bays the height is gradually lessened; and near the south end there is a very low underpinning of stone, and above the stone work to the eaves the fides are boarded. The south end of the barn, almost from the ground, is of brick, and was not ever covered with plaister as it is displayed in the view. In this wall there is a stone-window frame that I think never had on it any inscription or armorial shield. In the plan, by an oversight, the numeral figures are set in this wall, whereas they are in the north end wall, which is of brick, raised upon rag-stones of the height of fix feet, and the four corners of the barn have coigns of stone of the same kind. The oasthouse is entirely of brick, except that there are stone coigns at the corners. This building is of workmanship not inelegant, and were it viewed by a surveyor conversant in antient architecture, I am assured he would not fix its age before the end of the sixteenth century. But its being constructed with brick subverts the presumption of its being coeval with the date of the year insculped upon it.
What can be the signification of this date is then the question? And Mr. Hasted's answer is, that it denotes either the time when the Colepepers came into this county, or perhaps that of their settling at Preston-Hall. The latter appears to me to be the more plausible surmise, though I apprehend it will ever remain destitute of proof positive, as the name of Colepeper has not been found in any writing previous to the reign of king John. This is advanced on the authority of Philipott, who, in Villare Cantianum, observes, that "the first of the family whom he found eminent in record was Thomas de Colepeper, who, as appears in the bundle of incertain years in the pipe-office, was one of the Recognitores[1] magnæ Assizæ
- ↑ Recognitores magnæ Assizæ. Both Philipott and Hasted mistook the province of Recognitores. "It was," remarks the former, (Villare Cantianum, p. 271) "a place
