whose European property he was seizing, pillaging, and confiscating wherever it was exposed to the violence of his animosity, would have made it only natural that they should avail themselves of this opportunity for revenge. To their credit, however, it is recorded that in spite of the ill-usage which they were receiving at his hands, they nevertheless remained, under all provocations, true to him as their legitimate sovereign, and in spite of the seductive temptations held out to them by his rivals. The Pope felt so strongly on the subject of these wanton aggressions of the emperor, that he addressed a special letter to him on the subject, exhorting him to make immediate restitution to the two Orders, on the ground of the good service which they were daily rendering for the protection of the tottering kingdom of Palestine.
This letter is the more important in a historical point of view, because in it the Pope warmly extols the military Orders, and seems to consider their conduct worthy his highest approbation and sympathy. Only eight years afterwards, however, we find him writing in the most vehement strain to the then Master, Bertrand do Comps, and putting forward the gravest possible charges against the discipline of the fraternity. In this document he accuses them, on the faith, as he asserts, of undeniable authority, of harbouring within their convents women of loose character, of possessing individually private property in opposition to their vow of poverty, and further of assisting the enemies of the church with horses and arms, together with a long catalogue of other crimes, evidently collected together by their inveterate and implacable enemies, the ecciesiastics of Palestine.
It is more than probable that some of these accusations were founded on truth. We have already seen how Alfonso of Portugal endeavoured to introduce reforms into the convent, and how he lost his magisterial dignity in consequence. We may also safely conclude that the haughty spirits which so vehemently resisted his energetic measures had not become curbed during the milder rule of his successors. Yet it seems impossible to review all the concurrent testimony which bears upon the question without feeling that the more important of the charges thus brought forward were in no way borne out
