336 THE KNIGHTS TEMPLARS
movable goods of the Order in France and did not mean to
surrender them. He was deeply in debt to the Temple, but
could a Christian monarch be the debtor of heretics? Philip
scoffed at the idea and regarded his debts as cancelled.
When the royal financiers made a further investigation, how-
ever, they discovered that this was the wrong way to tackle
the problem. Philip, they declared, was actually a creditor
of the Temple! Charles de Valois, who had also borrowed
heavily, likewise insisted that the Temple owed him money.
There were endless squabbles. In the spring of 1313 the
Hospitallers paid a large sum in compensation to Philip for
mythical expenses incurred by the state, and the king
promised to transfer the lands and houses of the Temple.
This promise was not kept, and Philip enjoyed the revenue
of the Temple until his death. Nor would his successor
surrender the property of the Temple. Insufficient allow-
ance had been made, he said, for the expenses to the crown
of the food and lodging of the Templars during more than
four years imprisonment—and for the cost of execution! The
Hospital had to pay a further sum, and it is doubtful if the
award of the property of their rivals was not a liability rather
than an asset.
In other countries the Hospital similarly obtained only
part of the properties of the Temple, The kings and princes
retained at least part of the movable goods and presented
accounts for disbursements on behalf of the Templars which
the Hospital had to meet* In England, Edward II and his
barons refused to surrender several of the most valuable
properties, including the Temple in London, which was later
bestowed on the civil lawyers. The Hospital obtained no
benefit from the possessions of the Temple in Spain, for Pope
Clement had expressly excluded that country from the opera-
tion of the decree. The King of Aragon protested to the
Pope that, as he had Moors within his own frontiers, the
goods of the Temple should be used to finance the war