South Ham District
Devon & Cornwall Notes and Queries vol. VI, (January 1910 to October 1911), pp. 162-163.
Oswald J Reichel
This Note relates to a response by Mr William Davies to an earlier query in D&CN&Q by Rev Oswald J. Reichel concerning the identity of one or two early South Hams District properties; particularly Stancombe and Washbourne. The article, from a copy of a rare and much sought-after journal can be downloaded from the Internet Archive. Google has sponsored the digitisation of books from several libraries. These books, on which copyright has expired, are available for free educational and research use, both as individual books and as full collections to aid researchers.
Note 150. SOUTH HAM DISTRICT (VI., par. 125, p. 130). - I am exceedingly grateful to Mr. W. Davies for the information he gives proving that Stancombe Crespyn alias Stancombe Dawney of the fee-lists is Stancombe in Sherford. His suggestion that Washbrook in Dodbrook is one of the Washbourns, I fear, cannot be entertained for the following reason : The Domesday Dodebroca (Vict. Hist., 533) is a large estate of 1,044 acres, much too large to be represented by the present parish of Dodbrook alone, which contains 343 acres ; and, as may be seen from the fee-lists, it included also a large part of the parish of Portlemouth. Apparently the parish of Dodbrook represents the demesne or lordship land of the Domesday Dodebroca (4 ploughlands) and Portlemouth the villagers' land (12 ploughlands). At any rate, the whole of Dodbrook parish is covered by the Domesday Dodebroca. Now, Dodbrook was held of the honour of Okehampton, and therefore any sub-manor or estate carved out of it would be held of the honour of Okehampton. But of the four Washbourns which I am seeking to locate, three were held of the honour of Hurberton and one of the honour of Gloucester. The Gloucester one is mentioned in the I. P. M. of Henry de Wylyngton in 23 Ed. III., No. 74, p. 152, and again in that of "John, brother and heir of Ralf de Wellington, son and heir of John de Wellington," in 20 Ric. II., No. 55, p. 209, among fees held by him of the honour of Gloucester as Wayschborn ½ fee. It cannot, therefore, possibly have been carved out of Dodbrook; and the same reasoning applies to the three Washbourns which were held of the honour of Hurberton. All the same I am grateful for the suggestion.
Oswald J. Reichel.