BOLDON BOOK 



formed in Bishop Ranulfs time.' Wolveston had come to the monks by the 

 successive grants of Bishops Raniilf Flambard and Geoffrey Rufus," and part 

 of the vill had been granted by the convent to Richard to hold feudally.' 

 Richard's charter was confirmed by Henry 11./ who describes him as having 

 returned the land to Ralf, as indeed he had. Now this is a beautiful example 

 of an older tenure continuing to exist under the feudal shell. The prior had 

 got a feudal tenant, and was content. Ralf was put in possession of his 

 patrimony, rendering the same drengage services as his father and grandfather 

 had rendered before him, only now the drengage was, so to speak, decapi- 

 talized, Richard was holding feudally of the convent, Ralf was holding 

 of Richard in drentrasie. 



There is further evidence from the same vill. Roger of Kibblesworth 

 held of the prior and convent in drengage, and desired to convert his tenure 

 into some other form. Two charters relating to this transaction have been 

 preserved.' The first, which is much corrected and interlined, is evidently a 

 rough draft, while the second represents the final version. In the first Roger 

 states the nature of his tenure, explains that against the right and will of the 

 prior he had tried to convert the drengage into a rent charge, and proceeds to 

 quit-claim his original tenement against a money payment and the vill of 

 Koken, which the prior assigns him. The second charter mentions neither the 

 nature of Roger's original tenure nor the friction that seems to have existed 

 between him and the prior. It simply records the surrender of the land at 

 Wolveston in return for a money payment, and the vill of Koken to be held 

 in fee-farm. We must not allow ourselves to be misled by the terms of 

 Roger's acknowledgment in the first charter. It is not likely that the prior 

 was unwilling to compound the drengage for a money rent, since in the sequel 

 he actually paid to bring about the result. It is more probable that Roger's 

 original terms were too high. 



From this we see that Bishop Pudsey's policy of normalization was 

 adopted by at least one of his tenants-in-chief, who was, moreover, by no 

 means the least of them, and it will be a fair inference that the others were 

 following his example. But it is not only this policy of exchanging the 

 old tenures that shows us the direction in which the bishop was moving. 

 Further evidence may be drawn from the nature of his entourage. In sharp 

 contrast to his predecessor. Bishop Walcher, he surrounded himself almost 

 exclusively with Normans or those of Norman descent. Pudsey was himself 

 of French birth and connected by blood with the family of the Conqueror." 

 An examination of the test clauses of some forty-five charters ^ issued by him 

 reveals the composition of his ' familia.' 



Although the conventional address to the French and English, and the 

 equally conventional conclusion of the test-clause, ' et multis aliis Francis et 

 Anglis,' occur commonly, still among all the names enumerated in these 

 documents only thirteen are English. A typical case occurs in a charter 

 dated 1 1 55. This is a composition between Prior Absalom and Elias EscoUand 

 which was confirmed by Bishop Pudsey.* It is witnessed by forty-nine per- 



' f«(/., 1 39-141 nn. * Ibid. 139 n, 145 n. ' Ibid., 141 n. 



* Ibid., 140 n. ' Ibid., 141 n., 142 n. 



" Coldingh.im, cap. ii. in Scr'tptores Ties. (Surtees Soc), p. 5 ; ibid., App. Nos. xxvii. xxxii. 

 ' Boldon Bk. (Surtees Soc), App. Nos. iv. v. vii. viii. ix. ; Feod., index, s.v. Pusat. 



* FeoJ., I 2 1 n. 



