915, 4666; see below, n. 113.
107
LPFD, iii, no. 3025 (Hannibal to Wolsey, 15 May 1523). Hannibal reported that the
master was ruled by Shefeld, who had not done his duty (to cast his vote for Docwra?) in the
magistral election of 1521 and in other things. On the same date a junior knight, Nicholas
Roberts, wrote to the earl of Surrey complaining that despite having presented the letters of the
king, Wolsey, and Norfolk in his favour to the master, and another such letter of recommenda-
tion to Shefeld, the bailiff of Eagle had persuaded LIsle Adam to confer the vacant preceptory
of Dinmore on him instead, and had said that neither the cardinal nor my lords grace should
think to rule the master. Ibid., no. 3026.
108
LPFD, iii, nos. 33567.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 177

Mounteagle,109 and he was not present at meetings of the English langue

held in July and August.110 Further letters from the master in December
reported Clement VIIs election and eagerness to restore the Hospital, nar-
rated that the pope had asked the emperor for the grant of Malta and other
necessities, and besought the king to protect the order in his dominions.111
In response, Henry VIII wrote on the Hospitals behalf to the kings of
Hungary and Poland in January 1524, and reported to LIsle Adam that he
was impressed by the care and love with which his emissaries had outlined
its needs, and had written to Charles V on behalf of its request for Malta.112
At a time when the viceroy of Naples and the king of Portugal had seques-
trated various of the orders lands, and when the priory of Castile was being
disputed between two ducal bastards, the support of Henry VIII must have
come as a welcome relief.113 But it came, as ever, at a price. In August 1524
the turcopolier, William Weston, set off to Italy with fourteen novices to
replenish the numbers of English knights in convent. Travelling incognito as
Christopher Barber he was entrusted with 50,000 crowns (ecus), which
were to be delivered to Henrys agents in Rome, who would then keep it
ready to be passed on to the ultimate beneciary, the renegade duke of
Bourbon. The party travelled via Antwerp and had reached the convent at
Viterbo by 3 October.114 There are conicting reports of what then hap-
pened to the money. John Clerk wrote to Wolsey from Rome on 10 October
saying that Sir John Russell had arrived on the 8th with the funds sent with
the turcopolier, yet on the same day Russell reported that he had met Weston
at Viterbo, but, having heard news of the break-up of Bourbons army, had
left the cash with him and returned to Rome.115 The money seems to have
remained with William Weston until December, by which time the cardinal
had advised that it should be transferred home by exchange.116 Carrying so
much cash around, especially in the turbulent conditions then prevailing in
Italy, may have put Weston in some danger. The pope advised him not to stay
in Viterbo with it for fear of the pro-French Orsini, but he remained there
nonetheless, so ill with gout that when Wolseys will became known he was
unable to ride to Rome to hand over his charge.117

109
Ibid., nos. 33567, 3187. The prior dispatched with the turcopolier was not named. BL
MS Cotton Vitellius B.v, fo. 203.
110
BDVTE, 46.
111
LPFD, iii, nos. 3610, 3664.
112
AOM57 cc. 24 (originally 13); Galea, Henry VIII, 5961. For the text and an English
translation of Henrys letter to the king of Poland, see B. Szczesniak, The Knights Hospitallers in
Poland and Lithuania (The Hague, 1969), 389.
113
R. Valentini, I Cavalieri di S. Giovanni de Rodi a Malta: Trattative diplomatiche,
Archivum Melitense, 9/4 (1934), 137237, at 139; Sire, Knights of Malta 151.
114
LPFD, iv, no. 590; BDVTE, 401.
115
LPFD, iv, nos. 7245.
116
Ibid., no. 909.
117
Ibid.
178 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

The Hospitallers again proved useful when the English government

sought the return of its funds. In early December Russell, seeking to avoid
the exorbitant fees of the Rome bankers, entrusted 10,000 crowns to Doc-
wras servant Francis Bell, who had a commission from his master to receive
the money for the order. Docwra would repay the sum in like money or
sterling in six months time.118 By the time Wolsey changed his mind early in
the following year, and ordered that the money be entrusted to the imperi-
alists, the turcopolier and Bell had returned to England along with 18,000
crowns.119
The frenzied diplomacy of the 1520s continued to provide service for the
English Hospitallers as couriers for both crown and order. When LIsle
Adam visited Spain in 1525 to try to arrange a peace between the emperor
and the then captive Francis I the junior knight Bryan Tunstall was sent to
the English ambassadors in Toledo with letters.120 Early in the following
year LIsle Adam, still in Madrid, dispatched Ambrose Layton, the
commander of Yeaveley, to the king with instructions to seek help in re-
establishing the order, and the same messenger carried Henry VIIIs replies to
the masters letters in August.121 Another Hospitaller, Antonio Bosio, also
visited England in 1525/6. Although the instructions given to Layton and
Bosio do not survive, it is clear that their missions to England were chiey
connected with the orders projected recapture of Rhodes, in which Bosio
was the leading actor. A letter written by a Rhodiot priest to the master in
1525 reporting the willingness of the janissaries and Rhodiots on the island
to hand it over survives among the Hospitaller correspondence in the British
Library, while in the following year John III of Portugal wrote to Henry VIII
thanking him for his letters on the affair of Rhodes, which had been carried
to him by Bosio, and promising to donate 15,000 ducats to the cause.122
A letter from Bosio to the cardinal requesting Henrys answer to the letters of
the pope, emperor, king of Portugal, and master in the orders favour, and
stressing that the matter was not to be mentioned to the Venetians or
Florentines, also survives.123
Relations between crown and order thus appear to have been quite
constructive after the siege of Rhodes. Yet there are hints that by 1526
king and cardinal were losing patience with the order. Henry VIII took
more than six months to reply to the letters sent with Layton in late January
1526 and when he did so expressed disappointment at the orders failure to

118
LPFD, nos. 9234.
119
Ibid., nos. 10856. Bell had been given a safe conduct by the order on 5 December, and on
4 January John Babington was ordered to pay Weston 442 ducats for his stipend in going on the
orders business to the king. AOM411, fos. 205r, 188v.
120
LPFD, iv, nos. 1655, 1684.
121
Ibid., nos. 19345; AOM57, c. 9 (originally 5); Galea, Henry VIII, 623.
122
LPFD, iv, nos. 2270, 2271 (i). For this affair see Vatin, LOrdre, 36871.
123
LPFD, iv, no. 2271 (ii).
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 179

decide on the offer of Malta, but hoped that the forthcoming chapter-general
would come to a decision about it and asked to be informed as soon as it did
so.124 Although the king promised continued support for the Hospital in this
letter, relations between crown and convent had come to a very poor pass by
the rst months of 1527. The cause of the breakdown is unclear, but seems to
have been made up of several elements. There may have been genuine
irritation in England that despite the kings approval of the cession of
Malta, and his letters to other monarchs in the orders favour, it had still
failed to nd a home. Until it should do so, it could hardly full its functions
efciently and its endowments and responsions might be seen as being
wasted. Additionally, there are hints that Henry, always touchy where
matters of honour were concerned, was piqued that the master of the
order had seen t to visit the emperor and Francis I but failed to pay his
respects to him. He was after all the orders protector, a title constantly
stressed in the convents correspondence, yet his protection was evidently
not as worthwhile as that of his rivals. LIsle Adam wrote to Henry in
February 1527 stressing that he had wanted to visit England from Bordeaux,
but had been recalled by the pope to discuss the recovery of Rhodes.125
A nal grief was provided by the orders delay in granting the prioral
preceptory of Sandford to Wolsey for his projected college at Oxford, a
decision which had been held over until the chapter-general which was to be
held at Viterbo in May. Despite a conciliatory gift of carpets by Thomas
Docwra, there must be a suspicion that the cardinal, irked at this obstruction
of his plans, played on the kings sense of injury to bring about what
occurred in early 1527.126
On 25 February 1527 LIsle Adam wrote to the king apologizing for his
failure to visit England, narrating his return journey to the convent and
recounting that on arriving in Viterbo he had been shocked to learn that
Henry had forbidden the goods of the order to be taken out of England and
ordered the English knights to serve at Calais. He begged the king to desist
from this scheme, which would serve as an evil example to other Christian
princes.127 A urry of orders demonstrates how seriously the convent took
this threat. An envoy, Carlo Pipa, was dispatched to England and the prior
was given power to hand Sandford over to the cardinal in advance of the
decision of chapter. In return, Wolsey was asked to induce the king to revoke
his letter forbidding the export of responsions and ordering its brethren
to repair to Calais.128 Docwra, however, was probably already sick, the
124
AOM57, c. 9 (originally 5).
125
LPFD, iv, no. 2915.
126
Ibid., no. 6184 (p. 2767).
127
Ibid., no. 2915. The master also went on to say that he would try to comply with Henrys
letter of 14 January, although the latter, curiously, made no mention of the Calais business at all,
but rather sought the masters help in securing preferment for the kings Latin secretary, Peter
Vannes. AOM57, c. 10 (originally 6); Galea, Henry VIII, 623.
128
AOM412, fos. 193rv, 249rv; LPFD, iv, no. 2909.
180 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

vultures were hovering over the priory, and the king apparently refused to
see Pipa. The priors death on 17 April129 could not have come at a worse
time. Not only had Pipas mission failed to secure the abandonment of
the Calais scheme, but as the prior lay dying the king expressed his wish
to grant the prioral lands and those of other Hospitaller brethren to courtiers
as they fell vacant. Thus Thomas Magnus wrote to Wolsey on 12 April
requesting that provision should be made for Henrys illegitimate son the
duke of Richmond out of the orders estates.130 The threat was serious
enough for the courtier Sir Richard Weston, brother of the turcopolier
William, to write to the cardinal begging that his siblings rights be upheld
and he be promoted to the dignity should Docwra die.131 Despite this
appeal, the king made good his threats on the priors death, for both
the prioral estates and Docwras personal possessions were seized by the
crown.132
The chapter-general which met in Viterbo on 20 May 1527133 was still
unaware of these developments, although steps were taken to remedy the
issues which LIsle Adam evidently believed lay behind the Calais scheme,
namely the delay in granting the Oxfordshire preceptory of Sandford to
Wolsey and the orders failure to nd a home. The commission to Docwra,
Alban Pole, and John Babington to hand over Francford to the cardinal was
ratied in chapter on 31 May and, under pressure from the Spanish and
German langues to decide on the emperors offer of Malta, the chapter voted
on 20 May to accept the island.134
Whether because there had been no news from Pipa, or because of the
upheavals attendant upon the convents relocation to Corneto in early June
to escape the imperial troops who had sacked Rome,135 nothing more was
done about the English situation in convent until the master and council had
been appraised of Docwras death, although John Rawsons appointments as
prior and magistral lieutenant in Ireland were conrmed, probably because
he had been summoned home.136 Headquarters was probably aware of the
priors illness before this, however, for on 4 June Rawson was also granted
expectancy to the priory of England and other dignities of the langue after
William Weston.137

129
A later suit in chancery, the manuscript recording which is damaged, gives the date of
death as 17 Ma[rch], but the date of another event in Docwras last illness, also in March, is
crossed out in a contemporary hand, and April substituted. PRO C1/392/57.
130
LPFD, iv, no. 3036.
131
Ibid., no. 3035.
132
There is no evidence for the seizure in Letters and Papers, but it can be inferred from the
orders later protests. See below.
133
AOM85, fo. 28r; 286, fo. 3r.
134
LPFD, iv, no. 3141; AOM412, fo. 197v (Sandford); AOM286, fos. 5rv (Malta).
135
AOM85, fo. 28v; Bosio, DellIstoria, iii. 58.
136
AOM412, fos. 193v194v, 196v.
137
Ibid., fos. 193v194v.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 181

News of the priors demise apparently arrived in late June, possibly by the
23rd and certainly by the 26th, when Clement West protested before the
council that a future prior of England, the dignity now being vacant, should
not be given the fth camera which Docwra had held, since it pertained
instead to him. Wests protest was overruled and it was decreed that the
priory and all its appropriated preceptories should be reallocated according
to the custom of the langue.138 On 27 June Weston was duly elected prior by
the council ordinary on the same terms as Docwra, with Melchbourne again
serving as the prioral fth camera.139 On the same day John Rawson
exchanged the priory of Ireland for the turcopoliership, and John Babington
was elected to Kilmainham, despite a rival claim by West.140 In accordance
with the practice followed since Thomas Docwra had been granted the
priory of Ireland, and which had recently been the subject of a protest by
West, Babington was allowed to retain his English preceptory, Dalby and
Rothley.141 Westons former preceptories, meanwhile, were both granted to
Rawson, Ribston by meliormentum in exchange for Swingeld, and Din-
more by magistral grace.142 Despite also having petitioned for Swingeld
Clement West received nothing, a snub which may have rankled later.143
The convent does not seem to have been informed of the seizure of the
priory and of Docwras goods much before 4 July, when the well-oiled
machinery for dealing with such ts of monarchical pique swung into action.
On 23 June LIsle Adam had written to Henry VIII stating that he was
sending Rawson home to explain the present state of the orders affairs,
and announcing Westons collation to the priory of England. The royal
sequestration of the priory was seemingly not mentioned.144 Changing
news from England may have caused the modication of Rawsons mission,
however, for it was not until the rst week of July that he and Weston were
granted licence to go home and assume their dignities, although Rawson was
also granted leave to proceed to Ireland.145 At the same time Carlo Pipa was
instructed to return to England to be followed by a more formal embassy
headed by Jean Pregent de Bidoux, the prior of S. Gilles, and letters were
dispatched to the king and cardinal.

138
AOM85, fos. 28v29r.
139
Ibid., fo. 29r; 412, fos. 198r199r; Bosio, DellIstoria, iii. 58.
140
AOM85, fo. 29v; 412, fo. 199r.
141
AOM85, fos. 24rv; 412, fo. 199r.
142
AOM412, fos. 199rv, 199v.
143
Swingeld was also claimed by the conventual knights Edward Bellingham and Roland
White, the council deciding on Bellingham because White, despite having been received into the
order more than three years before, had still not produced adequate proofs of nobility. AOM85,
fo. 29v.
144
LPFD, iv, no. 3196. The letter is re damaged, so it is difcult to be sure. Otho C.ix, fos.
50rv/62rv.
145
AOM85, fo. 29v; 412, fo. 201v. Weston was also, on 5 July, appointed the masters
lieutenant in the priory of England, with the usual powers. AOM412, fos. 202r203r.
182 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

Pipas instructions were brief and left him considerable scope for man-
oeuvre.146 Passing into England he was to nd the receiver (and now prior of
Ireland) John Babington, and Roger Boydell, and inform them of their
promotions. Associating with them and others, he was to decide on the
best way of proceeding with respect to Docwras spolia, and was to present
the letters of the master and convent to Wolsey, the French ambassadors in
England and others, so that they could use their inuence in that regard. As
soon as he had executed his instructions he was to return to headquarters.
Bidoux was given more specic orders, which explain the events of 1527
more fully than earlier sources. King Henry, he was informed, had com-
manded that none of the orders goods should be allowed out of the country
and had proposed to nd employment for those knights who were his
subjects in Calais until we should have some stable and convenient place
for our exercitio, a course of action which would prevent the orders
brethren from fullling their duty and would cause their ships to give
offence rather than to be useful to Christians. Bidoux was further informed
that although both Clement VII and the master had written to the king about
this no resolution had yet been achieved, and that following the death of
Docwra Henry had not only caused his goods to be sequestrated, but had
also expressed his wish to give the priory to a secular person, which would
be the total ruin of our religion. To remedy this situation Bidoux was to go
to France and summon Jacques de Bourbon, another prominent French
Hospitaller, to his side. The two were to ask Francis I to write to Henry
VIII and Wolsey in the orders favour, and then proceed to England where
they should discuss what should be done with the English brethren. They
were to go before Wolsey, thank him for his past assistance, and entreat him
to approach the king on their behalf, informing Henry of the perils facing the
religion, of its acceptance of Malta, of news from the Levant and of any
other matters they considered appropriate. The appeal for the cardinals
assistance was bolstered by a magistral letter promising to hold a chapter-
general at which the exchange of Sandford would be proposed shortly. Once
more it was stressed that the handover could not be effected without the
consent of chapter, and, LIsle Adam now added, the presence of the English
knights. This was perhaps a hint that if the refusal to let members of the
order leave the country were not lifted the exchange would remain still-
born.147
Having spoken to Wolsey, the ambassadors were to approach the king,
and ask him to leave the disposition of the orders business to the master and
convent, as his predecessors had done, so as not to increase the difculties
under which it laboured in this time of afiction, or provide encouragement
to others to invade and usurp the benefactions of past generations of the

146
AOM412, fo. 252v.
147
Ibid., fos. 254rv (Partial text in Valentini, I Cavalieri, 1946); LPFD, iv, no. 3242.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 183

faithful. They were to tell the king of Westons election, and were to beg that
Henry uphold his collation, making the king understand that to bestow the
priory outside the order would lead to its total ruin, and would encourage
other princes to do the same. They were further to inform the king that the
order had accepted Malta on condition that the emperor donate it freely, and
that ambassadors had been sent to the king of France and Charles to effect
this.148
The accompanying letter to the king more or less duplicated the verbal
message to be conveyed by the orders ambassadors. Henry was entreated to
lift the sequestration, to recognize Westons election, and to relinquish the
orders possessions, business and faculties to its care. He was assured that
the past bequests of the faithful, formerly employed in the east, would be
honoured with continued service in works of hospitality, and the defence of
pilgrims and all Christians sailing in indel-infested waters. By always
undertaking such works the order would avoid arrogance and thus not
incur jealousy. To achieve these ends the Hospital had accepted Malta for
its dwelling and for the exercise of its functions, as Bidoux and Bourbon
would more fully explain. Finally, the king was humbly requested to approve
the orders decision and labour along with Charles V for its establishment on
Malta in accordance with his heroic virtues and merits and his titles of
protector (of the order) and Defender of the Faith.149
These appeals, eloquent though they were, appear never to have been
delivered. According to Bosio, the ambassadors returned to the convent,
now in Nice,150 in late 1527, with the king having refused even to see them.
Henrys courtiers had reported that he was angry because he had been
slighted by the order by having not been appraised of the fall of Rhodes or
the proposal to acquire Malta, and that the grand masters failure to visit
England was strictly a secondary issue.151 In fact Henrys own letters show
that he had been fully informed on both matters, although LIsle Adams visit
to Spain and France in 15257 may have left him with the impression that
negotiations of which he was not aware were going on behind his back and
that he was being excluded from involvement in the orders choice of a new
home. The reasons for the sequestration of the priory on Docwras death are
surely closer to those suggested in the convents letter to the king, involving
jealousy of the orders wealth and irritation at its perceived arrogance and
inactivity. Certainly the royal proposal to have the English knights serve in
Calais until they should nd a home suggests a genuine belief that the

148
AOM412, fo. 254rv; Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 53.
149
AOM412, fo. 253rv; Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 53.
150
The convent left Corneto after an outbreak of plague in August 1527, going rst to Ville
Franche and reaching Nice in early November. AOM85, fos. 31v33r.
151
Bosio, DellIstoria, iii. 5860. Bosios contention is upheld by the fact that the letters
entrusted to Bidoux and Bourbon and addressed to Henry do not survive in the Public Record
Ofce or British Library.
184 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

Hospitallers were not fullling their responsibilities, although this, as well as

Henrys irritation at not having been properly consulted, was probably
whipped up by courtiers eager to get their hands on the orders property. It
is interesting that Magnuss letter requesting that the duke of Richmond
should be a beneciary of any conscation also suggested that some of the
proceeds should be devoted to the upkeep of Berwick. Both the Calais
project and Magnuss idea suggest a perception that if the Hospitallers
were no longer useful to Christendom as a whole their resources and
military traditions would be better employed in the defence of the English
commonweal.152
The king was certainly aware of the orders military capabilities, and
particularly its naval prowess,153 and seems to have envisaged a naval role
for the order at Calais, as suggested by the convents worries that the scheme
might cause its ships to offend against other Christians.154 Although there
were recent parallels in the secularization of the Teutonic order in Prussia
and the attempts to devote the Spanish military orders to the defence of the
Portuguese and Castilian crowns north African bases, Henrys ideas also
had similarities with Edward IIIs wartime insistence that responsions should
be devoted to the defence of the realm and underlined the fact that unless the
Hospitallers were seen to be useful, they might become extinct.155 Having
stressed its defence of Christendom and deance of the Turk in its propa-
ganda for so many years, it is not surprising that when it seemed to be failing
to full this role, the order came under attack.
The masters response to the failure of his emissaries was appropriately
decisive. On 5 December 1527 he proposed in council that as business was
occurring in England and France which could not be dealt with without his
presence he would proceed there, notwithstanding his age or the perils and
colds of winter. The bailiff of Casp, Juan de Homedes, and a number of other
brethren were elected to accompany him.156 LIsle Adams mission to Eng-
land is one of the most interesting episodes in the orders sixteenth-century
history, and was celebrated appropriately by Giacomo Bosio, but his visit
virtually escaped notice in contemporary English sources, evidence being
chiey provided by the orders archives and Bosio, who was evidently
furnished with information which does not appear among the orders regis-
ters, perhaps from family tradition passed down by his relatives Antonio and
Tommaso. The former was often used as an envoy by the order in the 1520s

152
Hoyle, Origins, 2823.
153
He had perhaps been alerted to this by the exploits of the Hospitaller Jean Pregent de
Bidoux in the Channel in the early years of his reign. E. Hall, Chronicle (London, 1809), 5356,
560, 5689.
154
AOM412, fo. 254r.
155
Luttrell, Military Orders, 332, 34850; Tyerman, England, 32442; N. Housley, The
Later Crusades 12741580 (Oxford, 1992), 4504.
156
AOM85, fo. 33v.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 185

and 1530s, and was sent on ahead of the master in 1528, while the latter was
also among the masters entourage in England in the same year.157
It was not until 2 January 1528 that LIsle Adam left Nice.158 Travelling
across France in a rather leisurely fashion, he had reached Avignon by 13
January, Lyons by 27 January, and Paris by 24 February. He remained in the
French capital until at least 13 March but had arrived in Clerkenwell by 26
April.159 His way was prepared by Antonio Bosio, who according to his
nephew Giacomo not only managed to smooth the kings rufed feathers,
but also to secure the promise of 20,000 crowns to aid the reconquest of
Rhodes, and letters from the king and cardinal conrming this.160 Bosio
records that LIsle Adam was received into London with much pomp by
Henry, Wolsey, and the nobility and lodged at the royal palace. The king
apparently took a personal interest in the masters account of the siege of
Rhodes, and professed himself enthusiastic at the prospect of the islands
recovery, which was still being plotted. He conrmed the orders privileges,
reiterated his commitment to make a donation to the cause, eventually
contributing artillery rather than cash, and both released Docwras spolia
and remitted an annual levy of 4,000 which he had supposedly imposed on
William Weston.161
Bosios account of the last of these events seems to be based on a misread-
ing of LIsle Adams travel-bullarium. As this document demonstrates, the
royal threat to seize the priory had been lifted by Weston before the master
reached England.162 An instrument drawn up at Clerkenwell on 19 May
1528 explains that the prior, having been prevented from assuming his
dignity for a long time, and acting on the advice of bailiffs and preceptors
of the order, had given Henry 4,000 out of the responsions and other
monies belonging to the common treasury, and by means of this payment,
and a promise to pay other sums annually, had obtained possession. There
is no indication that these annual payments amounted to 4,000 or anything
like it. Although LIsle Adam may have managed to get the king to drop his
demands for an annual payment from the order, he had to secure repayment
of the large lump sum from Weston himself. On arriving in England the
master complained that the latter should not have mortgaged the orders
property so lightly, and demanded restitution. Weston had no cash in hand
and was unable to refund the money at once, so that LIsle Adam was forced
to accept a compromise offer of 200 per annum from him.163

157
Bosio, DellIstoria, iii. 623; Galea, Henry VIII, 66; AOM413, fo. 21r.
158
Galea, Henry VIII, 66.
159
AOM413, fos. 1r, 3r, 4v, 13rv, 16r, 17v.
160
Bosio, DellIstoria, iii. 623.
161
Ibid. 64; Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 54; King, British Realm, 101.
162
A fact noted by Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 55.
163
AOM413, fos. 20v21v; Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 556. Sannazaro also tran-
scribes this document at 768.
186 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

Thus a dispute apparently provoked by profound questions about the

royal honour and the Hospitals utility to the Christian commonweal was
settled by simple bribery.164 The king had asserted his authority over the
order, exacted a heavy entry ne from the new prior, and now ostentatiously
regranted almost exactly the same sum to the Hospitallers as a gift towards
either their holy expedition to recover Rhodes, or their establishment on
Malta. The original extortion from Weston being concealed, Henry could
parade as the champion of Christendom and exhort other princes to con-
tribute to the cause.165 Admittedly this also suited the propaganda purposes
of the order. It was always useful to turn the attentions of secular rulers to
the benefactions of their princely colleagues on its behalf, even if these were
imaginary. The only real loser from the affair was Weston, who had been
denied his advancement for a number of months and was now saddled with
annual pension payments to the convent and possibly the crown.
The master also attended to other important business during his visit to
England. Fifteen knights were received into the order by the provincial
chapter over which LIsle Adam presided,166 the grant of Sandford to
Wolsey was re-authorized,167 and in early June Rawson and Babington re-
exchanged the dignities of prior of Ireland and turcopolier.168 This last
measure will receive further comment elsewhere, but it is noteworthy that
the exchange was initiated by LIsle Adam rather than the parties involved,
as it suited the order both that Rawson return to Ireland and that Babington,
the receiver of the common treasury in England, remain at Clerkenwell to
recover the goods of Docwras vacancy year and spolia, from which multa
bona . . . furto subtracta sunt. Rawson and Babington consented to the
permutation as good religious, wishing to satisfy his (LIsle Adams) will,
but it is also worth noting that the return of Rawson to Ireland was to the
benet of the crown, obedience and service to whom the master and langue
cited respectively as reasons for the exchange.169 It seems clear that the king
and cardinal wanted Rawson back in Ireland where he could be useful, and
that the exchange had been arranged with this in mind.170
Within days of witnessing this act the master had returned to France,
escorted by the naval administrator and Levant merchant William
Gonson.171 LIsle Adam reached Boulogne on 6 June and wrote to Wolsey
164
Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 56.
165
LPFD, iv, nos. 4722, Appendix 214; AOM414, fo. 248r; AOM57, cc. 1112 (originally
78). The king also threw the expenses he had supposedly incurred on behalf of the faith into the
equation when in 1529 he asked parliament (successfully) to remit his debts. Many of these went
back to 15223, when Thomas Docwra had lent him money. S. E. Lehmberg, The Reformation
Parliament 15291536 (Cambridge, 1970), 8990; above, 168.
166
BDVTE, 445.
167
LPFD, iv, no. 4322 (original); AOM413, fos. 22rv (Hospitaller chancery copy).
168
AOM413, fos. 23r24r.
169
AOM413, fos. 24v25r; Bosio, Dell Istoria, iii. 64; BDVTE, 614.
170
See below, 251.
171
LPFD, iv, no. 4344.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 187

thanking him for his and the kings letters on his behalf and recommending
the order to their protection.172 After a stay of some weeks in Paris he
returned to Nice,173 having again written thanking Wolsey for his interven-
tion with Henry and Francis I, and informing him that he had presented the
letters of king and cardinal to representatives of Francis, who had been unable
to see him personally.174 The magistral visit to England had apparently been a
great success, having prompted the king to offer generous aid towards the
recovery of Rhodes, which was now noised round Europe, or at least to those
(non-Venetian) parts of it which viewed such a project with equanimity.
Partly in response to Henrys letters announcing his gift, Charles V promised
to add 25,000 ducats towards the ghting fund, while the king of Portugal
was prompted to donate a further 15,000 ducats.175 Yet for all its propaganda
value, Henrys gift was slow to reach the convent and impediments continued
to be put in the way of the submission of responsions to Nice.176 On 18
November 1528 Clement VII wrote to Wolsey professing himself pleased at
the honour shown to the master and the liberal aid proffered the holy
expedition, but reminding the cardinal that he had promised to send a
member of the order with the promised aid after the king had received replies
to his letters from the emperor and the king of Portugal, which he understood
had now been answered.177 In the following January Antonio Bosio was
dispatched to England with letters from LIsle Adam, the emperor, the king
of Portugal, and the pope on the orders behalf and instructed to present them
to the king, Wolsey, and Cardinal Campeggio. The aid of Henry and the
legates was to be requested in the orders great enterprise, which it had
insufcient strength to perform itself.178 The accompanying letter to the king
states that Bosio, recently returned from Spain and Portugal, would inform
Henry of the state of the orders affairs in those countries and in the lands of
the east, in accordance with his professed willingness to assist.179 Henrys
donation had still not reached the convent in early March, although the
orders envoy to Savoy, Louis de Tinteville, was instructed to report that
Bosio had been sent to collect it and that his arrival was expected daily.180
172
Ibid., no. 4339.
173
He left Paris on about 15 July, having had the English ambassadors there to a dinner at
which he had spoken asmoche honour of the Kinges Highnes, as may be spoken of any Prynce.
Ibid., no. 4515. Text in SP, vii. 889.
174
LPFD, iv, no. 4504.
175
Ibid., no. 4722; AOM414, fo. 248r. John IIIs benefaction was hardly more disinterested
than Henrys, being advanced in return for the installation of his brother Luiz as prior of
Portugal. Sire, Knights of Malta, 151.
176
For this see below, 1979.
177
LPFD, iv, Appendix, no. 214.
178
AOM414, fo. 249rv. It seems certain, especially considering the reference in the accom-
panying letter to Henry to the lands of the east, that the orders great enterprise was still
conceived to be the recovery of Rhodes. Bosio was sent back there later in 1529. Vatin, LOrdre,
370.
179
LPFD, iv, no. 5196.
180
AOM414, fos. 255v256r.
188 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

As the months went by the orders enterprise, dened in the instructions

issued to Tinteville as Reconnoir lieu pour loger et asseoir la Religion,
became, if only by default, more solidly identied with the imperial donation
of Malta. It may not have been until after November 1530, when Henry
wrote to LIsle Adam congratulating him on the orders nal agreement
with the emperor on the matter,181 that his aid nally reached the
convent, having by then been converted from cash into cannon and other
ordinance.182
Welcome as the kings gift may have been when it arrived, its utility was
surely outweighed by the disruption caused to the orders affairs in England
in 15278. This was not conned to the threatened implementation of the
Calais scheme and the quite real sequestration of the priory and Docwras
goods. Although the latter were restored, at a price, when he gained posses-
sion of the priory Weston was confronted with a chaotic state of affairs
which if not directly attributable to the royal pressure on the order must
have been worsened both by the uncertainty over the priorys future occa-
sioned by Henrys threats and by the exclusion of the prior from his dignity
for so long.
Shortly after his accession to the priorate, Weston began legal actions
against several relatives and former servants of Thomas Docwra who had,
he claimed, made off with cash, jewellery, goods, and muniments belonging
to the priory during and immediately after his predecessors last illness.
Proceedings were instituted against William Stockhill, the former priors
factor in the Mediterranean, Thomas Chicheley, a relative of Docwras by
marriage, and John Docwra, the defunct priors nephew, for withholding his
goods, while action was taken against another Docwra, Martin, for detain-
ing possession of the prioral camera of Balsall. The cases concerning the late
priors goods bear out the necessity of keeping John Babington, who had
witnessed some of the events reported in Westons complaints, in England.
All three involved considerable sums, testifying once more to Thomas Doc-
wras wealth and providing further evidence that Henry VIIIs proceedings
and threats against the order in 15278 were motivated more by prot than
principle. The Stockhill case, for which evidence survives in a counter
complaint by the defendant against the prior in chancery, was perhaps the
least serious of the four, although signicant sums were nevertheless in-
volved. In his plea against Weston, Stockhill explained that he had been
retained by Docwra and his Rhodiot servant Francis Bell as their factor
in charge of merchandise dispatched to the Levant for nine years before

181
AOM57, c. 13 (originally 9); Text in Valentini, I Cavalieri, 21920. Henry also ex-
pressed his joy at the move and determination to protect the order in letters to Clement VII and
Francis I. LPFD, iv, nos. 6731, 6732.
182
The cannon were placed on the walls of Tripoli and captured by the Turks when they took
the town in 1551. They were subsequently re-employed in the Turkish siege of Famagusta in
1570. Exhibition notes, SJG.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 189

Docwras death.183 During the grand masters visit to England, he added,

Antonio Bosio and the Genoese merchant Antonio Vivaldi had been
appointed auditors to determine his account, by which it had appeared
that he had 172 worth of Docwras and Bells goods in his possession, but
was owed 180 salary for the nine years that he had been their factor. This
considered, it had been agreed that he would keep 100 of the goods and
would hand over the residue when paid 80 in cash by John Babington.
Despite this agreement, Babington had commenced a plea of debt before the
sheriffs of London in Westons name against Stockhill for the sum of 72 and
for a further 2,000 in cash and goods that Docwra had allegedly delivered
to Stockhill during his life, but which he had never received. Consequently
he had been arrested and committed to prison. Stockhill complained that not
only did he know nothing of the larger amounts alleged by Babington, but he
was also unable to produce the earlier account as it was in the hands of the
magistrally appointed auditors. He asked that a writ of Corpus cum causa be
directed to the sheriffs and the case be removed into chancery.184
Although there seems to be no further evidence on the proceedings of this
case, it is likely that it was settled relatively amicably, with Babington
agreeing to drop the more substantial charge in return for Stockhills admit-
ting liability in the smaller matter. On 20 July 1534 Stockhill paid 20
towards the 72 he owed the common treasury, with no mention of the
larger sums at all.185 The 2,000 alleged against Stockhill may conceivably
be identical with the 8,000 or 9,000 ducats the order believed it was owed by
Antonio Vivaldi, Bells executor, in respect of his will, 7,000 of which Vivaldi
promised to pay in late 1528.186 It is possible that Vivaldi was waiting for
the prots from those of Bells and the priors goods which had been in the
hands of Stockhill before he could satisfy the convent. Vivaldi himself,
however, seems not to have been proceeded against in the courts, and settled
matters with the order amicably, continuing to conduct exchange operations
on its behalf well into the 1530s.187
Evidence for the case against Chicheley survives in a counter-plea against
Weston in chancery.188 Chicheley, a Cambridgeshire esquire, explained that

183
Corroborating evidence for this is provided by Bells will, which was drawn up before he
left for Italy with Weston in August 1524, and proved in April 1526. Bell left the prior all his
kersey and tin in Stockhills hands, which had been given to the latter on his (Stockhills)
departure from England, and ordained that he should give a true account of the same to
Docwra. PRO PROB11/22, fos. 44b45.
184
PRO C1/569/25.
185
AOM54, fo. 260v; PRO SP2/Q no. 32, p. 134b.
186
AOM414, fos. 206v207r. This money was to be dispatched to Naples with Vivaldis
associate Miguel Hieronymo Sanchez. It had not arrived by October 1529, prompting the order
to instruct its ambassador to the pope and emperor to nd out where it had got to, although by
March 1532, when John Babington was instructed to arrange for the payment of the remainder
of the monies, only 2,000 ducats were still outstanding. Ibid., fo. 260v; 415, fo. 230r.
187
AOM54, fos. 261v262r.
188
PRO C1/392/57.
190 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

he had been a servant of Docwra for ten years before his death and had
married his niece. His service to the prior had caused him great pains, costs,
and charges and left the latter in his debt. Trusting to be recompensed he had
appeared before Docwra on 11 April 1527 and the prior had then ordered
John Babington to go into the priorys treasury house and fetch out its plate,
of which Chicheley had been given 2,000 ounces on the spot, besides further
amounts189 given to him, to his nephew John Docwra, and to Anthony
Haseldon, another relative of the prior by marriage.190 Finally, claimed
Chicheley, the prior had commanded the recipients of his largesse to take
it home with them to their own use whether he lived or died. This Chicheley
had done.
On gaining possession of the priory Weston sued a bill of trespass before
the king alleging that Chicheley and others had wrongfully carried off plate
to the value of 3,000. Chicheley denied having had more than 100 marks to
his own use, and prayed that the members of the prioral household present
at the time of the priors alleged gift should be summoned to testify so that he
could prove his version of events.191 Although further proceedings of the
Chicheley case do not survive among chancery records,192 the priors com-
plaint against John Docwra corroborates many of its details. The proceed-
ings against Docwra, the former priors nye kynsman, survive almost in
full, and provide considerable detail on Westons accusations against his
predecessors associates. Two bills of complaint by the prior, two answers by
Docwra, and Westons replication to these survive, although the nal judge-
ment on the case is wanting.193 The new prior presented that as Thomas
Docwra had lain sore sick in his dethe bedde John Docwra had borne away
bonds wherein several parties stood bound to the late prior, other writings
and indentures concerning the priorys right title and interest with a face
value of 3,000 marks, and great sums of money, plate, jewels, and goods
worth another 3,000. Docwras failure to deliver these upon demand, and
the priors consequent ignorance of the contents of the documents and of the
form, weight, fashion, and value of the bullion and plate left him unable to
prove his right according to the common law, hence the appeal into chan-

189
These were specied in a schedule attached to Chicheleys plea, which does not survive.
190
Thomas Docwras brother James, the father of the John mentioned in these proceedings,
had married Catharine Haseldon of Cambridgeshire. Visitation of Cambridgeshire, ed. Clay,
445.
191
These were, according to Chicheley, John Mablestone (the subprior), Christopher New-
ton, gentleman, Thomas Cork, Ralph Wasse yeoman, Henry Porter, gentleman, and one Swift,
gentleman, presumably the same man for whom Docwra had been seeking the Mounteagle
lands in 1523, and probably to be identied with John Swifte, gentleman, who was granted the
farm of the orders Warwickshire manor of Temple Grafton in 1533. PRO C1/392/57; see
above, 1767; PRO SC6/Henry VIII/2402, m. 22d.
192
The case may have been settled informally. On 1 June 1532 Clement West reported that
Weston and he had concluded business with Schechle. Chicheley paid 20 to the common
treasury in 1536. LPFD, v, no. 1069; AOM54, fo. 299r.
193
PRO C1/598/711.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 191

cery. Both this bill and a second, almost identical, requested that Docwra
should be subpoenaed to appear before the chancellor (Wolsey) bringing the
writings and muniments in question, as well as written declaration of the
value and other details of the other goods.194
The cardinal took these charges seriously. On 29 May 1528195 Docwra
was bound in 4,000 to do as Weston had requested, and duly delivered a
schedule listing the letters of obligations and specialties in question, all of
which save two he claimed had been made out jointly to the prior and
himself, and had been assigned to him by his uncle for the term of his life.
Of the remaining bonds, one had been made out solely to the prior but had
likewise been granted to his nephew before his death and the other, an
obligation by the master of the Rolls in 40, had not been made over to
John at all. The defendant admitted that he kept all other specialities not
delivered into chancery according to the recent gift.196 He did, however,
deny that the value of the goods and monies taken amounted to 6,000 marks
and asserted that as the values of the money and goods he was supposed to
have taken had not been individually specied, the allegations lacked legal
sufciency and proceedings should be dropped.197
By this time, however, Weston had evidently procured more specic
information about the goods and muniments carried off by Docwra, for in
his replication he listed many of them. He claimed that yet more had been
removed in the eight days immediately before the late priors death, and that
Docwra had since conveyed even more muniments, plate, and jewels secretly
out of the said monastery, specic details of which he lacked. Although
incomplete, the list provided by Weston is nevertheless impressive. He
alleged that Docwra had received 4,000 in gold besides goods, plate, and
jewellery worth over 285 and bonds worth 1,245. Indeed, Docwra had
admitted in his schedule to having received 3,100 in gold and cash and
most of the writings obligatory, but had failed to admit to two bonds worth
250. Weston denied that his predecessor had owed or given his nephew any
of the items mentioned or that he had had any intention to make any such
gift. He further denied his predecessors right to make such a donation and
alleged that the defendant had forfeited his recognizance of 4,000 by his
failure to deliver up everything he had had from the priory or to appear daily
in chancery as was required.198

194
PRO C1/598/78.
195
The date given is 29 May 19 Henry VIII, which should indicate 1527 given that the regnal
year began on 22 April, but Weston could hardly have launched an action against his predeces-
sors nephew when he was in Italy and had not even yet been appointed prior. 1528 therefore
seems much more plausible.
196
PRO C1/598/9
197
PRO C1/598/10.
198
PRO C1/598/11.
192 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

Although the judgement on the case is missing, it seems to have been

settled at least partly in Westons favour, for in 1532 one of John Docwras
executors submitted 260 to the receiver towards the 800 marks which they
owed.199 Further payments were made by various creditors, including Doc-
wras executors, in subsequent years.200 The evident, if gradual, success of
the priors legal proceedings against those who had embezzled his predeces-
sors spolia must owe something to the good ofces of Wolsey. The cardinal
took a personal interest in the speedy expedition of justice, often hearing
several cases a day and doing his best to ensure that his judgements were
carried out. It was partly for this reason that so many property disputes were
removed into chancery during his tenure there. Moreover, it is surely signi-
cant that proceedings against John Docwra were initiated in chancery while
LIsle Adam was still in England. After his return to the convent he continued
to take an interest in the case, and when Antonio Bosio was dispatched to
England in January 1529 he was instructed to approach the cardinal and
request that he see to it that the dispute we have with the nephew of the
former prior should be expedited quickly.201 More generally, Bosio was to
get what help he could from Wolsey so that the order could get hold of all the
monies due to it from England. He was also to approach the bishop of
London, Cuthbert Tunstall, and inform him of the appointment of his
nephew Ambrose Layton as receiver of the common treasury, presenting
him with the letters of master and convent and asking his favour.202
Despite the usefulness of the cardinals ofces in bringing the cases involv-
ing Docwras spolia to some kind of conclusion, it may have been the
threatened sequestration of the orders assets in 1527 which prompted
Thomas Docwra to alienate gold, plate, jewellery, and letters of obligation,
which were of considerable importance to the priorys running, to his
relatives. The same cause may also account for the complicity of John
Babington and long-standing prioral servants such as John Mablestone in
the handover, although it is also possible that their dying master made it
worth their while to turn a blind eye. Docwra may have reasoned that if the
crown was going to seize the orders lands and goods he might as well set up
his family and servants with as many of them as he could get away with. The
three chief recipients of his largesse, John Docwra, Thomas Chicheley, and
Anthony Haseldon, were all related to him by blood or marriage, and the
prior had been conspicuously generous to his family throughout his incum-
bency.203 Nevertheless the sums involved were enormous and it is difcult to
199
AOM54, fo. 221r.
200
Ibid., fos. 260v261r, 279v280r, 299r.
201
AOM414, fo. 249v.
202
Ibid., fo. 249v. Layton had been appointed receiver on 7 January 1529, but died by 12
February, when he was replaced by Clement West. AOM414, fos. 208v, 211r.
203
He had paid 300 marks for his niece Elizabeths dowry on her marriage to Thomas
Chicheley, and arranged numerous grants for other members of both branches of the family.
CPR14941509, no. 755; Lansdowne 200, fo. 1r; Claudius E.vi, fos. 29rv, 46rv, 60r, 65v66r,
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 193

believe that the prior, who had always been so conscientious about sending
as much as possible to the convent, would have wilfully alienated so much to
those surrounding him had he not been convinced that the order would not
benet if he bequeathed his goods to it. Even if Docwra had no such desire to
save his possessions from the grasping hands of the crown and was simply
motivated by family loyalty, the delay in Westons being granted the priory
and the royal sequestration of its assets cannot have aided him in his pursuit
of his predecessors goods. The insistence that Babington give up the priory
of Ireland in June 1528, made specically so that he could aid the prior in
prosecuting the matter, demonstrates that the convent was concerned that
without Babingtons help the trail, already cold, would fade beyond hope of
recovery.
An alternative explanation for the priors actions, and one that was
advanced by William Weston, is that he was bullied into them by Docwra
and Chicheley while he was dying. Yet Chicheleys assertion that that there
were several witnesses to the gift, and especially Babingtons readiness to
fetch his masters plate from the treasury, suggests that the priors faculties
were unimpaired, and that he was not under any undue pressure, unless it
was from all of those present at the time, which seems unlikely in view of the
continued favour shown to Mablestone, Porter, and Swift by William Wes-
ton after 1527. Despite the crowns partial responsibility for the mess, the
help of the courts was instrumental in securing what help was possible
against Docwras relatives. A further suit was launched in chancery soon
after Westons accession against Martin Docwra, who had been granted a
twenty-six-year lease of Balsall in May 1526.204 Unfortunately for the
recipient, the grant bound him, on being served with a years notice, to
remove himself and return the estate to the prior or commander of Balsall
should he be so required. On gaining possession of the priory, Weston had
duly given Docwra the requisite notice and the latter had promised to vacate
possession. This he failed to do, retaining possession of the commandery
buildings and refusing to surrender any estate documents, so that the prior
was unable to hold courts or discover the value of his rents, a state of affairs
by which he justied his appeal to chancery rather than the common law.205

66v67r, 72v73r, 73v74r, 87r, 129v, 129v130r, 131rv, 159rv, 202rv, 265v266r, 266v267r,
270v271r, 288v.
204
Martin Docwra had already been steward of Balsall for some years. I have been unable to
establish the exact nature of his relationship to the prior. His will does not mention any members
of the family save his three daughters and a cousin, Thomas, who resided in London. Claudius
E.vi, fos. 265v266v; PRO PROB11/25, fos. 143rv.
205
PRO C1/588/36. A later stage in the proceedings is represented by Martin Docwras
answer not to Westons original bill of complaint, but to his replication, which evidently accused
the lessee of detaining the manor of Tolle and removing the altar cloths from its chapel. Docwra
denied that Tolle had anything to do with Balsall, or that it had been let to him by the last prior.
PRO C1/598/12.
194 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

Although Wolseys decree on the matter does not survive it can be recon-
structed from later proceedings. Sometime in the late summer or early
autumn of 1529 the cardinal ordained that possession of the disputed
commandery should be committed to the keeping of Sir George Throckmor-
ton206 until it should be determined which party had the better right to it.207
But Wolseys inuence was waning and when Throckmorton and his retinue
arrived to take charge of Balsall on 7 October 1529 chaotic scenes ensued as
Docwras wife and servants, allegedly supported by rufans from a nearby
sanctuary, refused entry to them. In the weeks following this incident Doc-
wra went on the offensive against the chancellor and Throckmorton. Among
the articles advanced against Wolsey in Parliament on 1 December 1529 was
one alleging that he had issued an injunction forbidding possession of Balsall
to the lessee without the latter ever having been called to make answer in
chancery.208 Some weeks before Docwra had appeared in Star Chamber
complaining that the descent of Throckmorton and his retinue on Balsall
had amounted to a riot and claiming that they had entered the manor
forcibly, hauling his servants out of the house there and threatening to kill
his wife. Both parties were ordered to appear on penalty of 100.209
The case was slow to come before the court, for the rest of the surviving
documentation, comprising the answer of Throckmortons co-defendants
to Docwras bill, further questions put to them, their replies thereto, and
the complainants replication, dates from after the cardinals death in
November 1530. In their answer to Docwras complaint Throckmortons
co-defendants210 explained that the late cardinal had commanded both
parties to avoid possession because he had been warned that the dispute
between Weston and Docwra would lead to grete bessenez and unquytnez
among the kings subjects in Warwickshire. Accordingly Throckmorton had
been directed to enter the commandery and keep indifferent possession
thereof, levying its rents and issues until the matter should be decided by
the king in chancery. The prior had obeyed the order, but Docwra had not
only demurred but had fortied the manor-house and gathered sixteen or
more criminals from the sanctuary at Knowle to keep it. Save for breaking
down the door of the chamber in which Docwras wife and various thieves
and misdoers were holding out by force, they denied the charge of forcible
entry, and asserted moreover that two of the criminals found in the room
had been dispatched to Warwick gaol. They admitted that Docwras wife

206
George Throckmorton was the head of the family with whom Thomas Docwra had been
in dispute over Balsall in the early 1500s, but whose relations with the Hospital had evidently
improved thereafter. In the 1530s he was close to Weston and his nephew Thomas Dingley, with
whom he was accused of treason in 15378. LPFD, xii, II, no. 952.
207
PRO STAC2/17/401/1.
208
LPFD, iv, no. 6075 (42).
209
PRO STAC2/17/401/1.
210
Only six of these came before the court, although Docwra had alleged that Throckmor-
tons retinue had comprised at least twenty persons at the time of the incident at Balsall.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 195

and servants had been removed from the premises and that they had taken
possession in accordance with the writ.211 Questioned on the threat to kill
Docwras wife all but one of the defendants denied that any such utterance
had been made while the last remembered hearing something similar from a
servant of Throckmorton whose name he could not recall.212 Questions
were also asked about Wolseys writ of injunction, although not necessarily
in accordance with Docwras agenda, as Throckmortons associates were
asked whether it had been purchased at Docwras suit or if he had been privy
to it, despite his earlier protest that he had been wholly unaware of the order.
Docwra also refuted the other allegations of Throckmorton and his ser-
vants concerning the circumstances of their entry into the manor. He denied
fortifying the manor house or placing felons therein, and refuted allegations
that these had held out by force of arms. He attacked the basis of the priors
claims to the property, claiming that Balsall was not currently a comman-
dery and that Weston had not been made its commander, as Throckmorton
had alleged. Additionally he denied that he had been warned to vacate the
property by the prior or that, on receiving notice, he had promised to do so.
Despite his claim that Weston had no right to Balsall, however, it is evident
that there had been some negotiation between the two parties, for Docwra
did admit that he had written to the prior offering to allow him to occupy the
manor, farm, and park of Balsall whenever he should wish to stay there. He
had not, he said, promised to give up any other part of Balsalls estates.
Unfortunately, no further information survives on the case in Star Cham-
ber, although it seems unlikely that Docwras imsy charges, which were
possibly advanced to bolster the attack on Wolsey in parliament, were
upheld. The suit in chancery over the actual possession of the commandery,
however, dragged on for years. Sir Thomas More, who followed Wolsey as
chancellor, adjudged Balsall to Weston at some point between 1530 and
1532,213 but in 1535 Martin Docwras widow Isabella, now married to
Giles Forster, reappeared to contest the case. On 28 June 1535 judgement
was given in the couples favour and the continued validity of the lease made
in 1526 was conrmed.214 Weston eventually reconciled himself to having
Balsall as a source of revenue rather than a residence, for in 1539, after
Isabellas death a provincial chapter renewed the lease to Forster at a rent of
156 13s. 4d. The commanderys subsidiary manors of Grafton, Ryton,
and Fletchhampstead, however, were successfully returned to the priors
patronage.215

211
PRO STAC2/17/401/2.
212
PRO STAC2/17/401/45.
213
More was appointed chancellor on 26 October 1529, and resigned in May 1532.
214
LPFD, viii, no. 936.
215
The lease was dated 24 April 1539, as were those of Ryton and Fletchhampstead. Grafton
was let on 27 June 1533, the lease to run from June 1537. PRO SC6/Henry VIII/2402, mm.
2223d.
196 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

The Balsall case provides an example of the conict that could arise
between the wish of priors to provide for their families and the interests of
their successors. Although it had the authority of the provincial chapter
behind it, Thomas Docwras desire to grant such an important property to
a relative on long lease when his own days were numbered was rather
irresponsible considering the trouble he had himself had in removing the
Throckmortons at the beginning of his priorate, and his own request that he
might reserve Balsall to the hands of his fellow-religious. His neglect of this
principle involved his successor in years of expensive litigation which ultim-
ately failed to return the commandery to prioral control, and if Westons
petitions against Martin Docwras dilapidation of the property are to be
believed, did considerable material damage as well.216 The conicting judge-
ments of successive chancellors, and especially Wolseys high-handed deci-
sion to suspend the right of both parties to the property and interpose a
third party with an old family interest in it, did not help matters, especially
when the case became entangled in the charges laid against the cardinal in
parliament.
Although Wolsey gave judgement, in this matter as in others, largely in the
orders interest, his inuence was already declining when LIsle Adam visited
in 1528, and by the autumn of 1529 it had collapsed.217 His protection of
the Hospitallers apparently did not extend to ensuring the dispatch of their
responsions to the convent in June 1529, although those due in 1528 were
probably remitted. Awareness of such help as he did offer, moreover, must be
qualied by the haughty and condescending manner in which he had treated
the Hospital in his pursuit of its property at Hampton Court and Sandford.
His pique at the failure to expedite the grant of Sandford may have led him
to stir Henry up against the order in 1527, and he may also have used his
position as papal legate to bully it into submission for in c.1528 he con-
rmed its papally bestowed privileges and the patronage of its hospitals on
the basis that the latter might have pertained to him by virtue of his legatine
authority.218 Such heavy-handedness evidently caused bitterness, for
William Weston was among the signatories of the articles against the car-
dinal in the rst session of the Reformation Parliament, and after the
cardinals attainder, which detained in the hands of the crown those of the
orders goods which had been granted to him, the prior protested to Crom-
well that the lease of Sandford had passed without free assent . . . to the
perpetual loss of my religion.219 But without his protection the order was
for the moment without a powerful intermediary, and the arrest of its
responsions and pursuit of its property by the court continued unchecked.

216
See above, 1567; PRO C1/925/35; C1/598/12.
217
J. J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII (Harmondsworth, 1968), 3078.
218
LPFD, iv, no. 5093.
219
LPFD, v, no. 335. Dated 12 July 1531.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 197

The kings decision to appropriate Wolseys palace at Hampton Court left

the order in a difcult position. Henry would not be content with a lease of
the property, no matter how long the term or generous the conditions. The
order was thus prevailed upon to substitute Hampton Court, the advowson
of the prebend of Blewbury, its plum ecclesiastical appointment, and a
messuage in Chancery Lane for Sandford in an exchange in which it received
the lands of the former monastery of Stansgate in Essex, a foundation which
had been suppressed by the cardinal.220 Sandford, the orders great mes-
suage in Chancery Lane, and the nearby Ficketseld were returned to the
order in late 1531 or 1532, the crown having enjoyed usufruct since Wolseys
attainder.221 Both the release of Sandford and the dispatch of the orders
responsions to Malta may have been conditional on the grant of Hampton
Court.
While the prior was attempting to recover the orders property in England,
LIsle Adam was struggling to maintain its integrity, discipline, and self-
condence in the central Mediterranean. The maintenance of the itinerant
convent in temporary accommodation in central Italy, the upkeep of a eet
when the order no longer had its own port facilities, and the complicated
diplomacy associated with its search for a home and a role were expensive as
well as debilitating, and the 1527 chapter-general had imposed a three-year
half-annate on the orders property which was extended year by year there-
after.222 The English contribution to this levy is impossible to quantify, as no
receivers accounts survive for the nancial years ending June 1527 to June
1530 but it does not seem to have been particularly impressive, and the very
lack of accounts may indicate, as it surely does in 1527, that no responsions
were being dispatched at all. Although LIsle Adam may have collected those
due in 1528 when he was in England, as no mention was made of arrears for
that year when the order later brought the matter up, a letter sent to Weston
and his brethren in early March 1532 complained that for three years the
responsions and dues of our common treasury have not been sent to us and
that Clement West, the turcopolier, who ought to have converted them into
goods and brought them to Malta, had so far failed to appear. Accordingly
John Babington, now bailiff of Eagle, was sent to England to procure all
money, goods, and writings pertaining to the common treasury which might
still be in Wests hands and ensure their delivery to the newly appointed

220
The exchange was formally agreed on 30 May 1531, and the orders provincial chapter
granted Hampton Court and the other properties to Sir Richard Paulet et al., to be held to the
kings use, on 5 June. It was not until 19 December that letters patent were drawn up granting
Stansgate to the prior and brethren of the Hospital in mortmain, however. The swap was ratied
by parliament in the session beginning 15 January 1532. PRO LR2/62, fo. 69r et seq.; LPFD,
v, nos. 264, 285, 627 (18), 720 (6), 722 (11). Statutes, iii. 4036.
221
The editors of the Letters and Papers date the disposal of the lands of Cardinals College,
of which these formed a part, to 1532. LPFD, v, no. 47 (1), and see n.220, above.
222
AOM286, fos. 9r, 23r; 54, fo. 173r; 85, fo. 94v; 286, fos. 37v et seq.
198 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

receiver, John Rawson junior, so that the latter could arrange for the dis-
patch of the outstanding responsions.223
Although allowance was made for the fact that West may have been
detained by sickness or some peril . . . or by other impediments the missive
was, as Sannazaro pointed out, saturated with distrust. Weston and his
brethren were instructed to implement the orders statutes against disobedi-
ence and invoke the aid of the secular arm against the turcopolier should he
prove difcult, and he was in any case summoned to appear in Malta within
six months of the letter reaching England. Babington, who had been licensed
to leave Malta on 16 February,224 was ordered on 5 March to proceed to
England by way of Messina and Palermo, arranging some way by which the
orders monies might be exchanged with whatever advantage possible. If it
should not be possible to send the money by exchange, Babington, Rawson,
and Weston were to collaborate in purchasing such merchandise as they
thought appropriate, and dispatch it at the rst opportunity to Sicily, making
sure that it was not taxed on the way. Babington was also to secure the
remainder of the sums owed by Antonio Vivaldi, and to investigate the
government of the magistral camera in England.225
There are two questions that need to be answered here. First, we need to
know who was responsible for impeding the dispatch of the English respon-
sions, and secondly why it took the order so long to complain about the
situation. The evidence that can be gleaned from the orders archives on
these matters is extremely limited, the instructions given to Babington in
February 1532 providing the rst direct evidence that monies were not
reaching Malta. Since his appointment in 1529, Clement Wests administra-
tion of the receivership had provoked only routine interference from head-
quarters. Ambrose Cave was appointed proctor of the common treasury in
England to supplement West in February 1530 but this was quite usual, and
so too was the summons issued to the receiver in the following November to
attend the next chapter-general.226 Even Wests removal from the receiver-
ship in early March 1531 does not necessarily suggest that anything was
amiss. Although it was unusual for a receiver to be removed so soon after
his appointment, West had been elected turcopolier in the preceding
January and was clearly expected to come to Malta to assume his conventual
dignity.227
The fact that no responsions or other dues were submitted to Malta during
this time caused no comment at all. No ambassadors were sent to England,
the king was not asked for the release of the monies, and no orders were
addressed to the English brethren to act until 1532. It seems to have been
only after John Rawson took over from West that the latters administration

223
AOM415, fos. 163v164r. Transcribed in Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 857.
224
AOM415, fo. 163v. 225
Ibid., fos. 229v230r. 226
AOM414, fo. 219v, 193r, 8v9v.
227
Ibid., fos. 240r, 194r.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 199

was put under the spotlight. There are two likely explanations for the
convents failure to act against West beforehand, the rst being that the
crown had decided to hold back the orders responsions until it should be
assured of a home. Charles V had ceded Malta in March 1530, but, partly
because of the orders insistence that it should be assured of tax-free grain
supplies from Sicily, the offer had not been accepted until late in the year.228
Although Henry had congratulated LIsle Adam on the gift in late November
1530, there may still have been doubts in England, as indeed there were in
the convent, as to whether the order would actually take up its new home. It
may only have been when these were laid to rest, and when the king had
managed to bully the Hospital into a permanent alienation of Hampton
Court, that its responsions were freed. A second possible cause of the delay
was the legislation forbidding religious persons from engaging in trade
passed by Parliament in late 1529.229 This could certainly have been inter-
preted as prohibiting the orders export of commodities and possibly even its
exchange operations. Such a supposition is supported by the fact that on 26
May 1531 royal letters patent were granted to the prior and his successors
licensing them to purchase clothing and other goods for the use of their
brethren and to convey the same overseas. The convents instructions to
Babington in 1532, which stated that West should have come to Malta with
goods bought in England, and admitted it might not be possible for the
money to be exchanged for letters of credit, provide evidence that it may still
have been difcult for the order to engage in nancial operations at this
time.230 On 18 September 1532, however, West remitted nearly 2,600 in
letters of exchange to the convent.231 It seems likely that before this he had
been collecting cash as receiver and stockpiling the surplus rather than
dispatch it to the convent. When he was required to convert the monies
into goods and bring these with him to Malta,232 however, he balked at
doing so and seems to have refused to hand over the written evidence
pertaining to his ofce to his successor. He did not have any legitimate
reason to do either, and it is also suspicious that in March 1532, just as
proceedings were being instituted against him in Malta, his casket, 200 in
cash, and other matters of importance were stolen from Clerkenwell by one
of his servants.233 Although John Mablestone, who wrote to Giles Russell on
the day of the theft, evidently believed that it was genuine, Wests dismay at
his losses may well have been mitigated by the fact that his accounts with the

228
Ibid., fo. 278r.
229
Statutes, iii. 293; Lehmberg, Reformation Parliament, 924.
230
LPFD, v, no. 278 (41); AOM415, fos. 229v230r.
231
AOM54, fo. 186r.
232
Although it does not survive, the order for this was probably given when West was
replaced as receiver in March 1531. The dating of this would suggest that the convent
was anticipating the imminent release of its monies, and further support the suspicion that
this was contingent upon the orders establishment in its new home.
233
LPFD, vi, no. 253 (misdated to 1533).
200 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

order were among them.234 It is worth reiterating that the instructions to

Babington to ensure the handover of all the goods pertaining to the receiv-
ership to John Rawson junior suggest that West had been reluctant to do so
and in such circumstances the loss of his accounts may be regarded as at best
a fortuitous coincidence and at worst something which had been arranged.
Another succeeding receiver, John Sutton, petitioned the orders council
some years later to get West to deliver goods and monies that were owed
to him.235
There is further evidence that the turcopolier turned the theft of his
muniments to his advantage in the months to come. Towards the end of
September he wrote to an unknown associate, enclosing the copy of a lease
granted under the common seal, the original of which, also enclosed, had
been thrown into water by the thief and was now illegible. West more or less
admitted altering the text of the lease to favour the lessee, for he urged his
correspondent to present both documents for conrmation at the next
provincial chapter before handing over any old leases. West explained that
no one was aware of the specics of the lease save he and that once the new
lease had been registered it could not be overturned. This at the least was
sharp practice, and may even point to the possibility that the turcopolier was
gifted with an uncanny foresight into the theft of his casket.236 Some days
after he wrote this letter West left for Malta, departing from Southampton
on a vessel prepared by Antonio Vivaldi.237 Before his departure he emptied
the orders treasury to buy letters of exchange and cloth to take to the
convent,238 and wrote another letter, asking the recipient to sign and seal a
box he had left behind and send it on to him at Southampton. He praised
Vivaldis friendship and bemoaned the loss of his accounts, the consequences
of which might yet be amended by a good king and duke.239 His corres-
pondent was probably the subprior, John Mablestone, to whom he had
remitted his business while he was away.
The turcopolier left England on 15 October 1532, travelling via Calais
and Alicante to Messina and thence to Malta.240 On reaching the convent
he presented his accounts for 1531 to the common treasury, which
diffused criticism sufciently for him to escape without being further pro-
ceeded against over the lack of similar documents for 152930.241 He
then threw himself into litigation, protesting before the council on 4 Febru-
ary that Melchbourne rightly pertained to him rather than to Weston.
A commission was appointed to consider this242 but had not reported
when, ve days later, the orders chapter-general began, and the extraordin-
ary events which ensued therein obviated the need for further discussion of
the issue.
234 235
LPFD, Addenda, no. 790. AOM85, fo. 116r.
236 237
LPFD, Addenda, no. 789. Ibid., nos. 78990.
238
LPFD, v, no. 1588; AOM54, fo. 186r. 239
LPFD, Addenda, no. 790.
240
LPFD, v, no. 1626. 241
AOM54, fo. 173r. 242
AOM85, fo. 109v.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 201

Without going into too much detail, it seems appropriate to draw atten-
tion to some of the salient features of Wests career up to this point to provide
a background to what followed. Three characteristics in particular stand
out: the turcopoliers litigiousness, his highly developed sense of his
own rightness, and his rather dubious record when in positions of responsi-
bility. Wests zeal for litigation had really begun to manifest itself in
the 1510s, when he had conducted a vigorous campaign against Thomas
Docwras claim to have the right to appoint to preceptories in England
under the agreement of 1483 between John Weston and the English langue.
Although his fear that the prior would use his claims to retain the patronage
of the rich Welsh preceptory of Slebech, to which he was next in line,
proved well founded, Wests aggressive manipulation of an existing
dispute to defend his rights to Slebech did not go down well with the council,
which insisted that the cases be dealt with separately. An equal determin-
ation was apparent in Wests struggles against Roger Boydell, to whose
meliormenta he made objection, and in other appeals against the rest
of the langue over the grant of a preceptory to George Hateld in 1524,
against John Rawson senior over the langues concession that he might
exchange his English preceptory for a better one, against William Weston
over Melchbourne, and even against the master, whom he opposed in 1509
over Robert Pembertons spolia.243 On reaching England in 1518 or 1519244
he began further litigation against Sir Gruffydd ap Rhys. The latter had been
granted a lease of Slebech by Wests proctors but, together with accomplices,
had failed to maintain the charges on the house, taken money for repairs
which had not been carried out, cut down woods, extorted money from
tenants, made off with household goods and muniments, taken the prots of
courts held in the preceptors name after the expiry of the lease, and sent
servants to intimidate the preceptor and hunt in his woods.245 Repeated
royal intervention was necessary to protect West, a knight of the body, from

243
AOM82, fos. 192r, 193r, 193v194r; 84, fo. 46v; 85, fos. 24rv, 26v, 28v29r, 48r, 53v,
109v; 81, fos. 137v.
244
On 28 November 1517 West was ordered to appoint a proctor to act for him in the
dispute over Slebech when he should leave Rhodes. However, he was represented by proctors in
the presentation to a Welsh benece in his gift on 20 April 1518, and was not present at the
provincial chapter held in that year. His proctors probably also leased his preceptory to Sir
Gruffydd ap Rhys at about the same time. West had evidently been at Slebech for some time
before 16 August 1519, when Sir Gruffydds associate Harry Cadarn of Prendergast and thirty
compansions allegedly broke into the preceptory and assaulted him. AOM406, fo. 166v; The
Episcopal Registers of the Diocese of St Davids 1397 to 1518, ed. and trans. R. F. Isaacson,
2 vols. (London, 1917), ii. 836/7; F. Jones, Sir Rhys ap Thomas and the Knights of St. John,
Carmarthen Antiquary, 2/3 (1951), 704, at 72; R. A. Grifths, Sir Rhys ap Thomas and his
Family (Cardiff, 1993), 712.
245
PRO STAC2/22/290; REQ 2/10/76; Jones, Rhys ap Thomas, passim. The vice-receiver,
John Babington, had prosecuted several former farmers of the preceptory in the late 1510s but
these actions had proved unsuccessful and had been abandoned by 1520. In March 1527 West
complained that Babington was holding him responsible for the old debts. AOM54, fo. 13v;
85, fo. 23r.
202 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

the physical and legal pressure exerted by Rhys in response to his alle-
gations.246
Unquestionably West was hard done by. Although Slebech was a rich
benece, his long exclusion from it and the circumstances he was forced
to confront on his arrival in Wales left him at a disadvantage when it
came to improving the preceptory, so that his contemporaries had all
been granted promotions by the time his meliormenta were accepted in
1524.247 It was not until 1526 that West was granted ancienitas to seek
another commandery, and when this was forthcoming he was passed over
for promotion in 1527, when the death of Docwra occasioned the usual
turnover of ofces, and in 1531, when the much more junior John Sutton
was granted an additional preceptory by magistral grace, which was
usually exercised on behalf of the turcopolier if he was not possessed of
a second commandery.248 Although his bitterness was understandable, his
insistence on objecting to the promotion of his brethren and on making
an issue of questions such as the masters right to dispose of the spolia of
brethren who had died in convent when he was himself so junior cannot
have endeared him to the English knights or the orders council, which
spent much of its time considering his petitions. It is noteworthy that he
prosecuted most of these actions on his own behalf rather than that of
the langue and that when he challenged the langues decisions he was
usually the sole objector. It is also worth noting that, with the exception
of his provision to Slebech, which was upheld, he lost all of these actions,
despite frequent appeals. In particular his objection to the grant of
Dinmore to George Hateld after the latter was dead may have rankled
with those younger brethren who had fought alongside Hateld in 1522
and may not have appreciated Wests long conventual service, for several
junior knights objected to the grant of ancienitas to him in 1526, al-
though they were unable to give grounds for doing so to the council.249
That he was not universally popular received further illustration at the
chapter in 1533, when the langue which he headed voted for two repre-
sentatives to serve among the sixteen capitulars responsible for the for-
mulation of new statutes. Three brethren, including West, shared the
votes equally.250
The convents evident failure to promote West to the dignities he felt were
his due may have had other causes than the excessive zeal he showed in their
pursuit. In addition to his possibly dubious record as receiver, West had
already been investigated in 1515 for his conduct as castellan of Rhodes, an

246
PRO REQ 2/10/76. Text in Jones, Rhys ap Thomas, 713; Grifths, Rhys ap Thomas,
712.
247
AOM410, fos. 178v, 177v, 178v; 411, fo. 154v.
248
BDVTE, 8; AOM414, fos. 194v195r.
249
AOM84, fos. 46v, 95r.
250
AOM286, fo. 32v.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 203

ofce to which he had been appointed in December 1512.251 Although no

action had been taken against him at this time, he never held a commission
or ofce again in Rhodes, and was only appointed to commissions in the
priory of England infrequently after his return home. The grant of the
receivership was the rst important Hospitaller business on which he had
been employed since 1514. The reluctance to make use of him may also have
reected doubts about his loyalties. In 1508 the orders council appointed a
commission to examine the contents of a letter sent by West to Henry VII
and, although again no action was taken, his rabid nationalism and readi-
ness to identify his personal grievances with the national interest and appeal
over the heads of his religious superiors to the authorities in England,
characteristics which were so marked during the 1530s, surely did not spring
fully formed out of the Henrician breach with Rome.252
The twin catalysts by which the turcopoliers keen sense of injustice and
rampant xenophobia were awakened seem to have been a magistral prohib-
ition of his parading around Malta with his mace of ofce and the appoint-
ment of foreign proctors by the dignitaries of the English langue to represent
them in the chapter-general held in February 1533. According to West, it was
the mace that was at issue.253 The privilege of having a mace bearing the
royal arms carried before him while in convent had been granted the turco-
polier in 1448, and probably exercised ever since.254 In the circumstances of
1533, however, when Henry VIIIs assaults on the church were becoming
ever more strident and he had just divorced the emperors niece, it may have
been seen as provocative to accord his arms such conspicuous honour in
Malta. It has also been asserted that a further contribution to Wests behav-
iour in chapter was made by the theft of the mace in the wake of the
masters ban on its display, but no complaint was made about this until 29
March255 so that it seems more likely that it vanished in conjunction with or
after Wests arrest on 12 February rather than before it. Indeed, by 22 April,
LIsle Adam was convinced that West had himself sent the bauble home,
although it is unclear when this he thought this had occurred.256
The records of the chapter-general which began on 9 February certainly
make no mention of the mace, and give wholly different reasons for the
turcopoliers conduct. The appearance of foreign proctors in chapter to
represent Weston, Rawson, and Babington, against each of whom West
had a grievance, prompted him to complain that these should not be reck-
oned as members of the English langue and should neither be given a vote in
251
AOM82, fos. 137rv, 51r.
252
AOM81, fo. 110r.
253
LPFD, vi, no. 370.
254
CPL, x. 25. The grant had been made to Hugh Middleton, turcopolier, and his successors.
The mace was not to be borne in the orders council chamber.
255
AOM85, fo. 113r; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 176, wrongly states that West made the
complaint rather than Boydell.
256
LPFD, vi, no. 369.
204 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

the election of the capitular committee which drew up statutes nor in any
other decision to be made by the chapter as a whole. Although it was
conceded that the proctors, not being members of the langue, should not
be involved in electing its representatives, their right to vote in chapter was
upheld and the election of the capitulars took place.257 Wests subsequent
behaviour was quite extraordinary and deserves to be recounted in detail.
After breakfast, as the chapter sat down to begin proceedings, the turcopo-
lier not wishing to accept the . . . sentence of the chapter general that the
proctors of the priors of England and Ireland and the bailiff of Eagle should
have votes in chapter, leapt up with unjust accusations, no less rashly than
impudently, (and) without good reason before his reverend lordship and
chapter, and blaspheming God, he named the said proctors Saracens, Jews
and bastards. Having heard this charge, from which West would not desist,
asserting that he did not know whether they were Jews since they were not
English, the master and chapter, although the same turcopolier ought to
have been punished by grave penalties according to capitular statutes and
constitutions, not wishing that the business of the chapter be perturbed or
deferred, sentenced him to ask grace from his reverend lordship for those
things he had uttered before everyone so irreverently, injuriously and with
such great clamour, in excess of all modesty. West was then called before the
master and chapter again and the sentence against him read out, but he not
only refused to obey and ask grace but, blaspheming furiously, tore, threw
off and cast to the ground the habit or mantle and vest in which he was
attired with many indecent and shameful words, especially saying that if he
was disobedient he ought to be deprived of the habit and, drawing his
dagger, that he deserved death. And thus like a madman without mantle
and habit, since neither by words nor force nor by the persuasions of either
friends or honest men could he be restrained, he left the chapter.258 Lest
such nefarious and unheard of disobedience and temerity go unpunished,
master and chapter at once ordered that West should be imprisoned and
proceeded against in accordance with the statutes.259 On 25 February he
was deprived of the turcopoliership, and the ofce was provided to Roger
Boydell a week later.260
Every aspect of Wests tirade was offensive both to the orders regulations
and to the sensibilities of the men gathered in chapter. He had broken the
statutes so comprehensively in word and deed that it seems unnecessary to
draw attention to individual breaches here, but one item in particular
deserves comment. Wests initial accusations against the foreign proctors
were not only the gravest insult that could ever be inicted on a knight of

257
AOM286, fos. 31v32r.
258
Ibid., fo. 32v. An alternative translation, abbreviated for stylistic purposes, is provided by
Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 623.
259
Ibid.; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 177.
260
AOM286, fos. 35v36r; 85, fo. 110v; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 177.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 205

St John261 since the order technically excluded the illegitimate and the
descendants of indels from its ranks, but they were also in contravention
of the statutes, which laid down severe penalties for those who made
malicious accusations against their fellows. By extending the charge to all
the non-English knights in chapter the turcopolier was further implying that
none of the orders chief dignitaries, save he, was t to wear its habit. It is a
tribute to the patience of those present that he was allowed a chance to
apologize at all. His other chief offences were blasphemy, the drawing of his
dagger, and the casting off of his habit, the effects of which were exacerbated
by the fact that they happened in front of the master and the orders supreme
legislative body.262
Given its delicate relationship with the crown, the turcopoliers behaviour
left the convent in a difcult position, a fact of which West took full
advantage when he reported these events to Henry VIII and Thomas Crom-
well. His rst such letter, written to Cromwell between 25 and 28 Febru-
ary,263 represented that he had been deprived of ofce solely for having the
mace borne before him, and that LIsle Adam had refused to suffer this and
had accused him of disobedience in consequence. West had replied that he
had taken leave of his prince to enter the order and reminded the master that
Henry was a good king who had done much for the religion, citing his gift of
artillery and the export licence of 1531 as evidence of his largesse. When
again refused permission to bear the mace he had told the master to take
yowre abite and removed it, whereupon he was put in prison. He begged
Cromwell to put his cause before the king, so that the latter could intervene
with the pope to procure his restoration, as LIsle Adam would not do it.
Although Wests account clearly misrepresented the events of 12 February,
the record of which makes no mention of the mace at all, it seems unlikely
that the appointment of foreign proctors by the other English dignitaries of
the order provided sufcient reason in itself for his pronouncements in
chapter, even given his existing grievances and the aggressive nationalism
displayed in this and later correspondence. A perceived snub to the dignity of
his ofce and his nation seems a better explanation for his behaviour,
although there can be no doubt that he was deprived of the turcopoliership
for his extraordinary conduct before chapter rather than for the matter of
the mace itself.
The letter to Cromwell was followed on 22 April by a dispatch to the
king264 rehearsing Wests version of events and adding an account of what
had happened since, by which he sought to discredit the master further by

261
Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 62.
262
These were the issues which particularly grieved the commissioners appointed to inves-
tigate Wests conduct. AOM286, fos. 35v36r.
263
Misdated in LPFD to 22 April. It refers both to Wests deprival of ofce on 25 February
and to his arrest on twelfth instant. LPFD, vi, no. 370.
264
Otho C.ix, fos. 170rv (abstract in LPFD, vi, no. 369).
206 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

presenting him as vindictive and at odds with the orders council. He

recounted his deprival of ofce, imprisonment, and replacement by Boydell
and the latters subsequent death, following which the council had requested
that he be freed from prison, as there was no reason to keep him there
without a conciliar order. The master had not only ignored this petition but
when the council had elected a lieutenant turcopolier to exercise the ofce
until Henrys pleasure should be known he had caused the decision to be
overturned and had appointed John Rawson (junior) full turcopolier, al-
though he had not yet dared to send him the brod cross worn by a bailiff.265
West added that the mace had been sent back to England, and that he had
been advised that if the master were to take his habit and commandery from
him he should appeal to the king for restoration. He also reported the
insurrection which had occurred in Malta on 17 April, saying that 300
brethren had rebelled against LIsle Adam, calling into question the justice
of his suppression of the revolt and saying that he was now at loggerheads
with the Spanish brethren, who were demanding that he appoint a Spanish
lieutenant, to the wych he must consent or aventyr all. Having painted
this picture of misgovernment and injustice, he begged the king to delyver
us owght off thys thraldom, stressing once more that he had only been
deprived of his dignity for bearing the royal arms.266
As Wests letters arrived in England before the convents explanations of
the affair, they were highly successful in shaping the courts view of the
circumstances behind his removal from ofce.267 A letter which Cromwell
was drawing up in July may only have requested clarication of the matter,
as for the time being no action was taken in England, but in late October and
early November William Weston, the duke of Norfolk, and the king sent
letters to Malta by John Sutton, who presented them to the council in
February 1534.268 Norfolk urged that West be released and reinstated
without delay so that he might return to England for otherwise things
may turn unpleasant and be of considerable prejudice to the whole order
in the near future. Westons letter provided rather more substantial evidence

265
Otho C.ix. The Liber Conciliorum records that Bellingham was elected lieutenant turco-
polier on 17 April, and Rawson on the 19th. Bulls appointing Rawson were also drawn up on 19
April, John Sutton being appointed receiver in his stead on the same date. AOM85, fo. 113r;
415, fos. 166rv, 191r.
266
Further details of these troubles are provided by Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 1301 and
AOM85, fos. 112v, 113v, 115r.
267
Otho C.ix, fos. 170rv. Carlo Capello, writing to Venice from London on 12 July 1533
reported that an envoy had arrived from the prior of Rhodes asking the kings help in
succouring Coron, which Charles V was proposing to hand over to the order. This may have
been the prior of France, with whom Louis de Vallee had been sent to consult on 17 March, with
instructions to adresser celles dangleterre as he saw t. It seems possible that the proceedings
against West were explained in conjunction with these orders. A note among Cromwells
memoranda dated 2 July indicates that a letter to LIsle Adam was already being drawn up
then, however. CSPV, iv, no. 943; AOM415, fos. 241v242r; LPFD, vi, no. 756.
268
AOM85, fos. 125rv; Transcript in Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 17880.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 207

on the nature of this threat, reporting that some days before the letter had
been written he and the other peers gathered to transact the kings business
had discussed West and the reasons for his imprisonment. Nearly all had
opined that this had been a punishment for the Englishmans pretension in
having the mace bearing the royal arms carried before him even in the
masters palace and in public functions, which, as had been reported to the
king and lords, he had every right to do by right and custom. The master,
they added, had cast into prison the said brother Clement, for wishing . . . to
honour his king . . . So they all irately declaimed, uttering hard words against
you.269 Sutton added verbally that all this was known at court through
Wests letters and a messenger he had sent.
Since appeals by brethren to secular rulers or indeed the pope were
forbidden270 Suttons testimony resulted in West being brought before the
council and interrogated. He denied writing to the king, and afrmed that he
believed he owed his degradation solely to the matter of the mace. LIsle
Adam refuted this claim and deputed the draper,271 the prior of Pisa, and
Edward Bellingham to investigate the events of the previous year.272 Shortly
afterwards, on 13 April, a majority of the English langue instructed its
proctor to complain against West on the subject of the mace and request
that his appeals to England should be judged according to conventual
law.273
West responded by writing to England again, although he was careful to
address subsequent letters, until LIsle Adam had died, to Cromwell rather
than to the king. On 14 March he thanked the secretary for his help but
protested that the letters of Henry and Norfolk had done little good because
of Westons letter, without which he would have been restored. He reported
that proceedings had been instituted against him by the master and claimed,
truly enough, that pressure was being brought on him and his supporters to
deny that LIsle Adam had ever made an issue of the honour of the English
nation or of the matter of the mace. Moreover, he claimed to be sick and
unable to get representation and asked that the case be heard in England and
the English knights summoned home, as the masters control of patronage
made the younger knights forget the honour of their sovereign and nation. In
particular he singled out John Sutton for criticism, asserting that he was the
tool of LIsle Adam, whom Suttons uncle Thomas Shefeld had made
master, and who in return had provided Sutton with the commandery of
grace which ought to have gone to West as turcopolier. For further informa-
tion he referred Cromwell to John Story, who was probably the messenger
mentioned by Sutton and later entered the royal service. West claimed that

269
Quotations after Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 645.
270
Stabilimenta, De fratribus, xliiii (Statute of Jean de Lastic, 143754).
271
The draper, or drapier, was the conventual bailiff of the langue of Aragon.
272
AOM85, fos. 125v126r; transcript in Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 181.
273
AOM85, fo. 128r; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 170.
208 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

Story had been refused audience by the master and (subsequent) licence to
leave Malta with Sutton.274
On 12 May this letter was followed by another giving Wests version of
the proceedings of the chapter-general against him. He asserted that the
assembly had been packed with members of the masters household,
and pointed out that foreign proctors had sat in the place of Englishmen.275
He repeated his complaints regarding the detention of Story and the
untrue demeanour of Sutton, and his wish that all the English knights
be summoned home and heard together. He also drew attention to the plight
of Oswald Massingberd, a junior knight who had been investigated in
March for brawling with three other brethren, for having praised the murder
of four men in one of the orders galleys during the previous years insurrec-
tion, and for having repeatedly said out loud that LIsle Adam should be
killed.276 By the time West wrote his letter Massingberd had been put on
trial for the murder himself, as well as for duelling, sedition, and lese-
majeste.277 West glossed over these indiscretions, saying that Massingberds
only crime had been to accuse Sutton of being untrue to his prince and
country.278
The impact of Wests allegations on the orders affairs in England was less
than it might have been. The masters secretary was dispatched thither in the
last months of 1533 and after the commission appointed to investigate the
former turcopoliers claims of having been dismissed for bearing the mace
had reported in the following February John Sutton was sent home to
explain its ndings.279 Sutton probably carried an extract of the proceedings
of the chapter of 1533, now bound up with the Hospitaller correspondence
in the British Library and endorsed by nine English brethren, to England at
the same time.280
In the short term the orders damage limitation exercise appears to have
been a success. Despite the continued imprisonment of the two English
knights, no action was taken against the order in England in response to
Wests reports in 1534. In any case, after the death of LIsle Adam in August
1534 the situation of the prisoners improved. On 26 August an Italian, Piero
del Ponte, praised by West as a wise man and esteemed and an old friend,
was elected grand master. West marked the occasion with a scathing attack
on the former master and asked Cromwell and the king to write to Malta

