66
NOTES AND QUERIES.
[2nd g. NO 4., J AN . 26. '56.
and deeds" of the Society, is accounted for by
the witness, by stating that they were made a
bonfire of in Jack Straw's rebellion, when great
part of the Temple was burnt. But that rebellion
occurred in 1381. How comes it then, allowing
even that the lawyers had at that time entire pos-
session of the Temple, and that the prior, or
Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, had no resi-
dence there (which is, at all events, a questionable
point), that no muniments of either of the Tem-
ples have been found relating to the interval be-
tween 1381 and 1500 ? From such account as
remains to us, it does not seem likely that any
muniment connected with the title of either of
the Temple Inns of Court could have been lost in
the rebellion of 1381 ; unless it were the lease
from the prior to the lawyers. And the circum-
stance that there was a rent of 101. a year paid to
him from each Society up to the time of the dis-
solution of the Order by Henry VIII., would
tend to show, what is very probable, that there
were originally two separate bodies of lawyers
who took up their residence there : one on the
east side, and the other on the west side of the
premises ; and that they at once gave the designa-
tion of the Inner and the" Middle Temple to the
parts they respectively occupied.
The first reliable mention of the Temple, as an Inn of Court (for the stories about Gower and Chaucer are more than doubtful) is ia a letter from Robert Repps to John Paston, the son of the judge, dated in 1440 ; where he desires his cor- respondent to " resort again unto his college, the Inner Temple." Another letter, from his mother, is addressed to him "in the Inner Inn of the Temple" (Paston Letters, edit. 1840, vol. i. pp.3. 38.). Neither of these exhibit any appearance of a recent division of the Societies ; and the last bears the mark rather of a separate Society, situate in one locality, than of one Society formed into two bodies. Fortescue, who wrote between 1461 and 1470, though he plainly includes them as two Societies in the four Inns of Court he speaks of, makes no allusion to a recently previous junction of the two.
After stating, that " when they became two Societies, there was a new hall built," the same witness asserts, that " there was no exact division of the property at that time, nor do I believe that there was until the year 1732" (Report, p. 56.)- It does not distinctly appear whether he means that the Middle or the Inner Temple Hall was thus built when "they became two Societies:" but in either case, the statement is in opposition to his hypothesis. The new Middle Temple Hall was built in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, which could not be the time of division ; as there is plenty of proof that the Societies were divided (if ever united) at least a century before. The Inner Temple Hall is ^f still greater antiquity, bearing
marks that trace it back to the reign of Edward
III. ; previous to which, it is not pretended that
any body of lawyers were resident in the Temple.
Of the age of the old hall of the Middle Temple,
which was pulled down after the erection of the
present beautiful structure, there is no existing
record on which even a surmise can be founded.
Taking the statement either way, it would seem to lead to the conclusion that the Societies were never united ; but were always as distinct, as if they had been placed in different quarters of the town, like Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn. And every document that has come down to the pre- sent time, tends to show that there was always an "exact division of property" between the two Societies. How else can the various magnificent blocks of building, which are recorded in the books of each Society as being erected at the ex- pense of each in every reign, from that of Henry VIII. to that of George II., be otherwise ac- counted for ? Is it to be supposed that either Society would have risked the large outlay which was thus occasioned upon property, the title of which was the subject of dispute ? No individual, much less a body of lawyers, would be mad enough to engage in such a venturous speculation.
There is indeed a deed between the two Socie- ties, dated in 1732 {Report, p. 310.) : but this, so far from throwing a doubt on the fact, contributes strongly to confirm it. It is not so much a deed of partition of what was held jointly, as a deed declaratory of what each held separately. In the course of three hundred years, the precise limits of all contiguous properties will become in some degree questionable ; and doubts as to the actual boundary will arise from encroachments mad.e, and easements granted. This, it may be presumed, occurred to the two Temples in the same manner as it commonly happens to other proprietors. Each Society had, during the three hundred years of their occupation, built up to their respective boundaries, some of the houses of one Society abutting on the houses of the other ; and, no doubt, each had left ways and passages for the accommodation of both. It was naturally to be expected, that what was in one generation taken by encroachment, would in another be claimed as a right ; and what was at first only allowed as a neighbourly convenience, would, in a little time, be considered as a grant : so that, as appears by the recital in the deed, " several disputes and dif- ferences had arisen between the said Societies, touching the building and bounds, ways and pas- sages, ground and soil, lights, easements, and other conveniences belonging to and used by each Society, separate and apart from the other Society" In the deed itself, the general property in the land is always spoken of as belonging to one Temple or j the other ; and the only parts in which any par- ticularity appears, are those defining their several
