TIIE IDENTIFICATIONS OF THE DOMESDAY MANORS OF DEVON. BY ri. N. \YOETI{, F.G.8. (Ilead at Torquay, JuIy, 1893.) Tun Ibllowing paper coutains the result of a somewhat lengbhened attempt to identify the Domesday llanors of Devon. In most cases this san be done with absolute certainty-certainly in three-fourths of the total, Quite two-thirds of the remainder can be identified with reasonable probability. Comparatively few-under 10 per cent.-pre- sent auy substantial doubt. Tbe chief cause of uncertainty is the existeuce in several cases of a number of manors of the same name, especially in such instances as those of the Combes and Leighs. Here it, is difficult, sometimes quite impossible, to be sure which modern estate may represent a particular eutry. Few of the Domesday names seem to have disappeared, though some have been greatly modified, and it is clear that some must have been corrupted from the first by the foreign scribes engaged in the compilation. In order to eulist the sympathies of my fellow-members of the Association, and to bring to my aid that loca1 knowledge which in such an encluiry is all-important, I last year issued a preliminary list, in the hope that it might be lreely criti- cised and aurended. That expectation, however, has been disappointed. I have not received a dozen letters. My thanks, therefore, are specially due to those who have shown an interest, and particularly to Mr. Mallock, M.P., who, happily, solved a knotty problem; to l\{rs. Rose Troup ; to the Rev. O. J. Reichel, fbr various criticisms and suggestions; and to 1\Ir. W. Buckingham, who has shown in a most interesting marrner that even an unnamed Domesday estate may at times be followed up with certainty. Where the name of a Domesday manor is distinctive and continuous all is of course clear; and this is the case, so far 310 THE IDENTIFICATIONS OF TIIE as Devon is concerned, in the majority of instances. Beyond this, identificatior is chiefly helped by the fact that the eniries commonly follow a rough-grouped or topographical order, based mainly upon the llundreds-a point which does not seem to have had the attention its importance demands. It is when this fails that the rrain difficulties arise. Locali- ties are, however, often suggested by the occumence of fisheries or saltworks or of other special features. Relative areas are also of importance: but the large increase in the number of manors since Domesclay by sub-division; with the non-inclusion of waste in the Domesday assessment; the vagueness of the terms as used I and the not infrequent shifring of boundaries, render it neediul that areal de- ducbions shoulcl be most cautiously made. Some help is to be had from the Ilundred Lists; some from the secondary narnes attached for distinction to sundry manors, indicating situation or ownership. At times the name of the Saxon holder has supplied a valuable c1ue. A point to be carefully borne in mincl, is the fact that names are quite as likely to change in the direction of modern forms as away from the old ones, and that a current resemblance may after all be wholly fictitious. Stili more important, however, in this connection is it to remember that the Domesday scribes attached. their own phonetic values to the alphabetical characters they used, and that traces of both Norrnan and Italian hands are manifest. The initial C, for example, is never, as lar as I have noted, used in our modern fashion as the equivalent of S. It is always eittler Ch or .[{; and, what is somewhat curious, the same rule follows the use of the initial C/2. Chentone is Kenton, but Chageford Chag- ford. Initial -E before s i,s f1.**.rtly only a meiely helping sound (this is particularly seen in the Exeter book), and should be disregarded. For exarnple, Estrete is Strete. Initial G is always hard. Iniiial lfe and. E,i arc occasionally represenied by the modern Iu, as Hierde: Yard. The liquids and nasals frequently interchange, which of course is not at all unusual : the nrrost noteworthy illustration is the occur- rence of Limet for Nymet. Initial Od,, with possibly one exception, follows the dialect in representing Woocl. .Initial 8c represents rS/a, as Scage for Shaugh ; and ,S is generally S/i, before e or i. Thus Sepesber:e is Shebbear, and Sireford Sherford. InitiaJ. Zl commonly stands for the modern Wool. Initial 7Z is used with great epactitude; no doubb it had been carefully learnt. lll,it tnivercally stands for Wh,it, tyith the aspirate. In other respects the rnost importrnt point is DOMESDAY }IANOES OE DI]YON, 311 the use of cl, Saxon fashion, for li, (6), which again betrays the foreign tongue. Hence it comes that one Blachevrde is