274
LPFD, vii, no. 326.
275
Ibid., no. 651.
276
AOM85, fo. 126v; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 16970; Sannazaro, Venerable
Langue, 53940.
277
AOM85, fos. 128r, 130r, 130rv.
278
LPFD, vii, no. 651. Suttons step-nephew, Nicholas Upton, was among the brethren
Massingberd had been convicted of ghting with in March. AOM85, fo. 126v.
279
On 9 March LIsle Adam wrote thanking the deputy of Calais for the civility shown his
secretary on his return to England. His letter was carried by Sutton. LPFD, Addenda, no. 925.
280
LPFD, vii, no. 236.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 209

asking for his and Massingberds release.281 This was effected shortly after-
wards, despite LIsle Adams deathbed refusal to pardon Massingberd, for
the latter was in more trouble in November for ghting with John Babington
junior in the English auberge in Malta.282 West was also freed and, after a
civil exchange of letters between Henry VIII and Cromwell and the new
master, was re-elected turcopolier in April 1535.283
Although the events following Wests outburst in chapter were resolved
quite amicably, this may only have been because of LIsle Adams demise,
and it is noteworthy that whatever the friendship between Del Ponte and
West, the order had been pressurized into relaxing sentences against two
aggressive and disruptive brethren who had, according to the statutes,
merited deprival of the habit and perpetual imprisonment or death. More-
over, Wests accusations, although they did no immediate damage to the
orders operations in England, certainly increased suspicion of the Hospital-
lers at court at a time when the orders international status and privileges, if
not yet its very existence in England, were being challenged in the courts and
in parliament. Over the next few years the order was to nd itself in an
increasingly untenable position as the king sought clarication of where its
loyalties lay.
While the orders position had partly been safeguarded by the letters
patent of 1531, the anti-clerical and anti-papal legislation passed in parlia-
ment and convocation from 1529 onwards was potentially extremely dam-
aging to its independence, privileges, and nances. The Reformation
parliament, which met intermittently between November 1529 and April
1536, processed a vast corpus of legislation which gradually destroyed the
ties the English Church had with Rome.284 Inherent in the process was a
challenge to the status of those religious orders which had active inter-
national roles, among them the Hospital, the brethren of which were par-
ticularly vulnerable because their service in and submission of funds to the
convent on Malta provided their raison detre and their sense of corporate
identity. At the same time as the king and parliament were abolishing the
Churchs links with Rome, moreover, they were questioning ecclesiastical
privileges and taxing the clergy, including the Hospitallers, to an unpreced-
ented extent. Appropriately enough, given his past dealings with the king, it
was the nancial assault that William Weston found hardest to resist.
Although the attack on the papacy did not begin in earnest until 1531,
anti-clerical legislation proposed in the very rst session of the Reformation

281
AOM85, fos. 133v135v; LPFD, vii, nos. 11001.
282
LPFD, vii, no. 1100; AOM85, fo. 140v.
283
Following the death of John (I) Babington, John Rawson junior was provided to Eagle on
15 February 1535, but the choice of a new turcopolier was suspended until the return of the
ship, presumably a vessel bearing news from England. West was re-elected on 26 April. LPFD,
viii, nos. 459, 499, 5467; AOM85, fos. 144rv, 148r.
284
Lehmberg, Reformation Parliament, passim.
210 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

parliament already constituted a challenge to certain of the orders privil-

eges. The act laying down heavy nes on clergy guilty of non-residence or
pluralism and on those holding land at farm was not applicable to knight-
brethren, who were, after all, laymen, but were a potential check on the
disposal of the orders appropriated churches and effectively abolished the
papal privilege which had permitted eight clergy in the priors service to be
non-resident. Although exceptions were made, offenders against the act
came before the courts in large numbers.285 Besides the restrictions on
clerical non-residence there was also an attack on the payment of mortuar-
ies, which were only to be levied from the goods of those who possessed
moveable property worth 10 marks or more, and were limited to a max-
imum of 10 shillings. They were not to be paid at all by women, people
keeping the house, or travellers. All three categories probably comprehended
many of those who had paid mortuaries to the Hospitallers, one of whose
most cherished privileges was the right to bury people outside their home
parishes.286 Although other, more serious attacks on the orders revenue-
producing privileges were to follow, even in 1533 Thomas Cromwell was
seeking a more favourable lease of Sutton-at-Hone, as its pardon was
utterly decayed.287
The following years saw more anti-clerical legislation and increased royal
demands on the clerical estate. In 1532 convocation was forced to submit to
the review of existing, and royal approval of all new canon law, and the
papal pocket was threatened by the Act in Conditional Restraint of Annates,
which came into effect in the following year. In 1533 the Act of Succession
imposed an oath to be administered throughout the kingdom acknowledg-
ing the kings second marriage and its offspring, and all appeals to, and
procurements of licences, faculties, and dispensations from, Rome were
forbidden by the Acts of Appeals and Dispensations.288 The following year
papal authority over the English Church was denitively suppressed by the
Acts of Supremacy and Heresy.289
These measures, particularly the Acts of Dispensations and Supremacy,
had serious implications for the Hospital. While the restraint of annates to
Rome and the investigation of canon law had a potential rather than an
immediate effect on the order, the attack on papal supremacy and the
dispensations and licenses which owed from Rome did call into question
its exemptions and privileges, which, although traditionally conrmed by
English monarchs on their accession or that of new priors, were now at the
will of a crown which was carrying out a thorough review of ecclesiastical

285
Statutes, iii. 2926; CPL., x. 189; Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, 330; Lehmberg, Reformation
Parliament, 934.
286
Statutes, iii. 2889.
287
LPFD, vi, no. 1665.
288
Statutes, iii. 4601, 3858, 4624, 4714, 4279, 492, 46471.
289
Ibid., 4545 (clause 7).
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 211

privileges. The Hospitals status as an exempt order of the church under

papal protection was not unique in England, but its links with its overseas
convent were unusually concrete, and its international activities were, in the
last analysis, an expression of papal policy. Moreover, the Acts of Dispen-
sations and Appeals, which struck at the recourse of Englishmen to the curia
as a fount of justice and privilege, also forbade any resort to other foreign
authorities. Although the order was able to secure a proviso that Dispensa-
tions should not extend to those privileges it had been granted before March
1532, its brethren were, at least technically, prohibited in future from
obtaining licences, faculties, and dispensations not merely from Rome but
from any other foreign source. Nor was the Hospital exempted from the
clauses forbidding the visitation of exempt monasteries by foreign visitors
and prohibiting members of English houses from acting as visitors or attend-
ing chapters or assemblies abroad. Visitations, Dispensations declared, were
henceforth to be by commission from the king, although when these were
ordered the Hospitallers were not listed among those orders whose houses
were to be visited.290 The order probably managed to avoid these provisions
by pleading its past exemptions, but these were to be allowed only insofar as
they were in accordance with English law and it seems probable that ap-
pointments from Malta and the participation of English brethren in deci-
sion-making processes there were now technically illegal, a possibility that
lends a certain irony to Clement Wests protest against the use of foreign
proctors in the chapter of 1533.
Perhaps most importantly, by abolishing the title and authority of the
pope within the realm, the Act of Supremacy made it impossible for the
Hospital to plead past papal privileges when soliciting confraternity pay-
ments, effectively curtailing their collection. Coupled with the restrictions
on mortuary payments, this had a crippling effect on the protability of
Hospitaller pardons. The indirect assaults on the orders revenues, more-
over, were complemented by the imposition of direct taxation, for Weston
was unable to procure exemption from the Act of First Fruits and Tenths
which reserved the prots of the vacancy year of all ecclesiastical beneces
and possessions and a tenth of their annual value thereafter to the crown
from 1 January 1535.291 This was a major setback. The orders revenues had
already declined considerably because of the attacks of convocation and
parliament, and it was now subjected to the payment of a tenth of its net
income in addition to the responsions and other dues demanded by the
convent. In 1534 the council complete had already permitted the brethren
of the English langue to pay a third-annate for their responsions rather
than the half levied by the last chapter and this new imposition provoked
Del Ponte to ask Cromwell for the Hospital to be exempted in April 1535,

290
Ibid., 46471, clauses 19, 14; Concilia, ed. Wilkins, iii. 82930.
291
Clause 21 of the act specically included the order in the levy. Statutes, iii. 4939, at 498.
212 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

but his appeal was fruitless and the measure remained in force until the
Dissolution.292
As a result of parliamentary prohibitions and impositions, payments to
the convent declined drastically. Having deducted a tenth from the respon-
sions they were prepared to pay as a result of First Fruits, the preceptors of
the orders houses in England and Wales then sought rebates of up to three-
quarters of the remaining sum as a result of their loss of confraternity
payments and oblations.293 Even given these reductions, most fell rapidly
and heavily into arrears. The suspension of the confraria, in particular, was a
serious blow to the orders revenues, although there was some initial confu-
sion about whether its collection had been forbidden or not. Although values
were given for the confraria in many of the Valor Ecclesiasticus returns, their
farmer in south-west Wales had collected nothing in 1534 or 1535 because
the kings will on the matter was not yet fully understood. Despite the orders
exemption from Dispensations, he was clearly afraid of punishment should
he proceed to collection.294 By 1536 the order was nding confraternity
payments impossible to collect anywhere. Accordingly it lobbied the crown
for redress, with the remarkable result that the privilege granted to the
Hospitallers by Henry in 1537 conceded that they might be levied hence-
forth in vim Regiorum diplomatum rather than in accordance with papal
letters.295 In 1539 we nd the chancellor, Audley, reporting to Cromwell
that William Weston had requested he be granted commissions to gather the
frary under the great book granted by the king to the grand master, and
asking the kings pleasure on the matter.296
Some brethren appear to have reacted aggressively to the erosion of their
privileges and revenues. The impecunious preceptor of Carbrooke, Thomas
Coppledike, who spent much of the 1530s either petitioning for a reduction
in his responsions or seeking to augment his estate,297 was provoked to fury
in 1534 by the attempt of his tenant John Payne to serve a writ against some
local adversaries in Great Carbrooke. Pronouncing that by goddes soule
ther shal be no warraunts servyd withyn my Town for I am lord and kynge
ther myselffe, Coppledike gathered a band of armed men, who tore down
Paynes hedge while singing verse to commemorate the deed. Although

292
Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 47; AOM286, fo. 85v; LPFD, viii, no. 547.
293
In 1536, the further rebates sought on top of the deduction of a tenth because of First
Fruits and Tenths were a tenth from the sums owed by the prioral preceptories and Newland, a
ninth from Beverley and Dinmore, a seventh from Halston and Quenington, a fth from Mount
St John and Slebech, a quarter from Dalby, Swingeld, Yeaveley, a third from Ansty and
Battisford, and three-quarters from Carbrooke. The preceptors of the former Templar houses
of Eagle, Ribston, Temple Brewer, Templecombe, and Willoughton, which were not centres for
the collection of confraternity payments, did not ask for rebates beyond the initial tenth.
AOM54, fos. 286r296r.
294
Valor, iv. 388.
295
AOM36.
296
LPFD, xiv, II, no. 36.
297
AOM86, fos. 60r, 61r, 73r, 75r.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 213

allegations of riot were often made in order to transfer business into Star
Chamber, and Payne does seem to have enclosed land on which Coppledike
had right of common for his cattle, the words attributed to the Hospitaller,
even if exaggerated, probably demonstrate that the order was perceived to
be vulnerable to accusations of arrogance and disloyalty to the crown.
Further complaints that the preceptor had threatened to evict Payne
and leave him destitute, and that an attempt had been made to murder
him by one of Coppledikes associates, cannot have improved the orders
reputation.298
A case more directly connected with the orders defence of its privileges
occurred in Bristol in the same year. It began with the abduction of the female
servant of a Bristol merchant by the commander of Templecombe, Edmund
Hussey, and escalated into a major clash between the corporation and
the order over the district of Temple Fee, a jurisdictional peculiar in
which Hussey had held the unfortunate girl before conveying her elsewhere.
The corporation alleged that Hussey had refused to hand over his captive,
to pay sureties to the town Constable, and to acknowledge the jurisdiction
of its ofcers in Temple Fee. His deance had culminated in an armed
march by Hussey, his friends, and tenants into the centre of Bristol, where
he had dared the civic ofcials to arrest him and assaulted the sergeant sent
to do so with a dagger. Again there are the same intimations that the order
considered itself above the law and supported its pretensions with violence
and intimidation. The towns real reason for reporting these matters was
probably the separate jurisdiction of Temple Fee, which Hussey and the
prior claimed was exempt from visitation or correction by Bristol ofcials
and in which, the mayor alleged, the order gave sanctuary to a host of
criminals and operated a string of unlawful brewhouses and other un-
savoury establishments. The issue of sanctuary was decided in favour of
the corporation and the mayors ofcers given the right to serve processes in
Temple Fee without resistance from prior or preceptor. Any decisions
taken on the more specic allegations against Hussey appear not to have
survived.299
The particular accusations surrounding the Hospitallers in 1534 may
conceivably have encouraged their inclusion in a contemporary plan for
the disendowment of the Church, which probably originated in government
circles but evidently failed to meet with parliamentary approval.300 But this
general scheme having failed, the crown did not involve the order in its
attack on the smaller monasteries in 15356. Thus, despite mostly being
valued under 200 and staffed by but one knight-brother, the orders pre-
ceptories were not investigated by Cromwells visitors in 15356. While the
298
PRO STAC2/29/134; 2/29/65.
299
PRO STAC2/6/93; M. C. Skeeters, Community and Clergy: Bristol and the Reformation
c.1530-c.1570 (Oxford, 1993), 69.
300
Hoyle, Origins, 2914.
214 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

priorys incorporation as a single entity in common law, and perhaps oppos-

ition raised against the orders dissolution in parliament may have something
to do with this, part of the credit must also go to William Weston, who had
handled the king skilfully in 1528, and who took care to demonstrate his
loyalty during the early 1530s, professing his support for the annulment of
the royal marriage in July 1530, attending parliament and taking the oath
of succession there, serving on royal commissions and providing sweeteners
of cash, cloth, and carpets to Thomas Cromwell, the master of the Rolls, and
the king respectively.301 It is noticeable that he conned his opposition to
religious change to the impositions and grants which specically affected the
orders functioning and nances rather than making an issue of its subjection
to the papacy. The restoration of the ow of responsions to the convent in
1531 must have owed much to his prudence. The crowns continued com-
plaisance in the orders activities was doubtless also assisted by the grant of
Hampton Court, although this did not entirely sate the king, as the prior was
induced to alienate more property in 1536, when his manor of Paris Garden
was exchanged for the lands of the suppressed monastery of Kilburn and
granted to the queen.302 Pressure from other court luminaries for grants of
leases and ofces also continued. The provincial chapter of 1529 had
granted the major Essex estate of Cressing-Witham to a baron of the ex-
chequer, John Smith, and in 1535 Lord Lisle was petitioning for the farm of
Rodmersham, a part of the magistral camera, which was still in the hands of
Francis Bells widow.303 Two years later the magistral camera was granted to
Cromwell in its entirety.304 In 1536, as we have seen, Cromwell also
attempted to procure the auditorship of the priory for an adherent, pressing
the matter despite Westons protest that he had already granted the ofce
and could not revoke it without appearing weak.305 The prior was so upset
by the demands for leases that he delayed holding a provincial chapter in
1533,306 while the peril of association with courtiers was demonstrated, as it
had been on Wolseys death, when the orders lands in the tenure of William
Brereton were seized on his attainder in May 1536. In 1537 Clement West
was still petitioning for the recovery of goods that had been in Breretons
keeping.307

301
LPFD, iv, no. 6513 (letter); v, no. 1518; vii, no. 391 (parliament, oath); vols. ivv, xi, xiv,
passim (commissions of the peace); Addenda nos. 609, 655 (commissions of searches); iv, no.
5330; ix, no. 478; xi, no. 66; v, no. 686.
302
Statutes, iii. 6767, 6957.
303
PRO SC6/Henry VIII/ 2402, mm. 3333d; LPFD, viii, no. 381.
304
PRO LR2/62, fos. 160rv.
305
LPFD, xi, nos. 406, 419, 425, 450.
306
LPFD, vi, no. 166.
307
LPFD, xi, no. 489; xii, I, no. 347. A list of Breretons debts drawn up in 1545 includes
West among his creditors. Letters and Accounts of William Brereton of Malpas, ed. E. W. Ives,
Lancashire & Cheshire Record Society, 116 (Old Woking, 1976), 279.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 215

Yet although Weston did his best to allay royal suspicions, he was no
longer fully trusted. He was not named to commissions of the peace between
February 1532 and October 1537 and was conspicuously absent from those
ordered north against the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536, being instructed to
remain behind and guard the queen instead. Nor was he employed on the
diplomatic business for which his predecessor had been so remarkable.
Although he was among the English notables who welcomed the Venetian
ambassador to London in December 1528,308 the prior was never sent on an
embassy abroad and was not involved in drawing up treaties at home either.
He was, moreover, refused permission to go to Malta himself in 1536,
despite making great suit to do so.309
While Weston took steps to show himself loyal to the crown during its
course, in the longer term the effects of the Pilgrimage of Grace probably
intensied royal distrust of the order and helped to ensure its suppression.
Although Sir William Fairfax wrote to Cromwell in January 1537 stating
that the northern religious houses were still patronizing the poor to get their
support and that none were so busy in stirring up the people as the Hospi-
tallers chief tenants, the Pilgrimage and its associated risings did not prompt
any royal attack on the orders brethren or properties.310 Nor did Weston
suffer any contemporary loss of favour at court, where he was seeking royal
conrmation of the grant of Shingay to his nephew Thomas Dingley by
Didier de Saint Jalhe, who had been elected master after the death of Piero
Del Ponte in November 1535.311 The king had written to either LIsle Adam
or Del Ponte in 1534/5 asking the (unnamed) master to present Dingley to
the next vacant preceptory in England and had written again to the next
master asking for Dingleys promotion to be remembered.312 His wishes
were upheld when the priors nephew was provided to Shingay on 25 April
1536.313 The orders statutes, however, laid down that masters-elect had no
power to confer beneces until they should reach the convent and be sworn
in, and pleading this Ambrose Cave was able to have Saint Jalhes decision
overturned by the lieutenant master and council on Malta, who granted him
the preceptory for his meliormentum on 14 June 1536.314 Caves existing
preceptory, Yeaveley, was conferred on Anthony Rogers.315
By the time the dispute came to the notice of the English court, matters
had been further complicated by the death at Montpellier in October 1536
of Saint Jalhe, who had never reached Malta after his election.316 In the
following January Cave wrote to Cromwell asking for his rights to Shingay

308 309 310

CSPV, iv, no. 380. LPFD, x, no. 339. LPFD, xii, I, no. 192.
311
AOM86, fo. 19v.
312
The letters are undated exempla lacking addresses. LPFD, x, no. 391.
313
LPFD, x, no. 731.
314
AOM86, fo. 40r; 416, fo. 157v.
315
AOM416, fos. 158r, 158v.
316
AOM86, fos. 47r, 47r48r.
216 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

to be upheld, and protesting that Dingley already held another preceptory

and had also been granted a pension of 100 crowns together with, subse-
quently, the member of Stansgate, which was worth another 40 per annum.
No man, he said, was so rewarded having served so little time.317 His
complaints were supported by Clement West, who conrmed that masters
of the order could only confer its dignities after they had sworn in convent to
maintain its customs and statutes. None of the masters he had seen, ve of
whom had been elected overseas, had done otherwise.318 To further under-
mine Dingleys credentials the turcopolier also sent Cromwell an old letter
from Sir Richard Weston to his brother William concerning their nephews
youthful misdemeanours, which had been serious enough to prompt his
expulsion from Richards household. The priors brother had warned at
the time that if the king should get hold of Dingley 10,000 would not
save his life.319 Although the lieutenant master and council on Malta did
not, as yet, write to the king about Shingay, the prior was told that Saint
Jalhes actions had been illegal and ordered to put Cave into possession, an
instruction he actively disobeyed.320
A royal commission had by now been established to determine the truth
of the opposing claims, but the priors inuence at court was still strong
enough to ensure Dingleys conrmation as preceptor of Shingay on 19 April
1537, before the commissioners had reported.321 But his rivals continued to
press their claims. The new grand master, Juan de Homedes, had been
elected in Malta in November 1536 and had dispatched Aimery de Reaulx
to announce his election to the king.322 Although Reaulx had no written
orders to intervene in the Shingay case, the prior wrote on 7 September 1537
to warn Dingley that Reaulx, John Sutton, and Ambrose Cave had per-
suaded Cromwell that the death of Saint Jalhe before he had reached
Malta had invalidated the gift of Shingay. The king now apparently believed
that the matter should be put to justice.323 Anthony Rogers had
been petitioning Cromwell for some time before this, initially with little
success, but had threatened that he would have his pennyworth of Dingley,
and eventually had been sent to court by the minister, where he waited
for an audience for several weeks. The king had still not seen him by
5 September.324

317
Weston had granted Dingleys pension in 1526 and Stansgate in the provincial chapter of
1533, the latter being conrmed in convent in 1535. Dingley had been received into the order
only in 1526. LPFD, xii, I, no. 78 (1); AOM416, fos. 157rv; BDVTE, 42.
318
LPFD, xii, I, no. 207.
319
LPFD, Addenda, no. 1191.
320
AOM416, fos. 158v159r.
321
LPFD, xii, I, no. 1103(28).
322
AOM86, fos. 47r48r; LPFD, xii, I, no. 204.
323
LPFD, xii, II, no. 663.
324
Ibid., no. 427; Addenda, no. 1095 (misdated in Letters and Papers to 1536; Rogers was
on caravan in that year: BDVTE, 35).
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 217

Whether as a result of Rogerss interview with the king, or for other

reasons, within a fortnight of Reaulxs meeting with Cromwell Dingley
had been arrested and committed to the Tower on suspicion of treason.325
The nature of his offence is perhaps best illustrated by a letter from Robert
Branceter, a London merchant in the imperial service, to Richard Pate
written in May 1538, and either intercepted by the crown or sent by Pate
as evidence. Branceter reported that Dingley had said openly at table in
Pates house in Genoa that if bad fortune should happen to the king in this
matter (the Pilgrimage) then the lady Mary could marry the Marquis of
Exeters son and the two enjoy the realm together.326 The act of attainder by
which Branceter and Dingley were condemned in 1539 accused them both of
complicity in the rising and of stirring foreign princes to war against the
king.327
What is unclear is the identity of the original informant against the priors
nephew. In October 1537, shortly after his arrest, Thomas Cromwell
instructed Sir Thomas Wyatt, then at the imperial court, to deliver an
intercepted letter from Pate to an Englishman there, possibly Branceter, as
the king much desired to try out the matter of Dingley. Ten days later
another dispatch requested information on the business touching Dingley,
which the king, Cromwell said, had specially to heart.328 While Henry VIII
was seeking proof of Dingleys guilt he remained in the tower and under
interrogation admitted to conversing with Sir George Throckmorton about
the Act of Appeals and the kings remarriage some years earlier. Throckmor-
ton was pulled in and confessed that he had expressed disapproval of
the latter when speaking with Dingley in the garden of St Johns, prompting
his interrogators to ask pointedly whether he had known that the
priors nephew was a man sometime travelling in far countries, whereby
he might the rather spread abroad the said infamy.329 Although Throck-
morton was later released, Dingley was already past saving, and by
3 November his preceptories had been bestowed upon the courtiers Sir
Thomas Seymour and Sir Richard Long.330 Shortly afterwards the prior
was forced to surrender to the crown the monies he was detaining from
Dingleys estates for responsions and, as a further punishment, the 200
which he stood bound to pay for Dingley, presumably as a surety or ne,
and for which he had hoped to be recompensed from the prots of his
nephews preceptories.331

325
Dingley was incarcerated on 18 September. LPFD, xiii, I, no. 627.
326
Ibid., no. 1104.
327
S. E. Lehmberg, The Later Parliaments of Henry VIII 15361547 (Cambridge, 1977), 60.
328
LPFD, xii, II, nos. 870, 950.
329
Ibid., nos. 9523.
330
Ibid., no. 1023.
331
LPFD, Addenda, no. 1269. Dingley had owed the common treasury 75 12s. 10d. in
1536. AOM54, fos. 293v294r.
218 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

Although his fate might have been sealed by Branceters letter of May
1538 anyway, Dingleys cause cannot have been helped by Clement Wests
letters home. Besides his reminder of the prisoners past misdeeds in 1537,
the turcopolier wrote to Cromwell and the king early in the following year to
report the arrival of Juan de Homedes in Malta. He added that Homedes had
been accompanied by Oswald Massingberd and John Story, who evidently
informed West that Dingley had been executed following his imprisonment.
The turcopolier saw this as an opportunity to further blacken the younger
knights reputation, opining that he had deserved to die, and reporting that
the hospitaller,332 Robert Dache, had recently informed him of a conversa-
tion which he had had with Dingley in France, during which the latter had
told him that the king sought avanys moreskys to put men to death. West
also mentioned the currency in Malta of prophecies forecasting woe for the
king, Norfolk, and Cromwell.333 Although he may have been misled in the
matter of Dingleys supposed death, the turcopoliers letter probably helped
doom the prisoner and hardly redounded to the greater good of his order,
which was viewed with increasing suspicion in England.
Dingley was attainted in May 1539 and executed on Tower hill on 9 July
alongside Sir Adrian Fortescue and two of their, probably the latters,
servants.334 The exact offence for which he was executed remains unclear.
The reference to his complicity in the Pilgrimage of Grace is the more
difcult to substantiate of the charges levelled against him in the act of
attainder, for the only reference to it before the act is provided by Branceters
letter, which only hinted that he approved of the revolt, not that he was
involved in it, which could hardly have been possible if he was abroad.
Taken in conjunction with the accusation that Dingley had stirred foreign
princes to war against the king, however, the former charge may refer to the
Hospitaller urging the emperor to become involved in the rising. Certainly
Dingley had made no secret of his opposition to royal policies while he was
abroad, and although direct evidence that he had conversed with any foreign
potentates is lacking his position as a Hospitaller would have provided him
with relatively easy access to them.
It is difcult to be sure of the source of the initial accusation against
Dingley. Possible candidates are Rogers, Cave, West, the interception of
one of Pates or Branceters letters, or more direct collaboration with the

332
The hospitaller was a conventual bailiff and the chief dignitary of the langue of France.
333
LPFD, xiii, I, nos. 230, 234.
334
LPFD, xiv, I, nos. 867, 980; A London Chronicle during the Reigns of Henry VII and
Henry VIII, ed. C. Hopper, in Camden Miscellany IV, CS, 1st ser., 73 (London, 1859), 14;
Chronicle of the Grey Friars, ed. Nichols, 43; C. Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England during the
Reigns of the Tudors, ed. W. D. Hamilton, vol. i, CS, 2nd ser., 11 (London, 1875), 1012.
Dr Richard Rex has conclusively established that there is no evidence that Fortescue was
connected with the order of St John. R. Rex, Blessed Adrian Fortescue: A Martyr without a
Cause?, Analecta Bollandiana, 115 (1997), 30752, esp. 33949. I am grateful to him for
making a copy of this article available.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 219

crown by one of these two. Whether Dingley was condemned by his own
brethren or not, the Shingay case demonstrated the bitterness of the divisions
within the English langue, which had developed to such an extent by 1539
that there were then two fairly distinct factions among the English brethren
on Malta, one composed of convinced royalists and the other of moderates
seeking to balance their conicting obligations to crown and convent. The
order soon realized that Dingley was doomed, but continued to appeal for
the conscation of his commanderies to be rescinded. Homedes and the
council wrote to the king in May 1538 reiterating the invalidity of Dingleys
collation to Shingay and asking that Cave be granted it. Clement West
dispatched letters to the king, Norfolk, and Cromwell on the same theme
in the following July and as late as March 1540, when the order drew up
instructions for its visitors and ambassadors to England, they included a
mandate to seek the restoration of the conscated estates.335
By this time, however, the orders credibility in England had been com-
prehensively undermined, largely by the turcopolier. Despite his restoration
to ofce in 1535, a subsequent grant of ancienitas to the other chief dignities
of the langue, and an appointment to act as the regent of the magistral
election of October 1535, which he reported with some enthusiasm to
Cromwell, Wests tendency to complain whenever he was denied any ap-
pointment which might pertain to him soon reasserted itself.336 He con-
tinued to petition for the grant of Melchbourne, which had been denied him
by the maintenance of the cruel LIsle Adam, and attempted to appeal
against the election of proctors of the common treasury in January 1536 and
the appointment of a younger Italian knight, Leone Strozzi, as captain of the
orders galleys a year later.337 In both cases the council refused him licence
even to mount an appeal, prompting him to complain to Cromwell that
Englishmen were allowed little chance to participate in the honours of the
order, and that no Englishman had been given a naval command since the
siege of Rhodes.338 His attempt to turn a personal grievance into a matter of
national honour was intentionally undermined when William Tyrrell and
Giles Russell were given important positions of responsibility later in the
same year.339 Despite their appointments, West repeated his complaints in a
letter to the king in September 1537, adding gloomily that the little power
the English knights had would be further reduced when Homedes arrived.340
His complaints seem to have affected the orders attempts to get some
clarication of its privileges from the crown in the face of the attacks on
them. Certainly West reported in early 1538 that some in the convent

335
LPFD, xiii, I, nos. 1358, 13978; AOM286, fos. 130v131r.
336
AOM416, fos. 155rv; 86, fos. 18r19v; LPFD, ix, no. 920.
337
LPFD, xi, no. 917; AOM86, fos. 27r, 51v.
338
LPFD, xii, I, nos. 347, 365.
339
AOM86, fos. 54r, 54v.
340
LPFD, xii, II, no. 792.
220 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

believed that the conrmation of the orders privileges which had occurred in
the previous year would not have been so strait had it not been for his
letters home. Despite the kings ignorance of Thomas Dingleys treason at
the time, the letters patent issued on the orders behalf in July 1537 had both
exposed his distrust of his Hospitaller subjects and, in restoring confratern-
ity payments and permitting travel to Malta, conrmed his belief in the
continued validity of their enterprise. The letters were aimed at forcing the
brethren to choose between their national and ecclesiastical allegiances.341
They not only named the king Supreme Head of the English Church, but also
required that henceforth candidates received into the order should acknow-
ledge his supremacy by oath. Furthermore they established that those pro-
moted to the orders preceptories were not only to pay annates to both
crown and convent and tenths to the king, but were also to take an oath to
the king and be instituted by him. The orders brethren were additionally
forbidden to support or promote the jurisdiction, authority, or title of the
bishop of Rome, and were to collect confraternity payments in accordance
with royal licence rather than papal privileges. Finally it was laid down that
the order should hold annual provincial chapters, those feeling wronged by
their decisions appealing to the kings vicar for remedy.
Historians of the order have generally misdated the grant of 1537 to
1539 and presented it as an ultimatum rejected by the convent without
further ado, resulting in the dissolution of the Hospitallers in England,
Wales, and Ireland.342 In fact while Henrys letters were not ofcially rec-
ognized in Malta, neither were they actively repudiated, and the order
conducted its affairs in England in accordance with them for two and a
half years before it was dissolved.343 The specic causes of the dissolution of
1540 have rather to be sought in the after-effects of Dingleys treason and in
the divisions of the English langue in Malta, to which Clement West was
naturally central. It was only when a junior knight, Nicholas Lambert, made
an issue of Henry VIIIs letters that they became a signicant bone of
contention.
In September 1537 the turcopolier was in trouble with the orders council
again. His problems were chiey self-inicted, but he sought as usual to
depict them as having serious national and international implications. The
rst serious matter of which he was charged was provocation to duel in the
council, for which he was conned to his chamber on 10 September 1537,
and although he managed to stay out of trouble in the following year he

341
AOM36 [Original]; LPFD, xii, II, no. 411(25) [Enrolment].
342
Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 2001; King, British Realm, 104; Tyerman, England, 358.
The Catalogue of the orders archives dates the document to 7 August 1538, following Porter. It
is in fact dated 7 July 29 Henry VIII, i.e. 1537. Catalogue of the Records of the Order of St. John
of Jerusalem in the Royal Malta Library, ed. A. J. Gabarretta and J. Mizzi, vols. i-(Valletta,
1964 ), i. 105.
343
LPFD, vii, no. 1345; See below, 222.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 221

continued to portray the order in an unattering light.344 In addition to his

letters of February, which condemned Dingley and reported prophecies
against the king, in July 1538 West reported words spoken in the kings
despite in Marseilles while Tyrrell had been there as captain of the orders
galleon, and in the following month he sent a sycophantic missive to the king
in which he asserted that a strength was to be made against Henry, that
Spain and France bore him no favour, and that in Malta there was objection
to the kings naming the pope bishop of Rome, with people saying that
Henry had created martyrs and held rude opinions.345 It was only in early
1539, however, that the turcopolier passed the point of no return, being
conned to his chamber for three months for having insulted Homedes in
council without any reverence and respect.346 As a chapter-general was to
be held shortly, Giles Russell was elected lieutenant turcopolier to represent
the langue during its proceedings347 before Wests connement was
extended for another four months on 20 May.348 Not only had the orders
council nally lost patience with him but so, it seems, had the langue, for on
16 May certain English brethren appeared before the council complete and
complained that Wests earlier restoration by the council ordinary had been
invalid, as he had been deprived of ofce by the council complete, whose
decisions had the force of those of chapter.349 On 3 September their petition
was upheld, West was stripped of the grand cross and of his habit and
was sent back to the tower where he had been imprisoned in 1533. On
5 September he and his proctor, Nicholas Lambert, were ordered to be
conned indenitely for having appealed to another tribunal.350
The turcopoliers reaction to his travails was predictable. On 25 March
1539 he wrote to Cromwell to request that he be recalled to the royal
presence for the safeguard of the kings person. There he would tell Henry
what no other man could, which he would rather do than have any goods in
the world. For further news he referred the minister to the bearer, John Story,
whom he suggested should be taken into Cromwells service.351 The royal
reaction to Wests cryptic threats is unknown but according to Nicholas
Lambert Homedes opened the letters that had come from England in re-
sponse in early September. West sent Lamberts report of this on to Crom-
well, and followed it on 24 November with his version of the events behind
his deprival of the habit.352 Ignoring his public insults to the master and the
constitutional inadequacy of his restoration four years earlier, he depicted

344
AOM86, fo. 62r; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 183.
345
LPFD, xiii, I, no. 1397; II, no. 103.
346
AOM86, fo. 82v; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 183.
347
AOM86, fo. 82v.
348
Ibid., fo. 86r; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 184.
349
AOM286, fo. 119r.
350
Ibid, fos. 120rv; 86, fo. 92v; LPFD, xiv, II, no. 135.
351
LPFD, xiv, I, no. 605.
352
Ibid., II, nos. 5789.
222 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

the whole affair as having arisen from his attachment to the king. The
master, he said, had called him to his presence some time before, told him
that Weston was sick and likely to die and called upon him to leve yowr
kyng and all his ill works if he would be prior. West had asked how the king
had ever injured Homedes, and when the latter replied that Henry had taken
his privileges and his commanderies, the turcopolier had said that the
law had given him Dingleys possessions because he was a traitor. The
argument had moved on to the injuries done by the king to the pope and
when West had asked what the bishop of Rome had to do with England the
master had risen and said Call you him beschop of Rome? . . . Ye be accorsyd
and owght not to syt yn counsell. It was after this exchange that West had
been conned to his room for three months, and, because of his appeal to the
king, had been deprived of the grand cross and kept under lock and key,
denied permission to speak to anyone. Finally, in spite of his appeal to the
king, the turcopoliership had been bestowed on Giles Russell on 10 Novem-
ber.353 According to a letter written by the imprisoned Lambert to Cromwell
on the same day, Russells election had not been without controversy, as
several members of the langue had wished to wait for royal approval before
conducting it, and had stayed away. Lambert expressed himself unsurprised
that the foreign lords in Malta were unwilling to accept the kings patent
when so many English brethren had gone clear against it.354
The orders ofcial line on these events was upheld by Russell and William
Tyrrell in letters to England at about the same time. The new turcopolier
wrote to Lord Russell on 1 December reporting that Wests deprivation had
been due not only to the inadequacy of his restoration by the council
ordinary, but also to his misbehaviour towards the lieutenant master, most
of the lords of the religion, and Homedes since he had recovered the
turcopoliership. Russell added that he himself was now heir to the dignities
of the langue and asked his powerful namesakes favour in securing
the priory of England when the time should come.355 Tyrrells letters to
the prior and subprior are rather less naive, and show awareness of how
West was likely to react to his deprivation. Besides reiterating the constitu-
tional reasons for Wests deprivation, Tyrrell supposed that West would
respond by alleging that he and the master had quarrelled over the kings
patent, which would be but his excuse, as the order had petitioned for its
grant for a long time, and had observed it to the kings pleasure since.
Although Tyrrell was not quite right, the issue of the letters patent being
raised by Lambert rather than West, his insight into the latters modus
operandi is striking.356

353
AOM86, fo. 96r.
354
LPFD, xiv, II, no. 580.
355
Ibid., no. 625. Giless family, the Russells of Strensham, were not closely related to John
Lord Russell but claimed kinship with him. Bindoff (ed.), History of Parliament, iii. 236.
356
LPFD, vii, no. 1345 (wrongly assigned to 1534).
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 223

Wests appeal had a powerful effect at home, especially as the envoys of

the order who were supposed to depart for England in October 1539 did not
leave until March 1540, with the result that Wests version of events went
unchallenged for several months.357 By then royal letters ordering Wests
release from connement had arrived in Malta. This Homedes refused to
effect, saying that he would send an explanation back by John Story, but
Story was reluctant to carry Homedes letters, which denied the king the title
of Supreme Head. Homedes would not allow Story to return until he agreed
to take the letters and consequently it was two months before he was
released to go home.358 Writing to Cromwell from Paris on 1 June, he
reported that West and Lambert were still in connement.359 By the time
the masters envoys, who had instructions to explain the arrests and the
events leading up to them, had reached the Channel, the decision to dissolve
the order had already been taken, and they were denied entry to the realm.
Subsequent appeals for Henry to reconsider were equally fruitless, and by
the time the rst of them had been launched in September the king had
already alienated a large proportion of the orders estates, 600 marks worth
being given to contenders in the May Day tournament, before the act
dissolving the order was yet law.360
The act dissolving the order of St John was sent down from the Lords on
1 May 1540, and passed in the Commons within the week.361 The orders
houses in England, Wales, and Ireland were to be dissolved, its brethren were
to give up their habit and were no longer to meet, and those overseas were to
appear home within a year if they were to receive their pensions and avoid
the royal displeasure. Although their mobile goods were to be conscated,
relatively generous pensions, amounting to about half the revenue they had
enjoyed as knights, were allocated to twenty-eight brethren, and to the
master and chaplains of the Temple.362 Weston was to receive 1,000 per
annum, Rawson 500 marks, senior preceptors such as West and Sutton
200, junior preceptors between 30 and 100, and conventual brethren
10. Rawson, moreover, was accorded the title of Viscount Clontarf and a
seat in the Irish lords. Maurice Denis was appointed receiver of all the
orders lands and made responsible for the payment of the former Hospital-
lers pensions from the local issues of its estates. The prior, however, received
not a single payment for, according to Wriothesleys chronicle, he expired on

357
AOM286, fos. 121v122r, 130v131r.
358
LPFD, xv, nos. 430, 520, 5312.
359
Ibid., no. 741.
360
AOM6425, fo. 278r; Wriothesley, Chronicle of England, 11819.
361
Elton, Studies, i. 217; Wriothesley, Chronicle of England, 11819, dates Westons death
and the dissolution to 7 May, while Hall, Chronicle, 838, and R. Holinshed, The First Volume of
the Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Irelande, 2 vols. (London, 1577), ii. 1578, have
William Westons death following the dissolution on the Assencion daie, being the fth daie of
Maie. In fact the Ascension fell on 6 May in 1540.
362
Statutes, iii. 77981. Hospitaller pensioners are listed in Appendix VIII below.
224 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940

the very day of the dissolution of pure grief.363 He was accorded an

appropriately dignied funeral and the clear value of his remaining goods
at St Johns were found to comprise nearly 600 in cash as well as plate,
church ornaments, and other goods.364 It was perhaps as well that he did not
live to see the priory used as a storehouse, its church partially demolished
and its remarkable bell tower blown up for building stone.365
The process of dissolution took some time. The orders preceptors were
formally permitted to retain possession until Michaelmas, and in practice
might remain for another month or two, although any rents they might
collect during this additional period were reserved to the crown.366 It was
not until late December that they were granted their pensions.367 In the
meantime, surveys of their property were carried out and plate and other
valuables carried away. Doubtless to encourage cooperation, the preceptor
was allowed a sixth of the prots of these.368 Even after their removal from
their former houses there was some continuityseveral knights saw shared
service to the crown in the 1540s, others lived on portions of their former
estates, and four rejoined the order in 1557. But, save among those brethren
who remained behind in Malta, the bonds of conventual life, cooperation,
and competition which had united them before 1540 ceased to exist there-
after.369
It is difcult to believe that the Hospital could have survived long in an
England and Wales where all other religious orders had been swept away.
Proposals had been advanced for the conscation of its property in 1527,
1529, 1534, and 1537, and even if there was some propaganda value in
supporting its activities, the orders allegiance to the pope rendered it vul-
nerable to accusations of disloyalty, and its wealth made conscation an
attractive prospect.370 The 1534 scheme to disendow the Church proposed
that the king devote the Hospitals revenues to war against the Turk,371
suggesting that the crown no longer felt that the orders convent could be
trusted to expend its revenues on appropriate objectives, and perhaps even
that it feared Hospitaller involvement in imperial military action against
England. Yet after these proposals were dropped, the government proceeded
much more circumspectly towards the religious orders, and particularly with

363
Wriothesley, Chronicle of England, 119.
364
LPFD, xv, no. 646.
365
Stow, Survey, ii. 85.
366
Crossley, Newland, 10, 21; id., The Preceptories of the Knights Hospitallers, YASRS
94, Miscellanea, 4 (Leeds, 1937), 73.
367
LPFD, xvi, no. 379 (57).
368
VCH, Norfolk, ii. 425.
369
See Chapter 9, passim.
370
LPFD, iv, no. 3036; Youings, Dissolution, 146; LPFD, xii, I, no. 264; Hoyle, Origins,
passim.
371
In the light of the emergency in Ireland this article was altered so that these monies would
be directed against Irish rebels instead. Hoyle, Origins, 292.
 The Hospital and the English Crown, 150940 225

regard to the Hospital, coming up in 1537 with regulations which would

allow it to continue its operations. The accusation at the dissolution that the
orders brethren had failed to hazard their lives and goods against the
indel,372 while demonstrably untrue, shows an awareness even at this
stage that dissolving the order left the government open to criticism. Even
then, the fact that the Hospitals properties were not absorbed into the Court
of Augmentations suggests that Henry may have been prepared either to re-
erect it at a later date, or to use the endowment for some other, perhaps
military, purpose. Had the petulance, misrepresentation, and scaremonger-
ing of West not made the orders divided allegiances so starkly apparent, the
king might well have decided that it was useful enough to tolerate for a few
years longer, perhaps until the renewal of war with France necessitated
massively increased government expenditure in the mid-1540s.373
Two issues dominated the relationship between the order of St John and
the crown during William Westons priorate: the Hospitals continued search
for a home after the fall of Rhodes, and the royal breach with Rome. The
second made by far the most signicant contribution to the orders dissol-
ution, although Clement West probably hastened its end. Nevertheless, the
problems which Henrys squabble with the Holy See had forced into the
opennamely the orders allegiance to a foreign power, its submission of
monies overseas, and the long and frequent absences of its brethren in an
environment where they could not be effectively supervisedhad always
been inherent to relations between the hospital and the crown. Successive
monarchs had never let the English Hospitallers forget whose subjects they
were, instructing them not to agree to higher impositions of responsions,
directing how these should be spent, punishing brethren who imported papal
bulls into the country and refusing them permission to proceed to headquar-
ters. The order had been tolerated because its activities were seen as meri-
torious and because the crown had genuinely believed in the unity of
Christendom, but it had never been entirely trusted. To a suspicious, belea-
guered, and cupiditous monarch like Henry VIII, it was a luxury he could
not afford.
372
Statutes, iii. 779; CSPV, v, no. 228.
373
The link between the timing of Henrician dissolutions and royal nancial needs is noticed
in Youings, Dissolution, 78; Gunn, Early Tudor Government, 122.
 CHAPTER SEVEN

The Hospitallers in Ireland and

Scotland, 14601564

7.1 The Priory of Ireland

Many commentators have seen the history of the Hospital of St John in

Ireland as that of a fundamentally alien military institution implanted to
defend and expand the Anglo-French colony there.1 There is some evidence
to support this view. The Hospital may have received anticipatory grants of
land in Ireland even before 1169 and its rst master there, Hugh de Clahull,
was probably the brother of Strongbows marshal.2 What records of dona-
tion there are also suggest that most of the orders properties in Ireland were
granted it by the settlers.3 Nevertheless, the Hospital was still seen essen-
tially in the context of its charitable and military work in the Holy Land in
this period, so the foundation of its houses in Ireland should be explained as
a manifestation of the enthusiasm of the colonists for the defence of the
Latin East rather than as a consequence of any military or colonial role it
might have been expected to play in the lordship.4 Certainly, there is every
sign that, until at least the fourteenth century, the priory of Ireland was fairly
fully integrated into the orders wider network. It was expected to contribute
relatively healthy responsions of 300 marks or so to headquarters and both
comparison with the Templars and fourteenth-century evidence suggest that
a number of Hospitallers based or born in Ireland performed conventual
service in the east.5 Legacies for the Holy Land were left in the care of the
Irish Hospitallers for some years after the fall of Acre and fourteenth-century
donations to the order were explicitly linked to its defence of the faith.6

1
See e.g. Falkiner, Hospital, 2967, 299300; RK, pp. viiix; A. Gwynn and R. N. Had-
cock, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland (London, 1970), 3323; J. Watt, The Church in
Medieval Ireland, 2nd edn. (Dublin, 1998), 49.
2
Falkiner, Hospital, 283; E. St J. Brooks, Knights Fees in Counties Wexford, Carlow and
Kilkenny (13th15th Century) (Dublin, 1950), 567.
3
Donors are listed in Gwynn and Hadcock, Ireland, 3349.
4
H. Nicholson, The Knights Hospitaller on the Frontiers of the British Isles, MMR, 4757,
esp. 556.
5
CPL, ii. 164; Tipton, Montpellier, 304; Concilia, ed. Wilkins, ii. 373, 3767, 379;
CCR13469, 554.
6
RK, 13; Registrum Octaviani, ed. Sughi, no. 585.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 227

There were probably family ties between Irish crusaders and Hospitallers as
well.7 In the fteenth and sixteenth centuries the orders wider role con-
tinued to be publicized in Ireland. The indulgences granted the Hospital in
140914, 14545, and 147981 were collected in the island, and in 1467
large numbers from Munster, Leinster, and Connacht came to the preceptory
of Any to benet from a plenary indulgence which had been proclaimed
there, although the Munster and Connacht horsemen failed to enter into the
spirit of the occasion and exchanged blows after a sermon had been
preached, with fatal results.8 The confraria, too, was evidently collected
throughout Ireland, an early sixteenth-century letter signed by its receiver-
or collector-general surviving among the Dowdall deeds.9
The priory of Ireland was also associated with Hospitaller work. There
was probably an almshouse and hospital at Kilmainham, the prioral head-
quarters near Dublin, until 1312, and place-name evidence suggests that
other sites, such as Killure (Lepers Church), were concerned with the care
of the sick.10 Although some such establishments had ceased to function well
before the dissolution, others were probably still active. In 1319 the earl of
Kildare, with the blessing of the archbishop of Dublin, granted the church of
Rathmore to the Hospital for the sustenance of pilgrims and the necessities
of the poor. This grant was probably linked to the establishment of a
xenodochium at nearby Kilteel, which was still well known in the 1530s,
when the archbishop of Dublin however commented that the orders Irish
branch might more appropriately have St John the Evangelist as a patron
than the Baptist.11 Care was also taken to maintain hospitality. The order
possessed a network of frank-houses in the towns, and while some of these
were established as places where travelling brethren could stay, and were
reserved to them, substantial facilities for travellers and pilgrims appear to
have been maintained at Kilmainham, Kilteel, Cork, and perhaps else-
where.12 In the fourteenth century the orders record in upholding its
other chief responsibilitythe performance of divine servicewas also
relatively healthy. A college of priests was maintained at Kilmainham,13
7
Cf. A Calendar of the Liber Niger and Liber Albus of Christ Church, Dublin, ed.
H. J. Lawlor, PRIA 27 (19079), C, 193, at 312, and CCR13469, 554.
8
Calender of the Register of Fleming, ed. Lawlor, no. 133; CPL, x. 2613, xiii. 25960;
CPR147585, 194; A Fragment of Irish Annals, ed. B. O Cuiv, Celtica, 14 (1981), 83104,
at 93/97 (item 17).
9
Dowdall Deeds, ed. C. McNeill and A. J. Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1960), no. 516. For its
collection in the fourteenth century, see RK, 36, 161.
10
The Repertorium Viride of John Allen, Archbishop of Dublin, 1533, ed. N. B. White,
Analecta Hibernica, 10 (1941), 173222, at 1845; P. N. N. Synnott, Knights Hospitallers in
Ireland 11741558 (privately printed, n.d.), 30.
11
Repertorium Viride, ed. White, 2001; Calendar of Archbishop Alens Register,
c.11721534, ed. C. McNeil (Dublin, 1950), 167.
12
Gwynn and Hadcock, Ireland, 33342; Extents, 87; CICRE, 112.
13
This was the case by 1413 at the latest. Calender of the Register of Fleming, ed. Lawlor,
nos. 2267. In 1525 an organist was appointed to play in the choir of the church at Kilmainham.
Extents, 84.
228 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

the conventual church there possessing its own endowment,14 and chaplains
were appointed to preceptories and impropriated churches.15 Under Roger
Outlaw, prior between 1316 and 1341, the Hospital still had enough of a
reputation for competence in this eld to be granted churches on condition
that it maintained chantries therein.16
By the early thirteenth century the Hospitals holdings were sufciently
extensive to be erected into a prioral province and a hundred years later,
after the acquisition of a large proportion of the Templars estates, there
were at least seventeen functioning preceptories.17 All were then situated in
lands subject to English lordship and English law. The surviving register of
Irish provincial chapters, which contains deeds dating from 1321 to 1349,
shows that chapters were held regularly, that they were attended by most
preceptors, and that care was taken to ensure that properties were kept in
good condition and divine service maintained. Preceptors were sometimes
appointed in provincial chapter to the custody of two or three houses
together, but there seems as yet to have been no decision to unite any of
these permanently. What evidence there is for the payment of responsions
indicates that some preceptories were expected to contribute fairly healthy
sums.18
In the rst half of the fourteenth century, then, the priory of Ireland was
probably still a productive branch of the Hospitals international network,
managing to full both its military and charitable responsibilities. Never-
theless, it could hardly cut itself off from the society in which it operated. Its
headquarters occupied a strategic site on the approaches to Dublin and the
vast majority of its estates were in areas of the country controlled by the
English born in Ireland. So, like other institutions based in the lordship, it
was expected to play its part in defence and administration. Indeed, Irish-
born Hospitallers were generally more prominent in a local political and
administrative context than their English or Scots counterparts. The prior of
Ireland was a major gure in the lordship. Like the prior of England he
frequently served as a royal councillor and was a lord of parliament, which
was sometimes held at Kilmainham.19 In addition he was also very likely to
hold a major ofce of state. As in England, the crown initially valued the

14
In the parliament of 1478 it was asked that four churches and the ferry of the city of
Waterford, traditionally reserved for the upkeep of the prior, sub-prior and chaplains of the
church and convent of Kilmainham, should be resumed into their hands. SRPI, 12/1321/22
Edward IV, 626/7.
15
RK, passim.
16
Calendar of Ormond Deeds, ed. E. Curtis, 6 vols. (Dublin, 193243), i: 11721350, 183
9; CPR13304, 319.
17
RK, pp. iiiiv.
18
RK, 51, 97, 109, 1278.
19
Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts, preserved in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth,
Miscellaneous, ed. J. S. Brewer and W. Bullen (London, 1871), 140, 152, 157; T. W. Moody, F. X.
Martin, and F. J. Byrne (eds.), A New History of Ireland, ix: Maps, Genealogies and Lists
(Oxford, 1984), 601.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 229

Irish Hospitallers for their nancial expertise, and the rst Hospitaller to
hold a major ofce of state therethe Englishman Stephen de Fulbourn
served initially as treasurer.20 Thereafter, however, Hospitallers in Ireland
more usually served as chancellor, chief governor, or lieutenant or deputy
chief governor. Prior James Keating (146194) boasted in 1463 that several
of his predecessors as prior had borne the state of the king and government
of this . . . land, to the great ease, honour and prot of all liege people of
our. . . Sovereign lord and he was substantially right: between the 1270s and
1420s seven priors had served as chancellor and nine as deputy lieutenant or
justiciar.21 Priors thus appear to have been considered trustworthy stand-ins
who might serve as deputy justiciar on a temporary basis rather than natural
choices for the ofce, but several served relatively long terms as chancellor,
often more than once. The crown, in fact, appears to have realized that the
Hospitallers made ideal soldier-administrators of a type always needed in
Ireland. Here they perhaps scored over other prelates who, although quite
often expected to lead bodies of men into battle or defend fortresses, could
not bear arms themselves. Both priors and preceptors of the Hospital were
able to perform all of these functions, and did so.22 At other times, brethren
might be employed to treat with Irish lords, or as translators in parleys with
them.23
Even if Hospitaller houses had not been founded primarily with the
military and administrative contribution they might make in mind, by the
1270s the Hospital had assumed major and practically continuous respon-
sibilities in these areas. This was not merely because of the suitability of its
personnel for such service but also because the Anglo-Irish colony was faced
by growing external threats and internal difculties. Until quite recently
these have been viewed as driven by a Gaelic Revival or Resurgence having
both cultural and political components.24 From this standpoint late medi-
eval Irish history is chiey characterized by a bitter struggle for supremacy
between two nations, the native Irish and the English born in Ireland, in
which the former gradually gained the upper hand. In the course of this
conict the native Irish were gradually able to drive out or Gaelicize the
colonists in Connacht, in all but the south-eastern corner of Ulster and in
much of Munster. In other areas septs subdued in the early days of the
conquest resumed open struggle, so that formerly secure areas of the

20
Nicholson, Knights Hospitaller, 1089.
21
SRPI, 112 Edward IV, 70/1; Moody, Martin, and Byrne (eds.), Maps, 4716, 5013,
5056; HBC, 1656.
22 See below, 2345.
23
Parliaments and Councils of Medieval Ireland, ed. H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles,
vol. i (Dublin, 1947), 101; Calendar of Carew Manuscripts, Miscellaneous, ed. Brewer and
Bullen, 378, 380.
24
The debate is summarized in A. Cosgrove (ed.), A New History of Ireland, ii: Medieval
Ireland 11691534 (Oxford, 1993), 3025.
230 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

lordship, lands of peace, became marcher lands subject to native Irish raids
and extortion, and others active frontiers, lands of war.25
These developments were facilitated by royal exactions and negligence,26
by the Bruce invasion of 131518,27 by the division of the great marcher
lordships between absentee heirs,28 and by the mortality, ight, or Gaelici-
zation of large numbers of colonists.29 Confronted by these difculties, the
English born in Ireland attempted to force landholders and tenants to reside
on or defend their estates,30 to ban the adoption of Irish dress, language, and
law by the colonists, and to exclude the native Irish from lay or ecclesiastical
ofce.31 In formulating these policies, they supposedly developed a clear
sense of their own identity as a middle nation, opposed not merely to
Gaelicization but also to interference by English-born ofcials, and to
breaches of their legislative and other privileges.32 Such behaviour was not
conned to the Irish estates. The Irish branches of religious orders owing
allegiance to English provincial heads, such as the Dominican and Austin
friars, also demonstrated a growing spirit of independence, resisting visit-
ations from and neglecting to pay taxes to their superiors in England and
appealing to their masters-general over the heads of their English provin-
cials.33 In general, however, the effects of the sundering of the Irish between
two nations were held to have been disastrous for the Church, leading to its
division into segments inter Hibernicos and inter Anglicos, to the seizure of
ecclesiastical estates and the Churchs consequent impoverishment, and to a
low level of clerical education and morals.34 The older established religious
orders, especially the Augustinian canons and Cistercians, were depicted as
moribund and riven by interracial strife and their houses as increasingly
subject to takeover by both Irish and Anglo-Irish magnate and gentle fam-

25
Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 241, 2568, 2618, 3012, 307, 3478, 369,
4489, 452, 457, 4612, 5337, 5424, 5714, 584, 6323, 647, 658, 668, 674.
26
Ibid. 241, 273, 2757, 374, 3801, 472, 485, 5301, 5379, 541, 5456, 5601; S. Duffy,
Ireland in the Middle Ages (Basingstoke, 1997), 12533.
27
Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 28296, 4489, 462.
28
Ibid. 247, 250, 264, 3545, 385, 453, 4623.
29
Ibid. 26873, 370, 3878, 44750, 458, 4612, 553.
30
Ibid. 269, 2712, 361, 3789, 383, 385, 391, 44950, 515, 5267, 52930, 553,
576, 608, 555.
31 Ibid. 242, 2723, 377, 38790, 396, 5515, 5856, 599600.
32
Discussion ibid. 3045, 352, 3713, 5646. Rather than a middle nation, a term coined
by their enemies, Robin Frame sees the English born in Ireland as a subset of the English gens
with a clear sense both of their Englishness and of their distinctness from the English of England.
R. Frame, Les Engleys Nees en Irlande: The English Political Identity in Medieval Ireland,
TRHS, 6th ser., 3 (1993), 83103, esp. 97103.
33
F. X. Martin, The Irish Augustinian Reform Movement in the Fifteenth Century, in J. A.
Watt, J. B. Morrall, and F. X. Martin (eds.), Medieval Studies Presented to Aubrey Gwynn,
S.J. (Dublin, 1961), 23064; B. OSullivan, The Dominicans in Medieval Dublin, in H. Clarke
(ed.), Medieval Dublin, 2 vols. (1990), ii. 8399, at 914; Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval
Ireland, 589.
34
J. Watt, The Church and the Two Nations in Medieval Ireland (Cambridge, 1970), esp.
chs. 910.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 231

ilies. Eventually they acquired the racial and cultural colouring of the areas
in which they lay, local pressure and papal provisions producing the ap-
pointment of ever more secular individuals as commendatory abbots and
priors. The last generation of these before the dissolution were little better
than laymen, local lords or men of war.35 The sole bright point was
provided by the vigour of the mendicants and particularly by the foundation
of new houses of friars, many of strict observance, in Gaelic-speaking
areas.36
Over the past quarter of a century interpretations centred on the struggle
of the two nations have been partially replaced by those emphasizing
the fragmentation and localization of society in Ireland. Scholars have
argued that cultural accommodation could be a two-way process,37
that the struggle for power in the localities was carried on without
much regard for ethnicity,38 and that political changes in late medieval
Ireland should be seen in the context of wider European developments.
Plague, warfare, and depopulation were, after all, hardly problems exclusive
to Ireland and if landlords were faced with a lack of tenants and falling
agricultural protability they might compensate for these difculties in
various ways. Thus, in return for propping up the ailing government,
which they effectively took over, the magnates and greater gentry were
able to usurp the royal prerogatives of lordship and justice and to
conduct private war and quarter soldiers on and levy comestibles from the
populace.39 The tempting parallel here with some French nobles exploit-
ation of conict and monarchical weakness during the Hundred Years War
as a cover to return to forms of pure lordship should perhaps not be
pursued too far: the proliferation of tower houses in late medieval Ireland
has recently been interpreted as usually betokening not the insecurity of
the populace but the growing self-condence of servile tenants turned free-
men, and as owing as much to questions of display as of security.40 While

35
Watt, Church in Medieval Ireland, 1878, 1923; Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 437,
584, 5878. For the use of papal provisions in Ireland see R. D. Edwards, The Kings of
England and Papal Provisions in Fifteenth-Century Ireland, in Watt et al. (eds.), Medieval
Studies, 26580.
36
Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 5889; Watt, Church in Medieval Ireland, 193201;
Martin, Irish Augustinian Reform, passim.
37
Discussion and examples in Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 3089, 31718, 3289,
354, 383, 3934, 4203, 5525, 625, 6346; id., Hiberniores ipsis Hibernis, in A. Cosgrove
and D. McCartney (eds.), Studies in Irish History Presented to R. Dudley Edwards (Dublin,
1979), 114. Such accommodations did not extend to public life within the lordship, where one
was English or nothing. Frame, Les Engleys, 98.
38
Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 316, 3245, 360, 374, 37980, 5603, 56972, 5778,
5813, 6212, 62930, 6323.
39
Ibid. 270, 272, 3567, 379, 3823, 40810, 426, 535, 537, 5412, 5479, 560, 580,
6058, 641, 649, 6701.
40 N. Wright, Knights and Peasants: The Hundred Years War in the French Countryside

(Woodbridge, 1998); T. McNeill, Castles in Ireland: Feudal Power in a Gaelic World (London,
1997), 206, 2089, 21820.
232 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

acknowledging the decline in agriculture and the conversion of marginal

areas into pasture, revisionists have also pointed out that the Anglo-Irish
continued to hold nearly all the signicant ports and could thus partially
control exports from the hinterland.41 Citing the construction of tower
houses, friaries, and parish churches after a comparative lack of such activity
in the fourteenth, they have posited a period of economic recovery in the
fteenth century.42
It is nevertheless apparent that the late medieval Irish Church was faced
with considerable challenges. Recently Henry Jefferies has argued that the
secular clergy of the province of Armagh coped with these fairly well.43
Despite the loss of their primatial seat to the ONeills, the archbishops
retained their moral authority and were able to instruct and discipline
their clergy effectively and to supervise areas inter Hibernicos in conjunction
with local ofcials. But no similar attempts have yet been made to counter
the prevailing picture of decline among the traditional religious orders, so
that here the older orthodoxy remains largely unchallenged. Even so, it is
clear that the religious did not meekly accept their fate. Houses that suffered
from Irish raids might reinvest in property in more sheltered areas, while
others fortied their church towers and sat tight. Some, particularly those
lucky enough to nd powerful patrons or sited in sheltered locales, were able
to rebuild their monastery churches substantially.44 Even in their decay, the
Cistercians made some efforts to reform.45
The Hospitallers were in some ways better placed than the monastic
orders to cope with new challenges. As active religious, they were not
bound by a vow of stability, and were exible when it came to abandoning
or amalgamating houses which proved unviable. Priors of Ireland were also
able to use their position in government to secure favourable leases and
grants from the crown. The most important of these were successive leases of
the royal manors of Leixlip and Chapel Izod, the latter adjoining the prioral
estate at Kilmainham, from the mid-thirteenth century onwards.46 Other
grants might be linked to the specic circumstances in which the order found
itself. Thus, in compensation for damage to the orders lands in Ulster,
Meath, and County Dublin during the Bruce invasion, Roger Outlaw was
able to secure grants of land and forfeited estates, appointment as an execu-
tor of the heir of the earl of Ulster, and licence to go looking for tenants to

41
Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 311, 421, 472, 480, 483, 490, 501, 516.
42
Ibid. 490, 597.
43
H. A. Jefferies, Priests and Prelates of Armagh in the Age of Reformations, 15181558
(Dublin, 1997).
44
Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 437, 597, 7623.
45
Watt, Church in Medieval Ireland, 1878.
46
CCR130713, 300; CFR130719, 31; M. Archdall, Monasticon hibernicum, 2nd edn., ed.
P. F. Moran, 2 vols. (Dublin, 18736), ii. 99; CPR13304, 314; CFR133747, 85; CCR13413,
30, 41516, 41617; CFR135668, 270, 293; CCR13648, 3278; CPR13969, 19;
CPR13969, 293, 482, 509; CPR14015, 122.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 233

replace those who had ed.47 At various times, he was also granted or
permitted to obtain a number of rights and properties, particularly churches,
and had the sums he owed to the crown reduced.48 Most of his acquisitions
were in relatively sheltered locations, and so went some way towards com-
pensating the order for its losses in Ulster and Connacht. None of Outlaws
successors were quite so successful in exploiting their position in this way,
but several were able to extract some compensation for their service to the
crown in the form of life grants, mortmain licences, leases, and wardships.49
On occasion even individual preceptors might be granted the custody of
castles or episcopal temporalities in royal gift.50
Nor was the order militarily defenceless. In the rst half of the fourteenth
century it already possessed what were described as castles at its houses at
Kilmainham and Kilteel, and was planning the fortication of other sites.51
In 1360 its brethren in Ireland were described collectively as holding a good
position for the repulse of the kings Irish enemies.52 Sixteenth-century
documents and surviving remains provide evidence that by the time of the
dissolution many commanderies were fortied. Most fortied structures
appear to have been ve-storey tower-houses typical of late medieval Ire-
land, although some might have been built by tenants rather than the order
itself.53 Nevertheless, with one or two exceptions, those listed in 1540 were
erected on estates that were still in the orders grasp and provide testimony of
its determination to defend itself. The most substantial was Kilmainham
itself, with its walls, four towers, fortied gatehouse, and fortied bridge
over the Liffey.54 A fteenth-century order by the great council that the
bridge should be fortied demonstrates that the prioral complex was
regarded as holding a key position in the defence of Dublin.55 The substan-
tial tower with attached gatehouse which survives at Kilteel, overlooking the
Kildare plain, is also rather more than a mere gentlemans tower-house. The
elds surrounding it are littered with the remains of substantial stone build-
ings probably hospitaller rather than military in function, but the late
fteenth-century Pale ditch incorporated the preceptorial enceinte and the
1543 patent granting the property to the Alens stressed the necessity of
the site for resistance to the OTooles. Signicantly, the tower-house
resisted destruction by Rory OMore in the 1570s, although the church

47
Nicholson, Frontiers, 53; CPR131721, 197; RPCCH, 21b, 37b; CCR13337, 63.
48
CPR131721, 197; CPR13214, 246; CPR132730, 171, 175; CPR13304, 301, 314,
319; CCR13337, 610; CPR133840, 83, 88, 90.
49
RPCCH, 73, 73b; Calendar of Ormond Deeds, ed. Curtis, iii. 390; CPR144752, 29, 38.
50
CPR13859, 438; RPCCH, 254.
51
RK, 245, 634.
52
CCR13604, 3940; Nicholson, Frontiers, 534.
53
P. Harbison, Guide to the National and Historic Monuments of Ireland, 3rd edn. (Dublin,
1992), 333.
54
Extents, 81.
55
SRPI, Henry VI, 402/3404/5; Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 563.
234 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

was probably destroyed.56 Less impressive fortications are known to have

existed at nine or more other sites, and ne fteenth-century tower-houses
survive at Kilclogan and Ballyhack.57 Kilclogan, like Kilteel, was described
as an important defensive position in the 1540s.58
Nevertheless, although other orders tended to fortify their church towers
rather than construct purpose-built tower-houses, incastellation was a com-
mon response of religious houses to the disorders of the fourteenth and
fteenth centuries.59 Where the Hospitals reaction to the military threat
posed by Irish enemies and English rebels really differed from those of the
Cistercians and the Augustinian canons was in the personal engagement of
its members in military action. From the 1270s onwards, priors of Kilmain-
ham commanded armies or contingents in them or defended fortresses on
behalf of the crown or chief governor.60 One prior, Thomas Bacach Butler,
even led a body of soldiers from both nations to serve Henry V during the
siege of Rouen.61 Furthermore, in the fourteenth and early fteenth centur-
ies the masters of many of the orders local houses served on the commission
of the peace, at least two being killed in battle with Irish enemies.62
Preceptors might be granted commands over castles, too. In 1388 Thomas
Mercamston, probably already preceptor of nearby Castleboy, was
appointed castellan of Carrickfergus, which had recently been attacked by
Niall O Neill.63 These, however, were public responsibilities undertaken on
behalf of the lordship or comitatus. There is less direct evidence for the order
taking military action on its own account, but there are indications that it
was both willing and able to do so. As early as 1262 we nd brother Elias of
Killerig donning mail and leading an armed multitude to resist the arch-
bishop of Dublins ofcers.64 On a more substantial scale, Thomas Butler

56
C. Manning, Excavations at Kilteel Church, County Kildare, JCKAS 16 (19812),
173229, at 177, 213, 219; Falkiner, Hospital, 310; H. Hendrick-Aylmer, Rathmore,
JCKAS 6 (1902), 37281, at 377.
57
Extents, 89 (Clontarf), 96 (Tully), 97 (Killerig), 102 (Homisland, Wexford), 108 (Temple-
ton and Moreton, Louth), 111 (Kilmainhamwood); RK, 161 (Crook), 166 (Kilmainhambeg);
CICRE, 93 (Glanunder alias Ballymany, Dublin); Gwynn and Hadcock, Ireland, 336 (County
Limerick, in 1604, citing RK). Some of these structures (Glanunder, Moreton, Templeton) were
already in ruins by 1540.
58
Extents, 100.
59
Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 763.
60
CDI, iii, 128592, 265; RPCCH, 35, 69, 73; Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts,
Miscellaneous, 328; Marlborough in Ancient Irish Histories, ed. J. Ware, rev. edn., 2 vols.
(Dublin, 1809), ii. 21; W. Harris, The City and Antiquities of Dublin (Dublin, 1766), 2767;
CCR13413, 438.
61
See Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 5278, 570, and authorities cited there; Issues of the
Exchequer, ed. Devon, 356.
62
R. Frame, Commissions of the Peace in Ireland, 13021461, Analecta Hibernica, 35
(1992), 144, at 8, 1213, 1620, 25, 313; Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts, Miscellaneous,
157, 471.
63
CPR13859, 438; Nicholson, Frontiers, 54; T. McNeill, Anglo-Norman Ulster: The
History and Archaeology of an Irish Barony, 11771400 (Edinburgh, 1980), 119.
64
Calendar of Archbishop Alens Register, ed. McNeil, 93/95.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 235

was using bases in Kilkenny and Tipperary to wage private war against
Walter Burke in 1417 and his successor-but-four James Keating summoned
an army to chastise the archbishop of Armagh for supporting a rival to the
priorate in the mid-1480s.65 Members of the order were clearly more than
ready to take up arms in pursuit of private quarrels within the lordship and it
can probably be assumed that they maintained some kind of armed force at
their houses. This is certainly suggested by the fact that in 1297 the master of
the Templars of Kilcork was reproved for his failure to keep armed horsemen
at his preceptory and that in 1356 the government ordered that Kilteel be
adequately guarded.66 The dichotomy between the orders defence of its
own property and that of the wider Anglo-Irish community is in any case
probably a false one. Although there are instances which suggest the con-
trary, it is unlikely that the order was often targeted specically by raiders,
and the participation of its brethren in communal defence must have served
both their own interests and those of the locality they were acting to defend.
Equally often, however, brethren appear to have used force in pursuit of
their own family and personal interests.
Despite the orders vigorous protection of its possessions, its estates and
interests suffered signicant damage during the fourteenth and fteenth
centuries. The preceptory of Castleboy on the Ards peninsula, for example,
was the orders sole conventual house in the whole of Ulster and by the mid-
fteenth century so many of its estates had been lost to the native Irish that it
became unviable as a residence for brethren and was abandoned to lay
farmers. At the dissolution it was reported that it lay in the hands of the
Magennises and ONeills, where the kings writ did not run, and could not
be extended. The Magennises paid a nominal rent of 66s. 8d. for the
property.67 The Hospitals estates in the west, which appear to have included
fairly substantial properties, suffered a similar fate, and barely feature even
in the chapter acts of 132149. In 1529 a leading Galway merchant was
given power of attorney to lease out all of the orders holdings in Connacht,
which amounted to two churches and a scattering of other properties, but
none of these was mentioned in the extents made in 15401, although their
omission may indicate deliberate concealment on the part of the order or its
lessee rather than their occupation by lay usurpers.68 Many of the estates
the order did retain, moreover, suffered from a considerable decline in

65
A. J. Otway-Ruthven, A History of Medieval Ireland, 2nd edn. (New York, 1980), 353;
Registrum Octaviani, ed. Sughi, no. 520.
66
Calendar of the Justiciary Rolls, 12951303 (Dublin, 1905), 175; Hendrick-Aylmer,
Rathmore, 373.
67
Extents, 110.
68
Report on Documents relating to the Wardenship of Galway, ed. E. MacLysaght, Ana-
lecta Hibernica, 14 (1944), 139. In November 1560 the orders holdings in Connacht were
reveled and brought to light by a former prioral servant, Walter Hope, who was granted them
as a reward. Acts of the Privy Council in Ireland, 15561571, ed. J. T. Gilbert, Historical
Manuscripts Commission, Fifteenth Report, Appendix, Part III (London, 1897), 113.
236 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

protability, often as a result of warfare. In 1446, for example, Thomas

Talbot successfully petitioned that his prioral camera of Kilmainhambeg and
a number of other estates should be exempted from non-parliamentary
taxation because they had been destroyed and wasted by Irish enemies,69
while in 1470 the prior and convent of St Wulstan, who leased estates in
County Kildare from the order and the manor of Salt from the crown, sought
relief of the due rent, complaining that these possessions were destroyed by
Irish enemies and English rebels. The prior of St John was, however, able to
have the payments due from his leases of royal manors in County Dublin
reduced to make good the loss.70 Faced with agricultural depression, declin-
ing membership, and Irish raids the order increasingly resorted to leasing its
estates, often for notably low rents. Thus the preceptory of Tully, valued at
16 in 1540, was let to the dean of Kildare for 10 marks shortly before
1472.71 Although the position of the English born in Ireland began to
improve in the later fteenth century, at the dissolution a large proportion
of Hospitaller properties were still let out for sums much lower than their
potential value and many buildings were described as ruined and estates as
waste.72
The challenge was not merely military. In the fteenth century, delation at
the curia became a popular strategy by which religious houses and individual
churches could be taken over and held as family sinecures, primarily by the
native Irish.73 The order was certainly not immune to this process. In 1430
the preceptor of Tully was accused of detaining the rectory of Rosfyndglaisse
without canonical title, and was ordered to be removed if this was true,
while in 1447 the orders appointee as vicar of Any was likewise challenged
by an native Irish delator.74 In the likely event that they could convince the
Curia and local judges delegate that they would make apt members of the
order, native Irishmen might also be able to force their way into its ranks and
gain control of its preceptories in some areas. While the Hospital appears to
have enforced the legislation forbidding the native Irish entry into religious
houses throughout the fourteenth century during the course of the fteenth
the important preceptories of Clonoulty (Co. Tipperary) and Mourne (Co.
Cork) were taken over by the ODwyers and the MacCarthys of Muskerry
respectively. Thomas O Duibhidhir (ODwyer), preceptor of Clonoulty in the
1440s, at least attended provincial chapters, but the MacCarthy occupation

69
SRPI, Henry VI, 90/192/3.
70
SRPI, 112 Edward IV, 678/9680/1.
71
SRPI, 12/1321/22 Edward IV, 78/980/1.
72
Extents, passim.
73
The English born in Ireland might employ their existing local inuence to achieve similar, if
less permanent, dominance. For example, the Vales or Walls held the preceptory of Killerig in
1327 and 1406; the Northamptons Ballyhack in 135565 and 1382, and the Powers Kilbarry in
1449 and 1516. Other families held both Ballyhack and Killerrig in intervening periods. RK, 14;
Frame, Commissions of the Peace, 8, 33; AOM362, fos. 121v122r; 404, fos. 147v148r.
74
CPL, viii. 2001; x. 344.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 237

of Mourne in the 1490s, although legitimized by appeals to Rome, was

conducted in the teeth of the orders opposition.75 Both were rich beneces:
Clonoulty had been the richest Templar house in Ireland, with an income of
more than 80 from lands and churches in 1308, and in the 1490s Mournes
value was estimated at between 80 and 140 marks.76
The effects of military action and lay occupation were exacerbated by the
prolonged agricultural depression common to much of western Europe in
the later Middle Ages. Even in the absence of the Gaelic challenge the
Hospital, like other major landowners, might have found it difcult to
cope with economic and social upheaval. Its potential adaptability, more-
over, was undermined both by the nature and interests of its own brethren
and by the involvement of the English langue and the convent in prioral
affairs. The convent was not entirely unsympathetic to the difculties in-
volved in running its western priories, hence, for example, its willingness to
permit the amalgamation of smaller preceptories.77 Nevertheless, given its
responsibilities in the east and its perennial shortage of money, its primary
concern was to ensure the continued ow of responsions to Rhodes. Increas-
ingly, these were expected to take the form of cash, a commodity late
medieval Irish landlords often had difculty obtaining. In 1471, for ex-
ample, prior James Keating was licensed to take wheat and malt into
England to satisfy his responsions because his tenants had insufcient cash
with which to pay him.78 Such difculties must have been exacerbated by
priors responsibilities within the lordship, which frequently required them
to hire troops or perform other functions for which reimbursement might be
difcult to obtain.79 In 1422, for example, William FitzThomas, prior and
justiciar, had to pay 160 marks out of his own pocket to Gearatt Mac
Murchadha to prevent a threatened attack on counties Dublin and Kildare.
He was still seeking recompense from the government six years later.80
Moreover, if the Irish-born brethren failed to send their dues to headquar-
ters, the English langue was always ready to send an Englishman to step into
the breach. In this it was supported by successive kings of England, who
often preferred to employ Englishmen to administer Ireland in the four-
teenth century and remained doubtful of their Irish-born subjects thereafter.
As a result, from the mid-fourteenth century a struggle developed between
the English and Irish-born brethren for control of the priory, the English

75
AOM362, fo. 122r; CPL, xiv. 224; xvii, I, no. 938; xv, no. 891; xvi, no. 740; AOM402, fo.
136v; 410, fo. 181r; K. W. Nicholls, The Development of Lordship in County Cork,
13001600, in P. OFlanagan and C. G. Buttimer (eds.), Cork: History and Society (Dublin,
1993), 157212, at 174.
76
Documents relating to the Suppression of the Templars in Ireland, ed. G. MacNiocaill,
Analecta Hibernica, 24 (1967), 181226, at 2056; CPL, xvi, nos. 146, 347.
77
See above, 63.
78
SRPI, 112 Edward IV, 722/3.
79
See e.g. RPCCH, 69.
80
Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 544.
238 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

maintaining that priors of Ireland should be appointed in convent, where the

English always outnumbered other British brethren, and the Irish that they
should be elected at home.81 On Roger Outlaws death in 1341, a year in
which Irish-born ministers were removed from ofce and royal grants in
Ireland revoked, he was replaced by the English-born John le Archer, despite
the Irish brethrens preceding election of John le Mareschal as prior.82 Most
of the priors appointed in the next forty years were Englishmen and some of
them displaced Irish-born incumbents elected in provincial chapter after the
death of the previous prior. At least two English brethren were also
appointed to Irish preceptories in the same period.83
Although the Irish-born brethren apparently accepted these superiors, in
1384 they took advantage of the death of their English-born prior, William
Tany, to throw off their allegiance to Rhodes and transfer it to the anti-grand
master supported by the Roman pontiff. This allowed them to elect their
own priors without reference to either langue or convent.84 Despite the
conventual appointment of the turcopolier, Peter Holt, as prior of Ireland,
in c.1396, and the issue of royal letters in his favour, he was unable to gain
possession of the priory against Irish opposition.85 The need to resist his
claims, however, appears to have induced the Irish-born prior, Robert White,
to resign in favour of an illegitimate son of the earl of Ormond, Thomas
Butler, in about 1407.86 By 1410 Butler had seen off the challenge from Holt
and was able to extract the privilege that priors should henceforth be elected
in Ireland from the chapter-general as a condition of the priorys return to
obedience. The Irish-born brethren continued to cite this concession for
many years to come, while the English langue sought equally strenuously
to overturn it.87
By 1410 the priory of Ireland was thus a very different institution than
thirty years previously. A generation of successful resistance to authority had
taught it self-reliance and solidarity, as manifested in the joint petitions the
Irish preceptors made to Rome in 1400 and 1421, and to the convent in
1449.88 It had also left the priory in the hands of the rst of a series of scions
or clients of the great Anglo-Irish magnate families at just the moment
when these began to compete seriously for control of the government of the
lordship. The priory was a valuable prize in the struggle for dominance, and
priors political involvements might have unfortunate consequences for

81
Tipton, Irish Hospitallers, 389.
82
CPR13403, 289, 333; RK, 105. Le Archer was, however, sent to Edward III to protest at
the removal of Irish-born ministers. Frame, Les Engleys, 97, 101.
83
CPL, iv. 15.
84
Tipton, Irish Hospitallers, 36, 3940.
85
Ibid. 402; C. L.Tipton, Peter Holt, Turcopolier of Rhodes and Prior of Ireland, AOSM
22 (1964), 825.
86
Tipton, Irish Hospitallers, 412.
87
Ibid. 42.
88
CPL, v. 323; vii. 196; AOM362, fos. 121v123v.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 239

themselves and their order. By the rst half of the fteenth century, the
responsion expected from Ireland had fallen to 40 Irish, while successive
priors were accused of alienating estates, misusing the conventual seal to
grant long leases at minimal rents, admitting unt persons into the order,
engaging in wars waged without conventual authority, and neglecting to
repair their appropriated churches or pay their vicars properly. In order for
the Hospital to reintegrate the priory into its structures and restore its
efciency, it was obviously necessary to reduce these lordly priors to obedi-
ence, but this was more easily said than done. Time and again threats and
cajolery proved insufcient and the convent ordered an incumbent prior
removed. Its preferred alternatives were usually Englishmen, but when these
failed to establish themselves, as they invariably did, the order was willing to
turn to Irish-born brethren who promised to pay their responsions. It was
not until 1494 that the repeated insubordination of James Keating towards
both his religious and secular superiors prompted more drastic action to be
taken and the priory was forbidden to Irish-born brethren by act of parlia-
ment. Thereafter, Englishmen served as priors until the dissolution, although
the resistance of the Irish-born brethren was not broken until almost the very
end.
An indication of the extent to which the turmoil surrounding the prioral
ofce and the accusations of maladministration and improper conduct
directed at priors were tied to the politics of the lordship is provided by
the career of Thomas FitzGerald (prior, 1436/844). FitzGerald was closely
involved, as an ally of the Talbots, in their feud with the Butler earls of
Ormond, which repeatedly disrupted Irish politics in the rst half of the
fteenth century.89 In 1440 the Irish council ordered all the Hospitals estates
to be conscated in response to FitzGeralds brothers ambush and kidnap of
the deputy lieutenant, William Welles.90 When the prior escaped from
prison some time later all ofces and fees belonging to the priory were
again seized.91 The convent, meanwhile, had determined to revoke the
privilege of 1410 on the grounds of the maladministration and non-payment
of responsions of Maurice FitzWilliam.92 It turned rst to Edmund Ashton,
an English conventual knight who was elected prior by the langue but when

