motte 8

Page Nine

As a politician he was ambitious, intriguing, and cautious; yet hardly a match for his astute rival, William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, the favourite minister of Richard I, although far superior to him in all the outward advantages of rank, wealth and personal appearance."

[In other words, if you were subject to Hugh, you didn't stand a chance.] Scammell (1956), writing on the bishop's early years, implies that Hugh was a troublemaker in and about York.

In 1148 Henry Murdac, Bishop of York, excommunicated him.This was shortly after Murdac had returned from his consecration at TrÑves and fled to Ripon on discovering that King Stephen had sequestered his Archbishop's revenues. Hugh ignored Murdac's action, maintained service at York Minster and excommunicated Murdac. This then, is the man who controlled the county Palatine of Durham and was both lord temporal and lord spiritual. "His feudal policy was of the order that supplied a ground bass to the crescendo of complaint ascending from Henry I's charter of liberties to Magna Carta", (Scammell,1956).

Heady times indeed, and the Garmondsways would suffer under his administration. We have seen that the Bishop purchased land at Garmondsway and also held more by forfeiture of his sheriff.

The village of Garmondsway is another matter and for its story we must look back some years; to 1133-40 in fact. At this time, Bishop Geoffrey Rufus of Durham granted Garmundeswege [Garmondsway], in the county of Durham to Paulinus, son of Ralph, bishop of the Orkneys, and his brothers.

(The original writ is held by the Dean and Chapter of Durham and is on un-ruled parchment measuring 5 "x 2 "inches.)

So the lands of Garmondsway were in the gift of Bishop Geoffrey and he gave them to the sons (at least three) of Ralph, Bishop of the Orkneys.

Forty years later, in 1184 (one year after the Bolden Book survey), Hugh de Puiset, as Bishop of Durham, settled a dispute concerning a third part of the vill of Garmondsway, between Radulf [Ralph], son of Paulinus of York, and Ilger of Ketton and others; (ref. Walton, J.).

This is an action expected of the lord temporal, but it hides a different reality.

"Under Puiset there are references to the use of sworn inquests, concords and the primitive chance of trial by battle in land actions", (Scammell, 1956). Radulf proved his title to his part of the vill of Garmondsway "tanquam rectus et legitimus heres patris sui de sponsa natus in curia beati Cuthberti et nostra (i.e. the bishop's) per finem duelli." In this case duel had been wagered, but not fought. Instead, he paid the bishop sixty-four marks for the expenses of the case in feudal court, and was then obliged to surrender his heritage [to the bishop] to meet the cost of the decision which had nominally restored it (Scammell, 1956). So the bishop has one third of the vill of Garmondsway.

What happened to the other two thirds?

To discover the answer we need to return to a passage already seen, viz. "Hugh de Pudsey obtained the entire village of Garmondsway from Ralph de Garmondsway, lord thereof, promising to defray the whole expense of the wager of battle, in which de Garmondsway had been engaged, and to make him comfortable for the term of his natural life by allowing him (the said Sir Ralph) 64 marks a year, thus obtaining for his Zenodochinum [Hospital for lepers] at Sherburn the entire village of Garmondsway."