66 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
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 10/. 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 in 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.). 
Tt 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 of still greater antiquity, bearing 
[204 §. No 4., Jan. 26. 756.) 
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 IL, 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 made, 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 euch 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 
the other; and the only parts in which any par- 
ticularity appears, are those defining their several 