89
M. C. Grifth, The Talbot-Ormond Struggle for Control of the Anglo-Irish Government,
141447, Irish Historical Studies, 8 (1941), 37697. For the involvement of prior Thomas
Butler in the feud see also Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 550, 5812.
90
RPCCH, 262.
91
Ibid.; Calendar of Ormond Deeds, ed. Curtis, 142; SRPI, Henry VI, 648/9652/3.
92
AOM 354, fos. 203v204r. If Lord Walter FitzGeralds pedigree of the FitzGeralds of
Ballyshannon is to be believed, the order seems here to have conated two persons; Maurice
FitzGerald, who appears in an Armagh archiepiscopal register as prior in September 1436, and
perhaps died on 19 October 1438, and Thomas FitzGerald, the third son of Thomas Oge sheriff
of Limerick, who became prior immediately afterwards. It is more probable, however, that
the unnamed prior who deceased in 1438 was William FitzThomas, who had retired in 1436,
and that Thomas and Maurice FitzGerald were identical. In 1449 the Irish brethren could
240 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

told he could not hold an English preceptory with it in commendam hur-

riedly stepped down.93 Its next choice, Hugh Middleton, was appointed
visitor and governor as well as prior, with instructions to conduct a thorough
reform and administer the priory until further notice. Presumably to fore-
stall revolt, the Irish brethren were instructed to obey him as visitor but were
not informed that he had been granted the prioral dignity.94 Conventual
interventions, however, sometimes had results neither anticipated nor wel-
come. The earl of Ormond took advantage of the visitors arrival in 1444 to
eject FitzGerald from the prioral ofce and have Thomas Talbot, with whose
family he had recently settled his feud, appointed instead.95 Despite his
commission, Middleton contented himself with Ormonds promise that
responsions would be paid and a down payment towards the same and
quickly returned to England, having rst instituted Talbot, an illegitimate
son of the archbishop of Dublin, as prior.96 FitzGerald, however, did not
take his removal lying down, and broke into the priory by force, removing
the conventual seal and granting leases and quittances to his supporters
before making his way to London, where he accused Ormond of treason
and challenged him to a duel.97 The combat was only cancelled after lists
had been erected and the erstwhile prior of a military order instructed in
points of arms by a London shmonger apparently more expert than him.98
Despite securing support for his restoration from the Irish-born brethren, the
crown, the pope, and eventually even the convent, FitzGerald remained
unable to recover possession.99
The degree of the convents miscalculation is made more painfully appar-
ent by a letter of 1449, in which the Irish-born brethren protested the
removal of their prior in the strongest terms and provided an interpretation

remember only FitzThomas and Thomas FitzGerald as having been prior between 1420 and
1444 and having governed the priory for sixteen and seven years respectively. W. FitzGerald,
The FitzGeralds of Ballyshannon (Co. Kildare) and their Successors Thereat, JCKAS 3 (1899
1902), 42552, at 4267; Register Swayne, ed. Chart, 168; The Annals of Ireland, Translated
from the Original Irish of the Four Masters, trans. O. Connellan and ed. P. MacDermott
(Dublin, 1846), 241; Annals of Ulster, ed. W. M. Hennessy, 4 vols. (Dublin, 18871901), iii.
142/3; AOM362, fos. 121v123v (original foliation: 120v122v).
93
AOM354, fos. 202r, 202v, 203v204r.
94
AOM355, fos. 174r, 174v175v, 176r.
95
CPL, ix. 4378; H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, The Irish Parliament in the Middle
Ages (Philadelphia, 1952), 202.
96
Ancient Deeds, C.3613; AOM362, fos. 121v123v. In September 1445 the convent com-
plained that Middleton had failed to render account for the money he had been given in Ireland.
AOM357, fo. 162rv.
97
SRPI, Henry VI, 260/1262/3; PPC, vi. 579; Issues of the Exchequer, ed. Devon, 4501,
4567, 461; Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth Century,
ed. J. Gairdner, CS, 2nd ser., 17 (London, 1876), 1867; Great Chronicle of London, ed.
Thomas and Thornley, 178.
98
Great Chronicle of London, ed. Thomas and Thornley, 178; PPC, vi. 59.
99
AOM362, fos. 121v123v; CPL, ix. 4378; CPR144752, 47. The text of the convents
discussion of FitzGeralds plea for reinstatement (AOM362, fos. 123v124v [original foliation
122v123v]) is in Sarnowsky, Kings and Priors, 1002.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 241

of recent prioral history which shows the extent of their attachment to the
superiors they had elected. The prior of the conventual church of Kilmain-
ham, the subprior, eight preceptors, and a conventual brother wrote to the
master and convent in support of royal letters asking for FitzGeralds
restoration. In doing so they looked back on the priorates of William
FitzThomas (142036) and FitzGerald as a golden age. They recalled that
FitzThomas had been elected in Ireland and received magistral conrmation
according to the privilege of 1410 and had worthily and laudibly ruled the
priory for sixteen years, faithfully paying his responsions.100 Exercising
himself in strenuous acts of virtue he had grown old and, desiring to ll a
lesser and quieter ofce, retired. In his place, the brethren had elected
Thomas FitzGerald, apparently a living exemplar of every knightly and
lordly virtue; strenuous in arms, learned and practised in each law, mature
in council and decorated with many virtues. His fall, after seven years in
which he had patiently withstood adversity, had come about solely due to
the enmity of the earl of Ormond. Ormond had captured and chained the
prior without cause and seized the tithes and rents of both the prioral
camerae and other preceptories into the kings hand. Being liberated, Fitz-
Gerald had gone to England, where he had been honourably received and
maintained for four years and granted the ofcer of chancellor of Ireland.
For these reasons, and most especially because of the inexperience and
maladministration of Thomas Talbot, they begged that FitzGerald be
restored to his dignity.101
It is not necessary to take the Irish-born Hospitallers account of these
events entirely seriously. FitzThomas appears to have been a competent and
uncontroversial public servant, serving as both chancellor and justiciar, but
he may not have been as diligent a remitter of responsions as was claimed,
and in 142930 he fell foul of the archbishop of Armagh because of his
failure to pay procurations or adequately remunerate the vicar of Kilde-
mock.102 FitzGerald was certainly not the paragon he was claimed to be in
1449, but in removing him and appointing Talbot, Middleton had alienated
the Irish-born brethren without ensuring that the priory would be any more
efciently administered. It is not surprising that they reacted angrily to the
intrusion of an outside party into an already complicated situation, and their
resistance to conventual interference would be demonstrated again.
Although initially conrming Talbot as administrator of the priory, the
orders government was clearly unhappy at the manner of his appointment
and the new priors failure to pay responsions and other lapses only served to
substantiate its reservations.103 Perhaps wisely, the convent did not attempt

100
FitzThomas was chosen, succeeded and conrmed prior in Ireland on 15 February 1420.
Marlborough in Ancient Irish Histories, ed. Ware, ii. 28.
101
AOM362, fos. 121v123v.
102
Register Swayne, ed. Chart, 11819; Registrum Octaviani, ed. Sughi, no. 88.
103
AOM358, fo. 228v; CCR144754, 2334.
242 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

to replace him with another Englishman but reappointed FitzGerald in

1450, accepted Talbot as prior in the following year, and in 1459, on the
latters renewed failure to reform himself, provided an Irish-born knight who
had performed several years service in Rhodes, James Keating.104 Its deci-
sion to choose an Irishman for the post may have been prompted not just by
the reluctance of English brethren to reside there, but perhaps also by the
solidarity displayed by the Irish-born in 1449. At rst Keatings enterprise
appeared as unlikely to succeed as its predecessors. Talbots cousin, the
second earl of Shrewsbury, was by now a leading royal councillor and it is
most unlikely that Henry VIs government would have removed him had it
remained in power. As it was, however, Shrewsbury was killed at the battle
of Northampton in July 1460. His Hospitaller cousin had already been in
trouble for opposing the duke of Yorks rule in Ireland earlier in the year and
with the Yorkist victory in 1461 his removal became desirable to the crown
as well as the order.105 Although the erstwhile prior was appointed to head a
commission of the peace in County Dublin in June 1461, three months after
Edward IVs accession to the throne, the conventual renewal of Keatings
appointment as prior in early July suggests that word had been had from
England that the new king would approve an election in Rhodes and the
removal of the previous incumbent.106 In any case, Keating was soon in situ,
and remained prior until the 1490s. Considering his past service the convent
must have had high expectations of his future good conduct. For a few years
these were not disappointed. The new prior submitted responsions,107
attempted to recover alienated lands through parliament with at least
some success, and attended the Rome chapter-general of 14667.108
Yet in spite of these encouraging signs, Keating was from the start in-
volved in the factional politics of the lordship and soon proved to have an
anti-authoritarian streak. Within a year of taking up his post he had been
attainted by the Irish parliament for attacking the chief justice of the Com-
mon Bench, Robert Dowdall, while the latter was on pilgrimage.109 After an
appeal to the king, however, the attainder was quickly removed,110 the ease
with which Keating managed this perhaps owing something to his political
connections. His family were probably clients of the FitzGerald earls of

104
AOM362, fos. 124v125v, 126r; 363, fo. 156v; 369, fos. 179r1780v.
105
SRPI, Henry VI, 648/9652/3, 752/3754/5; Richardson and Sayles, Irish Parliament,
204.
106
Frame, Commissions of the Peace, 13; AOM73, fo. 107r; 371, fos. 142r144r, 144v.
107
The proceedings of the 14667 chapter-general, which list what each priory owed the
common treasury, do not record any Irish arrears. AOM283, fo. 31r.
108
SRPI, 112 Edward IV, 68/972/3; AOM283, fo. 5v.
109
SRPI, 112 Edward IV, 32/334/5. Dowdall, it was stated in 1473, had formerly held the
farm of the preceptory of Clontarf for many years, which may indicate an afliation with
Talbot. Calendar of the Liber Niger and Liber Albus, ed. Lawlor, 13. Despite this, Thomas
Dowdall was granted the farm of Clontarf by Keating and his brethren in February 1484.
Dublin, National Archives, RC13/8, c.21 (pp. 302).
110
PRO SC8/251/12529; SC1/57/103; SRPI, 112 Edward IV, 72/374/5.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 243

Desmond, and after their eclipse he remained close to the distantly related
earls of Kildare until the 1490s. Yet two events in 1467 appear to have led
him to distrust both his religious and his royal superiors. First, he may have
been irked that the convent rewarded his attendance at the Rome chapter-
general by increasing his responsions from 40 to about 96 Irish.111 After
his visit to Italy he fell rapidly and heavily into arrears with the common
treasury and largely ignored repeated attempts to compel him to pay. In
1471, 1473, and 1474 priors of England or visitors were instructed to secure
payment and to remove him if he failed to comply, but he presumably had
the support of Kildare and Edward IV did nothing to support the convents
demands.112 Secondly, in October 1467, after Keatings return from Rome,
John Tiptoft earl of Worcester was appointed deputy of Ireland. He arrived
with a considerable retinue and, for reasons that remain unclear, had Kildare
and Desmond attainted. Kildare managed to escape but to general conster-
nation Desmond was executed. Presumably because of his association with
the earls, Tiptoft also had Keating imprisoned and extorted a ne of 40
from him, an exaction which he later claimed had prevented him from
paying his responsions.113 After Tiptofts departure, the Irish council elected
Kildare justiciar in his place and the earl held a parliament to have his
attainder reversed. Further attempts to assert royal authority in Ireland
were actively resisted by his followers, including Keating. In 1478 the prior,
by then constable of Dublin castle, broke down its drawbridge rather than
admit Henry Lord Grey of Ruthin, the newly appointed royal deputy.114
While insisting that Keating repair the damage he had caused, the king
was not yet prepared to remove him or to enforce conventual demands that
he satisfy his debts. Indeed, in 1479 he and the other malcontents were
invited to London to discuss Irish affairs with the king, a meeting which
went so well that the prior was soon reappointed constable.115 In the same
year the convent ordered the turcopolier, John Kendal, to secure payment of
Keatings arrears.116 Neglecting this opportunity to redeem relations with
his superiors, the prior nally put himself beyond the Pale, or rather did not
put himself beyond the Pale, when he failed to come to the defence of Rhodes
when summoned in 1480.117 In December 1482, by which time it was clear
that he was not coming, the convent decided that enough was enough.

111
AOM283, fo. 31r.
112
AOM380, fo. 136rv; 381, fo. 161rv; 382, fo. 148rv; Sarnowsky, Kings and Priors,
925.
113
Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 591618, at 6001; SRPI, 112 Edward IV, 722/3.
114
SRPI, 1222 Edward IV, 664/5666/7; Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 601, 605;
Archdall, Monasticon hibernicum, ii. 11112.
115
SRPI, 1222 Edward IV, 664/5666/7, 752/3754/5; Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland,
606; Archdall, Monasticon hibernicum, ii. 112.
116
AOM386, fos. 156r157r.
117
The summons had been presented to him on 23 June 1481. AOM387, fo. 26v; 388, fo.
136rv.
244 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

Keating was formally deprived of ofce and an English knight, Marmaduke

Lumley, appointed to the priory and to the magistral camera of Kilsaran.118
In an effort to bolster Lumleys chances of success the convent turned rather
pathetically to the disgraced prior of Ireland, Thomas Talbot, and ordered
him to put the new one into possession.119 When Lumley landed in Ireland in
the following year, Keating met him at Clontarf with an armed force, seized
him, and kept him prisoner until, afraid for his life, he surrendered his papal
and magistral bulls.120 In return for renouncing his documents and claims,
Lumley was then released and allowed possession of Kilsaran.121 He used his
freedom to seek support from gentyles and certain portownes, from the king
and from the archbishops of Armagh and Dublin.122 The primate of Ireland,
Octavian de Palatio, who had recently been summoned before Kings Bench
at Keatings behest over his refusal to attend parliament, was particularly
sympathetic.123 After his release, Lumley came before Palatio at Drogheda
and persuaded him to write to Rhodes on his behalf and to order Keating not
to hinder his possession of the priory. Lumley was then formally inducted by
the archdeacon of Richmond, and when Keating continued to deny him
possession, Palatio and the archbishop of Dublin, John Walton, excommuni-
cated him. In June 1484 the Primate wrote to Richard III, invoking his aid in
securing possession for Lumley and asking for Keating to be excluded from
parliaments, councils, and the royal courts.124 As ever, Keating responded
vigorously to the challenge, occupying Kilsaran in September, seizing its fruits
and expelling its tenants. Moreover, hearing that Palatio was bringing an
army to Kilsaran in Lumleys support, the old prior gathered a force to
confront him with the aid of the chancellor of Ireland and various magnates,
so that the Primate had to back down.125 Lumley was still at liberty to report
these events to Rhodes later on in the same year, but at some stage was again
taken into custody by Keating. This time he was not released and died in
prison, probably before October 1489.126

118
AOM76, fos. 132rv; 388, fos. 134v137r. The pope conrmed his appointment in the
following spring. CPL, xiii. 130; Registrum Octaviani, ed. Sughi, no. 461.
119
AOM388, fo. 134v. Talbot had still been alive in 1463 and in May 1479 a man of the
same name was preceptor of Kilsaran. SRPI, Ireland, 112 Edward IV, 72/3; Registrum
Octaviani, ed. Sughi, no. 19.
120
Registrum Octaviani, ed. Sughi, nos. 185, 218a, 520. Walter Harriss copy of Lumleys
letter narrating these events (ibid., no. 185) is in Dublin, National Library of Ireland, MS 14,
pp. 2301, and is transcribed in Falkiner, Hospital, 302 n.
121
On 18 March 1484 Roger Walcott, merchant, was granted an annuity of 40 marks Irish
per annum out of Kilsaran until the 325 marks 4s. 8d. he had advanced towards the orders
expenses should be repaid. This deed was signed by Keating and other Hospitallers and had the
explicit consent of Lumley. Dublin, National Archives, RC13/8, c.17 (pp. 235).
122
Registrum Octaviani, ed. Sughi, no. 185. The letter to our king can probably be dated to
mid-1483, when there might have been confusion in Ireland as to who this was.
123
Ibid., no. 242.
124
Ibid., nos. 218a, 240.
125
Ibid., no. 520.
126
Ibid., no. 520; AOM390, fos. 133v134r.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 245

This affair, still more than previous attempts to appoint Englishmen as

priors of Ireland, demonstrated that without active royal support backed up
at the very least by a plausible threat of force an outsider stood very little
chance of unseating an Irish-born incumbent. Luckily from the convents
point of view, however, Keating soon manoeuvred himself into a position
where he represented a danger to the crown. He played so prominent a role
in the support of the Pretender Lambert Simnel, who was crowned king in
Ireland as Edward VI, that in 1488 Henry VIIs deputy, Sir Richard Edge-
combe opined that Keating and Justice Plunket were specially noted
amongst all others chef causes of the seyd Rebellion.127 Alone of the rebels,
Edgecombe refused to pardon the prior, instead removing him from Dublin
castle and sending him to court to ask the kings forgiveness. Other erstwhile
dissidents, including Kildare, also came to see Henry VII, who feasted them
but had Simnel wait on them at table.128 Despite his record, Keating was
pardoned in January 1489, but one condition of his restoration to grace may
have been that he settle his debts with the order, which he indicated his
willingness to do later in the year.129
Keatings pardon secured him against further action by the convent for
several years. Archdalls assertion that he was replaced by James Wall in
1491 appears to be mistaken.130 Even if he was removed Keating probably
recovered possession, for he continued to have the protection of Kildare and
remained inuential enough to provide support for a second pretender to the
throne, Perkin Warbeck. It was this that nally brought about his downfall.
Although Kildare and several leading gentry gave surety for Keatings good
behaviour in May 1494, the king and convent seem already to have been
planning coordinated action against him.131 In October 1494 the preceptor
of Dinmore, Thomas Docwra, was appointed prior of Ireland and Keating
again declared deposed.132 Despite the statutes to the contrary, Docwra was
to be permitted to retain with the priory both Dinmore and, should he
procure either, the bailiwick of Eagle or the turcopoliership. The brethren
of the English langue even conceded him ancienitas to be promoted to
another English preceptory in addition to Dinmore and the Irish priory.133
Such generosity probably reected limited expectations of success and it is
noteworthy that when the turcopoliership fell vacant three months later,

127
Hibernica, or, Some Antient Pieces Relating to Ireland . . . , ed. W. Harris, 2 vols. (Dublin,
174750), i. 34; Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 614.
128
Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 61415.
129
CPR148594, 263; Materials . . . Henry VII, ed. Campbell, ii. 389; AOM390, fos.
133v134r.
130
Archdall, Monasticon hibernicum, ii. 113; Wall was probably identical with the John Vale
recorded as prior of the conventual church of Kilmainham in 1487, 1495, and 1500. Registrum
Octaviani, ed. Sughi, no. 232; Calendar of the Liber Niger and Liber Albus, ed. Lawlor, 25, 32.
131
RPCCH, 270.
132
AOM77, fos. 135rv; 392, fos. 100v101r, 100r.
133
AOM77, fos. 135v136r.
246 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

Docwra exchanged it for title to the priory.134 It was not until September
1497 that the convent was able to persuade another English knight, Robert
Evers, to accept the poisoned chalice.135
Despite Docwras personal reluctance, within months of his appointment
as prior a parliament held by Sir Edward Poynings had taken steps to
ensure that the priory would be brought permanently under English
control. It was explained that where as the hedde house & priorate of
Seint Johns Jherusalem . . . hathe byn above all other houseis of Religion . . .
foundeid & Endueid with possessions whereof agreate parte lye desolate
& (have) ben Alyoned by Evill dysposed priours, henceforth the prior was
to be a man of English blood, sad, wise and discreet, and haveing lyvelod
by the religion within the Reallme of Englande (i.e. an English preceptory).
He was to be appointed by the grand master and conrmed by the king
before taking possession of the priory. The alienations and grants of annu-
ities and leases made by James Keating and Thomas Talbot were also
revoked and a succeeding prior given authority to re-enter such possessions,
while those received into the order by Keating were to appear before his
successor and show by what authority they had been professed and
given preceptories.136 Irish-born brethren continued to hold individual pre-
ceptories, but Irishmen were not henceforth to be allowed to claim the
priory.
This was an important victory for the langue. Since 1384 the priory of
Ireland had effectively been denied to the (English) majority of its brethren,
and the order in Ireland had been virtually independent of both Clerkenwell
and Rhodes. Marmaduke Lumleys had been only the latest in a series of
humiliating failures to reverse this situation. The statute of 1494 and Keat-
ings conviction for treason by the English parliament in 1495 helped pave
the way for the restoration of the payment of responsions to Rhodes and
provided a new source of patronage for the English brethren.137 Yet the
triumph was entirely dependent on the support of the crown. Requests for
royal assistance in reducing the priory of Ireland to obedience had repeatedly
failed to secure effective intervention and it was only James Keatings mani-
fest and dangerous treason that made the events of 1494 possible. Had he
been more careful the Irish-born might have remained in control of the
priory until the dissolution.
The measures taken by the parliament of 14945 were clearly a major
turning point in the priorys history. Some have also asserted that they had
the effect of transforming it into an instrument of royal rule and that the
feeble resistance in Ireland to the dissolution is explicable in the light of the
134
AOM77, fo. 147r.
135
AOM78, fo. 80r.
136
Falkiner, Ireland, 304; A. Conway, Henry VIIs Relations with Scotland and Ireland
14851498 (Cambridge, 1932), 21011; Archdall, Monasticon hibernicum, ii. 113.
137
Rot. Parl., vi. 503b506b.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 247

disenfranchisement of the Irish brethren.138 There is some truth in these

contentions. The act had indeed been passed with the kings better service
as its specic intention and John Rawson, who was appointed administrator
in 1511 and prior in 1514, was certainly a capable and committed royal
servant, who upheld rather than opposed the Henrician Supremacy. Never-
theless, in 1494 and for twenty-odd years thereafter, things might not have
seemed so clear-cut. In the past a number of priors had repudiated the
actions of their predecessors without managing to do any better themselves,
and the sorry record of previous attempts to appoint Englishmen to Kilmain-
ham must have been fresh in the minds of all concerned. Robert Evers, who
was in possession by 1499,139 seems not to have been greatly disturbed by
the Irish-born brethren, but this was probably precisely because he made no
serious attempt to reform them. There is certainly no evidence that he
investigated the titles of those who held preceptories, or that the convent
had any more control over the appointments of Irish preceptors during his
priorate than before. The growing strength of the native Irish presence in the
order in the rst decade of the sixteenth century may also be a sign of
weakening prioral control, with the preceptory of Killerig falling into the
hands of Padraig O Curryn, who appears to have taken the side of his family
against that of the order in a dispute between the Hospital and the prior of
Kells.140 Nor was Everss administration of his own estates much of a
success. While he was able to submit about half of the responsions due
from Ireland during the course of his priorate, which was a considerable
improvement on Keatings performance,141 this perhaps caused him nan-
cial difculties, for in 1504 he owed the archbishop of Dublin seven years
worth of procurations. He earned further opprobrium in the capital in 1506
when, during the course of a dispute over the possession of a meadow, he
seized hay belonging to the Dublin Dominicans, prompting the mayor and
citizens to come forth and drove him back into the prioral complex at
Kilmainham.142 Still more seriously, as gradually became apparent, his
management techniques were just as awed as those of his predecessors.
Although understanding about his failure to attend the 1504 chapter-
general, by 1506 the convent had begun to show signs of worry about
Everss activities, and commissioned Thomas Docwra to compel his Irish

138
Sire, Knights of Malta, 182.
139
Registrum Octaviani, ed. Sughi, no. 480 (i, p. 50; ii, pp. 2234).
140
Irish Monastic and Episcopal Deeds A.D. 12001600, ed. N. B. White (Dublin, 1936),
5563, at 62.
141
On his death Evers owed 188 14s. 334 d. for the fourteen years, from June 1498 to June
1511, on which he was due to pay responsions. Throughout this period the priory had been due
to pay 40 Irish, or 26 13s. 4d., per annum. AOM54, fo. 13v.
142
Calendar of Archbishop Alens Register, ed. McNeil, 255; Harriss, Dublin, 286; OSulli-
van, Dominicans, 91. In some senses Evers was only continuing the policies of his predecessors,
many of whom had fallen out with either archbishop (over procurations) or municipality (over
shing rights).
248 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

counterpart and all benece-holders in Ireland to pay their dues to the

common treasury.143 Besides his evident failure to submit responsions in
full, Evers also neglected to send the results of a visitation ordered in 1504
to the convent. In February 1510 he was ordered to dispatch these and
prohibited from conferring the orders habit on anyone else without express
licence.144 The following October, seemingly aware that matters were badly
awry, the grand master appointed an English knight, John Bothe, to solicit
Evers to pay his debts to the common treasury; to inform himself continually
on the business of the priory lest it fall into greater ruin and to prevent the
prior from making grants or alienations without authorization from Rhodes.
Bothe was to petition the relevant authorities for assistance in implementing
his instructions and to proceed against anyone who obstructed him.145
The visitors report, which nally reached Rhodes in May 1511, was
damning. The priory had been reduced to a state of almost total and
miserable ruin by the wicked and damnable administration of Evers,
who had not only imitated the errors of his predecessors but augmented
them. He had alienated goods to seculars and failed to redeem the ecclesi-
astical ornaments and jewels distributed by Keating. Worse still, he had
exposed the prioral church to ruin, removed its stipendiary priest, and failed
to maintain hospitality. Furthermore, the principal house of the order was so
demolished that man could not live in such vile conditions. Besides his
evident failure to maintain the prioral estate, Evers had also conferred the
habit on seculars and preceptories and beneces on unsuitable persons by his
own authority, and had sealed instruments using the common seal when no
chapter had been held, farming out a great proportion of the priorys estates
in this way.146 Supporting evidence for some of these claims can be gleaned
from such details of Everss leases as survive. His grant of the prioral
preceptory of Kilmainhambeg to the Barnwells at the low rent of 50 marks
at a time when the lordships fortunes were relatively secure is particularly
striking.147
Perhaps mindful of the successful resistance of previous priors to removal,
and the prospect that he might make grants to his followers before his
replacement, the convent did not strip Evers of his dignity, but encouraged
him to give it up by promising him a pension and allowing him to retire to his
preceptory in Wales. These concessions, however, were dependent on his
handing over the priory and its appurtenances in full and without delay to
the newly appointed proctor and lieutenant in Ireland, John Rawson. All
administrative documents, the common seal, and the prioral jewels were

143
In addition they were to pay passage monies, which may indicate that there were Irish-
born brethren in Rhodes at this time. AOM397, fos. 146rv.
144
AOM395, fos. 144r, 148v149r, 57r; 399, fo. 144r.
145
AOM400, fo. 170rv.
146
AOM81, fos. 105v106r; 400, fos. 146rv, 146v147r, 148r149v.
147
RK, 166.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 249

also to be surrendered before he crossed the Irish Sea. He was prompted to

give title to the priory back to the order, and Rawson permitted to assume it
on his surrender, but in fact the latter was not formally appointed prior until
March 1514, after Evers had died.148
Rawson proved a rather more successful administrator than his predeces-
sor. As lieutenant and visitor he was given extensive powers to investigate
and remedy the priorys affairs and the life of its brethren. The manner in
which brethren had assumed the habit and obtained their preceptories was
to be investigated, but those who appeared worthy in their status and
beneces were to be conrmed in them subject to conventual approval.
Unt and disobedient brethren were to be removed from their positions
and any who resisted correction were to be sent to Rhodes for punish-
ment.149 To some extent Rawson was successful. By 1514 he had made the
convent aware of the names and appointments of its Irish brethren, a
situation probably without recent precedent, and he had also won the
condence of Henry VIII, who made frequent interventions in Irish affairs
almost from the beginning of his reign.150 It was in the royal interest to have
a strong English-run priory, particularly in 1511, when the king was making
his rst attempts to impose English ministers on the Irish government. He
insisted that Rawson be placed onto the Irish council in the same year, and
Rawsons ease in gaining control of the priory surely owed something to
royal support. By the spring of 1515, when he came over to England with the
new earl of Kildare and dined with the king, Rawson had become an
important gure in Ireland.151 Nevertheless, Henry clearly saw the new
prior primarily as a royal servant and repeatedly caused him to sacrice
the interests of his career in order that he might serve the crown. Nor were
royal interventions in the priory always wise. In 1514 Rawsons appoint-
ment had been vigorously opposed by an Irish-born conventual knight,
Edmund Seys, who had asserted quite justiably that the exclusion of the
Irish from the prioral dignity ran contrary to the whole tenor of the orders
statutes.152 As a reward for his conventual service, and in compensation for
his exclusion, Seys was awarded the preceptory of Mourne, the magistral
camera of Kilsaran, and the expectancy to the next house to become va-
cant.153 But Mourne was still occupied by the MacCarthys and in c. 1515
Henry wrote to the grand master recommending that Rawson be provided to
Kilsaran instead of Seys, who, being an Irishman, was unt for prefer-
ment.154 It is unclear whether he did so at Rawsons prompting. The prior

148
AOM81, fos. 105v106r; 400, fo. 150r; 402, fos. 137r138v.
149
AOM400, fos. 188v, 190r193v, 195rv.
150
AOM403, fo. 162r.
151
Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 655, 658.
152
AOM81, fos. 205r206r.
153
AOM402, fos. 136v, 139rv; 401, fo. 160v; 403, fos. 163v164r, 167r168r.
154
LPFD, ii, no. 1359.
250 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

had left Seys in charge of the preceptory of Killerig when he travelled to

England to meet the king, and so clearly had not subscribed to Henrys views
on his appropriateness for ofce at that stage. Nevertheless, on Rawsons
return Seys refused either to render account for Killerig or to hand over its
responsions. His deance soon escalated into a full-scale rebellion in the
course of which the Irish-born brethren, led by Seys and Richard FitzMaur-
ice, threw the prior into prison in chains and allegedly committed an assault
on him that he scarcely survived.155
Rawson escaped connement fairly quickly, perhaps due to royal inter-
vention, but the rebellion rumbled on for some years. The prior, Seys, and
FitzMaurice were summoned to Rhodes, ostensibly to serve against the
Turks, in January 1517, and Thomas Docwra was given authority to invoke
royal aid to force the rebels to go, but they were still resisting in May 1518,
when Rawsons brother, the stapler Christopher, reported to a provincial
chapter in England that Seys, who had effectively expelled himself from the
order by continually machinating his superiors death, was persevering in
his malignancy and refusing to obey conventual orders.156 In the following
year, having been summoned by the convent, which proposed that his
cousin, John Rawson junior, should act as his lieutenant during his absence,
the prior received royal permission to leave Ireland for three years so that he
could pursue his case against the rebels in Rome and Rhodes.157 At the last
minute, however, and after he had leased several properties to Kildare to pay
for his journey, Henry revoked Rawsons licence and forced him to return to
Ireland with the new deputy, the earl of Surrey.158 The prior had been made
royal treasurer in 1517 and his nancial skills were evidently too valuable
for him to be allowed to leave. He was refused licence to answer repeated
summons to Rhodes and his reappointment as treasurer in February 1522
meant that he was denied any chance to join the English relief force sent to
the convent at the end of the year.159 He was not permitted to depart until
April 1525 and probably proceeded to the convent in Italy only in the
following year, taking two Irish-born brethren, John FitzGerald and Nicho-
las Plunket, with him.160 This visit appears to have marked a partial rap-
prochement between Rawson and his brethren and the success of the orders
attempts to secure obedience and conventual service from the Irish Hospi-
tallers. In return, ve Irish preceptories were reserved to the Irish-born
brethren in perpetuity and their holders conrmed in their appointments at
the priors supplication.161 In reward for Rawsons labours and expenses in
155
AOM405, fo. 132rv.
156
Ibid., fos. 133rv, 134v; Claudius E.vi, fo. 174rv.
157
AOM407, fos. 149v150v; LPFD, ii, no. 4252; iii, no. 194.
158
LPFD, iii, no. 2089.
159
Archdall, Monasticon hibernicum, ii. 114; LPFD, iii, nos. 2087, 2089.
160
LPFD, iii, no. 1294; AOM412, fo. 201v.
161
AOM412, fos. 195rv, 194v195r. The ve were Tully, Killerig, Kilclogan-Ballyhack,
Crook, and Any. In practice, Crook and Any were treated as a paired house, however.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 251

Ireland, the latter having amounted to 4,000 ducats, all other Irish houses
were explicitly reserved to him, he was awarded Kilsaran for life, and he was
granted ancienitas after William Weston to the other dignities of the
langue.162 Even at this stage, however, Rawson may still have been having
trouble with brethren who were wandering in deance of their superiors, as
LIsle Adam reported to Henry VIII in June 1527.163
Despite the convents attempts to strengthen his position, later in the same
month Rawson was elected turcopolier, releasing the priory of Ireland to
John Babington.164 But the renewal of his conventual career was not to last.
Dispatched almost immediately afterwards to plead for the removal of the
kings hand from the orders property in England, he was persuaded to
exchange his dignity for the priory of Ireland once again in the following
year. The bull regranting the priory to Rawson drew attention to his long
years of rule there and the many expenses, labours, and perils which he had
undergone in the process. As he was aware of its customs and would be more
easily able to administer it than would Babington it was more useful and
convenient for the Religion if he remained in Ireland.165 His return there was
also to the benet of the king, to whose wishes the master drew specic
attention in a letter of 5 June 1528. Rawson, it was pointed out, had
conducted a great deal in the service of the king, whom we cannot disobey
and had been regranted the priory by the consent and will of Henry and
Wolsey. The langue too noted the service that might thereby be done to the
invincible king of England when it conrmed the exchange at royal re-
quest.166 Shortly afterwards Rawson was reappointed treasurer of Ireland,
whither he had returned by October.167
His reappointment proved its worth in 1534, when Thomas FitzGerald,
the heir of the earl of Kildare, rose in violent revolt against Henry VIII, who
had detained his father in the Tower. For several months he ravaged the
lordship of Ireland, twice assaulting Dublin. Hospitallers were in the thick of
the action from the outset, for Thomas had been fostered by Thomas
Docwra and his paternal uncles, including the Hospitaller John, were in-
volved as well.168 Although James and Richard FitzGerald defected to the
kings deputy in November 1534, John FitzGerald remained committed to
the rebels to the very end.169 Rawson had an equally critical role to play. The
animus of the rebels was particularly directed against the English-born

162
Ibid., fos. 193v194v, 195rv, 196rv.
163
LPFD, iv, no. 3196. Text in Otho C.ix, fos. 50rv/62rv.
164
AOM85, fo. 29v; 412, fo. 199r.
165
AOM85, fo. 41r; AOM413, fos. 23r24r.
166
AOM413, fos. 24v25r; BDVTE, 614.
167
LPFD, iv, nos. 4759, 4846.
168
Annals of Ulster, ed. Hennessy, iii. 606/7608/9; Annals of Ireland, ed. MacDermott,
405 n.
169 L. McCorristine, The Revolt of Silken Thomas: A Challenge to Henry VIII (Dublin,

1987), 98, 1245.

252 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

members of the council, especially Archbishop Alen, with whose family the
prior had close ties, and Rawson himself. In late July Alen was caught trying
to escape and killed by James FitzGerald; fear of suffering a similar fate
probably prompted Rawson to ee Ireland a few days later.170 Despite this
display of pusillanimity, which the Ulster annalist took great delight in
reporting, Rawson must soon have returned, as Eustace Chapuys wrote at
the end of August that the prior and the earl of Ossory had been the only two
lords to oppose the rebellion.171 Over the following months they continued
to resist the rebels, Rawson lending many of his servants to the defence of
Dublin castle, where they did good service over a period of twelve weeks.
One, Anthony Mores, was singled out for praise for his bravery during the
rebel assault on the city gates, when he sallied forth and slew several of
FitzGeralds best foot. In revenge, the rebels burnt the priors great barn at
Kilmainham, destroying his corn.172 Even after the immediate threat to
Dublin had passed, Rawson and the rest of the council were busy for several
more months putting down the rebellion. The priors most important con-
tribution at this stage of the affair was to invite the earls brothers, including
John, to dinner at Kilmainham, where they were arrested before being
dispatched to England and, eventually, executed.173
John Rawsons career, and particularly the events of 1534, thus demon-
strate the potential usefulness to the crown of having a sad, wise and
discreet English Hospitaller in charge of the priory. The English priors of
Ireland were not a great success from the conventual point of view, however.
Although Rawson was eventually able to reduce his recalcitrant brethren to
obedience, he did so at enormous expense and at the price of reducing the
priory to a rump of half a dozen brethren, including himself.174 Moreover,
while both Evers and Rawson were able to submit rather higher responsions
than their immediate predecessors, they managed this by neglecting or
exploiting the preceptories they held in the priory of England. A resident
preceptor was particularly needed at Everss house of Slebech: his
absence left it in the hands of farmers who ran up considerable arrears
which they refused to repay when their leases had expired.175 Although
Rawsons English houses, Swingeld and later Ribston, were run rather

170
PRO LR2/62, fos. 2v3r; LPFD, vii, no. 1045.
171
Annals of Ulster, ed. Hennessy, iii. 594/5; LPFD, vii, no. 1095.
172
LPFD, vii, no. 1141; viii, no. 695; vii, no. 1389; Extents, 81.
173
LPFD, vii, no. 1574; viii, no. 448; xvi, no. 304 (ii); x, no. 301; Annals of Ulster, ed.
Hennessy, iii. 616/17. Despite the Greyfriars chronicles description of Richard Fitzgerald as
lord of sent Ines in Ireland and Archdalls more plausible assertion, derived from Leland, that
James Fitzgerald of Leixlip was also a Hospitaller, the attainder of the earls brothers states only
John to have been such. Chronicle of the Grey Friars, ed. Nichols, 39; Annals of Ireland, ed.
MacDermott, 405 n.; Statutes, iii. 674.
174
AOM412, fos. 193v194v; The Irish Fiants of the Tudor Sovereigns during the Reigns of
Henry VII, Edward VI, Philip and Mary, and Elizabeth I, ed. K. Nicholls and T. G. O Canann,
4 vols. (Dublin, 1994), i. Henry VIII, nos. 212, 221, 226, 230, 253.
175
AOM54, fo. 13v.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 253

more competently by relatives and English prioral ofcials, from the late
1520s he fell behind with his responsions, arrears of which continued to
increase until at least 1536.176 In the fteenth and sixteenth centuries, the
responsions expected from Ireland were in any case so tiny compared to those
from England that the restoration of their payment was a moral rather than a
nancial victory. Other hoped-for results of the priorys reduction to obedi-
ence had barely begun to materialize by 1540. At a time of partial economic
and territorial recovery, Robert Evers failed to regain either Mourne or
Clonoulty, possibly lost control of Killerig, and farmed the Hospitals estates
elsewhere for greatly less than they were worth to lords and gentry. John
Rawson appears to have been more successful in gaining recognition of the
orders rights, but he failed to wring much benet from his recoveries, if such
they were. In defending property on the marches and further aeld, he was
forced to rely on local interests, notably the great Anglo-Irish magnates.
Particularly during his rst term as prior, he had close contacts with the
ninth earl of Kildare, to whom he paid a retainer and leased a substantial
portion of the prioral estates rather cheaply.177 His reliance on Kildare is
further underlined by the fact that at least two Hospitaller preceptors, the
earls brother John, and the preceptor of Tully, Oliver Harebrik, were closely
tied to the FitzGerald interest.178 As late as 1532, Rawson and other mem-
bers of the council came to England to defend the earl from the accusations
laid against him by Sir William Skefngton, the royal deputy.179 In the south,
Rawson entered into alliance with the new earl of Desmond. Abandoning the
pretence that Clonaulty was still a religious house, which competing
ODwyers had still maintained in 1503, he leased it in 1535 to Desmond
and to Risdeard O Duibhidhir (Richard ODwyer) for 12 per annum, a
fraction of its real worth.180 Without Desmonds support it might not have
been possible to exert any authority over the house at all. His cousin John
being granted Mourne in 1523, the prior probably also came to an agreement
with Desmond whereby the latter was to recover and administer the house
and pay rent to him as prior. The defeat of the earls father by the MacCarthys
in a battle fought at Mourne in 1521 may conceivably indicate an earlier
attempt to regain the house. Desmond had not been able to reverse this
verdict by 1541, when he was recorded as owing arrears for the preceptory,
then in the hands of Diarmaid MacCarthaigh Oge.181 Finally, after 1527

176
The arrears owed by Rawson for his holdings in both countries stood at 84 odd in 1531,
and had risen to more than 248 by 1536. AOM54, fos. 174v175r, 286v.
177
Crown Surveys of Lands 154041 with the Kildare Rental begun in 1518, ed.
G. MacNiocaill (Dublin, 1992), 242, 2335, 241, 261; CPCRCIr, i. 19.
178
Crown Surveys, ed. MacNiocaill, 345; McCorristine, Silken Thomas, 32, 46.
179
S. G. Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, 14471603: English Expansion and the End
of Gaelic Rule (Harlow, 1998), 132.
180
CPL, xvii, I, no. 938; Extents, 99; RK, 160.
181
AOM410, fo. 181r; Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 62930; Extents, 120, 104. Its
properties in Cork itself were still in the orders hands, however. Ibid., 1034.
254 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

a Desmond client, Aonghus O hIffearnain, became preceptor of Any, the

vicarage of which was also in the earls gift.182 O hIffearnains commitment
to the religious life seems not to have run very deep, for in 1541 he and his
comital patron were commissioned to suppress religious houses in Limerick,
Cork, and Kerry.183 Rawsons association with Desmond may thus have
brought some recognition of his authority and limited nancial benets, but
hardly bespeaks a determination to restore the orders religious life where
this had lapsed. In the west, as we have seen, the prior entered an agreement
with a Galway merchant to lease out the orders lands in Connacht in 1529
and in the south-east, where the order still had a substantial presence, he
again leased properties to local interests.184
Rawson can hardly be claimed to have infused the order with new vigour
or to have maximized prioral resources in the Pale or its marches either.
There are no signs that he did anything to restore conventual life and divine
service at Kilmainham, which appears to have still been a functioning pre-
ceptory and the residence of four or more brethren and a college of priests,
some perhaps Hospitallers, before 1494,185 but which was apparently
inhabited only by Rawson, the subprior, and some servants and corrodians
in 1540. Details for his administration are hard to come by before 1534, and
relate mostly to his relations with Kildare, but after the overthrow of the
Geraldines the prior turned instead to a small clique among whom English-
born government servants, Pale lawyers and gentry, and his own relatives
were especially prominent. Even before he was told that the priory would be
dissolved in November 1538, the priors distribution of pensions and leases
had demonstrated a desire to prot his family and associates.186 After this
date, the number of grants multiplied, and several were reissued on more
favourable terms. In 1539, for example, anticipatory leases of the precep-
tories of Crook, Killure, and Kilbarry, which had been granted to the Cahells
of Waterford for a twelve-year term in 1535, were issued to another local
family, the Wises, for terms of eighty-one or ninety-nine years.187 Kilbarry,
which had still been a separate preceptory in 1516, and was extended at only
10 or so in 1541, was leased for a still more unspectacular 4.188 In
February 1540 Kilteel and its substantial possessions were leased to the
Alens in perpetuum for only 5 Irish and its dependent rectory for 12.189
This was too much for the crown, which reduced the term of the lease to

182
Extents, 116.
183
B. Bradshaw, The Dissolution of the Religious Orders in Ireland under Henry VIII
(Cambridge, 1974), 1656; Irish Fiants, ed. Nicholls and O Canann, i: Henry VIII, no. 251.
184
Report on the Wardenship of Galway, ed. MacLysaght, 139; Extents, 99103; CICRE,
112.
185
AOM362, fos. 121v123v; SRPI, Henry VI, 403/405; CPL, xiii. 272.
186
LPFD, xiii, II, 937.
187
CICRE, 112.
188
AOM404, fos. 147v148r; Extents, 99; CICRE, 112.
189
Extents, 91.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 255

fty-one years, but left the Alens in occupation.190 In addition to the over-
generous leases granted by the prior, after its surrender in November 1540
the crown found that the priory was more encumbered with pensions and
annuities than any other house.191
Even had convent and crown not insisted in 1494 that only an Englishman
should hold the priory it is unlikely that the order would have survived its
suppression. Those of its houses in the hands of Gaelic septs were hardly
vigorous and popular beacons of spirituality in the way that some of the
mendicant houses in Ulster and Connacht were. Nevertheless, the orders
repeated interventions in the priorys affairs, although prompted by a laud-
able concern to ensure that the priory paid its responsions and upheld its
other responsibilities, appear to have been counter-productive. Certainly the
Hospital had had a difcult time in the fourteenth and early fteenth
centuries. Estates had been laid waste or occupied, houses amalgamated,
numbers of brethren had declined, and conventual service and the payment
of responsions had largely fallen by the wayside. Although the Irish-born
brethren had sometimes striven to remedy these problems, their public
duties and family interests proved at best mixed blessings and at worst
positive distractions. Yet whatever their failings, the Irish-born brethren
clearly enjoyed considerable solidarity and managed both to maintain
some sort of conventual establishment at Kilmainham and to offer hospital-
ity and perhaps medical care at other sites. Compared to the size of the
orders endowment, these achievements were unimpressive but even they
appear to have been placed under threat by the administration of Evers and
Rawson, outsiders who, without connections of their own in Ireland, were
even more reliant on the Anglo-Irish magnates which dominated the lord-
ship to maintain their hold. The English-born priors did manage to bring
some of the Irish-born brethren to heel and restore the payment of respon-
sions, but in doing so they dissipated the resources of their English precep-
tories to such a degree that the convent would have done better, at least from
a nancial point of view, to leave James Keating in charge. This, of course,
was not an option. To headquarters the recalcitrance and lack of cooper-
ation of the Irish brethren was a matter not merely of money but also of
discipline. This at least the convent had managed to restore, but the priorys
very reduction to order left it in the hands of a man who was primarily a
royal servant and who at a critical juncture in the fortunes of the lordship of
Ireland was prepared to sacrice his brethren and to support a government
which had already broken with Rome. Had a relative or supporter of Silken
Thomas been prior in 1534, it might not have made much difference to the
overall course of the rebellion and might well have precipitated an earlier
suppression than that which occurred, but at least the Hospital would have
disappeared with a bang rather than a whimper.

190 191
Bradshaw, Dissolution, 90. Ibid. 8990; Extents, 117.
256 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

Yet the dissolution, from which Rawson was able to secure a substantial
pension and the title of Viscount Clontarf, has nevertheless an extraordinary
coda. In November 1540, the very month in which the orders houses were
being surrendered, the council of Ireland, attended by both the former prior
and his ally John Alen, advanced proposals to devote the proceeds of the
suppression to the establishment of a new military order to be based at the
castle of Ferns and to have as its object the reduction of Leinster to tran-
quillity by a mixture of military action and judicial inquiry. Composed of a
Great Master and twelve pensioners each commanding a small body of
horse, the members of this association were to be celibate knights wearing
a distinctive habit, and promoted according to auncyentie and goode beha-
veour. After the initial intake, several of whom were to be Kavanaghs,
OTooles, or OBriens to save on the cost of endowment, entry into the
order would gradually be restricted to English, or at least English-speaking,
gentlemen. Although the new orders members were not to live in common,
meeting only four times per annum, including on St Georges day to attend a
mass in honour of the king and the royal family, in other respects, not least
its celibacy and the proposed status of the master as premier baron of
Ireland, the new order was strikingly reminiscent of the Hospital.192 Despite
the fact that none of the proposed members were Hospitallers, the royal
council in England myslyked the whole scheme as an institucon of a new
Saint Johns Ordre, an attitude shared by their master, who dismissed it as an
erection of . . . fantasies of which he in noo wyse approved.193 Neverthe-
less, and whatever Rawsons contribution to the proposal, it is clear that the
Irish council were convinced of the utility of such an establishment, which
would, they claimed, save the king 10,000 which might otherwise be spent
in reducing Leinster to order.194 Along with the pronouncements of Poyn-
ings in 1494, and Henrys own scheme to devote the order to the defence of
Calais, the Irish councils devises of 1540 is a striking monument to the
Tudor political establishments regard for the military utility of the hospital
of St John, and to the intermittent conviction that its organization and
discipline might more usefully be harnessed to the service of the state.
In 1557, the priory of Ireland was restored by the crown in essentially the
same form as it had existed in the 1530s, albeit with fewer estates.195 It was
placed once more under an English prior, Oswald Massingberd who, like
his predecessors, served the crown as a commissioner of the peace and a
royal councillor.196 Notwithstanding Kings assertion that no separate
Commanderies were re-established in Ireland, at least two Irish-born
brethren were received into the reconstituted priory, and inducted into the

192 193 194

SP, iii. 271, 2726. PPC, vii. 92; SP, iii. 293. SP, iii. 271.
195
Six Documents Relating to Queen Marys Restoration of the Grand Priories of England
and Ireland, ed. E. J. King, OSJHP 7 (1935), 45, 1117.
196
Irish Fiants, ed. Nicholls and O Canann, i: Philip and Mary, no. 222; CPCRIr, i. 380, 396,
397; Acts of the Privy Council in Ireland, ed. Gilbert, 50, 53, 55, 68, 71.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 257

preceptories of Kilclogan and Crook, and at least one provincial chapter was
held during the priorys brief swansong.197 As can be seen elsewhere, Mas-
singberds career hitherto had been rather turbulent, encompassing amongst
other extravagances a scheme, hatched in conjunction with Cardinal Pole, to
overturn Tudor government in Ireland.198 Although he was the last of the
English brethren who had remained in Malta after the dissolution to survive,
Massingberd was perhaps not an appropriate candidate for promotion to
even so unglamorous a priorate as Ireland, so that Poles inuence may well
have played a part in securing his appointment. It is perhaps in keeping with
his career thus far that the last we certainly hear of him he was in trouble
again, being summoned to go before the Irish parliament on pain of treason
because he was suspected of raising and fomenting insurrections in
conjunction with the native Irish. Faced with this tribunal, Massingberd,
records Archdall, privately withdrew from the kingdom and died in obscur-
ity.199 Given his record, he was probably wise to do so.

7. 2 The Preceptory of Torphichen

From the beginning of its existence in Scotland, the Hospitals chief house
there had been the preceptory of Torphichen, situated to the west of
Edinburgh. Torphichen had probably been granted the order by David I
(112453), and its donation was followed by further grants of lands,
churches, burghal properties, and exemptions by royal and non-royal
donors.200 Before the wars of independence, the Scottish establishments of
both the Temple and Hospital were fully integrated with those in England and
Wales. Most brethren whose names survive were probably English-born
and the Templars arrested in Scotland in 1307 had had careers in both
England and Scotland as well as, in some cases, the Latin East.201 Both orders
held extensive properties, although, as in England, the Temple was more
favoured than the Hospital until well into the thirteenth century. In 1338 it
was claimed that before 1296 the Templar possessions had paid responsions
of 200 sterling, and the Hospitaller 200 marks, while in 1345 it was said that
the fruits of the two combined should have been worth more than 420
sterling to the Hospital.202 By the early sixteenth century, however, the
197
CPCRIr, 397, 482. King, in id., (ed.), Six Documents, 5, appears to have been misled by
the fact that Cardinal Poles letters specically incorporated all the orders preceptories in
Ireland into the re-erected priory. Ibid. 12, 15.
198
See below, Chs. 8.4, 9.
199
Calendar of Carew Manuscripts, 151574, ed. Brewer and Bullen, 327; Irish Fiants, ed.
Nicholls and O Canann, ii: 15581586, no. 6784; CPR155860, 29; T. Leland, The History of
Ireland from the Invasion of Henry II with a Preliminary Discourse on the Antient State of that
Kingdom, 3 vols. (Dublin, 1773), ii. 226; Archdall, Monasticon hibernicum, ii. 115.
200
Scotland, pp. xxviixxviii.
201
Ibid., pp. xxviixxviii, xxxxii.
202
Report, 201, 129; Scotland, pp. xix, xxvii, xxxii.
258 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

responsions expected from Torphichen were xed at no more than 50 marks

sterling. Some causes of this decline can be suggested, but they do not account
for it entirely. Both the Hospital and Temple supported the English crown
during the rst stages of the wars of independence and their estates appear to
have been occupied or devastated and their brethren expelled for long periods
as a result. While Robert the Bruce was willing to conrm the Hospital in its
possessions and privileges in 1314, these were left unspecied, and towards
the end of his reign the Hospitals estates were granted to lay administrators
from whom it was impossible to extract any revenue until the 1340s. There-
after the order slowly recovered control of its properties and returned to some
sort of solvency: nothing reached Clerkenwell in 1338 or in the years before
1345, but David de Mar and later farmers were occasionally able to pay
responsions of 200 orins in the 1370s and 1380s, while in 1418 the sum
owed by Scotland was set at 400 ecus and in 1445 at 500 Venetian ducats.203
The latter gure, however, seems to have been rather too high, and had not
been paid for years. By 1489 it had again been reduced to c.200 orins, a sum
probably equivalent to the 50 marks sterling payable between 1506 and at
least the 1530s.204 Between the 1480s and 1509, responsions were partly
dispatched in the form of lasts of salmon, from the payment of custom on
which the preceptor was released by a royal grant made during James IVs
minority, when the preceptor of Torphichen, William Knollis, was royal
treasurer. This concession was revived between 1518 and c.1523, but discon-
tinued thereafter.205 After the dissolution of the order in England, responsions
were transmitted to Malta via the priory of France.206
Although some brethrenprobably brother priestsevidently continued
to reside in Scotland between the 1320s and 1380s its estates were adminis-
tered by unprofessed lessees with Scottish surnames.207 Nevertheless it
remained subject to the priory of England. In 1374 the convent attempted
to remove two farmers, the papal chaplain David de Mar and Sir Robert
Erskine, and replace them with Robert Mercer, lord of Inerpeffray, but it did
so without consulting the prior of England, Robert Hales, who objected to
the removal of Torphichen from his purview and persuaded Edward III to
intervene. In response, Edward arrested the orders English responsions until
the convent backed down.208
The administration of the Scottish preceptory during the papal schism is
rather more obscure but given the priory of Englands continued allegiance
203
Scotland, pp. 162, 165, 17381. The approximate equivalents of these sums in sterling
are 80 and 93 15s. P. Spufford, Handbook of Medieval Exchange (London, 1986), 205.
204
The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, 12641600, 23 vols. (Edinburgh, 18781908), x. 134;
Scotland, 173.
205
Exchequer Rolls, Scotland, vii. 665; x. 134, 237, 363; xi. 50, 220, 374; xii. 867, 162,
265, 378, 473; xiii. 93, 237, 372; xiv. 438, xv. 183.
206
Scotland, doc. no. 54 (pp. 1425).
207
Scotland, pp. xxxixxxv.
208
Tipton, English and Scottish Hospitallers, 2412; Scotland, pp. xxxvxxxvi.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 259

to Rhodes, and hence Avignon, there seems to have been no fundamental

conict of interest between Torphichen and Clerkenwell, and there are some
signs of continued intercourse between the two,209 which was only signi-
cantly disrupted when the order transferred its allegiance to the Pisan pope
Alexander V in 1409, while Scotland remained attached to Benedict XIII.
Thereafter, there was open competition for control of the preceptory be-
tween brethren loyal to each of these pontiffs in which Benedict XIIIs
appointee, Alexander Leighton, eventually triumphed. After Leighton was
accepted by the order as preceptor in 1418, he followed up his victory by
attempting to remove Torphichen from subjection to the priory of England,
but his efforts in this direction were resisted by the langue and did not meet
with conventual approval.210 Despite such tensions, the struggle of 140918
was the last serious rupture between the priory and the preceptory until the
sixteenth century. In the meantime a modus vivendi was established which
worked relatively well. As had generally been the case in the fourteenth
century, Scots alone were promoted to Torphichen, but they were appointed
by the convent after a majority vote of the langue, which insisted that they
should not seek preferment in the priory of England as a condition of their
appointment.211 Whatever its disadvantages, this arrangement seems at least
to have encouraged the Scots to travel to the Mediterranean to perform
conventual service, for between the 1430s and 1560s there was very often
one Scottish brother in convent, and occasionally two.212 During hostilities
with England, Scottish responsions might be sent to Rhodes via Bruges
rather than Clerkenwell, but Scottish preceptors evidently continued to
attend provincial chapters in England.213
While Torphichen was always considered to be the orders chief house in
Scotland, and usually its only preceptory, the orders estates were sometimes
split between different brethren or lay administrators, each being held
responsible for the submission of a portion of responsions. Thus in 1418
most of the orders estates in Scotland were assigned to Alexander de
Leighton, with John Binning being allotted the church of Torphichen and
its appurtenances and Thomas Goodwin the church of Balantrodoch. Good-
win and Binning together were to contribute 110 ecus of the 400-ecu farm.
Similarly, in 1449, the conventual visitor granted Torphichen to Henry
Livingston and allotted Maryculter and Liston to Andrew Meldrum as a

209
Tipton, English and Scottish Hospitallers, 2425. Dr Macquarries account of these
events proceeds from the incorrect assumption that Tipton erred in stating that the priory of
England remained attached to Rhodes during the schism and that therefore the movements
between England and Scotland of brother John de Binning in 1388 provided no evidence of
contact between priory and preceptory. He does, however, accept that the preceptory continued
to pay responsions to the convent in the 1380s. Scotland, pp. xxxviixxxviii.
210
Scotland, pp. xxxviiixl.
211
Ibid. pp. 1701. Carbourg (i.e. Carbrooke) is misread as Tarbing at p. 170.
212
Ibid., pp. xlii, 167 et seq.
213
Tipton, English and Scottish Hospitallers, 243, 245; Scotland, pp. 165, xlii.
260 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

preceptory. Such arrangements were often compromises reached after

periods of conict between rival candidates for the preceptory, and rarely
precluded further disagreement over the division of spoils, so that they were
dispensed with after 1460 or so.214 Thereafter the preceptory remained
undivided and, except for a hiatus in 151018, its holders managed to pay
their responsions faithfully until at least 1536, performing rather better than
most of their English counterparts in this respect.
Between them, the Temple and Hospital possessed property in at least 800
places in Scotland. These were scattered across large areas of the country,
but most were in the south, centre, and east, their distribution largely
following the activity of Anglo-Norman settlers in the country.215 After
the acquisition of the Templar estates the Hospital possessed six baronies,
and a host of smaller properties. From the very beginning most of these must
have been rented out, short-term leases apparently being prevalent until a
nineteen-year lease became common in the fteenth century. In common
with other religious houses, from at least the early sixteenth century the
Hospital resorted to feuing its estates for xed sums, a practice which had
short-term advantages but drawbacks should rents or prices increase. Des-
pite the potentially negative consequences, the convent gave explicit consent
for Walter Lindsay to let outlying estates to farm either at term or in
perpetuity in 1533, and he soon availed himself of this concession to let
out even the baronial estates which had formerly been kept in hand. By 1559
the convent had decided that this process had gone too far, and instructed
the next preceptor, James Sandilands, to recover these properties.216 The
153940 rental shows that cash revenue produced from rents was supple-
mented by more extensive payments in kind than was probably the case in
England and Wales by then. These were predominantly made up of cereal
crops, legumes, and poultry, although there were also quantities of dairy
products, sh, and livestock.217 On some estates a signicant number of
tenants continued to owe labour services, of which carriage appears to have
been the most common. The orders tenants at Liston, for example, were
expected to carry produce to Torphichen.218
From the mid-fteenth century, the orders estates were being organized
into bailiwicks based on the territorial divisions of the kingdom. Its bailies,
who were assisted by deputies, took an oath of delity, and their duties
consisted chiey of holding courts, delivering sasine, collecting rents, and
delivering evidence of the orders holdings to its Scottish chancery.219 The
rst of these was perhaps the most important. The bailies not only adminis-
tered royal justice within the six baronies, but also held jurisdiction on
behalf of the preceptor over all the orders members and tenants, who

214 215
Scotland, pp. xxxixxl, 162, xliv, 1656, 1978. Ibid., pp. lviii, 140, 20232.
216 217 218
Ibid., pp. lxiilxiv, lxxvilxxviii. Ibid., lxvilxviii. Ibid., pp. lxivlxv
219
Ibid., pp. lxxii, lxxvlxxvi.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 261

could be repledged were they arraigned before another tribunal. They had
the right to judge in all cases not involving treason, a signicantly wider
competence than that enjoyed by the orders courts in England by this
period. Outside the baronies, courts were usually held in the orders house
in the head burgh within the sherrifdom.220 Fines levied on tenants of the
order by other courts were payable to the preceptor, and must have consti-
tuted a useful additional source of income.221
The orders bailies were often members of families both long associated
with the order and involved in local administration on behalf of the crown.
Some were relatives of contemporary brethren: Thomas Scougal appears in
1494 as the temple bailie in the sheriffdom of Angus and Gowrie, for
instance.222 Relatives of brethren also appear as administrators of its estates
and jurisdictions, as vicars of its churches, and as members of the precep-
torial household.223 Walter Lindsays brothers Andrew and Alexander were
each entrusted with one of its baronies, for example.224 Several preceptors
attempted to secure the succession to Torphichen for a member of their
family. Andrew Meldrum was unable to pass the house on to his namesake
William in the 1450s, but George Dundas was succeeded by his nephew
Walter Lindsay in 1533, and another Dundas, Alexander, was admitted into
the order in 1538, while between the 1540s and 1560s the Hospital was
dominated by members of the Sandilands family.225 Most of these families
were signicant landowners of long standing, indicating that the order
attracted high-status recruits in this period, and the prominence of pre-
ceptors of Torphichen in Scottish life is further demonstrated by their
activities on behalf of the state. William Knollis, preceptor between 1466
and 1510, sat as a secular baron in parliament and on the royal council, was
treasurer of Scotland during the minority of James IV, and saw service on
various embassies and royal commissions.226 His designated successor,
George Dundas, was a member of the royal household by 1508 and might
have become more prominent in the royal service had events not intervened,
while Walter Lindsay sat on various royal commissions and commanded a
detachment of the royal army with some success in 1542.227 In 1560 the last
preceptor, James Sandilands, was sent by the Lords of the Congregation to
the French court, where he was snubbed on account of both his Protestant-
ism and his marriage.228
Nevertheless, the close ties the preceptor enjoyed with the crown were not
always to the orders advantage. Although William Knollis attended the
chapter-general of 14667 in Rome, where he was appointed preceptor, he

220 221
Ibid., p. lxxii. Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, i. 592; vii. 5.
222 223 224
Scotland, pp. lxxlxxi, lxviii. Ibid., passim. Ibid., pp. lxxviilxviii.
225 226
Ibid., pp. xlii, xliv, lli. Ibid., p. xlv.
227
The Letters of James the Fourth, 15051513, ed. R. K. Hannay, R. L. Mackie, and
A. Spilman (Edinburgh, 1953), no. 159; Scotland, p. lii.
228
Scotland, p. liii n.
262 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

seems not to have performed any previous conventual service and may have
been a royal candidate parachuted in over the head of Patrick Scougal, an
associate of the last preceptor who had been in Rhodes in the early 1460s
and had probably administered the preceptory since 1463.229 Perhaps be-
cause of Knolliss political associations,230 Scougal found it impossible to act
against his rival in Scotland and in about 1471 returned to Rhodes to seek
justice, a quest in which he was unsuccessful.231 Yet if royal connections
perhaps secured Knollis in possession of the preceptory and allowed him to
dispatch responsions and brethren to Rhodes without hindrance, his partial
disgrace in 1492 nevertheless led to his being frozen out of royal service and
pursued for monies he had allegedly received as treasurer for some years to
come.232 More signicantly, Knolliss very prominence in secular affairs, and
his probable wealth, may have encouraged other parties to turn their gaze
towards the preceptory after his death. This was not through any fault of the
preceptor, who did his best to ensure that he should be succeeded by an
appropriate candidate, George Dundas, who was appointed his coadjutor
and granted the expectancy to Torphichen in Rhodes in 1504.233 At rst
there was every sign of royal support for Dundass promotion. He was
admitted to Torphichens temporalities on 30 November 1508, and in July
1510, after Knolliss death, he was issued with a safe conduct to travel to
Rome and Rhodes as lord of St Johns.234 Yet while Dundas was travelling
to Rome with royal letters recommending his provision, James IVs secre-
tary, Patrick Paniter, set about using his inuence with king and Curia to
obtain the preceptory for himself, securing a letter in his favour from Julius II
as early as 30 January 1511.235 Paniters hold over the king was so consid-
erable that James wrote to the pope in February with the extraordinary
request that no royal letters from Scotland nominating to vacant beneces
should be accepted as genuine unless countersigned by his secretary.236 By
the summer Dundas had obtained a sentence upholding his right to the

229
News of the death of the previous incumbent, Henry de Livingston, reached Rhodes in
November 1462, whereupon Scougal was licensed to return home. Scotland, 168.
230
He was rst appointed treasurer in 1469. N. Macdougall, James IV (Edinburgh, 1989),
96.
231
Scotland, pp. xlv, 16970.
232
Ibid., p. xlvi; Macdougall, James IV, 956.
233
Scotland, p. xlvii.
234
Ibid. Dundas did not leave for Rome until after 20 September, when James IV wrote to
Henry VIII requesting safe conduct for him and his entourage. Macdougall, James IV, 209.
235
Macdougall, James IV, 209. Even quicker to take advantage of the vacancy was James
Cortesius of Modena, a member of the popes household and solicitor of papal letters, who was
granted the preceptory, supposedly detained without title by Dundas, on 29 July 1510. Corte-
sius claim was pressed seriously, and in June 1512 the Scottish proctor in Rome reported to
James IV that the case had been decided in his favour. Whether because of a decline in his
inuence after the death of Julius II, or because of the kings steadfast support for Paniter,
Cortesius appears to have dropped his suit soon afterwards. CPL, xviii, no. 61; LPFD, i, no.
1230.
236
Macdougall, James IV, 209.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 263

preceptory at Rome. Paniter and the king replied with letters to those
entrusted with their affairs at the Curia, alleging spuriously that Knolliss
resignation in favour of Dundas as coadjutor had been invalid and that he
had died without having legally resigned the preceptory.237 With Paniters
specic claim to the preceptory so weak, the issue of the English overlord-
ship of Torphichen was dragged into the case to bolster the argument against
Dundas. Writing to the master, Guy de Blanchefort, in June 1513, James IV
asserted that the provision of Dundas with the consent of the English langue
in 1508 was an insult to Scotland and that no one, even a Scot, who
recognized the prior of England as his superior could be granted the pre-
ceptory. He also objected to the payment of the vacancy monies of Torphi-
chen through Clerkenwell and the past referral of legal disputes involving
the Hospital in Scotland to England. The tone of outraged surprise at the
discovery of these practices, which were all of respectable antiquity, may
ring hollow but the spectre of English ecclesiastical overlordship had long
been a source of irritation and worry to James, and the growing tension
between England and Scotland in the early years of Henry VIIIs reign turned
the Torphichen affair into a matter of national pride.238 Although Paniter
promised to revive the orders affairs in Scotland, his primary qualication
for provision to Torphichen was his status as an anti-English councillor of
James IV.239
None of the orders to the langues brethren enrolled in the orders chan-
cery registers mentions this case, which was contested chiey at the Curia.
Yet it is clear that at rst the order worked with Henry VIII to secure the
provision of Dundas. Thomas Docwra supported Dundass expenses during
the four years he spent in Rome,240 while Henrys chief representative at
Rome, the Scot-hating cardinal Bainbridge, was instrumental in securing a
denitive sentence in Dundass favour in early 1513.241 Despite winning his
case Dundas would probably have remained excluded from his preceptory
had James IV not been killed at Flodden on 9 September 1513.242 Even so, it
was still several years before he could secure possession. For some months
after the battle Paniter continued to petition for the preceptory, with the
support of Jamess widow, Margaret Tudor. As the queen mother and the
regent, the duke of Albany, jockeyed for position, Albanys half-brother,
Alexander Stewart, took over Torphichens temporalities,243 perhaps to
deny Paniter the preceptors customary place in Parliament. With James no
237
LPFD, i, nos. 843, 10778; ii, nos. 879.
238
LPFD, i, no. 1263; Macdougall, James IV, 209.
239
Macdougall, James IV, 210.
240
Scotland, l, 11213.
241
LPFD, i, nos. 1566, 2911; Macdougall, James IV, 263; D. S. Chambers, Cardinal Bain-
bridge in the Court of Rome 1509 to 1514 (Oxford, 1965), 75.
242
Despite a tradition to the contrary, accepted by Macquarrie, Paniter was not slain
alongside his master. Scotland, p. xlix; Macdougall, James IV, 275
243
Scotland, p. xlix.
264 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

longer a threat, and his sister in need of his support, Henry VIII performed a
volte-face and wrote to the pope supporting Margarets recommendation
that Paniter be provided.244 This cynical manoeuvre did nothing to shake
the regents ascendancy, however, and Stewart excluded both Paniter and
Dundas until 1517 or 1518, pleading the unacceptability of the latters
English links as a justication for his exclusion. Dundas was unable to pay
any responsions until 1 October 1521, although he then paid for those of the
nancial years from 1518/19 to 1520/1.245 His arrears for the years he was
excluded from the preceptory were not remitted until 1526.246
Although the dispute of 151018 illustrates the difculties the Scottish
Hospitallers might face because of their membership of the English langue
and allegiance to the prior of England, it is a considerable testament to the
Hospitals attraction for successive Scots kings that these links had not been
severed long before and that, after 1518, they were restored.247 This is all the
more remarkable given the general indifference to monasticism in Scotland,
which found expression in the widespread appointment of unsuitable and
unprofessed commendators, often connected with the royal house, to run the
major abbeys. This practice, while not unknown elsewhere, was particularly
rife in Scotland, especially after 1487, when James III had secured a papal
indult which allowed the crown eight months to nominate a successor when a
vacancy occurred in any benece or abbey valued at more than 200 orins.248
Both Paniter and Stewart presumably made use of this provision, but what is
striking is that after 1518 it was not used again, all the men appointed to
Torphichen thereafter having performed conventual service during which
they secured the anticipation to the preceptory. In addition, both Dundas
and his successor continued to send their responsions to Clerkenwell until the
dissolution of the order in England, while at least one Scot, James Irving, made
his way to Malta and was received into the English langue after the conversion
of the orders estates in Scotland into a hereditary barony in 1564.249
As in England, the reasons for continued royal support of the order
must largely be conjectured. Scots kings, like other Christian monarchs,
were committed to the defence of the Church, an obligation which incorp-
orated crusading, and which led to demonstrations such as the dispatch
of the hearts of Robert I and James I to the Holy Land,250 and the schemes

244
LPFD, ii, no. 90.
245
Scotland, pp. xlixl, 11315.
246
Ibid. 1778.
247
The Scottish attitude to alien religious houses was much the same as the English. See R.
B. Dobson, The Last English Monks on Scottish Soil: The Severance of Coldingham Priory from
the Monastery of Durham, 146178 in id., Church and Society in the Medieval North of
England (London, 1996), 10933.
248
J. Wormald, Court, Kirk and Community: Scotland 14701625 (Edinburgh, 1981), 767,
7980.
249
Scotland, 1901; Macquarrie, Scotland and the Crusades, 11819.
250
Macquarrie, Scotland and the Crusades, 759, 923.
 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland 265

for pilgrimage and crusade of James IV, on the planning and preparation
of which he expended much time and effort.251 The literature of the fteenth
and sixteenth centuries also suggests, more clearly than in England, that
the Hospitals continued activity in the defence of Christendom struck
a chord in Scots which appears also to have resonated with their kings.
The Black Book of Taymouth celebrated the service at Rhodes of Sir Colin
Campbell of Glenorchy, while a notice of Walter Lindsays service in the
Scots army in 1542 asserted that he had fouchtin oft tymeis against the
Turkis witht the lord of the Rodis, who made him a knight for his walleiand
acts before he seruit our king and had great credit witht him.252 In
1542 James V ordered his commander, the earl of Huntley, to do nothing
without Lindsays advice, his condence being well rewarded when Lindsay
defeated the English in the same August at Haddon Rig.253 Both Lindsay
and James Sandilands were also referred to favourably in contemporary
ballads.254 Given this relatively high prole, it is not entirely surprising
that Scottish Hospitallers continued to serve their kings and have great
credit with them until the order was dissolved, not by order of the crown,
but at the request of the last preceptor, a kind of Scottish Albert of Bran-
denburg.
Neither the Scottish nor Irish Hospitallers made a particularly impres-
sive contribution to the material or human resources of the Hospitals
central convent. Nevertheless, the survival of the order in both countries
suggests that its brethren there had a role to play both in local affairs and
in the orders wider activities. The central convent might more protably
have sold its estates in Ireland and perhaps even Scotland, or have instead
satised the stirrings of the Scots and Irish towards self-organization
without reference to England. But a reluctance to part with land and an
awareness that its western houses were responsible for maintaining divine
service and hospitality held it back from doing the rst, while pressure
from the English-dominated langue and the manifest misgovernment of the
priory of Ireland caused it to retreat from the latter. Instead, urged on by
the langue, it upheld the links between Clerkenwell, Torphichen, and
Kilmainham. In doing so, it was assisted not merely by kings of England,
who did little to prevent the organization of separate Irish provinces of
Augustinians and Dominican friars, but belatedly came to the realization
that the Hospital should not be allowed to develop in the same way, but
also by kings of Scots, most of whom managed to restrain their own
irritation at this last survival of a Scottish house with ties to an English
mother. Like the refusal of English monarchs to count the hospital as an

251
Ibid. 20913.
252
Ibid. 935, 117. Cf. G. Phillips, The Anglo-Scots Wars 15131550: A Military History
(Woodbridge, 1999), 46.
253
Phillips, Anglo-Scots Wars, 46, 148.
254
Calnan, Some Notes, 69.
266 The Hospitallers in Ireland and Scotland

alien priory, the grudging cooperation of the two crowns on this issue is
surely a demonstration of the Hospitals assured place in the ordering of
Christendom, a place that could only be overturned after each crown had
broken with Rome.
 CHAP TER EI GHT

The English Langue in Rhodes,

Italy, and Malta, c.14601540

Writing to Henry VIII in 1537, Clement West begged the kings continued
protection for the order, of which it was worthy because it was resisting the
Turk.1 We have seen that some Hospitaller brethren, not least West himself,
might be distracted from this duty both by their squabbles with each other
and by the requirements imposed by allegiance to their natural lords in
Britain, while others, like James Keating, might avoid service altogether. It
has also become apparent that the orders attempts to exploit the resources
of its western houses so that it could better defend Christendom might lead
to friction with rulers who were often suspicious of their subjects exports of
cash, goods, and themselves to the Mediterranean. Yet if the supply of men
and money from the priories of England and Ireland was never as reliable as
the convent would have liked, brethren from Britain and Ireland served there
in signicant numbers until 15401. Even thereafter subjects of the Tudors
and Stuarts occasionally came to Malta to join the English langue until well
into the seventeenth century.2 The leading brethren of the langue played a
signicant part in the orders governing bodies, its chapter-general and
council, and were also likely to be appointed to conventual ofces or to
execute conciliar commissions. But all the British-born brethren had a part
to play in the life of the convent and in the island societies governed by the
order. They garrisoned its fortresses and served in its galleys, assisted the
turcopolier in his supervision of the coastguard, and, despite the formal
separation of conventual collachium and secular borgo in Rhodes and
Malta, lived cheek-by-jowl with the populations of both islands. In order
to understand their participation in both conventual and island life, it is
necessary to glance briey at the administrative, geographical, social, and
economic contexts in which these were carried on.
In 1460, with the exception of various lost properties in Latin Greece and
Cilician Armenia, the extent of the orders possessions in the east was
essentially the same as it had been in c.1340.3 They comprised the

1
LPFD, xii, I, no. 207.
2
See Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, chs. 47; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 20928.
3
Cos was not denitively conquered until c.1337. Luttrell, Hospitallers at Rhodes, 293.
268 The English Langue

Dodecanese islands of Rhodes, Cos (or Lango), Nisyros, Simi, Alimnia,

Halki, Tilos, Kalimnos and Leros, the castle of St Peter on the Turkish
mainland,4 large estates on Cyprus,5 and a few smaller properties in Latin
Greece and Euboea. In 150 years, however, the order had not stood still, and
if its territories were of similar extent they were more economically devel-
oped and populous and far better defended than they had been under the
Byzantines.6 Besides Rhodes, the most important of the orders possessions
were Cos and the castle of St Peter, both of which had considerable garrisons,
but the entire Dodecanese was littered with fortications of various sizes and
sophistication.7 On Rhodes, the chief strongpoints were the town itself, and
the castles of Pheraclos, Lindos, Villanova, Monolithos, and Archangelos. In
times of danger the inhabitants of neighbouring villages repaired to these for
safety.8 Considerable sums were spent on the fortication and provisioning
of these structures, and of those on the other islands too.
The jewel in the crown was Rhodes itself, the seat of the orders convent and
focus of its Europe-wide operations. Although not entirely self-sufcient, the
island was large and fertile enough to support a considerable part of its
population, and sustain a lively entrepot in Rhodes town, where trade was
carried on with much of the Mediterranean, most notably in local produce,
sugar, spices, carpets, and slaves.9 The prosperity of Rhodes was supported
and ensured by the presence of the Hospitallers and the ow of responsions
from the west, which contributed far more of the orders income than did its
eastern possessions.10 The order provided employment for dockyard work-
ers, sailors, soldiers, builders, and ancillary staff, while its eet and fortica-
tions afforded a level of protection unknown elsewhere in the Aegean.
While their well-being was its constant concern, the orders chief purpose
was not to provide for the material prosperity of its subjects. As we have
seen, the Hospitallers had three primary functionsto perform divine ser-
vice, to care for the sick poor, and to defend the people and faith of Christ
against the indel. The organization of the convent reected all these duties.
Rhodes town itself was heavily fortied both on landward and seaward
sides, a stone testament to the defence of the populace and the Christian
faith, and within its walls justice was dispensed, commerce regulated, divine
service upheld, and both sick and poor assisted.11 Moreover, the orders

4
The smaller islands, the castle of St Peter, and the state of their defences in 1522 are
described in Vatin, LOrdre, 1722.
5
A. T. Luttrell, The Hospitallers in Cyprus after 1291, Hospitallers in Cyprus, art. ii, 161
71.
6
The economy of the Dodecanese under the order is described in Vatin, LOrdre, 5762. See
also A. T. Luttrell, Settlement on Rhodes, 130666, Mediterranean World, art. v, 27381.
7
Details and illustrations in Spiteri, Fortresses of the Knights, 2348, 105218.
8
AOM74, fo. 63rv; Vatin, LOrdre, 16.
9
Vatin, LOrdre, 5762.
10
Luttrell, Malta and Rhodes, 272.
11
AOM396, fos. 194r et seq; Torr, Rhodes, 534.
 The English Langue 269

chief conventual buildings each reected one of its chief purposes, the
conventual church signifying its continued determination to render due
praise to God, the Inrmary providing care for our lords the sick, and the
magistral palace, built into the city walls, serving as the administrative and
military headquarters of the struggle against the indel. Although the Reli-
gions conventual brethren were mostly of military nature, and served ac-
cordingly, its other functions were neither forgotten nor neglected.
By 1462 Hospitaller administrative structure had largely assumed the
form it was to keep until well after the suppression of the order in Scotland.
At the top was the master of the order, who, although he ruled through its
council, had wide prerogatives both on Rhodes and in the west. Rhodes and
its prots were reserved to the master, who thus controlled a considerable
reservoir of largesse to dispense to brethren in the form of administrative
posts, estates, and rents.12 He controlled the movement of brethren to and
from headquarters, and appointed to both the magistral camerae and to
preceptories in each priory every ve years. As a result, the orders councils
were often dominated by brethren who owed some form of preferment to
past or present masters. Moreover, most masters in the period covered by
this study were granted the administration of the orders treasury13 and the
consequent right to appoint to a wide range of conventual ofces14 by
successive chapters-general, concentrating even more power in their hands.
The master and his household resided in his palace inside the collachium, the
walled conventual enclosure comprising the northern portion of Rhodes
town. The palace also served as the usual seat of the orders council,
chapters-general, and chancery, and as the repository of its treasury and
records.15
The conventual brethren, whose number increased from about 250 to 550
or more between 1446 and 1522,16 were divided into langues to which they
were allotted according to birthplace.17 These were, in order of precedence:
Provence, Auvergne, France, Spain (Aragon-Catalonia-Navarre after 1462),
Italy, England, Germany, and Castile-Portugal, the last being created in 1462
when the Spanish langue was divided by chapter. The langues, or nations,
dominated the activities of their members. When a brother arrived in

12
Luttrell, Settlement, 274.
13
As previously noted, fteenth-century masters were habitually granted the governance of
the common treasury from at least 1429. See above, 82 and n.
14
These were specied in the chapter-general of 1454 as the bailiwick of merchants, the
castellany of Rhodes, the islands of Lango (Cos) and Nisyros, and the grand commandery of
Cyprus. The master was given power to hold them or confer them for life as he saw t, a grant
repeated in 1467. AOM282, fos. 12v15r; 283, fo. 35v.
15
AOM395, fo. 142r; 74, fo. 75r; 282, fo. 99r; 74, fo. 107v; A. T. Luttrell, The Hospitallers
Historical Activities: 14001530, Latin Greece, art. ii, 14550, at 147.
16
See below, Table 8.1.
17
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 2834; Tipton, Montpellier, 2946; J. Sarnowsky, Der
Konvent auf Rhodos und die Zungen, 446.
270 The English Langue

convent, he presented the documents authenticating his reception into the

order to the langue, which voted whether to accept him or not. During
his conventual service he lived, ate, and worshipped along with others
of his nation, prayed in the langues chapel,18 and manned the post of
the langue on the city walls in times of emergency. Even while on cara-
vanmandatory military service at sea or in the castles of St Peter and
Cosa brother usually lived with other members of his nation.19 The
langue also decided if a brother had fullled the requirements to be granted
a preceptory in the west or not, and determined whether the meliorments
brethren had made to their commanderies were of sufcient quality to merit
their promotion to another house.20 Although the grant of preceptories by
magistral and prioral grace, the retention of brethren in the masters service,
and the right of brethren to appeal to the orders council to overturn the
langues decisions somewhat mitigated the dependence of the conventual
brethren on them, their importance to their lives and careers is unquestion-
able.
The langues were also central to the orders administrative organization.
Its council ordinary was composed of the master, the pilier of each langue,
those priors and other capitular bailiffs who were in convent, the orders
vice-chancellor, and sometimes magistral and treasury ofcials, while two
further representatives of each langue sat on the council complete.21 Two of
the sixteen capitulars who framed the orders statutes at chapters-general
were also chosen from among each langue.22 The orders chief ofcers and
among its highest-ranking dignitaries were the conventual bailiffs, the eight
(after 1462) piliers of the langues. These were elected from among the most
senior brethren in the langue by the orders council and each was theoretic-
ally responsible for one area of conventual activity, although in practice a
great deal of business was done by appointees of the master or council rather
than the appropriate conventual bailiff or his subordinates. Thus, while the
admiral, the pilier of Italy, was nominally in charge of the orders eet, in
practice captains were appointed from every nation represented at the
convent to command the galley tours, including the English. When a non-
Italian was chosen the langue merely contented itself with a formal protest

18
The langue of Italy had a chapel and chaplain in its auberge in 1441. Fiorini and Luttrell,
Italian Hospitallers, 211, 225.
19
See below, Ch. 8.3.
20
BDVTE, passim.
21
Gabarretta and Mizzis contention that the council ordinary comprised merely the master
and two elected members of each langue, and that capitular bailiffs only sat on the council
complete is rendered untenable by examination of the council registers, which regularly list
attendees. In fact the master, the conventual bailiffs or their lieutenants, and those capitular
bailiffs in convent attended meetings of both councils, while two representatives of each langue
sat on the council complete in addition. Catalogue of the Records, ed. Gabarretta and Mizzi,
vol. ii, Part I, Archives 7383 (Valletta, 1970), 3; e.g. AOM73, fos. 13v, 52v; 74, fos. 20v, 56r,
132r133v, 145v; 75, fos. 14v, 18v, 23v24r, 50r, 107r, 153v; 80, fo. 29rv.
22
AOM2827, passim.
 The English Langue 271

that this should not be to its prejudice.23 In addition to their responsibility

for one area of conventual business, and their automatic seat on councils and
chapters-general, piliers were also responsible for running their national
auberges, presiding over the meetings of the langue held there, and ensuring
that their younger brethren followed regulations.24 In return for their duties
they received a salary25 and a chamber of their own in the auberge.26
Below conventual bailiffs were ranked successively those priors, capitular
bailiffs, and preceptors resident in convent and, nally, conventual brethren.
Priors and capitular bailiffs, whose dignities, with the exception of the
preceptory of Cyprus, were essentially western,27 were not allocated specic
duties pertaining to their ofce, but were nevertheless kept busy at head-
quarters, to which they were theoretically summoned in rotation,28 and
where they had a number of privileges and responsibilities.29 They sat, for
instance, on meetings of the council and of chapters general and were
frequently appointed to ad hoc commissions and xed-term posts such as
the captaincy of St Peter. Senior brethren also enjoyed certain privileges
denied to their juniors.30
Unbeneced conventual brethren probably outnumbered their seniors by
three or four to one.31 They were overwhelmingly, and almost exclusively in
the langue of England, professed knights, received into the order by the
chapters of their home provinces and dispatched to the convent.32 Within

23
See e.g. AOM83, fo. 37v; 84, fo. 41v.
24
Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 89.
25
The stipend of conventual bailiffs was reduced from 300 to 200 orins of Rhodes by the
chapter-general of 14667, and remained at that level thereafter. In their absence their lieuten-
ants were to receive 100 orins. AOM283, fo. 35r.
26
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 250; BDVTE, 20.
27
After 1470 the bailiwicks of Negroponte and the Morea were essentially titular.
28
In 1466/7 it was ordained that at least three priors should be present in convent at any one
time. They were to be summoned in rotation and priors were to remain at headquarters for at
least two years after their arrival. In practice, however, it was usually only French, Italian, and
Aragonese priors who visited the convent regularly thereafter. AOM283, fo. 38v.
29
Summoning John Rawson senior to Rhodes in 1516, the grand master, Fabrizio del
Carretto, explained that the orders statutes required that each prior had a duty to reside in
convent for some years after the adoption of their dignity, ut tamquam vir consiliarius et unus
ex proceribus religionis nostre magistro assistat consulturus super statu ordinis et rebus occur-
rentibus. Rawson was also to come armed and with a t company, a usual requirement.
Claudius E.vi, fo. 187rv; AOM404, fo. 148rv.
30
The chapter-general of 14667, for example, ruled that only priors and bailiffs were to be
permitted to ride mules, a privilege extended to indisposed brethren over 50 in 1475 and
conrmed in 1504, while in the last chapter before the fall of Rhodes it was ordained that
brethren who had been received more than twenty years hence and had performed ten years
service in convent should not have to serve in the orders galleys. AOM283, fos. 38r, 139rv; 284,
fo. 77r; 286, fo. 15v.
31
In 1522 a census of conventual brethren excluding preceptors and grand crosses (bailiffs
and priors) produced a total of 311. Up to 150 more brethren, mostly conventual knights, may
have been at Bodrum and Cos or on the guard galley, while the total number of brethren in the
east was probably between 550 and 600. Sire, Knights of Malta, 36; below.
32
Stabilimenta, De receptione fratrum, no. xvi (Statute of Fluvia).
272 The English Langue

two years of arrival they were to pay their passage money and to produce
proofs of their nobility authenticated by provincial chapter.33 In return
the order provided small stipends, the soldea and tabula, to pay for
their upkeep.34 After 1467 the soldea was paid in cloth to most of the
brethren and ofcers eligible for it.35 A brother was expected to remain
at the convent for at least three years,36 and perform military service
before he was eligible for the grant of a western commandery. His seniority
was measured from the day of his reception in convent rather than
that which had taken place in provincial chapter. Although some knights
broke up their conventual service by returning home for a while, most
remained in convent until granted a commandery, which might take ten or
more years.37
Brethren served in the orders fortications, galleys, and hospital and
in various other capacities. Promising ones, even if quite junior, were
often retained among the masters socii and subsequently appointed
to ofces or commissions by the orders council. Effectively there was
a fast track for such men, who could expect to be granted a comman-
dery of grace or the farm of a magistral camera, often before they had
received provision from the langue. Even those not so favoured, however,
might be appointed to ofces in the gift of the master or council, and
serve as proctors and auditors of their langues. Always aware of the over-
riding importance of western resources to its functioning, the order was
as keen to encourage the development of administrative skills as it was
military.
While they were in convent, the behaviour of brethren was laid down in
some detail. Although the order managed to secure papal dispensation from
its Rule in the 1470s,38 large portions of the Rule, the Usances, and the
Esgarts, as well as a mass of statutes of varying vintage, were incorporated
into the recodied statutes drawn up in 1489, and added to thereafter.39 This
body of legislation established strict codes of conduct for the brethren at
headquarters. Their worship, military service and combat training,40

33
Stabilimenta, De receptione fratrum, no. xx (Statute of dAubusson).
34
The 1504 chapter-general laid down that each brother was to have 100 orins per annum
to cover his soldea, tabula, and apodicia servitoris, and to provide hay for his horse. AOM284,
fo. 72v.
35
AOM283, fos. 39r, 89rv, 185r; 284, fos. 24r, 145r; 285, fo. 12v.
36
Statute of Helion de Villeneuve (131941), cited in Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 27, n.
52. This measure was repeated in 1410. AOM1649, fo. 265v; Delaville, Rhodes, 318.
37
Claudius E.vi, fos. 156r, 174r, 206r; See above, Ch. 2.2.
38
Brethren were sent to Rome to secure this in 1475 and 1478. The resulting permission is
enrolled in the recodied statutes drawn up in 1489 and given papal approval in 1492.
AOM283, fos. 120r, 168v169r; Stabilimenta, Prohemium in volumen stabilimentorum and
Exordium in Stabilimenta.
39
AOM76, fo. 124r; Stabilimenta. The recodication is discussed in Sarnowsky, Macht und
Herrschaft, 3742.
40
AOM1649, fos. 331v332r; Stabilimenta, De fratribus, no. xlvi (Statute of 1433).
 The English Langue 273

dress,41 movements,42 and means of transport43 were regulated. They were

forbidden to blaspheme,44 play cards or dice,45 engage in trade or usury,46
wound seculars, and insult or assault each other, and were enjoined to
poverty, chastity, obedience, and modest conversation.47 Although in prac-
tice some of these requirements, especially that of poverty, were bypassed,
other lapses came before the orders council continually, and were punished
in various ways.
It is very difcult to assess the actual quality of the communal, conventual
life of the orders brethren from its statutes, since these clearly represented
ideals of behaviour. However, the Libri Conciliorum and Libri Bullarum,
and other sources such as pilgrim accounts illuminate certain aspects
of conventual life in practice. While they tell us little about such matters
as the living conditions, personal piety, and intellectual interests of the
brethren, and their day-to-day relationship with each other, they demon-
strate that if conventual life was heavily regimented it was nonetheless
permissive of a wide variety of experience and activity. The knights might
live with members of their own nation inside a walled enclosure in a small
town on the very edge of Latin Christendom, but their isolation was far from
complete. Members of one langue had many opportunities to mix with their
fellows in the others, being thrown together by communal worship and
ceremonial, shared military service, conventual commissions or ofces,
and a great variety of less formal intercourse. Moreover, while the colla-
chium was theoretically reserved for the orders brethren, in practice numer-
ous slaves and servants resided within its walls, and the cosmopolitan
residents of Rhodes town, visiting merchants and pilgrims, and the Hospi-
tallers themselves came and went freely during the day. Some Rhodiots, both
Greeks and Latins, even owned property within the conventual enclosure48
while brethren too might own ships, houses, and land, and lend or otherwise
dispose of property while they were alive. The associations they built up in
the convent were often strong enough to endure after their return home. The
particular experiences of the brethren of the English langue are discussed
below.

