Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 5.djvu/171

THE HALL OF OAKHAM. 129 ley) in Nortliamptonshirc bclonginp; to the fee of the monks of Lincoln ; there Avas one at Winchester, and another at Porchester. A fixed i)aynient for the iiall of JIarohl, as he- longing to ^leon in Hampshire, is constantly mentioned in the Pipe rolls dnring the reign of Henry II. These bnildings answer to the nmnor-houses of a later period, and in the Conf[neror's record they are denominated caput manerii, thus marking the intimate connection betwixt the demesne and the residence of the feudal chief before he had received the king's licence to build an embattled dwelling. When Ave come to examine the architectuml features of the hall of Oakham we shall see what degree of conformity it bears to coeval structures of this description still in existence. At present the attention must rather be invited to the history of its different i)roprietors. " Would you know," says an ancient roll given by John Prompton in the French language, " what are the names of the great men who crossed the sea with the Conqueror? Here are their surnames as we find them written, but with- out their baptismal names, which are often wanting or are changed ; they are Maimdevyle et Daundevvle Ounfravyle et Downfrevyle Mare et Mautravers Fernz et Fcrersy All the other names are placed by rhyme or alliteration in like manner, both in this as well as in another roll given by Leland. For instance, in the latter they run thus : Soiicheville Coudrey et CoUeville. Fererers et Foleville. It was upon the descendant of the Ferrers mentioned in these couplets that Hen. II. bestowed the manor of Oak- ham. Robert Ferrers Avas settled in Derbyshire, and in the 3rd of Stephen (1137) created the first earl. His son Wal- chelin de Ferrers, by Margaret, daughter of William Peverel, held in the 12th Hen. II. (1161) the barony of Oakham by tenure of the service of a knight's fee and a half. It is to him that the erection of the hall still existino; has been attri- buted, and upon evidence which there seems no reasouidDle grounds for disputing. The style of architecture alone affords the strongest presumption that the building was erected to-