Blackworthy, and another tsIachevrde Blachford-the d doing double duty and the clt in one case sounding ft, and in the other tclt. So Corneorde is Cornworthy, Ferevrde Fernworthy, Hocheorde Hockworthy, Ordie Worthy, and Word'Worth. The Devonshire speech, struggling with foreign fashions, is plainly manif'est in the use of the vowels. With some half'-dozen exceptions-Berrynarbor, Buckerell, Eggesford, Harpford, Sheepstor, Templeton-ali the old Devon parishes (save inExeter)trace their names toDomesdaymanors. Since, however, the Devon Domesd,ay contains the names of three times as many manors as there were ancient parishes, it follows that the great majority of our parishes are made out of bundles or aggregates of these origiual manors, sometimes bearing the same name, but more comuronly not. Many of the manors were small, some very small, not so big indeed as a small modern farm; and there are instances in which parishes include ten or a dozen, or even more. On the other hand, there are cases in which a manor extends into or comprises more than one parish-as Umberleigh passes over into the parish of Atherington, Templeton must be sought under trYitheridge, and as the old manor of lMerrington seems to include not only the parish of T[errington, but its neighbour, North Petherwin. The siugular illustration of the idenbification of an un- named Domesday manor, kindly sent me by Mr. Buckingham, is as follows: It is the manor of Northcote in Bernintone, now Burrington, held at the time of the Domesday Survey by the Abbob of Tavistock. The portion of the entry in the Exchequer volume ref'erring to Nolthcote runs : " Iluic manerio sunt additm ii terrrc quas tenebanb ii taigni tempore regis Edwardi pro ii maneriis.'r In the Exeter book we read, " Huic additae sunt ii marlsiones ![uE non pertinuerunt huic predictae mansioni tempore regis Edwardi Has tenuerunt ii tagni pariter." Bernintone aud these appendages were held of the Abbot by William Capra and Goisf'rid, William's part being worth 20s. a year and Goisf'rid's 15s., which corresponds about as nearly as we can expect with the 24 carucates of Bernintone and the 11 of the thanes'lands, especially as the quantity in demesne v/as three carucates iu the first case and three and a half in the second. Northcote is first mentioned in the Testa de Ne,rill-temp. Henry III. and Edward I.- wlrcn Galf id de Northcott is said to hold in Northcott of the Abbot half a knight's fee. Mr. Stuart A. Moore, who 372 THE IDTNTIFICATIONS OF TIIE looked up this matter for Mr. Buckingham, found no further trace of tire manor beyond a reference in the Lay Subsidies of Edward I. uutil 11 llenry VIII., rvhen Patrick PoIIard died, siezed of properby in Northcote, but not of the manor. His son and heir rvas George Pollard I and in 1564-5 George Pollard was deforcjant in a fine relating to the manors of Norihcote and Posbery; while iu 1626 his sorr, Richard Poliard, held the manor of NorLhcote of the lord of the manor of Tavistock, as of his manor of Rurrington, by military service. From the Poilards the manor passed to the Folds; and George Ford, in 1711, granted the manor and estates to George Buclr, rvho on the same date re- conveyed the chief estate of Norlhcote to Ford. By will, iu 1715, Ford gave this to his sister Elizabeth, the wife of William Snorv. Their son George, in' 7762, corr.veyed it to James Babbage; aud his grandson Richard sold it, in 1833, to the Rev. Jarnes Buckingham, father of I[r'. W. Btickingham, who succeeded to it, in 1855. This estate included tlie manor house. The present Sir George Stucley, a descendant of George Buck, and himself once hearing the name of Buck, in 1864 sold the manor and other estates to Mr. Buckingham, who thus rejoined them with the estate or manor larm of Norbhcote, as before the Conquest. This is an excellent illustration of the marlner in qriiicir an apparently hopeless piece of manorial history may be worked out, by skill and energy. The subjoined list of identifications cannot, of course, be free from error; but the chances of error have been con- siderably reduced since the original proof was sent out, and. while not perfect itself, ib will serve to prepare the way for something more nearly approaching that consummation. It will be understood that it is the regult of a completa suraey, and of a balancing of evidence and probabilities. Many an ideniification seerns extremely probable until another ulanor comes under revielv, and scores of appareutly excellent fibs have had remorselessly to be rejected. There has been no atternpt to discriniinate between grades of likelihood, but the slighter shades of probability have been relegated.