41
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 2557; Delaville, Rhodes, 167; AOM1649, fos. 227v
228r, 271v, 374v375r; 284, fo. 28v.
42
A curfew had been imposed on brethren in 1466/7 and in 1501 it was ordered that those
breaching it were to suffer the quarantaine. In 1504 brethren were forbidden to frequent taverns
where wine was sold or to make a king of St Martins night in the lobia. AOM283, fos. 37v
38r; 284, fos. 29r, 77v, 78v.
43
See above, n. 30.
44
AOM284, fos. 28v29r.
45
Ibid., fos. 82v83r.
46
Delaville, Rhodes, 168; AOM1649, fo. 312rv; 283, fo. 167v.
47
AOM1649, fo. 333r; 284, fo. 29r.
48
Luttrell, Malta and Rhodes, 268.
274 The English Langue

8.1 The Conventual Brethren, Auberge, and Langue of England

English and Irish members of the langue were usually received into the order
at the provincial chapters of their respective priories, while Scots seem to
have been received in both Scotland and England. Brothers received simul-
taneously were known as lii arnaldi and usually agreed to hold the same
seniority should they reach the convent within a certain time of each other
and prove their nobility to the satisfaction of the langue.49 They then set off
for headquarters. Travel to the convent was expensive, potentially danger-
ous, and sometimes daunting. Although many newly professed brethren, like
those conducted to Italy by William Weston in 1524, must have left home in
groups under the tutelage of senior brethren soon after their reception, a
signicant number arrived at headquarters later or not at all. Of a group of
fteen received at a provincial chapter held in England in 1528 on condition
that they reach the convent within six months of the rst of their number to
do so if they wished to enjoy the same seniority, seven were received into the
English langue in late July, while another ve had appeared within six
months of these.50 The remaining threeHugh Croft, Roger Chingleton,
and John Cheyneyseem never to have reached headquarters at all. Similar
reluctance was displayed by William Alterward, who failed to arrive from
England in 1532 or thereafter51 and in 1500 by Richard Passemer and John
Russell, who remained in Venice for months despite having numerous op-
portunities to take passage to Rhodes, even breaking an express compact
they had made to travel there on a Hospitaller vessel.52 Although most
brethren received in England must have reached the convent eventually,
for there are no other such complaints, the journey was a long and poten-
tially dangerous one. Most English brethren seem to have travelled to
Rhodes via Venice,53 which they may have reached overland from Calais
or the Low Countries.54 The journals of Vincenzo and Lorenzo Priuli
49
e.g. BDVTE, 445.
50
BDVTE, 445, 67, 44, 13; AOM85, fo. 45v.
51
BDVTE, 467.
52
AOM78, fo. 147r; see above, 49.
53
English Hospitallers occur in Venice on their way to and from Rhodes in 1485, 1501,
15056, 1508, 1510, and 1513. Furthermore, John Malory, given licence to leave Rhodes in
December 1469, was granted express permission to return again on the Venetian galleys which
made regular journeys from London and Bruges to Beirut, although these were not necessarily
via Venice. CSPV, i, no. 493; AOM78, fo. 147r; CSPV, i, no. 912; ii, nos. 64, 2856, 289, 298,
305; AOM384, fo. 28r.
54
An Itinerary to Rhodes bound up with papers relating to the priory of England in the 1380s
gives a route from Bruges to Venice and thence to Rhodes, while John Radyngton, prior of
England, travelled from Dover to Calais and thence through the territories of Charles VI of
France on his way to Rhodes in 1386. Colker, Descriptive Catalogue, citing Trinity College,
Dublin MS 500, 2, 3. Thomas Newport and Thomas Shefeld probably travelled overland from
Tournai or Calais to Venice in 1513, having served on Henry VIIIs campaign in the same year;
William Weston travelled to Viterbo via Antwerp in 1524. LPFD, i, no. 1836 (3); iv, no. 590.
 The English Langue 275

preserved in Venice show Vincenzo drawing up bills of exchange in London

for Hospitaller brethren who then cashed them at the family bank in Ven-
ice.55 The conventual knights Charles Lyster, William Haseldon, and James
Green cashed bills for the equivalent of 20 each in Venice in 15056 and a
further brother, Geoffrey Militon, one for 12, while Thomas Newport,
Lancelot Docwra, and the receiver of the priory of Venice, Andrea Martini,
drew rather larger sums, probably representing responsions rather than
merely passage money.56 Newports travel from England to Rhodes in
15056 can be traced in detail. He let his preceptories to farm in late June
1505, reached Venice by 16 September, and remained there until at least 19
January 1506, when he cashed a bill of exchange drawn up for him in
December by Vincenzo Priuli. Newport then departed the Lagoon on a
vessel captained by Vincenzo Tiepolo, and was responsible for the safe
arrival in Rhodes, which he had reached by 6 May, of a hundred loads of
steel belonging to another Venetian.57 The orders English responsions had
frequently been submitted by means of letters of exchange payable in Venice
in the past, and it was natural that the bearers of these should be brethren on
their way to headquarters.58
While the route outlined above may have been the most common way to
Rhodes, it was not taken by all brethren. This was, indeed, not always
possible. In 1480 and 1522 the Venetians forbade their subjects from landing
at Rhodes for fear of upsetting the Turks and there were other occasions
when Venetian captains refused to go near Rhodes lest they encounter
Turkish forces.59 Some Hospitallers visited Rome on their way to headquar-
ters and once there it was easier to take passage from the kingdom of Naples
than to return north. John Westons party probably did this in 14812 and
Robert Pemberton, who arrived in Rhodes in August 1498, had come by
way of Rome, having been robbed on the way.60 Others perhaps reached the
Aegean on the vessels of English merchants like William Gonson, Edward
Water, and John Gresham, who carried on a usual trade to Sicily, Crete,
Chios, and sometimes to Muslim territories between 1511 and 1534.61 It is
55
Mueller, Venetian Money Market, 3468.
56
Ibid. 347.
57
Claudius E.vi, fos. 25r27v; Mueller, Venetian Money Market, 347; AOM397, fo. 223r.
58
See above, Ch. 3.2.
59
L. L. G. Polak, French Pilgrims to Jerusalem in the Fifteenth Century, MA thesis
(London, 1954), 7980; R. Torkington, Ye Oldest Diarie of Englysshe Travell, ed. W. J. Loftie
(London, 1884), 212; LPFD, iii, no. 2840.
60
See above, Ch. 5.2; AOM78, fo. 90v. It had been reported from Rome in the same July that
an English Hospitaller carrying a great deal of money had been robbed and killed along with his
company near Viterbo. It seems likely that the victim was Thomas Plumpton, the commander of
Carbrooke, news of whose death had reached Rhodes by September, and that Pemberton had
been travelling with him. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Existing in the Archives
and Collections of Milan 13851618 (London, 1912), no. 575; AOM78, fo. 93rv.
61
Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, v. 624, 689. English merchants trading in Chios are
noted in contemporary records in 1514, 1519, 1521, and 1522. P. Argenti, The Occupation of
Chios by the Genoese, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1958), iii. 838, 866, 876, 882.
276 The English Langue

conceivable that Gonson or one of his captains delivered his son David to
Malta or Sicily so that he could be received into the order in 1533.62
Travel to the convent after the fall of Rhodes may have been quicker, but,
given the disturbed state of Italy in the 1520s, was possibly more dangerous
too. The orders various residences in Italy and Provence were presumably
reached overland, but after the move to Malta it is possible that brethren
used the established sea route to Sicily, where there had been an English
mercantile presence since 1463.63 One such trader, James Grantham, was
involved in nancial dealings with the order in the 1530s and may have been
related to the Hospitaller Christopher Grantham,64 while Clement West
waited in vain for Giles Russells cousin Anthony at Messina on his way to
Malta in December 1532, having sailed from Southampton to Calais, Ali-
cante, Seville, and Sicily in turn.65 John Story, who carried letters back and
forth between Clement West and Thomas Cromwell during the 1530s, also
passed through Messina.66 Other English brethren, however, are to be found
in Genoa, the Low Countries, and France during the same period, sometimes
performing errands for the order while returning home overland.67
Although references to English brethren in transit between Rhodes
and England are few, travel home must often have been more difcult than
the outward journey, especially in winter. The experience of Richard Tor-
kington, an English chaplain taken ill at Rhodes on his way home from
Jerusalem in 1517, provides an illustration of the difculties involved.
Torkington took passage on a Rhodiot vessel on which there were nine
Hospitaller knights on 12 November 1517 and suffered an extraordinarily
unpleasant and protracted voyage through the equinoctial gales, not reach-
ing Cephalonia until 7 January and remaining there until the 31st. The ship
then tried to go up the Adriatic but was thrice driven back to Corfu by
contrary winds, nally leaving only on 5 March and reaching the Calabrian
coast three days later. From there Torkington and at least some of the ships
company rode to Reggio, took ship to Messina, returned to Calabria, and
rode up to Rome.68 The storms through which they had passed had been so
severe that at several times during the journey both crew and passengers had
been afraid that their vessel would sink or be driven ashore on Turkish
territory.69
On arrival in convent a probationary brother appeared before the langue
with his proofs or a promise to produce them within the requisite term, and
62
BDVTE, 3.
63
A. P. Vella, A Sixteenth Century Elizabethan Merchant in Malta, MH 6/3 (1970),
197238, at 197.
64
PRO SP2/Q fo. 135b; LPFD, vii, no. 1346.
65
LPFD, v, no. 1626.
66
LPFD, vii, no. 326.
67
LPFD, x, nos. 882, 900, 905; xiii, I, no. 448; xiv, II, no. 373; AOM54, fo. 293r.
68
Torkington, Ye Oldest Diarie, 5867.
69
Ibid. 5962.
 The English Langue 277

was then admitted.70 Reservations of equal seniority for brethren who had
not yet arrived were made at the same time. The probationary knight then
paid small sums for his passage and dinners to the auberge, although often
not for several months after his reception, and was presumably fed there in
return.71 His soldea and tabula were xed at 50 or 60 and 20 orins of
Rhodes per annum respectively, and were paid by the orders common treas-
ury.72 Presumably because of the difculty of exporting money from England
and the fact that English brethren sometimes brought cloth with them to
headquarters in lieu of responsions, they were paid in cash rather than cloth,
unlike the brethren of other langues.73 Preceptors or bailiffs coming to
convent did not receive the soldea, being expected to support themselves
from the fruits of their preceptories.74 Although brethren were expected to
secure the licence of their provincial superior before coming to convent, it is
unlikely that this was often refused,75 and judging by the evidence of the
orders lease books, they were usually conscientious in setting off as soon as
they learned they had been summoned. Ad hoc assemblies of brethren were
often held solely so that preceptors on their way to the east could lease them
quickly rather than have to wait for the annual provincial chapter to do so.76
To support the expense of the journey to and residence in convent, preceptors
were permitted to farm their estates for up to three years and to receive the
rst two years payments in advance.77 After the fall of Rhodes, a number of
licences for leases of one or two years were granted, reecting the reduced
journey time from England.78 Similarly, after 1522 those summoned to
convent were allowed six months to get there rather than nine.79
Evidence for the total number of brethren at headquarters, and for the
numerical strength of the English langue comes mainly from two sources,
statutes laying down the theoretical strength of the orders establishment in
the east, and censuses of brethren present at magistral elections. Both have
imperfections. The statutory gures represent an ideal which balanced what
the order could afford with what was thought necessary for the defence of its
possessions, and may have no more than an approximate relationship to

70
BDVTE, 3, 201, 234, 2630, 412, 448, 65, 71, 77.
71
Payments in BDVTE, 668.
72
AOM283, fos. 39r, 89rv, 145r, 185r; 284, fos. 24r, 35r.
73
AOM283, fos. 35r, 185r; 284, fo. 24r.
74
AOM284, fo. 28r.
75
I have only found one instance of a lease being cancelled because the preceptor had to stay
in the west. This was in 1513, when a licence granted to Lancelot Docwra to proceed to Rhodes
in accordance with a magistral bull of February 1510 was cancelled because the prior appointed
him his lieutenant while he went to France with the king. Claudius E.vi, fo. 98r.
76
Ibid., fos. 3r, 6r, 6v, 81v, 97r, 112v, 156r, 156v.
77
Preceptors who remained longer than three years in convent and those retained in the
orders service rather than allowed to go home were granted further licences to farm their estates
as the need arose, although never for more than three years at a time.
78
e.g AOM412. fos. 190v191r.
79
AOM415, fos. 163v164r, 167v168r; 416, fo. 154r.
278 The English Langue

actual numbers, but they do at least represent a working total of all the
brethren in the convent and on caravan. By contrast, the totals of those
present at magistral elections probably do not include brethren serving on
caravan, and may not even include those who held military posts on the
orders islands, but they nevertheless provide snapshots of the actual num-
ber of brethren resident in the orders capitals at various times in its devel-
opment, as can be seen from Table 8.1.
It is interesting that despite the modesty of the numerical contribution laid
down for the English langue, in practice it proved impossible to full. Al-
though the number of brethren present at magistral elections was usually
below the statutory requirement the proportion of Englishmen was even
lower than that envisaged in legislation, at between 4 and 6 per cent rather
than 7 or 8 per cent. Only in 1513, when a large company was sent from
England in response to the invasion scare of January, was the English
contingent at full strength. The gures may hide brothers who were on
caravan or on other service in the east, but these would probably not add
more than about six to the total.80 After 1523 the survival of the langues
minute book allows us to trace almost exactly which brethren were in
convent and which absent at any one time, something only possible with
preceptors before. Many of its meetings list those present, and if these lists are
compared carefully with the records of knights going on caravan, they allow a
more accurate assessment of the size of the English contingent than is
possible before. Judging by the gures given below, the langue seems to
have been understandably short of manpower after the siege of 1522, but
after its reinforcement by fourteen probationary knights in 1524, twelve in
1528, and a trickle of ones and twos in other years, numbers hovered between
about 15 and 22 between 1524 and 1533, before falling back somewhat later
in the decade.81 It is noticeable that many of the probationary knights
disappear from view after two or three years of service and do not resurface
in the records thereafter.
The number of Scots and Irish knights in convent was very small. As we
have seen, the Irish brethren often acted without much reference to the
dictates of the convent, or, on occasion, of their prior. Very few came to
headquarters to perform conventual service, probably because there was
little chance of reward at the end of it, especially after 1494. Only ve Irish
knights certainly appear in the orders records in this context between 1460
and 1560: James Keating, who was at headquarters in 1459, 1461, and at
the Rome chapter-general of 14667; John Feguillem (Fitzwilliam?) between
1465 and 1467; Edmund Seys, between 1512 and 1514; and Nicholas
Plunket and John Fitzgerald in 1527.82 Others summoned included ve
80
See Table 8.2.
81
For receptions of brethren see BDVTE, 3, 201, 234, 2630, 412, 448, 65, 71, 77.
82
AOM282, fo. 53v; 371, fos. 142v143r, 144rv; 283, fo. 5v; 375, fo. 102r; 377, fo. 141r; 81,
fos. 195v, 205r206r, 207v; 82, fos. 24rv, 25v26r, 73v74r, 128r; 412, fo. 201v.
 The English Langue 279

Table 8.1. Numbers of brethren in convent, 14451536a

Date Total brethren English langue Source

1445 n/a 10 3 absent Meeting of langue

1446 250 pro rata Statuteb
1449 n/a 16 3 absent Meeting of langue
1459 335 Unspecied Statutec
1461 (Aug.) 286 13 Election
1463 (July) n/a 13 Meeting of langue
1467 350 28 Statuted
1471 450 28 Statutee
1475 450 28 Statutef
1476 (June) 259 14 Election
1501, 1504, 1510 400 Unspecied Statutes
1510
1503 (July) 377 19 Electiong
1508 (Aug.) 23 List of English
brethren in Rhodes
1512 (Nov.) 410 (368) (16) Electionh
1513 (Dec.) 551 38 Election
1514 550 Unspecied Statutei
1522 (June) 311 11 Incomplete Censusj
1535 (Nov.) 300 Unspecied Election
1536 (Dec.) c.360 Unspecied Election
a
Sources: AOM356, fo. 142r (1445); 1649, fo. 560v (1446); 361, fo. 241v (1449); 282, fos. 76r
et seq. (1459), 140r (1461); 374, fo. 139rv (1463); 282, fo. 39rv (1467); 283, fos. 88v (1471),
144r (1475); 75, fos. 122v123r (1476); 284, fo. 69v (150110); 80, fos. 30v31r (1503);
Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 1137, fo. 113r (1508); AOM82, fos. 38v39v (1512); 402, fo.
103v (1513); 285, fo. 2r (1514); Bosio, Dell Istoria, ii. 6413 (1522); AOM86, fos. 18r (1535),
47rv (1536). cf. Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 511.
b
This statute was never ratied.
c
Of the 335, thirty were to be chaplains.
d
Thirty of the brethren were to be chaplains and twenty sergeants, although the English
contingent was to be made up entirely of knights.
e
One hundred brethren were to be added to the contingent laid down in 1467.
f
The statute of 1471 was conrmed, but it was established that the extra hundred brethren
were all to be knights, and were to be drawn from among the langues pro rata et portione
cuiuslibet. Numbers of chaplains and sergeants were to remain at the level laid down in 1467.
g
The document declares that 387 brethren were present, but gives totals for the langues which
add up to 377.
h
The total of brethren at the convent is given as 410, but I make the sum of totals given for the
langues to be 368. Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 511, gives 383.
i
This chapter added 150 brethren to the complement laid down in 1504.
j
A roll-call of conventual knights and sergeants only. Bailiffs, preceptors, and brethren not in
Rhodes are excluded from the gures. Sire, Knights of Malta, 36.
280 The English Langue

Table 8.2. The numerical strength of the langue, 15231537

Date Present at meeting On caravan

10 July 1523 11 None?

14 Aug. 1523 9 None?
23 Mar. 1524 8 Unknown
10 Apr. 1525 14 Unknown
26 Aug. 1525 12 Unknown
21 Aug. 1526 11 Unknown
13 Jan. 1527 14 Unknown
14 Feb. 1528(9?) 9 Unknown
16 Oct. 1528 14 Unknown
19 Feb. 1529 13a Unknown
4 Nov. 1529 16 6b
16 June 1530 12 3?
7 Dec. 1530 7 5?c
25 Feb. 1531(2?) 14/15
4 Mar. 1531(2?) 14
13 July 1531 13 2
4 Aug. 1531 15 2
12 Feb. 1532 9 3?
8 Apr. 1532 14 5 (caravan of 1 Mar. 1532)
28 Jan. 1533 18 0 or 1?d
18 Apr. 1533 10 6 (caravan of 1 Apr. 1533)
20 Oct. 1533 11 6 (caravan of 1 Apr. 1533)
13 Apr. 1534 7 4 (caravan of 24 Mar. 1534)
1 Feb. 1535 7 3 (caravan of 29 Aug. 1534)
29 May 1535 13 0
8 Mar. 1536 10 3 (caravan of 24 Jan. 1536)
14 July 1536 14 0
8 Mar. 1537 12 3 (caravan of 11 Oct. 1536)e
a
For meetings referred to between 1523 and February 1529, see BDVTE, 411, 44, 13.
b
Although their service was not due to begin until 9 March 1530, none of the six knights who
had promised to make their caravans on 24 October 1529 were present at this meeting.
BDVTE, 25, 11.
c
Of seven knights who undertook to make caravans on 9 March, four were present at the
meeting of 16 June, but only two on 7 December. BDVTE, 17, 1416, 12.
d
Of six knights named to the last caravan in March 1532, ve were at this meeting. The last,
John Marshall, is never heard of again and may have been killed during the heavy ghting the
order was involved in in 1532. BDVTE, 65, 18.
e
Meetings and caravans from 18 April 1533 in BDVTE, 4, 3, 234, 269, 236, 35.

named preceptors in 1516 and Seys and Fitzmaurice in 1517.83 Although

Keating certainly did well out of his conventual service, Feguillem disap-
pears from view after licensed to leave Rhodes in 1467, Seys was denied

83
AOM404, fos. 147v148r; 405, fos. 132r133v, 134v.
 The English Langue 281

advancement, and Plunket and Fitzgerald probably came to Viterbo for a

very brief visit to receive grants of their preceptories.84 The orders Scottish
brethren did not see much conventual service either. Chiey this was because
there was only one commandery available to them, and although conventual
service was sometimes necessary to secure it, once the goal was achieved
there was little incentive to return. Given the often troubled state of Scottish
affairs and the frequent need to defend the orders possessions there, it was
neither in the commanders nor the orders interest for him to do so. The
attempts of Scottish brethren to secure English commanderies were con-
stantly frustrated by the langue, which would only appoint them to Torphi-
chen.85 Thus, although a number of Scottish brethren performed conventual
service in the century after 1460, most left once they had obtained approval
of their ancienitas or better still expectancy to or an outright grant of
Torphichen.86 The only exceptions were Patrick Scougal, who served at
the convent over a period of at least sixteen years on and off, and may
have fought at the siege of 1480, and John Chamber or Chalmers, who had
fought as a secular at the siege of 1522, and remained in convent until at
least 1533, supported initially by the convent and later by a pension from
Walter Lindsay.87 To these should be added other unprofessed volunteers or
mercenaries.88 Soldiers and servants from Britain and Ireland may indeed
have outnumbered their professed compatriots in convent. The retinues that
priors were licensed to take to Rhodes were often considerable, and when
the English government licensed Hospitallers to leave the realm in the mid-
1530s junior preceptors were allowed three servants apiece, and conventual
knights one.89
Although on both Rhodes and Malta many brethren must have owned or
rented rooms or houses, and it is likely that only some conventual knights, as
well as a single donat90 and perhaps slaves91 lived in the auberge of England,
the building was still the focus of the communal life of the langue. On
Rhodes it has been identied with a modestly sized and heavily restored
edice sited towards the seaward defences of the collachium very close to the

84
See above, Ch. 7.
85
Scotland, Calendar of Maltese Materials, nos. 4951, 6970, 90, 100, 133.
86
Ibid., nos. 3940, 424, 55, 723, 978.
87
AOM372, fo. 142v; 380, fo. 137v; Scotland, Calendar of Maltese Materials, nos. 456,
489, 51, 6970, 745, 82; AOM84, fo. 74rv; 411, fo. 158rv.
88
Macquarrie, Scotland and the Crusades, 935; Scotland, pp. 624 and Calendar of
Maltese Materials, no. 36; AOM75, fo. 79r; 78, fo. 142rv; 79, fo. 11v; 382, fos. 138rv, 235r;
387, fo. 202r; 389, fo. 162r; 395, fo. 196r; 404, fo. 230v; 405, fo. 134r; 406, fos. 156v157r;
Lansdowne 200, fo. 36v; Claudius E.vi, fos. 136v137r, 254rv.
89
CCR13969, 249; Foedera, iv, I, 19; LPFD, ix, no. 1063 (2, 4); x, nos. 597 (378), 775 (8).
90
In 1533 the donatship of the English langue was granted to Guy Lawson for life on
condition that he perform all service pertaining to the ofce. According to Mifsud one donat
managed each auberge. BDVTE, 4; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 86.
91
The chapter of 1357 had permitted each auberge to keep one Turkish slave. A. T. Luttrell,
Slavery at Rhodes, 13061440, Latin Greece, art. vi, 81100, at 867.
282 The English Langue

orders Hospital.92 The auberge was the site of communal meals and of
assemblies of the langue.93 Although under the authority of the turcopolier,
it was actually run by two proctors elected annually by the nation. These had
charge of its monies and plate, and rendered accounts to similarly chosen
auditors at the end of their term of ofce.94 The auberge drew its revenue
from the passage and dinner payments of conventual knights, from levies on
those promoted to preceptories or bailiwicks,95 from the spolia of deceased
brethren96 and from the common treasury, which apparently paid the tabu-
lae of some brethren through the auberges.97 Although these payments
should have been enough to cover ordinary expenses they were often slow
to come in, and difculties arose during times of crisis or when unforeseen
expenses occurred. In these situations extraordinary levies could be im-
posed, or the master and council asked to compel non-payers to satisfy
their dues. In May 1484, for example, John Kendal secured a papal grant
of the rst fruits of all Hospitaller churches in the priory of England, which
were to be applied to the fortications in the care of the langue and to its
auberge, which had been damaged during the recent siege and earthquakes.
The langue was responsible for repairing these, but no revenues had been set
aside for the purpose.98 The sums raised by this expedient were evidently
insufcient, for ve years later the auberge was described as being in no
small ruin and a levy of 80 was imposed on preceptories in the priory of
England so that it might be rendered more habitable.99 Repairs had again
become necessary by 1504, when the orders houses in Britain and Ireland
were collectively ordered to pay 10 per annum towards its upkeep.100
92
The auberge was heavily damaged in the explosion which destroyed the orders conven-
tual church in 1856, and restored by the Italians in 1919. Gabriel, La Cite de Rhodes, ii. 689.
93
AOM84, fo. 91v; BDVTE, passim. Cf. Fiorini and Luttrell, Italian Hospitallers, 211,
216, 223.
94
BDVTE, 17, 68.
95
AOM74, fo. 155rv; LPFD, v, no. 579; BDVTE, 668; AOM415, fo. 166r.
96
The chapter-general of 1475 laid down that on the death of a brother at Bodrum, on the
orders galleys or on Lango (Cos), the brethren of his langue should have the rst choice of items
of his spolia, followed by the other langues in turn. This was apparently an extension of a
general principle to the specic circumstances of a brothers decease on caravan. In September
1509 Clement West complained unsuccessfully that a licence granted to Robert Pemberton to
bequeath a portion of his goods had prejudiced the langues right to his spolia. AOM283, fo.
112r; 81, fo. 137v.
97
The chapter of 14667 established that 8,000 orins of Rhodes per annum should be set
aside pro tabulis albergiarum, camerarum at aliorum fratrum. AOM283, fo. 35r.
98
CPL, xiii. 1779. Rebuilding seems to have begun in the previous year, and been nanced
at rst by the master, possibly in his capacity of administrator of the common treasury, for an
inscribed marble noticed by Rottiers at the foot of the towers of the Arsenal, which would seem
likely to have been originally placed on the auberge or post of England, read Lingue Anglie edes
ac podia obsidione delapsa dominus frater petrus Daubusson reedicavit Anno 1483. Gabriel,
La Cite de Rhodes, ii. 69.
99
AOM390, fo. 131v. Preceptors in several langues were expected to make regular pay-
ments, or pitancia, to support their conventual brethren. Fiorini and Luttrell, Italian Hospital-
lers, 210, 214, 2202, 230; Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 1601, 625.
100
AOM395, fos. 144r145r.
 The English Langue 283

Rather different problems arose during the convents migrations after the fall
of Rhodes to the Turks. Although the langue saved at least some of its plate
from the Ottomans,101 it probably lost its household goods during the siege
or at some stage during the convents subsequent itinerations, for in July
1527 Thomas Docwras Rhodiot servant Francis Galliardetto brought nap-
ery and cutlery to Corneto for the use of the auberge.102 In 1534, similarly, a
gift of a pewter dinner service was made to the langue by William Weston.103
Between 1523 and 1535 the langue was housed in rented accommodation
and although the rents were not excessive their payment, and the cost of
providing domestic utensils, chapel ornaments and military hardware, ap-
parently taxed the langues nances to their limit.104 Matters were not
helped by the failure of brethren to pay their dues to the auberge. There
were a number of protests about its poverty in the 1530s, and in 1533 and
1536, following complaints by the proctors of the langue and the turcopolier
respectively, prior Weston was instructed to compel the debtors to pay-
ment.105 Among the latter was John Rawson, who in 1533 still owed 100
orins for his readeption of the priory of Ireland ve years earlier.106
Despite these difculties, the langue managed to stay aoat, aided by
prioral gifts, and the payment of the auberges rent by successive turcopoliers
out of their own pockets.107 The English conventual brethren must have
acquired rented property soon after the move to Malta, for in September
1530 commissioners, among them Richard Salford, had been appointed to
go on ahead of the orders arrival to select buildings to serve as auberges.108
In March 1532 the langue was renting a property and building work was
ordained to create a t chamber for the turcopolier and his lieutenant at one
end of the palace of the auberge.109 This property evidently failed to
meet all the langues needs, however, for in October 1534 Clement West
paid 30 ounces of silver for a house in Birgu which he bestowed on the
langue some months later. This building may have served as an auberge or
lodging house thereafter. In 1559 Cardinal Pole, through Tresham, provided
a considerable sum of money for the purchase and furnishing of an auberge,
but nancial difculties forced the langue to sell what property it already
possessed, and Poles bequest had not been used by 1564.110 While James
Shelley then bought a house in Valletta, no purpose-built auberge was ever
101
BDVTE, 76.
102
Ibid. 75.
103
Ibid. 25.
104
The rent of the langues house in Viterbo was 18 ecus per annum, while in 1532 the
turcopolier was paying 13 ducats, also presumably per annum, for a house in Malta. AOM53,
fo. 49 /70v; BDVTE, 20; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 102, 1245.
v
105
LPFD, v, no. 579; AOM415, fo. 166r; AOM416, fo. 158v.
106
AOM415, fo. 166r.
107
BDVTE, 20.
108
AOM414, fo. 281v; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 956.
109
BDVTE, 20.
110
Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 97; BDVTE, 27, 68; Luttrell, Birgu, 134, 1423.
284 The English Langue

constructed for the langue.111 Some idea of the expense of the upkeep of the
auberge can be derived from the fact that in 1546 the council voted 20 ecus
per annum towards it, even though there were only two English brethren in
convent by this time.112
The recorded proceedings of the langue provide little evidence about the
quality of its communal life, which has to be sought in the three main classes
of chancery documents, particularly in the Libri Conciliorum. We know
little about the brothers living conditions, intellectual interests or, until the
1530s, relationships with each other. Their religious life is particularly
opaque. Although the langue possibly possessed a vaulted chapel on Rhodes,
decorated with frescos of St George and the arms of England and of Hospi-
taller brethren,113 the names of the chaplains who served there are un-
known. The statutes did not require English chaplains to live in convent,
and although the non-Hospitaller chaplains of some of the wealthier breth-
ren came to headquarters with them and presumably served the langue while
they were there it is likely that divine worship and the administration of the
sacraments were often conducted by foreigners.114 In 1529 the provincial
chapter in England decided that the absence of English priests in convent
was a scandal, especially because the younger knights knew no language but
English and could not easily make their confessions. Accordingly, the rev-
enues of a number of the orders churches in England and Wales were set
aside for the purpose of providing for one or two brother priests of the order
to minister to the brethren in convent.115 If any did go to Syracuse or Malta,
however, there is no record of it, which might indicate that the measure was
never implemented, although it is also possible that secular priests rather
than Hospitaller brethren were used, and that they have escaped mention in
the surviving documents.
Evidence for the commercial interests and property holdings of the British
brethren is easier to come by. Besides the auberge, the langue also owned a
vineyard in the castellany of Villanova, which had been granted to a prior of
England by Philibert de Naillac (master, 13981421) and regranted by the
prior to the English conventual brethren some time later. In 15045 the
langue was in dispute with John Rawson senior, to whom it had granted
the property, but who had failed to give an account of its fruits to the
conventual brethren.116 Some individual English brethren, too, owned or
held property elsewhere on Rhodes or Malta, usually by magistral grant.
John Langstrother, who was castellan of Rhodes for most of the 1450s, had a
life grant of a substantial garden at Malipassi along with its fountain,
houses, rents, and other appurtenances from Jean de Lastic. In 1459 he

111 112
Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 1014. Ibid. 97.
113
Belabre, Rhodes, 8892; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 121.
114
AOM75, fo. 79r; 405, fo. 134r.
115
BDVTE, 1416.
116
AOM80, fo. 122v; 284, fo. 91v.
 The English Langue 285

secured a regrant of it from chapter-general in consideration of improve-

ments he had made to its fabric. It was probably here that Langstrother had
the Milanese nobleman Roberto da Sanseverino and John Lord Tiptoft to
dinner while they were staying in Rhodes on their way to Jerusalem in
1458.117 Langstrother also possessed houses adjoining the castellany build-
ings in the lower collachium in Rhodes town, which he had acquired by
licence of Jacques de Milly (master, 145461) and in 1459 was conrmed in
his possession of a domunculum which he had been improving there.118
Other prominent English knights were also able to acquire houses and
estates, probably also by magistral grant. John Kendal still held lands in the
countryside of Phileremos and La Bastide some years after he had left
Rhodes for the last time, and in 1491 his proctor was involved in litigation
with the prior of Phileremos over them.119 In 1521 William Weston, who
already resided in an adjoining or nearby house (domo . . . contigua), was
granted a place outside the curtilage (ex corsilio) belonging to the castel-
lany which had been allocated for the houses of the langue,120 and there are
records of other senior knights dwelling in their own houses. Thomas
Newport lived in a house in Rhodes town during at least one of his visits
as bailiff of Eagle, John Babington snr. owned a house in Birgu in c.1532,
and Giles Russell was in dispute with the lieutenant castellan over a prop-
erty, also presumably in Birgu, in 1539.121
As well as owning property, some brethren engaged in commercial or
nancial activities while in the Mediterranean. Typically these were conned
to providing cloth and tin to the convent and lending money to the common
treasury. These activities were closely linked to the payment of responsions,
for if a knight was in arrears with the common treasury any payments he
made to it in Rhodes would be deducted, and if in credit the receiver of the
common treasury in England would be instructed to reduce the sums due
from him there accordingly. The import of cloth into the convent by brethren
of the English langue can be seen in every decade between 1460 and 1540.
John Weston, for example, sold cloth to the common treasury in 1465, while
the Rome chapter-general of 14667 established that the arrears of the prior
and preceptors of England should be submitted to headquarters either in
cash or in cloth to be shipped to Rhodes by Weston and Robert Pickering.122
Cloth was also sent from England to the lieutenant master to pay the spolia
of Nicholas Passemer in about 1471.123 In the 1470s the volume of trade
increased. In 1471 John Kendal and Robert Tonge promised to pay the

117
AOM369, fo. 178v; Mitchell, Spring Voyage, 801.
118
AOM369, fo. 175v.
119
AOM77, fo. 45r.
120
AOM83, fos. 14v15r.
121
AOM81, fo. 107r; 86, fo. 87r; Luttrell, Birgu, 134.
122
AOM73, fo. 183v; 283, fo. 30v.
123
AOM283, fo. 54v.
286 The English Langue

master in cloth in lieu of the pension they owed for the magistral camera in
England and before 1477 Kendal also contracted to supply the convent with
cloth and corn, the latter presumably to be brought from Italy.124 Several
sources show Weston and Kendal shipping cloth to the Mediterranean
during the 1470s and 1480s.125 Cloth was also consigned to the common
treasury by Robert Multon in 1474 in part payment of responsions owed for
the two previous years.126
Considerable sums were involved in this trafc. In September 1477 the
orders receiver in England was ordered to repay over 8,000 orins of
Rhodes which Kendal was owed by the treasury by reason of his contract.
At the same time the turcopolier and the treasury agreed to deduct 6,000
orins he owed for his responsions and for the spolia owed by the magistral
camera in England from the greater worth of cloth and corn for which he
was its creditor.127 Still larger quantities were brought from England to
Rhodes by Catalan and Genoese merchants. Letters of exchange payable
in London were issued to these men, who would use the cash thus raised,
which they were not allowed to export, to buy more English goods, which
might again be brought to Rhodes.128 Even when English brethren handed
over cloth to the convent themselves it is probable that they used foreign
vessels to carry it rather than their own. Thus, when the common treasury
ratied the accord between Renier Pot and William Tornay regarding the
payment of the latters arrears it ordained that he should dispatch the 800
canes of cloth which John Langstrother had been accustomed to send when
he was alive, the rst 400 on the vessel of the Genoese Tobia Lomelino and
the second on a ship of the priors choosing.129 In 1493 Thomas Newport,
the orders receiver in England, was ordered to arrange for the vacancy
monies of the priory and some of the arrears owed by the other English
preceptors to be sent to Rhodes in the form of cloth and lead, which were to
be carried on Venetian galleys by way of Messina.130 After this date the
involvement of English brethren and foreign merchants in the shipment of
cloth to Rhodes is more difcult to trace, probably because most payments
to the convent were being made by letters of exchange through Venice,131
although shortly before his death in 1501 John Kendal had bought woollen

124
AOM379, fo. 149rv; 385, fo. 180r.
125
CPR146777, 506; CPR147785, 58; CCR147685, 99100 (no. 339); Overseas Trade
of London, ed. Cobb, nos. 2827, 31415.
126
AOM382, fos. 167r, 167rv.
127
AOM385, fos. 162r, 180r, 180rv.
128
Mart de Caralt, for example, consigned cloth to the common treasury worth 4,181 and
8,350 ecus in 1475 and 9725 ecus in 1479. AOM382, fos. 177rv, 177v; 387, fos. 142rv.
129
AOM382, fo. 136r.
130
AOM391, fo. 199v.
131
In 1493 Newport had also been told to send monies to the Garzoni bank in Venice, and in
1503 it was ordered that all responsions and other dues of the common treasury in England
should be submitted to the receiver of Venice, Andrea de Martini. AOM394, fos. 177r178r.
 The English Langue 287

cloths worth 48 10s. from a London mercer to send to Rhodes.132 From the
1510s onwards there was something of a revival in the trafc. Consignments
of kersey and tin were sent in lieu of responsions by the prior and receiver to
the orders representative in Messina in 1519 and 1521, and in October
1521 Francis Bell handed over to the convent Thomas Docwras loan of
126 rocks of unworked tin and 880 pieces of kersey worth 6,444 and 8,800
ducats respectively.133 This sum, and a further 4,000 ducats worth of kersey
expected from the prior before June 1522, was to be repaid, along with 756
ducats owed to the prior by various debtors, only in 1527, although Docwra
was to be allowed to keep the responsions due from him between 1525 and
1527 as security for the repayment.134
Brethren of the langue also made cash payments to the convent. Generally
those mentioned in the records were loans to the common treasury, pay-
ments of arrears, and sums owed to the master either for the preceptory of
Dalby and Rotheley, which had been granted to him by chapter in 1493 and
1501,135 or for the vacancy years of preceptories held by magistral grace.136
Ordinary submissions of responsions and other dues owed to the common
treasury are not recorded in the Libri Bullarum, as they were paid to the
receiver of the common treasury in England and submitted by him to Rhodes
in bulk. Although most of these payments were routine, some brethren
loaned sums considerably in excess of their annual responsions to the
order. In 1468 alone letters of exchange worth a total of 10,600 ecus and
2,000 orins of Rhodes were issued to John Langstrother in recompense for
sums he had paid the order or its creditors in the same year, while in 1469
Langstrother and John Weston between them advanced a further 1,945 13
ducats, 3,952 ecus, and 21 13s. 4d.137 In 1471 and 1475 headquarters
issued urgent appeals to the conventual brethren for ready cash and al-
though the numbers of English and Scots brethren who contributed were
limited, the sums they advanced were relatively generous.138 John Weston
also lent money to Giovanbattista Orsini, the master, in the 1470s and
was repaid from his spolia in 1478.139 Although the slow improvement in
the orders nances after the 1470s may have obviated the necessity for

132
AOM79, fo. 115v.
133
AOM409, fos. 195v196r, 197v198r, 117v118r.
134
Ibid., fo. 118r. Docwra nevertheless handed over his responsions to the receiver in 1525
and 1526. AOM54, fos. 131r, 157r.
135
AOM393, fo. 148v; 394, fos. 225rv, 226r; 16, no. 72; 284, fos. 31v32r.
136
AOM383, fo. 144v; 392, fo. 160v; 397, fo. 141rv.
137
AOM377, fos. 181r, 189v190r, 190v191r, 207r, 248v; 378, fos. 149r, 180r, 180rv, 190rv,
190v191r.
138
The langues brethren lent the convent 100 ducats of Rhodes in 1461, while ten years later
Robert Tonge promised 400 orins, and John Weston, John Kendal, and John Bourgh 60, 50,
and 10 orins respectively. In 1475 Weston and Richard Sandford contributed 100 orins each,
John Boswell 200, Patrick Scougal 15, John Bourgh 50, and George Badstret, a possible English
knight, 50. AOM371, fo. 180v; 74, 60v61v; 75, fo. 62rv.
139
AOM382, fo. 140v; 386, fos. 127v128r.
288 The English Langue

emergency subventions, substantial advance payments were made by a

number of knights afterwards. Thomas Newport, who raised 1,000 before
leaving England in 1513, paid his responsions in advance and in cash when
he reached Rhodes in November.140 Most spectacular, of course, was Tho-
mas Docwras gift of 20,000 ducats worth of unworked silver and cash,
which was brought to Rhodes by Francis Bell and Lancelot Docwra in
1515.141 It is not always clear how these sums were raised, or if the brethren
who made them beneted materially from their largesse, but nearly all those
knights who lent signicant sums to the order in the 1460s and 1470s
advanced in the hierarchy later and Thomas Docwras near-election as
master in 1521 probably owed much to his earlier generosity.142
In addition to advancing money and importing cloth while they were at
headquarters, brethren of the langue sometimes had other business interests
in the Aegean. Both John Langstrother and John Weston owned ships and
were involved in the corso.143 Thomas Newport, who captured several
Turkish transports in 1516, may also have indulged in piracy on his own
account, although he did have a formal naval command at about the same
time.144 Newport also imported goods into Rhodes on behalf of a Venetian
merchant in 1506 and in the following year entered into partnership with the
Rhodiot Francino Ux to trade with Egypt, although their goods were to be
sent on another merchants vessel.145 Even unbeneced conventual knights
might import goods on their own account.146
Brethren had other commercial and personal interests too. Giles Russell
and Oswald Massingberd, for example, owned, or claimed to own, slaves
while a correspondent of Clement West expressed disappointment at not
having been able to procure the latter some little Turk as a prize at the
battle of Preveza.147 Other knights had ties of service or friendship with
Rhodiots. Several came to England with their masters and were granted
corrodies or properties by provincial chapters there, and one, Mark Pilletto,
even became a knight of the English langue.148 The Rhodiots Francis Bell
and Francis Galliardetto were among the most prominent servants of
Thomas Docwra and William Weston during their priorates,149 and
when the order sought the restoration of its lands in the 1550s it in-
structed its ambassadors to England to consult with Galliardetto, who had

140
Claudius E.vi, fos. 113r114v; AOM402, fo. 164rv.
141
AOM404, fo. 149r.
142
See above, 1612.
143
AOM377, fo. 179v; 74, fo. 42r.
144
LPFD, ii, no. 1756.
145
AOM397, fo. 223r; 398, fo. 198v.
146
AOM54, fo. 93r.
147
AOM86, fo. 33v; 88, fo. 126r; LPFD, xiii, II, no. 966.
148
e.g. Lansdowne 200, fo. 44v; Claudius E.vi, fos. 111r, 132r, 132rv, 153v, 198v, 232rv,
251v252r; PRO LR2/62, fos. 8rv, 14rv; AOM412, fos. 200rv.
149
Galliardetto was William Westons general receiver by 1529. PRO LR2/62, fos. 22rv.
 The English Langue 289

administered the priory for many years.150 Galliardetto shared a surname

with a banneret of the 1470s, George, perhaps an indication that there were
traditions of family service to the langue.151 The brethren also built up
associations with Catalan and Italian merchants involved in exchange and
trade between England and the convent, such as the Genoese Antonio
Vivaldi, who was prominent in the orders affairs in the 1520s and 1530s
and was granted corrodies and leases by provincial chapters in England.152
Another facet of the langues operations was the provision of hospitality
and care to British pilgrims passing through Rhodes on their way to or
from Jerusalem, and to other travellers too.153 Richard Guildfords chaplain
in 1506 and Richard Torkington in 1517 mentioned the cher(e) and well
entre(a)tyng(e) they enjoyed from the English knights there and singled out
several of their hosts for praise. Torkington further remarked on what
comfort was Don to us, and speciall that was sek and desesyd.154 As well
as hospitality, travellers could get information on local political conditions
and advice on further progress in Rhodes. Anonymous advice issued to a
prospective English traveller to Turkey in c. 142251 advised the traveller to
spede you to Rodes-ward, wher is good aire and felishipe of Ingeland as well
as of alle other landes cristen.155 There he could take counsel as to where
the sultan might be and make further arrangements accordingly. In the case
of the humanist William Lily, who learnt Greek in Rhodes at some time
before the 1490s, an association probably begun in the convent was con-
tinued after the travellers return home, as Lily was granted a benece in the
orders gift, Holcote in Bedfordshire, on coming back.156 The orders links
with others of its associates in England, such as the Throckmortons of
Warwickshire, may also have been forged or strengthened in Rhodes.

8.2 Disputes and Discipline

The most common notices of English brethren in the convent are those
concerned with their seniority, the state of their preceptories in the west,
their disciplinary breaches, and their conventual service. As we have seen,

150
AOM425, fo. 205r.
151
AOM76, fos. 19rv. The banneret was an ofcer under the command of the turcopolier.
See below, Ch. 8.3.
152
See, e.g. Claudius E.vi, fos. 254r, 264r265v, 288v289v.
153
For an incomplete list of English pilgrims to Jerusalem between 1390 and 1520 see
OMalley, English and the Levant, 97102.
154
Guylforde, Pylgrymage, 57; Torkington, Ye Oldest Diarie, 57.
155
This document is undated but refers to Amaratte (i.e. Murad II?), as grete lorde of the
Turks, to an independent Constantinople, and to the orders castle of St Peter, the construction
of which began in c. 1407. BL MS Cotton Appendix VIII, fos. 108v112v. Text in Rathschlage
fur eine Orientreise, ed. C. Horstmann, Englische Studien, 8 (1893), 27784, at 282.
156
G. B. Parks, The English Traveler to Italy, i: The Middle Ages (to 1525) (Rome, 1954),
463; Register Morton, ed. Harper-Bill, ii, no. 186.
290 The English Langue

the promotion of brethren was based on the display of adequate proofs of

nobility, on seniority, and on conventual service. This manner of proceeding
created something of a rat race, as it was in the interest of brethren to
discredit the nobility and challenge the ancienitas of their contemporaries
should either be in doubt. Inadequate proofs of nobility, failures to reach
the convent on time, and the reversal of losses of seniority inicted as
a punishment all provided occasion for protest. The worst effects of the
system were mitigated by private compositions between individuals or
groups of Hospitallers agreeing a time limit within which they were to
reach headquarters if they were to enjoy the same seniority and by agree-
ments between brethren that one should pay a pension to another should
he be provided to a preceptory rst, or to divide up which beneces each
would seek in advance.157 Knights came into chancery to have such
accords registered, and into council to complain if they were broken.
A great proportion of the langues proceedings were also concerned with
seniority. Ancienitas was granted to brethen to cabish or to melior them-
selves of their rst and subsequent preceptories and to seek bailiwicks, and
sometimes it was bestowed on those conventual knights who had performed
the longest service and wished to go home.158 Preceptors at convent were
greatly concerned with the state of their preceptories, writing anxious
letters home to make sure that they were being administered properly,
that visitations were carried out without undue expense, and that their
meliorments were drawn up correctly. Time was of the essence in this
process, for until meliorments had been approved there was no possibility
of promotion. Accordingly brethren often sought the grant of chancery
commissions to brethren in England to view the meliorments they had
made rather than wait for the provincial chapter to deliberate on them.159
Having secured reports from the commissaries they then presented them to
the langue for approval. Should the grant of seniority to melior oneself of
another commandery be denied, or should another brother feel aggrieved
that the meliorments had been accepted, an appeal might be made to the
orders council.
It was inevitable that in an institution lled with young noblemen com-
peting for advancement arguments, brawls, and even duels would sometimes
occur. The Libri Conciliorum provide considerable evidence relating to such
misdemeanours as it was the council which appointed those who investi-
gated them and which pronounced sentence after these had reported. It was
the council, too, which ordered the formal deprivation of serious criminals
from the habit. Between 1460 and 1522 only three serious crimes or discip-
linary breaches involving brethren of the langue are recorded. The rst was
the ight of John Boswell from the convent after he had been sent to Crete by

157
AOM378, fo. 148rv; 383, fo. 144v; 388, fo. 134r. 158
BDVTE, 44.
159
e.g. LPFD, xiv, II, nos. 62, 405.
 The English Langue 291

John Langstrother.160 Following the intervention of Edward IV, Boswell

returned to convent, did formal penance, and was restored to his ancieni-
tas,161 going on to enjoy a successful career in the order. Another serious
incident occurred in September 1482, when it was reported that Henry
Freville, who had already been in trouble for a crime committed against a
secular two years earlier,162 and Henry Battersby had struck each other with
swords with wounds and effusion of blood from the head, with the result
that the surgeons feared the death of both combatants. Although it was
ordered that justice be done according to the statutes, no further proceedings
are recorded against either of the men, both of whom survived for some
years.163 Perhaps reecting the discipline instilled in the convent by the
austere Pierre dAubusson, no further serious charges were laid against
English brethren, save in connection with events at home, until 1504. In
that year Griman Oswell, probably one of the Boswell clan and an English
conventual knight, came into council complaining that John Tonge, the late
priors nephew, was touched by the crime of sodomy and had stolen from
the spolia of his uncle. Tonge alleged in response that Boswell had lain in
ambush for him before the door of his chamber with intent to injure him.164
Although no further proceedings were taken against either man, Tonge
returned to council soon afterwards alleging that he was suffering from
severe dysentery and asked to be allowed to go home to recover his
health. While he may genuinely have been ill his departure may also
have been a face-saving arrangement designed to spare all parties further
embarrassment.165
Unless one counts the offences of Thomas Boydell and Alban Pole in
1507,166 no more serious disciplinary charges were laid against English
brethren until 1528. From this date onwards, however, and especially after
1533, incidents multiplied. Seven separate instances of violent conduct and
various accusations of immoderate and disrespectful behaviour and blas-
phemy were recorded between 1528 and 1540, several of them of the utmost
gravity. Three knightsPhilip Carew, Oswald Massingberd, and Christo-
pher Myerswere deprived of the habit for murder in this period. Although
Carew at least had the excuse of having killed his victim, Thomas Hall, in a
duel, Massingberds murder of four fettered slaves and Myerss base and
miserable slaughter of a certain foolish woman in her own bedchamber
rank as the most unpleasant crimes committed by any member of the langue
between c.1460 and 1565.167 Both Massingberd and Myers were involved in
other violent incidents too. The latter was imprisoned for a ght with David
Gonson and Philip Babington in 1535 which was so serious that Myers and

160
AOM73, fos. 133v134r, 135v136r; 282, fo. 21r. 161
AOM376, fo. 155r.
162 v 163 r rv 164
AOM76, fo. 56 . Ibid., fo. 121 ; 77, fos. 37 . AOM80, fo. 112v.
165
Ibid., fo. 115r. 166
See below, Ch. 8.4.
167
AOM85, fos. 44r, 45v; 85, fos. 126v, 128r, 130r; 86, fos. 46v47r.
292 The English Langue

Gonson, who had shed much blood, had merited deprival of the
habit.168 Gonson, too, had something of a temper, for in 1536 he was sent
to prison on Gozo for beating three seculars and in October 1539 was
sentenced to another year there for striking one of his brethren in the face
with a dagger.169 It is tempting to assume that this was, once again, Babing-
ton, for the latter accused Gonson of treason after his ight from Malta in
1540.170 Even after 1540, when the langue was reduced to a rump of a few
brethren, Oswald Massingberd and the Scot John James Sandilands
managed to get themselves into serious trouble, the latter being twice impri-
soned for brawling in 1557 and 1558, deprived of the habit for mistreating
Oliver Starkey in 1564, and subsequently executed for theft from a
church.171
The reasons for this upsurge in violence are not entirely clear but there are
several possibilities. One is a general weakening of discipline after the fall of
Rhodes. LIsle Adam never enjoyed the full condence of the Spanish and
Italian brethren after his execution of the Portuguese chancellor, Andrea
dAmaral, during the siege, and some English brethren, too, had little respect
for his judgement. The disrespect which was shown the master on several
occasions after 1522 may have extended to his placemen. The lack of a
separate collachium for the brethren, too, perhaps made it easier for them to
break curfew, arrange duels, and plot against their superiors in relative
safety. In the event of serious crime, moreover, both Italy and Malta were
easier to escape than Rhodes and both Carew and Myers managed to get
clear of the convent before they could be tried for their crimes.172 Most
striking, however, are the divisions within the langue and the lack of respect
of its brethren for their own and the orders ofcers. John Babington com-
plained about the injurious deeds and sayings of certain English brothers in
1530, and Clement West, who was hardly in a position to criticize such
failings, went to the council to request action against members of the langue
for blasphemy and disrespectful conduct in 1536.173 Indeed, Wests conduct
in the chapter of 1533 and his appeals behind his fellows backs to England
must have helped to polarize opinion within the langue. As has been sug-
gested, by the late 1530s there appears to have been a division between an
ultra-Henrician faction composed of Clement West, Oswald Massingberd,
Nicholas Lambert, and Philip Babington, and a Catholic party composed
of men such as John Sutton, his step-nephew Nicholas Upton, David
Gonson, and Thomas Dingley.174 Other conservatives probably included
Thomas Thornhill and William Tyrell, both of whom were investigated by

168
AOM86, fo. 12v. 169
Ibid., fos. 31v, 95r. 170
See below, Ch. 9.
171
Scotland, liiilv, 184, 1867, 18990. For Massingberd, see Ch. 8.4.
172 v v 173
AOM85, fo. 45 ; 86, fo. 46 . AOM85, fo. 65 ; 86, fo. 30v.
r
174
Besides the incidents mentioned above it is worth noting that David Gonson and Oswald
Massingberd were sentenced to the septena (a beating followed by a weeks fasting) for having
exchanged insults in 1539. AOM86, fo. 88v.
 The English Langue 293

the royal council in 1541, and Giles Russell.175 Yet one should not make
these divisions too sharp. Despite his earlier association with West and
repeated disciplinary breaches, after 1540 Oswald Massingberd remained
in Malta in apparent harmony with Nicholas Upton and later in the decade
was even involved in plans to raise rebellion against Edward VIs govern-
ment in Ireland.176 West himself related the orders campaigns against the
Turks with apparent pride in his letters home and might have been able to
stay on as turcopolier had he not been afraid to sue for papal conrmation of
his restoration to his dignity.177

8.3 Military Service

For all their other activities, the British brethren in convent were there
primarily to perform service, chiey military service. This was done in a
number of contexts and locations. Those resident in convent manned the
post of England on the walls of Rhodes town and occasionally one of the
three port towers as well. Others, especially the turcopolier or his lieutenant,
whose usual duty this was, would tour Rhodes, and later Malta, checking
the alertness of those appointed to keep watch. A third category consisted of
those knights allocated to the caravans at sea, on Cos, in the castle of St Peter
or, later, at the fortress of Tripoli. Evidence of the particulars of such activity
referring specically to the English is hard to come by before 1529, but
much general information is available. The overall dimensions of the orders
professed manpower at headquarters are known as are the numbers deputed
to the garrison duty of various places on certain occasions. Almost complete
lists of the captains of the orders galley squadron, of St Peter, of Cos, and of
Tripoli can be obtained and frequent notices of military actions involving
Hospitaller forces occur in the Libri Conciliorum and in letters sent to the
west. Detailed contemporary accounts exist of the sieges of 1480 and 1522.
Only rarely can one discern, however, who was serving where and when.
The posts of the various langues were allocated in 1465. That of England
extended between the towers of Spain and St Mary, including the former but
not the latter, which was held by the Aragonese langue. Also included in the
zone of English responsibility were the boulevard of England and the walls,
barbicans, and magazine between the two towers.178 The usual manning
levels of the posts are not known; few brethren probably served on the walls
in usual circumstances, but numbers were increased during emergencies. On
30 March 1475, for example, the langues were convoked in order to allocate
posts to their brethren in response to the news of the construction of a
175 176 177
See below, Ch. 9. See Chs. 8.4, 9. LPFD, xiv, II, no. 579.
178 r r
AOM73, fos. 159 160 . The location of the posts of the langues, which altered some-
what between 1480 and 1522, can be seen in Rossi, Hospitallers at Rhodes, facing 338; Sire,
Knights of Malta, 52, 56, and Spiteri, Fortresses of the Knights, 1245.
294 The English Langue

Turkish eet at Gallipoli.179 The commanders of the English post are, save in
1522, unknown.
During those times when the master did not have charge of the common
treasury the port towers of Naillac, St Nicholas, and the Windmills, and
various other posts were allocated per turnum linguarum and were thus
sometimes held by the English.180 Accordingly, the English langue accepted
the tower of Naillac, the least exposed to attack, as its responsibility for a
three-year term on 11 March 1521 although it is unclear whether it still had
charge of it during the siege of the following year.181 Additionally those
brethren retained on the masters service were at his disposal whether in war
or peace. One of Giovanbattista Orsinis socii, Nicholas Passemer, was
castellan of Lindos in the 1460s.182 Given their various responsibilities,
and the absence of some brethren on caravan, it is not surprising that
sometimes there were too few English brethren to perform their duties
adequately. In February 1513, for example, when guards had been increased
for fear of Turkish attack183 the langue protested that Clement West, then
castellan of Rhodes, should not be allowed to exempt two brethren from
guarding the city because there were too few of their fellows. The council
ordained that the master of the castellans house should be exempt but that
any other brother in his service was to perform guard duty.184
Many authorities have commented enthusiastically on the English lan-
gues contribution to the sieges of 1480 and 1522. Their writings need to be
treated with caution. The rst conict has been particularly ill served, largely
due to a general adherence to Bosios highly inaccurate list of those he
thought had participated and those he believed had been killed in the
hostilities. As the author himself admitted, his gures were compiled by
looking at the orders registers for the years before and after the siege, and
noticing who disappeared and who was promoted at about the right time.185
A comparison of the most recent list at least partially based on Bosio, that of
Sir Edwin King, with who actually fought in 1480 may be instructive.186

179
AOM75, fos. 72v et seq.
180
The chapter of 1471 had established that the three port towers should be held by the
langues in turn, a captain being elected for each every three years. In October 1473 and February
1474 the council ruled that the captaincy of the sea-gate and the gates of the city were to be
allocated in similar manner. In November 1478, however, these dispositions were overturned
when the master was granted liberty to appoint the captains of the port towers and gates at
pleasure. AOM283, fo. 78v; 75, fos. 30r, 43r; 283, fo. 186r.
181
AOM83, fos. 10v11r.
182
AOM283, fo. 54v.
183
AOM82, fos. 56v57r.
184
Ibid. fos. 61v, 61v62r.
185
Bosio, DellIstoria, ii. 422.
186
Bosio only lists the commanders he believed present at the siege. These were John
Wakelyn (Vaquellino), Marmaduke Lumley (Lomelai), Thomas Green (Grem), Henry Hales
(Haler), Thomas Plumpton (Ploniton), Adam Chetwood (Tedbond), Henry Battersby (Batasbi),
and Henry dAuulai. Bosio, DellIstoria, ii. 422, 423, 425. The chief sources for Kings other
asserted combatants appear to have been the orders archives and Taaffe.
 The English Langue 295

King lists the following as killed during the siege: Thomas Green, bailiff of
Eagle, John Waquelin (Wakelyn), commander of Carbrooke, Henry Halley,
commander of Battisford, Thomas Plumpton, Adam Tedbond (recte Chet-
wood), Henry Battersby, and Henry Anlaby; and says that John Kendal, the
turcopolier, Marmaduke Lumley, John Boswell, Thomas Docwra, Leonard
de Tibertis, Walter Westbrough, and John Roche survived.187 There is some
error in nearly every one of his attributions. Anlaby, Tibertis, Westbrough,
and Roche do not appear in any of the orders fteenth-century records as
knights of the English langue, and save for Tibertis, who had been dead for
over a century, can probably be discounted as ever having been members of
it. None of the bailiffs or preceptors he mentions save Halley was at the
siege, and Halley was still a conventual knight until late September, after it
had ended.188 Green, Lumley, and Boswell were in England, and although
summoned to Rhodes in July and November 1479, had not reached it by
September 1480, when they were summoned again.189 Similarly, John Wake-
lyn, who was replaced as preceptor of Carbrooke by Halley in 1480, had
probably died in England, for he had been appointed receiver of the common
treasury there in 1477, and been issued with several orders as such.190 His
exercise of this ofce would itself be sufcient reason for the failure to
summon him in 147980, and the grant of his preceptory just after the
siege may simply indicate that the convent had known of his death earlier
but had not done anything about it because of the suspension of conventual
business during the hostilities. John Kendal, who certainly attempted to get
to Rhodes during the siege, was delayed at Modon with a cargo of olive oil
and wine he was bringing to the relief of the garrison by a Venetian port
ofcial.191 He then seems to have returned to England via Italy and did not
reach Rhodes until 1482.192 Of the other knights mentioned by King, Chet-
wood and Battersby also reached the convent in 1482.193 The only relatively
safe attributions King makes are those of Halley, Plumpton, and Thomas
Docwra, and Plumpton lived until 1498.194
The English contingent was not, however, quite as weak as all this.
A number of brethren in convent in the 1470s and not subsequently licensed
to leave may well have still been alive and at headquarters in 1480. Docwra

187
King, British Realm, 889.
188
AOM387, fo. 117r.
189
SJG, Butler Papers, citing AOM387, fos. 6v10r (mandate of 24 July 1479), 1r6r
(mandate of 25 November 1479), 19rv, 23r26v (mandate of 23 September 1480). Summons
to British brethren are noticed on fos. 5v, 9v, 26rv.
190
AOM385, fos. 137v, 162r, 162v163r; 387, fo. 142rv.
191
CSPV, i, no. 493.
192
See above, Ch. 5.2.
193
AOM388, fo. 134r; 76, fo. 98r.
194
Hales was in convent in September 1480, Docwra in 1474 and 1476, and Plumpton was
granted a preceptory as a conventual knight in May 1481. AOM387, fo. 117r; 382, fo. 136v;
383, fo. 144r; 388, fo. 132r.
296 The English Langue

himself falls into this category. Three knights who occur in the mid-1470s
but not againRobert Danby, William Beautz, and Thomas de Nygton
were perhaps killed in the ghting.195 Somewhat more likely combatants are
Robert and Richard Dalison and Thomas Newport, who are to be found in
convent in the 1470s and 1480s and the Scot Patrick Scougal, who last
occurs in December 1478 and was not licensed to leave thereafter.196
More likely still are Walter Fitzherbert, who was licensed to leave headquar-
ters in 1479, but whose permission may have been revoked,197 and John
Bourgh, whose leave to depart certainly was overturned and who was in
Rhodes in early 1482.198 Almost certain combatants are Steven Lynde, who
was granted his rst preceptory in January 1483, and Henry Freville, who
was in Rhodes in November 1480.199 If all these brethren were in convent
the British contingent at the siege would have amounted to fourteen
knights, besides servants and mercenary soldiers, a gure identical with
that given for the strength of the langue in 1476.200 Others not recorded
anywhere may also have fought.
It is striking that Fitzherbert and Bourgh were the only preceptors among
these brethren and that if they were not at the siege the post of England must
have been commanded by a conventual knight, probably Scougal. As ac-
counts of the siege, even the English translation presented to Edward IV,
make little mention of the participation of the English brethren or the post
of England in the ghting,201 it is extremely difcult to say what part the
langue played, although an English sailor, Roger Jervis, was reportedly
responsible for severing the rope linking a bridge of Turkish ships to the
tower of Saint Nicholas during a heavy assault on 19 June, an action for
which he was rewarded by the master.202 Subsequent reports of heavy
damage to the boulevard, walls, and post of England, and of the expenditure
or loss of all its munitions and war machinery during the ghting make it
clear that the langue played a full part in the hostilities, however.203
Both Bosio and the narrative sources provide surer and fuller information
on the siege of 1522, and lists of those who participated in the ghting are
correspondingly more accurate. Bosio had access to a roll-call taken of

195
AOM382, fo. 136v; 383, fos. 142r, 144rv.
196
AOM283, fo. 174v; 382, fo. 136v; 76, fo. 209r; 283, 175r.
197
Fitzherbert and John Bourgh were both to leave convent in February 1479 and Bourghs
licence was revoked on 22 March. In early July it was decided that all necessary brethren would
be retained. Although there is no evidence that Fitzherberts licence to leave was revoked he was
not summoned to defend Rhodes in 147980. AOM386, fo. 130r; AOM76, fos. 26r, 31rv; SJG,
Butler Papers.
198
AOM76, fos. 26r, 97v.
199
AOM388, fo. 135r; 76, fo. 56v.
200
See above, 295.
201
See above, Ch. 4.
202
R. A. de Vertot dAubeuf, Histoire des chevaliers hospitaliers de S. Jean de Jerusalem, 5
vols. (Paris, 1726), iii. 1123; King, British Realm, 867.
203
AOM76, fo. 66r; CPL, xiii. 1779.
 The English Langue 297

knights and sergeants in convent just before the start of the siege which is
now lost and which recorded the names of eleven English conventual
knights, and also refers to a number of brethren in other contexts.204
Based on examination of Bosio, King lists twenty English brethren who
participated, reproduced below:205
John Buck (recte Bothe) Nicholas Hussey William Weston
Thomas Shefeld Henry Mansel Nicholas Fairfax
John Rawson (junior) Giles Russell John Baron
Francis Buet William West Thomas Pemberton
George Askew John Sutton George Aylmer
Michael Roche Nicholas Usel Otho de Monsill
Richard Neville Nicholas Roberts
Several adjustments need to be made to this contingent. Most signi-
cantly, there is no evidence that Henry Mansel, the masters standard-bearer,
or Baron and Buet, who were posted at the tower of St Nicholas during the
ghting,206 were English, save for their vaguely English sounding names.
Secondly Nicholas Usel, who was listed among the conventual knights on
the roll call, and Nicholas Hussey, the commander of the bastion of England,
were almost certainly one and the same. Of the others, Monsill and West are
on the roll of brethren but are not found in any other of the orders records,
and Bothe and Roche occur before the siege but not after it. Bothe was
certainly killed during the ghting, and it is tempting to assume that the
other three were too. Another probable casualty was Arthur Sothill, who
was in Rhodes as a conventual knight in 1521, but is not mentioned there-
after.207 The participation of those who survived was noted in grants of
preceptories after 1522, which specically refer to their service in the many
erce conicts of the siege, or a variant thereof, a citation which occurs in
bulls issued to Rawson, Fairfax, Hussey, Shefeld, Sutton, Neville, Weston,
Roberts, and Russell and also to Alban Pole, George Hateld, Edward Hills,
and Ambrose Layton, who should therefore be added to the list of combat-
ants.208 A further knight, George Horton, was licensed to go home in July
1523, and may also have fought.209 George Aylmer, who was probably in
Rhodes during the siege, was not thanked for his service during the ghting
when granted a preceptory in November 1523, a detail that ts with his later
reputation for cowardice.210 A number of gentlemen volunteers seeking
entry into the order also participated. In 1525 the Scot John Chalmers was

204
Bosio, DellIstoria, ii. 63943, 642, 6456, 666, 675.
205
King, British Realm, 901.
206
Bosio, DellIstoria, ii. 643.
207
AOM54, fo. 93r.
208
[In tot acerrimis rhodie obsidionis conictibus] AOM410, fos. 175r, 176r177v,
178v, 179r, 180r; 411, fos. 153v154v.
209
AOM410, fo. 177r.
210
Ibid., fo. 181r; BDVTE, 17.
298 The English Langue

received into the order and granted a pension of 80 ducats in consideration

of his services during the siege, and Edward Bellingham and John Whitting-
ton or Huntington, who were received into the order in Crete in early 1523,
may also have fought, or at least set off in order to do so.211 Bellinghams
uncle, John Shelley, had been involved in trade with the order in 1513, and
was supposedly killed at Rhodes.212 If one removes Baron, Buet, Mansel,
and Usel from Kings list but adds Pole, Hateld, Hills, Layton, and Sothill,
one arrives at a minimum gure of twenty-one professed English brethren
involved in the ghting, to which should be added gentlemen and stipendiary
soldiers and servants who had come from Britain or Ireland with their
masters.213
The langues prole during the events of 1522 was much higher than in
1480. A number of its knights had been prominent in conventual service for
years and several of them held important administrative and military posts
before and during the hostilities. Most important were John Bothe, the
turcopolier, and Thomas Shefeld, the masters seneschal, both members
of the order since the 1480s. Besides his conventual bailiwick, which gave
him responsibility for the coastguard, Bothe had been appointed a proctor of
the common treasury in March 1521 along with the chancellor, Andrea
dAmaral.214 These two, together with the grand commander and lieutenant
master, Gabriel de Pomerolx, had charge of the orders nances until the
siege began, and thus controlled the provisioning of the convent in the
crucial months before it. Their failure to perform this task adequately is
stressed in accounts of the ghting, which say that when the master took
council for the provisioning of the town in the weeks before the Turkish
assault he was told to take no thought to it by the three, who averred that it
contained enough stores of victuals and ordnance to last for a year.215
Although in discrediting Amaral and absolving LIsle Adam from responsi-
bility for the fall of Rhodes this detail served the dramatic purpose of the
French knight who wrote this account of the siege, it is certainly true that the
orders store of gunpowder ran out after four months.216 As the same author
admitted, however, this was due more to the unprecedented intensity of the
artillery exchanges during the ghting than to any lack of forethought.217
Other English brethren too, were involved in preparing for the siege. Nicho-
las Fairfax was among those appointed to arrange accommodation for

211
AOM411, fo. 158rv; 410, fo. 176v.
212
Bindoff (ed.), House of Commons, i. 414; AOM402, fo. 175rv.
213
In 1523 a serving man who had been at the Rhodes was involved in an uprising in
Coventry and executed. Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England, i. 14.
214
AOM83, fos. 13v14r.
215
Begynnynge and Foundacyon, 89; J. de Bourbon, La grande et merveilleuse et
trescruelle oppugnation de la noble cite de Rhodes (Paris, 1525), 19 (B.iiii).
216
Begynnynge and Foundacyon, 9.
217
Ibid. 9; Bourbon, Oppugnation, 20 (B.iiii verso).
 The English Langue 299

country people coming to shelter in Rhodes town in February 1522, while in

the previous August John Rawson junior and George Aylmer had been
commissioned to visit the fortications to establish what repairs needed to
be made.218
On 7 May the brethren of the langue, bearing longbows rather than the
arbalest more usual to the orders knights, were mustered and showed their
arms in their auberge before the turcopolier and a foreign knight. William
Weston, meanwhile, was examining the arms of the langue of Provence.219
By mid-June the Hospitallers had received Sultan Suleimans letter ordering
them to surrender their islands and Turkish troops began to disembark on 26
June.220 In the subsequent siege, several Englishmen held important com-
mands. Bothe was the captain of one of four reserve companies and was in
charge of succouring the posts of Spain and England; Thomas Shefeld, the
masters seneschal, was responsible for the artillery and defence of the
masters palace and its surrounding area; the post and boulevard of England
were commanded by William Weston and Nicholas Hussey respectively, and
Nicholas Fairfax was sent to Crete to raise reinforcements in November.221
The English sector of the walls was the scene of some of the heaviest ghting,
being subjected to a long artillery bombardment in August and a series of
massive assaults in the following month. Particularly serious were those of
4 September, when a mine exploded under the English bastion and the Turks
captured the breach before being driven back by a combination of the
English knights and the grand masters household and guard and 17 Sep-
tember, when an assault was launched on the repaired walls of the English
bulwark by a Turkish host of 5,000 men, under ve banners. Having
captured one of these standards, Bothe, a valyaunt man and hardy, was
slayne with the stroke of a handgonne.222 It may have been his demise
which prompted a grieving Rhodiot woman to slay her children, array
herself in armour, and hurl herself against the Turkish lines.223 A general
assault on 24 September did further damage, although the English distin-
guished themselves again by pouring onto the Turks attacking the adjoining
post of Spain a anking re so lethal that the ground could not be seen
for corpses. During the ght one of the ngers of William Weston, who
behaved hym ryght worthely at all the assautes was shot off by an

218
AOM83, fos. 46r, 23r.
219
Ibid., fo. 60rv.
220
Ibid., fos. 61v62r; King, British Realm, 91.
221
Bosio, DellIstoria, ii. 6456; King, British Realm, 97.
222
Begynnynge and Foundacyon, 256. Bosio, DellIstoria, ii. 675, says that he was killed by
an arquebusier, while Bourbon, from whom the English account of the siege may be derived,
relates that he fut tue dung coup descoupette and makes no reference to Bothes supposed
valour. Bourbon, Oppugnation, 567.
223
The woman was supposedly the mistress of an English commander. As Bothe was the only
English Hospitaller of this rank killed, it seems likely that if the tale relates to a professed
Hospitaller, it must have been him. Vertot, Histoire des chevaliers hospitaliers, iii. 3423.
300 The English Langue

arquebusier.224 On 17 October the Turks got into the barbican at the foot of
the bulwark of England and could not be dislodged, and on 10 December
surrender negotiations began.225 At some stage in the ghting Thomas
Pemberton suffered a severe leg injury, and knights such as Roche, West,
Monsill, and Sothill were presumably killed.226 After the injury to Weston,
which may have been more serious than the sources suggest, a French knight
was put in charge of the English post.227
After surrender terms were agreed in December the order left Rhodes on
1 January 1523, its great ship under the command of William Weston.228 For
all the savagery of the ghting they had been involved in, the convents
perambulations around Italy seem to have been equally lethal. A corres-
pondent of Wolsey reported from Rome on 1 May 1523 that Nicholas
Fairfax had just died so poor that he had scantly (enough) to bring him to
the earth at his departing and was stark mad; insomuch that nother his
confessor nor none other could tell what his mind was.229 Within the next
three years he was followed to the grave by George Askew, Nicholas
Roberts, Thomas Shefeld, and George Horton. All, save Shefeld, were
relatively young men. Whether the effects of the siege played any part in the
madness and death of Fairfax, the demise of his confreres, and the reputa-
tion for cowardice and later madness of George Aylmer remains an open
question.
Not all the orders military adventures were quite so dramatic, but regular
service in the orders fortresses and voyages in its galleys helped to form the
esprit de corps which was so evident at moments of crisis such as the sieges
of 1480 and 1522. The total number of brethren expected to serve on
caravan had been laid down in 1459 as forty on the guard galley which
patrolled the waters around Rhodes, twenty-ve on Cos, and fty at the
castle of St Peter.230 These contingents were increased in subsequent years,
especially on the galleys, but the total number of brethren expected to be on
caravan at any one time is not always clear. Except on rare occasions, the
distribution of brethren of the individual langues between various forms of
caravan service is not known either. Save for brethren retained on magistral
or conciliar service, participation in the caravans was an essential prerequis-
ite of promotion, however, and it can be assumed that at any one time some
British brethren were thus engaged. Judging by evidence from the minute

224
Begynnynge and Foundacyon, 28.
225
LPFD, iii, no. 2841; Vatin, LOrdre, 358.
226
AOM413, fo. 21v.
227
King, British Realm, 95, says that this was because there were no Englishmen left to
command the bastion.
228
AOM84, fo. 19r. For this vessel see M. Fontenay, De Rhodes a Malte: levolution de la
otte des Hospitaliers au XVIe siecle, Atti del V Convegno Internazionale di Studi Colombiani,
2 vols. (Genoa, 1990), i. 10735, at 11019.
229
LPFD, iii, no. 2999.
230
AOM282, fo. 76v; cited in Fiorini and Luttrell, Italian Hospitallers, 217 n. 32.
 The English Langue 301

book of the langue, between two and seven brethren usually served together.
It was typically conventual knights who went on caravansave as ofcers
under conciliar commission no English preceptors are mentioned in this
context before 1529 and only four between then and 1540. Younger knights
may indeed have had rst refusal on caravan places, for in 1559 the Scot
John James Sandelands insisted that he rather than the older George Dudley
should so serve.231 Caravaners were supposed to be twenty years old,
however, and the langue was required to pay their stipends while they
were on service if they were under age, a rule which occasioned a protest
by the proctors of the langue in 1487 that if John Bothe, who had secured a
place at the partitio of the caravans, should prove to be too young his uncle,
the lieutenant turcopolier, should pay rather than the nation.232 It was also
possible to serve by proxy. When the proctors of the langue of France
complained that Pierre Clovet had not performed his caravan in 1491, he
asserted that it had been accomplished for him by an English brother,
Thomas Gryng, but that all the witnesses to this were now in England.233
Other brethren may have compounded for their service rather than send a
substitute.234
In this period, the langues brethren seem to have served mainly on the
galleys and at St Peter, for none is mentioned on Cos.235 Although before
1522 there is only one specic mention of English brethren performing
caravans on the galleys, a number of pieces of evidence suggest that naval
service was quite usual for the English brethren. An illustration of an
engagement of c.1460 between the orders galleys and the Turks quite clearly
depicts a brother bearing a longbow, an exclusive privilege of the English
langue, and a list of sixty Hospitallers who participated in the action
includes the names of three English knight-brethren.236 In addition, a num-
ber of Englishmen captained the orders galley eet or great ship between
1460 and 1540, which assumes prior experience at sea, and a council minute
of 1524, which records that rolls were to be made of all brethren of the eight
langues for the arming of the triremes, suggests that naval service was
common to all the nationes which made up the order.237 Two letters sent
by an English knight on one of the galleys to Clement West towards the end
of 1538, and the promises of brothers to serve on the galls of owr tonge in

231
This was, however, in accordance with the recently elected masters instructions rather
than any older establishment. BDVTE, 38.
232
AOM68, fo. 128r; 76, fo. 209r.
233
AOM77, fo. 41v. The name Gryng does not occur elsewhere and might be a scribal error
for Green or Golyn.
234
In 1446 and 1451 Italian brethren paid 40 orins of Rhodes to be released from caravan
service. Fiorini and Luttrell, Italian Hospitallers, 216, 2256.
235
An English brother was on caravan in Cos in January 1445, however. AOM356, fo. 142r.
236
Reproduced in Luttrell, Military Orders, facing p. 340. Dr Luttrell very kindly supplied
me with a list of brethren who took part in the action.
237
AOM84, fo. 36v.
302 The English Langue

1540 and 1541 provide more concrete evidence of English caravans at

sea.238
Galley tours were of variable duration, although six months service may
have been enough to complete a caravan at sea.239 Little is known about life
and conditions on Hospitaller galleys in this period, although comparisons
with contemporary navies and evidence from later sources can provide some
of what is lacking. Naval service was probably not particularly strenuous
during most of the Rhodian period. Although privateers operating from
Rhodes ranged all over the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, the orders
eet did not usually go far outside its home waters, save sometimes to
Negroponte, Cyprus, or the Syrian coast. Even during the hostilities of the
1470s and 15014 casualties appear to have been moderate, although
constant minor engagements and sickness must both have taken their toll.
The only major naval battle involving the order between 1460 and 1522, the
victory over the Mamluk eet off Alexandretta in 1510, was certainly hard
fought240 and may have cost the lives of brethren of the langue but it is
impossible to be certain of this. After 1530, when the order was confronting
the Turkish navy and the formidable north African corsairs head on, naval
service probably became more dangerous.241 Of the thirty English and Scots
brethren who promised to perform caravan service between 1529 and 1541,
at least six do not reappear in the records after their last such undertaking
and may have perished during their tours of duty.242 The seriousness of
caravan service is underlined by a decision of the langue in March 1530
that George Aylmer, who it is thought by the hole tonge is not hable to
make his carvan beinge not a man of curage, should appoint a deputy to
perform it for him.243 At times during this period the brethren on caravan on
the galleys were joined by almost the entire convent. The order contributed
hundreds of knights to the Modon, Tunis, and Algiers expeditions of 1532,
1535, and 1541 and suffered heavy casualties, particularly at Algiers.244
The numbers of tours performed varied. Between 1529 and 1541, sixty-
eight undertakings to go on caravan were made by thirty knights.245 Several

238
Wests correspondent was probably either James Hussey, Henry Gerard, or the Scot
Alexander Dundas, all of whom had promised to make their caravans in July 1538. LPFD,
xiii, II, nos. 9656; BDVTE, 36.
239
Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 2212. The Italian Hospitallers who agreed to under-
take caravans on Cos and at Bodrum typically served for a year, however. Fiorini and Luttrell,
Italian Hospitallers, 2256, 2301.
240
Longam, et sanguinolentam pugnam. AOM410, fo. 143r.
241
Fontenay, Les Missions des galeres de Malte, 10319.
242
These were William Askew, Thomas Cavendish, John Forest, John Marshall, Anthony
Russell, and George Sands. Another possible casualty, James Hussey, agreed to go on caravan in
April 1540 and does not appear in either the orders archives or in England thereafter.
243
BDVTE, 17.
244
AOM85, fos. 105r, 107v; Vella, Tripoli, 368; Sire, Knights of Malta, 65.
245
BDVTE, 1718, 23, 256, 356.
 The English Langue 303

made more than the three periods of service later enjoined in the statutes.
Henry Gerard, with six, Philip Babington, with ve, and Dunstan New-
digate and Anthony Bentham, with four apiece, all exceeded their quota. To
undertake three caravans appears to have been normal for conventual
brethren, however, although the few preceptors who performed such service
after 1529 did not repeat the experience.
Caravans in the orders fortications were probably less dangerous than
their maritime equivalents, at least before 1530. Although it is impossible to
give any idea of the number of brethren of the langue serving at the castle of
St Peter, English knights are mentioned there in 1470, 1480, 1482, 1491,
1505, and 15078 and English brethren were elected to its captaincy in
1459, 1498, and 1514.246 They resided in the tower of St Catharine, an
impressive edice constructed by the langue in the 1420s or 1430s, but
squabbled over this habitation and the servants therein with the Hispanic
brethren who came to share it with them.247 In February 1480 the proctors
of all three nations, who were in dispute over whether the English or
Spanish should appoint a companion to the tower, agreed to remit the choice
to the master,248 while in 1505 the English complained that a companion
there had been deprived of his pitancia by the castles captain for his refusal
to perform certain services for the brethren who resided in the tower.249 The
issue resurfaced in 1507, when a commission was appointed to consider the
langues contention that the companion should not have to perform service
outside the towers camera, but should only have to clean this room and
make the beds there. The master and council ruled that the camera should be
understood to comprise not merely the sleeping quarters of the brethren but
the whole interior of the tower and that both the companions must not only
polish the bedchamber and make the beds, but also take water to the
brethren, sweep the tower, and light the lamp at night. They were, however,
exempted from service outside the building and from more menial work
such as washing underwear.250
It seems likely that the English brethren made an issue out of this because
they thought that they and the Spanish should each have one companion for
their exclusive service rather than hold them in common. It is possible that
the man disciplined in 1505 was one Thomas, an English companion of the
castle who had been arrested by its captain on 13 April 1501 and restored to
his position by the council eight weeks later, and that it was this mans
objection to performing menial tasks for foreigners that was at issue.251 At

246
AOM74, fo. 35rv; 76, fos. 44v45r, 100r; 80, fos. 133rv, 136v137r; 81, fos. 71r72r, 96rv;
282, fo. 73rv; 78, fo. 83r; 82, fo. 114v. Luttrell, Maussolleion, 195.
247
Luttrell, English Contributions, 1679.
248
AOM76, fos. 44v45r.
249
AOM80, fos. 140v, 143v.
250
AOM81, fos. 71rv.
251
AOM79, fo. 11v.
304 The English Langue

least one other English and one Irish layman are also known to have served
at St Peter after 1460. Some such residents may have been companions in the
tower, but most were probably gentlemen volunteers or soldiers performing
military service rather than household servants.252 Although there were
sometimes skirmishes between the castles garrison and local Turks and
occasional demonstrations by Turkish armies before the castle walls, cara-
van duty there was often uneventful, to such an extent that Robert Gay, who
was commended in 1474 for having performed several months service in
pursuance of a vow to ght the Turks had been unable to nd any who
would agree to do so.253 Such was emphatically not the case at Tripoli after
1530, where almost daily battles took place between the garrison and the
indel.254 Service there was so unpleasant that in 1536 Anthony Rogers was
imprisoned for avoiding boarding the galleys going to its aid.255

8.4 The Turcopolier and Turcopoles

The third, and most characteristic form of military service performed by the
langues brethren was that particular to the turcopolier, its pilier. His was an
ofce dating back to the orders days in the Holy Land, when the holder had
commanded the turcopoles, light cavalry apparently of mixed Latin, Mus-
lim, and eastern Christian stock.256 The turcopoliership was not then im-
portant enough to rank as a conventual bailiwick, and it was only from
1330, well after the move to Rhodes, that it is known to have been associ-
ated with the English langue.257 On Rhodes, the turcopolier was the sixth-
ranked conventual bailiff, just as the English langue was sixth in precedence.
He had command of turcopoles who appear to have been a mixture of native
Greeks and Latin settlers.258 In wartime these, and their ofcers, might
252
AOM382, fo. 138rv; 387, fo. 202r.
253
AOM382, fo. 138rv. Conditions may have been unusually quiet in 1474. There had been
frequent skirmishes between the garrison and local Turks as recently as 1470, but a Venetian
raid in 1472 had cleared the surrounding area of Turks. Luttrell, Maussolleion, 1645.
254
Vella, Tripoli, 370.
255
AOM86, fos. 43v44r. Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 1423.
256
There has been considerable controversy about the ethnic background and military
functions of the turcopoles in the period before 1291. See Y. Harari, The Military Role of the
Frankish Turcopoles: A Reassessment, Mediterranean Historical Review, 12 (1997), 75116.
257
The custom by which each conventual bailiwick was reserved to a particular langue seems
to have been established during the early fourteenth century, and can be clearly seen for the rst
time in the proceedings of the chapter-general of 1330, which provide the rst denite reference
to the turcopoliers status as a conventual bailiff, and the rst instance of an English turcopolier.
Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, 2834, 280; Tipton, Montpellier, 2967, 301.
258
The turcopoles listed in a case of 1495 involving one of their number had the surnames
Patera, Cassari, Sacce, Maria, Lagouardo, and Stefano. AOM78, fos. 31v32r. Anthony Luttrell
has noted a Greek turcopole, Leo Cycandilli, on Kos in 1415, and turcopoles called Peyrolus de
Negroponte and Bussottus at the casali of Diaskoros and Lardos on Rhodes in 1347 and 1382
respectively. A. T. Luttrell, The Military and Naval Organisation of the Hospitallers at Rhodes:
13101444, Mediterranean World, art. xix, 13353, at p. 138 and nn. 301.
 The English Langue 305

continue to ght as light cavalry,259 but their most usual and characteristic
responsibility was to visit the guard posts of the island. In common with the
other conventual bailiffs the turcopolier was elected, or rather conrmed in
ofce, by vote of the master and council ordinary, having rst been chosen
from among its most ancient and worthy members by the langue.260 Like
other piliers, he presided over meetings of his langue and had an automatic
seat on councils and chapters-general. He was allowed a relatively generous
stipend to support the burdens of ofce,261 and was usually granted a
preceptory of grace in addition to his existing benece when one became
available.262 By ofce, the turcopolier was also the most senior English
brother in the order, outranking, at least in convent, the priors of England
and Ireland, and being in a good position to claim the rich English priory
when it fell vacant.263
The turcopoliers more characteristic duties and privileges had been
dened in an agreement drawn up in 1445/6 by the lieutenant turcopolier,
John Langstrother, and the English brethren and Jean de Lastic, the mas-
ter,264 and conrmed by Nicholas V on 31 May 1448.265 By it, the parties
agreed that the turcopolier or his lieutenant had authority over the chief

259
Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 87 and n.
260
Quotation from BDVTE, 223.
261
See n.25, above.
262
Hence the protests of Clement West at the refusal of successive masters to grant him a
preceptory of grace. See above, Ch. 6.
263
Of the six priors appointed by the order between 1470 and 1527, four were turcopoliers
and two bailiffs of Eagle immediately prior to their provision to the priory.
264
AOM357, fos. 153v154r; text in Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 6301; Mifsud,
Venerable Tongue, 901. The agreement is in the Liber Bullarum for March 1445 to March
1446 but is undated, and it is possible that it was copied from a statute drawn up in the
Rome chapter-general of February 1446. This assembly, which Lastic did not attend, was
held under the auspices of Eugenius IV and presided over by three papally appointed presi-
dents, among them the prior of England, Robert Botill. These ofcers directed a major
codication of the orders statutes, and further provided for the establishment of a committee
of seven brethren, headed by the turcopolier, to be protectors of the convent. These were to
protect the statutes enacted in Rome, with power to admonish the master and council should
they breach them, and appeal over their heads to a chapter-general should such warnings be
ignored. Although these reforms proved stillborn, the clauses of the agreement enrolled in the
Liber Bullarum of 1445 dening the turcopoliers government of the watch were appended to
the section of the capitular proceedings appointing the turcopolier chief Protector of the
convent, with the exception of the clause referring to Langstrother and Lastic. The date of
composition of the Liber Bullarum makes it likely that the agreement was a proposal submitted
to Rome which was subsequently modied in chapter, but it is also possible that it was an edited
version of the Rome statute more acceptable to Lastics dignity than the original. AOM357, fos.
153v154r; AOM1698, fos. 57r58r. An eighteenth-century copy of the capitular document
(AOM1649, fos. 517v519r) is transcribed in Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 3079 and
discussed at 1014. See also Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 2878.
265
CPL, x. 256. The conrmation was registered in the Liber Conciliorum on 1 Oct. 1481,
together with a translation into Italian. AOM76, fos. 76v78r, 78r80r. Both these versions are
transcribed in Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 30913, and discussed at 15, although the author
seems to have been unaware of the enrolment of the LangstrotherLastic concord in the
bullarium of 1445.
306 The English Langue

ofcersthe banneret266 and the viglocomites267of his command so far as

the exercise of his duties required, and that he and his deputies were not to
be molested in their persons, animals, or goods by the castellans and other
ofcials of the island, save by express magistral mandate or in a matter
involving the masters personal service. No one was to be dispensed from
guard duty save for one servant of the castellan in each castellany, and the
turcopolier and his deputies were to visit the guard posts, punishing those
failing in their duty. Once a year, the turcopolier was to gather all those
bound to the watch to discuss how and where it could best be performed. In
time of war, or the threat of it, the castellans could visit the watch and punish
the negligent in the absence of the turcopolier or his deputies.
Unfortunately this document does not make clear how many watch sta-
tions there were, how they were manned, or how watch duty was allocated.
The frequency of the turcopoliers visitations is not dened, and nor are the
exact duties of his deputies, or of the banneret and viglocomites. The turco-
poles themselves are not mentioned specically, although it can be safely
assumed that they were the deputies referred to. However, the enrolment of
the papal bull conrming the agreement in the council minutes in October
1481, and a number of subsequent cases in the council referring to the bulla
turcopelieratus demonstrate that the concord of 1445/6 was upheld well
into the sixteenth century, and also help to shed further light on the nature of
the turcopoliers ofce.268 The picture is made more complete by capitular
ordinances, which laid down the number and salary of the turcopoles, and
various records that provide more information on the bannerets.
Considering the constant danger of Turkish landings, visiting the watch
was a task of considerable importance, which needed to be performed
diligently. Essentially, as council records make clear, the job of the turcopo-
lier was to set the guards in the rst place269 and then to ride around the
island at night and ensure that those deputed to the watch were on duty and
awake.270 To aid him in his task he was accorded the assistance of his

266
Banerarius. AOM357, fo. 153v. This ofcer was called the Vexillifer Turcopoli in the
Rome statute of 1446. AOM1649, fo. 518v; Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 309 says that the
vexillifer/banneret acted as the Ensign of the corps of turcopoles.
267
Sannazaro calls these ofcials the Chief Wardens of the guard. They were to be presented
to the turcopolier within fourteen days of a vacancy and were to take an oath of delity to him.
AOM357, fos. 153v154r; Sannazaro, Venerable Langue, 14.
268
The turcopoliers pre-eminence and prerogatives as established in the bull of 1448 and the
orders statutes were conrmed by the chapter-general of 1558. AOM288, fo. 75r.
269
It is unclear whether the guards were actually appointed, rather than positioned, by the
master or the turcopolier. In 1471 it was decided in chapter-general that the turcopolier could
appoint one or two custodes for the guard of the villages of Cathagro and Lavadeto. This
concession was given the express consent of the masters proctor, suggesting that the master had
some say in such appointments. However, a council decree of 1503 upheld the turcopoliers right
to appoint viglocomiti who would give orders to the guards in the villages under the control of
the marshall, Hospitaller, and admiral, just as he did in those belonging to the master. AOM283,
fo. 62v; 80, fos. 49r50r.
270
AOM75, fo. 11v12r; 78, fos. 31v32r; 81, fo. 81v.
 The English Langue 307

banneret,271 viglocomites and a body of turcopoles forty-four in number in

1504,272 who seem to have been of peasant stock273 and were paid by the
common treasury.274 Although this was straightforward enough in theory, in
practice there was considerable scope for conict between the turcopolier, his
subordinates and other authorities, most notably the master, whose subjects
the villagers and hence the guards of Rhodes were, but also including those
castellans and senior brethren who held authority over the islands villages.
Essentially disputes arose from three causes: the dismissal or disciplining
of turcopoles or viglocomites by their superior; alleged failures of the turco-
poliers or their deputies to perform their duties properly; and jurisdictional
conicts between the turcopolier, the master and his ofcers, and other
dignitaries. Three cases in the council records concern appeals against the
suspension or dismissal of turcopoles from ofce, while another pertains to
the removal of a viglocomes. Thus in March 1460, the council ordered the
restoration of a turcopole removed from ofce by the lieutenant turcopolier
in a manner not in accordance with the statutes,275 while some sixteen years
later the master and council ruled that the lieutenant turcopolier had
wrongly removed a turcopole of Paravibilinos whose horse had damaged
vines and other possessions. As his offence had nothing to do with the
performance of his ofce, the latter was committed instead to the justice of
the castellan of Rhodes and judge of ordinaries.276 A further appeal of 1495
sheds rather more light on the functions of the turcopoles. A turcopole, one
Patera of the castellany of Catania, had been suspended from ofce by the
lieutenant turcopolier for failings in his duty and on his appeal the council
ordered the local castellan to examine witnesses. Five turcopoles and two
other men came forward.277 Their evidence suggests that Patera had failed
to visit the merovigli (coastguard) because he was accustomed to do this
with a dignitary called the diantrecari who had been absent when he had
called. Both the turcopoles and other witnesses agreed that whether the
diantrecari could be found or not the turcopole should visit the merovigli.
Patera was accordingly declared deprived, and the turcopolier instructed to
replace him.278 The last such appeal was launched in June 1508 by Martin

271
The banneret was appointed by the turcopolier and paid a salary xed at 40 orins and 18
aspers in 1504 from the revenues of the common treasury. He, like the turcopoles, was mounted.
AOM284, fo. 73r.
272
AOM284, fo. 73r; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 88.
273
In 1506 they were described as rustici et parici hoc est servi a scriptici ac viles persone.
AOM81, fo. 40r.
274
Their stipend was xed at 20 orins of Rhodes in 1467, and remained so in 1504.
AOM283, fo. 35v; 284, fo. 73r.
275
AOM73, fo. 15v.
276
AOM75, fo. 144v.
277
These were Antonio Cassari, turcopole, Antonio Sacce turcopole, Guillelmo Maria
turcopole, Antonio Lagouardo, turcopole of sixty years service, Joanne Stefano, turcopole of
nine years service, Nicolao Cardeli, and Michael Piteni, who had been at the guard del Trolli.
278
AOM78, fos. 31v32r.
308 The English Langue

Vincent, viglocomes of Archangelos, against the turcopolier, Robert Daniel.

Vincent felt aggrieved because he had been deprived of ofce de facto instead
of suspended rst according to custom. Daniel responded that Vincent,
along with a number of turcopoles, had manifestly failed to perform his
duty, so breaking his oath of delitas and meriting immediate removal from
ofce. The council upheld the piliers actions, but also ordered him to
remove Vincents replacement, who had been disqualied from further
preferment after deprivation from another ofce. As it was untting that
an infamous and condemned man should hold the dignity, Daniel was to
nominate another viglocomes of good name. Moreover, since the testimony
the turcopoles of Archangelos had given in the case had unwittingly pro-
vided evidence of their failings in their duty, their depositions were presented
to Daniel so that he could take action against them.279
Although none of these cases is especially informative on the nature of the
turcopolier and his ofcers, they do make some things clear. They prove that
the turcopoles fullled the functions of the turcopoliers deputies as laid
down in the agreement, that they were mounted, and that they could be
suspended by their superior only for failure to do their job, and removed
only by consent of the master and council, limitations which were based on
statutes of 1410 and 1440, the latter repeated in the statutes of 1489.280 The
remaining disputes recorded in the archives are more complex, involving a
variety of disciplinary and jurisdictional issues, but they too illustrate the
primacy of the agreement of 1445/6. The most serious conicts arose in the
tense conditions obtaining after the war of 14991503. In such circumstan-
ces it was essential that the watch be kept diligently and that exceptions to it
be curtailed. In November 1501 a council meeting to provide for the defence
of Rhodes in the absence of the orders eet laid down that the lieutenant
turcopolier and his deputies should visit the guards with extreme diligence
every night, and that if turcopoles were lacking they should be supplemented
by the castellans and their ofcials. Considering that the masters subjects
and ofcials were not exempted from guard duty, moreover, it was ruled that
the lieutenant turcopolier should not release his ofcials or servitors either
and that the inhabitants of the casali of the marshal and admiral should
similarly be constrained to the watch without exception.281 The inclusion of
their villages in this measure irked the other conventual bailiffs, and in
September 1503, following a protest by the marshal, Hospitaller, and ad-
miral, the council ruled that although the inhabitants of their villages were to
perform guard duty on the coast as the turcopolier should order, he was not
to punish them for any failings to keep watch himself, but to report faults to
the castellans appointed by the conventual bailiffs.282

279
AOM81, fos. 100v101r, 101v102r.
280
AOM1649, fos. 266r, 347r; Stabilimenta, De baiulivis, no. xxvi.
281
AOM80, fo. 35v. 282
Ibid., fos. 49r50r.
 The English Langue 309

Despite this ordinance, the turcopoliers responsibility for the watch and
his associated rights and privileges continued to be at issue over the next ve
years, during which a struggle developed between the turcopolier, Robert
Daniel, and the new master, Aimery dAmboise. This was perhaps natural.
The removal of Pierre dAubussons guiding hand after twenty-seven years of
rule during which there had been little jurisdictional dispute between turco-
poliers and master appears to have created some confusion about the re-
spective rights of each which both Daniel and dAmboises lieutenant
seneschal, Philippe Villiers de LIsle Adam, were too inexperienced to dispel.
In such a situation both parties attempted to exploit what they felt were
traditional rights to their fullest extent. On 2 May 1504 Daniel complained
that LIsle Adam had ordered the inhabitants of the island not to make the
accustomed solutio formagiorum to the turcopolier and his ofcials. LIsle
Adam replied that the payment was a new imposition, a great burden on the
populace, and something that he, as proctor of the absent master, could not
allow. He added the charge that not only did Daniel pretend the right to free
one man from the guard in every castellany, but so did his lieutenant and
banneret, with the result that three were released in each.283 Although the
council ruled that nothing further was to be innovated until dAmboises
arrival, each party evidently regarded this as an excuse to carry on as before,
for eighteen days later Daniel again complained that LIsle Adam had
forbidden him the ius formagii. While admitting that the levy was voluntary,
he claimed that those wishing to donate cheese were now prohibited from
doing so by the lieutenant seneschals order. LIsle Adam again defended
himself stoutly, saying that he now understood that a cheese was taken from
every man who stood guard by not only the turcopolier but his lieutenant,
the banneret, and the local turcopole and viglocomes too, and that it was
because of this unacceptable and burdensome imposition that he had written
to the islands ofcials.284
Unfortunately the conclusion of this affair is unrecorded, presumably
because Amboise dealt with it after his arrival from the west,285 but the
more serious claim, that the turcopolier released excessive numbers from the
watch, was repeated by the inhabitants of the island in the following months
and soon became the subject of real concern.286 In April 1506 news reached
Rhodes that a eet of Turkish fusts had just issued from the Dardanelles. The
usual order that the watch should be kept diligently was made, but the
master added a protest that Daniel and his chief ofcers had released more
than seventy men from guard duty, which, seeing that it was the turcopoliers
responsibility to improve its efciency rather than diminish it, was intoler-
able. He called upon the papal bull recognizing the agreement of 1445/6 as
evidence, saying quite correctly that it allowed only castellans to exempt

283
Ibid., fos. 90rv. 284
Ibid., fos. 92v93r.
285
Amboise arrived on 1 September 1504. AOM80, fo. 110v. 286
AOM284, fo. 90v.
310 The English Langue

people from guard duty, and that even they needed express magistral licence
for this. Requesting that such relaxations cease forthwith, dAmboise also
requested a thorough overhaul of the visitation, based on the clause of the
same bull providing for its joint conduct by the turcopoles and castellans in
times when the Turkish eet was at large. Henceforth, he proposed, castel-
lans and deputies appointed by himself should visit the guard stations in
company with the turcopoles. This would be more secure than allowing the
turcopoles to do it alone, as they were rustici, intent on agriculture by day
and too tired to visit the guards on horseback by night as a result. The master
claimed that many scandals had arisen from their lack of vigilance and cited
the success of the recent Turkish attack on Archangelos, which had borne off
120 Christian souls into slavery, as an instance.287 Daniel, however, refused
to consent, claiming that his release of men from guard duty had the sanction
of custom, and that allowing castellans to visit the guards would prejudice
his pre-eminence. His obstinacy exasperated the council, who exhorted him
to compel everyone to guard duty and to consent to turcopoles and brethren
visiting the guard posts together. He would have command of the brethren
so deputed, which would enhance the dignity of his ofce rather than detract
from it. The honour and utility of the Religion should move him to this even
if they could not. When Daniel refused to listen to their urgings, Amboise
publicly excused himself from any scandal that might occur.288
Although the turcopolier seems to have fought off this attempt to co-opt
magistral ofcers onto the visitation of the watch, spiteful clashes in the
following year indicate that Amboises castellans were still performing this
function, and that the masters other ofcers were denying the turcopoles
hay for their horses and thus the means of doing their job. The English
knights launched vigorous countermeasures against this threat. On 5 August
1507 Amboise came before the council complaining that Thomas Boydell
and Alban Pole had broken the seal of the castellan of Villanova, which had
been placed on the door of a certain villager, and had come into the casale of
Soreni by night, broken into the masters storeroom, and removed the hay
therein.289 Robert Daniel and the bailiff of Eagle, Thomas Newport,
defended the culprits, saying that Boydell had been seeking to uphold the
turcopoliers right to take hay from the villagers of Rhodes, which Jean
Aubin, the masters cavallaritus (master of horse), had annulled.290 They
added that they had suffered a number of injuries from the masters ofcials,

287
This had occurred in August 1503 but the failings of the turcopoles had not been
mentioned at the time. AOM80, fos. 53r54r.
288
AOM81, fos. 39v41r; Vatin, LOrdre, 301, 292.
289
AOM81, fos. 77v78v.
290
A statute of 1440 had laid down that the turcopolier could take food or pasture twice per
week from the turcopoles during his peregrinations about the island, although not continuoso
but at diverse times, lest the expense of the burden injure the orders subjects. No mention is
made of the turcopoles themselves having such rights. AOM1649, fo. 347rv; Stabilimenta,
De baiulivis, no. xxvii; Sarnowsky, Macht und Herrschaft, 286.
 The English Langue 311

which they detailed later, when the commissioners appointed to examine

witnesses at Villanova and Soreni came into council to report their ndings.
To the masters demand that those brethren involved in the incidents be
punished, Newport and Daniel responded with a string of accusations. They
complained that, in company with the castellans of Villanova and Triande,
Aubin had visited the guards in prejudice of the turcopoliers pre-eminence,
and had carried off hay from the turcopoles and viglocomites so that they
had no food for their horses and could not perform their duties. They also
asserted that certain brethren in magistral service had wounded and impri-
soned turcopoles and viglocomites and taken hens, she-goats, and other
animals belonging to the turcopoles which they had given to their own
men. The council, however, considering that these matters had been newly
introduced, postponed deliberation on them until the following day, and
sentenced Boydell and Pole to three months imprisonment.291
Representatives of the langue appeared in council the next day to insist
that their complaints be considered and after the interested parties had
departed, the lieutenant and council discussed them. They exonerated the
castellan of Soreni from blame, since he had had every right to retain the hay
until given orders to do otherwise and had warned the Englishmen not to
take it without licence. Although not upholding the seizure of hay by Aubin,
Amboise claimed the right to purchase any excess fodder produced by the
turcopoles and not needed for the exercise of their ofce as well as any hay
possessed by those of the viglocomites who were unmounted. He also
defended his cavallaritus from an accusation, previously unrecorded, that
he had wounded a guard, alleging that Aubin had found the latter asleep far
from his station, and had struck him cum lancee hasta only to wake him.
The more serious charge that turcopoles and viglocomites had been impri-
soned and assaulted was not discussed, while the seizure of animals was
remitted to another council.292
The council evidently found Amboises defence of his ofcers convincing.
It upheld his claims to purchase hay, and ruled that although anyone who
breached the terms of the 1448 bull thereby incurred excommunication
and should be judged by the ecclesiastical authorities, in general unvigilant
guards, who were also beaten by the English brethren, should be punished
by the master because they were his subjects.293 Amboise had clearly got
the better of these exchanges, and the English knights, probably realizing
that the council would give them short shrift if they again appealed,
but convinced that the sentence of 25 August had broken the terms of the
bull of Nicholas V, suggested that mediators be appointed to determine
the disputed matters.294 By 3 February 1508 concord had been reached.295
The exemption of the turcopoliers deputies from molestation in their

291
AOM81, fos. 78v80r. 292
Ibid., fos. 80r82r. 293
Ibid.
294
AOM81, fos. 82r83r. 295
Ibid., fos. 91v93r.
312 The English Langue

persons and goods was reiterated, and it was laid down that the turcopoles
and viglocomites were to provide Daniel and themselves with hay for
their cavalcatura rst, although should there be any excess fodder the
master would have the right of pre-emption. Hay was not to be removed
from the storehouses without the licence of the master or his seneschal.
The visitation of the guards was also considered. It was agreed that the
bull of 1448 should be observed to the letter as far as this was concerned,
and that it should be performed with greater diligence when necessary,
although without breaching the turcopoliers pre-eminence. The turcopo-
liers deputies were to be permitted to strike sleeping guards moderately
and without causing effusion of blood, broken limbs, or enormous lesions.
Furthermore, the masters right to take comestibles and revenues from
the turcopoles was upheld, but nothing further was to be levied from
them by his ofcers without his express mandate, as laid down in 1448.
Additionally an order of the previous August that the turcopoles and viglo-
comites sleep within the castles on nights when they were not visiting
the guards was overturned, although it was ruled that in troubled times
their families must. Finally, because the master claimed that the bull was
still not being followed properly, both parties swore to uphold it. While
further mention was made of the turcopoles failings in June 1508 the
agreement of February seems to have put an end to the jurisdictional
quarrels between Daniel and Amboise. Indeed, no further disputes concern-
ing the turcopoliers ofce, rights, or deputies reached the council until the
1530s, a fact which suggests that the squabbles of 15038 were occasioned
by a clash of personalities as much as by the importance of the issues
involved.
After the fall of Rhodes the turcopoliers regular duties probably remained
in abeyance for a time, for no mention is made of his ofce in connection
with the watch between 1522 and 1530. On moving to Malta, however,
responsibility for the coastguard was again deputed to the head of the
English brethren. This caused some ill feeling among the Maltese. The Jurats
of the islands ancient capital, Mdina, had been accustomed to organizing
this duty before the orders arrival, and the Hospitallers had sworn to uphold
their privileges on taking over the island. Intermittent clashes occurred over
the watch into the 1550s. Commissioners were appointed to investigate who
was responsible for it in November 1533, but there seems to have been no
further serious disagreement until April 1547, when the Jurats complained
of injuries they had suffered from the lieutenant turcopolier, Oswald Mas-
singberd, and the orders council appointed a commission to investigate
these and to inquire whether certain men who claimed to be too old to
keep watch should be dispensed from doing so.296 Further disputes with the
Maltese were avoided while Nicholas Upton held the ofce between 1547

296
AOM85, fo. 121r; 87, fo. 113r.
 The English Langue 313

and 1551297 and only recurred when Massingberd was reappointed to the
lieutenancy in February 1552.298 Between 1552 and 1554 Massingberd was
in constant trouble with the council for abusing his ofce and throwing his
weight around. In August 1552 the Jurats of Mdina once more complained
of injuries they had suffered at his hands, and on the same day he was
ordered conned to his house for two months for having carried off a
slave girl and her daughter from the house of a Maltese nobleman, whom
he had beaten in the process.299 By the following April Massingberd was
asking the master and council to restore his rights over the watch, which he
claimed had been removed.300 Although it was ruled that he should exercise
these according to the bull of 1448, this did not help matters, for on 5 June
1553 the council appointed commissioners to investigate a ght which had
occurred between certain men and Massingberd and to commit any laymen
found guilty to prison for the time being.301 Two weeks later the Jurats again
complained of Massingberd and in early October a commission was
appointed to ensure that guard duty was being performed diligently in
terms that strongly suggest that it was not.302 Over the autumn and winter
of 15534 the order repeatedly resisted Massingberds demands that he be
raised to the dignity of turcopolier, an issue over which he made such a
nuisance of himself that in February he was imprisoned for a month, yet
soon after his release he was again quarrelling with the captains of Mdina
and the parishes of the island over the coastguard and in June was investi-
gated for having accused the captain of the parish of Siggiewi of having
exempted the inhabitants of the countryside therefrom in return for
money.303 Shortly afterwards he left Malta and it is remarkable that despite
his behaviour and a supplication from the Jurats of Mdina in 1556 that the
privileges and customs of the city with regard to the night-watch and
coastguard be upheld, the chapter of 1558 again upheld the validity of the
papal bull of 1448.304

8.5 Service on Conventual Commissions

The turcopoliers duties were not conned to supervising the coastguard,

presiding over their langue, or attending councils and chapters-general.
Along with visiting priors of England or bailiffs of Eagle, they were

297
Upton was elected lieutenant turcopolier on 22 September 1547, and turcopolier on
5 November 1548. BDVTE, 31; AOM88, fo. 15r.
298
AOM88, fo. 108v.
299
Ibid., fo. 126r.
300
Ibid., fos. 150v151r.
301
Ibid., fo. 158v.
302
Ibid., fos. 159v, 173v.
303
Ibid., fos. 170r, 172v, 190r; 89, fos. 6v, 140r.
304
AOM288, fos. 46r, 75r.
314 The English Langue

appointed to many more conventual commissions, ofces, and commands

than were their lesser fellows. In practice, however, it is difcult to separate
the service of turcopoliers or bailiffs on conventual commissions from that
of other brethren.
Many commissions were routine investigations of disputes between breth-
ren over their seniority or possessions in the west,305 of brawls, thefts,
disturbances, and duels in and around the convent,306 or of unlicensed
piracy.307 But some were rather more signicant, concerning diplomatic
business, conventual nances, or the security and provisioning of the orders
possessions. English brethren, for example, were sometimes sent to examine
the state of the fortications on Rhodes, a task that tted neatly with their
responsibility for the watch. Thus on 16 March 1471 the turcopolier and the
hospitaller were appointed to traverse the island and consider which places
they believed were worth defending against the Turks,308 while three years
later John Weston and two other brethren were sent to assess the defences of
the castle of Slemio.309 In later years former turcopoliers or lieutenant
turcopoliers such as John Boswell, John Weston, and Thomas Docwra and
younger knights like John Rawson junior undertook similar operations.310
Although English involvement in provisioning the convent was relatively
unusual, John Weston was among commissioners appointed to negotiate
with patroni whom the order wished to bring corn to Rhodes in 1474 and
John Kendal was appointed to send oil and wine from Italy to the convent in
1479 and corn from the kingdom of Naples in 1484.311
Similarly rare was the employment of Englishmen on Hospitaller diplo-
matic business in the east. John Wakelyn, who was dispatched to Cyprus in
1477, was the only English brother sent on a diplomatic mission in the
region after 1460, although John Langstrother treated with Cypriot ambas-
sadors in Rhodes in 1467, John Weston and John Kendal helped to arrange
the arrival and business of Jem Sultan in 1482, and Thomas Docwra was
involved in negotiations with an envoy of the Ottoman Prince Korkud in
1503.312 Those English knights who were captains or lieutenants at St Peter
must also have dealt with local Turks fairly regularly through interpreters.
A junior knight, Nicholas Roberts, was among the ambassadors to the
Turkish sultan during the surrender negotiations of 1522 and left a descrip-
tion of Suleimans entourage which appears to be the rst English account of

305
AOM73, fo. 99v; 74, fo. 131r; 75, fos. 41r, 88v; 76, fos. 156v, 195v; 86, fos. 96r, 107v,
112v, 118v119r, 123v, 127v, 132r; 282, fo. 65r.
306
AOM74, fos. 24r, 128r, 139v, 140r; 75, fo. 45v; 76, fo. 178v; 77, fo. 115v; 79, fos. 10v11v;
86, 114rv.
307
AOM74, fos. 57r58r, 62r, 68v; 75, fo. 169rv; 76, fos. 17v, 97rv.
308
AOM74, fo. 63rv.
309
AOM75, fos. 54r, 55v56r.
310
AOM75, fos. 148v, 151r; 76, fo. 166r; 77, fo. 138r; 80, fo. 55r; 83, fo. 23r.
311
AOM75, fo. 55r; 76, fo. 176rv; CSPV, i, no. 493.
312
AOM385, fo. 137r; 377, fos. 162r163r; 76, fos. 109v, 125r126r; 80, fos. 81v82r.
 The English Langue 315

a meeting with an Ottoman sultan.313 Rather less groundbreaking was the

employment of English knights such as John Langstrother and John Weston
on conventual business in Italy and Germany while they were returning to
England.314 Thomas Shefeld was even sent to Spain as the orders visitor
and ambassador in 1518 before he returned home.315
The only British brother who came close to being a permanent diplomat
on the convents service was John Kendal, who as procurator-general of the
order in the Roman Curia316 from November 1478 spent most of the next
twelve years in Italy.317 Kendal negotiated successfully with Sixtus IV for the
relaxation of the orders Rule and the grant of indulgences for the relief of
Rhodes,318 and was heavily involved in the diplomacy surrounding Jem
Sultan, who was sent to the orders keeping in France in 1482, and whose
custody several powers sought to wrest from the Hospitallers. In 1488,
shortly before Jems transfer to Rome, Kendal was appointed captain of
his guard.319 He was also appointed proctor of the common treasury in
several Italian priories in 1478, and to various commissions in and around
Rome and in the kingdom of Naples over following years.320 In return for
this service he was granted the magistral camera of the priory of Pisa.321
Presumably as a reward for his diplomatic work for popes and kings, he was
also appointed a member of the family of Innocent VIII and chamberlain of
the English hospice in Rome.322 He both wrote and received letters in Italian
and, judging by his later diplomatic employment, was probably at home
with Latin and French too.323 The sheer variety of his contactswith
cardinals, nobles, Hospitallers, and messengersis attested by his accounts
from this period, which were examined in 1493.324

8.6 Conventual Ofces Held by Brethren of the langue

Although no other English brother was as prominent in European diplomacy

as Kendal, several achieved considerable distinction in conventual affairs. At

313
Otho C.ix, fos. 39r41r. Partial transcripts of this text are provided in LPFD, iii, no. 3026;
Porter, Knights of Malta, 71113.
314
See e.g. AOM378, fo. 162r; 75, fos. 69v70r.
315
LPFD, ii, no. 4485.
316
As such he was effectively the orders resident ambassador in Rome. His part in public
ceremonial there can be traced in Burckhardi, Liber notarum, i. 21, 55, 80, 106, 1956.
317
AOM283, fo. 170v; AOM386, fos. 149v151r; see above, Ch. 5.3.
318
AOM283, fos. 168v169r, 170r, 170rv.
319
AOM389, fos. 209v210r.
320
AOM386, fo. 155v; 387, fos. 130v131r; 76, fos. 176rv, 177r, 178r, 186v187r, 191r; 389,
fo. 163rv; 390, fo. 154r.
321
AOM387, fo. 177v.
322
See above, Ch. 5.3; CPL, xiv. 2734; Parks, English Traveler, 361.
323
AOM76, fo. 167rv; see above, Ch. 5.3.
324
AOM391, fo. 199rv.
316 The English Langue

least six held naval commands between 1460 and 1540, all except one being
turcopoliers or lieutenant turcopoliers when they did so. John Weston was
captain of the orders galley squadron twice, in 1461 and 1473, as was
Thomas Docwra in 1495, and Robert Daniel in 1504.325 Docwra also
commanded a single galley in 1501, as did John Kendal in 1477 and 1478,
and Thomas Newport in 1516, while William Weston had charge of the
orders great ship in 1523, and William Tyrrell of its great galleon in
15379.326 John Westons activities in 14723 are particularly well docu-
mented. His squadron was supposed to be assisting the Venetian eet com-
bat the Turks in conjunction with Uzun Hasan, but when news of the death
of King James of Cyprus reached the Republics captain general, Alvaro
Mocenigo, in July 1473, the latter dispatched his entire force there to
forestall any attempt by the former queen, Charlotte, then exiled in Rhodes,
to recover her throne. This placed the order in an embarrassing position and
Weston withdrew his galleys to Rhodes, claiming they needed retting.327
He was then sent, without his ships, to Mocenigo with the excuse that the
orders sailors had refused to rejoin their vessels because they were involved
in the vintage, that the Hospital was poor, and that honour prevented it from
assisting Charlottes adversaries.328 In the following January, Weston was
again appointed to negotiate with Mocenigo when the latter put in at
Rhodes to demand the delivery of two Cypriot fugitives, the archbishop of
Nicosia and the Catalan James Zapplana.329 The record of Thomas Doc-
wras unsuccessful action against Turkish fusts off Syme in 1501 and the
instructions given to Tyrrell in 1537 and 1538 detailing where he was to go
and what to do also provide some esh for the bare records of English naval
service.330 Moreover, the appointments of former English brethren as cap-
tains in the royal navy in the 1540s suggest they had served as naval ofcers
in the 1530s.
The other important military command held by brethren of the langue
was the captaincy of St Peters castle, which was garrisoned by fty knight-
brethren in 1459 and seventy or more in 1475, and was a source of unceas-
ing concern to the orders council, which sent out a stream of orders relating
to its safe keeping, repair, and garrison.331 Four English knights were ap-
parently elected to the captaincy between 1459 and 1522, although the
captaincies of the rst two, John Langstrother and Robert Tong, are some-
what uncertain. Langstrother was elected to the post in 1459 after promising
to spend considerable sums on repairs to the castle, but his term as captain
325
AOM73, fo. 99r; 75, fos. 18v19r; 78, fo. 28v; 80, fo. 98r; 395, fos. 142r143r.
326
AOM79, fo. 17rv; 75, fos. 168v, 176v; 84, fo. 19r; 86, fo. 54r.
327
AOM75, fos. 18v19r; G. Hill, A History of Cyprus, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 194052), iii.
599.
328
AOM75, fos. 20r21r, 24v26r; Hill, Cyprus, iii. 599600.
329
AOM75, fos. 41r42r.
330
See above, Ch. 5.3; AOM416, fos. 220v221r; 417, fo. 255rv.
331
AOM282, fo. 76v; 75, fo. 68r.
 The English Langue 317

was not to commence until 1463, at which date he was in England, and by
the time he had returned to Rhodes another captain had been elected.332
Also dubious is Robert Tonges supposed captaincy in 14724.333 One is on
surer ground with the captaincies of Thomas Docwra between March 1499
and March 1501 and Thomas Shefeld between March 1514 and March
1517.334 Both Docwra and Shefeld made repairs to the castle, the latters
costing nearly 6,000 orins of Rhodes, and willingness to pay for these
before awaiting repayment by the common treasury may have been crucial
to their provision to the post in the rst place.335 Both employed other
English knights as their lieutenants.336
A number of English brethren also held administrative posts on Rhodes.
Several served as one of two prudhommes in charge of the day-to-day
nances of the Inrmary, a post to which English knights were elected
seven times between 1467 and 1539, and which gave them some, admittedly
managerial, involvement in the orders Hospitaller activities.337 Others were
appointed to distribute alms to the orders dependants after the fall of
Rhodes.338 After 1460, two knightsJohn Weston in 1470 and Clement
West between 1512 and 1514held the post of castellan of Rhodes, an
ofce in which they had charge of the administration of justice in Rhodes
town and the surrounding area.339 Another English brother, Roland Thorn-
burgh, held the sister ofce of bailiff of merchants in 1475.340 Both these
posts were generally in the gift of the master as administrator of the common
treasury, could only be held by brethren with at least eight years seniority,
and were among the most important on the island, carrying with them a seat
on the chapter-general.341 Brethren in the masters household, such as
Thornburgh,342 were not only more likely to be employed by the council
as a result, but had considerable opportunities to benet from magistral
patronage. Most of the brethren who went on to further advancement in the
orders English and conventual affairs had been retained in the masters
socius rst. John Kendal, for example, was the chamberlain of Giovanbat-
tista Orsini in the 1460s and was granted both the magistral camera in

332
AOM282, fos. 73rv; 73, fo. 182v. He was licensed to leave Rhodes on 23 Oct. 1459.
AOM369, fo. 175r.
333
Cited S. C. Spiteri, Fortresses of the Cross (Malta, 1994), 258. I have not found any
archival reference to this.
334
AOM 78, fo. 83r; 393, fos. 155v156r; 82, fos. 114v, 137v.
335
AOM78, fo. 108r; 406, fos. 189v190r. Most of the money Shefeld spent on repairs had
been lent him by Thomas Newport.
336
These were Thomas Shefeld and Nicholas Fairfax respectively. AOM78, fo. 96r; 82, fo.
r
118 .
337
AOM282, fo. 167r; 76, fo. 247r; 78, fo. 74v; 82, fo. 118r; 83, fo. 23r; 86, fos. 46r, 87r.
338
AOM84, fo. 59r; 86, fo. 116r.
339
AOM74, fo. 42r; 82, fo. 51r.
340
AOM75, fo. 98r.
341
AOM283, fo. 39r.
342
Thornburgh had been retained in magistral service in 1471. AOM380, fo. 138r.
318 The English Langue

England and a commandery of magistral grace in the same decade, well

before he was granted a preceptory of cabimentum by the langue. A further
commandery of grace, Melchbourne, followed in 1477.343 Other examples
of such favour are provided by John Langstrother, who was granted the rich
commandery of Cyprus while the masters seneschal in 1468, and Thomas
Shefeld, who was appointed magistral seneschal in 1518 and was granted
Dinmore by magistral grace in 1523.344
The most powerful conventual ofces usually in the masters gift were
arguably the two proctorships of the common treasury. The proctors, acting
together with the grand commander, scrutinized conventual income and
expenditure, prosecuted debtors before the council, and judged pleas for the
remission of debts. They usually served for a two-year term, although this was
often renewed. A number of English brethren, usually senior and rich, held
one of the proctorships at various times in the century after 1460. John Weston
and John Langstrother were successively elected at a time of acute nancial
crisis in the mid-1460s, John Kendal was similarly appointed in 1478, and
served as such on his return to the convent in 14824, Thomas Newport held
the ofce in 15068 and 1518, John Bothe, as we have seen, during the early
1520s, and William Weston in 15267. Even after the dissolution, Giles
Russell was appointed proctor in July 1542.345 The proctorship was perhaps
the one important conventual ofce in which the English punched their
weight, and it is surely signicant that the dignity was a nancial one and
that the priory of England was among the richest in the order.
Despite this litany of employment, it would be a mistake to overemphasize
the prominence of the English brethren in convent. Numerically they were
a small minority at headquarters and if this imbalance was modied because
the langues elected equal numbers of representatives to the orders governing
bodies the balance swung against them again because the bailiffs who sat on
the council or in chapters-general were generally French, Spanish, or Italian
and the conventual ofcers who also attended were magistrally appointed
and thus usually drawn from the three largest nations at the convent. No
English knight was elected or appointed master or lieutenant master in the
fteenth or sixteenth centuries. Nor was there any area of conventual
operations, except those duties particular to the turcopolier, in which the
English nation was pre-eminent among, or even on an equal footing with,
the other langues, except perhaps those of Germany and Castile. The English
contributions to the orders diplomacy, religious and intellectual life, and
medical activities were very limited, and even in those areas in which they
were more prominent, such as moneylending, nancial administration,
naval service, and service on conciliar commissions they were outclassed
343
AOM377, fos. 141r, 142r; 379, fos. 149rv; 383, fos. 144v145r.
344
AOM377, fos. 241r242r; 409, fo. 142v; 410, fo. 175r; LPFD, iii, no. 3026.
345
AOM73, fo. 139v; 283, fos. 5v, 155v; 76, fos. 145r, 153r; 81, fo. 46v; 406, fos. 220v271r;
AOM412, fos. 206rv; 286, fo. 6r; 86, fo. 128v.
 The English Langue 319

by the more numerous French, Italians, and Catalans. Although their mili-
tary contribution to the sieges of 1480 and 1522 was signicant, the English
sector being about as long as those of the other langues, it was articially
enhanced by a more or less equal distribution of stipendiary soldiers to each
post, and when the order was engaged in offensive operations at sea or on
land, the English forces involved were largely nominal, between three and
seven knights being typical, although these would have been accompanied
by servants and sometimes volunteers from the British Isles.
Yet the orders constitutional structure and almost obsessive respect for
precedent coupled with fear of the conscation of its British estates ensured
that the English langue was never marginalized, and if the langues brethren
did not get an eighth of the conventual appointments on offer, they did get a
rather larger share of the orders major ofces than their numbers merited.
Some of the most important dignities in the gift of both masters and council
were granted to English brethren and some Englishmen became major
gures in the orders politics in both east and west. The future priors
Langstrother, Kendal, Docwra, the two Westons, and the bailiffs of Eagle
Newport and Shefeld stand out in particular as men inuential in the
orders councils and involved in a wide range of conventual activity, lending
sums sometimes running into thousands of pounds, commanding naval
expeditions, holding administrative and military posts in convent, and serv-
ing on various commissions. Other brethren, even mere conventual knights,
could gain a wide variety of experience during their service at headquarters
and by doing so stand in good stead for future preferment if they performed
well. In this respect the small size of the English langue did its members a
favour, allowing those with ability to stand out in a way that the scramble
for preferment in the other nations may not have permitted.
A study of the English langue thus serves to underscore the mutual
interdependence of all the orders activities, whether in the Mediterranean
or in western Europe. Conventual service was the essential rst rung of the
career ladder for a Hospitaller, but repeated visits to headquarters were
essential if one was ambitious and wanted to get on, and were sometimes
required on pain of loss of beneces even if one did not. Although the most
prominent knights had often been marked out for advancement from their
rst years in the order and accumulated beneces and ofces with ease,
some, like Thomas Docwra, were slower starters who made the grade by
dint of long years of service in the east and by out-surviving their peers.
Because it was worth their while and because the orders brethren regarded
what they were doing as valuable, they were prepared to invest time and
effort and to risk their lives in conventual service. It was this ability to
harness the ambition and self-belief of individuals that made the order of
St John so formidable an organization and which ensured that its English
priory did not escape from its control but remained a ourishing survivor of
the international religious orders of the High Middle Ages.
 C HA P T E R N I N E

Brethren and Conformists,

15401565

Historians of the order of St John have traditionally exaggerated the heroism

of the English Hospitallers resistance to Henry VIII. Concentrating on those
of their number, real or supposed, who died for the Catholic faith, and on
those English knights who remained in Malta after 1540, they have generally
created the impression that a majority of the English brethren of the order
were martyred, remained in Malta, or ed to the Continent rather than submit
to the Henrician supremacy and the dissolution of their religion.1 Mifsuds
treatment of the subject usefully embodies the mass of supposition and wish-
ful thinking that had built up over the years. Commenting, accurately enough,
that ten English knight-brethren were still to be found in Malta several months
after the suppression, and assuming that the ve knights readmitted into the
order on the Marian restoration in 1557, besides others, must have spent the
intervening seventeen years in conscientious exile on the continent, the mon-
signor ignored the possibility of apostasy entirely, except in the cases of
Clement West and Nicholas Lambert, who he assumed died in prison on
Malta. Such solidarity, had it existed, would have made the Hospitallers
more remarkable than the Carthusians in steadfastness. This chapter will
explore the truth of these statements, and examine the careers of the former
English Hospitallers between the dissolution of 1540 and the re-establishment
of the order in England in 1557, with a brief discussion of the latter event.
Although twenty-seven English knights and between one and four pro-
fessed chaplains were provisionally granted pensions by the statute of sup-
pression of 1540, examination of the Maltese archives quickly establishes
that by 1542 only three knight-brethrenGiles Russell, Nicholas Upton,
and Oswald Massingberdremained in Malta as active members of the
English langue.2 West and Lambert, who had been sentenced to be conned
at pleasure by the council of the order in 1539, were not, as Mifsud assumed,
unable to return home because of their imprisonment.3 Warrants were issued
1
See Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 2045, 211; Porter, Knights of Malta, 412, 574; King,
British Realm, 1067; L. de Boisgelin, Ancient and Modern Malta, 2 vols. (London, 1805),
ii. 267.
2
Statutes, iii. 77980; AOM86, fo. 118v.
3
AOM86, fo. 92v; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 204.
 Brethren and Conformists 321

for the payment of their pensions in England in October 1541, ten months
after their delivery to those brethren who had been there when the Hospital
was dissolved.4 Additionally, Augmentations records show West regularly
receiving his pension in England in the mid-1540s.5 Given the damage his
activities had done to the orders standing with Henry VIII, and the fact that
he had twice been deprived of the habit, his release is somewhat surprising,
but it may have been a diplomatic gesture timed to coincide with the orders
dispatch of ambassadors to England in September 1540.6
The evidence for the ve English knightsEdward Brown, Henry Gerard,
James Hussey, Dunstan Newdigate, and Thomas Thornhillwho were on
caravan at the time of the dissolution and who were traditionally assumed to
have remained in Malta, is less clear-cut as no similar orders for the grant of
their pensions have been enrolled in the public records.7 As the act for the
suppression laid down that, unless constrained to do otherwise, members of
the order were to return to England by Pentecost 1541 if they were to receive
their pensions, they may well have had difculty in claiming them. Never-
theless, the records of the Privy Council and of pension payments demon-
strate that four of the ve were in England by 1544.8 The fate of the fth,
James Hussey, is unclear. No further reference to him appears in England or
Malta after he agreed to go on caravan in April 1540. He may have been
among the Hospitallers killed at Algiers in 1541, but may equally well, given
the fragmentary record of pension payments, have returned to England.
At least one of the two knight-brethren supposed by Mifsud to have
sought refuge with their fellow knights in commanderies on the continent9
can be found in England after 1540. Cuthbert Layton, the former preceptor
of Ansty, was in temporary command of the castle of Norham in 1545,
following the death of the previous captain, his brother Brian, in battle with
the Scots.10 The whereabouts of the other, George Aylmer, are more obscure.
Aylmer, who in 1535 had been conned to Gozo for deeds committed by
reason of his insanity, does not reappear until his readmission into the order
in Marys reign.11 It seems unlikely that he would have been restored to a
preceptory if he had been shut away for twenty-two years, however.

4
LPFD, xvi, nos. 379 (57), 1308 (15).
5
LPFD, xx, I, no. 557 fo. 33; xxi, I, no. 643 fo. 39; xxi, II, no. 775 fo. 33. News of his death
may have reached Malta by July 1547, when Oswald Massingberd was appointed commander
of Slebech in his place. AOM420, fo. 165rv.
6
AOM86, fo. 109r; 417, fos. 234v, 281v282v, 239r; 6425, fo. 278r.
7
Edmund Brown, Thomas Thornsby (i.e. Thornhill), and James Hussey agreed to perform
caravan service on 2 Apr. 1540, and Henry Gerard and Dunstan Newdigate as late as 2 May
1541. BDVTE, 36.
8
Statutes, iii. 781; LPFD, xvi, nos. 925, 1397; xviii, II, no. 231 ii (3); xix, I, no. 1036,
p. 645.
9
Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 2045.
10
LPFD, xx, I, nos. 280, 340.
11
AOM86, fo. 10r; CPR15578, 313.
322 Brethren and Conformists

It seems probable, then, that the great majority of the Hospitallers pen-
sioned off in 1540, whether then resident at home or overseas, acquiesced in
their new status as royal pensioners. Indeed they had little realistic alterna-
tive. The convent on Malta, while willing to grant pensions to the three
knights who remained there,12 could not easily have afforded to nance a
larger body of English brethren permanently, and the dissolution of the
English priory cut the English knights in Malta off from their only sources
of income.
It is one thing to establish that most of the English Hospitallers were in
England shortly after the dissolution, but it is quite another to trace their
subsequent careers. Records of the payment of their pensions are lacking in
most cases. At rst, only William Armistead, the master of the London
Temple, and his underlings, and Philip Babington, a junior knight, were
regularly paid by the treasurer of Augmentations, rather than by the receiver
of the Hospitals lands in England and Wales, Maurice Denis.13 Yet nine
former knights, beside Babington, appear in occasional receipt of pensions
or annuities paid out of Augmentations between 1540 and 1547, and such
payments become more common after the massive alienations of monastic
lands occasioned by the French war in 1544 and 1545, which probably made
it more difcult for Denis to pay the pensioners himself.14 John Sutton, for
example, was paid his pension for the rst half of 15456 out of Augmen-
tations, the entry of the payment cancelled with a note that this had been
repaid by the receiver of the hospital.15
Further information may be gleaned from the inquests into monastic
pensioners carried out in the 1550s. Unfortunately, only about half of
these survive and some returns are more thorough than others, but they
nevertheless rescue some pensioners from obscurity. For example, John
Rawson junior, the former bailiff of Eagle, seems to be unmentioned in
any other source after 1542. The Gloucestershire return to the inquest of
1552, however, tells us that he had died in the same May.16

12
AOM86, fo. 118v.
13
LPFD, xvi, no. 745 fos. 13, 40; xvii, no. 258, fos. 5, 12, 1617; xviii, I, no. 436 fo. 52;
xviii, II, no. 231 ii (3,4); xix, I, no. 368 fo. 36; xx, I, no. 557 fo. 33; xxi, I, no. 643 fo. 39; xxi, II,
no. 775 fo. 68; PRO E315/258 fo. 20v; /259, fo. 21r; /260 fo. 20v; /261 fo. 20v; /262 fo. 19v.
Denis had been William Westons receiver since 1536 and was reappointed to the post by the
crown on 20 Dec. 1540. LPFD, vii, no. 1138 (misdated to 1534); xvi, no. 1500 p. 714.
14
These were Edward Bellingham, Edward Brown, Henry Gerard, David Gonson, Dunstan
Newdigate, Anthony Rogers, John Sutton, William Tyrell, and Clement West. References to
pension payments related specically to their status as former Hospitallers appear in: LPFD,
xvi, no. 745 ii; xvii, no. 258 fo. 18; xviii, I, no. 982 p. 549 (E315/235 fo. 117b); II, no. 231 ii (3);
xix, I, no. 1036 p. 645 (E315/236 fo. 1); xx, I, no. 557 fo. 33; xxi, I, nos. 643 fo. 39, 1165 (89,
90); II, nos. 774, p. 436, 775 fo. 33.
15
LPFD, xxi, I, no. 643 fo. 25.
16
G. Baskerville, The Dispossessed Religious of Gloucestershire, Transactions of the Bristol
and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 49 (1927), 63122, at 120.
 Brethren and Conformists 323

Evidence from pension records can provide little information save

whether a particular pensioner was alive or dead, and whether payments
were up to date or not. Yet, with the possible exception of wills or parish
registers, Exchequer or Augmentations records of pension payments are the
only notice of a number of the former Hospitallers after 1540. Although
several former Hospitallers became prominent in royal service, two of the
most seniorClement West and Edward Brownappear only in the con-
text of pension payments, while George Aylmer, Thomas Pemberton, and
Thomas Coppledike do not appear in any published public records at all. All
of these men were granted relatively generous pensions and all, except
Brown and Coppledike, had been received into the order before the siege
of Rhodes. They may have considered that their long service merited a
leisurely retirement, but their absence from muster rolls and local govern-
ment commissions is surprising nonetheless. The subsequent obscurity of
some of the junior knights is more understandable. Their pensions of 10,
while better than those enjoyed by the rank and le of other religious houses,
were not sufcient to maintain the estate necessary to be considered for
public appointments which would make them stand out enough to be
noticed.
Of the ten ex-Hospitallers provisionally allocated pensions of 10 at the
time of the dissolution, Nicholas Upton and Oswald Massingberd remained
in Malta, and enjoyed careers of some prominence and incident there
alongside Giles Russell, the turcopolier. Before his death in 1543, Russell
sat on several commissions and served as a procurator of the common
treasury.17 Upton, appointed turcopolier in 1548 and castellan of Birgu in
1549 ended his life leading the orders cavalry to victory over a large force of
Turkish raiders devastating Malta in July 1551. He expired in the moment of
triumph, overcome by his corpulence and the strain of ghting in the
summer heat.18 Massingberd, despite his serial misdeeds, was appointed
titular prior of Ireland in August 1547, and in May 1548 was in Italy
plotting a rising in Ireland with Cardinal Pole and the dispossessed heir to
the Kildare earldom, Gerald Fitzgerald.19 The latter had spent several
months in Malta and Tripoli prior to this, and was entertained by Nicholas
Upton while in convent.20 Massingberd seems to have been occupied in these
schemes for some time, for he was absent from convent between 1547 and
the last months of 1551.21 He was licensed to go to Ireland in August 1554,

17
AOM86, fos. 96r, 103r, 107v108r, 112v bis, 114r, 114v, 116r, 118v119r, 123v bis, 128v.
18
AOM88, fos. 15r, 36v; 421, fos. 162v163r; Bosio, DellIstoria, iii. 2989.
19
AOM87, fo. 123rv; 420, fos. 165v, 196rv; CSPV, v, no. 539; Holinsheds Chronicles of
England, Scotland and Ireland, ed. H. Ellis, 6 vols. (London, 1808), vi. 3047.
20
Holinsheds Chronicles, ed. Ellis, vi. 307; AOM287, fo. 74r.
21
AOM420, fo. 196v; 88, fo. 101v102r. He may also have attempted to visit Ireland as in
1547 he was commissioned to collect 1,000 ecus from the spoils of John Rawson. AOM421,
fo. 173rv.
324 Brethren and Conformists

but was unable to take possession of his dignity until the priory was restored
in 1557.22 Between 1545 and 1547 Upton and Massingberd were joined in
Malta by George Dudley, the seventh son of Lord Dudley of Sutton, but after
being licensed to visit Germany in 1547 the younger knight-brother did not
return to Malta until 1557, when he confessed to having apostatized and
taken a wife and was restored to grace.23
Of the other junior knights, Henry Gerard and Thomas Thornhill were
granted preceptories in 1557,24 but are virtually anonymous in the interim.
Gerard, at least, was in England, and was paid his pension by the receiver of
Augmentations in Dorset in 1544.25 In 1558, he returned to Maltathe
only one of the pensioners of 1540 to do soand was elected lieutenant
turcopolier.26 The rest, with the exception of Philip Babington, David Gon-
son (or Gunstone), and Dunstan Newdigate, are still more obscure. Between
1540 and 1542, Thornhill, Babington, Gonson, Newdigate, and the junior
preceptor William Tyrrell, all appear in the records of the Privy Council.27
The statute of dissolution had laid down that on arrival in England Hospi-
tallers were to present themselves before two senior royal ofcials and take
an oath of allegiance to the king.28 It may be in this context that Thornhill
was sent for to appear at Westminster in July 1541, having just arrived home
from Malta, but the summons may have been of less innocent character.29
David Gonson, the son of the naval administrator William, was executed for
treason later in the same month, and it appears that he was only one of
several knights under suspicion.30 John Story, the royal servant who had
been carrying letters to and from the captive Clement West, put in articles of
treason against Gonson which seemed to depend upon the sayings of Philip
Babington in or before October 1540.31 By July 1541 William Tyrrell was
also conned in the tower under suspicion of treason. He was ordered to be
reprieved on the 7 July, in order to know his name and confront him with
some accomplices,32 but was later attainted and pardoned only in March
1543.33 In December 1541, moreover, Dunstan Newdigate and another,

22
AOM424, fo. 162r; CPR15578, 436.
23
AOM87, fo. 61r; BDVTE, 2930; AOM420, fo. 162r; 89, fo. 127r.
24
CPR15578, 313.
25
LPFD, xix, I, no. 1036 p. 645 (PRO E315/236 fo. 1).
26
AOM90, fos. 22r, 26v.
27
LPFD, xvi, nos. 132, 925, 973, 1397.
28
Statutes, iii. 781.
29
PPC, vii. 205. In view of Henry VIIIs earlier scheme to transfer the English brethren to
Calais, it is intriguing that a Nicholas Lambert, and a Mr Brown (Edward?), captains at
Guines, were also sent for on the same date. They may have been the former Hospitallers of
the same names.
30
LPFD, xvi, nos. 973, 1011 p. 483.
31
PPC, vii. 57.
32
LPFD, xvi, no. 1011 p. 483, 973; PPC, vii. 21011.
33
LPFD, xviii, I, no. 346 (9).
 Brethren and Conformists 325

unnamed, of the order of Rhodes were discharged of a bond to appear daily

in Star Chamber, but remained bound to appear upon warning.34
Both Gonson and Tyrrell were probably attainted for treasonable talk
overseas, the offence for which Thomas Dingley had suffered two years
earlier. Babington had accused Gonson of having at Malta and elsewhere
publicly denied and opposed the royal supremacy, and of having called the
king a traitor.35 Tyrrell was pardoned in March 1543 for diverse daily
treasons committed between July 1536 and August 1539. To these were
added three specic offences, probably treasonable talk of some kind, com-
mitted in Malta during the same period.36 It is possible that Gonsons
nemesis, Philip Babington, was a spy in royal service. He had absconded
from Malta without leave in early 1540, and while he was granted his
pension in December 1540 at the same time as ten other knights, he had
already received a payment from Augmentations in February, before the act
for the suppression of the priory was passed.37 Considering that the Hospi-
tallers were riddled with informers in the years before the dissolution, with
Nicholas Lambert and Clement West also reporting the loose words of their
fellows, it is remarkable that more were not executed on their return home.
Yet the line between favour and the block was always a thin one in Tudor
England, and after the suspicion and bullying with which they were faced in
1540 and 1541, the crown found considerable use for the talents of the
former knights of St John, including Tyrrell and Newdigate. This is not
altogether surprising. Senior knight-brethren had often served as diplomats
and couriers for the English government, and the priors of England and
Ireland had practically become professional royal servants. While William
Weston died in 1540 and John Rawson senior was too old and sick to be of
much use thereafter,38 a number of mostly middle-ranking brethren forged
new careers for themselves in the crowns service in the 1540s and 1550s.
The most successful were Ambrose Cave and Edward Bellingham, who rose
to be chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster and deputy of Ireland respect-
ively,39 but William Tyrrell, Richard Broke, Dunstan Newdigate, Henry
Poole, John Sutton, and Edmund Hussey also found employment on gov-
ernment commissions and in the navy.40 To these may be added the former

34
PPC, vii. 278.
35
M. Elvins, Bl. Adrian Fortescue: Englishman, Knight of Malta, Martyr (London, 1993),
20.
36
LPFD, xviii, no. 346 (9).
37
LPFD, xv, no. 522; xvi, no. 745, fo. 13.
38
See above, 2234; LPFD, xvi, no. 42; xvii, nos. 688, 1182.
39
Cave appears in the Dictionary of National Biography, while his government service, as
well as that of Bellingham and of Henry Poole, is summarized in the more recent History of
Parliament. DNB, iii. 1247; Bindoff (ed.), House of Commons, i. 41415, 5945; P. W. Hasler
(ed.), The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 15581603 (London, 1981), i.
5634.
40
See below, 3279.
326 Brethren and Conformists

master of the Temple, William Armistead, who, as Dean of St Pauls, served

on a number of important commissions during the reign of Philip and
Mary.41
It is difcult to establish exactly when or how these men entered royal
service. The closest to court initially was Edward Bellingham, who was
employed almost continuously on crown business from 1542 until his
death in 1550. It may have been he who suggested that some of his former
brethren should also be employed, and who secured the statute of 1545
permitting members of the order to marry, a concession not made to any
other former religious by Henry VIII.42 The extent and variety of Belling-
hams work on behalf of the crown is impressive. He was sent to the
Habsburg court in Austria and Hungary in 1542, served in various capaci-
ties in Dover, Calais, and Boulogne between 1543 and 1545, being at one
stage taken prisoner by the French, and was in charge of the defence of the
Isle of Wight in the summer of 1545.43 By the same year, Bellingham was a
gentleman of the privy chamber.44 His service and position at court saw him
rewarded with a number of handsome royal grants, including the manor and
lordship of Bradford in Wiltshire, worth 142 odd per annum, and he was
left 200 marks in Henry VIIIs will.45 Under the government of Somerset
Bellingham continued to ourish. He was dispatched to the imperial court in
February 1547 to announce Edward VIs accession, to Ireland the same May
to put down a rebellion, was knighted in September, and was appointed
deputy of Ireland in April 1548.46
The service of Bellinghams former confreres was rarely as adventurous as
his. None of them appears to have served in a diplomatic capacity after
1540, but the former Hospitallers were quite active in local government and
military matters. In both areas, their employment on behalf of the crown
owed much to their former occupation. The pensioners were sometimes
appointed to government commissions in the shires where they had held
preceptories. Henry Poole, for example, served as a JP, MP, and sheriff in
Leicestershire, where he had been preceptor of Dalby.47 John Sutton, late
preceptor of Willoughton, served on commissions of the peace and of sewers
in Lincolnshire.48 Others, like Ambrose Cave who removed from Derbyshire
to Leicestershire, and Edmund Hussey who returned to Dorset from

41
CPR15534, 734, 745, 76.
42
LPFD, xx, II, no. 850 (c. 31).
43
LPFD, xvii, no. 459; xviii, I, nos. 526, 675 p. 390, 729, 771; II, nos. 345, 352, 365, 413;
xx, I, nos. 297, 435, 848, 1275, 1281, 1291, 1306, 1329; II, nos. 142, 3689, 501, 1051.
44
LPFD, xx, II, no. 142. He had been a gentleman pensioner for some time. LPFD, xix, I, no.
275, pp. 1612.
45 LPFD, xxi, I, nos. 558, 643 fo. 76; II, nos. 476 (4), 774 (pp. 434, 441), 634 (1), 771 (9).
46
Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Edward VI (London, 1861), 2,
23, 3, 34, 5; CPR1553 & Appendices 154753, 404.
47 CPR15478, 85; CPR15534, 21; Bindoff (ed.), House of Commons, iii. 1301.
48
CPR15478, 86, 78; CPR15534, 21.
 Brethren and Conformists 327

Somerset, moved back to estates nearer their families, and served on gov-
ernment business in these counties.49
The pensioners employment on such work is a testament to their previous
standing as landholders, a position that was partly maintained by the rela-
tively generous pensions granted them in 1540. A further element of continu-
ity was provided by the fact that several former brethren continued to live on
property that had previously belonged to the order. John Mablestone, the
subprior, was allowed to keep his house within the priory precincts by the
statute of 1540, and still lived there in 1546.50 Richard Broke, by then a
member of the royal household, secured a lease of Mount St John in 1542,
and continued to hold a messuage in St Johns Street in Clerkenwell.51 At
about the same time John Rawson, junior, still held properties that had
belonged to the bailiwick of Eagle, and John Sutton remained a tenant at
Willoughton until his death in 1555.52 Ambrose Cave, who departed Yeave-
ley after the dissolution, nevertheless purchased the former camera of Roth-
ley in Leicestershire in 1544.53 The former preceptor of Dalby and Rothley,
Henry Poole sat on commissions with Cave in the same shire, married his
sister, and left him a mourning ring in his will.54 There was even more
continuity among the orders servants, many of whom administered the
orders estates and lived in its properties as they had done before 1540.
The employment of several former Hospitallers in military service in the
1540s and 1550s also demonstrates contintuity with their former careers.
The mobilization of men and ships for the war with France between 1544
and 1546 was probably the largest since Edward IIIs siege of Calais in
13467, and the former gentlemen of the Roodes naturally came to the
fore because of their military experience. Ambrose Cave, Henry Poole, and
Edmund Hussey were all appointed to take contingents to France in 1544,
and to raise troops and escort them to Dover in 1546, and Edward Belling-
ham was responsible for seeing victuals across the Channel in 1543.55 The
most striking use of the former Hospitallers expertise, however, was in
naval operations.
By mid-1543 Dunstan Newdigate and Richard Broke had already seen
active service as captains in the royal navy in the North Sea and Channel.56

49
CPR15478, 85; CPR1553 & Appendices 154753, 328, 351, 356, 387; Calendar of
State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Edward VI 15471553, preserved in the PRO,
rev. edn., ed. C. S. Knighton (London, 1992), 273; LPFD, xxi, I, no. 91 (1).
50
Statutes, iii. 780; LPFD, xxi, I, no. 970 (1); Excavations, 135, 222.
51
LPFD, xvii, no. 1258, p. 697; xix, II, no. 340 (21); xxi, I, no. 970 (1); Excavations, 226,
231.
52
LPFD, xvii, no. 881 (16); CPR, 15534, 156, 419.
53
LPFD, xix, I, no. 80 (64).
54
Bindoff, House of Commons, iii. 131.
55
LPFD, xix, I, nos. 273 (p. 154), 274; xx, I, no. 91 (13); xxi, I, nos. 91 (2, 3), 643 fos. 81,
82; xviii, I, nos. 675 (p. 390), 729, 771; Hussey later admitted to claiming expenses for raising
more men than he had actually done. LPFD, xxi, I, nos. 678, 1080.
56
LPFD, xvii, no. 895; xviii, I, nos. 133, 200, 225, 414, 434, 447, 466, 596, 765.
328 Brethren and Conformists

In May 1544, Broke was commanding a small eet in Scotland with some
success, and in the following November he was created vice-admiral of the
ships appointed to keep the Narrow Seas and harass French shipping.57
Newdigate, and William Tyrrell, now forgiven and in receipt of a royal
annuity,58 also captained ships in French waters in the same year.59 Tyrrell,
who had captained the galleon of the order between 1537 and 1539, was a
particularly valuable asset to the royal navy.60
Lists of ships appointed to serve in the kings wars drawn up in 1544 and
1545 variously put vessels in the charge of ve former Hospitaller knights
Richard Broke, Edmund Hussey, Newdigate, Tyrrell, and Ambrose Cave.61
The admiral, Lisle, seems to have personally recommended at least some of
these for their positions. He wrote to Paget in August 1545 praising An-
thony (recte Edmund) Hussey, gentleman of the Roodes, as a very hardy
man and one that hath been brought up in the feat of the sea. In the same
letter Lisle proposed that William Tyrrell be appointed to command the
galley wing of the eet as the ttest man in the army, for he is a man that
hath seen the feat of the galleys and is a sure man and a diligent in anything
that he is committed unto.62 Lisles recommendation was upheld, and
Tyrrell put in command of the galley squadron. In the previous year, Richard
Broke had commanded the Galley Subtill, which had been specially commis-
sioned by the king and tted out by the Venetians in 1544. In 1546, however,
the captaincy of the vessel was given to a Spaniard, possibly because, as
Oppenheim suggests, the English captain of the preceding year had not been
found efcient.63
The government was short of naval ofcers in 154564 but the nomination
of no less than ve former Hospitallers as captains remains a considerable
tribute to their training and experience in the orders service. Although
Hussey and Newdigate were apparently released from service after 1545,
Tyrrell and Broke continued to receive naval commands well into the 1550s.
Tyrrell was named admiral of the eet appointed to relieve St Andrews in
late 1546,65 and in 1549 he and Broke were commanding galleys in the
57
LPFD, xix, I, nos. 472, 813; II, no. 600.
58
LPFD, xix, I, no. 1036 p. 644. This was increased to 100 in the reign of Edward VI.
CPR15503, 177.
59
LPFD, xix, I, no. 643; II, nos. 502 (4), 600, 674 (xv, xxvii).
60
AOM416, fos. 220v221r; 417, fo. 255rv.
61
LPFD, xix, II, no. 502 (4); xx, II, nos. 39, 62, 88; Addenda, no. 1697 (iii).
62
LPFD, xx, II, no. 62.
63
LPFD, xx, II, no. 88; M. Oppenheim, A History of the Administration of the Royal Navy
and of Merchant Shipping in Relation to the Navy from MDIX to MDCLX with an Introduc-
tion Treating of the Preceding Period (London, 1896), 51 and n. A contemporary illustration of
the Galley Subtill is reproduced in N. A. M. Rodger, The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History
of Britain, i: 6601649 (London, 1997), plate 24.
64
In 1545 the demand for captains exceeded the supply for the smaller ships. Oppenheim,
Royal Navy, 78.
65 LPFD, xxi, II, nos. 123, 331 (1). In the event he was too ill to execute his commission.

Ibid., no. 475 (72).

 Brethren and Conformists 329

Channel. On this occasion the admiral was told to take special heed of the
advice of the former Hospitallers.66 At the end of the same year Tyrrell was
also sent to survey the Scilly Isles.67 Broke, who was in charge of seven ships
appointed by Northumberland to defend the east coast was, according to the
imperial ambassadors in London, among the rst signicant government
servants to desert to Queen Mary in the succession crisis of 1553, taking his
ships, arms, and artillery over to her at the most crucial moment in her
fortunes.68 He last appears in March 1554, reporting with Tyrrell on the
state of the defences of Alderney,69 while Tyrrell continued to receive com-
missions until just before he died, a particular honour being his appointment
to receive the king in the barque of Boulogne in 1555.70
On 16 November 1557, according to the Diary of Henry Machyn, was
buried at St. Martins at Ludgatt, master Terrell, captayn of the galee, and
knyght of the Rodes sum-tyme was; with a cote, penon and ii baners of
emages, and iii haroldes of armes, and ii whyt branches, and xii torches, and
iiii gret tapurs.71 At his demise, Tyrrells former career as a Hospitaller was
thus recalled with honour alongside his naval service to the crown. Never-
theless, it might not have been remembered at all had he not served the
crown so diligently and skilfully after the dissolution. Not all the former
Hospitallers showed themselves as enterprising as Bellingham, Broke, Cave,
or Tyrrell, yet after the dissolution a large proportion adjusted to secular life
with little difculty. Their profession had always been a practical one,
accustoming them to the rigours of military action and the needs of admin-
istration in equal measure, and after 1540 these capabilities were deployed
in the service of their crown rather than their order. This may not have been
a particularly drastic adjustment to make, for it is arguable that the alle-
giance of members of the order had always, if only by necessity, been given
as much to Westminster as to the convent. The employment of senior
Hospitallers resident in England on government business was traditional,
and it is likely that many of the pensioners of 1540 would have seen royal
service even had the order not been dissolved. Yet the executions of Thomas
Dingley and David Gonson, the near miss suffered by William Tyrrell, and
the exile undergone by Russell, Massingberd, and Upton demonstrate that
there was considerable disillusion among the brethren with the policies of
the Henrician government in the 1530s, and that some were not afraid to
express their misgivings. Their boldness was perhaps unwise, but it was in

66
Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, Edward VI, ed. Knighton, 221, 224.
67
Ibid. 425.
68
Calendar of Letters . . . Spain, xi. 107; he was evidently persuaded to this by Henry
Jerningham. D. M. Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life (Oxford, 1989), 178.
69
APC, v. 56.
70
Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth, 15471580, ed.
R. Lemon (London, 1856), 90; APC, v. 234.
71
The Diary of Henry Machyn, Citizen and Merchant-Taylor of London, from AD 1550 to
AD 1563, ed. J. G. Nichols, CS, 1st ser., 42 (London, 1848), 158.
330 Brethren and Conformists

keeping with the self-condence and corporate awareness that made the
order of St John such a formidable organization that not all its members
could be tamed by Henry VIII.
Often relegated to the status of an unimportant aside in the brief accounts
of the restored orders of Queen Marys reign offered by English historians,
the restoration of the priories of England and Ireland in 15578 has been
variously interpreted by more interested commentators as a natural mani-
festation of the queens piety,72 as an aspect of Philip IIs Mediterranean
strategy,73 or as a personal project of Reginald Pole.74 There is something to
be said for each of these theories, but all three actors played a part in the
orders recovery of its position, and all three were almost certainly well
disposed towards it in 1553. The queens own interest in restoring the
hospital is not immediately apparent, but she was determined to re-establish
both the English Churchs obedience to Rome and the position of the
religious orders within it, and the order of St John served as a useful emblem
of each. Moreover, both the support of Richard Broke in her own restoration
and her contacts with successive imperial ambassadors since her mothers
divorce probably encouraged her to advance the orders cause as an institu-
tion both signicant in the defence of the faith and potentially loyal in her
support.75 It may have been with such considerations in mind that she sent
an envoy to Malta, one Captain Ormond, soon after her accession.76 Philip
IIs part in the negotiations can be more readily explained by self-interest.
The maintenance of the order in Malta was crucial to the defence of the
western Mediterranean against Turks and Barbary corsairs, and the restor-
ation of its English estates would boost the convents nances and margin-
ally increase its manpower. Philips sustained interest in the matter is shown
by the fact that it was an Aragonese knight-brother who was chosen to reply
to the queens overtures in 1555, that his adviser Antonio de Toledo, prior of
Castile, was heavily involved in the restoration, and that when the priory
was revived in 1557 a Spaniard, Pedro Felizes de la Nuca, was chosen to be
bailiff of Eagle.77 Pole, too, probably had some say in the choice of the men
who were received as brethren in 1557. His links with Oswald Massingberd
and Richard Shelley went back to the 1530s or 1540s, he may have met
Oliver Starkey while he was in the Low Countries waiting to be admitted
into England, and the new prior of England, Thomas Tresham, was employ-
ing one of his former chaplains.78

72
King, British Realm, 10910.
73
T. F. Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet (Cambridge, 2000), 285, inclines (guard-
edly) to the view that it was Philips and the popes pet cause, and not Marys nor his [Poles].
74 Bindoff (ed.), House of Commons, iii. 309, 378.
75
Charles V had urged the English authorities to restore the order in 1549. Calendar of
Letters . . . Spain, ix. 419, 430.
76
Six Documents, ed. King, 4.
77
Ibid. 4, 6; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 209; Mayer, Pole, 285.
78
See above; Bindoff (ed.), History of Parliament, iii. 308, 3789; Mayer, Pole, 285.
 Brethren and Conformists 331

Despite the goodwill of the relevant authorities, jurisdictional, proced-

ural, and nancial difculties put back the re-establishment of any religious
houses in England until 1556,79 so that it was not until March and April
1557 that royal letters patent authorized Pole, as papal legate, to restore the
order.80 This was set in motion at the beginning of May, when Pole issued
decrees conrming the priory of England in its dignities and in possession of
nine commanderies still in crown hands,81 and instructing members of the
Irish episcopate to place Oswald Massingberd in possession of the orders
estates in Ireland.82 It was not, however, until 1 December 1557 that the new
prior of England, Thomas Tresham, a religious conservative who had been
prominent in the queens service since the rst days of her reign,83 was
formally inducted at Clerkenwell, together with Massingberd and the Eng-
lish commanders.84 Several had not been previously professed, and appear
to have been chosen for the capabilities they had already demonstrated in the
service of Mary, Philip, and Pole. These new knight-brethren, moreover,
dominated the revived order, being appointed to all the bailiwicks of the
langue save the priory of Ireland. But several former brethren also received
preferment, George Dudley being the only man who rejoined not to be so
rewarded. By the end of 1558 six English knight-brethren (including de la
Nuca) were in Malta,85 while Tresham and Massingberd were occupied in
their duties as royal councillors and lords of parliament, a sign that the
division of responsibilities between priors and preceptors obtaining since the
fourteenth century was expected to continue. Indeed, the orders subordin-
ation to the crown was more pronounced than at any time before 1537: the
restoration of 1557 was specically stated to be a new foundation in which
the crown was sole founder and patron, notwithstanding the constitutions of
former legates, the English Church, or the orders convent and its English
priory.86 Although there were legal reasons for these pronouncements, their

79
D. M. Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor: Politics, Government and Religion in England,
15531558, 2nd edn. (Harlow, 1998), 299300.
80
Six Documents, ed. King, 4.
81
Ibid. 45, 710; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 209, 3235. These were Baddesley, Eagle,
Halston, Newland, Quenington, Slebech, Temple Brewer, Willoughton, and Yeaveley. They
were distributed among eight knight-brethren, the turcopolier Richard Shelley receiving Hal-
ston and Slebech.
82
Six Documents, ed. King, 4, 1517; Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 21011, 3345.
83
Like Broke, he had been among the rst to proclaim Mary queen. Bindoff (ed.), House of
Commons, iii. 482.
84
Six Documents, ed. King, 5, 257. Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 20910, 3258. Pole
presided over the ceremony at Clerkenwell, but Tresham had been creatyd prior and four
knyghtes of the Rodes made before the king and queen at Whitehall on the previous day. This
occasion presumably incorporated an oath of fealty. Diary of Henry Machyn, ed. Nichols, 159.
At some stage William Barlow, clerk, was also admitted as a brother chaplain. CPR155860,
24950.
85
BDVTE, 49, 37.
86
Six Documents, ed. King, 89. Cf. for Ireland ibid. 1213.
332 Brethren and Conformists

effect was to give the crown, acting through Pole, carte blanche to appoint
whom it saw t to the langues dignities.87
The revived order was, of course, short-lived. In Elizabeths rst parlia-
ment the properties and revenues of the religious houses restored in the
previous reign were vested in the crown, although no formal decree dissolv-
ing the hospital was issued, a fact which excited the nineteenth-century
enthusiasts who sought to restore its English langue. Like his predecessor,
Thomas Tresham conveniently expired before having to be provided for,88
while when faced with the choice between their allegiance to the crown and
an uncertain future in Malta, brethren such as Henry Gerard, Cuthbert
Layton, and Thomas Thornhill again plumped for a royal pension.89 Yet
some of the newly admitted brethren were rather more zealous. Oliver
Starkey remained in Malta, where he held the posts of bailiff of Eagle and
lieutenant turcopolier, until his death in the 1580s, and commanded a
mixture of Greeks and Maltese soldiers on the post of England during the
siege of 1565.90 Richard Shelley, the turcopolier and later titular prior of
England, dwelt in uneasy exile in Spain, Rome, and Venice, but did reside in
convent between 1566 and 1570, while his brother James, despite being
granted a royal pension in 1563, also returned to Malta. The priorys
restoration, the exile of Starkey and the Shelleys, and the obvious pride
Richard Shelley showed in his dignity and his order in letters home are
powerful arguments against any assumption that the order of St John was
universally considered redundant in mid-Tudor England.91

87
Six Documents, ed. King, 89. Cf. for Ireland ibid. 1819.
88
Mifsud, Venerable Tongue, 211.
89
CPR155860, 3245; CPR15603, 78. Mifsud contended that they returned to the places
where they had sought shelter in the 1540s and 1550s. Id., Venerable Tongue, 211.
90
Bindoff (ed.), House of Commons, iii. 3789.
91
Shelley, Letters, passim.
 CHAPTER TEN

Conclusion

It is easy to see why the Hospital of St Johns British and Irish houses and
personnel have not attracted much scholarly attention. They have left only a
limited number of scattered architectural remains, amounting usually to one
or two modest buildings at any particular site. The orders members were
few, their intellectual output undistinguished, their lives generally unsaintly,
if not always undramatic, and their aggregate wealth, although substantial,
hardly comparable to that of the Black monks. Before the days of cheap and
frequent air travel, moreover, few scholars ventured to Malta, and those
who might have wished to do so were informed that there was practically no
useful British material to look at there. The common perception that post-
1291 crusading thought was composed of unrealistic and anachronistic
daydreaming rather than serious planning, and particularly so in a British
context, and that the order had become reduced to a rent-collecting agency
providing comfortable lives for a few gentlemanly brethren, also conspired
to limit interest in the order among historians. Consequently, writers on the
religious orders have tended to ignore it, and their neglect has chimed well
with the tendency of some scholars working on the Later Middle Ages to
dismiss religious orders as generally unable to full the ritual and spiritual
aspirations of the laity. Yet in contrast a few literary and other scholars
writing with chivalric, prophetic, or alchemical literature in mind have
stressed that the orders activities accorded with the highest ideals of at
least some contemporaries.
As a historian keen to establish the importance of ones own subject it is
tempting to side with the latter. Yet it is impossible to do so without some
reservations. There is very little contemporary comment in English sources
about the international activities of the order of St John, which appears
therein to have been as renowned for operating a confraternity and admin-
istering peculiars as for expending its livelihood and the blood of its mem-
bers in the east. While the order certainly tried to draw attention to its
struggle in its liturgy and fund-raising, and succeeded in attracting substan-
tial support when it offered papally derived plenary indulgences, it attracted
relatively few testamentary bequests at other times, and even its confratres
appear as likely to have been attracted by the spiritual and temporal privil-
eges of membership as by thoughts of contributing to the war against
the Turks. While confraternity was technically voluntary, moreover, many
334 Conclusion

payments were evidently owed in perpetuity, and sanctions might be

deployed against some non-payers. Nevertheless, the orders provision of
confraternity and extra-parochial services to the laity clearly elicited a
response in many, as the complaints of the clergy make clear, and may
provide indirect evidence of support for its participation in sacred violence.
The ties of tenancy, service, and friendship which bound the orders
brethren to wider society can also be interpreted in differing ways. That
many families contributed brethren to the order across generations or even
centuries is easily demonstrated, and the fact that enthusiasm for it might be
transmitted through wives and mothers to their marital relations and off-
spring is suggestive of its appeal, or at least of the attraction that weather-
beaten uncles tales of daring-do held for their nephews. As we might expect,
familial fascination with the order was rarely seless. Those who contrib-
uted brethren to it might reasonably suppose that should they survive to
become preceptors, lucrative leases and ofces would follow, and, useful as
relatives service might be, their determination to hang on to grants after the
decease of their Hospitaller relatives sometimes involved the order in ex-
pensive litigation. Nevertheless, whether related to brethren or not, many of
the orders ofcials served loyally for life, some making the dangerous
journey to the convent in the train of their masters, and others choosing
burial in its houses. In return for such commitment, the order attempted to
promote existing servants to vacancies, and rewarded them with properties,
corrodies, beneces, and administrative ofces. Those who sought rented
property from the Hospital, such as the Babingtons of Dethick, might also be
drawn into relations of confraternity or service with it which could last for
generations. Yet others relationships with the order appear to have been
more exploitative. Some courtiers and royal servants became its confratres,
and others such as Edmund Weston of Rozel contributed sons to the order,
but the order was as dependent on the favour of those close to the crown as
any other, as its dealings with Daubeney, Bray, Wolsey, Norfolk, and Crom-
well demonstrate. If the Hospital avoided the indignities suffered by some
other houses, its priors and preceptors nevertheless felt it necessary to
distribute gifts, pensions, and, sometimes after principled opposition,
favourable leases to ministers or their intimates. The favour such personages
extended in return could be temporary and of dubious worth, and the
pressure they exerted to obtain it became more obvious and oppressive
during the reigns of the early Tudors, especially in the 1520s and 1530s.
Indeed, all the activities of the British and Irish Hospitallers hinged on
their relationship with the governing authorities of those islands, and with
their leading servants. It seems likely that kings protected the order because
of their responsibilities to defend Christendom and the Church as evinced in
coronation oaths and sermons, and reinforced by papal letters and other
literary productions. But in return, as founders, protectors, and natural
lords, they made certain claims on the orders houses and brethren which
 Conclusion 335

undoubtedly affected the contribution they made to its headquarters. First,

priors of England and Ireland, as lords of parliament and natural council-
lors of the king, were increasingly expected to remain in his service, so that
from the 1450s licences for them to travel to convent practically ceased. The
weight of government business placed on their shoulders also increased,
especially after 1485, with John Kendal, Thomas Docwra, and John Rawson
being particularly heavily burdened. Similar developments obtained in Scot-
land, where William Knollis and Walter Lindsay became important royal
servants, neither visiting the convent after becoming preceptor. Secondly, the
crowns were determined to uphold their respective rights in the matter of
prioral elections and promotions to Torphichen. It had long been the custom
in England that priors should be presented to and take an oath of allegiance
to the king before entering their ofces. Usually this caused few problems,
but should the king object to the prior-elect, or attempt to impose his own
candidate, a struggle might develop between crown and order which usually
took years to resolve, and during which the order would suffer severe
administrative disruption. In addition, English kings and royal ofcials
also appear to have held vague notions that the monarch, as founder and
perhaps as protector of the order, was entitled to the fruits of prioral vacancy
years, a claim which was vigorously contested, and which contributed to the
upheavals of 146871 and 15278. In the third place, monarchs clearly
expected the order to actively pursue its defence of Christendom. Such
considerations lay behind the insistence that responsions should not pass
through Avignon but should proceed directly to Rhodes, and also contrib-
uted to Henry VIIIs attempt to divert the orders English revenues and
personnel into the defence of Calais. Lay persons who suggested the Hos-
pital, or an organization like it, defend Berwick or subjugate Leinster prob-
ably had a similarly high regard for its military worth and took a similarly
utilitarian view of its activities, evidently seeing the defence of Christendom
and of the realm as comparably worthy objectives. It is noteworthy that
Henry VIII chose to present a primarily utilitarian justication when he
dissolved the order, although his accusations that it was not doing its job
are unconvincing.
This, of course, is not to deny that personalities and circumstances played
a part in shaping the Hospitals development, but rather is to state that the
framework of interaction between rulers and the order tended to determine
the areas in which disagreement was likely to arise in moments of crisis.
Edward IVs usual lack of crusading fervour, Henry VIIIs cupidity and
determination to be obeyed, John Langstrothers bold miscalculation, and
Clement Wests personal persecution complex and aggressive nationalism all
played their part in the crises which arose between crown and order, as did,
perhaps more centrally, the political climate of the 1460s and 1530s, or, in a
Scottish context, of 150918. In less sensitive times, however, the tensions
between the order and each crown generally remained below the surface,
336 Conclusion

and a cooperative relationship was usual. The essentiality of such cooper-

ation to the orders functioning is shown not merely by the disruptive effects
of its occasional disputes with rulers, but also by its usual reliance on royal
licences to carry on its international activities, and on the royal courts to
protect its properties. Where this support was lacking, as in much of Ireland,
the orders ability to mobilize its resources suffered and its houses became
the plaything of local dynastic interests.
Bolstered, or at least relatively unhindered, by royal protection, the order
was able to pursue those policies by which it might best support both its
local and international responsibilities. In the rst place, it was concerned
that its brethren should be of the right calibre. Accordingly, entry into the
order at the rank of knight-brother was restricted to persons of proven
gentility who were expected to possess the qualities necessary for both
military service and efcient administration. With possible exceptions such
as that of George Aylmer, the signs are that this was largely achieved, and
that sending brethren off to headquarters provided them with a useful
apprenticeship in both arms and business. Secondly, and perhaps more
importantly in an English context, the convent wished to maximize the
productivity of its houses in the west. Its most pressing concern in this
regard, at least judged by the volume of correspondence devoted to it, was
to ensure that responsions and other dues were paid on time and in full. The
orders insistence that brethren make notarially attested improvements to
their houses and be free of debt if they were to achieve promotion encour-
aged responsible administration in most preceptors. But the hospital was
also sensible of its reputation and responsibilities as a provider of divine
service and hospitality in the west, a concern to which its Irish correspond-
ence bears substantial, if excitable, witness. It was not particularly con-
cerned, either at the global or the local level, to ensure that its cures be
served by professed brethren, who were very few in the British Isles, but it
was clearly important that beneces should be lled in some manner. More-
over, the evidence generally suggests that the statutes relating to these
matters were taken seriously, with priors and preceptors patronizing gradu-
ates, erecting or repairing ecclesiastical structures, and expending large sums
on hospitality. In Ireland, too, despite probably higher incidences of dilapi-
dation and failure to pay vicars, an establishment which could be termed
collegiate was maintained and travellers and the sick cared for at some sites.
The priory of Ireland, indeed, appears to have a more notable record in the
latter regards than its English equivalent.
Nevertheless, conventual policy might lead to difculties for brethren
ultra maris. The obvious potential tension between home improvement
and service overseas surfaced on occasion, and the convents insistence on
levying annates from newly promoted brethren left many in debt for some
years after acquiring a benece, although until the 1530s most appear to
have managed to submit responsions and improve properties. Furthermore,
 Conclusion 337

the process of amalgamating houses, leaving many to be let on long lease,

turned many into little more than gentle residences, and even where there
was a resident preceptor he was usually alone and practically unsupervised,
a condition which might result in scandal. Set against these deciencies must
be the undoubted success of the orders policy of insisting on conventual
service before promoting brethren to beneces. Although the remaining
powers of priors to appoint to preceptories were ill-dened, and often led
to conict as a result, the orders concern to ensure that all brethren holding
British houses should have performed at least one tour of duty in the
Mediterranean probably helped to ensure that the orders houses in main-
land Britain did not escape from overseas conventual control, as so many of
their counterparts in other institutions did. Conversely, the failure to enforce
this requirement in the case of the Irish-born may have enabled the Hospital
to develop more independently in Ireland. The convents success in motiv-
ating the orders English brethren to return to the Mediterranean for
repeated tours of duty, particularly when it was increasing its strength in
the later fteenth and early sixteenth centuries, both demonstrates the depth
of the commitment it was able to inspire and gives the lie to the perception
that its houses were merely rent-collecting agencies providing a comfort-
able life for their brethren. Moreover, while the English langue was not one
of the more important in the order, its brethren participated relatively fully
in conventual life, holding military and naval commands, lling administra-
tive posts, and dwelling among and engaging in various forms of intercourse
with the mixed populations they encountered. Some of them emerged from
the conventual chrysalis as diplomats and captains of international standing,
and even the most humble might ship cloth to or own property in the
conventual islands. Most distinctively, of course, the langue assiduously
protected its right to inspect the coastguard of both Rhodes and Malta,
and despite the clear distaste of the convents ofcers for the excesses of
turcopoliers and their lieutenants, its conservatism and its respect for the
pope and English crown prevented the reassignment of this duty until long
after the dissolution. Moreover, the letters of kings of England, the reports of
pilgrims, and the writings of Scottish poets and chroniclers demonstrate that
the langues presence in the convent could be seen as upholding the honour
of the nations from which its brethren were derived. Its creditable perform-
ance in the sieges of 1480 and 1522 was a vindication of such perceptions,
and had the Reformation not supervened, there is little reason to believe that
British and Irish Hospitallers would not have continued to perform conven-
tual service for centuries to come.
 Appendix I. (Grand) Mastersa of the
Order of St John, 14611568

Name Langue Elected Died

Pere Ramon Zacosta Spain 24.8.1461 21.2.1467

Giovanbattista Orsini Italy <4.3.1467 8.6.1476
Pierre dAubusson Auvergne 17.6.1476 3.7.1503
Aimery dAmboise France 10.7.1503 8.11.1512
Guy de Blanchefort Auvergne 22.11.1512 24.11.1513
Fabrizio Carretto Italy 15.12.1513 1.1521
Philippe Villiers de lIsle Adam France 22.1.1521 21/22.8.1534
Piero del Ponte Italy 26.8.1534 1535
Didier de St Jailhe Provence 22.11.1535 26.9.1536
Juan de Homedes Aragon 20.10.1536 6.9.1551
Claude de la Sengle France 11.9.1551 18.8.1557
Jean Parisot de la Valette Provence 21.8.1557 23.8.1568
a
The title of grand master rst appears regularly in the orders internal documents after the
creation of Pierre dAubusson as a cardinal in 1489. The head of the order had sometimes been
addressed as grand master in correspondence before this, however.
 Appendix II. Priors of England,
14171540

Death/deposition/
Name Election/appointment resignation

William Hulles By 21.6.1417; conrmed 16.7.1417 By 18.7.1432

Robert Malory By 18.7.1432; conrmed 4.5.1433 By 29.4.1440
Robert Botill By 29.4.1440; conrmed 29.11.1440 Sept. 1468
John Langstrother Sept. 1468; conrmed 5.4.1470 6.5.1471
(Richard Wydeville) (Sept. 1468)
William Tornay By 3.7.1471; conrmed 28.8.1471 By 21.8.1474
(Robert Multon) 21.8.1474 Resigned 1477
John Weston 24.7.1476 1489
John Kendal 20.6.1489 By 10.2.1501
Thomas Docwra 6.8.1501 18.4.1527
William Weston 27.6.1527 5/6/7 May 1540
 Appendix III. Turcopoliers,
14491551

Name Elected/appointed Resigned/died

William Dawney 17.6.1449 Died before Nov. 1468a

Robert Tonge 1468 Resigned 29.8.1471
John Weston 16.10.1471 Resigned 1476
John Kendal 28.4.1477 Resigned 22.6.1489
John Boswell 20/22.6.1489 Died before 8.1.1495
Thomas Docwra 8.1.1495 Resigned 26.8.1501
Thomas Newport 26.8.1501 Resigned 21.2.1503
Robert Daniel 4.3.1503 Died 7.1508?
William Darrell 31.7.1508 Died 29.4.1519
John Bothe 1519b Killed 17.9.1522
William Weston 9.2.1523 Resigned 27.6.1527
John Rawson I 27.6.1527 Resigned 1.7.1528
John Babington I 1/3.7.1528 Resigned 7.1.1531
Clement West 7.1.1531 Deposed 25.2.1533
Roger Boydell 3.3.1533 Died 27.3.1533
John Rawson II 19.4.1533 Resigned 15.2.1535
Clement West (again) 26.4.1535 Deposed 3.9.1539
Giles Russell 10.11.1539 Died before 28.12.1543
Nicholas Upton 3/5.11.1548c Died 16.7.1551
a
AOM377, fo. 142r.
b
The Liber Conciliorum for 151719 is missing.
c
BDVTE, 32; AOM88, fo. 15r.
 Appendix IV. Priors of Ireland,
14201540

Name Appointed Death/resignation

William FitzThomas Butler 15.2.1420 Ireland Resigns 1436, possibly

Dies 19.10.38
Maurice FitzGeralda By 9.1436 Ireland Dies 19.10.1438?
Thomas FitzGerald 1436, or 1438 Ireland Removed 1444
Thomas Talbot 1444 Ireland Removed 1461
James Keating 9.7.1461 Rhodes Removed c.1495
Marmaduke Lumley 20.12.1482 Rhodesgrant Dies c.14889
ineffective
Thomas Docwra 24.10.1494 Rhodes Resigns 9.1.1495
Robert Evers 27.9.1497 Rhodes Dies 1513
John Rawson (I) 15.3.1514 Rhodes Resigns 27.6.1527
John Babington (I) 27.6.1527 Viterbo Resigns 3.7.1528
John Rawson (I), again 3.7.1528 Surrenders 11.1540
a
See above, 239.
 Appendix V. Bailiffs of Eagle,
14421540

Name Appointed Resigned/Died

William Langstrother 19.6.1442 Died 1463

John Langstrother 28.2.1464 5.4.1470
William Tornay 5.4.1470 28.8.1471
Robert Tong 29.8.1471 Died by 11.7.1481
Thomas Green 11.7.1481 Died by 6.5.1502
Thomas Newport, senior 21.2.1503 Died 24.1.1523
Thomas Shefeld 4.5.1523 Died 10.8.1524
Alban Pole/Poole 26.8.1524 Died 9.8.1530
John Babington, senior 7.1.1531 Died 10.1.1534
John Rawson, junior 15.2.1535 1540
 Appendix VI. Receivers of the Common
Treasury in England, 14571540

Name Appointed/First Occurs Replaced/Last Occurs

John Lambton 17.1.1457 31.10.1459

Thomas Damport 27.10.1459?a Replaced 3.2.1461
William Tornay 3.2.1461 25.8.1469
Miles Skayff After 26.11.71?b Replaced 23.12.1472
William Weston, snr 19.4.1474 Replaced 15.12.1477
John Waquelin 15.12.1477/13.3.1478 Died 1480
Roland Thornburgh 4.10.1480 Replaced 20.10.1489
Thomas Newport 20.10.1489 14.7.1503
Thomas Shefeld 14.7.1503 30.10.1521
John Babington 30.10.1521 7.1.1529
Ambrose Layton 7.1.1529 Died by 12.2.1529
Clement West 12.2.1529 8.3.1531
John Rawson, jnr 8.3.1531 15.1.1533
John Sutton 19.4.1533 1540
a
An undated note of Damports appointment follows the text of a bull granting the receivership
of the priory of Portugal which bears this date, but Lambton was still being addressed as receiver
on 31 October. AOM369, fos. 199r, 215r.
b
On this date, Thomas Damport was given licence to substitute some worthy brother to the
ofce of receiver in case of a vacancy in the same. AOM380, fo. 159r.
 Appendix VII. Members of the
Langue, c.14601565

priory of england

Alterward, William Received England June 1531never reached

convent?
Askew, William Occurs as conventual knight 15324.
Askew, George Occurs as conventual knight 1522.
Aston/Ashton, William Conventual knight by January 1445. Granted
Battisford July 1454. Died before 23 January
1461.
Aylmer, George Of Aylmer Hall, Norfolk? In convent 1522?,
conventual knight by March 1524. Granted
Halston November 1523 and held till 1540, and
again from 1557.
Ayscough/Ascon, James Of Stallingborough and South Kelsey,
Lincolnshire.1 Conventual knight by January
1483. Granted Battisford June 1489. Died before
23 February 1492.
Babington, James Of Ottery St Mary, Devon? Conventual knight by
October 1524. Granted Swingeld (if born
nearest) March 1528. Died by 8 May 1528.
Babington, Joan Of Ottery St Mary, Devon? Nun at Buckland,
1539.
Babington, John, snr Of Dethick, Derbyshire. Conventual knight by
January 1501. Appointed to Yeaveley August
1510, promoted to Dalby May 1523, and retained
till death. Granted priory of Ireland June 1527;
exchanged it for turcopoliership June 1528;

1
Details of the family provenance of brethren have usually been taken from wills, the DNB,
the History of Parliament, and those county histories and heralds visitations listed in the
bibliography. Those for which denite, or near-certain evidence has been found are in bold
type, while those who may not have been professed brethren are indicated by italic type.
Evidence for presence in convent and for appointments is to be found in the three classes of
chancery documents in Malta, and, more rarely, in British sources such as the lease books, the
Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, and the Irish parliament rolls. The grant of pensions to former
Hospitallers is noted in the Statutes of the Realm, the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, and the
Irish Fiants of Henry VIII and Elizabeth. Dates of death have generally been arrived at by
looking at the dates of appointment of brethren to the benece(s) held by the deceased. Exact
dates of the deaths of many preceptors from 1519 to 1536 are given in AOM54. Other sources
used include bishops registers (especially of Armagh, Canterbury, Hereford, and London),
Weavers Somerset Medieval Wills (for Hospitallers connected with Buckland, and Robert
Pemberton), the Handbook of British Chronology, the orders lease books, and Horrox and
Hammonds edition of Harleian MS. 433.
 Appendix VII 345

exchanged this for Eagle January 1531. Appointed

preceptor Dinmore by title of MG2 June 1528;
exchanged for Willoughton November 1529;
exchanged for Temple Brewer August 1531. Died
at Eagle 10 January 1533/4.3
Babington, John, jnr Of Ottery St Mary, Devon. In convent June 1528
to September 1538. Died by May 1540?
Babington, Philip Of Ottery St Mary, Devon. Conventual knight
from July 1531. Granted royal pension 1540.
Bachelor, William Brother priest? Bishop of Carvahagonensis in
Greece, suffragan in Chichester. Died 1515.
Bailey, Robert Brother priest. As subprior, occurs in England
November 1469, June 1477.
Barlow, William Brother priest. Admitted 1557? Granted royal
pension November 1560.
Baskerville, Roland Conventual knight by January 1501. Occurs until
August 1508.
Battersby, Henry Of Yorkshire? Conventual knight by February or
March 1482. Died by 10 December 1490.
Beautz, William Of Warwickshire? Occurs as conventual knight
October 1474.
Bekley, Stephen Brother priest? Died by 30 July 1487.
Bellingham, Edward Of Eringham, Sussex. In convent 1522?; certainly
conventual knight by May 1523. Granted
Swingeld June 1527, promoted to Willoughton
March 1528, exchanged for Dinmore November
1529 and retained till 1540. Died 10 April 1550.
Bentham, Anthony Conventual knight by July 1529; occurs until May
1536.
Bernard, Thomas Conventual knight, occurs October 1524.
Bevercotes, Humphrey Of Nottinghamshire? Occurs in convent
September 1505, March 1506, August 1508.
Blaseby, Robert Of Lincolnshire? Conventual knightoccurs July
1528 to February 1529.
Blome, John Brother priest. Attends English provincial chapter
November 1515.
Boswell, German Conventual knightoccurs September 1504.
Boswell, John Conventual knight by November 1460. Granted
Baddesley April 1470, resigns July 1470. Granted
Dinmore October 1471. Promoted? to Temple
Brewer by September 1483. Granted Quenington

2
Magistral Grace.
3
Where I have stated that a brother was promoted to a preceptory I have meant that he
exchanged one held by cabimentum for one held by meliormentum. Where I have stated that a
brother exchanged one benece for another, this should usually be taken to indicate that he held
the new house by the same title. If I have not stated that a brother has exchanged a particular
house, or been promoted to another one, this should be taken to mean that he retained it until
his death.
346 Appendix VII

by MG September 1475. Died in convent before

10 January 1495.
Boswell, Richard Conventual knightoccurs September 1498.
Bothe, John Conventual knight by November 1486. Granted
Quenington January 1495; adds Ansty by MG
September 1517 and exchanges this for Dinmore
in 1521/2. Killed in Rhodes 23 September 1522.
Botill, John In convent December 1471, August 1475. Granted
Quenington October 1471. Died by 27 September
1475.
Botill, Robert In convent February 1439, May 1442. Granted
Melchbourne, Trebigh, and Ansty by January
1439. Elected prior of England by 29 April 1440;
conrmed in Rhodes November 1440. Died
September 1468.
Bourgchier, Katharine Prioress of Buckland by 1520 to 1539.
Bourgh/Borough, John Of Borough, Yorks. Conventual knight by
February 1471. Granted Templecombe November
1471, but unable to gain possession. Granted
Carbrooke October 1475; promoted to Newland
May 1477. Died by October 1482.
Boydell, Edmund Conventual knightoccurs January 1529.
Boydell, Ralph In convent November 1486 (under age), February
1487.
Boydell, Roger Conventual knight by January 1501. Granted
Halston February 1506; promoted to Baddesley
May 1523; promoted to Newland December
1530. Appointed turcopolier 3 March 1533. Died
on 27 March 1533.
Boydell, Thomas Conventual knightoccurs August 1507, August
1508.
Brandon, Edward Stated to be a Hospitaller. In England December
1508.
Brewer, Thomas Conventual knightoccurs February 1525.
Identical with Thomas Bernard?
Broke/Brooke, Richard Of Leighton, Cheshire. Conventual knight from
July 1528. Granted Mount St John April 1533 and
retained till 1540.
Brown, Edmund Received in convent June 1529.
Brown, Edward Of London or Walcote, Northamptonshire.
Conventual knight from October 1524. Granted
Swingeld May 1528 and retained till 1540.
Readmitted to order 1557, and granted
Temple Brewer. Granted royal pension
November 1559.
Burton, John Occurs as conventual knight June 1524.
Identical with George Horton or John
Huntington?
 Appendix VII 347

Carew (Coren), Philip Of Ottery Mohun, Cornwall. Conventual knight

from July 1528; deprived of the habit December
1528.
Cave, Ambrose Of Stamford, Northamptonshire. Conventual
knight from October 1524. Granted Yeaveley
February 1529. Promoted to Shingay June 1536
(grant ineffective). Died 1568.
Cave, Philip Conventual knight by August 1528.
Cavendish, Thomas Conventual knight by July 1529; occurs until
April 1533.
Cecilia Prioress of Buckland. Occurs 1509.
Chalmers/Chamber, John Scot. Fights in siege of 1522. Received as
conventual knight December 1525. Occurs until
October 1533. Possibly then transfers, as John
Scotti, to langue of France, dying in September
1537.
Cheney/Cheyney, John Received in England June 1528never reached
convent?
Chetwood, Adam Probably conventual knight by March 1482.
Granted Battisford by March 1493. Died by 11
June 1505.
Chingleton, Roger Received in England June 1528never reached
convent?
Clopton, Edmund Of Long Melsham, Suffolk. Conventual knight by
February 1482.
Coffyn, Joan Prioress of Bucklandoccurs 1506.
Coort, Thomas Brother priest at Buckland? Occurs 1506.
Coppledike, Thomas Of Harrington, Lincolnshire. Conventual knight
by October 1524. Granted Carbrooke June 1529
and retained until 1540.
Corbet, William Of Shropshire? Conventual knight by August
1508. Granted Temple Brewer July 1519. Died in
Rhodes 25 May 1521.
Corner, William Brother priest? Died before 29 March 1493.
Cornish, Thomas Brother priest? Bishop of Tenos. Suffragan in Bath
14861513, Exeter 14871505. Died 1513.
Cracroft, Thomas Of Lincolnshire? Admitted in England by March
1537? Never reached convent?
Croft, Hugh Received in England June 1528never reached
convent?
Dalison, John Of Laughton, Lincolnshire? Attends provincial
chapter November 1515. Conventual knight by
May 1519.
Dalison, Richard Of Laughton, Lincolnshire? Conventual knight by
October 1474. Granted Ansty by 28 October
1493. Died by September 1498?
Dalison, Robert, snr Of Laughton, Lincolnshire? Conventual knight by
December 1478. Granted Templecombe June
348 Appendix VII

1489; promoted to Shingay May 1502. Granted

Halston by MG before February 1493. Died at
Shingay 30 December 1504.
Dalison, Robert, jnr Of Laughton, Lincolnshire? Conventual knight
from October 1524. Occurs until June 1527.
Damport, Thomas Of Cheshire? Conventual knight by January 1445.
Granted Shingay September 1459; promoted to
Ribston October 1471. Granted Swingeld.
Daniel, Hugh Of Daresbury, Cheshire? Conventual knight by
November 1504. Granted Baddesley May 1505.
Mayne added June 1506. Died by 28 September
1507.
Daniel, Robert Conventual knight by February 1482. Granted
Swingeld June 1489; promoted to Willoughton
March 1503. Died July 1508?
Darrell, William Conventual knight by February 1488. Granted
Yeaveley June 1496. Granted Temple Brewer by
MG 9 August 1510. Died in Rhodes 29 April
1519.
Dawney, William Of Escrick, Yorkshire. Conventual knight by
December 1437. Granted Dinmore May 1439;
exchanges for Willoughton May 1461. Granted
Templecombe October 1456. Granted Battisford.
Died by November 1468.
Denby/Danby, Robert Conventual knight by October 1474; occurs until
October 1476.
Dingley, Thomas Of the Isle of Wight. Conventual knight from May
1526. Granted Baddesley December 1530.
Granted Stansgate by provincial chapter June
1533 (conrmed in Malta September 1535).
Granted Shingay by GM (irregularly) April 1536.
Executed 8 July 1539.
Docwra, Lancelot Of Kirkby Kendall, Westmoreland. Granted
Dinmore by MG September 1501. Granted
Templecombe February 1503. Died in England 4
May 1520.
Docwra, Thomas Of Hitchin Bradkirle, Hertfordshire. Conventual
knight by October 1474. Granted Dinmore by May
1486; promoted to Melchbourne June 1501.
Granted Beverley by MG before June 1501.
Granted Peckham September 1504. Elected prior
of Ireland October 1494. Resigns January 1495.
Elected prior of England August 1501. Died 1527.
Dodington, Mary Of Dodington, Somerset? Nun at Buckland, 1539.
Draycotte, William Conventual knight from October 1524occurs
until February 1525.
Dudley, George Of Dudley castle, Staffs. Conventual knight from
July 1545. Readmitted into order in Malta
 Appendix VII 349

October 1557. Granted Eagle. Occurs until May

1559.
Dundas, Alexander Scot. Conventual knight from March 1538.
Occurs until March 1539.
Dundas, George Scot. Conventual knight by July 1504. Granted
expectancy of Torphichen July 1504. Died by 23
March 1532.
Eagleseld, Robert Conventual knight by July 1461. Granted Ansty
January 1469; promoted to Beverley April 1470.
Died after 20 June 1492.
Edwards, George Conventual knight from October 1524. Occurs
until August 1525.
Eluyn, Edmund Admitted as probationary conventual knight
March 1558. No further occurrences.
Emerford, Alice Nun at Buckland, 1539.
Erlyche, Thomas Brother priest. Occurs in England November
1469.
Evers/Eure, Robert Of Yorkshire. Conventual knight by January
1483. Granted Slebech before 29 January 1485.
Elected prior of Ireland September 1497. Died
1513.
Fairfax, Nicholas Of Seaton, Yorkshire. Conventual knight by
March 1506. Granted Templecombe June 1521.
Died in Rome 18/19 April 1523.
Fitzherbert, Richard Of Norbury, Derbyshire. Stated to be Hospitaller,
c.1500?
Fitzherbert, Walter Of Norbury, Derbyshire? Conventual knight by
August 1470. Granted Templecombe November
1479. Died in Rhodes before 20 February 1489.
Forest, John Conventual knight from March 1537. Occurs
until April 1537.
Freville, Henry Conventual knight by August 1478. Occurs until
December 1490.
Garneys, Francis Of Mendlesham, Suffolk. A Hospitaller in 1515.
Geoffroi, Antoine Admitted to English langue April 1547. Granted
expectancy to Torphichen April 1547. Occurs as
member of the langue until September 1556.
Gerard, Henry Conventual knight from February 1532.
Readmitted and granted preceptory of Yeaveley
November 1557. Royal pension to November
1559.
Golyn, Thomas Probably of Oxfordshire. Conventual knight by
March 1491? Granted Battisford June 1505. Died
20 January 1523.
Gonson, David Of London. Conventual knight from October
1533. Executed July 1541.
Grantham, Christopher Of Lincolnshire? Conventual knight from August
1528no further occurrences.
350 Appendix VII

Green, Elizabeth Nun at Buckland, 1539.

Green, James Conventual knight before April 1507. Occurs
until August 1511.
Green, John Brother priest. Occurs in England November
1469.
Green, Thomas Conventual knight by October 1459. Granted
Baddesley April 1469; exchanged for Slebech
April 1470. Promoted to Shingay October 1471.
Elected bailiff of Eagle July 1481. Died by 6 May
1502.
Guisguet (Fitzwhite?), John Conventual knight by November 1464.
Hall, Thomas Of Grantham, Lincolnshire? Conventual knight
from October 1524. Killed in convent December
1528.
Halley/Hales, Henry Occurs in convent from September 1480. Granted
Carbrooke August 1480; exchanged for Battisford
May 1481. Promoted to Willoughton June 1489.
Died by 27 March 1503.
Haseldon, William Of Cambridgeshire. Conventual knight by March
1506.
Hateld, George In Rhodes 1522. Conventual knight by March
1524. Granted Dinmore August 1524. Died by
7 February 1525.
Hill, Joan Of Taunton, Somerset. Nun at Buckland, 1539.
Hills/Hyll, Edward Conventual knight by March 1506. Granted
Ansty 1521/2; exchanged for Shingay August
1524. Died 29 March 1536.
Hillyard, William Of Winestead, Yorkshire? Occurs in convent by
August 1501. Granted Dinmore June 1501. Died
by 23 September 1501.
Horton/Hyerton, George Conventual knight by July 1523. Occurs until
August 1523.
Huntington, John Conventual knight from May 1523to prove
nobility. No further occurrences.
Huntington, Thomasina Nun at Buckland, 1539.
Hussey, Edmund Of Shapwick, Dorset. Conventual knight from
October 1524. Granted Templecombe March
1528 and retained until 1540.
Hussey, James Of Shapwick. Conventual knight from June 1529.
Occurs in convent until April 1540.
Hussey, Nicholas Of Shapwick. Conventual knight by June 1521.
Granted Carbrooke May 1523; promoted to
Temple Brewer June 1529. Granted Ansty August
1524. Died in Malta 20 February 1531.
Hyde, Thomas Conventual knight from October 1524. No
further references.
Hyves, James Conventual knight by April 1533. Occurs until
March 1539. Identical with James Hussey?
 Appendix VII 351

Kendal, John Of Westmorland. Conventual knight by May

1465. Granted Willoughton by MG November
1468. Holds Peckham (with Robert Tong) from
November 1471. Granted Halston October 1471;
promoted to Newland October 1482. Granted
Melchbourne by MG March 1477. Elected prior
of England June 1489. Died 1501.
Kendal, Juliana Nun at Buckland, 1539.
Kendal, Thomas Possibly subprior in 1492.
Knollis, Patrick Scot. Conventual knight by October 1492. No
further references.
Knollis, William Scot. Granted Torphichen February 1467. Died
before 30 November 1508.
Lambert, Nicholas Conventual knight from April 1534. Occurs until
1540.
Lambton, John Conventual knight by December 1444. Granted
Temple Brewer June 1449 but resigns August
1449. Granted Beverley September 1450. Died
c.1461/2?
Langstrother, John Of Crosthwaite, Westmorland. Granted
ancienitas March 1435. Granted Dalby June
1442. Exchanges for Balsall September 1449.
Granted Yeaveley April 1445. Holds Peckham
April 1454 to October 1454. Granted Halston
September 1454. Granted Ribston October 1456.
Granted Beverley by February 1464. Elected
Bailiff of Eagle February 1464; resigns when
conrmed as prior of England April 1470. Died
May 1471.
Langstrother, William Of Crosthwaite. Preceptor of Quenington by
August 1434. Elected bailiff of Eagle June 1442.
Granted Newland April 1446. Died by February
1464.
Layton, Ambrose Of Dalemain, Cumberland. Conventual knight by
April 1516. Granted Yeaveley 23 May 1523. Died
by 12 February 1529.
Layton, Cuthbert Of Dalemain, Cumberland. Conventual knight
from January 1527. Granted Ansty February 1531
and held until 1540. Readmitted 1557 and
granted Newland. Granted royal pension 1561.
Lee, Thomas Conventual knight by February 1525. Occurs
again April 1525.
Lindsay, Walter Scot. Conventual knight from December 1525.
Granted Torphichen by James V March 1532.
Provided by langue and convent March 1533.
Died 1548.
Livingston, Henry Scot. Granted Torphichen September 1449. Died
before November 1462.
352
Lumley, Marmaduke
Lynde, Stephen
Lyndesey, John
Lyster, Charles
Mablestone, John
Malory, John
Marshall, John
Massingberd, Oswald
Matthew, Agnes
Matthew, Mary
Maunsell, Agnes
Mawdesley, William
Middlemore, Augustine
Middleton/Militon, Geoffrey
Monsill, Otho de
Multon, Robert
Myers, Christopher
Neville, Richard
Appendix VII
Of County Durham. Conventual knight by
October 1459. Granted anticipation of
Templecombe July 1466, and granted
Templecombe August 1468. These grants
cancelled November 1471. Elected prior of Ireland
December 1482 but grant ineffective. Died by
October 1489?
Granted Halston January 1483. Probably died
before June 1492.
Brother priest. Appointed chaplain of Maltby June
1492. Probably dead by April 1516.
Of Yorkshire? Conventual knight by March 1506.
Occurs until June 1515.
Brother priest by 1510. Appointed chancellor
of the priory August 1526. Subprior at
dissolution.
Of Newbold Revell, Warwickshire. Conventual
knight by October 1459. Granted Battisford
January 1469. Died by May 1481.
Conventual knight from February 1532. Occurs
until March.
Of Bratoft, Lincolnshire. Conventual knight from
July 1528. Remained in convent after 1540.
Granted Slebech July 1547; priory of Ireland
August 1547 (grants ineffective)gained
possession 1557. Occurs until November 1559.
Probably of Wells, Somerset. Nun at Buckland,
1539.
Of Wells? Nun at Buckland, 1539.
Nun at Buckland, 1539.
Brother priest. Chaplain of Buckland, 1539.
Of Grantham, Lincolnshire? Conventual knight
by July 1461. Granted Halston April 1470. Died
in Cyprus before 4 October 1471.
Conventual knight by March 1506. Occurs
August 1508.
Among the conventual knights of the langue
mustered in 1522 according to Bosio (recte Arthur
Mansell?).
Probably of Yorkshire. Conventual knight by July
1463. Granted Mount St John April 1470. Elected
prior of England in England August 1474 but
removed by 1477. Retained MSJ and died before
January 1494.
Conventual knight from May 1535. Deprived of
habit for murder October 1536.
Of Billingbear, Berkshire. Conventual knight by
October 1510. Granted Willoughton by MG May
 Appendix VII 353

1519. Granted Templecombe May 1523. Died by

March 1528.
Newdigate, Dunstan Of Hareeld, Middlesex. Conventual knight
from January 1533. Occurs in convent until
May 1541.
Newdigate, Silvester Of Hareeld. Conventual knight from July
1528. Occurs until October.
Newport, Robert Probably of Soberton, Hampshire. Conventual
knight by August 1504. Granted Ansty September
1507? Died by 1 September 1517.
Newport, Thomas, snr Of Soberton, Hampshire? Conventual knight
by December 1478. Granted Newland June
1489. Granted Poling by MG August 1489.
Granted Temple Brewer January 1495;
exchanged for Ribston August 1510.
Granted Dalby by MG September 1497.
Elected turcopolier 26 August 1501;
exchanged for Eagle 21 February 1503.
Drowned 24 January 1523.
Newport, Thomas, jnr Of Soberton, Hampshire, or London. Conventual
knightdied in Rhodes 22 September 1502.
Newton, Thomas, snr Conventual knight by April 1516.
Newton, Thomas, jnr Conventual knight from July 1528. Occurs until
February 1529.
Nuca, Pedro Felizes de la Admitted into English langue 1557 and granted
Eagle. Killed 1565.
Paniter/Painter, Patrick Scot. Usurped preceptor of Torphichen 1509/10
1513. Possibly never professed.
Parapart/Pocapart, Robert Subprioroccurs November 1515, November
1516.
Passemer/Pismar, Laurence Conventual knight by February 1467.
Passemer, Nicholas Conventual knight by October 1459. Died before
November 1471.
Passemer, Richard Received in provincial chapter before August
1500. Never reached Rhodes?
Peck, Robert Conventual knight by March 1479. Granted
Baddesley October 1481. Died by May 1505.
Pemberton, Robert Probably of Pemberton, Lancashire. In convent by
August 1498; admitted as knight August 1500.
Occurs until August 1508.
Pemberton, Thomas Conventual knight by 1522. Granted Mount
St John May 1523; promoted to Newland April
1533. Retained until 1540.
Pickering, Robert Of Yorkshire? Conventual knight by October
1449. Granted Shingay June 1461 (ineffective
because incumbent still alive). Granted
Quenington February 1464. Died by October
1471.
354 Appendix VII

Pilletto, Mark Rhodiot. As knight of the house and langue of

England granted the member of Chippenham June
1527.
Plumpton, Thomas Of Plumpton, Yorkshire. Granted Carbrooke May
1481. Died by September 1498.
Pole/Poole, Alban Of Chestereld? Conventual knight by January
1501. Granted Mount St John November 1510;
promoted to Newland May 1523. Elected bailiff
of Eagle August 1524. Died at Eagle 9 August
1530.
Pole/Poole, Henry Of Chestereld, Derbyshire. Conventual knight
from July 1528. Granted Dalby May 1534 and
retained until 1540. Died 3 February 1559.
Popham, Katharine Of Huntworth, Somerset. Nun at Buckland, 1539.
Rawson, John, snr Of London. Stated to have been a Hospitaller by
c.1497. Granted Swingeld July 1503; promoted
to Ribston June 1527. Elected prior of Ireland
15 March 1514; exchanged for turcopoliership 27
June 1527 and granted Dinmore by MG;
re-exchanged turcopoliership and Dinmore for
Ireland and pension from John I Babington 4 June
1528. Retained until 1540.
Rawson, John, jnr Of London or Yorkshire; cousin of the above.
Conventual knight by October 1506. Granted
Quenington January 1523. Granted Mourne
August 1523. Elected bailiff of Eagle February
1535, and retained until 1540.
Rawson, Thomas Of London or Yorkshire. Conventual knight from
January 1527. Occurs until June 1529.
Roberts, Nicholas Conventual knight by September 1519. Granted
Halston August 1523. Probably died by 6
November 1523.
Roche, Edward Conventual knight by August 1508. Granted
Carbrooke July 1512; promoted to Temple
Brewer June 1521. Died by 14 June 1529.
Roche (Michael) A conventual knight surnamed Roche present at
provincial chapter March 1520. Michael Roche
stated to have fought at Rhodes 1522.
Rogers, Anthony Of Brianstone, Dorset? Conventual knight from
February 1529. Granted Yeaveley June 1536, but
never gained possession. Granted royal pension
1540.
Russell, Anthony Of Strensham, Worcestershire. Conventual knight
from December 1535. Occurs until May 1537.
Russell, Giles Of Strensham, Worcestershire. Conventual knight
by April 1516. Granted Battisford August 1523;
promoted to Temple Brewer July 1535 and
retained until 1540. Elected turcopolier
 Appendix VII 355

November 1539; died in Malta before 28

December 1543.
Russell, John Of Strensham, Worcestershire. Received in
England before August 1500. Had not arrived in
Rhodes by January 1501, but later stated to have
died in Rhodes.
Salford, Richard Conventual knight from July 1528. Occurs until
April 1532.
Salisbury, William Conventual knight from February 1537. Died by
April 1540.
Sandford, Richard Conventual knight by October 1449. Granted
Carbrooke February 1464. Died before 7 October
1475.
Sandford, Thomas Conventual knight by February 1488.
Sandilands, James Of Calder. Conventual knight from December
1540. Granted Torphichen March 1547 and
retained until 1564. Created lord Torphichen and
died 1579.
Sandilands, James junior Of Calder. Conventual knight from January 1555.
Possibly identical with John James Sandilands. If
not, occurs until May 1555, and possibly again in
October 1559.
Sandilands, John James Of Calder? Conventual knight by May 1556.
Deprived of the habit July 1564, and executed.
Sands, George Of Shere, Surrey? Conventual knight from June
1529. Occurs until March 1530.
Scot, John See Chalmers, John.
Scougal, Patrick Of East Lothian. Conventual knight by November
1462. Occurs until December 1478.
Shefeld, Bryan Probably of South Cave, Yorkshire. Conventual
knight by July 1463.
Shefeld, Thomas Of South Cave, Yorkshire, and Butterwick,
Lincolnshire. Conventual knight by March
1497. Granted Beverley July 1501. Granted
Shingay by MG December 1504. Granted
Dinmore by MG January 1523. Elected bailiff
of Eagle May 1523. Died in Viterbo 10 August
1524.
Shelley, James Of Michelgrove, Sussex. Admitted into order
1557 and granted preceptory of Templecombe.
Occurs in Malta until September 1561, and again
in 1577. Granted royal pension May 1563.
Shelley, John Of Michelgrove, Sussex. Stated to have become
knight of Rhodes and to have died in 1522 siege.
Shelley, Richard Of Michelgrove, Sussex. Admitted into order
1557 and appointed turcopolier and preceptor
of Halston and Slebech. Died in Venice 15 July
1587.
356 Appendix VII

Skayff, Miles Conventual knight by October 1449. Granted

Temple Brewer April 1469. Died before
September 1483.
Sothill, Arthur Of Stokerston, Leicestershire. Conventual knight
by c.1521.
Spens, Adam Scot. Brother (priest?) and MA. Occurs January
1486 as alleged detainer of parish church of
Kilbethoc, diocese of Aberdeen.
Stafort/Stafford, Henry Conventual knight by October 1495.
Starkey, Oliver Admitted in England 1557 and granted
Quenington. Bailiff of Eagle. Died 15836.
Stewart, Alexander Scot. Usurped preceptor of Torphichen 151318.
Probably never professed.
Stewart, Robert Aubigny, France. To be admitted as conventual
knight 1502. Uncertain whether ever professed.
Sutton, John Of Burton-by-Lincoln, Lincolnshire. Conventual
knight by 1522. Granted Beverley August
1524. Granted Temple Brewer by MG
February 1531; exchanged for Willoughton
August 1531. Held Beverley and Willoughton
until 1540.
Sydenham, Elizabeth Of Somerset. Nun at Buckland, July 1497.
Sydenham, Margaret Of Somerset or Dorset. Subprioress of Buckland in
1539. Died before 1556.
Thornburgh, Roland Conventual knight by November 1470. Granted
Yeaveley October 1471. Died by June 1496.
Thornhill, Thomas Possibly of Thornhill in Stalbridge, Dorset.
Conventual knight from June 1529. Granted royal
pension 1540. Readmitted into order 1557, and
granted Willoughton. Granted royal pension
November 1559.
Tompson/Thompson, John Brother priest. Ordained by title of the Hospital
March 1515. Rector of St Audoens July 1525.
Signied for arrest as apostate February 1529.
Died before 28 May 1539.
Tonge, John Of Yorkshire. Granted Ribston July 1489.
Granted Mount St John January 1494. Granted
Carbrooke by 27 November 1499. Died by
November 1510.
Tonge, Robert Of Yorkshire. Conventual knight by January
1445. Granted Mount St John September 1454;
promoted to Dalby April 1470. Holds Peckham
(with John Kendal) from August 1471. Elected
bailiff of Eagle August 1471.
Tornay, William Of Lincolnshire? Conventual knight by January
1445. Granted Baddesley July 1454; promoted to
Dalby April 1469; exchanges (Baddesley/Dalby)
for Melchbourne April 1470. Granted Mayne
 Appendix VII 357

April 1470. Elected bailiff of Eagle April 1470.

Conrmed as prior of England 29 August 1471.
Tovyngton/ De Nygton, Thomas Conventual knight by April 1476. Occurs until
October.
Tresham, Thomas Of Rushton, Northamptonshire. Granted priory
of England November 1557. Died in England 3
March 1559.
Tunstall, Bryan Of Thurland, Yorks. Hospitalleroccurs as royal
envoy in Spain 1525.
Turberville, John Conventual knight by July 1463. Granted
Baddesley July 1470. Adds Mayne October 1471.
Died shortly before 24 October 1481.
Tynemouth, John Brother priest. Franciscan, but transferred to
Hospital 1506. Bishop of Argos 151024,
suffragan in Salisbury. Died 1524.
Tyrrell, William Of Essex. Conventual knight from July 1528.
Granted Battisford July 1535.
Upton, Nicholas Of Northolme-by-Waineet, Lincolnshire.
Conventual knight from July 1531. Granted
Ribston November 1547 (grant ineffective).
Elected turcopolier November 1548. Died in
Malta 16 July 1551.
Verney, Joan Of Faireld, Somerset. Nun at Buckland,
November 1506.
Villers, Blase Of Brokesby, Leicestershire. Conventual knight
from October 1524. Occurs until April 1525.
Villers, Ralph Occurs as conventual knight July 1526. Same as
above?
Wakelyn, John Conventual knight by December 1475. Granted
Carbrooke May 1477. Died by September 1480.
Waring, Thomas In Malta September 1535: proofs opposed.
Proctors appointed to examine the case April
1537.
West, Clement Conventual knight by January 1501. Granted
Slebech April 1514 and retained until 1540.
Appointed turcopolier 7 January 1531deprived
25 February 1533. Reappointed turcopolier 26
April 1535 and deprived again 3 September 1539.
Granted royal pension and died by July 1547.
West, William Among the conventual knights of the langue
mustered in 1522 according to Bosio.
Weston, John Of Boston, Lincolnshire. Conventual knight by
October 1449. Held Peckham October 1454 to
March 1464. Granted Battisford January 1461;
resigned for Dinmore May 1461; promoted to
Balsall October 1471. Granted Newland by MG
February 1464. Elected prior of England July
1476.
358
Weston, William, snr
Weston, William, jnr
White, Roland
Wydeville, Richard
Yeo, Robert
priory of ireland
Docwra, Thomas
Evers/Eure, Ralph
Feguillem, John
Fitzgerald, John
Fitzmaurice, Richard
Fitzmorth/Fitznorth, Richard
Fitzwilliam (Feguillem?), John Received in Ireland by 1461. Conventual knight
Harebrik/Albrit/Herbrit, Oliver Preceptor of Tully by April 1514, conrmed June
Keating, Gerald
Keating, James
Keating, William
Laffane, James
Lawless, Robert
Levet, Henry
Lumley, Marmaduke
McCarthy, Diarmaid
McCarthy, Donnchadh
Maryman, William
Appendix VII
Of Boston, Lincolnshire. Conventual knight by
July 1461. Granted Ansty April 1470. Occurs until
February 1482. Probably died 14836.
Of Rozel, Jersey. In Rhodes as preceptor
September 1498. Probably granted Ansty
before September 1498; promoted to Baddesley
September 1507; promoted to Ribston May 1523.
Granted Dinmore by MG February 1525. Elected
turcopolier February 1523; exchanged for priory
of England June 1527. Died May 1540.
Conventual knight from October 1524. Died in
convent before 8 May 1528.
Usurped prior of England, 14689. Probably
never professed.
Of Devon? Conventual knight by June 1474.
See under Priory of England.
See under Priory of England.
See Fitzwilliam
Co. Kildare. In convent July 1527. Executed 1536.
Occurs 151719 as rebel against John Rawson.
Probably identical with Richard Mawril.
Conrmed as subprior of Ireland, and as
preceptor of Crooke and Any, 1527
by February 1466occurs until June 1467.
1527
Of Kilcowan? Brother at Kilmainham 1540.
Of Kilcowan, Co. Wexford. Conventual knight by
October 1459. Elected Prior of Ireland July 1461.
Deprived October 1494.
Of Kilcowan? Preceptor of Kilclogan by April
1514occurs until 1540.
Preceptor of Crookoccurs June 1559.
Brother at Kilmainham before May 1481.
Prior of the church of Kilmainhamoccurs June
1508.
See under Priory of England.
Of Muskerry, Co. Cork. Usurped preceptor of
Mourne. Receives royal grant of Mourne, 1545.
Of Muskerry, Co. Cork. Precentor of Cork, seeks
papal provision to Mourne 14923.
Probable preceptor of Tully c. 146373.
 Appendix VII 359

Massingberd, Oswald See under Priory of England.

Mawril, Richard Preceptor of Kilteeloccurs (as Mawril) 1516.
Identical with Richard FitzMaurice?
O Curryn, Padraig Preceptor of Killerig. Occurs January 1507.
O hIffearnain, Aonghus Of Shronell. Brother priest. Preceptor of Any
1540/1. Bishop of Emly 1543c.1550/3.
Plunkett, Nicholas Conrmed as preceptor of Killerig June 1527.
Retains until 1540.
Power, Richard Occurs as preceptor of Kilbarry February 1516.
Power, William Occurs as preceptor of Crook February 1516.
Rawson, John, snr See under Priory of England.
Roche, Henry Occurs as preceptor of Mourne, 14927.
Seys/Cesse, Edmund Conventual knight by January 1512. Granted
Mourne November 1513. Granted Kilsaran
March 1514. Occurs in Ireland until 1519.
Siggenys, Thomas Preceptor of Kilcloganoccurs January 1559.
Talbot, Richard Probably held priory of Ireland 14968.
Talbot, Thomas Of Dublin. Elected/appointed prior of Ireland
June 1444. Deposed July 1461. Occurs in Ireland
until December 1482.
Vale/Wall, John Probably of Co. Carlow. Rector of Rathwere,
diocese of Meath, c.1475c.1487. Prior of the
church of Kilmainham, occurs 14871500.
Walyngton, John, snr Prior of the church of Kilmainham, occurs 1476.
Walyngton, John, jnr Occurs as subprior of Ireland and preceptor of
Tully 1540.
 Appendix VIII. Hospitaller
Pensioners after 1540

Name Position Pension Death

Knights
William Weston, jr. Prior of England 1,000 7.5.1540
John Rawson, sr. Prior of Ireland; 500 marksa By 1547
preceptor of Ribston
Clement West Preceptor of Slebech 200 1546/7
Thomas Pemberton Preceptor of 80
Newland
Giles Russell Turcopolier; 100 Before
preceptor of Temple 28.12.1543b
Brewer
George Aylmer Preceptor of Halston 100 Alive 1558
John Sutton Receiver; preceptor 200 Will 1555
of Beverley and
Willoughton
Edward Bellingham Preceptor of Dinmore 100 10.4.1550
Edward Brown Preceptor of 50 After 1559c
Swingeld
Edmund Hussey Preceptor of Temple 100 marks Alive June 1546
Combe
Ambrose Cave Preceptor of Yeaveley 100 marks 2.4.1568
and Barrow
Thomas Coppledike Preceptor of 50 Alive July 1545
Carbrooke
Cuthbert Layton Preceptor of Ansty 60 Alive May 1561d
and Trebigh
Richard Broke Preceptor of Mount 100 marks Alive 1554
St John
Henry Pole/Poole Preceptor of Dalby 200 marks 3.2.1559
and Rothley
William Tyrrell Preceptor of 30 <15.11.1557
Battisford and
Dingley
John Rawson, jr. Bailiff of Eagle; 200 marks May 1552
preceptor of
Quenington
Antony Rogers 10
Oswald Massingberd 10 Alive 1559
 Appendix VIII 361

Name Position Pension Death

James Hussey 10
Thomas Thornhill 10 After 1559e
Nicholas Upton 10 July 1551
Philip Babington 10 1544?
Henry Gerard 10 After 1559f
Dunstan Newdigate 10 After 1545
Nicholas Lambert 10
David Gonson 10 July 1541
Chaplains/Priests
John Mablestone Subprior Retained 1552/3
stipend
William Armistead Clerk; master of the Dittog 1558/9
Temple, London
Walter Lymsey Chaplain (Temple) Ditto
John Wynter Chaplain (Temple) Ditto
a
Rawsons pension was paid out of the issues of the Hospitals lands in Ireland.
b
AOM87, fo.32r.
c
Browns pension was regranted him on 18 November 1559. CPR155860, 325.
d
On 31 May 1561 Layton was regranted his pension of 60, backdated to 25 March 1559.
CPR15613, 78.
e
Thornhill was granted an increased pension of 20 on 18 Nov. 1559. CPR155860, 324.
f
Gerard last appears in Malta on 12 Jan. 1559. By 8 May he had left the convent, and on 18
Nov. was granted an enhanced pension of 20 by the crown. CPR155860, 325.
g
Armistead was in fact paid a pension of 37/6/8 for himself and four (unnamed) chaplains
directly out of Augmentations from 1540, e.g. PRO E315/258, fo.20v.
 Appendix IX. Organization and Value
of the Orders English and Welsh
Estates, 15351540

House and Gross value Net value Gross value Net value
location 1535 (/s./d.)a 1535 (/s./d.) 1540 (/s./d.)b 1540 (/s./d.)

PRIORY, 2,385/19/11 2,203/1/8 2,464/15/11 2,430/14/6

Clerkenwell
Preceptories
Ansty, Wilts. 90/1/9 81/8/5 98/0/6 86/3/2
and Trebigh,
Cornwall
Baddesley, 131/14/1 118/16/7 (c.131/14/1?) 118/16/7c
Hants. and
Mayne, Dorset
Battisford, Entry (53/10/0 98/1/2 85/8/8e
Suffolk and mutilated 108/13/5)?d
Dingley,
Northants.
Beverley, Not given 164/9/10 206/1/5 190/5/1f
Yorks. (E.R.)
Carbrooke, 76/5/3 65/2/9 68/11/5 68/11/5
Norfolk (with
Chippenham,
Cambs.)
Dalby (with 274/11/2 231/7/10 222/19/10 210/13/7
Rothley and
Heather),
Leics.
Dinmore and No entry No entry 168/6/8 168/6/8
Garway, (farm)
Herefs.
Eagle, Lincs. 137/2/0 124/2/0 142/16/1 134/12/10
Halston, Salop. (170/14/10)g 160/14/0 126/13/4 124/10/4
(farm)
Mount St John, 137/2/0 102/13/9 163/3/9 154/3/11h
Yorks (N.R.)
(with Chib-
burn, North-
umbs.)
 Appendix IX 363

House and Gross value Net value Gross value Net value
location 1535 (/s./d.)a 1535 (/s./d.) 1540 (/s./d.)b 1540 (/s./d.)

Newland, 202/3/8 129/14/11 191/0/9 174/14/1

Yorks (W.R.)
Quenington, 146/17/1 137/7/1 140/4/2 122/17/9
Glocs.
Ribston, Yorks. 224/9/7 207/9/7 264/4/3 256/19/11i
(W.R.)
Shingay, 175/4/6 175/4/6 (farm) 175/4/6 175/4/6
Cambs.
Slebech, 206/9/10 184/10/11 163/0/0 162/16/0j
Pembs. (farm)
Swingeld, 104/0/2 87/3/3 113/15/8 94/11/0
Kent
Temple Brewer, (207/16/8) 184/6/8 182/19/ 169/8/5
Lincs.
Templecombe, 120/10/3 107/16/11 126/0/1 98/3/4
Som.
Willoughton, 195/3/0 174/11/1 206/6/5 186/3/3
Lincs.
Yeaveley and 107/3/8 93/3/4 96/15/7 96/2/3
Barrow,
Derbys.
Magistral
camera
Peckham (with 60 (farm) 3/ 60 (farm) 60
Staliseld and 6/8 (woods)
Rodmersham),
Kent
total n/a n/a 5,610/15/9 5,369/5/5
Minchin 237/5/4 223/7/4 256/19/4
Buckland, 38/0/3 (unpaid
Som. (Nuns) pensions)k
a
References: Valor, i. 86 (Swingeld), 113 (Peckham), 2012 (Templecombe), 21011 (Min-
chin Buckland), 4036 (Priory); ii. 26 (Baddesley and Maine), 108 (Ansty and Trebigh), 4623
(Quenington); iii. 168 (Yeaveley and Barrow), 340 (Carbrooke), 403 (Battisford; incomplete),
503 (Shingay); iv. 124 (Temple Brewer), 127 (Eagle), 137 (Willoughton), 165 (Dalby and
Rothley), 3889 (Slebech), 4556 (Halston); v. 689 (Newland), 945 (Mount St John), 142
(Beverley), 256 (Ribston); Hugo, Buckland, 4450 (Minchin Buckland).
b
Sources: PRO SC6/Henry VIII/2402 (Priory), 4458 (Beverley, Mount St John, Newland,
Ribstone), 7262 (Quenington, Ansty, Templecombe, Slebech, Halston, Dinmore), 7264 (Bad-
desley, Shingay), 7268 (Swingeld, Peckham, Carbrooke, Battisford), 7272 (Dalby, Yeaveley,
Dingley), 7274 (Willoughton, Eagle, Temple Brewer). The accounts for Melchbourne and the
Yorkshire preceptories of Newland, Beverley, Mount St John, and Ribston for 153940 have
been published in translation. Court of Augmentations Accounts for Bedfordshire, ed.
Y. Nicholls, 2 vols., Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, 634 (19845), i. 16080; Crossley,
364 Appendix IX

Newland, 1659; id., Preceptories, 74141.

c
No account for Baddesley was given because it had been granted to Sir Thomas Seymour on
Thomas Dingleys imprisonment in 1537. Seymour was to pay only a tithe based on the
valuation of 1535. LPFD, xii, II, 1023; PRO SC6/Henry VIII/7264 m. 23d.
d
The entry for Battisford, which may include that for Dingley, is incomplete but seems to value
the preceptory at 53 10s. net. However, the antiquary Thomas Tanner saw a manuscript valor
of 1535 which gave Dingley a value of 108 13s. 5d. net. To add the two sums together would
seem to value the joint house rather too highly given its relatively low receipts in 15401 and its
low responsion. T. Tanner, Notitia monastica, ed. J. Nasmith (Cambridge, 1787), p. lvi and
entries under Northamptonshire and Suffolk.
e
Includes Dingley.
f
For the Yorkshire preceptories I have followed Crossleys gures for gross revenues, but have
deducted the full annual value of any fees or expenses mentioned in the text, rather than those
for the second half of the year in which the preceptories were in royal hands. Discrepancies
between my totals for net values and Crossleys should be accounted for by this practice.
g
Although no expenses are listed in the Valor, the original text of the 1535 inquest into
Halston, which survives in the National Library of Wales, states that the preceptor was bound
to maintain two chaplains with a stipend of 5 each. Miscellanea, ed. J. F., Archaeologia
Cambrensis, 79 (1924), 41314.
h
In common with the Ribston account, the 153940 account does not record a sum of receipts
or those expenses deducted from total receipts, meaning that expenses are articially low.
i
The 153940 account only records payments to the bailiffs of the local bailiwicks at source.
Fees and expenses deducted from the total receipts of the preceptory, such as those paid to
chaplains and stewards, are not recorded. Crossley, however, has noted these for the 15401
account. Including sums laid out on repairs they came to 24 6s. 7d. Crossley, Preceptories,
141.
j
Slebech had been let to Roger Barlow for 123 in 1541, and its dependent rectory of
Llanrhidian for 40 to John Mablestone in 1539. The 4s. deducted from the net value is the
fee of the clerks drawing up the accounts. PRO SC6/Henry VIII/7262 m. 12.
k
Hugo, Buckland, 6973 (Account for 15389).
Map 1. Houses of the Order of St John in Britain and Ireland. Courtesy of the
Museum of the Venerable Order of St John of Jerusalem
Map 2. Hospitaller possessions in the south-east Aegean (after Torr, Rhodes in modern times)
 Bibliography

manuscript sources

Cambridge, University Library

Additional Manuscript Dd.III.53

Dublin, National Archives of Ireland

Transcripts from the Parliament Roll of Richard III RC13/8

Kew, Public Record Ofce

Augmentations Ofce, Miscellaneous Documents E315/2358
Court of Requests Proceedings REQ 2
Early Chancery Proceedings C 1
Exchequer, Kings Remembrancer, Ecclesiastical Documents E315/18/14
Land Remembrancer Ofce LR 2/62 Hospitaller lease book, 152939
Ministers Accounts SC 6/Henry VIII/2402, 4458, 72624, 7268, 7272, 7274
Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills PROB 11
Star Chamber Proceedings, Henry VIIHenry VIII STAC 1 & 2
State Papers SP 2/Q, SP2/R

London, British Library

Additional Charters:
7386: Enfeoffment by Sir Henry Inglose, 1451
14030: Indulgences in return for contributions to the Hospital, 1451
20679: Indulgences in return for contributions to Bodrum, 1411
Additional MSS:
4937: Pecks supplement to Dugdales Monasticon, vol. iv
5493, 5539: Rentals, accounts and court rolls of Sutton-at-Hone
17319: Income of the Hospitallers western possessions, 1478
Cotton Charters:
iv. 31: Indulgence in return for contributions to Bodrum, 1411
xxv. 2: Deed of William Dawney, 1462
Cotton MSS:
Claudius E.vi: Register of grants made by provincial chapters, 150326
Nero C.ix: Cartulary of 1442, Cambridgeshire
Nero E.vi: Cartulary of 1442, south-eastern England
Otho C.ix: Hospitaller correspondence, 151040
Vitellius B.v: Diplomatic correspondence
Harleian Charters:
44 E.26, 2831, 33, 39, 40, 435, 47 Quittances of Hospitaller rent-collectors
57 F.18 Arbitration concerning Great Wilbraham, 1425
Lansdowne MSS:
368 Bibliography

200: Register of grants made by provincial chapters, 14921501

Sloane Charters:
xxxii. 15: Brief recommending confraternity with the order
xxxii. 27: Account of papal privileges to Hospitaller confratres.

London, Guildhall Library

MS 9531/9 (consulted on microlm)

London, Museum and Library of the Order of St John

Butler Papers

London, Westminster Abbey

Muniment 16072: Letter of Thomas Docwra, 1503

Mdina, Malta, Cathedral Archive

Archivum Inquisitionis Melitensis
Criminal Proceedings, Case 1

Oxford, Bodleian Library

MS Ashmole 1137: List of English Hospitallers in Rhodes, 1508
MS Rawlinson Essex 11: Materials relating to Maplestead

Valletta, Malta, National Library of Malta

Archives of the Order of St John (AOM):
Cod. 31: Bulls of Pierre DAubusson, 147895
Cod. 32: Bull of Aimery dAmboise, 1510
Cod. 36: Charter of Henry VIII to the order, 1537
Cod. 53, fos.4951: Expense account of the English auberge, 15257
Cod. 54: Ricette dInghilterre, 15206 and 15316
Cod. 57: Letters to grand masters of the order
Cod. 68: Registrum Sguardior(um)
Cod. 7390: Libri Conciliorum, 14591560
Cod. 282287: Proceedings of chapters-general, 14541558
Cod. 340425: Libri Bullarum, 14171556
Cod. 1649: Statutes of the order to 1466
Cod. 1698: Statutes of Rome chapter-general, 1446
Cod. 6425: Various correspondence

printed sources

Acts of the Privy Council in Ireland, 15561571, ed. J. T. Gilbert, Historical

Manuscripts Commission, Fifteenth Report, Appendix, Part III (London, 1897).
 Bibliography 369

Acts of the Privy Council of England, ed. J. Dasent, 2nd ser., vols. ivii, A.D.
15421570 (London, 18903).
Ancient Irish Histories, ed. J. Ware, 2 vols. (Dublin, repr. 1809).
The Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil A.D.14851537, ed. D. Hay, CS, 3rd ser., 74
(London, 1950).
Annales Rerum Anglicarum, Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the
English in France, ed. J. Stevenson, 2 vols. in 3, RS (London, 1864), ii. 74393.
The Annals of Ireland, Translated from the Original Irish of the Four Masters, trans.
O. Connellan and ed. P. MacDermott (Dublin, 1846).
Annals of Ulster, ed. W. M. Hennessy, 4 vols. (Dublin, 18871901).
Archives de lOrient Latin, ed. P. Riant, vol.ii (Paris, 1884).
The Begynnynge and Foundacyon of the Holy Hospitall & of the Ordre of the
Knyghtes Hospytallers of Saynt Johan Baptyst of Jerusalem (London, 1524).
Bekynton, T., Ofcial Correspondence, ed. G. Williams, 2 vols., RS (London, 1872).
Book of Deliberations of the Venerable Tongue of England 152367, ed. H. P.
Scicluna (Valletta, 1949).
Borough Customs, ed. M. Bateson, vol.ii (London, 1906).
Bourbon, J. de, La grande et merveilleuse et trescruelle oppugnation de la noble cite
de Rhodes (Paris, 1525).
British Library Harleian Manuscript 433, ed. R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, 4 vols.
(Gloucester, 197983).
Burckardi, J., Liber notarum ab anno MCCCCLXXXIII usque ad annum MDVI,
ed. E. Celani, 2 vols., Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, 32 (Rome, 190613).
Calendar of Archbishop Alens Register, c.11721534, ed. C. McNeil (Dublin,
1950).
Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts, Preserved in the Archiepiscopal Library at
Lambeth, 15151574, ed. J. S. Brewer and W. Bullen (London, 1867).
Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts, Preserved in the Archiepiscopal Library at
Lambeth. Miscellaneous, ed. J. S. Brewer and W. Bullen (London, 1871).
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward II-Henry VII, 41 vols. (London, 18921963).
Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland
Papal Letters 11981513, 19 vols. in 20 (London and Dublin, 18931998).
Calendar of Fine Rolls, 12721509, 22 vols. (London, 191162).
Calendar of French Rolls, 110 Henry V, The Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the
Deputy Keeper of the Public Records (London, 1883), 543638.
Calendar of French Rolls, Henry VI, The Forty-Eighth Annual Report of the
Deputy Keeper of the Public Records (London, 1887), 217450.
Calendar of Inquisitions formerly in the Ofce of the Chief Remembrancer of the
Exchequer prepared from the MSS of the Irish Record Commission, ed. M. C.
Grifth (Dublin, 1991).
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry VII, 3 vols. (London, 18981955).
Calendar of the Justiciary Rolls, 12951303 (Dublin, 1905).
Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers, relating to the Negotiations
between England and Spain, Preserved in the Archives at Simancas and Elsewhere,
vols.ixiii (London, 18621954).
A Calendar of the Liber Niger and Liber Albus of Christ Church, Dublin, ed. H. J.
Lawlor, PRIA 27 (19079), C, 193.
Calendar of Ormond Deeds, ed. E. Curtis, 6 vols. (Dublin, 193243).
370 Bibliography

Calendar of the Patent and Close Rolls of Chancery in Ireland, of the Reigns of
Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth, ed. J. Morrin, 2 vols. (Dublin, 1861).
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 13071563, 56 vols. (London, 18951939).
A Calendar of the Register of Archbishop Fleming, ed. H. J. Lawlor, PRIA 30
(19123), C, 94190.
Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Existing in the Archives and Collections
of Milan 13851618 (London, 1912).
Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English Affairs, Existing in
the Archives and Collections of Venice and in Other Libraries of Northern Italy,
vols. ivi, 12021674 (London, 186484).
Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth, 15471580,
ed. R. Lemon (London, 1856).
Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Edward VI 15471553
preserved in the PRO, rev. edn., ed. C. S. Knighton (London, 1992).
Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Mary I, 15538, ed. C. S.
Knighton (Chippenham, 1998).
Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Edward VI (London, 1861).
Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Mary, 15531558, Preserved
in the State Paper Department of Her Majestys Public Record Ofce (London,
1861).
Caoursin, G., Prohemium volumen stabilimentorum in id., Opera.
Opera (Ulm, 1496).
The Siege of Rhodes, trans. J. Kaye (London, 1482, repr. New York, 1975).
Cartulaire general de lordre des hospitaliers de S. Jean de Jerusalem, ed. J. Delaville
le Roulx, 4 vols. (Paris, 18941906).
A Cartulary of Buckland Priory in the County of Somerset, ed. F. W. Weaver,
Somerset Record Society, 25 (London, 1909).
The Cartulary of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in England. Prima Camera.
Essex, ed. M. Gervers (Oxford, 1996).
The Cartulary of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in England. Secunda Camera.
Essex, ed. M. Gervers (London, 1982).
Castiglione, S. da, Ricordi ouero ammaestramenti di S. Castiglione, ne quali con
prudenti, e christiani discorso si ragiona di tutte le materie honorate, che si
ricercano a un vero gentilhuomo (Milan, 1561).
Catalogue of the Records of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in the Royal Malta
Library, ed. A. J. Gabarretta and J. Mizzi, vols. i-(Valletta, 1964 ).
Catalogue des rolles normans, gascons et francais, ed. T. Carte, 2 vols. (London,
1743).
The Cely Letters 14721488, ed. A. Hanham, EETS, 273 (London, 1975).
Chartularies of St Marys Abbey, Dublin, ed. J. T. Gilbert, 2 vols., RS (London,
1884).
The Chronicle of Calais, in the Reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII, ed. J. G.
Nichols, CS, 1st ser., 35 (London, 1846).
Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London, ed. J. G. Nichols, CS, 1st ser., 52 (London,
1852).
Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire, ed. J. G. Nichols in Camden Miscellany
I, CS, 1st ser., 39 (London, 1847).
 Bibliography 371

Codice diplomatico del Sacro Militare Ordine Gerosolimitano, ed. S. Pauli, 2 vols.
(Lucca, 1737).
Concilia magnae brittanicae et hibernicae, ed. D. Wilkins, 4 vols. (London, 17337).
Court of Augmentations Accounts for Bedfordshire, ed. Y. Nicholls, 2 vols., Bed-
fordshire Historical Record Society, 634 (Biggleswade, 19845).
The Crowland Chronicle Continuation: 14591486, ed. N. Pronay and J. Cox
(London, 1986).
Crown Surveys of Lands 154041 with the Kildare Rental begun in 1518, ed. G.
MacNiocaill (Dublin, 1992).
A Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds in the Public Record Ofce, 6 vols.
(London, 18901915).
The Diary of Henry Machyn, Citizen and Merchant-Taylor of London, from AD
1550 to AD 1563, ed. J. G. Nichols, CS, 1st ser., 42 (London, 1848).
The Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II, ed. E. Perroy, CS, 3rd ser., 48
(London, 1933).
Documents Relating to Perkin Warbeck, ed. F. Madden, Archaeologia, 27 (1838),
153210.
Documents Relating to the Suppression of the Templars in Ireland, ed. G. MacNio-
caill, Analecta Hibernica, 24 (1967), 181226.
Dodsworths Yorkshire Church Notes, ed. A. S. Ellis, Yorkshire Archaeological
Journal, 8 (1884), 130, 481522.
The Domesday of Inclosures 15171518, ed. I. S. Leadam, 2 vols. (London, 1897).
Dowdall Deeds, ed. C. McNeill and A. J. Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1960).
An English Chronicle, ed. J. S. Davies, CS, 1st ser., 64 (London, 1856).
An Episcopal Court Book for the Diocese of Lincoln 15141520, ed. M. Bowker,
Lincoln Record Society, 61 (Lincoln, 1967).
The Episcopal Registers of the Diocese of St Davids 1397 to 1518, ed. and trans.
R. F. Isaacson, 2 vols. (London, 1917).
The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, 12641600, 23 vols. (Edinburgh, 18781908).
Extents of Irish Monastic Possessions, 15401, from Manuscripts in the Public
Record Ofce, London, ed. N. B. White (Dublin, 1943).
Fabyan, R., The New Chronicles of England and France, ed. H. Ellis (London,
1811).
Foedera, conventiones, litterae, et cujuscunque generis, acta publica inter reges
angliae, et alios quosvis imperatores, reges, pontices, principes, vel communi-
tates, ab ineunte saeculo duodecimo, viz. ab anno 1101 ad nostra usque tempora,
ed. T. Rymer, 3rd edn., 10 vols. (London, 173945; repr. Farnborough, 1967).
Fontanus, J., De bello rhodio, libri tres, Clementi VII, Pont. Max. dedicati (The
Hague, 1527).
The Four Visitations of Berkshire 1532, 1566, 1623, 16656, ed. W. H. Rylands,
HSP, 567 (London, 19078).
A Fragment of Irish Annals, ed. B. O Cuiv, Celtica, 14 (1981), 83104.
Gascoigne, T., Loci e libro veritatum, ed. J. E. Thorold-Rogers (Oxford, 1881).
The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley (London,
1938).
Guylforde, R., The Pylgrymage of Sir Richard Guylforde to the Holy Land, ed.
H. Ellis, CS, 1st ser., 51 (London, 1851).
372 Bibliography

Hakluyt, R., The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Trafques & Discoveries of the
English Nation, 2nd edn., 12 vols. (London, 15981600, repr. Glasgow, 19035).
Hall, E., Chronicle (London, 1809).
Hibernica, or, Some Antient Pieces Relating to Ireland . . . , ed. W. Harris, 2 vols.
(Dublin, 174750).
Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth Century, ed. J. Gairdner,
CS, 2nd ser., 17 (London, 1876).
Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV in England, ed. J. Bruce, CS, 1st ser., 2
(London, 1838).
Holinshed, R., The First Volume of the Chronicles of England, Scotland and
Irelande, 2 vols. (London, 1577).
Holinsheds Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, ed. H. Ellis, 6 vols.
(London, 1808).
The Household Books of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, 146271, 14811483
(Roxburghe Club, 18414, repr. with an introduction by A. Crawford, Stroud,
1992).
The Inventory of King Henry VIII, ed. D. Starkey (London, 1998).
The Irish Fiants of the Tudor Sovereigns during the Reigns of Henry VII, Edward VI,
Philip and Mary, and Elizabeth I, ed. K. Nicholls and T. G. O Canann, 4 vols.
(Dublin, 1994).
Irish Monastic and Episcopal Deeds A.D.12001600, ed. N. B. White (Dublin,
1936).
Issues of the Exchequer, ed. F. Devon (London, 1837).
Jerusalem Pilgrimage 10991185, ed. J. Wilkinson, J. Hill, and W. F. Ryan (London,
1988).
A Kentish Cartulary of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, ed. C. Cotton, Kent
Archaeological Society, Records Branch: Kent Records, 11 (Ashford, 1930).
The Knights Hospitallers in England: Being the Report of Philip de Thame to the
Grand Master Elyan de Villanova, ed. L. B. Larking, with a historical introduction
by J. M. Kemble, CS, 1st ser., 65 (London, 1857).
The Knights of St John of Jerusalem in Scotland, ed. I. B. Cowan, P. H. R. Mackay,
and A. Macquarrie (Edinburgh, 1983).
Leland, J., De rebus Brittanicis collectanea, ed. T. Hearne, 6 vols. (London, 1770).
The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the Years 15351543, ed. L. Toulmin
Smith (London, 190710).
Letters and Accounts of William Brereton of Malpas, ed. E. W. Ives, Lancashire and
Cheshire Record Society, 116 (Old Woking, 1976).
Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII, 22 vols in 37
parts (London, 18641929).
Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry VII, ed.
J. Gairdner, 2 vols., RS (London, 1861).
The Letters of James the Fourth, 15051513, ed. R. K. Hannay, R. L. Mackie and
A. Spilman (Edinburgh, 1953).
Letters of the Kings of England, ed. J. O. Halliwell, 2 vols. (London, 1848).
Lincolnshire Church Notes made by Gervase Holles, A.D.1634 to A.D.1642, ed.
R. E. G. Cole, Lincoln Record Society, 1 (Lincoln, 1911).
Lincolnshire Pedigrees, ed. A. R. Maddison, 4 vols., continuously paginated, HSP,
502, 55 (London, 19013, 1906).
 Bibliography 373

A London Chronicle during the Reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII, ed. C. Hopper
in Camden Miscellany IV, CS, 1st ser., 73 (London, 1859).
Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII, ed. W. Campbell, 2 vols. (London,
18737).
Memorials of King Henry VII, ed. J. Gairdner, RS (London, 1858).
The Merchant Taylors Company of London: Court Minutes 14861493, ed.
M. Davies (Stamford, 2000).
Miscellanea, ed. J. F., Archaeologia Cambrensis, 79 (1924), 41314.
Monasticon anglicanum, ed. W. Dugdale et al., 6 vols. in 8 (London, 181730).
Monumenta peloponnesiaca: Documents for the History of the Pelopponese in the
14th and 15th Centuries, ed. J. Chrysostomides (Camberley, 1995).
More, T. The Complete Works of St Thomas More (New Haven, 1963 ).
North Country Wills . . . 13831558, ed. J. W. Clay, Surtees Society, 116 (Durham,
1908).
The Overseas Trade of London: Exchequer Customs Accounts 14801, ed. H. S.
Cobb, London Record Society, 27 (Bristol, 1990).
Parliaments and Councils of Medieval Ireland, ed. H. G. Richardson and G. O.
Sayles, vol. i (Dublin, 1947).
Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, ed. N. Davis, 2 vols. (Oxford,
1976).
The Peasants Revolt of 1381, ed. R. B. Dobson, 2nd edn. (London, 1983).
Plumpton Correspondence, ed. T. Stapleton, CS, 1st ser., 4 (London, 1839).
The Plumpton Letters and Papers, ed. J. Kirby, CS, 5th ser., 8 (Cambridge, 1996).
Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, ed. N. H. Nicolas,
7 vols. (London, 18347).
Rathschlage fur eine Orientreise, ed. C. Horstmann, Englische Studien, 8 (1893),
27784.
The Register of Edward the Black Prince Preserved in the Public Record Ofce,
4 vols. (London, 19303).
The Register of the Guild of Corpus Christi in the City of York: With an Appendix of
Illustrative Documents, Containing some Account of the Hospital of St. Thomas
of Canterbury, without Micklegate Bar, in the Suburbs of the City, ed. R. H. Skaife,
Surtees Society, 57 (Durham, 1872).
The Register of John Morton Archbishop of Canterbury 14861500, ed. C. Harper-
Bill, 3 vols., CYS, 75 (York, 1985) 78, 89 (Woodbridge, 19872000).
The Register of John Swayne Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland 1418
1439, ed. D. A. Chart (Belfast, 1935).
The Register of Thomas Langton Bishop of Salisbury 14851493, ed. D. P. Wright,
CYS, 74 (n.p., 1985).
The Register of Thomas Rotherham Archbishop of York 14801500, ed. E. E.
Barber, vol. i, CYS, 69 (Torquay, 1976).
The Registers of Oliver King Bishop of Bath and Wells 14961503 and Hadrian de
Castello Bishop of Bath and Wells 15031518, ed. H. C. Maxwell-Lyte, Somerset
Record Society, 54 (London, 1939).
The Registers of Robert Stillington Bishop of Bath and Wells 14661491 and
Richard Fox Bishop of Bath and Wells 14921494, ed. H. C. Maxwell-Lyte,
Somerset Record Society, 52 (London, 1937).
374 Bibliography

Registrum Caroli Bothe Episcopi Herefordensis A.D.MDXVIMDXXXV, ed. A. T.

Bannister, CYS, 28 (London, 1921).
Registrum Johannis Mey: The Register of John Mey Archbishop of Armagh, 1443
1456, ed. W. G. H. Quigley and E. F. D. Roberts (Belfast, 1972).
Registrum de Kilmainham, ed. C. McNeil (Dublin, 1932).
Registrum Octaviani, alias Liber Niger: The Register of Octavian de Palatio Arch-
bishop of Armagh 14781513, ed. M. A. Sughi, 2 vols. (Dublin, 1999).
Registrum Ricardi Mayew Episcopi Herefordensis A.D.MDIVMDXVI, ed. A. T.
Bannister, CYS, 27 (London, 1921).
Registrum Thome Bourgchier Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi A.D.14541486, ed.
F. R. H. du Boulay, CYS, 54 (Oxford, 1957).
Registrum Thome Myllyng Episcopi Herefordensis A.D.MCCCCLXXIV
MCCCCXCII, ed. A. T. Bannister, CYS, 26 (London, 1920).
The Reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources, ed. A. F. Pollard, 3 vols.
(London, 191314).
The Repertorium Viride of John Allen, Archbishop of Dublin, 1533, ed. N. B.
White, Analecta Hibernica, 10 (1941), 173222.
A Report on the Documents Relating to the Wardenship of Galway, ed. E. MacLy-
saght, Analecta Hibernica, 14 (1944).
Reports dascuns cases . . . de Robert Keilwey Esquire, ed. J. Croke (London, 1688).
The Reports of Sir John Spelman, ed. J. H. Baker, 2 vols. (London, 19768).
Returns of Aliens dwelling in the City and Suburbs of London (Henry VIII to James
I), ed. E. F. Kirkby and R. E. G. Kirk, pt.1 (London, 1900).
Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field, ed. P. W. Hammond and A. F. Sutton
(London, 1985).
Rotuli Parliamentorum ut et petitiones, et placita in Parliamento, ed. J. Strachey
et al., 6 vols. (London, 176777).
Rotulorum patentium et clausorum cancellariae hibernie calendarium, ed. E. Tre-
sham, vol. i, pars 1 (Dublin, 1828).
The Rule, Customs and Statutes of the Hospitallers 10991310, ed. and trans. E. King
(London, 1934).
Rutland Papers: Original Documents Illustrative of the Courts and Times of Henry
VII and Henry VIII, ed. W. Jerdan, CS, 1st ser., 21 (London, 1842).
Select Cases before the Kings Council 12431482, ed. I. S. Leadam and J. F. Baldwin,
Selden Society, 35 (Cambridge, Mass., 1918).
Select Cases before the Kings Council in the Star Chamber, ed. I. S. Leadam, 2 vols.,
Selden Society, 16, 25 (London, 190310).
Select Cases in the Council of Henry VII, ed. C. G. Bayne, Selden Society, 75
(London, 1958).
Selections from English Wyclifte Writings, ed. A. Hudson (Cambridge, 1978).
Shelley, R., The Letters of Sir Richard Shelley (n.p., 1774).
Six Documents Relating to Queen Marys Restoration of the Grand Priories of
England and Ireland, ed. E. J. King, OSJHP 7 (1935).
Six Town Chronicles of England, ed. R. Flenley (Oxford, 1911).
Somerset Medieval Wills 13831550, ed. F. W. Weaver, Somerset Record Society,
3 vols. in 1 (repr. Gloucester, 1983).
Sources Concerning the Hospitallers of St John in the Netherlands, ed. J. M. van
Winter (Brill, 1998).
 Bibliography 375

The Spousells of the Princess Mary, 1508, in Camden Miscellany IX, CS, 2nd
ser., 53 (London, 1895).
State Papers, King Henry the Eighth, 11 vols. (London, 183052).
Statute Rolls of the Parliament of Ireland, 4 vols. (Dublin, 19071939).
Statutes of the Realm, vols.iiv (London, 181019).
Stonor Letters and Papers 12901483, ed. C. L. Kingsford, CS, 3rd ser., 2930
(London, 1919).
Stow, J., A Summarie of the Chronicles of England (London, 1604).
A Survey of London: Reprinted from the Text of 1603, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1971).
The Testamentary Documents of Yorkshire Peculiars, ed. E. W. Crossley, YASRS 74,
Miscellanea, 2 (Wakeeld, 1929), 4686.
Torkington, R., Ye Oldest Diarie of Englysshe Travell, ed. W. J. Loftie (London,
1884).
Valor ecclesiasticus temp. Henr. VIII auctoritate regia institutis, ed. J. Caley, with
indexes by R. Lemon and introduction by J. Hunter, 6 vols. (London, 181034).
The Visitacion of Norffolk, made and taken by William Harvey, Clarencieux King of
Arms, Anno 1563, enlarged with another Visitacion made by Clarenceux Cooke,
with many other Descents; as also the Vissitation made by John Raven, Richmond,
Anno 1613, ed. W. Rye, HSP, 32 (London, 1891).
The Visitation of Cambridgeshire made in A8 (1575), continued and enlarged wth the
Vissitation of the Same County made by Henery St George, Richmond-herald,
Marshall and Deputy to Willm. Camden, Clarenceulx, in A8 1619, wth Many
Other Descents added thereto, ed. W. Clay, HSP, 41 (London, 1897).
The Visitation of Suffolk 1561, ed. J. Corder, 2 vols. HSP, 2nd ser., 23 (London,
19814).
The Visitation of the County of Leicester in the Year 1619, taken by William
Camden, Clarenceux King of Arms, ed. J. Fetherston, HSP, 2 (London,
1870).
The Visitation of the County of Somerset in the Year 1623, ed. F. T. Colby, HSP, 11
(London, 1876).
The Visitation of the County of Worcester made in the Year 1569 with Other
Pedigrees relating to that County from Richard Mundys Collection, ed. W. P. W.
Phillimore, HSP, 27 (London, 1888).
The Visitation of Yorkshire in the Years 1563 and 1564, made by William Flower,
Esquire, Norroy King of Arms, ed. C. B. Norcliffe, HSP, 16 (London, 1881).
The Visitations of Cornwall, Comprising the Heralds Visitations of 1530, 1573,
& 1620, ed. J. L. Vivian (Exeter, 1887).
The Visitations of Essex by Hawley, 1552; Hervey, 1558; Cooke, 1570; Raven, 1612;
and Owen and Lilly, 1634, to which are added, Miscellaneous Essex Pedigrees
from Various Harleian Manuscripts: and an Appendix containing Berrys Essex
Pedigrees, ed. W. C. Metcalfe, HSP, 1314 (London, 1878).
The Visitations of Hertfordshire made by Robert Cooke, Esq., Clarencieux, in 1572,
and Sir Richard St. George, Kt., Clarencieux, in 1634, with Hertfordshire Pedi-
grees from Harleian MSS. 6147 and 1546, ed. W. C. Metcalfe, HSP, 22 (London,
1886).
The Visitations of Northamptonshire made in 1564 and 16189, with Northamp-
tonshire Pedigrees from Various Harleian Manuscripts, ed. W. C. Metcalfe (Lon-
don, 1887).
376 Bibliography

The Visitations of the County of Devon, Comprising the Heralds Visitations of

1531, 1564 & 1620, ed. J. L. Vivian, 2 vols. (Exeter, 1895).
The Visitations of the County of Nottingham in the Years 1569 and 1614, with
Many Other Descents of the Same County, ed. G. W. Marshall, HSP, 4 (London,
1871).
The Visitations of the County of Surrey made and taken in the Years 1530 by Thomas
Benolte, Clarenceux King of Arms; 1572 by Robert Cooke, Clarenceux King of
Arms; and 1623 by Samuel Thompson, Windsor Herald and Augustin Vincent,
Rouge Croix Pursuivant, Marshals and Deputies to William Camden, Clarenceux
King of Arms, ed. W. Bruce Bannerman, HSP, 43 (London, 1899).
Warkworth, J., A Chronicle of the First Thirteen Years of the Reign of King
Edward the Fourth, ed. J. O. Halliwell, CS, 1st ser., 10 (London, 1839).
Wey, W., Itineraries, 2 vols. (London, 1857).
Winchester College Muniments. A Descriptive List, ed. S. Himsworth, 3 vols. (Chi-
chester, 197684).
Wriothesley, C., A Chronicle of England during the Reigns of the Tudors, ed. W. D.
Hamilton, vol. i, CS, 2nd ser., 11 (London, 1875).

secondary works

Allen, D. F., The Order of St John as a School for Ambassadors in Counter-

Reformation Europe, MO, ii. 36379.
Archdall, M., Monasticon hibernicum, 2nd edn., ed. P. F. Moran, 2 vols. (Dublin,
18736).
Argenti, P., The Occupation of Chios by the Genoese, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1958).
Arthurson, I., The Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy 14911499 (Stroud, 1994).
Balard, M., The Urban Landscape of Rhodes as Perceived by Fourteenth- and
Fifteenth-Century Travellers, Mediterranean Historical Review, 10 (1995),
2434.
Baldwin, J. F., The Kings Council in England during the Middle Ages (Oxford,
1913).
Balleine, G. R., A Biographical Dictionary of Jersey (Leyden, 1949).
Barber, M., The Trial of the Templars (Cambridge, 1978).
The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge,
1994).
(ed.), The Military Orders, i: Fighting for the Faith and Caring for the Sick
(Aldershot, 1994).
Barber, M. J., The Englishman Abroad in the Fifteenth Century, Medievalia et
Humanistica, 11 (1957), 6977.
Baskerville, G., The Dispossessed Religious of Gloucestershire, Transactions of
the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 49 (1927), 63122.
Bedford, W. K. R., and Holbeche, R., The Order of the Hospital of St. John of
Jerusalem (London, 1902).
Belabre, F. de, Rhodes of the Knights (Oxford, 1908).
Beltjens, A., Aux origines de lOrdre de Malta: de la fondation de lhopital de
Jerusalem a sa transformation en ordre militaire (Brussels, 1995).
 Bibliography 377

Bennett, M. J., Community, Class and Careerism: Cheshire and Lancashire Society
in the Age of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Cambridge, 1983).
Berry, W., County Genealogies: Pedigrees of the Families in the County of Sussex
(London, 1830).
Bettey, J. H., The Suppression of the Monasteries in the West Country (Gloucester,
1989).
Bindoff, S. T. (ed.), The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 15091558
(London, 1982).
Blanchard, I. W. S., Population Change, Enclosure, and the Early Tudor Econ-
omy, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 23 (1970), 42745.
Boase, T. S. R., The Arts in Frankish Greece and Rhodes, Hist. Crusades, iv.
22950.
Boisgelin, L. de, Ancient and Modern Malta, 2 vols. (London, 1805).
Bolton, J. L., The Medieval English Economy 11501500 (London, 1980).
Bono, S., Naval Exploits and Privateering, in Mallia-Malines (ed.), Hospitaller
Malta, 35195.
Bosio, G., DellIstoria della sacra religione et ill.ma militia di San Giovanni Gier-
osolimitano, 2nd edn., 3 vols. (Rome, 16229, 1602).
Bowker, M., The Secular Clergy in the Diocese of Lincoln, 14951520 (Cambridge,
1968).
Bradford, E., The Great Siege: Malta 1565 (Harmondsworth, 1961).
Bradshaw, B., The Dissolution of the Religious Orders in Ireland under Henry VIII
(Cambridge, 1974).
Brooks, E. St. J., Knights Fees in Counties Wexford, Carlow and Kilkenny (13th
15th Century) (Dublin, 1950).
Bugeja, L., Buhagiar, M., and Fiorini, S. (eds.), Birgu A Maltese Maritime City,
2 vols. (Msida, 1993).
Buhagiar, M., The Treasure of the Knights Hospitallers in 1530: Reections and
Art Historical Considerations, Peregrinationes, 1 (2000).
Burke, J., A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry, 4 vols.
(London, 18378).
A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry of Ireland, 4th
edn., ed. L. G. Pine (London, 1958).
Butler, L., The Port of Rhodes under the Knights of St John (13091522),
Les Grandes Escales: Recueils de la societe Jean Bodin, 32 (Brussels, 1974),
33945.
Calnan, D., Some Notes on the Order in Scotland, AOSM 22 (1964), 5971.
Carpenter, M. C., Locality and Polity: A Study of Warwickshire Landed Society,
14011499 (Cambridge, 1992).
Henry VII and the English Polity, in B. J. Thompson (ed.), The Reign of Henry
VII (Stamford, 1995), 1130.
Cassar, P., Medical Life in Birgu in the Past, in Bugeja, Buhagiar and Fiorini (eds.),
Birgu, i. 32790.
Chambers, D. S., Cardinal Bainbridge in the Court of Rome 1509 to 1514 (Oxford,
1965).
Charles, B. G., The Records of Slebech, National Library of Wales Journal,
5 (19478), 17989.
378 Bibliography

Chew, H., The Priory of St John of Jerusalem, Clerkenwell, VCH, Middlesex, vol.i
(Oxford, 1969), 193200.
Clark, G. T., The Babingtons, Knights of St John, Archaeological Journal, 36
(1879), 21930.
Clark, J. G., Selling the Holy Places: Monastic Efforts to Win back the People in
Fifteenth-Century England, in T. Thornton (ed.), Social Attitudes and Political
Structures in the Fifteenth Century (Stroud, 2000), 1332.
Clarke, H. (ed.), Medieval Dublin, 2 vols. (Dublin, 1990).
Clode, C. M., The Early History of the Guild of Merchant Taylors of the Fraternity
of St John the Baptist, London (London, 1888).
Cockayne, G. E. (ed.), Complete Peerage, new edn., ed. V. Gibbs et al., 13 vols.
(London, 191059).
Colker, M. L., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Medieval and Renaissance Manu-
scripts in Trinity College, Dublin, 2 vols. (Dublin, 1991).
Condon, M. M., From Caitiff and Villain to Pater Patriae: Reynold Bray and the
Prots of Ofce, in M. Hicks (ed.), Prot, Piety and the Professions in Later
Medieval England (Gloucester, 1990), 13768.
Connolly, P., Irish Material in the Class of Ancient Petitions (SC8) in the Public
Record Ofce, London, Analecta Hibernica, 34 (1987), 1106.
Conway, A., Henry VIIs Relations with Scotland and Ireland, 14851498 (Cam-
bridge,1932).
Coote, L. A., Prophecy and Public Affairs in Later Medieval England (York,
2000).
Cosgrove, A., Hiberniores ipsis Hibernis, in A. Cosgrove and D. McCartney
(eds.), Studies in Irish History Presented to R. Dudley Edwards (Dublin, 1979).
(ed.), A New History of Ireland, ii: Medieval Ireland 11691534 (Oxford,
1993).
Cross, C., Monasticism and Society in the Diocese of York, 15201540, TRHS,
5th ser., 38 (1988), 13145.
The Dissolution of the Monasteries and the Yorkshire Church in the Sixteenth
Century, in A. J. Pollard (ed.), Government, Religion and Society in Northern
England 10001700 (Stroud, 1997), 15971.
Crossley, E. W., The Preceptory of Newland, YASRS 61, Miscellanea, 1 (Leeds,
1920), 183.
The Preceptories of the Knights Hospitallers, YASRS 94, Miscellanea,
4 (Leeds, 1937), 73174.
Cussans, J. E., History of Hertfordshire, 3 vols. (187081, repr. Wakeeld, 1972).
Delaville le Roulx, J., Les Hospitaliers a Rhodes jusqua la mort de Philibert de
Naillac: 13101421 (Paris, 1913).
Dictionary of National Biography, ed. L. Stephen and S. Lee, 63 vols. (London,
18851900).
Ditchburn, D., Scotland and Europe: The Medieval Kingdom and its Contacts with
Christendom, c.12151545, i: Religion, Culture and Commerce (East Linton,
2000).
Dobson, R. B., The Last English Monks on Scottish Soil: The Severance of Colding-
ham Priory from the Monastery of Durham, 146178, in id., Church and Society
in the Medieval North of England (London, 1996), 10933.
 Bibliography 379

Duff, E. G., Fifteenth Century English Books: A Bibliography of Books and Docu-
ments Printed in England and of Books for the English Market Printed Abroad
(Oxford, 1917).
Duffy, S., Ireland in the Middle Ages (Basingstoke, 1997).
Dyer, C., Warwickshire Farming 1349c.1520: Preparations for Agricultural Revo-
lution, Dugdale Society Occasional Papers, 27 (Stratford-upon-Avon, 1981).
Edwards, R. D., The Kings of England and Papal Provisions in Fifteenth-Century
Ireland, in Watt et al. (eds.), Medieval Studies, 26580.
Ellis, S. G., Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, 14471603: English Expansion and
the End of Gaelic Rule (Harlow, 1998).
Elton, G. R., Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government, 3 vols. (Cam-
bridge, 197483).
Elvins, M., Bl. Adrian Fortescue: Englishman, Knight of Malta, Martyr (London,
1993).
Emden, A. B., A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A.D.1500, 3
vols. (Oxford, 19579).
A Biographical Register of the University of Cambridge to A.D.1500 (Cam-
bridge, 1963).
A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, A.D.1501 to 1540 (Ox-
ford, 1974).
Falkiner, C. L., The Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in Ireland, PRIA 26 (1907),
C, 275317.
Ferguson, J. T., English Diplomacy 142261 (Oxford, 1972).
Field, P. J. C., Sir Robert Malory, Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in
England (14321439/40), JEH 28 (1977), 24964.
The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Malory (Cambridge, 1993).
Fincham, H. W., The Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem and its Grand
Priory of England, 2nd edn. (London, 1933).
Fiorini, S., Demographical Aspects of Birgu up to 1800, in Bugeja, Buhagiar, and
Fiorini (eds.), Birgu, i. 21954.
and Luttrell, A. T., The Italian Hospitallers at Rhodes, 14371462, Revue
Mabillon, 68 (1996), 20931.
FitzGerald, Lord W., The FitzGeralds of Ballyshannon (Co. Kildare) and their
Successors Thereat, JCKAS 3 (18991902), 42552.
Fontenay, M., De Rhodes a Malte: levolution de la otte des Hospitaliers au XVIe
siecle, Atti del V Convegno Internazionale di Studi Colombiani, 2 vols. (Genoa,
1990), i. 10735.
Les Missions des galeres de Malte: 15301798, in M.Verge-Franceschi (ed.),
Guerre et commerce en Mediterranee: IXeXXe siecles (Paris, 1991), 10319.
Forey, A., The Militarisation of the Hospital of St John, in id., Military Orders and
Crusades (Aldershot, 1994), art. ix, 7589.
The Military Order of St Thomas of Acre, Military Orders and Crusades, art.
xii, 481503.
Recruitment to the Military Orders (Twelfth to Mid-Fourteenth Centuries),
Military Orders and Crusades, art. ii, 13971.
Fox, A., Prophecy and Politics in the Reign of Henry VIII in A. Fox and J. A. Guy
(eds.), Reassessing the Henrician Age: Humanism, Politics and Reform 15001550
(Oxford, 1986), 7794.
380 Bibliography

Frame, R., Commissions of the Peace in Ireland, 13021461, Analecta Hibernica,

35 (1992), 144.
Les Engleys Nees en Irlande: The English Political Identity in Medieval
Ireland, TRHS, 6th ser., 3 (1993), 83103.
Fryde, E. B., Greenway, D. E., Porter, S., and Roy, I., Handbook of British
Chronology, 3rd edn. (Cambridge, 1986).
Gabriel, A., La Cite de Rhodes, 2 vols. (Paris, 19213).
Galea, J., Henry VIII and the Order of St. John, Journal of the Archaeological
Association, 3rd ser., 12 (1949), 5969.
Gallwey, H., The Wall Family in Ireland 11701970 (Naas, 1970).
Gervers, M., The Hospitaller Cartulary in the British Library (Cotton MS Nero
EVI) (Toronto, 1981).
Gilchrist, R., Contemplation and Action: The Other Monasticism (London, 1995).
Gooder, E., Temple Balsall: The Warwickshire Preceptory of the Templars and their
Fate (Chichester, 1995).
Temple Balsall: From Hospitallers to a Caring Community, 1322 to Modern
Times (Chichester, 1999).
Goodman, J. R., Chivalry and Exploration, 12981630 (Woodbridge, 1998).
Graham, R., The English Province of the Order of Cluny in the Fifteenth Century,
in ead., English Ecclesiastical Studies (London, 1929), 6290.
Grifth, M. C., The Talbot-Ormond Struggle for Control of the Anglo-Irish
Government, 141447, Irish Historical Studies, 8 (1941), 37697.
Grifths, R. A., The Reign of King Henry VI (repr. Stroud, 1998).
Sir Rhys ap Thomas and his Family (Cardiff, 1993).
Gross, A., The Dissolution of the Lancastrian Kingship: Sir John Fortescue and the
Crisis of Monarchy in Fifteenth-Century England (Stamford, 1996).
Gunn, S. J., Early Tudor Government 14851558 (Basingstoke, 1995).
Guy, J. A., The Cardinals Court: The Impact of Thomas Wolsey in Star Chamber
(Hassocks, 1977).
Thomas More and Christopher St German: The Battle of the Books, in Fox
and Guy (eds.), Reassessing the Henrician Age, 95120.
Gwynn, A., and Hadcock, R. N., Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland (London,
1970).
Hanham, A., Richard III and his Early Historians 14831535 (Oxford, 1975).
Harari, Y., The Military Role of the Frankish Turcopoles: A Reassessment, Medi-
terranean Historical Review, 12 (1997), 75116.
Harbison, P., Guide to the National and Historic Monuments of Ireland, 3rd edn.
(Dublin, 1992).
Harris, J., Greek Emigres in the West 14001520 (Camberley, 1995).
Harris, W., The City and Antiquities of Dublin (Dublin, 1766).
Harrison, C., The Coming of the Sneyds, North Staffordshire Journal of Field
Studies, 22 (19825), 2346.
Harvey, M. M., England, Rome and the Papacy 14171464 (Manchester, 1993).
Hasler, P. W. (ed.), The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 15581603,
3 vols. (London, 1981).
Hatcher, J., England in the Aftermath of the Black Death, Past and Present, 144
(1994), 335.
 Bibliography 381

Heal, F., Of Prelates and Princes: A Study of the Social and Economic Position of the
Tudor Episcopate (Cambridge, 1980).
Hendrick-Aylmer, H., Rathmore, JCKAS 6 (1902), 37281.
Hermitage Day, E., The Preceptory of the Knights Hospitallers at Dinmore,
Western Hereford, OSJHP 3 (1930).
Hicks, M. A., The Changing Role of the Wydevilles in Yorkist Politics to 1483, in
id., Richard III and his Rivals: Magnates and their Motives in the Wars of the
Roses (London, 1991), 20928.
Idealism in Late-Medieval English Politics, in id., Richard III, 4160.
False, Fleeting, Perjurd Clarence: George, Duke of Clarence 14491478, 2nd
edn. (Gloucester, 1992).
Hill, G., A History of Cyprus, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 194052).
Hoade, E., Western Pilgrims to the Holy Land (Jerusalem, 1952).
Hodgson, J. C., Chibburn and the Knights Hospitallers in Northumberland,
Archaeologia Aeliana, 17 (1895), 26280.
Hope, W. St. J., Windsor Castle: An Architectural History (London, 1913).
Hoppen, A., The Finances of the Order of St John of Jerusalem in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries, European Studies Review, 3 (1973), 10319.
The Fortication of Malta by the Order of St John 15301798, 2nd edn.
(Msida, 1999).
Housley, N., The Later Crusades 12741580 (Oxford, 1992).
Religious Warfare in Europe, 14001536 (Oxford, 2002).
Hoyle, R. W., Monastic Leasing before the Dissolution: The Evidence of Bolton
Priory and Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 61 (1989),
11137.
The Origins of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, Historical Journal, 38
(1995), 275305.
Hughes, J., Arthurian Myths and Alchemy: The Kingship of Edward IV (Stroud,
2002).
Pastors and Visionaries: Religion and Secular Life in Late Medieval Yorkshire
(Woodbridge, 1988).
Hughes, J. Q., The Building of Malta during the Period of the Knights of St John of
Jerusalem 15301795, 2nd edn. (London, 1967).
Hugo, T., The History of Mynchin Buckland, Priory and Preceptory, in the County
of Somerset (London, 1861).
The History of Eagle, in the County of Lincolnshire, a Commandery of the
Knights Hospitallers of St John of Jerusalem (London, 1876).
Hutchins, J., The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset, 3rd edn., with
additions by W. Shipp and J. W. Hodson, 4 vols. (Westminster, 186174,
repr.1975).
Ives, E. W., Agaynst taking awaye of Women: The Inception and Operation of the
Abduction Act of 1487, in E. W. Ives, R. J. Knecht, and J. J. Scarisbrick (eds.),
Wealth and Power in Tudor England (London, 1978).
Jefferies, H. A. J., Priests and Prelates of Armagh in the Age of Reformations,
15181558 (Dublin, 1997).
Jones, F., Sir Rhys ap Thomas and the Knights of St. John, Carmarthen Antiquary
2/3 (1951), 704.
382 Bibliography

Jones, T., Chaucers Knight: The Portrait of a Medieval Mercenary, 2nd edn. (Lon-
don, 1994).
Kaeuper, R. W., War, Justice and Public Order: England and France in the Later
Middle Ages (Oxford, 1988).
Karassava-Tsilingiri, F., The Fifteenth-Century Hospital of Rhodes: Tradition
and Innovation, MO, i. 8996.
Kedar, B. Z., A Twelfth-Century Description of the Jerusalem Hospital, MO, ii.
326.
Keen, M., Chaucers Knight, the English Aristocracy and the Crusade, in id.
Nobles, Knights and Men-at-Arms (London, 1996), 10120.
War, Peace and Chivalry, in id., Nobles, Knights and Men-at-Arms, 120.
Chivalry and the Aristocracy, in M. Jones (ed.), New Cambridge Medieval
History, vi: c.1300c.1415 (Cambridge, 2000), 20922.
Ker, N. R., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books, 2nd edn.
(London, 1964).
Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: Supplement to the Second Edition, ed.
A. G. Watson (London, 1987).
Kerridge, E., The Returns of the Inquisitions of Depopulation, EHR 70 (1955),
21228.
King, E. J., A Letter from Brother Hugh Middleton, Knight of the Order of St. John
of Jerusalem and Turcopolier of Rhodes, to his Agent in England, written about
1448, OSJHP 4 (1930), 118.
The Knights of St. John in the British Realm, 3rd edn., rev. and continued by
H. Luke (London, 1967).
Knowles, D. M., The Religious Orders in England, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1971).
and Hadcock, R. N., Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales, 2nd
edn. (London, 1971).
Lander, J. R., Marriage and Politics: The Nevilles and the Wydevilles, Bulletin of
the Institute of Historical Research, 36 (1963), 11952.
English Justices of the Peace, 14611509 (Gloucester, 1989).
Leadam, I. S., The Inquisition of 1517: Inclosures and Evictions, Part III, London
and Suburbs, TRHS, 2nd ser., 8 (1894), 253331.
Lehmberg, S. E., The Reformation Parliament 15291536 (Cambridge, 1970).
The Later Parliaments of Henry VIII 15361547 (Cambridge, 1977).
Leland, T., The History of Ireland from the Invasion of Henry II with a Preliminary
Discourse on the Antient State of that Kingdom, 3 vols. (Dublin, 1773).
Lloyd, S., English Society and the Crusade, 12161307 (Oxford, 1988).
Loades, D. M., Mary Tudor: A Life (Oxford, 1989).
The Tudor Navy: An Administrative, Political and Military History (Aldershot,
1992).
The Reign of Mary Tudor: Politics, Government and Religion in England,
15531558, 2nd edn. (Harlow, 1998).
Lomas, R. A., The Priory of Durham and its Demesne in the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Centuries, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 31 (1978), 33953.
Loomis, L. R., Nationality at the Council of Constance: An Anglo-French Dispute,
American Historical Review, 44 (1939), 50827.
Lunt, W. R., Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 13271534, 2 vols.
(Cambridge, Mass., 193962).
 Bibliography 383

Luttrell, A. T., The Hospitallers in Cyprus, Rhodes, Greece and the West, 1291
1440: Collected Studies (London, 1978).
The Hospitallers at Rhodes, 13061421, Hospitallers in Cyprus, art. i, 278
313.
The Hospitallers in Cyprus after 1291, Hospitallers in Cyprus, art. ii, 16171.
Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades 12911440 (London, 1982).
The Hospitallers Historical Activities: 14001530, Latin Greece, art. ii, 145
50.
The Hospitallers Interventions in Cilician Armenia: 12911375, Latin
Greece, art. v, 11644.
Slavery at Rhodes, 13061440, Latin Greece, art. vi, 81100.
The Later History of the Maussolleion and its Utilization in the Hospitaller
Castle at Bodrum, Jutland Archaeological Society Publications, 15/2 (Copen-
hagen, 1986), 114214.
The Hospitallers Western Accounts, 1373/4 and 1374/5, in Camden Miscel-
lany XXX, CS, 4th ser., 39 (London, 1990), 122.
The Hospitallers of Rhodes and their Mediterranean World (Aldershot, 1992).
The Hospitallers of Rhodes Confront the Turks: 13061421, Mediterranean
World, art. ii, 80116.
Notes on Foulques de Villaret, Master of the Hospital, 13051319, Mediter-
ranean World, art. iv, 7390.
Settlement on Rhodes, 130666, Mediterranean World, art. v, 27381.
The Rhodian Background of the Order of St John on Malta, Mediterranean
World, art. xviii, 314.
The Military and Naval Organisation of the Hospitallers at Rhodes: 1310
1444, Mediterranean World, art. xix, 13353.
Malta and Rhodes: Hospitallers and Islanders, in Mallia-Malines (ed.), Hos-
pitaller Malta, 25584.
Chaucers Knight and the Mediterranean, Library of Mediterranean History,
1 (1994), 12760.
The Earliest Documents on the Hospitaller Corso at Rhodes: 1413 and 1416,
Mediterranean Historical Review, 10 (1995), 17788.
The Earliest Hospitallers, in B. Z. Kedar, J. Riley-Smith, and R. Hiestand
(eds.), Montjoie (Aldershot, 1997), 3754.
The Military Orders, 13121798, in J. Riley-Smith (ed.), The Oxford Illus-
trated History of the Crusades (Oxford, 1995), 32664.
The Spiritual Life of the Hospitallers of Rhodes, The Hospitaller State
on Rhodes and its Western Provinces, 13061462 (Aldershot, 1999), art. ix,
7596.
English Contributions to the Hospitaller Castle at Bodrum in Turkey: 1407
1437, MO, ii. 16372.
Hospitaller Birgu: 15301536, Crusades 2 (2003), 121150.
McCorristine, L., The Revolt of Silken Thomas: A Challenge to Henry VIII
(Dublin, 1987).
Macdougall, N., James IV (Edinburgh, 1989).
McHardy, A. K., The Alien Priories and the Expulsion of Aliens from England in
1378, in D. Baker (ed.), Church, Society and Politics, Studies in Church History,
12 (Oxford, 1975), 13341.
384 Bibliography

McNeill, T., Anglo-Norman Ulster: The History and Archaeology of an Irish

Barony (Edinburgh, 1980).
Castles in Ireland: Feudal Power in a Gaelic World (London, 1997).
Macquarrie, A., Scotland and the Crusades 10951560 (Edinburgh, 1985).
Mallett, M., Mercenaries, in M. Keen (ed.), Medieval Warfare: A History (Ox-
ford, 1999), 20929.
Mallia-Malines, V. (ed.), Hospitaller Malta 15301798 (Msida, Malta, 1993).
The Birgu Phase of Hospitaller History, in Bugeja, Buhagiar, and Fiorini (eds.),
Birgu, i. 7396.
Manning, C., Excavations at Kilteel Church, Co. Kildare, JCKAS 16/3 (19812),
179230.
Marcombe, D., Leper Knights: The Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem in England,
c.11501544 (Woodbridge, 2003).
Martin, F. X., The Irish Augustinian Reform Movement in the Fifteenth Century,
in Watt et al. (eds.), Medieval Studies, 23064.
Mayer, T. F., Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet (Cambridge, 2000).
Mifsud, A., Knights Hospitaller of the Venerable Tongue of England in Malta
(Valletta, 1914).
Miller, H., Henry VIII and the English Nobility (Oxford, 1986).
Mitchell, R. J., The Spring Voyage: The Jerusalem Pilgrimage in 1458 (London,
1964).
Moody, T. W., Martin, F. X., and Byrne, F. J. (eds.), A New History of Ireland, ix:
Maps, Genealogies, Lists (Oxford, 1984).
Morant, P., The History and Antiquities of the County of Essex, 2 vols. (London,
17638).
Mueller, R. C., The Venetian Money Market: Banks, Panics and the Public Debt,
12001500 (Baltimore, 1997).
Munro, J. H., Wool, Cloth and Gold: The Struggle for Bullion in the Anglo-
Burgundian Trade, 13401478 (Toronto, 1972).
New, C. W., A History of the Alien Priories of England to the Conscation of Henry
V (Chicago, 1916).
Nicholls, K. W., The Development of Lordship in County Cork, 13001600, in
P. O. Flanagan and C. G. Buttimer (eds.), Cork: History and Society (Dublin,
1993), 157212.
Nichols, J., The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester, 4 vols. in 8 parts
(London, 17951811).
Nicholson, H., The Military Orders and the Kings of England in the Twelfth and
Thirteenth Centuries, in A. Murray (ed.), From Clermont to Jerusalem: The
Crusades and Crusader Societies 10951500 (Turnhout, 1998).
The Knights Hospitaller on the Frontiers of the British Isles, MMR, 4757.
The Hospitallers in England, the Kings of England and Relations with Rhodes
in the Fourteenth Century, Sacra Militia, 2 (2001), 2545.
The Knights Hospitaller (Woodbridge, 2001).
Nicol, D. M., A Byzantine Emperor in England: Manuel IIs Visit to London in
14001401, University of Birmingham Historical Journal, 12/2 (1971), 20425.
Nisbet, J., Treasury Records of the Knights of St. John in Rhodes, MH 2/2 (1957),
95104.
 Bibliography 385

Oppenheim, M., A History of the Administration of the Royal Navy and of Mer-
chant Shipping in Relation to the Navy from MDIX to MDCLX with an Intro-
duction Treating of the Preceding Period (London, 1896).
Orme, N., Church and Chapel in Medieval England, TRHS, 6th ser., 6 (1996),
75102.
Ormerod, G., The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester, 2nd edn., rev.
and enlarged by T. Helsey, 3 vols. (London, 1882).
OSullivan, B., The Dominicans in Medieval Dublin, in Clarke (ed.), Medieval
Dublin, ii. 8399.
Otway-Ruthven, A. J., A History of Medieval Ireland, 2nd edn. (New York, 1980).
Palmer, J. J. N., England, France and Christendom, 13771399 (London, 1972).
Parks, G. B., The English Traveler to Italy, i: The Middle Ages (to 1525) (Rome,
1954).
Paviot, J., La Politique navale des ducs de Bourgogne 1384/1482 (Lille, 1995).
Perkins, C., The Knights Hospitallers in England after the fall of the Order of the
Temple, EHR 45 (1930), 2859.
The Wealth of the Knights Templars in England and the Disposition of it after
their Dissolution, American Historical Review, 15 (1910), 25263.
Phillips, G., The Anglo-Scots Wars 15131550: A Military History (Woodbridge,
1999).
Phillips, S. D., The Recycling of Monastic Wealth in Medieval Southern England,
13001530, Southern History, 22 (2000), 4571.
Pinks, W., The History of Clerkenwell, 2nd edn., ed. E. J. Wood (London, 1881).
Porter, W., A History of the Knights of Malta, 2nd edn. (London, 1883).
Puddy, E., A Short History of the Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in
Norfolk (Dereham, 1961).
Pugh, R. B., The Knights Hospitallers of England as Undertakers, Speculum, 56
(1981), 56674.
Raban, S., Mortmain Legislation and the English Church (Cambridge, 1982).
Rawcliffe, C., The Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham 1394
1521 (Cambridge, 1978).
Rees, W., A History of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in Wales and on the Welsh
Border (Cardiff, 1947).
Rex, R., Blessed Adrian Fortescue: A Martyr without a Cause?, Analecta Bollandi-
ana, 115 (1997), 30753.
Richardson, H. G., and Sayles, G. O., The Irish Parliament in the Middle Ages
(Philadelphia, 1952).
Riley-Smith, J., The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus c.10501310
(London, 1967; repr. Basingstoke, 2002).
(ed.), Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades (Oxford, 1995).
The First Crusaders, 10951130 (Cambridge, 1997).
Hospitallers: The History of the Order of St John (London, 1999).
Ritook, P., Templar Architecture in England, SJHSP 4 (1992), 1422.
Rodger, N. A. M., The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain, i: 660
1649 (London, 1997).
Ross, C., Edward IV (Berkeley, Calif., 1974).
Rossi, E., Il dominio degli spagnoli e dei Cavalieri di Malta a Tripoli (15101551)
(Intra, 1937).
386 Bibliography

Rossi, E., The Hospitallers at Rhodes: 14211523, Hist. Crusades, iii. 31439.
Ruddock, A. A., London Capitalists and the Decline of Southampton in the Early
Tudor Period, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 2 (1949), 13751.
Italian Merchants and Shipping in Southampton 12701600 (Southampton,
1951).
Ryder, A., The Eastern Policy of Alfonso the Magnaminous, Atti della Accademia
Ponticana, 28 (1979), 725.
Sarnowsky, J., Die Johanniter und Smyrna (13441402), Romische Quartalss-
chrift, 86 (1991), 21551; 87 (1992), 4798.
Der Konvent auf Rhodos und die Zungen (lingue) im Johanniterorden: 1421
1476, in Z. H. Nowak (ed.), Ritterorden und RegionPolitische, soziale und
wirtschaftliche Verbindungen im Mittelalter (Torun, 1995), 4365.
Kings and Priors: The Hospitaller Priory of England in the Later Fifteenth
Century, MMR 83102.
Macht und Herrschaft im Johanniterorden des 15. Jahrhunderts: Verfassung
und Verwaltung der Johanniter auf Rhodos (14211522) (Munster, 2001).
The Oligarchy at Work: The Chapters General of the Hospitallers in the XVth
Century (14211522), in M. Balard (ed.), Autour de la premiere croisade (Paris,
1996), 26776.
The Rights of the Treasury: The Financial Administration of the Hospital-
lers on Fifteenth-Century Rhodes, 14211522, MO, ii. 26774.
Scarisbrick, J. J., Henry VIII (Harmondsworth, 1968).
Cardinal Wolsey and the Common Weal, in Ives et al. (eds.), Wealth and
Power in Tudor England, 4567.
Schoeld, R. S., The Geographical Distribution of Wealth in England, 1334
1649, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 108 (1965), 483510.
Scoeld, C. L., The Life and Reign of Edward IV, 2 vols. (London, 1923).
Setton, K. M., (gen. ed.), A History of the Crusades, 2nd edn., 5 vols. (Madison,
Wis., 196989).
The Papacy and the Levant: 12041571, 4 vols. (Philadelphia, 197684).
Seymour, St John D., The Diocese of Emly (Dublin, 1913).
Shimield, W. H., On Shengay and its Preceptory, Proceedings of the Cambridge
Antiquarian Society, 7 (1893), 13647.
Sire, H. J. A., The Knights of Malta (London, 1994).
Skeeters, M. C., Community and Clergy: Bristol and the Reformation c.1530
c.1570 (Oxford, 1993).
Smith, J. C. C., Index of Wills Proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury 1383
1558, 2 vols., continuously paginated (London, 18935).
Spiteri, S. C., Fortresses of the Cross (Malta, 1994).
Fortresses of the Knights (Malta, 2001).
Spufford, M., A Cambridgeshire Community: Chippenham from Settlement to
Enclosure, University of Leicester Department of English Local History Occa-
sional Papers, 20 (Welwyn Garden City, 1965).
Spufford, P., Handbook of Medieval Exchange (London, 1986).
Steel, A., The Receipt of the Exchequer 13771485 (Cambridge, 1954).
Studd, R., A Templar Colony in North Staffordshire: Keele before the Sneyds,
North Staffordshire Journal of Field Studies, 22 (19825), 521.
 Bibliography 387

Surtees, R., The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, 4 vols.
(London, 181641, repr. Wakeeld, 1972).
Sutcliffe, S., The Cult of St Sitha in England: An Introduction, Nottingham
Medieval Studies, 37 (1993), 839.
Sutton, A. F., John Kendale: A Search for Richard IIIs Secretary, in J. Petre (ed.),
Richard III: Crown and People (Gloucester, 1985).
Swanson, R. N., Religion and Devotion in Europe, c.1215c.1515 (Cambridge,
1995).
Letters of Confraternity and Indulgence in Late Medieval England, Archives,
25 (2000), 4057.
Synnott, P. N. N., Knights Hospitallers in Ireland 11741558 (privately printed,
n.d.).
Szczesniak, B. B., The Knights Hospitallers in Poland and Lithuania (The Hague,
1969).
Taaffe, J., The History of the Holy Sovereign Military Order of St. John of Jerusa-
lem, 4 vols. (London, 1852).
Tanner, T., Notitia monastica, ed. J. Nasmith (Cambridge, 1787).
Tencajoli, O., Il soggiorno a Civitavecchia e a Viterbo dellOrdine di S. Giovanni di
Gerusalemme e di Rodi, 15231527, Roma, 7 (1929), 43344, 48194.
LOrdine di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme a Nizza (Turin, 1929).
Thompson, B. J., The Statute of Carlisle, 1307, and the Alien Priories, JEH 41
(1990), 54383.
The Laity, the Alien Priories and the Redistribution of Ecclesiastical
Property, in N. Rogers (ed.), England in the Fifteenth Century (Stamford,
1994), 1941.
Monasteries and their Patrons at Foundation and Dissolution, TRHS, 6th ser.,
4 (1994), 10325.
Thompson, E. M., The Carthusian Order in England (London, 1930).
Thomson, J. A. F., Richard Tollet and Thomas Cornish: Two West Country Early
Tudor Churchmen, Southern History, 19 (1997), 6173.
Thornley, I. D., The Destruction of Sanctuary, in R. W. Seton-Watson (ed.), Tudor
Studies Presented to Albert Frederick Pollard (London, 1924), 182207.
Thurley, S., Hampton Court: A Social and Architectural History (London, 2003).
Tipton, C. L., The English at Nicopolis, Speculum, 37 (1962), 52840.
Peter Holt, Turcopolier of Rhodes and Prior of Ireland, AOSM 22 (1964),
825.
The English and Scottish Hospitallers during the Great Schism, CHR 52
(19667), 2405.
The English Hospitallers during the Great Schism, Studies in Medieval and
Renaissance History, 4 (1967), 91124.
The 1330 Chapter General of the Knights Hospitallers at Montpellier, Tradi-
tio, 24 (1968), 293308.
The Irish Hospitallers during the Great Schism, PRIA 69 (1970), C, 3343.
Torr, C., Rhodes in Modern Times (London, 1887).
Tsirpanlis, Z. N., Anekdota eggrapha gia te Rodo kai te Noties Sporades apo to
archeioton Ionniton Ippoton (Unpublished Documents concerning Rhodes and the
south-eastern Aegean Islands from the Archives of the Order of St John) [in
Greek](Rhodes, 1995).
388 Bibliography

Tsirpanlis, Z. N., Rhodes and the South-East Aegean Islands under the Knights of
St John (14th to 16th Centuries): Collected Studies [in Greek] (Rhodes, 1991).
Tyerman, C., England and the Crusades, 10951588 (Chicago, 1988).
The Invention of the Crusades (Basingstoke, 1998).
Valentini, R., I Cavalieri di S. Giovanni da Rodi a Malta: Trattative diplomatiche,
Archivum Melitense, 9/4 (1934), 137237.
LEgeo dopo la caduta di Costantinopoli nelle relazioni dei Gran Maestri di
Rodi, Bullettino dellIstituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Mur-
atoriano, 51 (1936), 13768.
Vatin, N., LOrdre de Saint-Jean-de-Jerusalem, lEmpire ottoman et la Mediterranee
orientale entre les deux sieges de Rhodes (14801522) (Paris, 1994).
Vella, A. P., A Sixteenth Century Elizabethan Merchant in Malta, MH 6/3 (1970),
197238.
The Order of Malta and the Defence of Tripoli, MH 6/4 (1975), 36281.
Vella, H., The Report of the Knights of St Johns 1524 Commission to Malta and
Quintinus Insulae Melitae Descriptio, Melita Historica, 8/4 (1983), 31924.
Vertot dAubeuf, R. A. de, Histoire des chevaliers hospitaliers de S. Jean de
Jerusalem, 5 vols. (Paris, 1726).
Victoria County History
Vizzari de Sannazaro, L., The Venerable Langue of England: A History of the
English Branch of the Order of St John of Jerusalem with a Roll of Englishmen
connected with the Order, and an Appendix of Unpublished Documents, London,
SJG.
Watt, J., The Church and the Two Nations in Medieval Ireland (Cambridge, 1970).
The Church in Medieval Ireland, 2nd edn. (Dublin, 1998).
Morrall, J. B., and Martin, F. X. (eds.), Medieval Studies Presented to Aubrey
Gwynn, S.J. (Dublin, 1961).
Watts, J., A Newe Ffundacion Of is Crowne: Monarchy in the Age of Henry VII,
in Thompson (ed.), Reign of Henry VII, 3153.
Wedgwood, J. C., and Holt, A. D., History of Parliament: Biographies of Members
of the Common House 14391509 (London, 1936).
Willard, J. F., Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 (Cambridge,
Mass., 1934).
Willis, P., Sir John Langstrother, a Fifteenth Century Knight of St. John, SJHSP 2
(1990), 307.
Woodman, W., The Preceptory of the Knights Hospitallers at Chibburn, Northum-
berland Archaeological Journal, 17 (1860), 3547.
Wormald, F., and Giles, P. M., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Additional Illumin-
ated Manuscripts in the Fitzwilliam Museum, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1982).
Wormald, J., Court, Kirk and Community: Scotland 14701625 (Edinburgh,
1981).
Wright, N., Knights and Peasants: The Hundred Years War in the French Coun-
tryside (Woodbridge, 1998).
Wroe, A., Perkin: A Story of Deception (London, 2003).
Wylie, J. H., A History of England under Henry the Fourth, 4 vols. (London, 1884
98).
Youings, J., The Dissolution of the Monasteries (London, 1971).
 Bibliography 389

unpublished theses

Bolton, J. L., Alien Merchants in England in the Reign of Henry VI, B.Litt. thesis
(Oxford, 1971).
Dondi, C., The Liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem (XIIXVI Century):
With Special Reference to the Practice of the Orders of the Temple and St John of
Jerusalem, Ph.D. thesis (London, 2000).
OMalley, G. J., The English and the Levant in the Fifteenth Century, M.Phil.
thesis (Cambridge, 1994).
Polak, L. L. G., French Pilgrims to Jerusalem in the Fifteenth Century, MA thesis
(London, 1954).
Struckmeyer, M., The Sisters of the Hospital of St John at Buckland, M.Phil.
thesis (Cambridge, 1999).
Tipton, C. L., The English Langue of the Knights Hospitallers during the Great
Schism, Ph.D. thesis (University of Southern California, 1964).
 Index

Notes: Appendices have not been indexed. Entries are given letter by letter. The
following abbreviations are used in the index: abp archbishop b bailiff bp bishop
Br brother b/wick bailiwick c chaplain d duke dep deputy e earl f farmer/lessee hosp
hospital of St John of Jerusalem Hospr. Hospitaller ld lord mr master Ott. Ottoman p
preceptor pr prior pry priory py preceptory r rectory s siege.

Abergavenny, ld, see Neville, George alms 94, 97, 98, 1001
Achaea 5 Alterward, Br William 274
see also Greece Amal 2
Acre 2, 3, 226 Amaral, Br Andrea d, chancellor
Addington, Bucks. 175 hosp 292, 298
ad voluntatem rents 76 ambassadors of order 136, 174, 176,
administration 52, 55, 568, 6076 177, 1814, 216, 223
passim Amboise, Br Aimery d, mr hosp 155,
admiral, the (conventual bailiff) 270, 1623, 30912
306 n. 269, 308 Amwyk, John, fool and idiot 109
admiral, of English navy 328, 329 ancienitas 323, 412, 202, 245, 272,
admission/admissions 2633 passim, 281, 290
127, 135, 220, 246, 248, 249, Anderton, James 106
2567, 274 angels 53
see also nobility, proofs of; provincial Anglo-Irish, see Ireland, English born in
chapters Anglo-Normans, in Scotland 260
Adrian VI, pope 9, 176 Angus and Gowrie, sherrifdom of 261
Adriatic, the 276 Anjou, Margaret of, q England 131
advowsons, see appropriated churches Anlaby, Br Henry 294 n. 186, 295
Aegean, the 4, 7, 155, 302 annates, payable to crown and
agriculture, prots of 6970, 2312 convent 220
Alderney 329 Annates, Act in Conditional Restraint
Alen family 233, 252, 2545 of 210
Alen, John, abp Dublin 252 Ansty, Wilts., p and py of 43 n. 122, 48,
Alexander V, anti-pope 259 62 n. 18, 71, 80, 212 n. 293, 321
Alexandretta, battle of 1623, 302 Antwerp 149, 274 n. 54
Alexandria 4 Any, Co. Limerick, py of 227,
Alfonso V, k Aragon 119 250 n. 161, 254
Algiers 302, 321 vicar of 236
Alicante 200, 276 apodicia servitoris 272 n. 34
alien priories 17, 92, 11314, 264 n. apostasy 320, 324
247, 266 Appeals, Act of 210, 211, 217
alienations 246, 248 appeals, forbidden 46, 207, 221
Allcock, Mr 57 appointments, Hospr. 12, 13, 39, 418,
allegiances, divided 125, 2245, 332 178 n. 107, 249, 272, 337
 Index
see also England, priors of; Ireland,
priors of; turcopolier
apportum 11314
see also responsions
appropriated churches 30, 98, 145,
155
acquisition 75, 228, 233
advowsons 65, 75, 101
arms in 102
leases of 63, 64, 66
levies on 282, 284
maintenance/improvement of 54, 99,
239, 336
prayers in 95
revenue and expenses 745
vicars of, see clergy, secular
see also oblations
Aragon 8, 12
Aragonese 5
Archangelos, Rhodes 6, 268, 308, 310
archaeology 91
Archer, Br John le, pr Ireland 238
Arches, court of 100
architecture, see buildings
archives of the order 9, 21
Armagh, abps of 99, 232
clergy of 232
see also Palatio; Swayne
Armenia, Cilician 4, 267
Armistead, (Br?) William 31, 54, 55,
322, 326
arms, displayed 57, 107, 284
arquebuses 299300
artillery 150, 185, 188, 296, 298, 299
Ashby, Lincs. 10910
Ashton, Br Edmund 23940
Asia Minor 165
Askew, Br George 297, 300
Askew, Br William 302 n. 242
Aslackby, Lincs. r 74 n. 73
assignments on orders revenues 135,
138
astrologers 1467
attainder 217, 242, 324
attorneys, prioral 92 n. 32
see also lawyers
auberges 11, 271
English 22, 62, 219, 2814, 299
391
Aubigny, seigneur d, see Stewart
Aubin, Br Jean 310, 311
Aubusson, Br Guillaume d 47
Aubusson, Br Pierre d, mr hosp 7, 28,
512, 145, 152, 154, 155,
282 n. 98, 291, 309
Audience, court of 83, 100
auditors:
of langues 272
preceptorial 56
prioral 105, 106, 214; see also
Sheldon, Richard
Audley, Edmund, bp Hereford 100
Audley, ld, see Touchet
Augmentations, court/ofcers of 225,
322, 324, 325
Augustinian canons 230, 234
Augustinian canonesses 92 n. 23
Augustinian friars 265
Auvergne, prior of 145
receiver of pry 169
Avignon 13, 86, 92, 113, 115, 185, 335
order supports popes in 114, 2589
Aylmer, Br George 297, 299, 300, 302,
321, 323
Ayscough family 40
Ayscough, Br James 44
Babington family 34, 40, 110, 334
Babington, Humphrey 65, 68
Babington, Br James 34
Babington, Sr Joan 33 n. 58
Babington, Br John jnr 34, 48, 219
Babington, Br John snr, turcopolier, pr
Ireland and b Eagle 110, 180,
2034, 292
career 4951
p Dalby 65
b Eagle 51, 197
death 209 n. 283
and Docwras spolia 182, 186, 188,
189, 193
family 34, 37, 104
house in Birgu 285
sent to England 1978, 199, 200
and s Rhodes 1689
turcopolier and pr Ireland 51, 181,
186, 193, 251
392 Index
Babington, Br John snr, turcopolier, pr
Ireland and b Eagle (cont.)
vice-receiver/receiver 83, 168, 173,
178 n. 119, 190, 201 n. 245
Babington, Br Philip 34, 2912, 304,
322, 3245
Babington, Sir Thomas 104
Bachelor, Br William 31
Baddesley, Hants, p and py of 30 n. 31,
43 n. 122, 80, 107, 158 n. 282,
331 n. 81
Badorch, Guillem 138
Badorch, Llus 138
Badstret, Br George 287 n. 138
bailies 2601
bailiffs, manorial/preceptorial 57, 105
bailiwick of merchants 269 n. 14, 317
Bainbridge, Christopher cardinal 263
bailiwicks, pys divided into 76, 103,
2601
bajuliae 289, 602
Balantrodoch (now Temple,
Midlothian), church of 259
Baldock, market and fair at 150
Balkans, struggle in 93
Ball, Hugh, merchant 164
ballads 265
Ballyhack, Co. Wexford, py 234,
236 n. 73, 250 n. 161
Balsall, Warws., py 456, 62, 65,
73 n. l, 81 n. b
cross at 96
disputes over 67, 68, 110, 152,
1567, 188, 1936
balsam 161, 164
Baltic 1, 88, 89
banneret 289, 306, 307, 309
Barbary, see north Africa
Barletta, receiver in pry of 169
Barlow, Br William 331 n. 84
Barnaby family 36
Barnwell family 248
Baron, Br John 297, 298
baronies, Scottish 2601
Barrow, Derbys., py 43 n. 122
see also Yeaveley
Barton, John, f Eagle 131
Baskerville, Br Roland 49
Bassett, Thomas 66
Battersby, Br Henry 291, 294 n. 186,
295
Battisford, Suffolk, py 43 n. 122,
62 n. 18, 63, 71, 80, 106, 212 n. 293
Bayazid II, sultan 7, 8
Beauchamp, Richard, e Warwick 118
Beautz, John, f Balsall 152
Beautz, Br William 296
Beaufort, Margaret, countess of
Richmond and Derby 110
Beaumont Leys, Leics. 139
Beauvivre, Daniel 147
Bedfordshire 172 n. 74
Beirut 274 n. 53
Bekley, Br Stephen 30 n. 31
bell, inscribed 101
Bell, Francis 58, 823, 105, 164, 167,
178, 188, 189, 214, 287, 288
Bell, Marion, widow of Francis 214
Bellingham, Br Edward 38, 181 n. 143,
206 n. 265, 207, 298, 322 n. 14,
3256, 327
Bellingham, Robert 152
Benedict XIII, anti-pope 259
beneces, see appropriated churches
Bennett, Constans 105
Bentham, Br Anthony 303
bequests 36, 53, 94, 101, 108, 333
forbidden 191
misuse of 1823
Berkshire 72
Berwick, Essex, see Rainham-Berwick
Berwick-upon-Tweed 184, 335
Bevercotes, Br Humphrey 32, 33,
44 n. 128
Beverley, Yorks., p 36 n. 77, 154 n. 251
py 43 n. 122, 65, 70, 72 n. b, 80,
212 n. 293
Bidoux, Br Jean Pregent de 1812,
184 n. 153
Binning, Br John 259
Birgu, Malta 10, 283, 285
birth, nearness of 39, 42, 4950
birthplace, see families, geographical
origins
Black Death 63, 69
Blakesley, Northants., r 74 n. 73
 Index
Blanchefort, Br Guy de, mr hosp
163 n. 13, 263
blasphemy 204, 205, 273, 291, 292
Blewbury, prebend/prebendary of 31,
65, 74
Blome, Br John 30
Bodmiscombe, Devon, py 61, 73 n. d
Bodrum, castle of St Peter at 5, 268,
289 n. 155, 293
English captains 12, 127, 154, 164,
303, 314, 31617
English contributions to 97, 1201
English and Irish at 301, 3034
number of brethren at 271 n. 31, 300
see also caravans
Bolande, Henry 56
Boleyn, Sir Thomas 106
Bologna university 30
bonds 132, 149, 190, 191, 217
bondsmen 103
books 534
Booth, Charles, bp Hereford and vicar-
general of Lincoln 100, 156
Boreham, Essex, vicar of 95
Bordeux 179
Bosio, Br Antonio 178, 1845, 187,
189, 192
Bosio, Giacomo 1845, 294, 2967
Bosio, Tommaso 1845
Boston, Lincs. 38, 40
rectory 75, 139, 158
Boswell, Br German 291
Boswell, Br John, turcopolier 37, 46, 48,
151, 287 n. 138, 314
ight from convent 1267, 2901
as p Temple Brewer 10910
and s Rhodes 139 n. 172, 295
Boswell, Br Richard 152
Bosworth, battle of 143 n. 194
Bothe, Br John, turcopolier 37, 41, 248,
301, 318
and s Rhodes 169 n. 53, 2979
Botill, Br John 35
Botill, Br Robert pr England 32, 35,
141 n. 184, 157
appointment 137 n. 161
and brethren 45, 612
and 1446 chapter-general 305 n. 264
393
death 44, 127, 129
not to visit Rhodes 112, 124
royal service 112, 117 n. 33, 123,
1256
Boucicaut, Jean II le Maingre 4
Boulogne-sur-Mer 186, 326
barque of 329
Bourbon, Charles de Valois d of 177
Bourbon, Br Jacques de 182
Bourchier, Thomas, abp
Canterbury 101, 130, 138
Bourgh, Br John 287 n. 138, 296
Bowes, William 65
Boydell, Br Roger, turcopolier 4951,
169 n. 53, 182, 201, 204, 206
Boydell, Br Thomas 291, 31011
Boys, Jane 109
Bradford, Wilts. 326
Branceter, Robert 217, 21819
Brandenburg, Albert of, mr Teutonic
order 265
Brandon, Charles d Suffolk 171
Bray, Sir Reginald 155, 334
Brereton, Sir William 214
Bridget (of York), lady 138
Bridgettines 92
Bristol 75, 109, 213
Britain/British Isles 1, 12
British crusaders 879
Broke, Br Richard 325, 3279, 330
Brown, Mr 324 n. 29
Brown, Br Edward 322 n. 14, 323
family 40
Browne, Edward, cit. London 85
Bruce invasion of Ireland 230, 232
Bruce, Robert, see Robert I
Bruge, Richard 68
Bruges 53 n. 191, 140, 147, 259,
274 nn.
Brut, the 53 n. 191
Buckingham, d of, see Stafford
Buckland, see Minchin Buckland
Buet, Br Francis 297, 298
buildings 568, 667, 70, 104, 232
bulla turcopeleriatus (of 1448) 306,
309, 31112, 313
bullion, export of 11415, 119, 121,
167, 168, 277
394 Index
burial 1617, 37, 58, 75, 107, 210
of felons and excommunicates 978
Burgh, Sir Thomas 106
Burgh, William de, fourth e Ulster
(132633) 232
Burgundian ambassadors 158
Burgundian crusades 89, 124
Burgundy, duchy of 8, 144, 149
Burton, Lincs. 35
Bussottus, turcopole 304 n. 258
Butler family, earls of Ormond 239
Butler, James, fourth e Ormond
(140752) 15, 93, 2401
Butler, James fth e Ormond and
e Wiltshire (145261) 97, 126
Butler, Lionel 20
Butler, Piers Ruadh, e Ossory 252
Butler, Br Thomas Bacach,
pr Ireland 2345, 238
Butler, Br William FitzThomas,
pr Ireland 237, 239 n. 92, 241
Butterwick, Lincs. 35 n. 70
Byzantine empire 5, 118
Byzantium, see Byzantine empire
cabimentum 412, 46
Cadarn, Henry 201 n. 244
Cade, Jack, rising of 103
Cahell family 254
Calabria 32 n. 49, 276
Calais 15, 108, 123, 139, 144, 145,
200, 274, 276, 326, 327
deputy of 208 n. 279
manifesto 130
proposal to move Hospitallers
to 17984 passim, 256,
324 n. 29, 335
Cambridgeshire 60, 62 n. 14
camerae 13, 29, 601
see also magistral camerae; prioral
camerae
Campbell, Sir Colin of Glenorchy 265
Campeggio, Lorenzo cardinal 187
cannon, see artillery
Canterbury, abps of 99100
see also Bourchier; Morton; Warham
Caoursin, Guillaume 6 n. 31, 93 n. 36,
142
Capello, Carlo 206 n. 267
capitular bs 13, 14, 270, 271, 277
capitular b/wicks 42
Caracciolo, Br Riccardo de, anti-
master 114 n. 14, 238
caravan service 270, 278, 280,
282 n. 96, 293, 3004, 321
Carbrooke, p 37 n. 81, 275 n. 60
Carbrooke, Norfolk, py 36 n. 77,
43 n. 122, 73 n. h, 79 n. g
charity at 71
collation to 1523
depopulation 69
dilapidation of 57
dispute in 21213
nances 74, 80, 212 n. 293
Cardelli, Nicolao 307 n. 277
cardinals 74 n. 72
Cardington, Salops., r 74
cards, prohibited 273
careers, Hospr. 39, 4151, 2712
Carew, Br Philip 291, 292
Carretto, Br Fabrizio, mr hosp 163,
165, 166, 249, 271 n. 29
carriage, tenants perform 260
Carrickfergus, castellan of 234
Carthusians 92, 320
see also London, Charterhouse
cartulary (of 1442) 201
cash, short in Ireland 237
Casp, bailiff of 9
see also Homedes
Cassari, Antonio, turcopole 304 n. 258,
307 n. 277
castellan of Birgu 285, 323
castellanies and castellans (on
Rhodes) 30511 passim
castellany and castellans of
Rhodes 269 n. 14, 285, 307
English 12, 127, 2023, 284, 294, 317
Castellessi, Adriano 144, 145
Castello delMare, Malta 10
Castellorizzo 6
Castiglione, Br Sabba da 55
Castile 12
pr/pry of 177, 330
Castilian bases 184
Castleboy, Co. Down, py 234, 235
 Index
castles 233, 234, 268
casualties, see mortality
Catalan merchants 286, 289
Catania, Rhodes 307
Cathagro, Rhodes 306 n. 269
Catharine of Aragon, q England 203
cavallaritus, see Aubin, Br Jean
Cave family 37, 40
Cave, Br Ambrose 42 n. 110, 198, 326
and Dingley affair 21516, 21819
royal service 325, 327, 328
Cavendish, Br Thomas 302 n. 242
Cavendish, William 106
Caxton, William 76, 90
Cely, George 108, 139, 140
Cely, Richard jnr 108, 139
Cely, Richard snr 108
cemeteries 16, 978
Cephalonia 276
Chaldiran, battle of 163
Chalmers/Chamber, Br John 281,
2978
Champagne, pr of 143 n. 191
chancellor of England 195
see also Touchet; Wolsey
chancellor of Ireland 244
priors as 229, 241
chancery clerks 106, 107
Chancery, court of 67, 175, 18895
chancery of order (in convent) 269, 290
chantries 16, 52, 53, 71, 91, 92, 94, 99,
117, 155 n. 259, 228
Chapel Izod, Co. Dublin 232
chapels:
extra-parochial 99
manorial 66
see also preceptories
chaplains, Hospr., see priests
chaplains, manorial 66, 105
see also preceptories
chapters-general 1314, 16, 46, 47,
112, 1534, 247, 269, 285
and Hampton Court 157, 173
and master 269, 287
participants in 128, 140, 221, 270,
271, 305
and prioral elections 238
records of 21, 22
395
set responsions 77, 79, 128, 197
summons to 159, 164, 198
and turcopoliership 306
individual meetings: Malta
(1533) 200, 2025, 208, 211;
Montpellier (1330) 12; Rome
(1446) 36 n. 77, 304 n. 264;
Rome (14667) 128, 242, 243,
261, 285; Viterbo (1527) 10,
179, 182, 197
Chapuys, Eustace 252
charity 71, 92
see also oblations
Charles V, emperor 9, 10, 171, 179,
206 n. 267, 330 n. 73
and Malta 177, 180, 183, 188, 199
marriage 158
and Rhodes 178, 187
Charles VIII, k France 145
as dauphin 138
Charlotte, q Cyprus 316
Chauncey, Joseph de, pr England 123
cheese 309
Cheshire 72
Chestereld 40
Chetwood family 104
Chetwood, Br Adam 106, 294 n. 186,
295
Cheyney, Br John 274
Chibburn, Northumbs. 62 n. 17, 73 n. j
Chicheley, Thomas 188, 18990, 192,
193
Chichester diocese 31 n. 44
children of Hospitallers 109
chief governor of Ireland, prs Ireland
as 229, 241
Chilcombe, Dorset 81
Chilvercoton, Warws. 1567
Chingleton, Br Roger 274
Chios 275
Chippenham, Cambs. 29, 69
Chirton, Wilts. 64 n. 28
chivalry 11719
choirs and choir schools 16, 52
Christ, depictions of 1012
Christendom 8, 15, 93, 116, 118, 165,
184, 225, 265, 3345
church, defence of the 116, 264
396 Index
church records 24
chronicles 23, 24, 53 n. 191, 93
chroniclers 93
Cibo, house of 145
Cistercians 17, 115 n. 20, 2301, 232,
234
Clahull, Br Hugh de 226
Claneld, Oxon. 63, 73 n. e
Clarence, duke of, see Plantaganet
Clark, G. T. 34
Clement VII, pope 100, 177, 182, 187
clergy, secular 39 n. 97
accommodation 578
and crusades 119
employment and education 301, 52,
54, 101, 2278, 230, 232, 261,
336
payment of 66, 71, 74, 99, 239, 241
relations with order 16, 75, 95,
98101, 141
relations with other orders 912
Clerk, John, bp Bath and Wells 177
Clerkenwell, bajulia/py of 612
Clerkenwell, pry at 14, 21, 29, 42, 75,
331
buildings and property 34 n. 61, 53,
578, 61, 102, 103, 108, 143,
217, 224
burials at 97, 107, 172
confraternity collections 74 n. g
conspiracy at 130
to be conventual 115
conventual church 29, 30, 37, 52, 97,
224
after dissolution 224, 327
divided into precincts 58, 97
maps at 55
payments at/through 103, 258, 263,
264
provincial chapters at 169
residents of 29, 51, 58, 64, 105, 108
as sanctuary 174
skirmish at 108
treasury 61, 67, 68, 190, 193,
199200
visitors to 53 n.191, 122, 143, 158,
185
see also corrodies; masses; obits
Cleveland, Yorks. 73
Clifford, Sir Robert 149
Clippesby family 367
Clonoulty, Co. Tipperary, py 2367,
253
Clontarf, Co. Dublin, py 234 n. 57,
242 n. 109, 244
Clontarf, Viscount, see Rawson, Br John
snr
cloth:
shipped to convent 85, 86 n. 124,
137, 151, 167, 200, 2857
soldea paid in 272, 277
Clothall, Herts. 105
Clovet, Br Pierre 301
coastguard and coastguards 12, 18,
293, 30513, 337
code, letters in 147
Coffyn, Sr Joan, prioress of
Buckland 30 n. 33
Coleman, Nicholas 104
collachium 10, 269, 273, 281, 285, 292
collectors, see rents
collegiate churches 16
Kilmainham as 227
colonists in Ireland 22930
see also Ireland, English born in
commanderies, see preceptories
common law, English 190, 193
common seal, of pry England 63, 64,
137 n. 160, 151, 200
common seal, of pry Ireland 240, 2489
common treasury, of order 78, 84, 132,
158, 189, 2856
clerk/scribe in England 823, 84,
100, 105
expenditure 282, 307
government 82 n. 99, 269
loans to 2878
nuncio 82, 84
proctor in Italy 315
proctors in convent 82 n. 99, 84, 127,
128, 152, 153, 167, 219, 298,
318, 323
receivers in England 42, 62, 151, 1989
proctors in England 12, 82, 135, 198
accounts of 22, 128, 132, 197,
200; appointed/removed 132,
 Index
156, 295; duties 13, 77, 825,
285
see also mortuaries; responsions;
vacancy payments
communal life 29, 51, 92, 2723
conduct, expectations of 52, 2723
confession 98
confraria, see confraternity
confraternity, orders 1617, 52, 3334
and Act of Supremacy 211, 212
benets of 73, 956, 98
and Merchant Taylors 107
papal suspension of 74
payments and collection 66, 724,
945, 103, 227
recruitment to 945, 97
revenue from 724
Congregation, Lords of the 261
Connacht 227, 229, 233, 235,
254, 255
Constantine, George 56
Constantinople 118, 124, 166,
289 n. 155
convent, central 3, 18, 25, 31, 255, 259,
265, 267319
appointments/elections in 43, 129,
131, 136, 145, 153, 154, 21516,
219, 238, 23940, 2412, 2434,
2456, 2489, 305
British and Irish Hospitallers in 5, 6,
7, 12, 32, 41, 44, 45, 85, 90, 97,
161, 182, 208, 211, 226, 242,
259, 264, 267, 274319
and Edward IV 129, 1346
effects sent to 53
English inuence in 164, 219, 298
ight from 2901, 292
goods imported into 2858
and Henry VII 150, 1545, 157, 158,
159
and Henry VIII 1618, 170, 17788,
199, 203, 2057, 209, 216, 220,
2223
licences to depart 42, 49, 129, 135,
181, 198; refused 155, 164,
165 n. 24, 208, 296
licences to visit 114, 163, 281;
refused 112, 1245, 275
397
migrations of 3, 910, 176, 180, 183,
197, 283, 300
numbers in 271 n. 31, 279;
British 164, 167, 27781,
2949, 318, 331
protectors of (1446) 305 n. 264
provisioning of 9, 298
reception in 41, 274
responsions sent to 7686 and passim
retention in 42, 277 n. 77
servants in 105, 281, 298, 303
summons from 126, 223
summons to 42, 124, 132, 136, 139,
159, 163, 166, 198, 243, 250,
271
travel to 32, 177, 2746
violence in 206, 208, 209, 2912, 313
volunteers in 89, 281, 2978, 304
conventual bailiffs 12, 13, 2712
conventual bailiwicks 42, 304
conventual brethren 41, 438, 241,
26973, 290, 301
conventual church 11, 269
conventual commissions, see conventual
service
conventual seal, see common seal
conventual service 12, 18, 41, 44, 478,
50, 259, 264, 271, 273, 337
administrative 31319
military 219, 272, 293305, 319; see
also caravans
convocation (southern) 98, 99, 100,
125, 209
Coort, Br Thomas 30 n. 33
Copeland 72
Coppini, Francesco, bp Terni 125
Coppledike, Br Thomas 36, 21213,
323
Coppledike, William 36
copyhold 63, 64, 76
Corbet, Br William 41, 169 n. 53
Corfu 276
Corinth, Isthmus of 4
Cork 227, 253 n. 181
Cork, Co. 254
Cork, Thomas 190 n. 191
corn 286, 314
see also grain
398
Corner, Br William 30 n. 31
Cornish rising 146, 150
Cornish, Br Thomas 31 n. 44
Corneto 9, 180, 183 n. 150, 283
Coron 10, 206 n. 267
corrodies 58, 64, 65, 105, 106, 122
corsairs 11, 330
corso 4, 7, 288
Cortesius, James 262 n. 235
Cos 6, 154, 268, 269 n. 14, 271 n. 31,
293, 300, 301
council complete 77, 133, 211, 221,
270
council, of order 12, 14, 21, 42, 43,
74 n. 72, 130, 136, 153, 215, 216,
26972 passim, 290
and Clement West 201, 202, 2067,
219, 2201, 294
and discipline 273, 2902
elections in, see convent
English representation on 133, 140,
305
immoderate speech in 166 n. 32
and turcopoliership 30513 passim
council ordinary, composition of 270
council, preceptorial 567
council, prioral, learned in law 68
council, royal, see royal council
couriers, Hospitallers as 178
court, English 16, 97, 154, 160, 206,
207, 216
court, imperial 217
Courtenay, Edward e Devon 217
Courtenay, Henry e Devon (later
marquess of Exeter) 173
courtiers 1067, 1723, 180, 183, 184,
214, 334
Courtrai 171
courts 67, 84, 96, 1734
courts, Hospitaller 16, 66, 76, 96 n. 50,
200, 2601
stewards of 103, 105, 106
Cotes, Thomas 58
Coventry 298 n. 213
cow, bequeathed 101
cowardice 297, 300
creditors 1278, 133
Cressing, see Temple Cressing
Index
Crete 9, 126, 275, 290, 298, 299
criticism, see perceptions
Croft, Br Hugh 274
Cromwell, Thomas 196, 334
and confraternity collection 212
correspondence with Malta 163,
2059, 211, 21519, 2213, 276
and Dingley affair 21519
gifts to 107
and Hospitaller property 210, 214
and prioral auditorship 106, 214
prophecies concerning 218
Crook, Co. Waterford, py 250 n. 161,
254, 257
Cross, Claire 91
crosses, Hospitaller and Templar 96
crosses, pardon 97
Crosthwaite, Westmoreland 36 n. 80
crown surveys 23
Crownhall, Br Henry 53
crusades and crusading:
against Ottomans 6
attitudes to 1718, 8790, 94,
11719
histories 88
historiography 878, 333
leagues and eets 4, 5, 7, 150
of 14991503 150
projects for 124, 174, 2645
propaganda for 88, 90, 118
Second 25
taxation for 119, 142, 165
crusaders 8790, 11819, 161, 227,
3034
cultural accommodation 231
Cumberland 38, 39, 72
curfew 273 n. 42
Curwen family 36 n. 80
custodes 60
Cycandilli, Leo, turcopole 304 n. 258
Cypriot ambassadors 314
Cyprus 5, 314, 316
convent in 3, 4
grand p and py 14, 127, 128 n. 111,
269 n. 14, 271
Dache, Br Robert, hospitaller 218
Dalby, Leics., p 65, 326, 327
 Index
py 43 n.122, 65, 67, 68, 104, 106,
110, 181; nances 79 n. j, 80,
212 n. 293; granted to
master 287
Dalby, Thomas 58
Dalison family 35, 38, 104, 105
Dalison, George 105
Dalison, Br. John 105
Dalison, Br. Richard 105, 296
Dalison, Br. Robert jnr 105
Dalison, Br. Robert snr 44, 105, 151,
153, 296
Dalison, William 35 n. 67
Danby, Br Robert 296
Daniel family 38
Daniel, Br. Robert, turcopolier 44, 153,
308, 30912, 316
Darcy, Richard ld Darcy 173
Dareld, Yorks., r 75
Darrell, Br. William, turcopolier 41,
43 n. 123, 48, 166
Daubeney, Sir Giles 107, 150, 157, 173,
334
dauphin, see Charles VIII
David I, k Scotland 257
Dawney, Johanna 35 n. 67
Dawney, Br. William, turcopolier 35,
44, 97, 126
debtors 82, 83
see also responsions, arrears of
De re militari 54
delation, see papal provisions
Delaville le Roulx, J. 19
demesnes 63, 64, 102
Denis, Maurice 223, 322
depopulation 69, 231
see also enclosure
deputy (chief governor or justiciar) of
Ireland, priors as 229
Edward Bellingham as 326
Derby, earl of, see Stanley
Derbyshire 34, 72, 326
Dethick, Notts. 34, 37, 40
Devon 34, 72
Devon, earl of, see Courtenay
diantrecari 307
dice, prohibited 273
Dieppe 147
399
dilapidation 57, 66, 99 n. 71, 104, 157,
196, 2356
see also enclosure
Dingley, Northants, py 43 n. 122,
62 n. 18, 63
chaplain of 98
see also Battisford
Dingley, Br. Thomas 35, 292
and Shingay 21516
treason and execution 194 n. 206,
21719, 220, 222, 325, 329
Dinmore, Herefs., p 38
py 20, 43 n. 122, 48, 51, 62 n. 17, 67,
71, 153, 245; appointment
to 176 n. 107, 181, 202, 318;
responsions 80, 212 n. 293
diplomacy 18, 55, 108, 123, 1701,
178, 197, 215, 229, 261, 31415,
326
Disant, John, astrologer 1467
discipline 9, 52, 271, 2723, 2902
Dispensations, Act of 210, 211, 212
dispropriamentum 78, 155
dissolution of the monasteries 91,
21314, 225
dissolution, of order:
in England and Wales 15, 161, 220,
2235, 257, 264, 324
in Ireland 223, 2546
in Scotland 264, 265
divine service, provision of 3, 16, 227,
265, 335
Docwra family 34, 38, 104, 105,
109
Docwra, Elizabeth 192 n. 203
Docwra, Isabella, wife of Martin, and
Balsall 1945, 196
Docwra, James of Hitchin 58,
190 n. 190
Docwra, John of Hitchin 58, 188,
1903
Docwra, John of Kirkby
Kendall 34 n. 61, 58
Docwra, John, prebendary of
Blewbury 65
Docwra, Br Lancelot 47, 156, 170
birthplace and family 34, 38 n. 96, 58
death 43 n. 123, 169 n. 53
400
Docwra, Br Lancelot (cont.)
delivers Thomas Docwras gift 164,
288
lieutenant-prior 277 n. 75
in Venice (15056) 275
Docwra, Martin 65, 678, 109, 110,
188, 1936
wife, see Docwra, Isabella
Docwra, Robert 34
Docwra, Br Thomas, pr Ireland,
turcopolier, and pr England 165,
178, 2478, 250, 335
appointments 83
bequests 53
and brethren 467, 4950, 201
captain of Bodrum 317
close to Henry VII 158
conventual service 151 n. 230, 1524
passim, 314, 316, 319
defends orders privileges 1745
disputes with bps Hereford 99100
elected pr England 153
elected pr Ireland 245; exchanges for
turcopoliership 2456
and enclosure commission 1756
factor in Mediterranean, see
Stockhill
and family 34, 38 n. 96, 109, 110,
1903, 196
nal illness and death 17980, 188,
190
galley captain 154, 316
gift and loan to convent 161, 164,
167, 287, 288
granted wardships 172
holds provincial chapters 157
nearly elected master 1612,
178 n. 107, 288
neglects legal business 1734
pressurized for grants 173
refused licence to travel 159, 163
refused pension 152, 1534, 174
royal service 123, 1578, 168, 1702,
277 n. 77
secures Balsall 1567
and 1480 siege 2956
spolia 1802, 186, 18893
supports Dundas 263
Index
ties with court 97, 172
visits Italy? 176
Docwra, Thomas, of Kirkby
Kendall 34 n. 61
Docwra, Thomas, cousin of
Martin 193 n. 204
Dodecanese, the 4, 5, 268
see also Aegean; Mediterranean,
eastern
Dominicans 247, 265
donat 281
Dorset 326
Dover 171, 274 n. 54, 326, 327
harbour accounts 168
Dowdall, Robert 242
Dowdall, Thomas 242 n. 109
draper (conventual bailiff) 207
dress, regulated 273
Drogheda 244
Dublin 228, 234, 247, 2512
castle 243, 245, 252
corporation 247
Dublin, abps of 247 n. 142
ofcers of 242
see also FitzSimons; Talbot; Walton
Dublin, Co. 232, 236, 237, 242
Dudley, John d Northumberland 329
Dudley, John ld 36, 324
Dudley alias Sutton, Br George 36, 301,
324, 331
duels and duelling 93, 208, 240, 291
Dundas, Br Alexander 261, 302 n. 238
Dundas, Br George 55, 84, 162, 261,
2624
Dunmow priory, Essex 95
Dunwich, Suffolk 75
Durham, bishopric of 72, 73 n. j
Durham, Co. 38, 74
dysentery 291
Eagle, Lincs.:
bailiffs of 43, 51, 127, 132, 153, 204,
330, 332; at Clerkenwell 58;
conventual service 31314
b/wick of 42, 43 n. 122, 51, 79 n. j;
chantry chapel 53; farmer of, see
Barton; property at 56; restored
(1557) 331 n. 81
 Index
Eagleseld, Br Robert 44 n. 125,
139 n. 172, 145
East Stafford mill, Dorset 108
Edinburgh 257
Edgeware, Middlesex 169 n. 53
education 30, 546
Edward I, k England:
reign 116
statutes 96, 113 n. 5
Edward II, k England 117
Edward III, k England 15, 11314, 117,
122, 1234, 184, 238 n. 82, 258,
327
Edward IV, k England 15, 12643, 161,
291
and admission of brethren 32, 127
and chivalric kingship 126
claims vacancy monies? 124, 130,
137
and crusade taxation 119, 130, 142
dislikes foreign adventure 125, 142
distrusts hospital 1267, 137, 1412
employs priors 126, 134, 138, 140
and John Langstrother 12731
and John Weston 13740
justices of 174
and prioral appointments 1279,
1347
and pry Ireland 242, 243
and responsions 128, 142
and Robert Multon 134
and s Rhodes 101, 13840, 142, 296
and William Tornay 1312
Edward V, k England 122
as prince of Wales 1312
Edward VI, k England 293, 326
Edward (of Lancaster), prince of Wales
(d. 1471) 131
effects 84, 224
see also spolia
Egypt 3, 6, 163, 165, 288
Egyptian, see Mamluk
elections, prioral, see England, priors of;
Ireland, priors of
Elizabeth I, q England 332
Elizabeth (of York), q England 138,
143
Ellesmere, Salops., r 75
401
emperor, Holy Roman, see Charles V;
Maximilian I
Empson, Sir Richard 173
enclosure 1756
England, kings of, see English crown;
and under individual kings
England, priors of 14, 31
appointment of 43, 124, 12737
passim, 1445, 154, 335
appointments by 41, 4450, 823,
92 n. 32
and brethren 4451, 612
chaplains of 301, 101, 210
conventual service 31314
as diplomats 123, 138, 1701
education and experience 122
estates and nances 612, 63
as judges and arbiters 172
not to be laymen 183
lieutenants of 145, 155, 277 n. 77
and London 107
own ships 53 n. 191, 131, 168
pay responsions 62, 78, 7980
property in Rhodes 284
receiver of 62, 105, 322 n. 14
represented in convent 204
royal service 1225, 160, 1702, 214
standing in parliament 122, 124, 331
swear fealty 123, 130, 1312, 220,
335
and travel to convent 112, 1245,
13940, 159, 162, 163, 215
see also under individual priors
England, pry of 13, 423
chancellor of 31, 823
and English auberge 282
expectancy to 51, 180, 219
general procurator of 61
incorporation at law 68, 92, 214
lieutenants of convent in 129, 134,
181 n. 145
muniments 188, 191
president of 129, 155
proctor of master and convent in,
see Pot
restoration of 37, 3302
sequestrated (1527) 180, 182,
188, 193
402 Index
England, pry of (cont.)
taxed by crown 1212
and Torphichen 2589, 263, 265
vacancies 124, 151, 180; government
during 129, 132, 155; payments
of 1368, 151, 153, 186
visitation of 77
see also Clerkenwell; England, prior
of; estates; income; litigation;
responsions
English Channel 183 n. 153, 3278
English church 87, 90, 91 n. 23, 113,
114, 116, 213
and Rome 209, 330
English crown 13, 86, 87
and crusades 8990, 11719
and order 112225 passim; claims
founders rights in order 117,
331, 335; demands fealty 124,
335; mulcts order 122; and pry
Ireland 2378, 2457; regulates
and restricts order 96, 11215,
121, 1245; requires service of
order 1225, 160, 178, 335; and
responsions 11315, 199, 225;
supports order 923, 11521,
336; taxes order 1212, 209
and papacy 113, 115, 119, 124, 125,
142
its poverty 114
records of 234
suspicious of travel 217, 225
see also under individual rulers
English merchants 161, 2756
Epirus 4
episcopal temporalities 233
episcopate 92, 98, 100
see also clergy, secular
Erskine, Sir Robert 258
esgardium fratrum 47
esgarts 272
Essex 20, 60, 69 n. 58, 144, 146,
172 n. 74
estates of the order:
in England and Wales 201, 223,
34 n. 62, 123; acquisition 60,
75, 102; after dissolution 327;
management 6370, 1027,
11011; organization 603;
reluctance to part with 157, 173,
196; seizures of 124
in Ireland 226, 228, 2356, 256, 265;
alienated 246, 248
recovery of 242, 2534; seized 239,
241
in Scotland 257, 2601, 265
Etaples, treaty of 170
Euboea, see Negroponte
eucharist 98
Eugenius IV, pope 305 n. 264
Eure family 40
see also Evers, Robert
Europe, central 16
Europe, eastern 12, 16
Europe, northern 9
Europe, western 8, 12
Evers, Br Robert, pr Ireland 50, 83, 151,
173, 246, 2479, 252
Ewell, see Temple Ewell
exchange operations 15, 22, 846, 115,
189, 198, 199, 200, 275, 286,
2878
forbidden 199
in 1522: 169
tax on 86, 120
exchange and mint, warden of 131
exchange rates 80 n. a
exchequer, court of 175
exchequer, ministers of 70
excommunicates 97, 98
excommunication 98, 99, 100, 244
execution 15, 218, 292, 320
exemptions 1617
Exeter, bp of 99
exile 320
expectancy, grants of 51, 82, 180, 219,
251, 262, 264, 281
see also ancienitas; England, pry of
expenditure 601, 623
export licence, issued by Henry VIII 199
extent (of 1338), see Report
extent (of 1539) 23
Fairfax family 40
Fairfax, Br Nicholas 39, 44, 172, 300,
317 n. 336
 Index 403

at s Rhodes 169 n. 53, 297, 2989 Fitzgerald, Gerald, later eleventh

Fairfax, Sir William 215 e Kildare 323
falcons 158 Fitzgerald, James, brother of ninth
Famagusta 188 n. 182 e Kildare 251, 252
family connections with order 14, 15, Fitzgerald, Br John, brother of ninth
3340, 1045, 106, 110, 254, 261, e Kildare 172, 250, 251, 252, 253,
334 278, 281
benets of 26, 39, 64, 1045, 18893 Fitzgerald, Richard, brother of ninth
passim e Kildare 251, 252 n. 173
crusaders with 227 Fitzgerald, Thomas, later second
status 26, 401, 261 e Kildare (131628) 227
family papers 24 Fitzgerald, Thomas, seventh e Kildare
family relationships between (145678) 243
Hospitallers 338 Fitzgerald, Thomas, tenth e Kildare
farmers, see lessees (Silken Thomas)
feasts 101 revolts 2512, 255
Feguillem, see Fitzwilliam, Br John ward of Thomas Docwra 172
Ferdinand, k (II) Aragon and (V) Fitzherbert family 40
Castile 144, 161 Fitzherbert, Br Richard 37
Fermour, John, f Quenington 1323 Fitzherbert, Br Walter 37, 46, 296
Ferns castle 256 Fitzhugh, Henry ld Fitzhugh 142
feuing, see leasing n. 186
Ficketseld 197 Fitzmaurice, Br Richard 250, 280
Field of the Cloth of Gold 171 Fitzroy, Henry, d Richmond 180, 184
lii arnaldi 48, 274 FitzSimons, Walter, abp Dublin 247
Fineux, Sir John 173 FitzThomas, William, see Butler
First Fruits and Tenths, Act of 211, Fitzwilliam, Br John 278, 280
212 FitzWilliam, Maurice, see Fitzgerald,
shing 57, 108, 247 n. 142 Maurice
Fitzgerald (of Ballyshannon), Br Thomas, Flanders 108, 149
pr Ireland 15, 93, 23941 preceptor of, see Noion
his brothers 239 eet, Hospitaller, see navy
Fitzgerald, Br Maurice, probably Fletchhampstead, Warws. 195
identical with Thomas 23940 Flodden, battle of 263
Fitzgerald, Thomas Oge, sheriff of Florentines 86 n. 124, 140, 178
Limerick 239 n. 92 Fluvia, Antoni, mr hosp 27
Fitzgerald (of Desmond), earls of 2423 foolish woman, murdered 291
Fitzgerald, James, eleventh Forest, Br John 302 n. 242
e Desmond 253 Forster, Giles 196
Fitzgerald, Thomas, eighth e Desmond Fortescue, Sir Adrian 218
(d. 1468) 2423 Fortescue, Sir John 90
Fitzgerald, Thomas, twelfth Fort St Elmo, Malta 11
e Desmond 2534 fortresses, Hospitaller 3, 4, 5, 7, 11
Fitzgerald (of Kildare) family, ties with see also Bodrum, Rhodes
order 172, 243 foundation of order 2
Fitzgerald, Gerald, eighth e Kildare 245 founders:
Fitzgerald, Gerald, ninth e Kildare 172, descendants 91, 92
249, 251, 253, 254 in Ireland 226
404
founders: (cont.)
rights and wishes 11617, 1823,
331
in Scotland 257
France 6, 8, 12, 25, 28, 113, 183,
1845, 221
embassies to 108, 144, 170
pr/pry of 148, 206 n. 267, 258
southern 169
suspicion of 8, 11315
travel through 274 n. 54, 276
war with 13, 163, 16772 passim,
225, 277 n. 77, 322, 3278;
see also Hundred Years War
Francis I, k France 10, 165, 170, 178,
179, 182, 183
frank-houses 227
frary clerks 74, 94, 967
see also confraternity
freehold tenure 63, 76
French ambassadors 182
see also Marillac
French domination of order 92, 113
French forces 9, 150, 326
French Hospitallers 113, 168
Freville, Br Henry 291, 296
friaries 91 n. 23, 231, 232
friars, see mendicants
friendship 108
Fulbeck, Lincs. 57
Fulbourn, Br Stephen de, pr Ireland 129
Gaelic Resurgence/Revival 22931
Gaelic septs 255
Gainsborough, Lincs., r 75
Galea, J. 19
galley, guard 271 n. 31, 300
Galley Subtill 328
galleys 154, 3289
captains of the 12, 154, 219, 270,
293, 301, 316
caravans on 3013
Galliardetto, Francis 85, 105, 283,
2889
Galliardetto, George, banneret 289
Gallipoli 6, 294
Galway 235, 254
gaol delivery, commissions of 172
Index
Garway, Herefs., py 62 nn. 1718, 83,
99101, 156
see also Dinmore
Gascoigne, Thomas 93
Gattinara, Mercurino, imperial
chancellor 168
Gay, Robert 304
general procurator, see England, priory
of; hospital
Genoa and the Genoese 4, 5, 86 n. 124,
93, 120, 217, 276
see also Lomelino, Tobia; merchants;
Vivaldi, Antonio
gentlemen pensioners 160, 162, 326
gentry 15, 3841, 106, 110, 2301, 254,
256
Gerard, Br Henry 302 n. 238, 303, 321,
322 n. 14, 324, 332
German Hospitallers 10
Germany 12, 134, 176, 324
Gervers, Michael 201
Ghinucci, Geronimo de,
bp Worcester 100
Gibbon, Edward 87
gifts 53 n. 191, 107, 161, 164, 179, 214
Gigli, Silvestro de, bp Worcester 165
Gilchrist, Roberta 91
Gildisburgh, Northants., r 74 n. 73
Giustinianini, Sebastian 165
Glanunder alias Ballymany,
Co. Dublin 234 n. 57
Gloucestershire 72
Golde, Henry 55
Golyn, Br Thomas 169 n. 53, 301
Gonson family 37
Gonson, Br David 40, 276, 2912,
322 n. 14, 3245, 329
Gonson, William 40, 186, 2756, 324
Goodwin, Br Thomas 259
Gozo 10, 11, 292, 321
grace, magistral 41, 202, 272, 287, 318
grace, prioral 41
Grafton, see Temple Grafton
grain 57, 199, 237
Grand Harbour, Malta 10, 11
grand master, see master
grand preceptor/commander
(conventual bailiff) 82 n. 99, 318
 Index
Grantham family 36
Grantham, Br Christopher 276
Grantham, James 276
great ship, the 300
Great Wilbraham, Cambs. 64 n. 28,
106
Greece, order in 45
Greek, study of 55, 56, 289
Greeks 3, 4, 10, 332
in England 88, 118
Green family 35, 41
Green, Gilbert 35 n. 67
Green, Br James 44 n. 128, 275
Green, Br Thomas, b Eagle 139 n. 172,
151 n. 232, 153, 294 n. 186, 295
Green, Br Thomas, priest 33 n. 58
Green, Thomas, of Gressingham:
daughter of 35 n. 67
Greenham, Berks., py 29, 612, 65, 80,
175
Gresham, John 275
Gressingham, Lancs. 35 n. 67
Grey, Henry, ld Grey of Codnor and
Ruthin 243
Gross, Anthony 20
Gryng, Br Thomas 301
guards, see coastguard
Guildford, Sir Richard 159
his chaplain 289
guilds 1034, 108
Guines 324
gunpowder 9, 298
habit, deprival of 127, 221, 2902
passim
Clement West discards 204, 205
Haddon Rig, battle of 265
Hales, Robert, pr England 116, 123,
258
Halikarnassos, see Bodrum
Hall, Br Thomas 291
Halley, Br Henry 44, 151, 153,
294 n. 186, 295
Halse, Soms. 167 n. 41
Halston, ps 103
Halston, Salops., py 20, 43 n. 122,
467, 49, 70, 159, 173
nances 80, 212 n. 293
405
restored (1557) 331 n. 81
Hampton Court 16, 67, 196, 214
chapel 101, 102
exchanged for Stansgate 197, 199
leased 1067, 157, 173
Hannibal, Thomas 178 n. 107
Harebrik, Br Oliver 253
Hareeld, Middlesex, r 74 n. 73,
169 n. 53
Harrington, Lincs. 36
Haseldon, Anthony 190, 192
Haseldon, Catherine 190 n. 190
Haseldon, Br William 44 n. 128, 275
Hateld, Br George, 201, 202, 297, 298
Hawkes, Richard, solicitor 58, 68
hawking 108, 158
hay 272 n. 34, 31012
Heather, Leics. 65
Henry IV, k England 114, 115
as e Derby 117, 119
Henry V, k England 96, 115, 234
Henry VI, k England 11213, 117,
1245, 1301, 242
Henry VII, k England 74 n. 72, 134,
142, 14360, 161, 203
and convent 150, 1545, 157, 158,
159
and crusade 150, 159
employs brethren 160
funeral 171
justices of 174
made orders protector 158
plots against 1469
and pry Ireland 150, 245
relationship with John Kendal 1446,
14850, 159
relationship with John Weston 1434
relationship with Thomas
Docwra 1579
and Robert Multon 136
Henry VIII, k England 8, 10, 117, 160,
171
and Calais scheme 17980, 335
and Clement West 2059
and convent 1618, 170, 174, 177,
17884, 2067, 209
and defence of Christendom 165,
183, 186, 224
406
Henry VIII, k England (cont.)
dissolves order 2235, 335
divorce 203, 217
favours individual brethren 166,
176 n. 107
and former Hospitallers 3245, 326
gift to 1858, 205
and Hampton Court 107, 197, 214
hosts LIsle Adam 185
issues export licence 199, 205
and offer of Malta 1789, 199
patent/charter to order (1537) 22,
212, 220, 222
prophecies concerning 218
protector of order 161, 163, 179, 183
rejects order of St George 256
relationship with John Rawson 162,
171, 24951
relationship with Thomas
Docwra 163, 164, 168, 1712,
176, 180
relationship with William
Weston 1856, 214
requires service of order 162, 163,
168, 1702, 186, 24951
and sanctuary 174
seizes prioral estates (1527) 180
and s Rhodes 1678, 185
and Thomas Dingley 215, 21619
and Torphichen 162, 2634
view of order 162, 1656, 177,
1834, 188 n. 181, 2245
heralds 329
heralds visitations 334
Hereford, bishops of 83, 99100
see also Audley; Booth; Mayhew;
Milling
Heresy Act 210
hermitages/hermits 53, 116
Heron, Essex 40
Herron, Richard 140
Hertfordshire 172 n. 74
Hildyard/Hillyard family 389
Hills family 41
Hills, Br Edward 44, 164, 169 n. 53,
297, 298
Hillyard, Br William 38
historiography/historians 19, 320
Index
history of order 111
hobbies 150
Hogshaw, Bucks., py 29, 612, 80,
1756
farmer, see Lane, Ralph
Holcote, Beds., r 289
Holt, Br Peter, turcopolier and
pr Ireland 238
Holy Innocents, Lincoln 98
Holy Land 1, 25, 88, 97, 118, 119, 142,
159, 226, 264, 304
Holy Sepulchre 2
see also liturgy
Homedes, Br Juan de, mr hosp 183,
216, 218, 219, 2213
Homisland, Co. Wexford 234 n. 57
Honeur 131
Hope, Walter 235 n. 68
Horton, Br George 297, 300
hospital of the order 2, 3, 5, 11
prudhommes of 317
hospitality 3, 16, 601, 122, 138, 183,
227, 248, 255, 265, 335
in Rhodes 97, 159, 289
hospitaller, the (conventual
bailiff) 306 n. 269, 308, 314
Hospitaller orders, in England 11516
Scottish 109
hospitals 16, 29, 91 n. 23, 116, 196,
227
see also hospital
households 601
preceptorial 567, 62
prioral 58, 108
Howard, John, rst d Norfolk 97
Howard, Thomas e Surrey and second
d Norfolk 176 n. 107
Howard, Thomas e Surrey and third
d Norfolk 168, 169, 176 n. 107,
2067, 218, 219, 250, 334
Hulles, Br William pr England 43, 115,
137 n. 161
Hume, David 87
Hundred Rolls 121
Hundred Years War 8990, 113, 119,
124, 231
Hungary 6, 8, 165, 326
hunting 108
 Index
Huntington/Whittington, Br John 298
Huntington, Sr Thomasina 33 n. 58
Huntyngdon, John 667
Hussey family 104
Hussey, Br Edmund 109, 110, 213, 325,
3267, 328
Hussey, Br James 302 nn. 238 & 241,
321
Hussey, John 1479 passim
Hussey, Br Nicholas 39 n. 96, 297, 299
Hussey, William, archdeacon of
London 1469 passim
imperial ambassadors 171, 329, 330
see also Chapuys, Eustace
imperial forces 9, 10, 88
improvements, see meliormenta
income of order:
conventual 8, 13
in England and Wales 6876
in Ireland 2356
indentures 190
indulgences 8, 54, 756, 93, 94, 95,
119, 138, 227, 315
industrial workers 58
indels 95, 225
inrmary, see hospital
Innocent VIII, pope 6 n. 33, 143,
1445, 315
intellectual life 545
see also education
Intercursus Magnus 145
Intercursus Malus 158
interdict 100
inventories 67
Ireland 1, 12, 1415, 224 n. 371,
226257 passim, 326
English born in 22931, 232, 236
Hospitaller churches in 99, 336
war and politics in 22936 passim
Ireland, lordship of 228, 293
administration and defence of 2289,
237, 249
magnates dominate 231, 238
Ireland, priors of 1415, 126, 169, 180
appointment of 43, 150, 2379, 241,
2467, 252, 255
appointments by 41
407
English- and Irish-born,
struggle 23742
as lords of parliament 228, 331
maladministration of 238, 239, 241,
246, 248
military activities 229, 2345
represented in chapter-general 204
retain English preceptory 181, 246
royal service 2289, 2323, 237,
24951 passim, 255, 256
and travel to convent 250
see also under individual priors
Ireland, pr of the church of, see
Kilmainham
Ireland, pry 13, 14, 42, 141
and auberge of England 282
and convent 265
dissolved 254
English brethren in 238
exchanged for turcopoliership 181,
2456, 186
fortications in 2334
foundation and character 2269,
2379, 246, 255
lieutenants of master and convent
in 129, 180, 2489
restored under Mary 2567, 3234,
330, 331
struggle for control of 2379
visitation of 77, 240, 248
see also preceptories; responsions
Irish-born brethren 43, 109
act collectively 238, 2401, 242, 255
in convent 5, 6, 7, 12, 226, 242, 278,
2801
defend lordship of Ireland 2335
excluded from pry 2467
and John Rawson 24951
resist English superiors 2379
unt to hold preceptories 162
Irish church 2301, 232, 234
Irish dress, language and law 230
Irish, native (Gaelic) 22931, 235, 236,
255, 257
enter order 2367, 247
Irving, Br James 264
Isabella I, q Castile 144
Isle of Wight 326
408
Ismail I, shah of Persia 163, 165
Istanbul 6, 7
Italian bankers 16
Italian Hospitallers 32, 302 n. 239
Italian language 315
Italian merchants 93, 289
Italian wars 8
Italy 10, 12, 89, 115, 134, 145, 151, 314
convent in 176, 197, 292, 300
travel to 2746 passim
Turkish threat to 165 n. 24
ius formagii, see cheese
James I, k Scotland 264
James III, k Scotland 264
James IV, k Scotland 15, 258, 261,
2625
James V, k Scotland 265
James II, k Cyprus 316
janissaries 10, 178
Jem, Ott. prince 67, 144, 146, 314,
315
Jerusalem 2, 25, 142, 276, 285, 288
see also Holy Land; liturgy; Mount
Sion; pilgrims
Jervis, Roger 296
jewels and jewellery 1902 passim,
2489
Jews 7
non-English described as 204
John III, k Portugal 10, 177, 178, 187
Jones, Terry 87
Jubilee years 74, 135, 150
judge of ordinaries 307
Julius II, pope 170, 262
justiciar, priors of Ireland as 229
Kavanagh family 256
Kaye, John 90, 93 n. 36, 142
Keating, James, pr Ireland 126, 139,
141, 147, 150, 229, 235, 237, 239,
2426, 248, 278, 280
Keele, Staffs. 70, 101, 1034
Keen, Maurice 878
keepers of woods 567, 105
Kells, pr of 247
Kemal Beg 155
Kendal, Westmoreland 36 n. 80
Index
Kendal, Br John, turcopolier and
pr England 83, 107, 132, 133, 287,
316, 335
and auberge 282
and brethren 151
collects indulgences 76, 144
death, dispropriamentum and
spolia 153 n. 241, 1556
debts 151, 1523
difculties securing pry 1445
as diplomat 1436 passim, 315
early career 31718
excommunicated 100
family 367, 65
and Hampton Court 157
and James Keating 243
and Jem sultan 146, 148, 314, 315
languages 55
plots against Henry VII 14650
property in Rhodes 285
prosecuted 99
recovers Balsall 152
refused pension 1534
in Rome 1445, 146, 148, 315
and s Rhodes 139 n. 172, 295
ships goods 137, 139, 2857, 314
as turcopolier 43, 140, 142
Kendal, Sr Juliana 33 n. 58
Kendal, Br Thomas, 99 n. 74
Kent 60, 62 n. 14, 70, 72, 144
Kerry, Co. 254
kersey 167, 189 n. 183, 287
see also cloth
Kilbarry, Co. Waterford, py 236 n. 73,
254
Kilburn, monastery of 214
Kilclogan, Co. Wexford, py 234,
250 n. 161, 257
Kilcork, Co. Kildare, master of Templars
at 235
Kildare, County 236, 237
Kildare, dean of 236
Kildare, earls of, see Fitzgerald
Kildemock, Co. Louth, vicar of 241
Killerig, Br Elias of 234
Killerig, Co. Carlow, py 234 n. 57,
236 n. 73, 247, 250, 253
Kilkenny 235
 Index
Killure, Co. Waterford, py 227, 254
Kilmainham, pry/py 14, 162, 181, 228,
247, 255, 265
barn, burnt 252
bridge 233
conventual church 2278, 248, 254;
prior 228 n. 14, 241, 245 n. 130;
subprior 228 n. 14, 241
defences 233
hospitality at 227, 248, 252
inhabitants 254
prioral estate at 232
ruined 248
parliament at 228
Kilmainhambeg, Co. Meath, py 234
n. 57, 236, 248
Kilmainhamwood, Co. Meath, 234
n. 57
Kilsaran, Co. Louth, py 141, 244, 249,
251
Kilteel, Co. Kildare, py 16, 227, 2334,
235, 2545
King, Sir Edwin 2945
Kings College, Cambridge 55
Kirby, Northants. 175
Kirkby Kendall, Westmoreland 34
knight-brethren, see knights, Hospitaller
knight errantry 88, 117
knightly crusaders 8990
knightly families 40
knights, Hospitaller 2, 26, 278, 93,
223 and passim
admission and recruitment 313, 335
family connections 3341
Knollis, Br William 100, 109, 139, 258,
2613, 335
Knolton, Salops., r 30 n. 31
Knowles, David 91
Knowle, Warws., sanctuary at 194
Korkud, prince 155, 314
Kyrkby, John 108
La Bastide, Rhodes 285
labour services 63, 69, 76, 103, 260
Ladislas VI, k Hungary 154, 177
Lagouardo, Antonio, turcopole 304
n. 258, 307 n. 277
laity 1617, 912, 99, 10311 langue of Castile-Portugal 269, 318
409
Lamberd, John 58
Lambert, Br Nicholas 220, 2213, 292,
3201, 324 n. 29, 325
Lambton family 40
Lambton, Br John 55
Lancashire 72
Lancaster, duchy of 325
Lancastrian regime 97, 123, 125
Lancastrian readeption/restoration
1301
land use 175
Lane, Ralph, f Hogshaw 106, 1756
Langford, Beds., r 745
Lango, see Cos
Langstrother family 367, 1045
Langstrother, Br John, b Eagle and
pr England 2901, 335
agrees raised responsions 128
captain of Bodrum 31617
career 1278, 318
collects indulgence 76, 127
as diplomat/visitor 77, 126, 314,
315
elected prior 127
executed 93, 131
family 367
and Lancastrian readeption 1301
lends to convent 287
preceptories and camerae 43, 45,
127
property in Rhodes 2845
royal service 123, 128, 1301
secures priorate 12930
ship-owner 288
ships cloth 286
spolia and debts 132
and turcopoliership 305
Langstrother, Fr Richard 54
Langstrother, Robert 109
Langstrother, Br William, b Eagle 367,
109
Langton, Thomas, bp Winchester 147,
148, 149
languages, prociency in 55, 122
langue of AragonCataloniaNavarre
269, 293
langue of Auvergne 269
410 Index
langue of England 12, 18, 26970,
31819
admits brethren and inspects
proofs 323, 41, 264, 274,
2767
amalgamates preceptories 63
appointments made or approved
by 42, 458, 153, 181, 318
and Bodrum 3034
and caravans 3003
and Clement West 202, 207, 221, 294
divisions in 219, 220, 222, 2923
elects ofcers/representatives 202,
2034, 221, 282, 305, 311
and English crown 120
nances 2824
inspects ancienitas and
meliormenta 42, 290
and Irish brethren 162, 265
meetings 177, 271
mustered 299
plate 282, 283
post/fortications of 150, 270,
2934, 296, 297, 299, 300, 332
proceedings/minute-book of 22, 168,
278
and priors 458, 61, 1378, 201
and pry Ireland 2378, 23940, 245,
246, 251
and Scottish brethren 162, 259, 264,
265, 281
see also langues
langue of France 269
proctors of 301
langue of Germany 180, 269, 318
langue of Italy 269, 2701
langue of Provence 269, 299
langues 12, 47, 26973, 282 n. 99,
2934, 301
langues, Spanish 180, 269, 303
Lardos, Rhodes 304 n. 258
Lastic, Jean de, mr hosp 284, 305
Lateran council (1512) 170 n. 64
Latin, knowledge/study of 56, 315
Latin East 3, 117, 226, 257
Latins 4
Laund, Alexander 35 n. 70
Laund, Robert de la 109
Laund, Thomas de la 678, 10910
Launde, John 106
Lavadeto, Rhodes 306 n. 269
Lawson, Guy, donat 281 n. 90
lawyers 57, 678, 107, 132, 174, 254
Layeland, Thomas 173, 175
Layton, Br Ambrose 37, 178, 192, 297,
298
Layton, Brian 321
Layton, Br Cuthbert 37, 39, 321, 332
lead 286
lease books, see provincial chapters
leases, crown 233
leases, short-term 645, 104, 277
leasing 1516, 223, 6370, 76, 1034,
176, 214, 260
in Ireland 239, 248, 253, 2545
legal ofcers, see lawyers
legitimate birth 267, 205
Leicestershire 326, 327
Leighton, Br Alexander 259
Leinster 227, 256, 335
Leixlip, Co. Dublin 232
Leo X, pope 166, 174
Leo VI, k Armenia 53n. 191, 118
lessees 39, 638, 70, 1067, 110, 258
disputes with 678, 104, 1567,
1734, 1936, 2012
and enclosure 176
responsibilities 667, 74, 106
social status 64, 65, 252
letters of exchange, see exchange
operations
letters of obligation, see bonds
Levant, see Mediterranean, eastern
Libri Bullarum 212, 151, 152, 273,
287
Libri Conciliorum 21, 273, 284, 290,
293
lieutenant chief governor, prs Ireland
as 229
Lily, William 54, 147, 289
Limassol 3
Limerick 254
Lincoln, diocese of 156
Lincolnshire 35, 37 n. 81, 38, 39, 60,
62 n. 14, 72, 146, 326
churches 102
 Index
Lincolnshire rebellion, the 1301, 132
Lindos, Rhodes 268, 294
Lindsay, Alexander 261
Lindsay, Andrew 261
Lindsay, Br Walter 23, 260, 261, 265,
281, 335
Lindsey, Lincs. 146
Lisle, lord, see Plantaganet
LIsle Adam, Philippe Villiers de,
mr hosp 199, 215, 292
and Calais scheme 179, 180
and Clement West 203, 2058, 219
death 208, 209
and Docwras spolia 192
letters of 163, 177, 178, 181, 182,
1867
and pry Ireland 251
revolt against 206
and s Rhodes 9, 1667, 168, 292, 298
in Rome 176
and solutio formagiorum 309
visits England 1847, 189, 197
visits France and Spain 178, 179, 183
Lister, Br Charles 44 n. 128, 275
Liston, West Lothian 259, 260
litigation 1734, 196
Little Maplestead, Essex 64 n. 28
liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre16, 101
livelihood 57
livery 58, 147, 156
livestock 57, 311
Livingston, Br Henry 259, 262 n. 229
loans 107, 122, 172, 244 n. 121
Lollards 114
Lomelino, Tobia 286
London and suburbs 70, 139 n. 171,
140, 215, 287, 329
Chancery Lane 197
Charterhouse 31, 523
citizens 85, 107, 143, 240, 287
confraternity collection in 72, 734
Lambeth palace 58
LIsle Adam in 185
merchants 40, 107
orders property/tenants in 16, 64,
656, 76, 103, 107, 169 n. 53,
173
relations with order 1078
411
St Pauls cathedral 156; dean of, see
Armistead, William
sheriffs of 189
Temple 31, 76
tower of 130, 139, 174, 217, 218,
251, 324
Treaty of 170
York place 58
see also Clerkenwell; Ficketseld;
Merchant Taylors
Long, Sir Richard 217
longbow 299, 301
Longstrother, Thomas 37 n. 81
see also Langstrother family
Louis XI, k France 138
Louis XII, k France 32 n. 49, 154,
170
Low Countries 167, 274, 276, 330
Ludgershall, Bucks., r 30, 31, 74
Ludlow, trader from 96
Luiz, prince, pr Portugal 187 n. 175
Lumley, Br Marmaduke 37, 40 n. 104,
133
and Templecombe 44 n. 125, 126,
141
and pry Ireland 141, 244, 246
and s Rhodes 139 n. 172, 294 n. 186,
295
Lusignan family 3
Luttrell, Anthony 20, 878
Lynde, Br Stephen 296
Lyndesey, Br John 30 n. 32
Lyons 169, 185
Mablestone, Br John, subprior 55, 65,
199, 200, 222, 327
and Docwras spolia 190 n. 191, 192,
193
education and career 301, 54, 823
Mac Carthaigh Muscraighe,
family 2367, 249, 253
Mac Carthaigh, Diarmaid Oge 253
MacCarthy family, of Muskerry, see
Mac Carthaigh Muscraighe
Murchadha, Gearratt mac 237
Machyn, Henry 329
Madrid 178
Magennis family 235
412 Index
magistral camerae 269, 272
in England, see West Peckham
in Ireland, see Kilsaran
magistral elections 2778
magistral grace, see grace
magistral grants 2845
magistral palace 269
magnates 15, 89, 118, 142, 175
Irish 229, 2301, 2389, 244, 253
Magnus, Thomas 180, 184
Maine, Dorset, p 108
see also Baddesley
Malcolm, Gordon 201
Malines 149
Malipassi, Rhodes 2845
Malory family 33, 38 n. 90, 104, 105
Malory, Br John 44 n. 125, 133, 274
n. 53
Malory, Br Robert, pr England 53, 61,
137 n. 161
Malta 1, 36, 54, 209, 215, 218, 221,
222, 257, 258, 3204 passim, 325,
331
acceptance of 180, 182, 183, 188,
199
coastguard 31213
deciencies of 1011
insurrection in 206, 208
langues property in 283, 284, 285
magistral elections in 216
National Library 21
negotiations over 177, 1789
order established on 1, 3, 911, 186
responsions expected in 1979
routes and travel to 200, 276
s of (1565) 1, 11, 88
violence in 292
Maltby, Lincs., py 29, 30 n. 32, 612,
73 n. f, 80
Maltese nobleman, assaulted 313
Maltese soldiers 332
Mamluks 1, 3, 56, 93, 1623, 302
manorial leases 656
Mansel, Br Henry 297, 298
Manuel II, Byzantine emperor 118
Maplestead, see Little Maplestead
maps 55
Mar, David de 258
Maranycho, Stefano 1489
marches, Scottish 389
deputy warden of 39, 134, 136
marches, Welsh 106
Mareschal, Br John le, pr Ireland 238
Maria, Guillelmo, turcopole 304 n. 258,
307 n. 277
Margaret Howard, the 138
Margaret (of York), duchess of
Burgundy 147, 149
Margaret (Tudor) q Scotland 162,
2634
marginal land 69, 232
Marienburg [Malbork] 58
Marillac, Charles de 40
Marnham, Notts., r 74
marriage 75, 989, 326
Marseilles 169, 221
marshall, the (conventual bailiff) 306
n. 269, 308
Marshall, Br John 280 n. d, 302 n. 242
Mary I, q England 326, 329, 3301
marriage of 217
Mary (Tudor), q France and duchess of
Suffolk 158, 170
Martini, Br Andrea, receiver pry
Venice 86, 275, 286 n. 131
Maryculter, Kincardineshire 259
masses, endowed/proposed 52, 84, 107,
256
forbidden 94
Massingberd family 40
Massingberd, Br Oswald 48, 218,
321 n. 5, 330
crimes 208, 209, 291, 292
as lieutenant turcopolier 31213
plots 293, 323
pr Ireland 2567, 331
remains in Malta 320, 3234
master of the order, the 5, 113, 248
governs common treasury 82 n. 99,
269
household/socii of 269, 271, 299,
31718
lieutenant 311
ofcials 270, 306, 30912
prerogatives 13, 26, 41, 202, 269,
270, 307, 317
 Index
retains brethren 270, 294
seneschal 9, 127, 309, 318; see also
Langstrother, Br John; Shefeld,
Br Thomas
master (and convent), letters of 129,
134, 135, 154, 1615, 219
under Edward IVs protection 138
master-elect 21516
Matthias Corvinus, k Hungary 6 n. 33,
8 mills 64
Mawdesley, Br William, c Buckland 31
Maximilian I, emperor 147
Mayhew, Richard, bp Hereford 100,
156
Mdina, Jurats of 312, 313
Meath, Co. 232
Mediterranean, eastern:
crusading in 89
order in 18 and passim
trade 40, 161, 1878
Mediterranean, western 330
Mehmed II, Ott. sultan 6, 8
Melchbourne, Beds., py 43 n. 122,
456, 47, 108, 147, 201, 219
as fth camera 153, 181
Meldrum, Br Andrew 25960, 261
Meldrum, Br William 261
meliormentum/meliormenta 412,
501, 202, 215, 270, 290
mendicants 17, 231, 255
Mercamston, Br Thomas 234
mercenaries 89, 281
Mercer, Robert, ld Inerpeffray 258
Merchant Taylors 1078
merchants 40, 107, 1489, 286, 288
see also exchange, trade
Messina 85, 151, 167, 198, 200, 276,
286, 287
Middlemore, Br Augustine 37
Middlesex 69 n. 58, 72, 107, 144, 146,
172 n. 74
Middleton, Br Hugh, turcopolier and
pr Ireland 57, 203 n. 254, 240,
241
Mifsud, Mgr. A. 320
military academy, order as 166
military orders 1, 3, 17, 901, 11516,
184
413
see also St George; Temple; Teutonic
order
military service:
in Britain and France 14, 15, 17, 123,
134, 162, 168, 170, 172
in convent, see conventual service
in Ireland 229, 2335
Militon, Br Geoffrey 44 n. 128, 275
Milling, Thomas, bp Hereford 99
Milly, Br Jacques de, mr hosp 285
Minchin Buckland, Somerset
preceptory 29, 30, 31, 612, 73 n. d,
74 n.72, 80
prioress 151
see also Bourchier; Coffyn
priory 16, 26, 29, 51, 74, 81, 92
n. 23, 94
psalter from 53 n.191
Ministers Accounts 23
mint, inquiry into 172
Minwear, Pembs., r 74
Mocenigo, Alvaro 316
Modon 295, 302
monarchs, see rulers
monasteries, see religious houses
monasticism 91
Monolithos, castle of 268
Monsill, Br Otho de 297
Montague, Thomas e Salisbury 118
Montpellier 12, 217
Moors 88
More, Sir Thomas 93
Morea, bailiwick of 271 n. 27
Mores, Anthony 252
Moreton, Co. Louth 234 n. 57
mortality 9, 26, 50, 300, 302
Mortmain, Statute of 60, 121
Mortmain licences 172, 233
Morton, John, abp Canterbury and
cardinal
and John Kendal 101, 1445
vicar in spiritualities 99
mortuaries 45, 77, 84
legislation against 210
motivation 33, 44
Mount St John, Yorks., p and py 36 n. 77,
43 n. 122, 49, 62 n. 17, 73, 80, 327
414 Index
Mount Sciberras, Malta 11
Mount Sion, friars of 161
Mounteagle, Thomas ld 1767
Mountford, Sir Simon 147 n. 214
Mourne, Co. Cork, py 2367, 249, 253
Much Woolton, Lancs. 106
mules 271 n. 30
Multon family 33, 38 n. 90
Multon, Br Robert 39, 43, 44 n. 125,
1336 passim, 286
Munster 227, 229
Murad II, Ott. sultan 289 n. 155
murder 174, 208, 275 n. 60, 291
Muslims 48
trade with 275
muster, commissions of, see military
service
Myers, Br Christopher 2912
Naillac, Br Philibert de, mr hosp 284
Naillac, tower of 294
Naples 140, 189 n. 186
Naples, kings and kingdom of 6, 8, 9,
144, 149, 176, 275, 314, 315
viceroy of 177
Narrow Seas, see English Channel
naval operations of order 3, 4, 11, 316
see also caravans; conventual service;
corso
naval service, to English crown, 123,
3279
envisaged 182, 184
navy, orders 4, 176, 197
Nazi company, of Lyons 169
Negroponte 271 n. 27
Negroponte, Peyrolus de 304 n. 258
Nemours, d of 32
nepos, usage of 34
Neville family 131
Neville, George, abp York 90
Neville, George, ld Abergavennny 40,
166
Neville, Humphrey 128
Neville, Br Richard 40, 166, 169 n. 53,
297
Neville, Richard e Warwick 125, 128,
1301
Neville, Sir Thomas 173
Newcastle-upon-Tyne 136
New College, Oxford 55
Newdigate family 37
Newdigate, Br Dunstan 303, 321,
322 n. 14, 3245, 327, 328
Newland, Yorks., py 43 n.122, 46,
62 n. 17, 76, 79 n. j, 80
chapel at 102
confraternity collections 72 n. b
restored (1557) 331 n. 81
Newport family 38
Newport, Br Robert 65
Newport, Br Thomas snr, turcopolier
and b Eagle 43, 44, 56 n. 219, 65,
167, 288
as ambassador 154, 164, 174
conventual service 159, 164, 285,
288, 296, 316, 317 n. 335, 318
defends brethren 31011
displays arms 102
effects 84
elected turcopolier 153
governs pry England 1556
pays tenths 158 n. 282
as receiver 151, 156, 286
royal service 155, 163, 1701
shipwreck and death 16970
travels to Rhodes 1634, 274 n. 54,
275
Newton family 41
Newton, Christopher 190 n. 191
Newton, Fr John 54
Nice 9, 183, 184, 187
Nicholas V, pope 76, 305, 311
Nicopolis, crusade of 4
Nicosia, abp. of 316
Nisyros 6, 269 n. 14
nobility 26
English 125, 185
proofs of 278, 323, 489, 181
n. 143, 272, 274, 2767, 290
Noion, Br Guillaume de 147, 1489
non-residence, legislation against 210
Norfolk 37, 72
Norfolk, dukes of, see Howard, John;
Howard, Thomas
Norham castle 39, 321
Normanton, Yorks., r 75
 Index
Norroy Herald, see Tonge
north, see northern England
north Africa 88, 89, 161
corsairs from 302, 330
Iberian bases in 184
Northampton, battle of (1460) 125,
242
Northampton family 236 n. 73
Northamptonshire 72
northern England 3840, 74, 215
Northolme-by-Waineet, Lincs. 36
North Sea 327
Northumberland 723
Northumberland, earls of, see Dudley,
Percy
Nottinghamshire 34, 76 n. 91
Nuca, Br Pedro Felizes de la 330, 331
numbers of brethren 2830, 32, 33
in convent 164, 167, 27781, 2949,
318, 331
nuncios, Hospr., 94, 967, 100
see also frary clerks
nuns 39 n. 97
nuns, Hospr. 16, 26, 27, 33, 51
see also Minchin Buckland
Nygton, Br Thomas de 296
OBrien, see O Briain
O Briain family 256
O Curryn, Br Padraig 247
O Duibhidhir family 236, 253
O Duibhidhir, Risdeard 253
O Duibhidhir, Br Thomas 236
ODwyer family, see O Duibhidhir
O hIffearnain, Br Aonghus 254
OMore, Rory 233
O Neill family 235
O Neill (ONeill), Niall Mor 234
OToole, see O Tuathail
O Tuathail (OToole), family 233, 256
oaths of allegiance/fealty 15, 124, 130,
131, 324, 331 n. 84
obits 94, 103, 108, 117
see also chantries; masses
oblations 71, 75, 84, 101, see also
charity
Oby, Norfolk 37 n. 81
ofcers, see servants
415
ofcials, see servants
ointment, magic 147
olive oil 295, 314
organist, see Kilmainham
Ormond, Captain 330
Ormond, earls of, see Butler
Orsini family 177
Orsini, Br Giovanbattista, mr hosp 129,
287, 294, 317
Ossington, Notts., py 43n. 122, 62 n. 17
see also Newland
Oswel, Griman, see Boswell, Br German
Ottoman sultans and sultanate 58, 11
see also under individual sultans
Outlaw, Br Roger, pr Ireland 228,
2323, 238
Oxford, Cardinals College 179, 197
n. 221
Oxfordshire 62 n. 14, 72
Padua 56
Paget, Sir William 328
Painswick, Glocs. 66
paintings 1012
palace, magistral 10
Palatio, Ottaviano Spinelli de, abp
Armagh 141, 235, 244
Pale, the 233, 254
Palermo 198
Paniter, Patrick 2624
papacy and papal
authority 21012, 220, 330
camera 76
collectors 76, 115; see also Castellessi
crusade initiatives 124, 125, 150, 174
curia, appeals and petitions to 46,
210, 211, 2623
election (1484) 143 n. 191
eet 5
legates 7, 125, 331
provisions 115, 1356, 231, 236
relationship with order 2, 7, 9, 25, 74,
114, 211, 2589
schism 2589
taxation 113, 119, 142, 165
see also indulgences; privileges
Parapart, Br Robert, subprior of pry
England 30
416 Index
Paravibilinos, Rhodes 307
pardon churchyard, Islington 98
pardoners, see nuncios
pardons, prots of 75, 209
Paris 144, 147, 185, 187, 223
Paris Garden, Southwark 16, 214
parish churches 232
see also appropriated churches
parkers 567
parliament, English 92, 120, 1225
passim, 130, 132, 171, 197 n. 220,
332
attaints Keating 246
forbids religious to trade 199
petitions in 93, 114
prosecutes Wolsey 195, 196
remits Henry VIIIs debts 186 n. 165
resists church disendowment 213
and William Weston 214
parliament, Irish 228, 242, 243, 244,
2467, 257
parliament, Scottish 261, 263
Parma, cardinal of 145
Parr, Catharine, q England 214, 215
Paschal II, pope 2, 25
Patera, turcopole surnamed 304 n. 258,
307
patrons 16
passage, see convent, passage to
passage-money 44 n. 128, 248 n. 143,
272, 277, 282
Passemer family 40, 104
Passemer, Br Nicholas 40 n. 104, 44
n. 125, 285, 294
Passemer, Br Richard 49, 274
Passemer, Richard 823,1323
Paston, Sir John 37 n. 81
Pate, Richard 217, 21819
Paulet, Sir Richard 197 n. 220
Pauncefote, John 174
Pavely, John, pr England 122 n. 70
payments in kind 63, 260
Payne, John 212, 213
peace, commissions of the 123, 131,
144, 146, 157, 171, 215, 234, 242,
3267
Peasants Revolt 61, 103, 116
Peck family 104
Peck, Br Robert 151, 158 n. 282
Peckham, see West Peckham
peculiars 16, 98, 103
pedigrees 334, 38, 41
Pemberton, Br Robert 32, 489, 201,
275, 282 n. 96
Pemberton, Br Thomas 297, 300, 323
Pembrokeshire 60
pensions 7, 46, 48, 51, 62 n. 19, 65, 84,
108, 253, 2545, 290
royal 166, 2234, 3204, 327, 332
perceptions of order:
contemporary 73, 93101, 1834,
207, 213, 256, 3334, 337
in England and Wales
modern 901
royal 1423, 2657, 3346
in Ireland 226, 256
in Scotland 2656, 337
Percy family 389
Percy, Henry, rst e
Northumberland 122 n. 72
Percy, Henry, fourth e
Northumberland 134
Percy, Henry, fth e
Northumberland 172
Peter I, k Cyprus 4
Pheraclos, Rhodes 268
Phileremos, pr of 285
Philip the Fair, d Burgundy, archd
Austria, k Castile 1456, 158
Philip the Good, d Burgundy 8, 119
Philip II, k Spain 326, 329, 330, 331
Philip, Sir Thomas 83
Picardy 158
Pickering family 104
Pickering, Br Robert 285
piety, see religious life
piliers, see conventual bailiffs
Pilgrimage of Grace 215, 217, 218
pilgrims 2, 7, 25, 88, 97, 118, 11920,
142, 183
Pilletto, Br Mark 288
Pipa, Br Carlo 17980, 1812
piracy 4, 7, 302
Pisa, pr/pry 207, 315
pitancia 282 n. 99, 303
Piteni, Michael 307 n. 277
 Index
Pius II, pope 142
plague 9, 231
Plantaganet, Arthur viscount Lisle 214,
328
Plantaganet, George d Clarence 130
Plantaganet, Richard d York 125, 242
plate 54, 1901, 193, 282, 283
plays 88
Plumb, Sir John 87
Plumpton family 37, 40, 104
Plumpton, Edward 37
Plumpton, Elizabeth 37
Plumpton, Sir Robert 37
Plumpton, Br Thomas 37, 275 n. 60,
294 n. 186, 295
Plunket, Br Nicholas 250, 278, 281
Plunket, Thomas, chief justice 245
pluralism, legislation against 210
poison plots, see Rome
poll tax 116
Poland, king of, see Sigismund I
Pole, Br Alban, b Eagle 4951, 169
n. 53, 180, 291, 297, 298, 31011
Pole, Br Henry, see Poole
Pole, Reginald cardinal 56, 257, 283,
323, 3302
Poling, Sussex, py 29, 612
Pomerolx, Br Gabriel de, grand
commander 298
Ponte, Br Piero del, mr hosp 208, 209,
21112, 215
Poole family 37, 39, 40, 104
see also Pole, Alban
Poole, Br Henry 39, 68, 109, 110,
3257 passim
poor relief, see charity
Porter, Henry 190 n. 191, 193
ports, Irish 232
Portugal and Portuguese 9, 12, 88, 176,
184, 187
pry 187 n. 175
Pot, Br Renier 1323, 288
poverty 9
Power family 236 n. 73
Poynings, Sir Edward 246, 256
Praemunire, Statute of 174 n. 95
Prat, Br Leonard du, visitor 1423
prayers 101
417
preaching 94, 227
preceptories 14, 16, 92 n. 23, 201,
21314
administration 567, 76
amalgamation 613, 228, 232, 337
buildings 567
chapels 30, 534, 56, 989, 1012
chaplains 56, 65, 66, 228
estate management 638
exchanges of 42
in Ireland 2334, 250, 251
leases of 645, 78, 83, 16970, 236,
275, 277
number of 43
wealth of 39, 801
see also appointments; cemeteries;
councils; gatehouses; households
preceptors 15, 28, 212, 220
administrative duties 603
in convent 271, 277, 279 n. j, 290
and dissolution 224
improve houses 42, 50
Irish 228, 234, 235, 238, 241
to pay responsions 82
reside in houses 42, 50, 62
royal service of 122
to support langue 282
prelates 122, 125, 229, 231
Preveza, battle of 288
priest-brethren, see priests, Hospitaller
priests, Hospitaller 2, 26, 27, 28
in Britain and Ireland 2931, 32, 33,
54, 101, 336
in central convent 279 nn., 284
printed texts 76, 88, 90
prioral camerae 43, 45, 612, 153, 181
priories 14, 47
priors 14, 52, 61, 82, 271
see also England, priors of; Ireland,
priors of
Priuli, Lorenzo 274
Priuli, Vincenzo 2745
privileges, papally derived 16, 301, 54,
945, 98, 100, 196
abolished by parliament 20912
privileges, temporal 93, 96, 11617,
121, 167, 185, 219
privy chamber, gentlemen of 326
418 Index
privy council, in England 321, 3245
privy seal, keeper of 123, 126
proctors of langues 272, 282, 283
procurations 74, 99100, 241, 247
promotion, see appointments
promotion payments 282, 283
proofs, see nobility, proofs of
propaganda of order 5, 8, 95
property of order 9, 10, 12, 14, 25, 273
see also estates
prophecies 88, 218
protection money 106
protector of order, see Henry VII; Henry
VIII
Protestants 9
Provence 169, 276
provincial chapters/assemblies in
England 2930, 140, 151, 155,
157, 169, 200, 216 n. 317, 220,
259, 284
lease property 646, 78, 157, 173,
197 n. 220, 214, 277
payments in 77 n. 96, 82, 83
receptions in 489, 186, 272, 274
records of 223
use of common seal in 137 n. 160
see also leasing
provincial chapters/assemblies in
Ireland 228, 238, 257, 274
Prussia 184
punishment 78, 204, 209, 273 n. 42
see also discipline; habit, deprival of
the
Purvey, John 94
quaestors 94
see also frary clerks; nuncios
Quenington, Glocs., p 35
py 43 n. 122, 46, 48, 63, 66, 73 n. e,
80; chantry at 71; restored
(1557) 331 n. 81
Quo Warranto proceedings 121
Radyngton, John, pr England 123,
274 n. 54
Rainham-Berwick, Essex 65, 108
Rathmore, Co. Kildare, r 227
Rawson family 38, 104, 105
Rawson, Christopher, stapler 250
Rawson, Br John jnr, turcopolier and
b Eagle 53, 198, 199, 200, 209
n. 283, 250, 253
after dissolution 322, 327
elected turcopolier 206
and s Rhodes 297, 299
Rawson, Br John snr, pr Ireland and
turcopolier 40, 48, 201, 2034,
271 n. 29, 325
fathers daughter 109
and langue 283, 284
lieutenant of convent in
Ireland 2489
as pr Ireland 83, 169, 170, 1801,
186, 247, 24955
as royal servant 162, 170, 186, 249,
250, 335
spolia 323 n. 21
made Viscount Clontarf 223, 256
Rawson, Richard, sheriff of London 40
Rawson, Br Thomas 33
Readeption, Lancastrian 83
realm (England), defence of the 113,
123, 184
Reaulx, Br Aimery de 21617
receiver, see common treasury; England,
pr of
receiver-general of order 13, 92, 113
reception, see admission
Recette dInghilterre 22
record-keeping 124
rectories, see appropriated churches
Redeman, Thomas 65
Reformation parliament 196, 20912
see also parliament, English
refugees, Greek 88, 118
Reggio di Calabria 276
relics 9
religious life 524, 273, 284
religious orders/houses 1, 17, 39, 64,
912, 101, 122, 126, 199, 211, 209,
2301, 236, 264, 3303 passim
rent:
collectors 76, 103
levels 64, 6970, 71, 103, 167, 236
payment and arrears 66, 67, 156
repairs 57, 667, 200, 282, 317
 Index
Report of 1338, the 22, 601, 78
responsions 13, 22, 61, 62, 68, 7684,
119, 136, 151, 167, 211, 275
dispatch and delivery 1634, 179,
197200, 258, 2858
Irish 78, 79 n. a, 83, 226, 228, 237,
239, 2413 passim, 2468
passim, 253
objections to 11215, 128, 184
Scottish 84, 25760 passim, 262,
264
Retainers, Statute of 156
see also livery
Rhodes 3, 58, 13, 44, 4850, 54, 93,
105, 1325 passim, 165, 242, 244,
250, 259, 262, 2689, 282
arms sent to 121, 150
defences of 58, 155, 268, 2934,
314
guards, see coastguards
indulgences for 76, 138
invasion fears 7, 11, 163, 278, 2934,
308
Jem sultan in 144
recovery of 10, 178, 179, 185, 186,
187
sieges and fall of 6, 89, 15, 18, 171,
183, 243, 294300; accounts
of 54, 55; British involvement
in 18, 50, 282, 294300, 319;
news of 168, 169; planning
for 164; response to 84, 86, 88,
93, 101, 13842, 16670, 185,
243, 250; town 268, 273, 285,
2989
travel and travellers to 97, 11920,
159, 1634, 2745, 289;
restricted 112, 114, 1245, 275
villages of 307, 308
see also convent
Rhodiots 178, 268, 273, 2889, 299,
309
in England 105
see also Bell, Francis; Bennett,
Constans; Galliardetto, Francis;
Greeks
Rhys, Sir Gruffydd ap 50, 83, 2012
Rhys, William ap 106
419
Ribston, Yorks., p and py 35 n. 65,
36 n. 77, 43 n. 122, 45, 80, 151,
181, 2523
chantry at 71
Richard I, k England 116
Richard II, k England 53 n. 191, 114,
116, 119
Richard III, k England 1423, 244
Richmond, archdeacon of 244
Richmond, d, see Fitzroy
Richmond palace 106
Richmondshire 73
Ripley, George 90
Robert I, the Bruce, k Scotland 258, 264
Roberts, Br Nicholas 55, 176 n. 107,
297, 300, 31415
robes, see livery
Roche, Br Edward 169 n. 53
Roche, Br John 295
Roche, Br Michael 297, 300
Rodmersham, Kent 214
see also West Peckham
Rogers, Br Anthony 21517, 218, 304,
322 n. 14
Rolls, master of the 191, 214
romances 88
Romans, ancient 55
Rome 9, 36 n. 77, 77, 114 n. 14, 115,
128, 135, 163 n. 12, 178, 180,
272 n. 34, 332
bishop of, pope as 220, 221, 222
correspondence with 165, 167, 176
George Dundas in 2623
Hospice of St Thomas 148, 315
Hospr. pr of 77, 126
James Keating in 2423
John Kendal in 143, 1449
passim, 315
John Weston in 135, 140, 141,
1434
order in (1523) 176
petitions to 109, 237, 238
travel via 275, 276
see also papacy; papal
Roper, John 173
Rosfyndglaisse (Tinnahinch), Co.
Kildare, r 236
Rota, the 98
420
Rothley, Leics., py/camera of 43 n. 122,
104, 327
see also Dalby
Rouen 234
royal arms, English 203, 206
royal council in England 14, 128, 157,
207, 256
royal council in Ireland 239, 249,
2512, 253, 256
royal council in Scotland 14, 261
royal councillors, priors as 112, 1226
passim, 171, 228, 331
royal family, English 256
royal justices, English 1745
royal navy 327
see also naval service
royal pardons 131, 132, 145, 150
royal servants 1067, 122, 254
royal service 1225, 160, 178, 3259,
335
royal vicar 220
Roydon, Essex, r 64 n. 28
Rule, orders 512, 272
rulers, western, and order 3, 6, 810, 15
Rumelia 165
Runciman, Sir Steven 87
Russell family 40
Russell, Br Anthony 33, 276, 302 n. 242
Russell, Br Giles, turcopolier 33, 199,
219, 221, 222, 276, 285, 288, 293
as p Battisford and Dingley 62 n. 18,
106
proctor of common treasury 318
remains in Malta 320, 323
at s Rhodes 297
Russell, Br John 49, 274
Russell, Sir John, later ld Russell 1778,
222
Ruthall, Thomas, kings secretary 146
Rutland 72
Ryton-on-Dunsmore, Warws. 175, 195
Sacce, Antonio, turcopole 304 n. 258,
307 n. 277
St Andrews 328
St Anthony of Vienne, order of 115
St Catharine, tower of 303
St German, Christopher 90
Index
St George 53, 284
proposed order of 256
S. Gilles, pr of, see Bidoux
Saint Jalhe, Br Didier de, mr-elect of
hosp. 21516
St John Baptist 83, 101, 227
fraternities of 1078
St John the Evangelist 102, 227
St John, order of, see hospital
St Johns College, Cambridge 55
St Katharine 53
St Lazarus, order of 1, 115
St Margaret 53
St Martins, Ludgate 329
St Martins night 273 n. 42
St Marys abbey, York 139
St Michael 53
St Nicholas, tower of 294, 296, 297
St Omer 146
St Paul 53
St Pauls cathedral, see London
St Peter 53
St Peter, castle of, see Bodrum
St Sithe 53
St Thomas of Acre, order of 11516
St Ursula 53
St Wulstan, kildare pry of 236
saints 16, 534, 1012
salaries 105, 271
Salem and Bizance 90
Salford, Br Richard 283
salmon 258
Salt, Co. kildare 236
Sampford, Great and Little, Essex 64 n.
28
Sanchez, Miguel Hieronymo 189 n. 186
sanctuary 75, 121, 1745, 194
Sandford, Oxon., py 62, 175 n. 100,
17982 passim, 186, 196, 197
Sandilands, Br James jnr 33 n. 57
Sandilands, Br James snr 260, 261, 265
Sandilands, Br John James 33 n. 57,
292, 301
Sands, Br George 302 n. 242
Sanseverino, Roberto de 285
Santa Maria Latina, Jerusalem 1
Santiago, pilgrimage to 147
Saracens 95, 204
 Index 421

Savage, Sir John 174 as p Shingay 48

Savoy 9, 144, 187 as receiver 49, 50, 156
Sawston, Cambs. 48, 67 and s Rhodes 169 n. 53, 297300
Scandinavia 12 passim
schools 92 Sheldon, Richard, auditor 1323
Scilly Isles 329 Shelley family 378
Scotland 21, 23, 84, 123, 150, 162 Shelley, Br James 283, 332
see also under individual kings; Shelley, Br John 33 n. 57, 298
Torphichen Shelley, Br Richard, turcopolier and
Scots 39, 40, 140, 321 (titular) pr England 56, 330, 332
ambassadors 171 Shingay, Cambs., py 43 n. 122, 48, 70,
crusaders 88, 89 80, 175, 21517, 219
Scottish brethren 12, 109, 25866 ship-owning 288
passim, 278, 281, 287, 302 shipwreck 9, 16970
Scottish crown 24, 2656, 335 Shrewsbury, earl of, see Talbot
Scougal, Br Patrick 262, 281, 287 Sicily 10, 11, 198, 199, 275, 276
n. 138, 296 see also Messina
Scougal, Thomas 261 sick 1, 3
search, commissions of the 1712 brethren 29, 78
Selim I, Ott. sultan 78, 163, 165 Siggiewi, Malta 313
seneschal, see master, seneschal of Sigismund I, k Poland 177
seniority 28 silver 164, 288
see also ancienitas Syme 6
septena 292 n. 174 Simnel, Lambert 245
sergeants, Hospr. 2, 26, 27, 29, 279 nn. Sinai, monks of 161
servants 33, 568, 601, 64, 68, 98, 100, Sixtus IV, pope 135, 137, 140, 143
1046, 273, 281, 298, 303, 334 n. 192, 244 n. 118, 315
Seville 276 Skayff, Br Miles 109, 132, 139 n. 172
sewers, commissions of 123, 146, 171, Skefngton, Sir William, dep
326 Ireland 253
Seyman, Elizabeth 66 Skipton-in-Craven 55
Seyman, Thomas 66 Skirbeck, Lincs., py 16, 612
Seymour, Edward d Somerset 326 slaves 273, 281, 288, 291, 313
Seymour, Sir Thomas 217 Slebech, Pembs., py 20, 36n. 77, 43
Seys, Br Edmund 162, 24950, 278, n. 122, 456, 50, 71, 74, 80, 321 n. 5
2801 farmers and tenants of 67, 834, 173,
Shakelady, Roland 106 2012, 252
Shefeld family 35, 40 pilgrimage to 75
Shefeld, Br Bryan 35, 44 n. 125 restored (1557) 331 n. 81
Shefeld, Margaret 35 Slemio, Rhodes 314
Shefeld, Sir Robert 35 Sloane, Barney 201
Shefeld, Br Thomas, b Eagle 9, 35, 51, Smith, Captain John 88
1556, 1634, 176, 207, 274 n. 54 Smith, John, baron of the
as ambassador and courier 154 exchequer 214
n. 251, 164, 315 Smyrna 4
captain of Bodrum 164, 317 soldea 272, 277
family 356 solicitor 58
magistral seneschal 9, 35, 176, 318 see also lawyers
422
Somerset 72, 97, 3267
Somerset, Charles e Worcester 97, 172
Somerset, d of, see Seymour, Edward
Sophi, see Ismail
Soreni, Rhodes 310, 311
Sothill, Br Arthur 37, 297, 298, 300
Sothill, John 37
Southampton 85, 139, 172, 200, 276
South Cave, Yorks. 35 n. 70
South Witham, Lincs., r 74 n. 73
southern England 389
Spain 9, 88, 89, 150, 221, 332
embassies to 178, 183, 187, 315
Spain, post/tower of 299
Spanish 328
Hospitallers 10, 206, 303
military orders 184
Spens, Br Adam 55 n. 208
spies 325
spirituality 16
see also religious life
spolia 534, 61, 778, 82, 201, 202,
282, 2857 passim
see also Kendal, John; Docwra,
Thomas
Stafford, Edward, third d
Buckingham 172
Stafford, Francis 172
Staffordshire 72
Stalworth, William 107
Stamford 40
Stanley, Thomas, e Derby 97, 172
Stansgate, Essex, suppressed priory
of 197, 216
Staple, the 140
Star Chamber, court of 67, 156, 171
n. 73, 174, 194, 213, 325
Starkey, Br Oliver (titular) b Eagle 54,
56, 292, 330, 332
statutes of order 52, 63, 198, 2045,
2723, 277, 279, 305 n. 264, 308
Staunton, Salops. 96
Stefano, Joanne turcopole 304 n. 258,
307 n. 277
steel 275
stewards:
manorial/preceptorial 56, 58, 66,
103, 104, 105
Index
of pr England 105
of pry England 58, 105
Stewart, Alexander 33 n. 57, 2634
Stewart, Beraud, seigneur dAubigny 32
Stewart, John d Albany 263
Stewart, Robert 32, 33 n. 57
Stillingeet, Br John 54, 116
stipends 84
Stockerston, Leics. 37
Stockhill, William 1889
stones, see jewels
storms 276
Story, John 2078, 218, 221, 223, 276,
324
Stow, John 102
Strozzi, Br Leone 219
Stydd, Lancs. 62 n. 17
subprior, of pry England, 29, 301, 107
see also Mablestone; Parapart
Succession, Act of 210, 214
Suffolk 72
Suffolk, duke of, see Brandon
Suffytur, Glocs. 66
Suleiman I, Ott. sultan 167, 299,
31415
Supremacy, Henrician 21011, 220,
325
Surrey 72
Surrey, earl of, see Howard
Sutton, Essex, 74 n. 73, 108
Sutton-at-Hone, Kent 64 n. 28, 66, 70,
169 n. 53, 210
Sutton family 356
Sutton, Hamon 35
Sutton, Br John 356, 200, 202, 2068,
216, 223, 292, 297, 322, 325, 326,
327
Sutton, Margaret 356
Sutton, Robert 36
Sutton alias Dudley, George, see Dudley
Swarraton, Hants., r 30 n.31
Swayne, John, abp Armagh 241
Swift, John, 176, 190 n. 191, 193
Swingeld, Kent, py 36 n.77, 43 n.122,
65, 79 n. g, 81, 181, 2523
synodals 74
Syracuse 9, 284
Syria 163
 Index
tabula 272, 277, 282
Talbot family 239
Talbot, John, second e Shrewsbury 242
Talbot, Richard, abp Dublin 240
Talbot, Br Thomas, pr Ireland 126, 236,
23942, 244, 246
Tannenberg, battle of 89
Tany, Br William, pr Ireland 238
taverns 273 n. 42
taxation of order 17, 1212
Templars, see Temple
Temple, order of the 1, 121
estates 3, 4, 60, 69, 117, 228
founders families 92, 109
in Ireland 226, 228, 235
in Scotland 2578
see also London, Temple
Temple Brewer, Lincs., py 43 n. 122,
48, 57, 701, 81, 10910, 331 n. 81
church 102
Templecombe, Soms., p 37 n. 85, 75,
97, 213
py 43 n. 122, 44 n. 125, 46, 81, 109,
141, 213
Temple Cressing, Essex, py 53, 62, 102,
106, 214
Temple Dartford, see Sutton-atte-Hone
Temple Dinsley, Herts. 53, 65
Temple Ewell, Kent, r 74 n. 73
Temple Grafton, Warws. 66, 98, 190
n. 191, 195
Templeton, Devon, chapel at 99
Templeton, Co. Louth 234 n. 57
tenants, scarce in Ireland 231, 2323
tenants of the order 33, 578, 67,
1024, 215
disputes with 2123
privileges 96, 98
provide soldiers 170
at Slebech 200
tenths, order to pay 21112, 220
see also farmers
Teutonic order 1, 3, 58, 89, 184
Tewkesbury, battle of 15, 93, 131
Thame, Philip de, pr England 95,
11314, 123
Thames, river 66
Thomas, companion at Bodrum 303
423
Thomas, Sir Rhys ap 50
Thomas, William Jones ap 83
Thornburgh, Br Roland 39, 108, 152,
317
Thornhill, Br Thomas 2923, 321, 324,
332
Throckmorton family 196, 289
Throckmorton, Sir George 1945, 217
Throckmorton, Sir Robert 152, 156
Tibertis, Br Leonardo de, pr
England 1234
Tibertis, Br Leonardo de (1522?) 295
Tiepolo, Vincenzo 275
Timur the Lame 4
tin 85, 167, 189 n. 183, 285, 287
Tinteville, Br Louis de 1878
Tipperary, Co. 235
Tiptoft, John ld Tiptoft and e
Worcester 118, 243, 285
Tipton, Charles 20
tithes 99, 100
Toledo 178
Toledo, Antonio de, pr Castile 330
Tolle, Warws., manor and chapel 193
n. 205
Toller (Fratrum), Dorset 81
Tonge family 36, 38, 173
Tonge, Anthony 105
Tonge, Br John 36, 44, 53, 57, 65, 146,
149, 151, 155 n. 259, 291
Tonge, Br Robert, turcopolier and b
Eagle 36, 132, 133, 134 n. 142,
139 n. 172, 2856, 287 n. 138,
31617
Tonge, Thomas, Norroy Herald 173
Tonge, Br William 36
Tonge, Fr William 54
Torkington, Fr Richard 276, 289
Tornay, Br William, b Eagle and
pr England 32, 38, 43, 46, 128,
1313, 286
Torphichen, p and py 14, 15, 23, 114,
139, 162, 25766
administration 25861
courts 2601
estates 260
and pry England 154, 2589, 263,
264, 265
424
Torphichen, p and py (cont.)
responsions 79 n. a, 84, 258, 259,
260, 264
see also under individual preceptors
Touchet, James ld Audley 212
Tournai 170, 274 n. 54
tournament, May Day 223
tower-houses, Irish 232, 233, 234
trade 7, 16, 40, 856, 161, 199, 268,
273, 2857
Transylvania 88
treasurer of England/Ireland, priors
as 123, 130, 131, 229, 250
treasurer of Scotland, William Knollis
as 258, 262
Trebigh, Cornwall, py, 62 n. 18
see also Ansty
Tresham, Br Thomas, pr England 283,
330, 3312
Triande, Rhodes, castellan of 311
tribute 6
Trinity, the 101
Tripoli 10, 11, 188 n. 182, 293, 304,
323
triptychs, see paintings
Tudor, Margaret, see Margaret
Tudor regime, and order 15960
Tully, Co. Kildare, py 234 n. 57, 236,
250 n. 161
p, see Harebrik
Tunis 88, 302
Tunstall family 40
Tunstall, Br Bryan 37, 178
Tunstall, Cuthbert, bp London and
Durham 37, 192
Turberville, Br John 44 n. 125, 133,
139 n. 172
turcopoles 30412 passim
turcopolier and turcopoliership 12,
423, 58, 2039 passim, 21822,
304, 31314, 323, 331 n. 81,
332
appointment 153, 305
and auberge 283
and brethren 166, 305
and coastguard/watch 18, 30513
passim, 337
and English crown 120
Index
exchanged for pry Ireland 51, 170,
181, 186
and langue 305
lieutenant 206 n. 265, 221, 301, 324
mace of ofce 203, 2057
other perquisites 30912
in wartime 3045
see also under individual turcopoliers
Turkey 289
Turkey carpets 108, 161, 164, 179,
214
Turk, murdered 146
Turk, the (Ott. sultan) 184, 224
Turkish emirates 4
Turkish eet 11, 139, 154, 155, 165,
294, 296, 302, 30910
Turkish shipping 288
Turkish territory 276
Turks 32, 88, 95, 265, 293, 330
attack Malta and Tripoli 11, 188
n. 182, 323
and Bodrum 304
capture Rhodes 8, 298300
negotiations with 31415
threaten Christendom 90, 118, 119,
1645
threaten Rhodes 7, 139, 158, 163,
30910
Tyerman, Christopher 878
Tynemouth, Br John 31
Tyrrell family 37, 40
Tyrrell, Sir Thomas 106, 147
Tyrrell, Br William 219, 221, 222,
2923, 316, 322 n. 14, 3245,
3289
Ulster 229, 232, 233, 235, 255
annalist of 252
Underwood, Br Philip 31
Upleadon, Herefs. 100
Upton, Nicholas 36
Upton, Br Nicholas, turcopolier 36, 54,
280 n. 278, 292, 293, 31213, 320,
323
Usances 272
usury, forbidden 273
Uzun Hasan 316
Ux, Francino 288
 Index
vacancy payments 45, 77, 83, 1378,
151, 153, 186, 263, 286, 287, 336
royal claims to 124, 130
vacancy years 84
Vale family 236 n. 73
Vale, Br John 245
Valor Ecclesiasticus 23, 701
Valette, Br Jean de la, mr hosp 56
Vallee, Br Louis de 206 n. 267
Valletta 11, 283
Vannes, Peter 179 n. 127
Vaux, Sir Nicholas (later ld Vaux) 172
Vegetius 54
Venice and Venetians 5, 7, 13, 44 n. 128,
49, 120, 140, 178, 328, 332
ambassadors of 171, 215; see also
Giustinianini
ambassadors to 164
and Cyprus 316
galleys 127, 151, 286
Garzoni bank in 286 n. 131
and John Kendal 143, 144
and Ottomans 97, 142, 150, 1545,
165, 275
news from 167
pry of 79 n. f, 169
and Rhodes 126, 141 n. 184, 275,
295
shipments via 86, 286
study at 56
travel via 53 n. 191, 2745
see also exchange; Italians; Martini,
Br Andrea
vestments 534
vicars, see clergy, secular
viglocomites 306, 307, 308, 31112
Vignolles, Bertrand de 1469
Villanova, Rhodes 268, 284, 31011
Ville Franche 9, 169, 183 n. 150
Villers, Br Blase 33 n. 57, 39 n. 96
Villers, John the younger 106
Villers, Br Ralph 33 n. 57
Vincent, Martin, viglocomes 3078
violence, see convent, violence in
Virgin Mary 53, 1012
visitations 52, 55, 57, 77, 126, 128,
248
and Act of Dispensations 211
425
visitation fees 61
visitors 57, 63, 240
royal attitude to 114, 121, 126,
1423, 211
Viterbo 9, 177, 274 n. 54, 275 n. 60,
281, 283 n. 104
chapter-general of 179, 180
Vivaldi, Antonio, Genoese
merchant 65, 845, 108, 169, 189,
198, 200, 289
Vizzari de Sannazaro, L. 19
vocation, see motivation
vows 512
Wakelyn, Br John 294 n. 186, 295, 314
Walcott, Roger 244
Wales 14, 20, 60, 96, 106, 126, 212
Wall family, see Vale
walls and ditches, commissions of
146, 171
Walton, John, abp Dublin 141, 244
Warbeck, Perkin, pretender 14650
passim, 245
wardships 172, 233
warfare 9, 74, 231, 2345, 236
Warham, William, abp Canterbury 98,
99100
Waring, Thomas 323
wars of independence, Scottish 257, 258
Warwick gaol 194
Warwickshire 72, 144, 172 n. 74, 194
Wasse, Ralph 190 n. 191
watch, see coastguard
Water, Edward 275
Water, John 147
Waterford 228 n. 14, 254
Welles, Richard, ld Welles and
Willoughby 130
Welles, William 239
Wells, hosp St John Baptist in 31 n. 44
Welsh crusaders 88, 89
West, Br Clement, turcopolier 33,
169 n. 53, 214, 267, 288, 301
and brethren 202, 2078, 2201,
282 n. 96, 2923
career 4951, 2023
as castellan of Rhodes 203, 294, 317
character 201, 203, 219, 225, 335
426
West, Br Clement, turcopolier (cont.)
demands Melchbourne 47, 181, 200,
219
and Henry VIII 201, 203, 218, 2212
house in Birgu 283
and magistral election 219
receiver 845, 190 n. 192, 192 n.
202, 1979, 203
retirement and death 223, 3201,
322 n. 14, 323
as p Slebech 173, 2012
theft from 199200
and Thomas Dingley 216, 218, 221
travels to Malta 200, 276
as turcopolier 197, 198, 2035, 208,
209, 211, 219, 221, 223
West, Br William 297
Westbrough, Br Walter 295
West Country, see Cornish rising
West family 33
West Peckham, Kent, py 70, 81, 103,
105, 198, 214, 286, 31718
Westminster 324
Westmorland 34, 36, 38, 72
Weston, Herts., r 74 n. 73
Weston family 345, 38, 40
Weston, Edmund (father of William
jnr) 334
Weston, Br John, turcopolier and
pr England 345, 38, 82, 101, 144,
152, 288
alleged disloyalty 1267, 128
and brethren 456, 1378, 201
captain of the galleys 316
castellan of Rhodes 317
and Celys 108, 13940
death 44, 145
as diplomat/visitor 138, 140, 1434,
315
disputes priorate with Multon 1336
elected pr England 1367
nancial difculties 1378
lends money 287
returns to England 141
and s Rhodes 13940
ships cloth 137, 139, 2856
visits convent 140, 142, 275
Weston, Mabel 35
Index
Weston, Sir Richard 180, 216
Weston, Br Thomas 345
Weston triptych 101
Weston, Br William jnr, turcopolier and
pr England 170, 180, 197, 200,
2067
and Balsall 188, 1936
commands great ship 300
and Docwras spolia 18893
education 55
family, household, and servants 35,
38, 106, 108, 2034, 288, 322
n. 13
fth camera 45, 47
nal illness and death 2224, 325
gift to langue 283
in Italy 1778, 274
orders ambassador 176
p Ansty 48
as proctor of the common
treasury 318
property in Rhodes 285
and Reformation parliament 209,
211, 21314
relationship with Henry VIII 21415
relationship with Wolsey 196
secures pry England 181, 183, 1856
at s Rhodes 169 n. 53, 297, 299300
and Thomas Dingley 21516, 217
tomb 53
Weston, Br William snr 345, 38, 44
n.125, 48, 133, 139 n. 172, 141
Weymouth 131
Wigston, Roger 176
White, Br Robert, pr Ireland 238
White, Br Roland 181 n. 143
Whitehall 331 n. 84
Willis, Pamela 20
Willoughby family 97
Willoughby, Sir Christopher 110
Willoughton, Lincs., p and py of 36
n. 77, 43 n. 122, 71, 81, 104, 106,
107, 327, 331 n. 81
wills 34, 38, 41, 53, 94
see also bequests
Wiltshire 72
Windmills, tower of 294
windows 57
 Index
Windsor castle 142
wine 150, 295, 314
Winestead, Yorks. 38
Winkburn, Notts., py 43 n. 122
Wise family 254
Wishanger, Glocs. 66
Witheridge, Devon, parish church 99
Wogan, Sir John 83
Wolsey, Cardinal Thomas 171, 176
n. 107, 185, 251, 300, 334
as chancellor 192, 1946
and funds for Bourbon 1778
and Hampton Court 107, 173, 196,
197
magistral letters to 163, 165, 166,
1812, 1867
as papal legate 196
and sanctuary 174
seeks Sandford 179, 180, 182, 186
women and order 356; see also
Minchin Buckland; nuns
wood 57, 76, 138, 167 n. 41, 200
Wood, John 106
Woolhampton, Berks. 175
Worcester, diocese of 76, 138
sheriff of, see Savage, Sir John
Worcestershire 40, 72
427
Worcestre, pseudo-William 127
writers 93
Wyatt, Sir Thomas 217
Wydeville family 128, 130
Wydeville, Anthony 2nd e Rivers 118
Wydeville, Richard 1st e Rivers 130
Wydeville, Richard 1279
xenodochia 25, 227
see also hospitals
Yeaveley, Derbys., p and py 43 n. 122,
49, 65, 73 n. c, 81, 104, 215, 327,
331 n. 81
Yolton, William 58, 823, 100, 147,
152
York 134
see also St Marys abbey
York, duke of, see Plantaganet
Yorkists 1256, 148
Yorkshire 38, 39, 72, 146
younger sons 3940
Yeldon, manor of 157
Yseran, Br John 169
Zapplana, James 316
Zapplana, Br Nicholas, draper 136